Every year, during the budget law, politics, newspapers and television, break loose on the issue of taxes necessary to meet the increasingly high and complex needs of the state.
The emphasis by many on the ethical duty of every citizen not to escape, but someone raises the basic question: what use many resources to the state? Where and how are they used? Are really necessary? They are useful to the citizens? There may be less costly solution? The withdrawal forced by the State is justified in the light of qualitative and quantitative results that are deducted from them, or other organizational solutions could be taken into account, cheaper and more efficient?
A detailed answer is not given, because man is basically used to everything, and, over time, ends up accepting as normal crazy things, as you would realize if you objectively analyze the reasons why we are forcibly deprived of at least half of our income. It would be enough to wonder why in the space of one hundred years it has gone from a levy on average by about 10% to almost 50%. How can it be a public expenditure as a percentage of income increased fivefold, while noting that for reasons of social solidarity, the "welfare" before almost non-existent, has been enhanced, and in some areas from the ground up.
It should be noted that the citizens have accepted the payment of taxes as one of the many misfortunes that are part of this world. Escape, or even evade them, is regarded by the media and by public opinion like a steal (from a layman), or a sin (the religious point of view). Actually you should consider as a culpable lack of solidarity with fellow sufferers. It is evident the misleading tactics of those who govern us, time to focus on this aspect of the problem, instead of focusing on his true nature and understand whether it is a misfortune indeed inevitable.
We see instead of responding objectively to the real question that must be asked, namely whether and to what, the forced removal of wealth from the pockets of citizens is justified, or whether it should be regarded as neither more nor less than an outright legalized theft.
The answer can be succinctly expressed as follows: the taxpaying citizens pay taxes for three major purposes. To make a social redistribution of resources between rich and poor, to receive in exchange for services that only the state can provide and to buy services that could be purchased elsewhere.
basis of the finding, can hardly be denied that the state is a poor manager and is not able to operate with sufficient efficiency, it is to intervene in all three areas contained in the sense that minimize its powers, in connection with the operations indispensable.
First, the social measures, which are substantiated in a redistribution of wealth from individual to individual, must be distinguished from the provision of services. Otherwise we risk, as happens regularly, of confusing efficiency and social justice on every subject covered by state intervention and the end result did not understand more the true purpose. In practice, this means that the tax is intended to ensure that all citizens, not just for the handicapped, a minimum level of income sufficient to live in dignity, is certainly justified, must be proportionate to the general conditions of the country's wealth, but not necessarily social justice should be the direct provision of those services. In other words, even though it is right that the State is concerned to create a modern system of "welfare" for reasons of efficiency and quality of services should be limited to provide citizens with the economic means (voucher), without directly in the provision of services, allowing users the freedom to choose where to go and buy them according to market logic.
addition, in order to alleviate the state function, reduce bureaucracy, to hit with greater accuracy and precision the social needs, the law enforcement part of this imposing taxes must leave room for individual initiative having the same purposes, which may be a substitute, in whole or in part, the tax itself (the example of the recent implementation of five per thousand).
Once placed the social problem, the provision of services must strictly observe the rule of horizontal subsidiarity. As is known, this rule states that everything that can be provided by private initiatives should not be monopolized by the state. If the State deems to participate in the provision, the face, but without any privileges, respecting the laws of competition and market, leaving citizens with freedom of choice. As you see, is a very simple and clear. You only need the will to implement it.
It must be recognized that services and functions for which the state may pose only in terms of the monopolist. But they are not all. Security, foreign policy, justice, environmental policy, preservation of cultural heritage, basic research, represent the most valuable examples. For them the issue of privatization, again in order to increase efficiency and reduce costs, can arise only in terms of subcontracting, and even limited to this, the results can be far from negligible.
For many other services, and among the most expensive and we want to mention the significant education and health, the direct provision of the state is absolutely unjustified. Competition from private companies may result in a substantial increase of quality and cost reduction. Citizens should have the opportunity to freely choose the services you prefer and not be forced to accept by force unique products. This is a purchase like any other.
The creation of the infrastructure, then, needs to be planned by a government department, but no more. The project financing has proved to work well. It should be encouraged and liberalized in the construction of large and small works.
In conclusion, from the conviction supported by the facts that everything is a state administration and public works bad, is expensive, bloated bureaucracy with no possibility of operating improvements, the only way forward is to simplify the structure of public, private, entrusting to all that is possible, including through subcontracts.
must be convinced that a policy of liberalization of the processes of public service provision and application of the principle of subsidiarity, in the manner described above, can lead to a substantial reduction in the tax rate than exists today, and this without touching the contribution public welfare state, which is implemented through policies of redistribution. Just so the public could evaluate positively the tax levy, ensuring a more direct correspondence between what they pay and what they receive, only then evaders could be considered thieves and sinners.
However it should be and always avoid the vicious circle: "The more you tax and sets, the company is less mobile and less efforts are rewarded and individual investments, and so the greater the demand for redistribution and therefore taxes. "(from Alesina-Giavazzi:" Goodbye Europe ").
