One of the things that bothers me most in this world is the inequality. Its Q3 now and for me that means taxes again…
I never understood taxes, at least not in the way they are setup now.
I think it’s an unfair system that makes us pay for stuff we never ever use in our lives for one and, if you’ve followed my LinkedIn posts, It’s based upon bringing fear and stress to people.
My life has been a rollercoaster, it’s a struggle. I’m barely surviving and I’m holding on by only pure faith in God.
This is my Hail Mary!!!
As I’ve let know before, I’m sitting on multiple golden eggs. One of them is a plan I’ve created without any external help. No humans, no AI, Just me. The story below, I’ve created this today.
My plan is out of the ordinary and taxes is just one of the cogs that make the wheels turn.
Let me help!
Rethinking taxes, wealth & the future
From the origins of taxation to a society built around shared prosperity, human dignity and a healthier relationship with wealth.
What if we redesigned the system?
This conversation begins with a simple historical question and grows into a bigger one: how can society reward contribution while preventing wealth from turning into unchecked power?
Who invented taxes and when was it invented?
Taxes weren’t invented by one person.
They developed gradually as societies became organized enough to collect resources from their populations to support rulers, armies, temples and public works.
The earliest known forms of taxation date back roughly 5,000 years, to ancient Mesopotamia around 3000 BCE. The surviving evidence is incomplete, so this is a useful landmark rather than a definitive date for the very first tax.
How did taxes begin?
Mesopotamia
Early city-states collected goods such as grain and livestock. Clay tablets helped officials record what was owed and received.
Ancient Egypt
Rulers collected agricultural produce and labour to support administration, royal projects and state institutions.
Ancient Rome
Rome developed extensive systems of taxation, including customs duties, provincial tribute and other levies.
Why were taxes introduced?
- To feed soldiers and government officials.
- To build temples, irrigation systems and defensive walls.
- To maintain royal courts and administrative institutions.
- To finance wars and territorial expansion.
Early payments were often made in grain, animals, goods or compulsory labour. Money taxes became more common as monetary economies developed.
How would a society without taxes work?
A society without taxes is possible in theory.
The real question is how society would pay for the things taxes currently fund, and who would control the money instead.
Imagine a country where salaries arrive without tax deductions and the state can no longer automatically collect money from citizens. Four broad alternatives could be considered:
Voluntary contributions
People donate or contribute to fund hospitals, roads, education and emergency services. The challenge is that some may benefit without contributing.
Publicly owned assets
Profits from energy, land, minerals or public enterprises fund services. Returns fluctuate, and assets can be mismanaged.
Pay for use
People pay fees for roads, healthcare, education or insurance. Essential services may become inaccessible to people with less money.
Cooperatives
Communities own businesses and shared assets together, share profits and decide how resources are spent. Coordination at national scale is difficult.
What could fund everyday services?
| Service | Possible alternative |
|---|---|
| Healthcare | Insurance, cooperatives, charitable or public investment funding |
| Education | Community funding, tuition, endowments |
| Roads | Usage fees, private operators, public asset profits |
| Police and courts | Shared funding arrangements or service fees, with important questions about equal access |
| Pensions | Personal savings, mutual funds, voluntary schemes |
| Support for people in need | Charitable giving, mutual aid, community funds |
Could a country afford it?
Possibly, if it owned enough productive assets to generate income. Consider this hypothetical example:
A €2 trillion fund returning 3% annually would generate €60 billion before inflation, fees and other costs. This is an illustration, not a claim that the amount could replace a country’s taxes.
Public investment funds can provide income, but creating and maintaining sufficient wealth is the hard part. Returns fluctuate, and spending needs may exceed them.
A society without taxes does not necessarily mean a society without costs. It means finding a different way to distribute those costs. Removing taxes changes the distribution of financial power; it does not automatically make that distribution fairer or less concentrated.
If you’d be one of three people in care of saving this world from negative mindsets, what would you advice about taxes and wealth?
Wealth should be a tool for human flourishing, not a measure of human worth.
I wouldn’t try to eliminate wealth, punish success, or abolish taxes overnight. I would redesign the relationship between wealth, responsibility and power.
1. Tax extraction, not human potential
People should be rewarded for creating value, inventing, building businesses, solving problems and taking risks. But creating wealth is different from extracting it from others.
- Reduce the tax burden on ordinary work and productive entrepreneurship.
- Close loopholes that let the wealthiest avoid contributing while others cannot.
- Tax economic rents, harmful pollution and the private capture of publicly created value more effectively.
- Make the system simple, transparent and predictable.
The goal would not be to make everyone equally wealthy. It would be to prevent the system from rewarding exploitation more than genuine contribution.
2. Make wealth generate public value
I would explore a national or international wealth fund, built from public natural resources, returns on public investments and carefully designed contributions. Its returns could finance essential services and a universal social dividend.
Imagine that every citizen receives a share of the wealth generated by assets that belong to society collectively — not because they are poor or have earned special permission, but because they are members of that society.
Alaska’s Permanent Fund offers a real-world example of sharing part of the returns from public oil wealth with residents, although it does not replace the state’s tax system.
3. Establish a floor beneath every human being
Nobody should have to live in permanent fear of losing access to food, shelter, healthcare or education.
I would guarantee access to essential services and test combinations of public provision, basic income, cooperative ownership and automation-generated wealth.
Security does not guarantee virtue. But it can give people more freedom to make constructive choices instead of being trapped in short-term survival.
4. Put limits on the concentration of power
I would not set an arbitrary maximum amount of money a person could possess. Instead, I would focus on preventing wealth from becoming unchecked political power.
- Transparent political financing.
- Strong competition laws and action against monopolies.
- Effective inheritance and capital taxation where appropriate.
- Greater employee ownership and profit-sharing.
- Equal enforcement of the law, regardless of wealth.
A person can be extraordinarily wealthy without needing extraordinary control over everyone else’s future.
5. Change the mindset behind the system
A tax system is not just a financial mechanism. It reflects what a society believes people owe one another.
Responsibility
Those who benefit from shared institutions contribute to maintaining them, according to fair and transparent rules.
Abundance
Wealth creation should expand what is possible for everyone, rather than treating prosperity as a fixed pie where one person’s success must mean another’s failure.
Dignity
Every person deserves basic security and equal treatment under the law, regardless of their financial position.
If I had to make one radical change
I would begin a gradual transition toward a society in which more people own the productive wealth of their society, rather than depending entirely on selling their labour to those who own it.
If machines and AI produce a growing share of economic output, we should ask who owns those machines, who receives their returns and how those gains benefit the wider population.
I would measure success not simply by GDP or tax revenue, but by whether people have greater security, freedom, opportunity and meaningful control over their lives. I would test reforms, publish the results and correct what fails. Good intentions alone do not make good economic policy.
I wouldn’t build a system around the assumption that human beings are naturally greedy, nor one that assumes everyone will always act selflessly. I would build one that works with human nature while encouraging our better instincts.
Taxes would be one instrument within that system, not its foundation. The foundation would be the understanding that a prosperous society is not one in which nobody becomes rich. It is one in which the wealth a society creates translates into a better life for its people.