A new fiscal relationship between state and citizens to enhance freedom of choice and quality of services
We are living in stormy times, in which pandemics and related containment measures monopolize media attention. And, all in all, it is understandable that this is the case, given that our future prospects for freedom also depend on the firmness of the opposite reactions from public opinion in the face of the arbitrariness of restrictions which in many (too many) cases seem more like attempts to test the degree of tolerance and acceptance by the electorate.
However, assuming it is likely – as well as desirable – that sooner or later we will return to normal pre- Covid , it is fatal that the same problems (aggravated, moreover ) and the same questions that already characterized the public debate will arise again, overbearing. . And, among these, the king of problems and the nerve center of the relationship between state and citizens, and between citizens themselves: the tax reform. It will then be opportune to arrive at the battle armed with solid arguments and persuasive proposals, capable of revolutionizing the way in which we can give expression to our decision-making autonomy and therefore to our legitimate aspirations.
The tax proposal that I will briefly present here is intended to be only a general model, an ideal design that allows you to reinterpret the tax relationship in order to enhance the individual's freedom of choice. But let's get to the point.
Why, instead of thinking of taxes as "imposed" coercion, do we not overturn the reasoning and transform them into a really (although always only partially) chosen option? Here is the idea: three (or more) levels of tax involvement among which the citizen can freely choose. Let's think about it this way: we could be citizens of Serie A, B or C (and whatever other letters you want to add). Level A could represent the "minimum degree", in which the citizen declares himself willing to contribute with his taxes to the payment of only the minimum services: national defense, police and judicial system. Level B could include, in addition to previous services, also public health and education. And in level C, income redistribution and the public social security system could also be added.
For each type of citizenship, a different maximum amount of taxes would be required that the citizen would be required to pay; to more services requested, higher contribution rates. It is not a question, here, of going into the details of such a contrived tax system, but rather of establishing a principle. And the principle just proposed is very close to that correspondence between taxes and services received by the citizen so dear to Luigi Einaudi, but articulated along lines clearly inspired by a real possibility of choice on the part of citizens.
What would there be to gain from such a system? Everything, I would say. First, it would ensure that the tax system really respects and reflects the different degrees of citizen involvement and participation in the state mechanism. In short, it would respect the wishes of citizens without rendering them helpless in the face of a Leviathan they have not chosen but to which they are subjected as a consequence of an existential lottery draw. In other words, individuals would finally be enabled to choose (but concretely, not as in the abstract formulations of the "general will") what content to give to the social contract that binds them to the state.
I already hear the predictable objections of the usual suspects: "But then nobody would want to pay more than the minimum, and the poor would be prejudiced!". Most likely a not small proportion of taxpayers would decide to do without some public services and would prefer not to participate in the redistributive mechanism. So? The state has no natural right over its citizens since, even according to social contract theorists, it exists only as an agent of the citizens themselves. Therefore, expanding the choice of the contracting parties themselves should not be a problem for anyone.
As for the protection of the poor, if only that were the case, the state would not need to absorb half of the national income, but 5-10 percent of GDP would be enough. At present we have gone too far, and for too long, on the path of fiscal dispossession, and that is why robust economic growth – the only real protection against poverty – is as rare as a polar bear in Somalia. Moreover, by introducing real competition between private individuals and the state in the provision of health, education, pension and other services, the latter would push the latter to significantly improve its offer, to the benefit, also and above all, of the most vulnerable. Unnecessary services would simply disappear, much to the relief of (almost) everyone.
The stone is thrown into the pond: let's open the windows of the debate and let new air circulate, fresh air. Without taboos and with a free spirit.
The post A new fiscal relationship between state and citizens to enhance freedom of choice and quality of services appeared first on Atlantico Quotidiano .
This is a machine translation from Italian language of a post published on Atlantico Quotidiano at the URL http://www.atlanticoquotidiano.it/quotidiano/una-nuova-relazione-fiscale-tra-stato-e-cittadini-per-potenziare-liberta-di-scelta-e-qualita-dei-servizi/ on Tue, 24 Nov 2020 04:04:00 +0000.