Whenever we talk about taxes we can not avoid the question of fairness. However, in my opinion, the popular concepts of fair taxation are either naive or hypocritical, or both.

On one extreme people say that every citizen regardless of the income if any has the obligation to contribute in taxes to "support the government" and this obligation should fall equally on everybody. It is a very wrong and very harmful view. Ever wondered why in primitive societies the tax burden is so much less than in modern societies? Why a modern society can not be sustained with taxation level that of a primitive society? We will answer this question later giving the reader the time to think about it with his or her own head.

On the other extreme people say that in a capitalist society people get rich by taking advantage of other people, or as Karl Marx would put it by exploiting other people, and at the taxation time the inherent injustice of the system should be corrected. When this view is taken to the extreme the zeal to make everybody more or less equal kills the motivation and brings the system to a stall. This view is also wrong and harmful.

It is important to understand few basic truths. First of all, in a modern society taxes are needed mostly for maintaining the system. Secondly, the system is fundamental to a proper functioning of a modern society. The system creates opportunities to get rich. People get rich not necessarily by exploiting other people but always by taking advantage of the system. Thirdly, the system can be very destructive to major segments of the population. In times it can ruin their cultures, destroy their ways of living and drive them into poverty. I am sure that every business person who reads this would be very upset if the government got sold on communist or socialist ideas and confiscated his or her business. Now, try to imagine that a farmer driven out of his farm by a big business, or a worker losing not only a job but also the market for the only skill set he has probably feels something similar.

The only fair approach to the taxation issue is to admit that the system creates all the business opportunities we have and it is the obligation of those who take advantage of the system to pay back their share of supporting it. It is also their responsibility to pay for all the damages that the system inflicts on anybody else. Taxes should be viewed as nothing more but the business investments. In plain English, only the rich should pay for what only the rich use.

Does my suggestion sound radical? Well, I didn't invent it. These days some cities in the U.S. work on offering low-cost broadband access to the internet. Of course, the telecommunication industry hates the idea and fights it with some curious arguments. "It is unfair to taxpayers", one argument goes. "Suppose I don't want to use the broadband access to the internet - why then do I have to support the service with my taxes?" Well, suppose I don't want to - or don't have the opportunity - to protect my patent rights, hire skillful and educated workforce, have the government build and maintain highways so the workers can commute to my business - why then do I have to pay for all this with my taxes?

Income tax is not the only way to subsidize the rich with poor people's money. Here is a typical example. Along with the application form to renew my car registration I receive a note from my governor. So far very nice. The note says: "... every now and then a tragedy happens - an accident caused by an uninsured driver". Is it your idea of a tragedy? It is not mine idea either. The governor doesn't even care about the accident itself. It is the lack of the insurance that bothers him the most. At the end of the note those uninsured drivers finally get what they deserve. They are labeled as the lowest of the low immoral criminals. Are they? The true criminals here are the insurance industry and its cronies in the state government. Car insurance is nothing more than indirect and very unfair form of taxation. The state laws in spite all the tough talk during election campaign - like forcing the insurance companies to lower the premiums they charge - function as the government enforced wealth distribution. The money flows from the pockets of ordinary people to the pockets of the insurance industry and litigation lawyers. When an uninsured driver gets caught - not necessarily through an accident - a tragedy happens indeed, especially if it happens to the person who has to drive to live but cannot afford car insurance. Even judges realize that and openly warn against the "downward spiral" that faces those who get caught by the wheels of the "tough on the bad drivers" system. And you thought that after elections the law will be tough on insurance companies. Naive thinking. The only tough and absurd new regulations I noticed are aimed at the not-for-profit insurance companies, again in the name of fair competition. When there are so many drivers on the road accidents happen and will always happen. We have a problem and the government, as always, has a solution. Tax them with the most unfair way of taxation. Quite recently in New York City the subway authority introduced $75 fine for walking between the subway cars. In the name of safety. If walking between cars is indeed unsafe why not improve the safety of those passages? Well, I guess the subway authority needs to improve the cash flow and spending money on safety would not accomplish the goal. Not surprisingly, yet another tax sounds like a much better idea.

Do you realize to what extent we ordinary people subsidize all kind of businesses? When I was a child there was a fire in the apartment complex I lived. The apartment was badly burned. Curiously, however, nobody was killed and the fire didn't spread to the other apartments. How was that possible? Well, I was growing up in a country governed by crazy socialist ideas. In spite of that the government demonstrated enough common sense to adopt the strict building codes. Only bricks, steel and concrete could be used to construct the houses. It was also the time when very few flammable gadgets were available on the market. No deadly fumes from plastic carpets or furniture. And by the way, the building codes allowing only non-flammable materials for constructing houses were at least few hundred years old. So, next time when you start wondering if smoke detectors are anything more than a bandaid on a serious problem ask yourself what is your government's excuse for allowing the industry to complicate and endanger your life and then put the burden of coping with it on you. If you think about it, smoke detectors are offering only illusionary protection at the expense of inconvenient maintenance and possible health risks from the radioactive material they contain, not to mention how annoying they become when the batteries get low. But what a lucrative business it is to those who make them in the world where the government requires that everybody uses them.

Is there an alternative to income tax? Of course there is. If Disney or Microsoft want the government to fight the copyrights infrigments they should pay for the service with their own money. So much less taxes to pay out of my pocket. Does Microsoft need more programmers? Then Microsofth should pay the cost of their education with its own money. So much less burden on ordinary people scrambling to provide for education of their children. You say you accumulated enough money and you need to pay no taxes because you owe nobody anything? Well, it takes the system to maintain the value of the money you have. If you want your money to have any purchasing power a year from now you have to pay for this luxery out of your own pocket. Let us bill the businesses for all the services and convenience they now get for free, and which now we support with our taxes, and we will see who starts crying for implementing some socialists ideas in this country. Like the government subsidized education, or public transportation.

The ultimate solution to the tax problem is to abolish taxes altogether. Is it possible? Yes, in the true state as envisioned by Freedom Gates movement, national institutions will make it possible. Impossible? It is only impossible in the world indoctrinated by the corporate propaganda. It is an entirely different matter in the real world.