Any direct form of taxation, such as a tax on income, encourages the avoidance or outright evasion of payment. People lie about what they earn or accept cash for jobs, older people put money into trusts to avoid death duties, or companies fiddle the books to ensure their liabilities are low.

Any tax levied on purchases is inherently fairer. In the current system much of the burden falls on the poor, for the rich can afford accountants to help them find ways to avoid paying tax. A tax on sales can be adjusted so that goods which appeal to the poor are taxed less than goods bought by the rich: for example, Bentleys would be taxed greater than Beetles.

Any tax on sales provides society with a way to prevent the type of behaviour we dislike but cannot ban, for example drinking or smoking. The need to encourage certain forms of behaviour has never been more urgent thanks to the danger of global warming. If people want to drive more, let them pay more in petrol duty. If we want them to use energy saving light bulbs, let’s set the tax at zero, and filament light bulbs at 20%.

Income Tax is unjust as the tax does not contribute anything positive towards any public service. The Income Tax simply pays off the national debt we owe to private banks. The private banks (Fed, Bank of England, ECB, most central banks) create the money out of thin air (i.e. they just print it when someone signs a mortgage, credit agreement etc). The problem here is that we (the general public) are paying with our real sweat equity (our general work and labour) to pay off a debt that has been created out of nothing.

This is unjust as the debt goes into the coffers of the owners of the private banks and does not contribute to any social good.

The solution would be to have a nationalised bank run by the government. Governments would then be voted in and out, judged on how economically productive they were for their citizens.

This is an issue of momentous importance, so much so that the Constitutionalist Republican Presidential Candidate Ron Paul is running on a manifesto to scrap the Income Tax in America, as it is an unjust tax which does not serve the majority of the population, and furthermore is unconstitutional.

To help you understand this problem in more detail, a good number of documentaries have been produced on this issue. The best in my opinion are called 'Money as Debt', 'The Money Masters' and 'Aaron Russo: Freedom to Fascism'. I would suggest that you take a quick look at these films before you attempt to rebut this proposition - as many of the initial questions you may potentially have are likely to be addressed and answered by those films. Better yet, these films are free for anyone on Google video.

In response to the counter argument opposite...to clarify, this point is extremely relevant to the debate. The debate is 'Basic Income Tax Should Be Abolished', and this is a very important point to stress in such a debate - income tax does not contribute to the public good. If the goal of government is to produce the most favourable public good for the majority, then it therefore follows that the Income Tax is a tax which should be abolished as it does not meet this criteria.

The government can stimulate change by using indirect taxes to increase prices so that demand is limited. This is already being done for petrol, alcohol and tobacco, but it could be used much wider if, at the same time, direct taxes were cut. This is difficult at present when the government has lost financial control and is therefore desperate to increase taxation in any form. But fuel taxes could be further increased if the basic allowance of income tax and certain social payments were increased at the same time. Then only those who persisted in using fuel excessively would actually pay more.

This is fundamentally a tax on consumption, the more resources in our society you consume the more you contribute to that society.

The more material benefit you choose to gain from our society the more you give to it in return.

You gain no material benefit by having a million pounds in the bank - only when you or someone else spends that money do you benefit - and you are then taxed on that benefit.

At every stage your personal choice is involved in whether you pay tax.

When was the last time you could phone up your local tax office and say "Times are tough at the moment - can we pay less tax for the next 6 months, we're trying to save for a house deposit". Never?

Now you can.

1) Sales Tax taxes you on the benefit you gain from society. Those who gain the least pay the least.

2) Expensive Tax Accountants don't exist for fun. They save the wealthy a significant proportion of the tax they might (should?) have paid.

3) Why should a poor family fund the tax deductions of a millionaire? If he gives a million pounds to charity - he pays a million pounds less in tax. The poor family have just paid their taxes for his "generosity" .

4) Off shore bank accounts & tax havens mostly exist because of income tax.

5) The "Benefit" you get from living in our society is the only ethical and equitable way to expect someone to contribute in return.

haha

Many families have either both parents working, or a single parent working excessively to pay for their children and especially their childcare.

We have a massive shortfall of childcare places in the UK, along with the trained staff we need. The places we do have have are either expensive and/or government subsidised.

By abolishing income tax the average families income would increase by ~30% providing a real choice on whether to work or care for their children.

At least 22% more in your pocket No expense to employers 22% more to save or spend (save we win, spend we win.) V.A.T. is more adjustable

No reasons; It can only be done once.(And thats why it's never been done)

There would be no carrot to dangle at election times.