A person living in the internet shouldn’t have to pay taxes

Nyota Uhura is on a quest to digitize herself. She creates digital product on her laptop, transmits her finished product to her clients via the internet, and gets paid primarily in cryptocurrency. Every now and then she accepts fiat currency issued by a nation-state in part because as a mini-sovereign she likes to have a reserve currency for emergency use or in case a hole-in-the-wall restaurant on a south Florida beach doesn’t accept BitCoin.

She probably spends too much time socializing in cyberspace. Facebook and Instagram keep her in touch with her brothers and sisters in Congo or her cousins in Brooklyn. As a busy creative she sends out for food via Uber Eats and uses Uber or Lyft to get around.

She is not naive about the public safety protection that Atlanta markets to its residents. She has a home security service that she communicates with via broadband. She uses her laptop as a surveillance camera courtesy of her broadband access provider. She keeps a shotgun and feels confident in her self-defense skills. If she were a pilot, she would avoid Atlanta’s biggest amenity, Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport and opt for the smaller Charlie Brown airfield.

Why then, she asks, should she even pay taxes?

Her friends rebuttal is that she should contribute to the public services that she uses to get around; that she should pay for use of the streets and use of the police protection. On a national level, she should support Medicare and the national defense, and social security because these programs help provide security for her future.

And she should be ashamed of herself for not showing the ultimate allegiance to her government by avoiding the use of America’s fiat currency. Her failure to use it, they argue, only negatively impacts the nation’s economy by devaluing the dollar through shrunken demand.

Nyota expected the canned rebuttal from her friends and family. She responds, however, with a rebuttal they are not prepared for, one based on value. Being coerced by a false sense of duty and obligation to pay for sub-par protection services makes no sense to her. She hasn’t bought in on the police’s public relations campaign that they are there to protect the public and would like her taxes reduced by whatever the city assesses as her contribution. She has no enemies in Russia, North Korea, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, or Iran other than the enemies created by U.S. policy. Since she didn’t create these enemies, she would also like her taxes reduced by the amount of her contribution to these services.

Nyota pays a sales tax when she eats a cheat meal at McDonald’s. She also contributes to the transportation tax when she pays her Uber driver for a lift to the grocery store. She literally works in another jurisdiction, cyberspace, and because of this, Nyota believes she should not have to pay a federal income tax, especially to a government that provides low value protection services.

A strong legal and political argument will have to be crafted and promoted to bring about these changes, but at least Nyota is thinking about exit.

The new cyber society will see the poor pay more for government

I sense a major “cost shift” for tax payers over the next twenty to fifty years as the more affluent of United States citizens move more of their survivability activities into cyber society versus current brick and mortar society.

I believe one key will be the use of cyber currency by an increasing number of service providers and producers. Less dependence on fiat money and more reliance on a block chain that cuts out the middleman providing for faster payment systems. In addition, the affluent are re-imagining the use of public infrastructure by using it less frequently or more efficiently. Think drones, driver-less & fuel efficient vehicles, or the delivery of groceries via Instacart.

The affluent will also find more innovative ways to provide security, from improved security technology to private police forces. In short, as the affluent pursue an increasingly self-sovereign approach to life, they will make the case for dishing the traditional services of the State while arguing that their tax burdens should be less. Why support police and road services that hey hardly need. If anything, they will argue, let us reduce our tax bills by the amount that we spend on providing these services for ourselves.

For low income individuals and a large proportion of communities of color, they will experience the burden of the “cost shift” as tax jurisdictions pass on the costs of providing traditional State services to these communities. These communities will not be able to bear the burden given their low incomes. Services will be reduced as traditional government finds itself facing competition from non-State actors financed by the more affluent.

The State will react violently at first. It will create laws designed to slow down the affluent’s abandonment of the traditional State system. It may, ironically, use net neutrality laws to slow down deployment of the advanced networks necessary for delivering services to taxpayers leaving the system. It will further reduce renewable energy subsidies to residents that generate electricity at their residences.

I don’t expect the State’s attempts at holding sovereign individuals hostage will be successful. The attempts will invalidate the State’s arguments that it represents democracy when the actions to squelch freedom are the furthest from the truth.