Can Government be Funded Voluntarily?

Government supplies many services and infrastructure that help increase productivity within our economy. The value that government adds to the economy is always measured by the increase in land values (or rent) where those services and/or infrastructure exist. When government builds a new roadway, or makes major improvements to existing roadways, the value of nearby land will usually increase dramatically. If a community has outgrown its current police, firefighter, or educational systems, adding more employees or infrastructure to those systems will increase local land values (rents) by enough to pay for those extra costs. In short, efficient government spending always makes land values go up by at least the amount of the spending, if not more.

With these facts in hand, I propose that we make taxation into a voluntary contribution to the community, based upon the benefits the landholder receives from that community. The way that would work is that the community (via the local government) would give every landholder a tax bill, based on the market value that government services and infrastructure, and community amenities added to that specific location. The landholder could choose to pay the bill or not. If the landholder chooses to pay the tax bill, he will be allowed access to those publicly provided services, and to attach his land holdings to the infrastructure which is publicly provided at that location. If the landholder chose not to pay the tax bill, then he would not be eligible to call on those services, nor attach his landholdings to the public infrastructure. So, say that the local Wal-Mart decides not to pay the tax, that would be fine, but then that Wal-Mart could not call on the police or fire department should it come to need those services; nor could that Wal-Mart create any type of attachment to publicly owned infrastructure (such as roadways) at that location.

Under this proposal most individuals would pay no state or federal taxes. Communities (local governments) would be responsible to pay state governments for any benefits the communities received from the state government, and the state government would pay federal taxes in the same way.

 

The Constitutions states that tariffs are to be used for money to fund the government.

 

Does military bases raise the value of nearby land?

 

BFD. The original US Constitution required all federal revenue be supplied by the states, in accordance to the value of land within the state … with the intention that the states and local communities would pass those costs down to the individual landholders.

 

Somebody wasn't listening when Sen. Harry Reid and VP Joe Biden told us that income tax is voluntary.

 

Yes. That is why communities fight tooth and nail to keep their bases from being closed, should that type of cutback be in the works.

 

Sure it's not about them working there or otherwise benefitting from the infrastructure required to maintain it? A military base doesn't make your land nicer the same way electricity, or police, or firemen do. A military base doesn't provide a household service, not even a public service, not a customer service. For all purposes other than actually defending an area, a military base might as well be a group people pay to maintain and which will in turn pays other people. It's basically paying some people to be your customers. It's a net loss, except for the defense value.

 

A military base increases local demand for land because it increases the local population. The military base ALSO increases the value of land nation-wide, as national defense increases the security of personal property.

 

Yes it can but not for the reason stated. The premise is falacious. Roadstill are built for military purposes or to reach an already established desired location. The value was present prior to the existence of the road, when it was a trail.

People add value not government. Government functionality is to protect the rights of people and thus their value o

 

No it wasn't. I live in a farming community, and if the county government went out and bulldozed the publicly provided road improvements into trails, the value of that farmland would plummet. Take away public provided security and the market value of that farm land would fall to zero.

Also, I live in a small town that happens to be near a major US interstate. The land near access to that interstate traffic is 50X more valuable than near identical land 10 miles away. Access to government provided infrastructure drastically increases land values … don't pretend you don't know this.

 

I live right next to the 2nd largest military base in America, Fort Bliss, and they actually do help the city a lot. For one, we get a ton of people from around the country to move here and live here so we have nice diversity, there is a lot of jobs they create, they provide nice housing all of that good stuff. It helps boost cities up, I dont know about raising the property value or anything though because no it doesnt physically make your land any better lol. Maybe I suppose where they are military bases the cities tend to be a lot safer, thus raising the price value?

 

Yes, as I've said, one might as well pay people to be customers or to simply live nearby and that would have the same effect. Needless to say, paying people to be your customers is a net loss. And surely, with regards to the value of military defense, you, as you are interested in economics, know that defense isn't a good that can be provided by the free market? Defense is a public good, which means that it's both non-rivalrous and, more importantly, non-exclusive. Thus, the benefits of the military base's defense cannot be given to only those who choose to pay, and exclude those who do not pay. A military base would protect an entire area and everyone living there, no matter who in that area chooses to pay. Militaries cannot be voluntarily funded. They require forced funding simply because their benefits are non-exclusive.

Good job ignoring most of my post. I said that it's not a military base per se which raises the value, but that it employes lots of people which increases jobs nearby. But essentially, it's just the same things as paying people to be your customers (except for the defense value). And see above why military cannot be funded voluntarily.

 

The military can be funded through voluntary taxation … it is just a matter of structuring the political system in a way that makes that possible. If you read my first post in this thread, you know that I propose that local governments be voluntarily funded by selling their services and infrastructure connection rights to landholders. So, basically, every address in the community would receive a tax bill, which, if the owner of that address paid the bill, that owner would be entitled to call on those services and make connections to the publicly owned infrastructure at that location. This method of voluntary taxation would cover the bulk of government funding, and would be the only tax that most people would be exposed to. But, as you point out, it would not be very well suited to funding the military.

