Wealth expenditure taxes strike me as fair while taxes on wealth creation are not. It's very straightforward to avoid some or even all taxes in a system with just wealth expenditure taxes like sales taxes and sin taxes. Taxes on wealth creation are theft. Why should someone who earns more money pay more taxes if they choose to save it rather than spend it? In an IDEAL world the government would have only taxes on wealth expenditure and no taxes on wealth creation.
This is far too simplistic, something akin to: Red fruit good, non-red fruit bad. You are using superficial attributes and deeming the resultant system sensible.
Here is how I view taxes- quick version:
1) [Our] government[s] is/are the franchise of the individual, created to serve his solitary interests foremost. The individual underwrites this 'mutual defense co-op' with his very life. He is both King and soldier.
2) Tax on 'wealth creation', individual income tax, under this system is an abberation, it is in direct conflict with the idea of individual rights. An individual has the right to conduct economic activity (exchange his labor for the means to live, and exchange goods) in order to pursue happiness (life) -- to provide for himself.
Because the individual HAS the RIGHT to conduct business this way, it is improper logic to assume a tax on a this activity -- it would be a FEE to exercise a right. No can do without entering lawyer-world-logic.
3) Ok, so where do the taxes come from? Remember, the GOV is the franchise of individuals, it is like thier 'business' and can offer benefits or services to people or entities that wish to use them, voluntarily, under terms stated.
One type of benefit set is offered via the legal vehicle 'corporation' -- owners are shielded from liabilities, a marketplace is maintained and policed, a whole legal system is sustained to allow this 'unnatural person' to conduct business.
Another legit source of revenue is import tariffs, the 'mutual defense co-op' is a protector of territory as well as markets, therefore it has the right to charge admission or access to its market. Tariffs need to be non-specific however. [This is why sin tax is wrong- tax to manipulate is wrong and leads to worse]
Once you see that there is, by neccessity, need to have seperate legal realms for the individual and legal entities, it becomes clear who is to serve whom, who depends on whom, and what 'privileges' really are.
Privilege is a legal mechanism that the people offer through thier government that serves the interests of those interested in the privilege, and those offering it.
It is a voluntary contract.
Rights are a thing that belong to individuals, and can be boiled down to common law, or the statement:
An individual has the right to do as he pleases, short of harming another. If his actions 'endanger' another, we have provided civil courts to remedy this. At no time however, may 'the people', use the state to witness/prosecute civil endangerment, the 'written complaint' of the fourth amendment must be that of a citizen, not an official.
Until I read your post I thought the biggest bunch of whiners
I can understand that, I used to 'think like you' and would have thought the same thing: That raising a fuss over a such 'little thing' as a sin tax would be laughable.
That is why I included the shoplifting example. Theft is theft. By smoking I am exercising my freedom, and the tax is stealing from me when I exercise my freedom-- it is irrelevent as to the fact I could "avoid" the sin tax by not smoking -- in the very same way a tax on 'having a baby' could be avoided -- you are INFRINGING on my freedom, you are STEALING from me.
You have lost part of your ethical compass once you accept that 'wrongs can be outweighed by other factors' or that 'the result of an overall policy justifies its pinpoint injustices'.
Justice cannot be aggregated, not 'summed', it is a discrete entity applied to a particular person at a particular moment.