There's absolutely no moral argument for a flat tax system. What could possibly be more fair than that ? Earn a buck pay 20 cents tax. Be allowed to stipulate where 5 cents out of the 20 should be directed to.

For those who think all tax is theft...go to a poor African country and see how "law of the jungle" works in reality. We had 10,000 years of "perfect freedom" and it leads to animal behaviour and little progress. So is it ignorance of why government exists...or is human suffering OK when you get wealthy enough?
IMHO this attitude is for spoiled rich babies.
So the issue then is how to support folks without spoiling them. Public housing, public education and public medicine is *good* for the wealthy: Less crime, less corruption, potent workforce and less chance of dying from disease. You don't have to *like* the poor...but you should look after them for your own good. (Religion notwithstanding!)
Corporate theft is *much* more of an issue today: Have we forgotten that the "profits" of the financial industry are largely illusions and it is Joe Taxpayer that is funding the $Million bonuses now?
My father could work a middle paid job and support a family of 7. No way could I do that now! Since then company profits have soared, real wages have fallen, our currency is two-tier: consumer prices on one hand (RBA), home/living on the other (Chinese savings, fiat money). Real inflation has soared while "official" inflation stays low to stop the banks from tanking. Sure we should minimise welfare...but we should also eliminate corporate welfare as this is more expensive and without the benefits of supporting humans. (Millionaires really don't need assistance!)

Leela, “Some here seem to believe that paying taxes/public spending/infrastructure are evidence of some kind of regressive evolution.

What is the alternative?”

Maybe leave the supply of discretionary services, like transport, to private vendors instead of government pretending they understand the market and putting taxes into funding ventures which are delivered in a monopolistic regime.

Re “Mankind, in his wisdom will surge forward not through social cohesion, rather via ‘law of jungle’?”

"Survival of the fittest" is another alternative,

and one which will always beat

“survival of the inadequacies, predicated by socialism”

Regarding “From the Taxreview (EMTRs calculated for the real (inflation-adjusted) return):”

I am not sure what you are talking about but I am pretty sure you do not have a clue what you are talking about either.

Regarding your quote to ETMRs and that web page:

that is a notional discussion paper, written on the back of a host of assumptions and likely to contain errors of theory, errors of fact as well as political bulldust which favours the posture of the author.

So as a research document or basis for decision making, its usefulness does not extend beyond knowing how you fold it and how you wipe with it.

Individual – there is no moral argument to any form of tax,

The “moral” aspect is used by the left to fraudulently convince people that there is merit in the notion of big-taxing government, when there clearly is no moral basis for any tax of any sort.

As Peter Humes commented “Taxation is a compulsory impost. By definition it involves forcible confiscation of property without the owner’s consent.”

Which mirrors what dearest Margaret (Thatcher) said

“The larger the slice taken by government, the smaller the cake available for everyone."

It is not the opponents, but the proponents of taxation who appeal to the ‘law of the jungle’– that the strong may use force and threats to do what they please with the lives, liberty or property of the weak.

Did Jesus say “Get a troop of soldiers, go round to Peter the fisherman’s hut, threaten to bash his head in or crucify him if he doesn’t give you some of his catch or the proceeds, and then with the proceeds, do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”?

It only shows moral confusion to think that those who ask that their person and property not be violated, are aggressing against others!

“What is the alternative?”

It is good to ask this question, leela, but if you do it in a rhetorical sense, you are like ancient Romans, or antebellum Southern planters, who could not conceive how society could possibly exist without slavery. To avoid the risk of intellectual laziness, you should try answering the question yourself.

What is the alternative to rape? To get consent, isn’t it? What is the alternative to slavery? To offer to pay for people’s services what they are willing to accept, isn’t it?

If the people are willing to pay the agreed price for a service, there is no need to pay for it under compulsion. And if they are not willing to pay the market price for it, then they have no right to it under compulsion.

Those who think taxation is necessary because it provides them with a multitude of goods and services are fools who do not realize they are merely recovering a portion of their own property, which benefits, their overlords could not have provided without first taking it.

The unfair effect of tax deductions, favouring the rich, is in direct proportion to the progressive effect of income tax. Take Coles or Woolworths. Apparently they have a profit margin of only about two percent. So 98 percent of their income goes to costs. Obviously the government could not tax them on the 98 percent as well...

(cont.)

...or they would collapse; and so would the whole economy, leaving government nothing. So the richer unavoidably get tax benefits in proportion to the higher tax they are supposed to pay.

Thus it is the unprincipled grasping of the advocates of “progressive” (sic) taxation that is the direct cause of that unjust favouritism to the rich inherent in the tax system.

There is nothing about democratic redistributions that guarantee transfers from the poor to the rich, so the poorest often end up funding the rich eg wealthy farmers, middle-class tertiary education, and capital-rich retirees.

The “principle” behind democratic forced redistributions - that A and B can vote themselves C’s property, B and C can join to rip off A, and C and A can legally extort money from B - is obviously anti-social, immoral and destructive.

The main single cause of poverty is government interventions: e.g. taxing employment actively causes unemployment; occupational licensing causes unemployment and drives up costs; minimum wages laws protect higher paid workers and force the lower-paid into unemployment; tax reporting requirements make small business illegal for the less literate; there are hundreds of examples.

But in any event, the poor are not some kind of natural aristocracy, or priviligentsia, entitled to live at others’ expense, and have the whole society bend over backwards for them. They need to work like everyone else.

Given that
a) the advocates of taxation are unable to show how it could be distinguished ethically from extortion, robbery, or slavery;
b) redistributions are very often used to fund programs that forcibly take from the poor to give to the wealthy, and are morally unjustifiable in any case;
c) taxation and forced redistributions fund government interventions that are the main cause of institutional unemployment, poverty, favouritism to the rich, and privilege
therefore everyone has a social and moral duty to avoid and evade tax by every means, knowing that one’s own use of one’s property is better for oneself, one’s family, and the greater good, than government’s which is positively immoral, anti-social, and absurd.

Peter, basically agreeing with your summary points a – c.

However, I believe that as a socio-economy, we are going to travel a lot further, a lot quicker, if we keep ‘social’ in the equation.
Equanimity. Anyone ever been 'party' to that? It is priceless.

Col: looks like I disagree with your worldview on what is discretionary service. Transport - road, rail, ferry, would be discretionary if I owned a helicopter (but I don’t) or if I never needed to go to work or go anywhere (but I do, so they are not discretionary, at least not for me).

Agree with you that govt pretends to understand the market however.

Re another alternative being “Survival of the fittest": true, however, just ask anyone living in Somalia how good that feels.

Re “that is a notional discussion paper, written on the back of a host of assumptions” has ‘Source: Australian Treasury estimates.’
In this case I tend to believe Treasury figures.

Re “individual – there is no moral argument to any form of tax” that is true. There is no moral argument for anything really.
Nor is there really any moral argument against anything, as everything exists, and would not exist if some purpose was not served.

Philosophically we appear to agree, how about that? Cheers.