Taxes

Taxes. Game by the rules and without.

This book examines the issue of human rights observance by the state. State policy, state laws, state law enforcement practice. Therefore, the word economy means not only the size of GDP, but also the size of budget revenues.

Budget revenues are made up of two large groups of revenues. The first is the taxes paid by citizens and firms. The second is cross-border income - customs duties and excise taxes, as well as payments for transit, i.e. for the flight of aircraft over the territory of the country, transit transportation of goods by rail, highways, coastal waters, for the transportation of oil and gas through pipelines, etc. In addition, the collection of payments for the right to enter the country (visas) or the right of residence (temporary or permanent residence permit), as well as income from the sale of citizenship - the right to obtain citizenship for one or another type of payment. It all can be attributed to the cross-border revenues of the state. The latter version of income in most countries is extremely poorly developed and, as a rule, is veiled under "investments", "business migration" and so on. It would be much more honest to sell passports if there is a demand for them. This would reduce the tax burden on residents or generate additional income to build a road, school, hospital for residents.

Actually, only the second group of income - cross-border payments can be considered the net profit of the state. After all, the first group - taxes - is payment by residents of a package of services that the state has undertaken to provide them.

And in the case of this first group of "incomes", with taxes, with payment of state services by citizens, one can fully observe the violation of human rights by the state.

Law-abiding citizens and businesses pay taxes to the state. This is the first and largest source of budget revenues.

However ... what are taxes? This is money that one entity pays to another.

But ... Money can only be spent in exchange for goods or services.

Then we should only talk about an honest price for an honestly provided service. After all, getting paid for a clearly defined and rendered service is easier and wiser. And the other is fraud ...

Payment for an understandable service does not raise questions or a desire to evade payment. Something is wrong with the services that the state owes for taxes, since almost all residents are trying to "evade" from paying them.

A guarantee of a fair deal, honest service is complete information about this service and its cost. With this, in terms of taxes, the problem is huge.

Maybe taxes are payment not for services?

It happens, of course, if it is:

1. Taking care of children;

2. Charity, gift;

3. Penalty;

4. Robbery, fraud or theft.

But in the case of charity and a gift, the amount is determined by the donor, not the recipient, i.e. not by the state.

A penalty is imposed for something. I hope that the state does not fine its residents with taxes on a monthly basis for living in the country ...

It is unlikely that the state is an analogue of a child that the inhabitants have brought themselves and who needs to be constantly fed and clothed ... A child can be deprived of, for example, sweets for bad behavior.

There are only two options left - payment for services or robbery, fraud, theft.

I hope that taxes are still the first, i.e. services, not a second. Although, historically, taxes originated from extortions (racketeering, tribute, robbery).

It was like this ... if short ...

A mob (group, squad) of strong, armed and impudent men who loved to fight, but did not plow the ground, gathered. They came to the village, town and said - give us what we ask ...

If the people in the village were strong, the gang left with bruises. If the forces were unequal, then village had to give the good.

But ... there were many such squads. And there are few villages. And often it turned out that they came to rob, but there was nothing to rob.

And then the gangs figured out that they would "protect" some villages from other gangs in order to rob them individually.

Well, this made the peasants a little easier. The robberies became somewhat less.

This is how the first contract and the first tax appeared.

It was a defense tax.

However, if you remember the beginning of the emergence of this tax, it becomes obvious that it is actually quite artificial and imposed by force.

Further, states were formed that simply confiscated (expropriated) for their needs a part (a significant part, almost all, and even completely all) of the results of the labor of those who created something.

For neither the gang-squad nor the state created anything that civilians could not create.

An additional item for levies has appeared - administration (courts, maintenance of the management apparatus, etc.). But this apparatus was needed not by residents, but by the authorities. Those. residents were not provided with any necessary service.

The state took, seized, using force, wrapped the force in the letters of the law. It took much more than it gave in return.

At some point, it became too noticeable, and peaceful people reached for axes.

Then the state came up with all sorts of "social guarantees" and other paternalistic gadgets, which today are positioned as public services and care for society. These services are very expensive for taxpayers, and the benefits from them are very small, if only because most of the money ends up in the pockets of distribution officials in the form of salaries and other expenses. And only a smaller part reaches people, consumers of services.

Thus, according to Milton Friedman, the share of officials who regulate various social programs in the United States "eaten up" in the 1980s accounted for about half of the total amount of taxes allocated to various social benefits. This half was spent on salaries and other expenses of officials from the social distribution and regulatory system.

Any business would have gone bankrupt long ago with such unproductive expenses.

It would be like paying a waiter in a restaurant for poor service a tip equal to the cost of dinner. Or pay for the packaging of groceries in the supermarket in the amount of their full value just for the fact that they will be packaged for you.

But you can't not pay, because a refusal entails a visit by a tax inspector.

As a result of dexterous manipulations of the authorities, which were always threatened by the worker's ax, the original agreement "extortion in exchange for protection" turned into a treaty of taxes in exchange for a rather large list of services, which are different in different countries.

In general, they can be represented as follows: external and internal security, education, health care, infrastructure, administration, pensions, etc.

However, not all of these services were (and are) of high quality, not all are needed by every resident.

But everyone needs to pay. And not because the service is needed, but because - if you don't pay - you will meet with force. It is no coincidence, perhaps, the term "taxation" is so similar in sound to "impose tribute." (on russion)

So hooligans sometimes offer "buy a brick".

For some reason, no hairdresser would think to charge the residents of the nearest house a monthly fee for a haircut. He only takes from those he cuts.

But he has no tax squad. And the state does. And the state "cuts" everyone.

At the same time, the state is acting quite cunningly. It collects where it is easier (i.e. taxes are charged on what is easier to check - VAT (in each check), taxes on payroll, real estate, large property, income tax, excise taxes, etc.), and the service provides such that it is not always easy to check its quality (protection, education, medicine, pensions). Yes, and it is not clear - and for what service a person or company paid, having paid a tax, for example, VAT - for safety or for education ...

Let's look at the structure of typical taxes that are found in almost all countries.

Value Added Tax (VAT). This is a tax on the difference in price between buying and selling.

For example, a builder bought logs for 100 coins, built a house and sold it for 150 coins. From the difference (from 50 coins), he must pay the state in the form of tax a certain percentage (15-30%). It is different in different countries. And in this case, it is not the interest rate that is important, but the principle.

A legitimate question arises - why, for what? Is there any reason to pay any interest in this case.

After all, the state in no way participated in the process. Didn't help create a difference, added value. Everything was done by the builder himself.

The fact that the state could interfere with the builder, demanding dozens of certificates, licenses, certificates and approvals, will be commented below. It is unlikely that this "service" was needed by the builder, the number of orders for which depends on the quality of his work, and not on the official certificate.

Another tax. Rather, a group of taxes - payroll taxes. This is money that the "job" (business, firm, director) must pay to the state from the accrued salary of each of its employees, monthly, even before the accounting department gives the salary to the employee himself. The employee is often unaware of this tax. And it can be equal to half of what the employee receives "on hand". Half!

Question. What service has the government provided to a business or an employee this month? A service that costs half of this employee's salary!

But even if not half, but a third or 10 percent ... For what? For air? What public service this month for all residents was worth this part of their salary? Maybe the state took each of them in a limousine to and from work?

