13/06/2005 10:10:23 am
We Should Have Unanimous Decision-Making About Tax Increases. There is currently both a debate about constitutional matters in Europe and in Sweden. A government committee will revise the Swedish Constitution as well; highly needed, by the way.

One main purpose with a Constitution is to set the rules for the daily political decision-making and its limits. When is it enough with a majority, when should we have unanimous decision-making, and what are the politicians not allowed to do at all?

This differs a lot between countries and the limits are not always obvious. Most agree that fundamental individual rights and liberties should be protected; politicians should not be allowed to interfere with those at all. But after that? What is actually an individual right and what should be subject to the majority′s wishes?

The big debate often concerns property. And in particular wealth and income. In Sweden, there are practically no limits to what the majority is allowed to do. Thus, we have the highest taxes in the Western world. Politicians have told the majority that they will be better off if the state takes lots of money from other people ("the rich"). They are not better off, but that is another debate. It is an effect of no limits to the majority′s power.

But isn′t tax increases - and thus an expansion of the state′s size - a violation of individual rights? Shouldn′t we demand to have unanimous decision-making for tax increases? Everyone should consent - otherwise the rights of the opponents are violated. And perhaps it should be enough with a majority - or even 1/3 - for tax decreases? They are, after all, about giving back money to the people that have earned them.