Last week, the Australian House of Representatives accidentally brought a bill abolishing income tax from the 1st of July 2024, and though it is unlikely to pass, it might be the single smartest decision it has ever stumbled upon.

After all, income tax was only ever meant to be a temporary measure.

Income tax was first introduced into Great Britain by Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger in his December 1798 budget, to pay for weapons and equipment for the French Revolutionary War. But it soon caught on, around the world, and before you knew it, those with the least to pay were sacrificing proportionally ever more out of their salaries and wages over time, a sacrifice to the finance gods who paid pretty little in the way of taxes of any kind, let alone income.

But what if we got rid of income tax altogether?

After all, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, Beardsley Ruml, one of the fathers of The New Deal, even acknowledged in the 1940s that since the end of WWII that “taxes for revenue are obsolete“.

If income tax were really important, how come those who make the most often pay the least?

Income tax doesn’t really pay for government services federally. So why do we, the 99%, even need to pay it? Isn’t it just punishing people for earning?

What if we just got rid of income tax altogether?

Economist Henry George argued back in 1897 that income tax actually reduces people’s incentive to earn income, (like an example I read recently of a taxi driver who lost most of his overtime pay to taxation after discovering he had graduated into a higher tax bracket).

He said that taxes on income and even profit distorts economic activity and encourages off-shoring for those wealthy enough to be able to afford to pay people to hide the rest of their gains, forcing a greater burden of tax on those least capable of paying. He also claimed property tax punishes owners for improving or maintaining the quality of the establishment.

George argued that a land-value tax should replace all other forms of taxation, “leaving labour and capital to flourish freely, and thus ending unemployment, poverty, inflation and inequality.”

Nobel-prize winning economist, Professor Joseph Stiglitz, arguably on opposite end of the political spectrum from old Henry, similarly argued that the benefits of a land value tax would be distributed back to communities in the form of public investment in roads and infrastructure.

Tax is important. Just not for the reasons we think it is.

Economist Dr Steven Hail tells Renegade Inc. that taxation exists to prevent inflation so some form of it will always be required to provide stability, but there are countless better ways to do it than taking away badly needed funds from people already struggling to pay their bills.

“If governments don’t spend much, then they don’t need to tax much, because their spending won’t be creating inflation,” he says. “But it creates an unstable economy. In principle, you could just tax other things and not income. You could tax consumption and have a land tax.”

(Dr Hail emphasises that he is not personally in favour of abolishing income tax, and advocates for a more progressive taxation system).

The federal government does not need our taxes to pay for anything, so why are we handing over hard-earned income to be destroyed when we could be spending it? Or saving it. Or paying off debts. In the current climate, with wages stagnating or in some countries even going backwards, it makes little sense to take money away from people already struggling to pay their bills for the sake of an almost permanent deficit.

As I have previously written, governments have almost always been in deficit and it is almost only during these times that the private sector has been able to save.

People should be able to have more money to spend, to create businesses, and services and goods to be consumed, and pay off the crippling amount of debt they’re putting in to keep up in an economy where even a modest salary is insufficient to keep up with the cost of living, let alone a minimum wage. 

And, if tax were really important, then for the sake of efficiency, if not principle, governments would be targeting those with the most to pay. But they don’t, and therefore it isn’t. At least not for the purpose we are told it is.

I don’t have any hard opinions on whether or not to abolish income tax. I don’t think it’s going anywhere, in any case. My point is to illustrate that taxing income is merely one of a plethora of fiscal policy options for balancing the economy, which in the current climate could stand to be reduced significantly, if not replaced by a more equitable system.  If it’s good enough for the best of us, it’s good enough for the rest of us. 

Claire Connelly

Claire Connelly

Claire Connelly is the lead writer of Renegade Inc. An award-winning freelance journalist, speaker, and founder of subscription journalism experiment, Hello Humans.

Specialising in economics, technology and policy, Connelly is working on her first book due out in 2018.

With more than a decade of experience under her belt, Claire has written for leading publications including The Australian Financial Review, The Saturday Paper, ABC, SBS, Crikey, New Matilda, VICE & others. She is the co-host of The Week In Start-Ups Australia, and features regularly as a commentator on TV and radio shows including Radio National's Download This Show, ABC's The Drum, Ten's The Project, and more.
Claire Connelly

Latest posts by Claire Connelly (see all)

7 thoughts on “The case against income tax

  1. Hello Ms. Connelly,

    I’ve written you once before, a couple of months ago, asking if Renegade was actually an organ of Russia Today. You replied (thank you) promptly, in the negative, stating that RT merely has permission to republish.