Likewise with income tax. This tax is deducted from income when the salary is paid and is visible on the payroll. If the tax is a payment for a service, then what service was provided to a specific person in the current month in the amount of 10-15 percent or more of his salary?

And if the service is not provided, then these are not taxes. This deception turns out.

It is even more ridiculous when income tax and payroll taxes are paid on the salaries of civil servants. Such a transfer from the right pocket to the left. At the same time, additional resources are spent on shifting (time, accountant's salary, tax inspection expenses, etc.). A completely meaningless action from an economic point of view. Money is paid from the budget, and tax is paid to the budget.

Or take real estate tax or car tax. As an example of tax fraud and extortion. After all, the owner had already paid taxes on his salary before he bought this property. And the state has not done anything useful for this property or person during the "tax year". But it is convenient for the state to collect money (taxes) for this property again. On the second, and then on the third, and more. Telling that there is no double taxation. And for the entire time of owning property, a person regularly pays this super tax to the state, which as a result turns into a significant additional percentage of the purchase price. And this despite the fact that when buying real estate or a car, a significant part of the price ... also taxes.

If the state could, then tax on socks and televisions would probably take annually, probably. But this property does not require state registration, so it is difficult to tax it ... And here the state has to be content with 15-30% VAT. From each check of the store, because the store is easy to check.

It is important to understand that value added tax - VAT is hidden in each product. Those. after receiving a salary, a person, making purchases, again pays tax. Tax on the right to spend honestly earned money!

I'd like to know what such invaluable state services were additionally rendered, if the buyer pays VAT 100 coins when buying a car, and 10 coins when buying a TV. If there is a difference in price, it means that there is a difference in the quality of public services when buying a TV, as opposed to a car.

And what additional services did the state provide to the manufacturer of the imported computer or to the buyer, taking 20 VAT coins for these services, and 1 VAT coin for non-imported bread?

There is absolutely no logic in interest taxation. Except for deception, of course.

What is easier to plan, control and take into account? A lump sum receipt or a percentage of something that also needs to be verified? And, most importantly, why, if the product (service) does not receive any additional properties and value in the process of adding a tax percentage?

A specific service costs specific money, not a percentage. And if the tax of a certain person is 100 coins per year (month), then all that needs to be checked is whether he paid for public services, paid the tax. This is done as simply as checking the payment for heating or mobile communications.

If the tax was calculated not as a percentage, but in a fixed amount, would an accountant be needed then? Would you need a tax inspector? No.

Both the payment of such a tax and the verification are much simpler and more transparent. The control of such receipts is fully executable by a computer program, and, if necessary, by the police, court, bailiffs (by analogy with fines). This approach does not require special knowledge to create reports and payments, as well as for verification.

So non-production of goods and services, the work of the accounting department becomes unnecessary, the costs of an accountant and tax inspection disappear from the economy. People (accountant, inspector) stop meaningless activities and can do creative work. Build, grow, invent, teach, etc. Create, not transfer papers and numbers from one folder to another and back.

By the way, this would greatly reduce the cost of public services. Incl. the amount of taxes.

For example, the imposed accounting service would disappear, the budget costs for tens and hundreds of thousands of tax inspectors.

Why is this an imposed service? Because, when changing a wheel or selling bread, it never occurs to anyone to slip the customer a questionnaire that must be filled out, and then also make him pay for the completion check (after all, the salary of a tax inspector is included in the cost of the service, in the amount of tax).

The same can be said for almost any tax.

And, in the end, I would like to see the price list with services and their cost. List of public services that the state provides (sells) to residents for taxes. And the cost of these services, of course. Specific. In coins. Otherwise, it turns out to be some kind of bazaar.

In part, perhaps this is the answer to the question of why some people are cunning with taxes. Just because they suspect, they feel that they are being deceived by selling the same service to different people at different prices. Moreover, without naming the final price, but simply putting his hand in the pocket of the buyer (taxes hidden in excise duties and taxes on goods, and taxes paid by the employer). They also cheat with the quality of service. After all, if the quality is bad, then somehow you don't want to buy. But in the case of public services, there is no chance of refusing to buy, because “buy a brick”.

Let's look at the situation from the other side.

Why should a startup or store pay tax at all? What services does the state provide for this tax to a startup, store, factory?

The plant, the piece of iron, does not need any services.

You certainly do need protection, education, treatment, etc. Machines and buildings do not need these services.

The state provides all services to residents. And only residents need these services. This means that the tax should be taken only from residents. And only for the really rendered service.

True, residents will then be very interested in the quality and cost of the service offered.

However, they will not have any questions about paying for an understandable and necessary service.

Now, when an enterprise pays a huge share of the payment for public services, a person does not see how much money he actually spends on public services. At the same time, the enterprise gives the state exactly the employee's money in the form of taxes on wages.

In this situation, the enterprise acts as a "collector". This way of collecting taxes appeared just to replace the old "collectors" who went around houses and collected taxes from people.

Why do we need a collector? Does anyone go and collect fees for access to the network, gas, electricity? An extra link means extra costs. Those. empty costs. Extra checks - extra costs. The cost of the service in connection with these extra costs increases many times.

The government says it provides pensions, medical treatment, education ...

However, I would like to ask - what are people - small children, they themselves will not figure out how to save for old age, will not be able to pay a doctor or teacher, school?

Especially if they receive all the money earned (i.e. 1.5-2 times more), and not part.

Are pensions, medical treatment and education good, for the needs of which half of each salary is spent every month? Does the state provide a quality service?

The state actively supports the myth that it "redistributes" in support of social justice.

Well, let there be a redistribution, if we agreed on it. But why is more "redistributed" (in coins) from a successful, effective, talented, smart and hardworking than from a stupid and lazy person?

The second question related to redistribution is to whom and for what?

Pensioners? But what if a person puts 10 coins every month in his bank account with a 30-year contract and interest? Will he need a pension fund and a state pension service?

Let's take a look at the example of Russia.

Monthly, 22% is withheld from the employee's salary to the pension fund. This 22% is included in payroll taxes.

If this money were not withheld from a person, and he could save it himself, then with a salary of even $ 1,000 a month, over 40 working years, from 25 to 65, he would have accumulated more than $ 100,000. At 65, this person would have retired. And in order to spend all his savings, he would have to spend 1000 dollars a month for 10 years, i.e. up to 75 years old.

If the salary was higher, then the savings, of course, were also higher.

What, then, is the meaning of state pensions for this person?

The same is with child benefits.

Usually people do not give birth and raise children for the sake of benefits.

At the same time, a significant percentage of the salary is taken from successful people to pay child benefits to those who specifically give birth to many children and live on benefits.

At the same time children, from whose parents money is taken to support other families are discriminated against. Their opportunities are diminishing as to what would have happened if the money had not been taken from their parents. There is no logical justification for this discrimination.

What is better - to give birth and raise 1-2-3 children, but with good quality, with a good education and upbringing, or 5, and sit on benefits, giving children a weak education and poor conditions for starting? Isn't it wiser to live within your means, responsibly approaching the birth of children, especially since there are enough contraceptive options on the market for both men and women?

Which child is more important to the economy? The one who gets a good education in a small family and invents a robot that will clean the streets? Or a child from a large family who will not be able to get a good education and will work as a janitor?

