This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Some Of The Dumbest Taxes Throughout History
Submitted by Simon Black via Sovereign Man blog,
In the days of ancient Rome, it was tradition for the upper class to liberate their slaves after a set number of years.
The Roman government, however, looked at this as an opportunity to generate revenue, and they taxed the newly freed slave on his freedom.
I can’t imagine anything more repulsive than paying tax on freedom. But they gave it a pretty good try–
In 1696, the English government under William III (William of Orange) passed a new law requiring subjects to pay a tax based on the number of windows in their homes.
Not willing to pay such a ridiculous tax on something as basic as sunlight, many Englishmen simply reduced the number of windows in their homes.
There was less light… and less ventilation… which ultimately became a public health problem.
To follow that up, England introduced a tax on candles in 1789. Making your own candles was outlawed unless you first obtained a license and paid tax on your own homemade candles.
As you could imagine, most people just did without.
Coupled with the window tax, this was a very dark time for England. And it took until the mid 19th century for the government to realize its stupidity and repeal the taxes.
But if that sounds excessive, consider the Johnstown Flood Tax.
In 1936, the town of Johnstown, Pennsylvania was devastated by nasty flood, and in its efforts to ‘do something,’ the state assembly imposed an emergency, ‘temporary’ tax of 10% on all alcohol sold in the state.
This ‘temporary’ tax remained in place for nearly three decades, at which point it was raised to 15% in 1963, and again to 18% in 1968.
The ‘temporary’ tax still exists today, proving once again that there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government measure.
Curiously, you can never find the tax on an alcohol receipt; state law requires that the tax be built into the price. So all alcohol simply costs 18% more in Pennsylvania, and most people don’t even know that they’re paying it.
But if that sounds ridiculous, consider that the city of Pittsburgh charges a 5% “amusement tax” on anything that offers entertainment in the city.
I was curious how the government, in its sole discretion, defines ‘amusement’. Well, it turns out there’s quite a lengthy definition, which includes
“concerts, moving picture shows, vaudeville, circus, carnival and side shows. . . wrestling matches, boxing and sparring exhibitions. . .”
Naturally. How could the great city of Pittsburgh possibly function if the government wasn’t out there grabbing its tax dollars from vaudeville and sideshows…?
But back in the United Kingdom, the government taxes you on entertainment even if you stay home through its television tax.
In the UK if you own a television in your home, you must pay an annual fee, formally called a television license, for each television you own.
The funds are used to finance programming on BBC, whether you watch those channels or not.
Color (or I should say ‘colour’) televisions are taxed at a 145.50 pounds annually, whereas black and white TV sets (seriously?) are taxed at 49 pounds per year.
Blind people still have to pay the tax, but at a reduced rate of 50%. How generous. And of course, failure to pay this fee subjects the violator to criminal penalties.
There were 155,000 convictions and fines in 2012 alone. And 51 people actually went to prison that year for failure to pay the TV tax.
You just can’t make this stuff up...
* * *
As Martin Armstrong adds, the Hunt for Taxes is not targeting corporations...
The world economy is imploding faster than anyone suspects.
Governments cannot get it through their thick skulls that they consume money – they do not create economic growth. The higher the tax burden, the less disposable income, and the lower economic growth be it individuals or corporations. The difference is capital can flee, labor cannot. That is changing with FATCA.
They are hunting global capital but in the process they are wiping out international commerce. The NSA has contributed by now inspiring others to replace US technology because American companies have been compromised.
All of this bodes very badly for the future post 2015.
»
- 12871 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
NFA tax stamps are stupid.
ARE THERE ANY GOOD TAXES?
The fair tax and the ability to use it efficiently, neither of which we have today with our current politicians.
The best day of my life was the day I left Pittsburgh after a summer internship at Cabot Oil and Gas.
God, I hate that state.
Next thing you know, they will put a hidden tax on everybody's phone bill so that Obama voters can get free mobil phones.
Oh wait....
The most corrupt tax in history is aptly named "affordable care" aka Obozocare.
