Oh. Rats.

I think the reason I find this a sideways argument is that all laws are enforced by the implied threat of force. If tax laws cannot be enforced in this manner, then no laws can be enforced in this manner. And then no laws can be enforced.

How will you compel people to obey the law? T-B suggests courts will fine people. To which I have two questions: Will the only penalty for murder be a hefty fine? And how will you collect it if the defendant refuses to pay? Or is unable to pay?

In a narrowly legalistic sense, it seems like a lot depends on how you define "entitled" and "deprived" and "use." But that's just quibbling. Taxation is an odd kind of theft; they take your money, true, but then they give it back to you in the form of roads, schools, sewers, police, firefighters, etc.

BTW, how do you square "taxation is theft" with the fact that the Founding Fathers had no problem with the basic idea of taxation? Clearly they didn't consider all or even most forms of taxation to be theft. You can disagree with them philosophically, of course, but it would seem that insofar as the principles this country was founded on, "taxation is theft" isn't in the mix.

Because the people doing the taking are your elected representatives, who work for you. At election time, you can fire them. It's hard to steal from yourself.

I've written a lot of this in response to T-B, but since she hasn't answered yet, I'll repeat them to you.

No OSHA, no FDA, no NIH, no federal highway system, no professional licensing.... meaning crappy interstate roads, unsafe workplaces, questionable drugs being administered by quacks, more food poisoning....

No FEC, no FTC, no SEC... markets more or less completely unregulated.

More below.

At the local level, how will states and municipalities pay the bills? Who will pay for parks, schools, sewers, roads, sewage treatment, clean drinking water... all the public goods that benefit everyone?

If your answer is "voluntary donations", how will you deal with the free-rider problem?

This is great for the federal government; what will states and localities do?

Also, has anyone ever done a calculation as to what that tariff would actually be? And whether it would run afoul of trade agreements?

For instance, in 2005 the U.S. imported about $2 trillion worth of goods and services. Assuming that is all easily tariffable (I'm not sure how you'd apply a tariff to services), a 1 percent tariff would bring in $20 billion.

The federal courts cost about $6 billion to run.

The Defense budget is $420 billion. Let's assume you're isolationist and cut that in half: $210 billion.
State Department minus foreign aid: $13 billion.
Treasury: $11 billion.
Justice: $20 billion.
Homeland security as proxy for intelligence and border security: $34 billion
Corps. of Engineers because we still need locks and dams: $4 billion

So we throw overboard Ag, Commerce, Education, Energy, HHS, HUD, Interior, Labor, Transportation, VA, EPA, NASA, NSF, SBA, Social Security

No FDIC, no SEC, no FTC. No space exploration, no funding for basic scientific research, no social safety net except private charity, no national transportation nets, no maintenance of federal lands, parks or monuments. No environmental protections. And that's just the executive summary.

That gets us down to a federal budget of about $300 billion. For that your uniform tariff will have to be about 15 percent. We'll assume increased demand will offset the reduction in trade caused by the tariff itself.

Is that what you mean by a low tariff? And is that the kind of country you want to live in?

A lottery would have difficulty raising the tens or hundreds of billions necessary, and anyway is an assymetrical tax on the stupid. User fees can help some things, but then your government starts to become "government for those able to pay."

I think a major flaw in extreme libertarian thinking is the assumption that everyone is middle class.

I don't mind the idea of a national sales tax. But I have three concerns:

1. They claim the FAIR tax will be revenue neutral. They also claim that everyone's income will go up (thanks to the elimination of all other taxes) but prices won't rise much because of the elimination of corporate taxes. Parse that, and what they're saying is "everyone gets a tax cut, and it's revenue neutral!!". Hogwash. That only makes sense if you think there's enough fraud and waste in the current system to cover the difference. And that assumes the new system won't have its own fraud and waste. It will -- smuggling, failure to properly collect and remit sales tax, fraudulently obtaining excess rebates, etc.

2. The size of tax necessary (something north of 33%; and yes, I've read the FAIR tax literature. Their 23% figure is calculated so as to be comparable to the income tax. The actual sales tax rate necessary to achieve that 23% is higher).

3. Shifts in who pays. I don't believe in soaking the rich, but I think a mildly progressive tax system is just. Everything I've read suggests a national sales tax will shift tax burden from the poor AND the rich on to the middle class. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but we should be up front about it.

Finally, it won't eliminate the IRS. You'll still need a huge bureaucracy to manage the system: handle the incoming payments, track every household in America so they can mail out the rebate checks every month, investigate fraud and crime, etc. All you get rid of are the income tax forms.

Fair enough. And thank you for being so pleasant.

__________________
Man up.