If the family has little money, then it may be wiser to limit itself to one child, but invest more energy and money in him, giving him a good education and a start in life?

So a very big question arises, is redistribution necessary?

Does redistribution help the economy improve the quality of life for people? In connection with this principle, it is important to note that now social benefits, additional payments, etc. "stand out", i.e. before they reach people, some of them are spent on salaries and other allocating and distributing officials. And this, of course, reduces the final amount of aid.

It turns out that this is some form of self-help for officials. After all, it is much easier to take less taxes than then spend part of the same taxes on the functioning of the distribution mechanism.

Or people are an unreasonable herd, to which the state pours something from its barns into a common trough (having previously filled them with what it took away from these same people). Or people are completely rational beings and can manage their own money.

If the authorities were really concerned about the decrease in the number of poor people, then why not exempt these poor people from all taxes? Including payroll taxes?

Why not abolish VAT or sales tax on all goods except luxury, so that it is cheaper for the poor to buy?

On luxury, of course, you also need to abolish VAT, since the rich spend the money they earn, which taxes have already been paid. And to demand any additional tax payment from the rich as a punishment for their wealth is somehow strange.

The state is fraudulent with taxes at every turn. The simultaneous presence of income tax and VAT (or US sales tax) implies very simple fraud. Namely, double taxation. First, a person pays tax to get the money they earn, and then they pay tax again when they spend their salary.

What is the state? This is a community of people in a certain territory, living according to the same laws, i.e. who have concluded a general agreement among themselves. And some people provide services to others. Some people sell goods to others. One business to another, etc.

If the state acts as an equal counterparty, and does not come with a knife and an offer "which cannot be refused," then it would be fair if the state formulated what services it sells to residents and businesses and how much these services cost.

Then taxes would look something like this.

Army tax (external security) - a service is needed by both residents and businesses - a request to announce the price (to determine the price, for example, there is a parliament).

Police tax (internal security - from thieves, bandits, hooligans, etc.) is also a necessary service.

It can be combined into a "tax on protection" or, more simply, "payment for the protection of the rights and freedoms of residents by the state." For if this is something else, then it is not clear why you have to pay for something other than protecting the inhabitants, i.e. yourself, your family, village, street, city.

Administration tax (this is for the parliament, city hall, officials and other structures) is a necessary service. Or maybe not. Or maybe you need it, but in a much smaller volume and at a much lower price. Maybe there will be fewer laws, sucked from the finger. And the desire to seize power, to become an official, will decrease, because the salaries will become more modest.

In short - to live within our means, as most people live, and the state would also be worth it.

The place of receipt (payment) of the tax is also important. For example, a tax on infrastructure (roads, etc.) should probably go to local budgets, from which the demand will be for the quality and quantity of roads.

But retirement, education and medicine are somehow without the state.

It will be more honest and transparent.

And then a person will pay monthly out of his pocket for the army, police, infrastructure or administration, as he pays for the Internet, telephone or electricity.

And then the question will be "for the quality" of services.

But the state really does not want to be asked "for quality" ... and continues to sell a very vague list of services of very average quality for a very high price.

She also likes to talk about how difficult it is to collect taxes ...

It is not difficult for power grids, it is not difficult for utilities, it is not difficult for a music school, taxi drivers, telecommunications ... is it difficult for the state?

The state, having an army of inspectors, etc.

Interesting math turns out ...

Those. the state is unable to provide itself with the service of collecting payments, but imposes some of its services on residents and businesses for huge sums of money? Is this healthy logic or does the state need a psychiatrist?

By the way, for administration, i.e. salaries and related expenses, all public services spend a significant share of the budget. Indeed, for the distribution of money in medicine, education, for pension payments or benefits, special officials and structures receive salaries and funding from the same taxes. It is difficult to think of a more inefficient use of funds. Crumbs reach real service providers.

What's the matter and what to do?

The modern tax system was formed not so long ago.

For example, VAT (value added tax) was first introduced in France in 1958, and in most European countries even later - after 1972.

Various countries have tried to introduce income tax since the 15th century. As a rule, this ended in a riot, and the tax was canceled. In its modern form, this tax was introduced in Great Britain less than 200 years ago - in 1842, and in the USA in 1862.

If people now realized that the real income tax, which they pay is not 12-15%, but more than 50% is income + taxes on the payroll fund, then the riots would probably repeat themselves. Therefore, payroll taxes are charged and paid "secretly" from the employee.

Thus, the modern system was not at all eternal and will not be eternal. And at the moment it is corny outdated.

For if taxes are established for reasons of "easier to collect", then these are tribute.

If the tax burden on a resident (voter) is hidden in non-obvious VAT, excise taxes, payroll taxes, then this is a deception. For the state pretends that it provides residents with great services in exchange for only a small income tax.

However, the real component of all taxes, excise taxes, etc. in the cost of a product or service is rarely less than 50% and often approaches 80%.

However, change is inevitable. After buying a service, we pay for the service, for example, for a haircut. And we will be very surprised if the hairdresser says that we owe him 5 coins for a haircut and another 5 for teaching his child. Or that all residents of the house owe him 5% of their salary, no matter what kind of haircut, whether there is styling, painting, or whether they have a haircut at the hairdresser's at all. State services are no different from those of a hairdresser.

Now let's look at income tax. A tax that everyone pays and everyone knows about. It is calculated as a percentage.

Those. for the same service, for the same product, different people pay different prices. It is amazing.

After all, the same service from the same master costs the same money. The same product, for example a loaf of bread, costs the same for a pensioner and a millionaire. And for some reason they pay for government services differently.

Let's say a worker gets 100 coins and pays 10 coins of income tax. And the boss gets 500 coins and pays 50 “income” coins for the same services - protection, education, medicine, infrastructure.

But the worker does not invest in a bodyguard, an alarm, an armored door. But the boss invests, ensuring his safety, to a certain extent, himself.

The boss sends the children to a paid school, is treated in a private clinic. Why then does he pay for the service of state education or state medicine, which he does not use?

If the service is more expensive, then it is probably better. Then it turns out that for the director the road is cleaner and smoother, the police and the army protect him better, and in public schools and hospitals he is better taught and treated ... The boss is protected by two soldiers, and the worker by one?

But this is not so.

Both the worker and the director use the same quality of roads, police and army.

But they pay differently.

It is the same as if in a store a buyer in a fur coat was sold bread for 10 coins, and to a buyer in a jacket for 1 coin ...

Or if for the same internet speed or a minute of conversation on a mobile phone, a worker would pay 1 coin, and a director two. On what, excuse me, the basis?

Or on what basis should a director pay more for a kilowatt of energy, a cubic meter of gas, a ton of water?

And when the tax is charged as a percentage, this is exactly what happens.

It would be much more honest if the state clearly announced its services and their cost. Actual prices, not percentages.

It is more honest both for residents and for business (business, more precisely people doing business, also need security, administration, infrastructure).

Why is a successful company that has achieved greater turnover, profit, etc. with its professionalism, energy and brains should pay more taxes than a less intelligent and lazier competitor? How do public services for the first enterprise differ from public services for the second? Are the roads better? Are the laws different? Is the protection more reliable? No. There is no difference in the quality of public services for different enterprises. So, it turns out that the smart, talented and hardworking should pay for government services for the stupid and lazy? After all, the services will be the same, but the cost for each will be different. After all, taxes on sales or profits are also charged as a percentage.