I was laughing with a German friend the other day when he told me they still pay a "champagne tax" imposed to pay for WW-I battleships
No such thing as a fair tax. You can always find somebody for whom the burden of the tax is higher on their lives than others. You can argue that there is such a thing as a necessary tax, but I have yet to see a fair tax.
No such thing as a necessary tax either, but yes, some like to argue immoral behavior cast in a pragmatic light.
No, a single tax at the register is all that is needed, then you have to know how to spend that money mosty efficiently. The more you spend, the more you pay. The more you tax, the more the gvt is responsible for products of integrity. And like I said before, none of which we have today in the quality of todays politicians. Todays politicians can't even do their own taxes, they trust someone to do it for them, and then that person trusts you with a war if you try to stop them.
$500k missiles to hit $10k Toyota trucks
Keep paying folks
And the $10K Toyota's were likely paid for by some other backdoor hidden USSA cash transfer so critical to national security it is so deeply buried that no one will ever know of it.
I think the $500k missiles are the Costco versions.
My supposition is that the Obungle regime was firing the Nieman Marcus missiles at $2-3 million a pop.
It is okay, all those missiles had a "best if used by" date that was coming and hence needed to be used up soon so that more can be bought. More broken windows for the economy! </sarc>
Sin taxes give at least some kind of return on investment.
"ARE THERE ANY GOOD TAXES?"
How about a tax on bureaucrats and elected officials that pass or enact new taxes. They must pay %1 of tax revenues collected or $1 Mllion per year (which ever is more). Seems only fair that those that impose taxes should pay their fair share!
There should also probably be a tax on gov't employees and elected officials running budget deficits or for programs that overrun costs.
Then they'll just pass a law that exempts themselves from the tax. Politicians are typically the most skilled tax dodgers.
I suppose it depends on your point of view.... FDR said, “Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” Or as Oliver Wendell Holmes quipped, “I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
Personally, I think taxes suck. But this ginormous government and tax system is so frickin bloated/warped/broken I think it can't be fixed without a serious reset...
“I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization."
If this were infact true, I am sure millions would not be so opposed to the idea.
Guillotine tax - $.50 a head for bankers and politicians
Make them pay before they go in.
Use the money to give them a proper burial.
Sorry, there must be a fair trial before the execution. I despise these scum and do not want to risk becoming one of them.
"Were you, or were you not an employee of the government?"
"I was, sir!"
(LOP)
"Sorry, there must be a fair trial before the execution."
To decide what is fair, welcome to the "two wolves and a sheep" analogy.
So then in addition to the $.50 tax to cover the burial we will need an additional $.10 to cover the cost of a fair trial.
Still a good tax -
In some places, you can be fined for spitting in public. Perhaps instead a fee could be charged to grant people access to spit on the bodies before burial.
I do think there should be a government albeit very small, judiciary, common defense, police ect.
The best way to pay for it would be a sales tax, drop all other forms of tax.
Specify state and local, and we can agree.
If I still believed in government and the constitution, I would say a good start would be to completely disband the federal government, ban one from ever being created under any circumstances via constitutional amendment, and if states want to coordinate on a shared defense or anything else, they have to find a way to fund it themselves.
syntax ?
A good tax would be on lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, and those working for the Fed.
Always relavant...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EHnuLPNAAE
Fixed it for ya'........https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wNRy8DPAmec
I gave you the upvote because your name. No one ever says the 9th Doctor is their favorite.
It's too bad Eccleston did only one season. I liked his very serious approach to the role. I love his costume too! Leather jacket and combat boots with a buzzcut.
The episodes he starred in were excellent. Especially if you are awake.
The British politicians are shape shifting aliens that make a nuclear power plant go critical on purpose to extinct the human species (kinda like Fukushima). Then he travels to the future and everyone gets a daily dose of propaganda injected directly into their brains. Then you have a Hearst like editor controlling all information. When the doctor stops him, the Daleks take over the satelite and put humans in a virtual reality where they get harvested for cells in bread and circus reality-tv type shows.
I love the Dalek episode in that bunker full of space junk.
FANTASTIC EPISODES!
