Adonis Diaries

What is the definition of a State: Beside Taxing the people?

Money printing is meant to facilitate internal commerce and expanding trades.  Taxing people for doing business in the Land is viewed as a logical and reasonable endeavor.  Consequently, the more a State print fictitious money, not covered by gold or anything of sustainable values, whatever tax is collected will never be enough to catch up with inflation.

Karl Marks wrote: “Tax is the foundation of a State”.

Sound correct, but I like to get to the root of the taxing concept.

What if “Printing money is the basis for any State“?  In any case, the State is imposing and collecting taxes as an indirect way of demanding a sizable percentage for the money printing monopoly.

We all know from movies and stories that mafia and gangs gather taxes from private enterprises, in return for providing security…

What kinds of security is needed when the gang has the sole monopoly of force in the region? Obviously, mafia and gangs are not in the business of providing health and social security for the people:  People have got to scramble for such kinds of luxuries.

Question:  What can be a discriminating factor between a gang with monopoly of force  and a State that does not consider offering health and social security to its citizens as an integral part of its business?

You may know the revolutionary adage: “No taxing without representation”.

What about the larger majority who pay taxes but are not equitably represented?  Is it the more you pay taxes the better representation you are entitled to?

Is it the better you transfer and turn-over printed money (financial institutions), the more eligible you are to represent the government interests? Is that the way it works?

If we turn the adage around and say: “No representation without paying taxes“; would that sentence smack as conservatism, and a pretty fair concept, socially and organizationally?  For example, if you are in the tax bracket of people earning less than the minimum yearly cut-off level for not paying taxes, would you feel very ashamed to demanding reforms and changes, simply because you didn’t contribute to the State’s treasury?  Is it the way it works?

For example, people in the oil rich producing countries of absolute monarchies and oligarchies (such as Saudi Arabia, Gulf Emirate States, Kuwait, Qatar, and even in Iran and Libya…) don’t have to pay taxes and the cost of gas for cars is minimal because the government do not take any percentage on gas consumed…  By the by, these regimes got it in their mind that their “citizens” are not entitled to significant representation at any level in the government.   Things are changing now in the Arab World.

If the population need social and health security, would these programs be categorized as charity programs in the budget?  

Or only the 20% of the poorest classes in the population should feel gratitude for their bigger brothers in their capability of turning over more money?

Is it how people are currently feeling in Europe with gimmicks of balancing budgets problems? 

People are demonstrating in mass and turning violent, because the governments are playing stupid by eliminating social and health programs, while giving bonus gifts to multinational corporation in tax laws.

The US has been imposing to the least developed States, in the last two decades, the economics constraints of the “Washington Consensus” ideology of the World Bank that says:  “Least developed nation governments should not invest their budgets on health and social programs, and they have to open their markets to foreign products, goods, and money…”

Least developed nations were demanded to just open up their markets to foreign trades and loosen up all laws on the flow of money handled by financial multinationals.

The Republican party in the US, and their allies, want to balance an impossible budget with their fundamental ideology that says: “It is not the business of a State to extending health and social benefits of any kinds to communities.”  Should a State governance emulates how gang operates?

What about privatizing the printing of money and eliminating the concept of State?

Anyway, the powerful financial institutions in the USA have de facto privatized the printing of money.

Four years after the financial crisis, and no resolutions have been contemplated or executed.