Tsilly Dagan (Oxford; Google Scholar) presents Unbundled Tax Sovereignty: Refining the Challenges at Brooklyn at the moment as a part of its Colloquium on Worldwide Financial Legislation hosted by Steven Dean and Julian Arato:
Tax sovereignty below globalization is susceptible to unraveling. Not solely–as is usually argued — as a result of worldwide organizations or different states exert exterior energy on sovereign states. As an alternative, it’s the means of fragmentation of state sovereignty that undermines its personal foundations. My foremost declare is that globalization more and more alters the interplay between states and their constituents. Globalization, and the alternatives and suppleness it affords (some) taxpayers, threatens to rework taxpayers from members in a political group into shoppers of public items and providers. Such transition, I argue, undermines the premise for state’s coercive energy. Importantly, this transformation doesn’t have an effect on all people in the identical manner. It varies between taxpayers, between totally different levels of their lives in addition to amongst totally different elements of their lives. Therefore, in actuality, taxpayers’ interactions with the state create a mosaic of differing shades and patterns of consumer-member combos. This range has many virtues, nevertheless it additionally entails critical pitfalls, which is why I argue that — to be able to guarantee social contracts’ continued legitimacy — states ought to re-configure their social contracts with their constituents to accommodate these trade-offs.
The brand new social contract ought to decide on a core “deal” of bundled items and providers. The popular bundle that might permit present and future members, cellular and motionless ones to steer the form of lives they’d every accept behind the veil of ignorance. Equitable taxes be a part of this core “deal.” As such, taxes ought to be primarily based on membership, somewhat than the profit derived from using particular public items. The brand new social contract will steadiness between the coercive nature of the state and taxpayers’ freedom to decide on to affiliate some elements of their lives with different jurisdictions, between the conflicting, but important targets of stability and freedom which they want to be able to thrive.