Taxation in Relation to Urbanization and Political Power Allocation

Taxation levels seem to be a function of the form of a political authority and population lifestyle. Urban and rural areas present different trends in political form coinciding with centralization and decentralization of political power historically. During the Roman Republic taxation on urban centers could support public works that wealthy private citizens would not themselves be expected to afford. With the decline of primacy of urban centers after the fall of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Merovingian Frankish kings of the 5^th century in much Western Europe political power became decentralized. Merovingian kings becoming Christianized expanded into Germany affording opportunities for evangelization and further conversion of pagan tribes to faith in the Lord. Merovingian kings and other conferred lands upon Bishops of the church as well as upon retainers and allies. Over time the benefactions and division of inherited lands among princes reduced their power. The conference of benefits and allocation of resources are historical methods of gaining political power or holding on to it.

 

A lesson of history seems to be that a ruling authority may actually decrease taxes upon subjects as the wealth and power of the authority increases. If the consolidation of wealth and power becomes absolute taxes may drop to zero as the authority directly is the owner of everything inclusive of the subjects. Conversely in a free society taxes may increase if a majority of a democracy views the allocation of resources away from concentrations of wealth toward pluralism as consistent with their principles of liberty. Yet urbanization tends to bring a populace toward conformity and a destruction of civil liberties found in rural social environments while political parties experience a reductionism. Taxes again may rise or fall in relation to the distribution of wealth. Public taxation is in effect the allocation of resources by a ruling power.

 

Ironically Karl Marx described the expropriation of the expropriators that would exchange one form of autocracy for another. There may be a golden mean in taxation and liberty such that a rural society has minimal taxes required to support the few public works required. With few homeless and landless citizens and most able to meet their own needs taxes would be low as the democratic society would have no need. Alternately urban societies are not at all self sufficient and require mass importation of resources and allocation of wealth with farm to market roads importing supplies. Taxation is substantial if there is not to be concentration of wealth and commonality of poverty. Public debt increase to support the public sector may occur in order to forestall the experience of poverty for the masses in an urban society during a period of excess concentration of wealth.

 

Globalization today is a form of treason against nationalism when advocated by politicians. In the private sector global trading is alright yet excess unconcern for the national well-being may bring about the demise of the well-being of the nation. In this period of the concentration of wealth with globalization of business there is a protracted post-Reagan movement toward low taxes or even the same tax on the rich as the poor in order to stimulate the concentration of wealth. One would expect that as wealth is concentrated and the power of national democracy given the orcheotomy of globalization that taxation on the rich would drop to nil as they own everything as Plutocrats.