What services did the state provide additionally to a successful company, taking from it a profit tax in the amount of 10 coins (or percent) and not taking from an unsuccessful one a single profit tax coin that it does not have? How did the state help one business to make a profit, but did not help another? And if it did not help either there or there, then why does it claim a share of the profit?

And if no additional services were provided, then what is this money for then? And what is the name of the operation when money is demanded, but nothing is given in return?

This is usually called a robbery. And people try to avoid robbers.

How often do people not pay for services? Do they often not pay for gas, electricity, water, music school, etc.? According to statistics, it is quite rare. In any case, less often than they try to evade paying taxes.

And somehow all these private structures cope with receiving payment without an army of collectors who "eat" a significant part of the collected by their salaries and other expenses. After all, the budget spends huge amounts of money collected from taxpayers on inspectors.

Why is this happening? Why, in one case, people pay peacefully, while in another case an army of collectors is required?

Because in the case of gas or communications - that a private service is clearly marked and provided. A service ordered by a person or a business is voluntary and knowingly.

Taxes are payment for imposed, sometimes unnecessary, sometimes low-quality, sometimes excessively expensive services. Therefore, people and businesses are not very willing to pay taxes, although the risk of non-payment is higher - at least fines.

It's all about the non-transparency of the payment, the feeling of "extortion".

After all, it is very difficult to understand why you need to pay income or other tax. What did the state do, what service did it provide to the employee or business in the month when he worked 8 hours a day and earned something?

And what is the contribution of the state to the profit received by the company for the year? But there is a tax on profit. Why on earth? What kind of government services made it possible to obtain this profit? None.

But, for example, the road tax - everything is clear with it - so that roads are built and repaired. No questions, tax paid.

The first step towards honesty. It remains to repair the roads.

An honestly announced service, a high-quality service, an honestly indicated price of the service could significantly reduce the budget costs for collecting payments.

For at the moment - taxes are payment for services.

The service should be written clearly and honestly.

Other payments without an intelligible reciprocal service (taxes, duties, excise taxes) must be canceled.

A well-defined and high-quality service is the way to good collection of taxes (payments).

With this formulation of the question, the cost of collection decreases by orders of magnitude and tends to zero.

Honest service - honest payment.

Will the state have enough courage to honestly identify its services and honestly sell them?

However ... what is a state? These are residents, citizens. Those. do we have the courage to do this?

In the near future, only those countries where the authorities serve as only one of the service structures that provide residents with comfort will be competitive and economically efficient.

Some officials, some people in power, in some countries understand this. But not everywhere and almost never 100%. Hence the conflict, to some extent civilizational.

The post-industrial, informational economy does not need a state in its former, rather unsightly and moldy form.

But people who go to power sometimes think differently and begin to meddle in business, regulating what they do not understand, imposing their own, very expensive and stupid services, forgetting to ask if a particular resident needs them. Given that the quality of the "services", as a rule, leaves much to be desired.

Let's start with security.

Why is a police officer paid by the federal budget and commanded by a federal minister?

Residents need a policeman who will ensure order in their city (village). And they are ready to pay him for it. Let it be called a tax, or service charge. No matter. The city does not need a minister. The city needs a sheriff.

The sheriff tells the residents how much and for what money he needs. Residents pay for these needs if they agree. And they, by the way, choose this sheriff.

But the sheriff can already transfer something to the ministry, if, of course, the ministry will provide this police station with the necessary services.

A total of one line less in federal uncontrolled and non-transparent taxes.

In terms of security, only such expenses (taxes, fees) as expenses for the army (external protection), security services (catching spies, terrorists, etc.) and diplomatic services, including the presidential ones, should be left at the federal level.

The situation is similar with officials and deputies.

Residents need a mayor. As a person who will solve their little local problems. If the mayor needs ministers, deputies (probably needed), then he will send part of his budget to the federal center. And immediately there will be fewer people wishing to become mayors (since the mayor's budget is in sight), and deputy ministers, because the residents will "appoint" their salaries through the mayor's budget. And it is unlikely that they will assign them a higher salary than they receive themselves.

This will greatly reduce the overall tax rate.

For the percentage of salaries of officials and deputies, as well as other expenses for their maintenance, is a very large share of the budget.

And the point here is not only that the money will remain in the pocket of business or citizens, but that it will work in the economy, and not be spent on salaries for the “regulating” center, which creates more vanity and stupidity than does any good.

This way of paying and distributing taxes will significantly reduce the number of officials creating excessive regulation and hassle for residents, with the sole purpose of justifying the existence of their position and salaries.

And all that will actually remain with the federal center is presidential structures, diplomats, military and other "external relations" and external security.

The residents will pay for their labor and needs.

A clear amount, not a percentage. Perhaps once a year, not monthly.

By the way, social, or rather charitable, fees should also go to the local budget, as well as communication (roads, infrastructure), because at the local level it is better to know where to build or repair a road, where you need to help a disabled person or a family in trouble.

Now let's discuss education.

Every month, every resident, every business pays taxes, some of which are then spent by the state on "free" education.

Those. about the "free" state is simply lying. It is paid. Moreover, it is an imposed, very expensive and not always high-quality service.

But anyone who wants to teach a child in a private school still has to first pay for "free" education.

According to the state, everyone should pay for "free" education. And those whose children study at home, in the family. And those whose children go to private schools. And those who attend the state "free" school.

It turns out that not everyone needs the intrusive service of "free" education. But the state has already taken the money for this service. From parents. From their income, from their labor, salaries. Those. she took money for a service that the resident does not use. And the money is not small!

In addition to paying for "free" education, in order to ensure this payment, the government forces residents to maintain a huge army of tax officials and an equal army of officials who manage "free" education. And they need buildings, salaries, and so on. And residents also pay for this through taxes. Those. a resident pays to have his money taken! And the business pays!

An amazing service of the state is the service of forcibly taking away honestly earned money. I wonder which of the voters ordered this service?

All this increases the cost of poor government service at times! After all, the collector is worth much more than a simple receipt. And this collector is needed only so that the resident does not see the receipt. After all, a receipt is a check. There is a check, but no service. There is a check, but the service is too expensive. And then the resident will sit over the check, think ... and change the government, which sells its services at exorbitant prices.

What if a resident pays for the school? Then he can choose which school to pay and if he doesn’t like it, change the school. However, the reasons for this will disappear rather quickly, since the director would rather kick out a bad teacher than lose the source of funding, i.e. resident.

And a good teacher will get more freedom, because the inhabitants will lead their children to him and go to another school after him.

And now the director is not a sovereign at all, but a simple manager who provides good teachers and their students with a comfortable learning environment. I think that a good director will only be happy with this turn.

Simply, honestly, everyone benefits. Except for bad ministers, directors and other "watchmen" who only get in the way. But for a good director and minister, this financing system is beneficial.

“We are convinced,” wrote Milton Friedman, “that the increasing role of government in financing and managing education has led not only to huge losses of taxpayers' money, but also to a significantly worse education system compared to that which would have been developed. "

Let's analyze the "free" school education using the example of Russia.

In Russia, 5% of payroll taxes are education taxes.

