A briefing sheet on the legitimacy of taxation charges, which coincidentally offers a definition of tax evasion as an abuse of property rights, has been published by Tax Research UK.
It is available here.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
“Denying the legitimacy of tax is akin to the promotion of tax evasion”
OOh, that’s a little strong, even for you Richard. There may be many bona fide reasons for denying the legitimacy of a particular tax or aspect of taxation. If you recall during the last government there were some tax tax increases announced at the time of the Autumn Statement raher than the Budget and there was no parliamentary resolution on the matter and hence by its own rules the government was not entitled to collect them (if I recall correctly there was some APD and fuel duty that were particularly at issue). It was right to protest simply to avoid creating a precedent, and to protect rights that go back to the 17th century.
Similarly I would happily challende some long standing “agreements” between HMRC and the rest of the world. One example would be the “understanding” that 50% of the value of a commercial aeroplane is a long life asset while the of ther 50% is not. If I was an owner of an airline I would be happy to challenge that position, and and I don’t count that as anything close to tax evasion.
@Alex
Do libertarians always resort to pedantry?
I make a systemic comment
You make a pedantic retort that does not in any way relate to the systemic issue and yet you think that an argument
It is not
“Do libertarians always resort to pedantry?”
It’s a free country. Seriously, if you make an all-encompassing assertion, you can expect others to point out how and why it may not apply in all circumstances. In this case, I think there is a big difference between challenging the “legitimacy” of some taxes and advocating tax evasion.
The argument in that briefing note contains many errors:
1. A state needs resources to enforce property rights, but need not obtain these resources by tax: a state could own property directly (oil, land) and use those resources to enforce rights. For example, the Soviet Union owned all factories and land and was able to use these resources to carry out its will.
2. Even in the UK, property ownership is not conditional upon paying taxes on that property. For example, a landlord pays no Council Tax: it is levied on the residents of the house. Yet his property rights are enforced without hypothecated taxes.
3. Paying taxes is demonstrably an obligation placed from time to time on those without property or income. For example, the Poll Tax was levied on people without regard to their means.
I can only presume you are making the wider argument that overall rights are conditional upon paying all tax demanded by the authorities, and that the obligation to pay tax is unconditional. This too is a flawed view, but that is best addressed after you have restated your position.
@Alex
Your comment is typically absurd
There is a fundamental difference between an argument that tax per se is illegitimate (the issue I address here) and that a particular tax has flaws
Either you know that and are playing dumb or
@Alan Gittins
Whilst I think you have exposed a dreadful scandal (that landowners get a free lunch whilst their tenants have to pick up the CT bill + pay the rent) property rights are surely not exclusive to landed property. Another strawman, methinks.
Alan Gittins: Correct. A State could also enforce property rights through voluntary donations, as theorists such as the philosopher Robert Nozick suggested.
Richard: You’ve written the briefing note as “logic”. It isn’t. Logical reasoning requires a correct distribution of premises. Exceptions are not permitted: they are evidence of false logic.
Saying taxes “must” be levied to enforce laws is a false choice fallacy. There are alternatives which you do not mention. There are even working examples (the Gulf states could easily levy zero taxes).
There are some informal fallacies, such as the definition of failed states (they don’t have property rights; it is successful states which enforce laws by the ultimate sanction of violence).
There are also some horrible False Consequence Fallacies in there. Eg, some laws are necessary and valid, therefore all the related laws are necessary and valid (your fourth statement).
Fusing deductive logic to ethics is a nightmare. Philosophers spend years trying to come up with coherent theories like this. What you have done is mere induction – observed frequent outcomes and drawn conclusions, rather than used real deductive logic.
Whilst I, and 99.9999 per cent of people think taxes are useful and desirable, it is misleading to dismiss alternatives as logically incoherent. Nozick was a Harvard professor – he would hardly have failed to notice this if it were true. You’d have been better off saying “This is usually the case” rather than using words like “necessarily”.
Sorry Richard, but philosophy students train by picking apart stuff like this. Presenting an Ethics Briefing and then violating umpteen laws of logic is just asking for trouble.
@Alex
A systemic observation does not mean there cannot be specific flaw
You seem not to understand that
@Alan Gittins
You are wrong:
a) You argue for a state that without tax – look at Cayman for the mess that results. And i repeat, this is an argument against democracy- so why
not say it?
b) In UK property law the obligation to pay tax is on the occupier – the tenant acquires the property right, the obligation to pay the tax comes with it. The landlord gets and income, the obligation to pay tax comes with that. May logic is absolutely upheld, yours is not.
c) The Poll tax was a bad tax – agreed – but the obligation came with the right to use council services. The property right was weak – the tax weak as a result. But the theory is intact – and indeed explains why the tax failed.
Put simply – you’re wrong
@charles
I know of no state that does not enforce taxes
Name me one
Of course taxes come in many forms. You should remember that when providing your answer.
As for a state without property rights – name me one.
And suggest how a law passed using due process is valid in one case and not another (a law that is not legal by breaching a constitution is not passed using due process so you can’t use that argument)
But also note I’m not saying anyone has to tax
I’m saying in practice they do and it is legal to do so
In which case all your objections fail
Richard Murphy: “But also note I’m not saying anyone has to tax
I’m saying in practice they do and it is legal to do so”
Given that it is the state which taxes and also the state which defines what is and isn’t legal, that should be a perfectly obvious state of affairs.
It is, however, a significant leap to going from saying something is legal to saying it is legitimate or morally defensible.
@Paul Lockett
I am discussing the legality of tax
And you’ve conceded the point
Tax is legitimate
That of course does not mean desirable
It just means the people who argue tax is theft are wrong
It isn’t
That was my point
I think t has been conceded I’m right
This comment has been deleted. It failed the moderation policy noted here. http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/comments/. The editor’s decision on this matter is final.
There is no example of a state which does not tax today. But! That does not mean that there *could not be*. As I mention, it would be possible for a gulf state such as Abu Dhabi to run for centuries without any form of tax.
Your paper is posited as theory, not practice. It sets itself up as deductive logic.
If you leap from premise to premise via logical fallacies then the paper is worthless.
Aside from these, there are other problems. As Paul Lockett notes, there is a difference between what is legal and what is legitimate and moral. Your argument that some laws are necessary, therefore all laws are just, is almost the very definition of a logical fallacy.
Can there not be such as thing as an unjust law? I’d love to hear your take on the Socratic dialogues on justice, or the theory of natural law, or human rights. I suppose all those objections are invalid are they?
No one’s even latched on to the most odd claim of all: that evaders believe “all tax is institutionalised theft”. Outside a clique of studenty anarchists I’d be staggered to meet anyone who believes this. Some tax, maybe. But all tax? Sounds like an exaggeration – but what’evs, this doesn’t impinge on my objections to your use of logic.
And since your raised Somalia – let me furnish you with one working exception to your rule. Pre-war Somalia used the Xeer system of justice. Property rights and NO tax! Elders arbitrated. Xeer prohibits all forms of tax. It existed for centuries, and Somalia was no more conflict-ridden than anywhere else.
That’s the problem with false logic. You say “All swans I have seen are white, thus all swans are white.” Then a black swan turns up.
@Charles
You have not shown any of the logic to be wrong – you have just said it is
I dealt with an oft repeated claim – all tax is theft – one I have heard partners in the Big 4 and the largest law firms repeat with absolute conviction – and which I sourced from a tax adviser on this blog talking a couple of days ago and have shown the logic to be wrong
That was my point
All else you note is a red herring
For which reason this thread is now closed