Let's assume that because the military is responsible for protecting a large area, involving many different states and communities, that the military would be the responsibility of the federal level of government. We could structure government in a way that the federal government could receive the rents of natural resources which are extracted from the earth. The federal government could contract with exploration companies to find extractable natural resources, such a crude oil, paying the exploration companies on a commission basis. The exclusive extraction rights to resource found by the exploration companies would be auctioned off to private companies who are equipped to do that type of work. Here you have a way to fund federal government spending, most of which can be used to fund the military, all through voluntary transactions.

 

"know that defense isn't a good that can be provided by the free market?" It actually is. During the Gilded Age corporations would hire private police/guards to shoot workers who were striking. Right Wingers are still in favor of this, they say "Its their private property they can do what they want herp derp", they WANT private police, private schools, and they are even talking about yes a private military, Blackwater for example. Even Bill O'Reilly was saying we should just hire a mercenary army to deal with ISIS and hes not alone, a (*)(*)(*)(*) ton of right wingers believe prisons, the military, and the police should ALL be privatized, hell they think the entire world should be privatized even the damn Moon they want to buy and mine for resources. Capitalism is not about the well being of the public, a public military/police force/prisons, schools, thats all Socialism buddy and I know you wont agree but its true, under laissez-faire Capitalism all of these things would be, and were, privatized.

 

Well, that'd be an awfully small military though. Just looked up that mining is only 2% of US GDP and the US puts 3.8% of it's GDP on the military. And then there's that the private companies themselves would obviously take the biggest cut from the mining profits, and that the government would have other expenditures.

Hiring people to kill strikers is to hire enforcerers, not defense. Defense is national defense, not police force and bodyguards and such. I'm talking about a military, which defends a country. Yes, there can of course be mercenaries, but who pays them? The military requires taxation in order to be funded. People are not voluntarily going to pay mercenaries to defend the country.

 

This sounds like a good organizing principle to me. I just assume that direct democracy is the best way to go about it. For example, if someone privatizes a lot of good land but keeps it idle and unproductive, it would be lawful for specific individuals to come and settle the idle land. The Lockean principle of working the land should apply.

 

The question then becomes, who decides what is idle and unproductive? And how do we make sure those people never have any personal interests in the decision? The idea that "society" should confiscate peoples land and wealth if they deem them not to use it properly is a fundamental idea of socialism. Seldom does anyone look at how prone such a system is to corruption and ironically, mismanagement. Protect property rights instead I say.

 

A "military" is just a group of people who are able to utilize force in defense of themselves and others, and a militia is one type of "military" that can be provided by a "free market", assuming the people sufficiently value their freedom and independence. The entire point of the second amendment is to protect the security of a free state, and the tool for achieving that end is the militia.

 

Right, right. So what if there's a militia who protects an area, but there's a guy in that area who doesn't want to support it. What happens? It's impossible for them to protect that area except that guy's house. What if other people see that they can get the benefit of the militia without supporting it? The system would quickyl fall apart, and it woudn't be viable except for very small area and few people.

 

The individual people who make up the local community.

Why would we want to do that?

I never said "society" should do anything, let alone confiscate someone's land. I said that specific individuals could occupy idle land in accordance with their natural rights. My view is to protecting every individual's property rights, not just a few elites.

 

The effectiveness of a militia is directly proportional to participation of the people, and without a virtuous and enlightened people, militias could become weak and ineffectual, but that is true of any institution, including things like the US military. The point I'm trying to make, though, is not that the militia is a perfect institution, I'm just saying it is possible for a militia to effectively defend communities and even large areas.

 

Right. So you don't see any scenario in which the people of a community would have it in their interest to delcare the land of someone as idle? That's a rather naive view of humans I'd say. And clearly not a view of humans any sensible society would be founded on.

You kind of said society. You said The individual people who make up the local community. That's the same for this purpose. The idea is that a collective can better decide, and that collective is society.

Yes, it obviously is dependant on the participation of the people, and what I'm saying is that the incentives given to people will make sure it will fail, unless at a very small scale. Surely you're not unfamiliar with the prisoners' dilemma? If you are, go look it up, and then apply it to militia and you'll understand.

 

I think it would be great if all the big government liberal ponied up money to run it.

 

Are you familiar with the Free Rider Problem?

 

I think your reasoning is flawed; for example, if Walmart chooses not to pay its voluntary taxes and as such is not eligible to call the fire department in the event of a fire, what about the safety of the public inside the building, would it be acceptable not to respond and attempt to rescue them? Or let them die in the building? Or the homeowner who paid his tax bill calls the police department because someone is shooting at him or his family and is mistakenly told he didn't pay his bill and the police refuse to respond, then what happens??

Incidentally some fire departments in area's of the country where a fee is needed for fire protection have let houses burn down over non-payment.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/12/07/9272989-firefighters-let-home-burn-over-75-fee-again