Suppose that 10 families decide not to pay this 5% educational tax, but to hire a primary school teacher for their 10 children to teach them at home.

Each parent's salary is $ 1000 per month.

Each family will pay $ 100 to a private teacher for their child.

10 students will bring the teacher $ 1,000 in income.

In the public education system, he would have to teach 25 children (2.5 times more) for less than $ 500 a month (2 times less).

It is 5 times more profitable for a teacher to work outside the state system.

It is more profitable for parents to teach children outside the state system, since the class is 2.5 times smaller (10 students instead of 25), which means that teaching will be more effective. And the price is the same.

It would be just as effective to organize instruction in the senior grades in private, if, for example, schoolchildren are taught not by lessons, but in cycles. Physics month, biology month, etc.

Of course, salaries differ in different regions. But not only from parents, but also from teachers.

Thus, the amount changes, but the proportion and principle remain unchanged. And they mean that it is more profitable for parents not to pay the "educational" part of the tax and hire private teachers with this money. This will increase the teacher's salary and improve the quality of teaching.

Incidentally, at a $ 1,000 salary for each parent, the deduction for their child's "free education" in a crowded classroom by an exhausted and impoverished teacher is $ 1,200 a year.

For comparison, it is useful to know that in 1978 the US budget spent 2000 dollars a year on the education of one American student.

Thus, even by American standards, parents in Russia pay almost entirely for the "free" education of their children.

If we take into account that at least 50% of taxes are deposited in ministries and do not reach schools, then it turns out that parents completely support the “free” school, and they also pay officials.

Now let's look at healthcare, medicine.

The situation here is completely analogous to the "free education" system. For Russia, this correspondence is so complete that even the share of taxes paid for health care is similar - 5%.

Those. any citizen earning $ 1,000 a month, if he didn’t pay this tax, could independently save $ 600 a year for paid medical services. Considering that most people rarely use the services of doctors, then in a few years this amount will grow so much that a person, without prejudice to his daily budget, will be able to allocate sums of thousands of dollars for his health, i.e. pay for any paid surgery and other expensive medical services. The service is of high quality, the service is fast, the service is comfortable.

What is happening now instead?

The state collects a tax on health care. And then, as it were, it returns as a "free" medicine service.

But if it returns, it means not "free".

And for some reason it returns to everyone. Even for those who don't need it. Those. imposes.

The quality of such imposed services is known: queues to a family doctor, an appointment with specialists for many months in advance, many months of waiting for planned operations.

At the same time, there are people who never turn to "free" institutions for help.

This means that the state took money from them in the form of a tax for a service not provided. Those. deceived. They took the money, but did not render the service.

Thus, "free" medicine, both in form and in essence, and in the size of state cheating, is in no way inferior to "free" education.

As you can see, a person himself is quite capable of paying for the basic medical services he needs, if he is not taxed to pay for “free” healthcare.

As for special situations, serious illnesses, accidents, it is solved quite simply. Through insurance, direct attachment to the hospital, personal savings.

Where will the savings come from?

So if the state does not provide a service, then it does not need to pay taxes for it. And immediately personal savings arise. Taxes are, after all, payment for the service provided, not a tribute to the khan.

And the taxes are big. If a resident could take all the money earned and pay from it, then his income would be 50-80-90% higher, depending on the country!

And the question arises ... If a person is able to drive a bus or an airplane, do surgical operations, design robots and create computer programs, then really he cannot cope with the financial planning of his life, he will not be able to postpone, save, or even increase the earned to pay for training, medical services, postpone for old age?

Even illiterate grandmothers in remote villages manage to save and save "for the grave" from their meager incomes, and the pilot, surgeon, salesman and others will cope with this no worse ... But the authorities do not trust them. He trusts to do a microsurgical operation, trusts to operate a fighter jet, and does not trust to save money for old age. Why? Because pensions are the biggest scam.

It is beneficial for the state to withdraw income from people on a monthly basis under the promise of a future pension.

Why is it beneficial?

Before paying a salary to an employee, the accounting department transfers 30-50% (depending on the country) of his salary to the state in the form of taxes "on the payroll", after which another 12-20% is deducted from the person paying his salary (depending on from the country) "income tax". There are countries where the percentage of these taxes is even higher.

In total, on a monthly basis, half or more of the money he earned is taken from a person under the pretext of the myth of "pension" and myths about other "free benefits".

One might think that a working person cannot cope with saving for his old age on his own. He will cope with a CT scanner, he will cope with the capture of a bandit, he will cope with quantum physics, he will cope with car repairs, but he will not be able to save money. Absurd!

Initially, the system was created as one of the "social guarantees". But how everything that is created by officials turned out to be beneficial not to people, not to pensioners, but to the state officials themselves.

What happens now with the employee's money, after they have been taken, ostensibly in order to “pay the pension” later? To begin with, they will build, illuminate and heat buildings for officials of pension funds. Then with the same money they will buy official cars for officials and pay their salaries.

Do you want your old age money to be spent like this? And what will be left of them in the end?

Right. Pennies.

But they will not be paid to everyone either.

They will not pay those who died and died before reaching retirement age. And not all survive.

And at this moment, the state pockets for itself a significant part of the earnings of people who did not live to retire.

Precisely what he pockets, robbing now even the children and heirs of the deceased resident, because if the deceased person had saved himself, he would have transferred this money to the children in the form of funds in a bank account or bundles of money in a safe. But no. The authorities have them and they will not give them up!

Attempts to ignore mandatory pension contributions are constantly being undertaken by people in secret, accompanied by tax evasion, "gray" and "black" markets. Some people do this explicitly. For example, Amish farmers in the United States refused to pay pension contributions and accept welfare payments. They saw this as a violation of their individual freedom. It all ended with the state taking away some of their livestock and selling it to pay the necessary contributions. This, of course, is violence and violation of property rights. But let's leave that to the citizens of the United States for analysis.

The second pension fraud.

Not everyone will live to be 70, 80, etc. And the state will not have to pay the accumulated residents in full.

The third pension hoax is the banal purchasing power of money, which is decreasing under the influence of inflation.

At 30, for 100 coins given as a tax to the state, a person could buy, for example, a TV and a refrigerator. At 65, upon retirement, he will receive these 100 coins back from the state, but he will only be able to buy a TV with them.

Those. by the time of retirement money is getting much cheaper. In some countries, by tens of percent, in some twice, in some tens of times. All this reduces the obligations of the state, which, by the way, spent 100 coins as soon as received, without waiting for this money to "fall in price."

Those. every year the state's obligations to the residents are concealed, and the government's pocket money is growing.

It would be much more honest, upon reaching the retirement age, to transfer all the money owed to the resident to his account. How much is needed, when necessary - he will take it himself. And if something remains, it will go to children and heirs.

But this is not beneficial to the state, which has trite a large part of the residents' savings, and wants to pocket a significant part of the remainder.

But when a pensioner has a round sum on his account and he is, thus, completely independent, state will not be able to manipulate him with a "pension increase".

It is this, and not something else, the true reason why the state does not allow a person to save up for old age, robbing him of his entire working life every month under the pretext of a “pension”.

So the promise of pensions is the biggest fraud.

But everything can be solved simply and quickly. Without waiting for the transition to a system of payment for public services on receipts.

