Voluntary Taxes: Abusive Language and Politicians

In his March 20, 2002 letter to the Wall Street Journal "’Tough-Guy’ Proposals for Indiana’s Budget," Governor Frank O’Bannon says that he has "called for increases in two minor, voluntary taxes — on cigarettes and riverboat admissions." Does he mean that purchasers of cigarettes/entrants onto riverboats don’t have to pay the relevant tax if they don’t want to? Or does he mean that they don’t have to pay the tax if they don’t buy cigarettes/enter riverboats. It is not likely that he intends the former. If the latter, then, of course, all taxes are voluntary; e.g., one could avoid property taxes on residential property or sales taxes on food merely by going homeless or not buying food, respectively. In the latter case, perhaps one could survive by foraging in dumpsters.

This is but one — though a typical one — example of the way politicians abuse the language in attempting to deceive the people about the true nature of their actions.

"Voluntary taxation," is an oxymoron if ever there was one; it is similar to "jumbo shrimp," "an important trifle," or "a square circle." "Voluntary taxation" is a downright contradiction in terms, since if there is anything that taxation is not, it is voluntary. The proof is, if you do not pay, your property is confiscated and/or you go to jail. "Coercive taxation" is a redundancy, since once you are acquainted with the latter word in this phrase, you know that the former is a correct description.

Ah, but the good Governor is not without a possible reply. He might argue along the following lines: income taxes are really voluntary, in that you can choose not to earn an income, in which case you are not subject to the tax; and the same goes for levies on housing: anyone can avoid them by choosing to go homeless. Since voluntary choice determines whether or not the tax applies, the levy in question is not really compulsory.

But if this were true, then robbery in a dangerous area of the city would no longer be a crime. A robbery victim who walked at night in a bad neighborhood and was forced to hand over his wallet at gunpoint would no longer be considered a victim of robbery. Instead, utilizing the "logic" of Governor O’Bannon, the former victim would be transformed into a voluntary donor and the action would be transformed from robbery into a voluntary donation, no different from making a donation to the von Mises Institution.