Try my 10 arguments against all taxation

The concept of taxation doesn’t survive these ten arguments.

By Perry Willis

I start with a simple assertion…

#1: Voluntary payments should replace taxation.

People then object that voluntary funding can’t provide enough money, so I say…

#2: The amount of government we have should be determined by what people want to fund, not by what politicians want to impose.

People respond that citizens don’t know how much money is needed and/or that people will expect others to provide the funding (the so-called “free rider problem” – see point 6 below). I respond…

#3: If people aren’t qualified to decide how much government we need then how can they decide which politicians are qualified to make those decisions for them?

This makes people pause and think. While they’re doing that I rush onto…

#4: I think taxes are impractical.

This turns the tables. We started out talking about why voluntary funding is (supposedly) impractical, but now we’re going to talk about why taxation is impractical. I start listing the reasons…

#5: Taxes are impractical because they permit and reward poor performance.

The government gets its money whether it performs well or not. And failed government programs are almost never terminated. Instead, they get bigger budgets.

#6: Taxes are impractical because of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs.

The people who get government contracts, subsidies, or other tax-funded benefits have a concentrated reason to lobby for their preservation and expansion. But the cost of any given program is spread among all taxpayers, providing little incentive to resist it.

This explains why Washington, DC is full of lobbyists working to increase spending rather than reduce it. This results in overspending.

So the real problem is NOT how to provide enough funding for government, it’s how to prevent politicians from spending too much. Voluntary funding would solve that problem.

#7: Taxation is impractical because your vote is powerless to control how politicians spend your money.

Your single vote will never decide any election. This means your vote has no power to change anything. But please notice…

#8: You have more power as a consumer than you do as a voter.

You can hire and fire major corporations all day long. And you don’t need majority approval to do it. Businesses have zero power to compel you to buy their product or service. Indeed, they must meet your needs to gain your business. Remember, the customer is always right! This is called consumer sovereignty.

If you replace taxation with voluntary funding then you’ll have the same power over the government that you currently have over businesses as a consumer. You’ll be able to pick and choose which government programs to fund, and in what amounts. That will bring consumer sovereignty to the political realm.

#9: Voluntary funding would give us consumer–controlled government.

We’ve had monarchies, direct democracies, republics, parliamentary systems, and various schemes to limit government through written constitutions. None of these experiments have prevented the waste, fraud, abuse, and oppression that taxation makes possible. By comparison, voluntary funding would give us something truly new in the world – consumer-controlled government.

This brings me to my concluding points…

#10: Taxes are not only impractical, they’re also immoral.

Taxation is an abstract word used to hide an ugly reality. Taxation is violence-based funding. Taxes force people to labor against their will to fund things other people want. In other words, taxes are fractional slavery. The work you do to pay taxes to fund things you don’t want is the fraction of your life that you live as a slave.

Bonus point: Taxes are the price we pay for NOT being civilized.

A civilized society would fund all of its operations through peaceful means. Only primitive uncivilized barbarians think violence is moral (or required) to fund things that have value.

Show Comments 17



  2. I cannot imagine how this would ever be put in place. Therefore, although a great idea, it is unrealistic.

    Now if we just had a king who would put that into place……. 😉

  3. I AGREE 100%!
    If only We the People adhered to strictly enforce our constitution your great idea would mostly be implemented in my opinion.
    Thank you,

  4. Is any nation yet practicing this? Would we still be a “nation” without taxation? Would we still have a military for the common defense – Not offense as has too often happened? You are so right, I think. But when will we, the people, have the know-how to launch such a system? The change would lend much more for real deep freedom. But unless we have a concrete plan to allow for both law and organization, it just seems so unreal! We have never experienced such a thing. Have you ever heard the song with the refrain “We’ve never done it that way before!”? A confession: I work for the IRS – the Taxpayer Advocate Service of the federal government, Yet, I fear not your ideology as far as my support goes. The original Constitution did not allow for Federal Income Tax, I know. And will not God help His people? I’m a believer. But I think it would take some serious planning to safely convert to such a tax-free system. I think everyone must be tired of those, in power, taking actions, with our money, that we consider amoral.

  5. “If I pay taxes, you should also, because you benefit.” “No, on net, I benefit when I run my life, and it takes my money to do that. If you are wrong, I suffer from your mistake. If I am wrong, I suffer from my mistake, and can quickly adjust. But I can’t adjust to your mistake because I have no control, taxation is not optional.”

  6. I would agree to paying taxes for the lawful, Constitutional functions of our Republic.

    But such is not the case in America. It is as simple as that.

  7. The Christian philosopher Augustine proposed that a king could justly tax his subjects to cover the cost of defending them from attack, but a king who taxed people to enrich himself was no better than a common thief.

    The problem in today’s society is that these functions become commingled. It is difficult to spot any governmental program that is purely for defense, or purely for redistribution of assets. That contributes mightily to the difficulty of persuading people that taxation, like calling up the Militia, should be considered an emergency measure rather than business as usual.

    The odd thing is that it’s easier not to answer a Militia callup and let the country be invaded, than it is to avoid paying taxes. So there arises a constant need for new enemies and new fears, to make taxing and spending seem reasonable.

    Subtitle A – Income Taxes
    Subchapter A – Determination of Tax Liability
    Sec. 1. Tax imposed states:
    There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of –

    Section 5001 Imposition, rate, and attachment of tax states:
    There is hereby imposed on all distilled spirits produced in or imported into the United States a tax at the rate of $13.50 on each proof gallon and a proportionate tax at the like rate on all fractional parts of a proof gallon.

    Imposition of this tax creates (imposes) no liability for any one to pay it.

    Section 5005 Persons liable for tax states:
    The distiller or importer of distilled spirits shall be liable for the taxes imposed thereon by section 5001(a)(1).

    What statute in the Internal Revenue Code, using clear and unequivocal language as required by the Supreme Court, makes a private Citizen liable for subtitle A – income taxes on his or her domestically earned compensation for labor?

    I have found and read with my own eyes, the law that makes the following classes of person liable for the income tax imposed in section 1 “by clear and unequivocal language”.

    Sec. 2. Definitions and special rules, (d) Nonresident aliens
    Sec. 641. Imposition of tax
    Sec. 701. Partners, not partnership, subject to tax
    Sec. 871. Tax on nonresident alien individuals
    Sec. 876. Alien residents of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands
    Sec. 877. Expatriation to avoid tax
    Sec. 1461. Liability for withheld tax
    Sec. 1474. Special rules, (a) Liability for withheld tax

    The preceding classes of person are specifically pointed out as being required to pay (made liable for) the income tax imposed in section 1. This liability is imposed in language that is just as clear and unequivocal as the distilled spirits tax liability you were shown previously. This liability is not implied. There is no doubt and there is no question that those classes of person are liable for the section 1 income tax.

    Working stiffs in the U.S. of America are not those persons.

    More detail at:

  9. Thanks for broadcasting this simple logical analysis. I believe I first made most of these arguments for some news writer about 1973 when I was managing a LP candidate for Illinois governor.
    Q – “How are you going to pay for government?”
    A – “The main job of the Governor should be fundraising in support of all the government programs he can sell to the public/voters/taxpayers.”

    The old “high costs of transactions” objection seems silly in this day of online everything, including tax collections. I make my donations by auto-debit from my bank, voluntarily, for those I support.

Leave a Comment:

Fields marked with * are required