Those who want to play the game "pension" should leave taxes "as is." The person has the right to choose. Even unsuccessful.

If a person pays or has paid taxes "for retirement", then upon reaching the retirement age, at his request, pay all at once to his account or make monthly payments.

For those who do not want to play in the "pension" - remove the "pension" component from taxes. Moreover, from payroll taxes too. Give an opportunity to save on your own.

There are many ways to save for retirement without resorting to the Pension Fund or hiding money under your mattress. For example, you can make pension contributions to your personal special account, for example, urgent, renewable, ten-year. A resident can oblige his bank to do this automatically, by agreement, upon receipt of salary or other funds on the account. Moreover, there is no problem automatically, when receiving a salary in one bank, to allocate money to three or four personal pension (urgent multi-year renewable) accounts in different banks, minimizing bank risks in the long term. Banks, by the way, will also benefit from this. At the same time, the ineffective use of money for "feeding" the Pension Fund will be avoided.

It is the same with education and medicine. Remove the "educational" and "medical" component from taxes and give a person the right to manage his own money, the result of his labor, his property.

What will happen in the end?

People will be more independent, more responsible and freer.

People will have a choice.

Education and health care will improve their quality through the development of private clinics, schools, as well as other forms of education and treatment, which will be created by a private entrepreneurial initiative with money paid by people who are free from mandatory tax deductions for “free” state services they do not need.

Older people will live with dignity, and not beg for handouts.

Mayors, police and “local” level officials will receive sufficient budgets and will report only to their neighbors in the city, to the voters with whom they walk along the same streets. Mayors, sheriffs, local officials do not have to bow to the chiefs in the ministries. They, too, will become freer and more independent. Or maybe they will get a better salary.

Why isn't this happening. Because it is not beneficial to officials of the "federal" level, to people who are not able or do not want to create, but only want to take and regulate, deputies and other "celestials" who appoint themselves exorbitant salaries for their "work", the quality of which is almost always lower any criticism.

Thanks to their stupidity, ambitions and intrigues, people live worse, business develops more slowly, scientists "earn extra money as janitors," and doctors have nothing to buy new books. Due to their incompetence, the economy is losing huge amounts of money that the most famous criminal drug lords never dreamed of.

But they come up with the laws. They deceive people.

And then they shout that it is necessary to fight the "shadow", brain drain, offshore, emigration, etc.

However, everything is simple - "play fair" and there will be no "shadow".

So who is the "shadow" really, a rogue or a bandit?

A foreman who fixes a neighbor's car for money in a garage, a teacher who teaches after school with a lagging student, or a deputy and the government, because of whose scam people are forced to illegally earn money.

And who is more dangerous for the state, for the economy. A deputy who lobbied for a law that damaged the economy, or a driver who gave a ride for a passenger's money and did not pay tax from this money.

Or is it better to say a tribute? For the tax is when for a service and honestly. And tribute is like with racketeers, like in the Middle Ages, like with khans. After all, only the khans need "tax" guardsmen.

Are there intelligent people “at the top” who think about the inhabitants, and not about their chair and salary, ie? about your responsibilities before about awards and income? I hope there is.

As for the annual receipt for payment of government services, it may look like this.

Column one, for example, the army. Required (from a specific resident) so much. And there is an empty space where the resident enters the amount he will pay. Maybe exactly, maybe more, if he considers it important, maybe less.

After all, if a general cannot pull himself up on a horizontal bar, then this is not really an army. And if a private knows two or three languages ​​and resembles a lump of muscles, then this is the army. And it's not a sin to pay for it.

The second column is roads, communications. The principle is the same.

Etc. On all budget items. Only the budget is understandable and formulated in human language, not bureaucratic language.

And if the state service is good, then people will give more, as they tip in a restaurant. And the budget will be in surplus.

And if the service is bad, then the budget will be in short supply and a dozen of "watchmen" will have to be fired.

And in this case, the state will be interested not in words, but in deeds, so that people and businesses are rich, since a poor person cannot donate much, even if he wants to. And to want to - you need to do a good service.

This method of financing state structures will lead to the fact that the authorities will live “within their means”. There will be just as many officials as the economy of a country, city or village can afford. And the salaries of officials will correspond to their real contribution to the economy. As a result, the concern of officials will not be "fighting poverty" and not bills on "reducing the number of poor", but on increasing the number of rich and well-to-do people. And this is a big difference. The USSR was built on the idea of ​​"less than the poor" and was a land of poor people. The USA, built on the idea of ​​wealth, has become a more successful and prosperous country.

The difference between "less poor" and "more rich" is that appeals for "less than poor" lead to the distribution of benefits and handouts, the money for which is taken from the rich and successful. At the same time, the orientation towards the “more rich” leads to the creation of conditions for the emergence of wealth, namely: protection from robbery (including by the redistributing state), the abolition of barriers, restrictions and prohibitions that prevent people from earning on their own. The course towards “wealth” does not cancel poverty, just as the right to “work” does not cancel the right to “idleness”. If someone does not want to work, create, then he has the right to do so. If someone does not want to become rich, that is also his right. It is important that the state does not "put a spoke in the wheel" of those who are trying to achieve something without violating the rights of other people.

This method does not exclude social benefits. Only they are not "bestowed" by the authorities, but simply remain with the taxpayer.

Suppose if a family brings up N children, then it is generally exempted from all taxes. It also raises taxpayers, thus invests in the future of the state, consumes more, indirectly producing taxes with its consumption. However, people themselves will be able to "free themselves" - after all, they are now entering the amount to be paid in the receipt.

People still do it "write less in the receipt", going into the shadows and earning money without paying taxes. And it is rather difficult to condemn them for such an act, since this is a forced measure caused by the dishonest behavior of the state.

When it comes to the need to maintain a small army of tax inspectors, the authorities say that it is necessary in order for people to pay taxes.

And they support this army at the expense of taxpayers' money.

It's like the residents of an apartment building will throw themselves away so that they always have their own gang of racketeers in their yard, terrorizing these same residents.

What is the reason people are reluctant to pay taxes?

The reason is simple and primitive. People feel that they are being deceived and begin to deceive in return.

People do not want to support tax officials who take away their earnings, they do not want to support officials who interfere in their business, they do not want to support the authorities who do not perform their duties well.

It never occurs to anyone not to pay for proper quality bread in a store. At the same time, of course, a person will not buy bad, moldy bread.

It never occurs to anyone not to pay for the light that is on, the garbage that is taken out, or the communication services, if any.

But if the garbage is not taken out, then what to pay for?

The state, the authorities are no more than one of the participants in the voluntary exchange of goods and services for money. Great participant, but nothing more. For if this is something more, then it is just a robber who takes money from citizens without giving a service or product in return.

According to the criteria of the theory of Adam Smith, set out in 1776 in the book The Wealth of Nations, both parties benefit from voluntary exchange. The size and scale of the parties is not so important, because corporations of the size of Google or Microsoft will be bigger than some states, but it does not occur to them to demand money for unproven services and non-existent goods.

Voluntary exchange is the most important rule. The presence of an army of tax officers and officials, and the methods they use, do not in any way correlate with the concept of voluntariness. This means that people will deceive in return.

And here it is important to understand that the violence to which people respond with deception comes from the state. At the same time, for centuries the state has not tried to try a different path and only increases the size of the repressive and controlling apparatus.

