[p2p-research] Internal announcement of the Free Tax Project

[Peter Mazsa]

Dear Patrick,


Thank you for answering my letter:)

On 10 May 2010 16:47, Patrick Anderson <agnucius at gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter Mazsa wrote:
>> I want to invite you to check the first version of
>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Tax_Project
>
> 1.)  How will this be implemented?  Your document seems to suggest we
> will beg governments to change.  I'm sorry, but unless you can pay the
> officials in charge, I doubt anything will happen.

We won't beg them.

The values of the project
http://p2pfoundation.net/Free_Tax_Project#Core_Ideology:_Values are:
I. Responsibility "We should make sure of ourselves that the free tax
concept and project work seamlessly. [...] Of course we should not
abandon our project if it is not flawed but it hurts vested interests
(of states)." This means that we should persuade ourselves (not the
governments) that what we suggest will work as a general solution
(i.e., an order based on ethics), of which the states and their taxes
are special cases.
II. Freedom (e.g., from monopolization)
III. Respect (e.g., for states)
Values are in preference order, i.e., we appreciate II. freedom (from
monopolization) more than III. respect (for states), IF we find the I.
responsible (creatively destructive:) solution.

> 2.) What is TAX, really?  Could we not think of it as a sort of "at
> cost" RENT that is imposed on those that use "community property"?  If
> so, then we could implement this by charging rent against anyone
> attempting to use any part of a 'simulated' commons.  By 'simulated' I
> mean something very similar to
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Common_Property_Regime

For me, tax is the money (money = the general media of exchanges) of
the exchanging parties above the competition price of the exchange,
where
- competition price includes the maintenance of the market, and
- property is a form of exchange as well.

> 1.) What should TAX (RENT) be 'levied' against?  The wording of your
> document seems to suggest we do as current taxation does:
>
> a.) Punishes Specialization by taxing the exchange of goods and
> services (both through Income tax and through Sales tax).

Do you think we should rather tax stock (property) rather than flow (exchange)?
Do you think as well that bits (vs atoms) are suitable (can be made
suitable) for being properties of someone? Cf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_good#Information_goods_and_market_failure

I suggest taxing exchange of bit-like products (vs atom-like
products), by a default rate > 0 and with an opt-out option - if we
think bits (vs atoms) are intrinsically not suitable for being
properties of someone.

> b.) Punishes Improvements Improvements and Clustering (causing sprawl)
> by taxing the property built upon Land instead of taxing the
> "withholding of Land" from others.  This is explained by Henry George
> in his book "Progress and Poverty" with the solution titled "Single
> Tax".  See also:
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Chris_Cook_on_P2P_Taxation_Reform

How do you think this is viable in case of bits?

> Thanks for your time, and sorry to throw so many wrenches into your gears.

I thank you for taking the project seriously:)

Yours,
Peter