Taxation and democracy
The French state budget deficit amounted to 54.70 billion euros as of November 30, compared to 54.87 billion euros on the same date in 2006, the Budget Ministry announced on Thursday. If we exclude the special accounts, however, the deficit widened, going from 46 billion at the end of November 2006 to 46.8 billion a year later. At the end of November 2005, the state deficit amounted to 58.57 billion euros. As of November 30, 2007, general budget expenditure reached 246.42 billion euros compared to 242.21 billion a year earlier. After neutralizing the effects of changes in the scope of the finance law for 2007, general budget expenditure is 4.6 billion higher than that recorded in November 2006.” (AFP, 10/01/2008).
Il ne s’agit là que d’un exemple parmi d’autres, car la plupart des gouvernements (américain, japonais, belge…) sont massivement déficitaires et/ou endettés. Si quelques-uns sont en meilleure position grâce à une situation ou politique conjoncturelle particulière (allemand, canadien…), ce n’est pas nécessairement durable. Ce qui alimente le déficit, c’est le caractère sans frein de l’intervention étatique. Le déficit reflète le développement étatique.
D’abord, les citoyens n’ont pas les moyens de s’opposer aux prélèvements dits «obligatoires», et ce n’est que tout récemment que la notion de service comme contrepartie à ces prélèvements à commencé à être introduite. Il n’existe pas non plus de contrainte bilancielle qui conduirait à constater et prononcer la faillite d’un gouvernement. Ensuite, les dépenses sont alimentées par les demandes et les pressions de différents groupes sociaux, le plus souvent alléchés par l’interventionnisme gouvernemental lui-même. Enfin, l’accroissement des dépenses procède de l’extension indéfinie des «missions» des Etats – missions qu’ils s‘attribuent à eux-mêmes. Bien souvent, la rhétorique interventionniste sert les intérêts de la classe politique : «y a qu’à», «faut qu’on», et même «changeons la culture », voire «la vie»..! Cela leur donne de l’importance, rassure les populations en donnant une impression de dynamisme, et satisfait la clientèle captive que constituent les fonctionnaires ou les bénéficiaires d’aides d’Etat. La rhétorique interventionniste joue avec les peurs, le besoin de sécurité, les alimente pour mieux conforter l’importance des gouvernants et de leurs auxiliaires. Plus ils sont interventionnistes, plus ils sont jugés indispensables.
Pour autant, la dépense dite « publique » (en fait : gouvernementale), souvent grevée de choix erronées et de rigidités administratives, qui passe par de longs circuits sur lesquels nombre d’intermédiaires prélèvent leur dîme, n’est pas aussi efficace que le laissent entendre les gouvernements. Dictée par des représentations ou des anticipations non vérifiées, elle atteint rarement une cible plausible. La dépense gouvernementale est sous-productive et sous-performante.
Nos propositions consistent à diminuer massivement l’impôt sous toutes ses formes, sachant que ce processus doit s’accompagner d’une dévolution de missions à la société civile organisée, aux partenaires sociaux (avec pouvoir réglementaire) et au secteur privé (mais, à la différence du néo-libéralisme, PAS seulement à ce dernier!). Le principe général consiste à introduire une limitation organique du champ d’intervention de l’Etat, associant la désintoxication fiscale avec un accroissement de démocratie.
It is appropriate to revisit tax issues from the perspective of the principles of the rule of law. The rule of law means that the State submits to its own rules. If the fiscal actions of governments were covered by general law, they would fall under numerous criminal and civil qualifications that they themselves have developed: among others and without the list being exhaustive, abuse of dominant position, cartelization of the market, double or over-invoicing, extortion of funds, forced selling, non-compliance with the principle of contradiction, etc. – etc.
1, Democratization of tax procedures:
No government should be authorized to seize a debtor without any judicial supervision. Special administrative and tax jurisdictions must be abolished. Tax issues cannot fall under criminal law. The principles of reciprocity and transparency of general civil law and contract law must be applied to these matters, as well as the principles of contradiction and balance which prevail in matters of general procedure. No government can “exempt” itself from applying these principles.
2, The tax must be direct, declarative, calculable and predictable.
No taxes should be included in the price of goods and services. The State has become the largest capitalist with a net margin of around 21% on a majority of products and services! VAT should be gradually dismantled, and in the meantime, its collectors (merchants) must be paid to collect it. Any form of promotion of mutual control by social actors for the benefit of the State, as in the case of VAT or withholding taxes, is anti-democratic. Since tax is an overall contribution to the functioning of society based on a rule of equity, there cannot be any incentives or rebates for early payments. Fines for delay are possible but must be justified in their destination. What is this money used for? A penalty cannot itself be an element of the State’s lifestyle. Inheritance duties and notary fees do not correspond to any added value of the State and must be abolished.
3, The tax is flat rate, exhaustive.
There cannot be double billing for a public service. For a service, a price. Monopolistic public services should not be charged additionally for taxes. This practice (for example, charging for identity cards and passports) is an abuse, and must be strictly prohibited. Likewise, there can be no forced sale of public services. Consequently, everything that is obligatory must be free.
4, Tax cannot be manipulated by governments in order to influence behavior.
Taxation is not a maneuvering ground for government policy nor a tool for attempting to influence society – based on what are often crude and unverified assumptions about human behavior. Attempts which are most often defeated by society’s response. Governments must act through project financing, regulation and negotiation.
5, The use of funds collected for taxes must be transparent.
The public budget (not to be confused with that of the State) must be transparent, obey impersonal rules, and be brought to the attention of contributors. All information, communication and reporting methods must be developed. Budget execution must be reported. The possibility of modular contributions following priority options, allowing contributors to choose a priority that they wish to advance, must be studied. The notions of service and common good must be reaffirmed as guiding principles of taxation.
6, The overall amount of tax must be reasonable.
The total amount of taxation must not exceed a reasonable share of the population’s income. Current levels are exorbitant, at least in Europe. As far as possible, public services themselves should be self-financing and open to competition (no monopolies).
7, Tax revenue cannot be monopolized by the State.
Public money collected by governments must be open to organized civil society to ensure its development. Several forces must be recognized as capable of bringing about the common good, including governments but not only them.
8, The management of social solidarity must be freed from the shackles of the State.
Social contributions are a matter of solidarity within the community, and must be distinguished from taxes which are a government matter. The management of solidarity must be returned to mutual societies and social partners with regulatory power.