Nobel laureate in economics, Milton Friedman, wrote in 1979: "For the organization of joint mutually beneficial activities of people does not require the intervention of external forces, coercion or restriction of freedom."

The authorities always cover up their violence with "concern for society," but the same Adam Smith wrote: "I have never heard that much good was done by those who pretended that they were trading for the good of society."

Statesmen should not think about how to tax and how else to take money from people and businesses, but about how to provide them with a good service for which business and people will want to pay!

In the meantime, taxpayers are forced to feed huge armies of officials in every country.

At the same time, the quality of the officials' work is under a very big question.

For example, the US Department of Energy had 200,000 employees in 1979, and expenditures were $ 10 billion.

As a result of the work of these officials, in the same 1979, queues at gas stations appeared for the first time in the United States. This was led by the officials' thirst for regulation, which manifested itself in the control of prices for oil and other energy resources.

After all, if you don’t know how to do anything, you are always eager to "regulate".

Is the number of regulators and the state of the economy related? Sure. The more officials, the more depressed the economy, the fewer officials, the more successful the economy.

The number of officials in Japan is about 400 thousand people with a population of 128 million.

In Russia - 1.5 million officials with a population of 140 million (data for 2013). Those. almost 4 times more than in Japan with a comparable population. The result is, in principle, known.

Moreover, in 2009, 519.3 billion rubles were spent on the salaries of Russian officials alone, and in 2013 - 682.7 billion rubles.

Let's return to the United States, although the number of officials in this country is by no means the highest. If we compare with other countries, then in the United States, the number of officials in terms of the number of working residents is average. The only reason why the US is seen as an example in this case is the most readily available statistics.

You can substitute any other country, slightly change the numbers. The scale of the disaster may be slightly larger or slightly smaller. In the case of officials, this is not so important, because the disaster is huge anyway.

In a way, the bureaucratic apparatus of countries can be likened to black holes in space - the apparatus is constantly swelling, sucking in more and more taxpayers' funds and ... does not produce anything.

Perhaps the comparison is not entirely accurate and "black holes" are necessary for life, including our planet. But so it is "black holes", not officials.

The USDA, which has 100,000 employees, spent $ 94 billion in 2006 and $ 151 billion in taxpayers in 2017.

Wouldn't the farmer have grown potatoes without their adjustments and control? Wouldn't the tractor start?

The United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which deals with social affairs for army veterans, had 340,000 employees in 2016 and spent $ 167 billion in taxpayers.

This is not a military department. This is a department dealing with pensions, benefits and other social issues for just one category of citizens.

The United States Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) spent $ 3.5 million on 20,000 of its employees in 2016. Compared to other departments, not so much, but perhaps if this money were directly given to the homeless, then each of them would already have a roof over their heads.

But then 20 thousand officials would not be needed.

Are they needed?

The US Department of Health and Human Services spent $ 901 billion in 2011.

This money, but to pay for medical services for citizens ... The United States would have the most affordable medical care in the world.

The US Department of Housing and Urban Development spent $ 43 billion on its 10,000 employees in 2010.

Wouldn't the builders have done without them? Forgot to put windows and toilets?

The US Department of Labor had 17,000 employees in 2014 and spent $ 67 billion in taxpayers in a year.

This money would obviously be enough to provide all the unemployed with either a job or a loan to start a business.

The US Department of Transportation, without which it would probably have been impossible to drive and fly planes, ships would sink and buses would stop, regulated the movement of citizens by nearly 60,000 employees in 2014, and spent $ 77 billion on it.

Not all of this money was “eaten away” by officials. Many ministries' budgets are redistributive and partly go to the payment of benefits or the construction of social housing, etc. But for every dollar paid, there is one or more “regulating” dollars, which makes it possible to assess the work of ministries as extremely ineffective.

But officials also want to eat well. And they do not know how to produce either goods or services.

Given the fact that after that the US economy remains the most powerful in the world, there is a suspicion that the situation in other countries is even worse and the percentage of the country's wealth devoured by officials is even higher.

Maybe it makes sense to offer officials some kind of allowance? Good, great. Only so that they do not climb to the citizens with their own rules and regulations.

This is sarcasm, of course. But the harm to the economy would be clearly less.

The so-called "unconditional income" has been actively discussed in the press and among economists lately. The idea, of course, is great. The economic effect from it can be enormous. After all, quite a few people are forced to waste time on stupid and boring work simply because otherwise their families will starve.

Unconditional income could give many people the opportunity to start, create, learn, and do what they love without the threat of hunger and homelessness.

However, where to get the money for this.

Take from some and give to others? Take from the successful and distribute to others "in the name of an idea"? Somehow this is very reminiscent of communist ideas, which usually end very badly for all participants.

Thus, the idea of ​​redistribution must be rejected as knowingly flawed. Not only with its gangster nature, covered by talk about social justice, but also as an economically erroneous one, inevitably leading to a slowdown in economic development.

Where can you find the means to create "unconditional income"?

The state does not have much of its own earnings, as was shown above. After all, almost all taxes are a loan for future services or payment for existing ones.

There is not much left - cross-border income (visas, residence permits for foreigners, payments for transit (ships, trains, airplanes, goods)) and internal taxes on the "common property of residents" - minerals (oil, gas, ores, diamonds).

We will talk about some cross-border budget revenues in one chapter. In the meantime, a little more about the unconditional basic income.

Unconditional basic income as a right to life

What is Unconditional Basic Income?

Unconditional income is the money that everyone should receive, no matter what, by default. Because he is a living person and a resident of the state. This payment should be the same, monthly and obligatory for each resident of the country.

Those. a person is born and begins to receive automatically a certain amount of money, which he spends at his own discretion and for which he does not owe anyone anything. And so on until old age and death.

Ideally, the size of UBI should at least provide a person with the possibility of existence, so that he does not "starve to death." This is necessary so that a person is not hired to work "for the sake of survival."

If UBI is greater than the subsistence level, it will, of course, be better. If it is less, it will still be of help to any person.

Why UBI is needed?

Unconditional basic income (unconditional basic income) provides a person with one of the basic rights - the right to life.

And it is in the context of “UBI = right to life” that this concept should be considered. If, of course, the right to life, as it was written in the Declaration of Human Rights, still matters.

And then it becomes completely clear that it is not the question of whether to introduce an unconditional basic income that should be discussed, but how to introduce it.

UBI is:

• Reducing stress, which means reducing the burden on healthcare, reducing budget costs for treating stress-related diseases, incl. heart attacks, strokes, autoimmune diseases, diseases of the gastrointestinal tract and cardiovascular system.

• Reducing crime by reducing the number of thefts, petty drug trafficking, etc., and hence reducing budget spending on the Ministry of Internal Affairs, courts, prisons, etc.

• Reducing the cost of social programs by simplifying and universalizing payments, which means that UBI servicing for the state requires less costs than servicing the social and pension systems.

• Increase in labor productivity, since work of your own free will, and not forced, has an immeasurably greater efficiency.

• Economic growth, since people have additional choices, freedoms and guarantees, which allows them to “invest in themselves”, and as a result, become more efficient, more productive and earn more, find interesting and well-paid jobs. Which ultimately leads to economic growth.

• Social guarantees for everyone. No lies, theft and fraud, privileges, etc., which means lower control and administration costs.