    Today I am writing to you after reading your piece on income tax. I recently watched a fantastic 100-minute two-part primer for people who have never heard of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). You appear to be one of those people. I was made aware of MMT about a year ago and am sensing that it is currently having a moment extraordinary popularity but it is not w/o a long history (20 years?) of being relegated to obscurity as just another wacky Leftist idea. But it isn’t. Here’s a link to Part One of that primer I mentioned:

    For more info on MMTs leading voices/heterodox economists and financiers, Google Stepahnie Kelton + MMT or Warren Mosler + MMT, respectively. Would love to see Ross interview either of them for a Meet the Renegades piece. Cheers, Bill

  2. The capitalist free market paradigm should result in a fair allocation of resources. In which case the question should be, why isn’t a Poll Tax/Head Tax the only fair/necessary way to fund public spending?

    After all the prices we pay for privately purchased goods and services don’t depend on our income levels or the amount of capital we own. Yet our taxes do. Why is that?

    Capitalism is merely a way of allocating resources via the market. If capitalism exists in a society in which the framework of property rights is unjust, then the market will simply allocate unjustly acquired resources. Excessive inequality and resource misllocation will still be bake in, no matter how efficient the market. Think slavery.

    It’s obvious that the need to tax output is because there isn’t a fair distribution of resources to begin with.

    Any deadweight losses in an economy are therefore telling us we have got something fundamentally wrong with our framework of property rights. It’s truly odd how economists and politicians avoid confronting this conclusion ever.

    A fair and efficient distribution occurs when we all pay what we owe to each other. That being on the harm done principle.

    Those that supply goods and services suffer a loss of opportunity when they are relieved of those goods and services. Which is why we pay compensation for them and theft is illegal. Similarly, a worker suffers a loss of opportunity when they go to work. So their employer pays compensation and is why slavery is illegal.

    However, those that are excluded from valuable natural resources also suffer from a loss of opportunity, measured as what they could have charged to rent out that resource. As we are all equally excluded from each and every plot/title we are entitled to an equal share of the total rental value of all natural resources as our compensatory payment.

    If such payments were made as a citizens dividend, along with all the other user fees, Pigou Taxes, royalties currently collected by the state, then indeed a Poll Tax would be the only fair/necessary tax.

    That’s what happens when we are all paid what we are owed.

  3. As a student of taxation for over 35 years I am now beginning to look at taxation from an entirely different perspective than what I learnt.
    at uni. I agree with your insights Claire and I would just add that maybe we should also tax certain activities that cause pollution, or ill- health like cigarettes to discourage them.
    To finish up I would say we need to distinguish the purpose of taxation from the sound construction of a tax. Effective taxation needs to consider the impacts of a tax across sectors and income groups, and the aggregate compliance costs in collection / administration.

  4. Claire, I wonder if land value tax is regressive for those like myself who have no offsetting income tax to be reduced? Not everyone who owns high value property is income rich. Better to have a capital gains tax that kicks in when the property is sold.
    Brian Feeney

  5. Well said, Claire! There’s much sense in abolishing taxes on wages. Unionists helped establish the Australian Labor Party to introduce a federal land tax in 1910, but both unions and the ALP have now thrown their lot in with property speculators, to ensure workers’ incomes are taxed. And, as you say, it’s not as though taxes are collected in order to be able to fund government programs. Much education needed on that point, too!

  6. Surely income tax, VAT and conceivably all taxation on the 99% could be eliminated (though council tax could be retained by LA’s and some national consumption taxes) by a financial transaction tax (FTT)? All individuals, national and international corporates transact c. £248 Trillions p.a. (BoE figures) a computer at the BoE processes c.£690 Billions per day, it could be programmed to remove 0.16% from the parties to the transaction before clearing the transfer. The 99%’s salary and wages amount to £1.1 Trillion (ONS) they pay c. 50% (£400 Billion) of the tax bill (c. 36% av. tax rate). The other 50% is paid by the 1% and the corporate community who use amounts to c. £247 Trillion (c. 0.16% tax rate)! We are seemingly a nation of ‘suckers’ who are not doing the sucking.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *