pull down to refresh
The death of a prolific taxpayer will immediately trigger the imposition of an estate tax on their assets, which will result in the state collecting even more tax revenue than if the taxpayer had remained alive.
Also, it seems you've already dismissed this, but it must be said: killing hostages bad.
reply
The death of a prolific taxpayer will immediately trigger the imposition of an estate tax on their assets, which will result in the state collecting even more tax revenue than if the taxpayer had remained alive.
Death is inevitable. Cutting off the production of future tax revenue now is always preferable to cutting off the production of future tax revenue later.
Also, it seems you've already dismissed this, but it must be said: killing hostages bad.
I agree. Everything about war is bad, and it's even worse if you lose.
reply
There is a secret third position on the far right of the chart, a post-libertarian strategy that I synthesized from @petertodd :
I will try to steelman Peter's argument: Civilians who are paying taxes to aggressive governments are justifiable targets of military action. Since they are able to defect or flee, anyone who remains economically useful to the supply chains of invading forces are accomplices (even if they are merely tax hostages of the same aggressor).
While it seems grim to slay the enemy's hostages, avenging friendly hostages that the aggressor has already slain and preventing them from slaying more friendly hostages in the future is the cost that is weighed against that.
After all, the worst violence the "rebel liberators" can threaten taxpayer hostages with is the same violence that the "national homeland" already threatens them with if they don't pay taxes.