• Independence and confidence in the future for every citizen.

• Real provision of the right to life.

• Unconditional basic income is freedom from slavery (including hidden - office, factory, etc.).

In the USSR there was an article “for parasitism” - everyone was obliged to go to official work. The most famous parasite of the USSR, Joseph Brodsky, is the future Nobel Prize winner.

Many people still go to work just to feed their families.

Of course, this is a form of slavery.

People do not what they want, not what can improve the world, not what can be awarded the Nobel Prize, but what will allow them not to starve and make ends meet.

The elimination of modern slavery is the main objective of an unconditional basic income.

Imagine a situation when a husband beats, drinks, terrorizes his family, but the woman cannot leave. She has nowhere to go. And it is not clear what to live on. Even if she works as a cashier in a supermarket. This salary is only enough to keep her from starving. But three children will starve. Or rather, they will all starve. And the violence will continue because the woman will not leave.

But if the woman and her children had an unconditional basic income, then this would solve her problems. And at the same time the problem of domestic violence.

Let's imagine a poet, scientist, musician, artist. They also have families. They also need to be fed, and a person must go to hateful, boring, non-creative work, just to feed his family. And he does not make a discovery, does not write a book, does not create a picture and a symphony. You need to feed your family.

Does this make the world a better place?

UBI will allow the development of a mobile and extremely effective volunteer movement for the life of society. After all, volunteers do not have to think about "their daily bread".

The essence of the unconditional basic income corresponds even to such concepts from the field of philosophy, morality and ethics as the categorical imperative of Kant.

UBI is moral, according to Kant, since it is being tested by extrapolation to everyone, the whole world. After all, if everyone in the world will have the opportunity to live, not survive, create freely, and not slavishly work hard, have a guaranteed income, and not beg for alms, work for pennies, step over themselves, commit crimes or be sold for pennies, then it will be good.

Where will the money for payments of the unconditional basic income come from and is there any now?

Having answered and, in fact, eliminated the questions "is it necessary" and "why", one can start discussing concrete steps, discussing "how".

However, where to get the money for this.

Take from some and give to others? Take from the successful and distribute to others "in the name of an idea"? Somehow it is very reminiscent of communist ideas, which usually end very badly for all participants.

Thus, the idea of ​​redistribution must be rejected as knowingly flawed. Not only with its gangster nature, covered by talk about social justice, but also as an economically erroneous one, inevitably leading to a slowdown in economic development.

The question "how", in fact, is also quite simple to solve. All the talk about "where to get the money" from the evil one. There is money. True, they will have to be taken from the state. More precisely, not even take, but return to the one to whom they belong. Return to people. Take it from officials who, hiding behind care or puffing their cheeks on grandiose projects, spend this money on themselves and on what they want, but not on people.

Where can you find the means to create "unconditional income"?

The state does not have much of its own earnings. After all, almost all taxes are a loan for future services or payment for existing ones.

There is not much left - cross-border income (visas, residence permits for foreigners, payments for transit (ships, trains, airplanes, goods)) and internal taxes on the "common property of residents" - minerals (oil, gas, ores, diamonds).

Funding sources for unconditional basic income.

1. Import and export duties, cross-border payments, visas, etc.

2. Reorganization of social services and the pension fund.

The system of state social guarantees is cumbersome and ineffective. Even in the relatively prosperous USA, according to the Nobel Prize winner in economics Milton Friedman, half of the money allocated for social purposes does not reach the recipient, but remains in the form of salaries of officials, payment of their expenses, etc. spent on the distribution and management of social benefits and benefits.

In the Russian Federation, for example, there are more than 13 types of social material assistance. And all of them must be administered. And the administration "consumes" a significant part of the allocated funds.

UBI is a much simpler and more transparent social security system than the one in most states today.

The situation is similar with the pension system.

3. Money from unemployment benefits and the budget of the labor exchange. The existence of a full-fledged AML and the AML principle itself exclude the need and meaning of unemployment benefits and, accordingly, the need for financing the labor exchange from the budget.

4. Income from “common wealth” - mineral resources (oil, gas, coal, metals, etc.), fish, timber, etc. Taxes, duties and other payments to the budget from this activity belong to everyone, every citizen. It is a “common good, a common resource” of all the inhabitants of the country.

When UBI is financed from this part of tax and other payments to the budget, there is no interference in the business and no one claims to have a share in the profit of the business. But all taxes and other payments from the sale of resources belonging to everyone go to the payment of UBI , and not to any government projects.

It is important that the funds for UBI are not an additional burden on the business, but that there is a redistribution of taxes and fees already applied.

Those. it is important that the UBI works for the benefit of the economy, for the benefit of business, instead of pessimizing it.

After all, if a person has a small compulsory income, then the salary turns into a bonus. And this, in turn, eliminates the economic nonsense called the minimum wage.

To introduce UBI , it is not at all necessary to wait for someone's command, signal or law. Experiments on the introduction of UBI in different countries were carried out by private foundations, patrons of art, municipalities and federal authorities. There would be a desire, and the level can be a city, and a region, and a state, and the whole country.

Even the discussion about the UBI size doesn't make much sense. You just need to change the budgetary policy and spend on UBI as much as is fair, based on the above arguments.

If UBI turns out to be above the “poverty line” - great - the poor will cease to be poor. If it turns out to be lower, the poor will receive help and poverty will disappear.

Unconditional income can be both full and partial, covering only part of a person's needs. But even a partial UBI is better than no UBI .

History of UBI .

The idea of ​​the need for a universal minimum income appeared in 1516 in the writings of the lawyer, philosopher and Lord Chancellor of England Thomas More.

This idea, of course, did not find a response in the hearts and minds of monarchs and nobility, but continued to be discussed by philosophers and scientists.

In 1924, Clifford Douglas proposed economic and fiscal reform in such a way that "national dividends" were evenly distributed "among all citizens." Douglas proceeded from the idea that every citizen owns a share of the national wealth.

Unfortunately, the development of Douglas's ideas was impeded by the madness of the 20th century, which began with communist utopias, continued with the ideas of national and racial superiority, and ended with Keynesian economics, which gave the economy to the undivided use of the authorities. The economy had a hard time. Both business and people suffered. Keynesian economics was slightly better than the Marxists, but not much better.

Fortunately, in the modern economic world, Keynesian economics is gradually disappearing into oblivion, although officials and authoritarian rulers continue to cling to his ideas.

From the outside, if you do not delve deeply into how the economy works and how it can function most effectively, it might seem that the idea of ​​UBI is a leftist idea. And then an unexpected discovery awaits us.

UBI idea is supported by:

• Nobel Laureates - Muhammad Yunus, Christopher Pissarides, Peter Diamond, James Mirrlis, Esther Duflo, Abhijit Banerjee, Michael Kremer and Angus Deaton;

• UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres;

• Entrepreneurs - Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Richard Branson.

Experiments to introduce an unconditional basic income have taken place in Finland, Canada, USA, Germany, India, Spain, Kenya, France, Namibia and Italy.

64% of EU residents voted for the introduction of UBI in the 21st century, while only 4% of citizens plan to stop working after UBI is introduced, which is less than the unemployment rate. People find that basic income payments “reduce anxiety” and help provide people with equal opportunity.