They are all uploaded onto Hulu Plus. Highly recommend them. Doctor Who, start with the episode called "Rose" and watch them all the way through. I've seen them all up to where 11 regenerates. I've seen most of the classics too. The 3rd Doctor has excellent stories too.
TAX = THEFT
TAX = THEFT
Theft by oligarchs!
english host:
I've just made a pot of tea, would you like some?
communist guest #1:
POT OF TEA = THEFT!
communist guest #2:
No comrade, you think of "property".
Just for the record, one reason I thought this joke as apropos is because jvetter713's "TAX = THEFT" strikes me as a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't fully take reality into account. Like jvetter713's comment, communist guest #1's "POT OF TEA = THEFT!" is also a knee-jerk reaction, only this time the fact that reality is not fully taken into account is made much more obvious.
As much as anarachists dream otherwise, anarchy doesn't work - it never can, not unless there is a world so filled with enlightened people willing to take actual rational and just action (and not just rational and just in their own biased mind) that almost any form of government would work nearly as well. That ain't the world we live in, not even close, and not any time in the next several generations (especially if we keep breeding for stupidity). And as long as there's government, even small government limited to defending individual liberty (maximizing individual liberty -- only decreasing liberty through taxation to the extent that it increases remaining liberty even more), there will need to be taxes to pay for what that government does.
The non-aggression principle is flawed. Sometimes there are no good choices, and the only choice is between one aggression against one group and another aggression against another group. Not aggressing can be an immoral act in real life, and NAP simply ignores that case. If someone's tie is stuck in a machine and it's choking them to death but you do nothing because cutting their tie would be (per NAP) an act of aggression against their property (and they can't give you permission because they're in the process of choking to death), you just (effectively) killed them through inaction. Congratulations - you've held to your (flawed) principles. If on the other hand you would violate NAP in this case because letting someone die would be immoral, then congratulations - you too have determined that NAP is flawed. If you try to reason it out, you may determine that the aggression against their liberty (destroying their property) was justified because it preserved a greater part of their liberty (their life in this case) - if so, welcome to minarchy.
The Internet is the best example of anarchy in action today. It works pretty well. You're wrong. If all people are moral you do not need government, but if they are not, then you dare not have it. Don't we have enough data so far to show that having governments isn't worth the risk? Ever hear of democide?
Non-aggression cannot be an immoral act, because it allows the possibility of a disabled man being labelled immoral. Morality is about choice, infact it infers a capacity to choose by its very definition. If you cannot choose, you cannot be labelled immoral, which is why the insane are not generally held responsible for their actions.
The important distinction one needs to make with aggression is that it is the INITIATION of aggression that is wrong, few try to seriously claim otherwise. This does not mean that if you see a man raping a woman in an alley you cannot interfere because you're not being raped, infact you CAN help the woman, because she has invoked her optional right to self defense, and you would merely be offering assistance with following through on that right. She would also have the right to refuse that help. The aggressor has no right to refuse your interference because he has waived his right to self defense by having initiated aggression.
If taxation was not theft, it would not need to be enforced, people would pay it willingly in the same way that they pay for gas willingly.
That statement is evidence that you are a fucking moron. Anarachy is operation without government. The internet - all of the people who provide and use internet services - are governed by governments (except perhaps in a few unstable countries where I'm pretty sure I would not want to live).
Tell that to people in China have no end of troubles accessing stuff (sometimes even trying VPN doesn't help). Oh wait, now you're going to say "Internet is not really anarachy" and recognize that governments ARE involved. And how does all that NSA spying count as "works pretty well"? (Yet more proof that the internet is not anarchy.)
Nice quip - too bad quips aren't evidence of jack shit. (And I DO dare have it, so you're fucking quip is proved wrong right out of the fucking gate.)
Don't we have enough evidence to show that power vacuums do not remain vacuums? It doesn't matter if YOU "dare not have it", you will have government.
And with that statement, you yet again provide evidence you are a fucking moron. The fact that inaction isn't immoral for someone who can't act has no fucking bearing on whether or not inaction is immoral for someone who can.
No shit Sherlock. When both inaction and action are options, inaction is a choice. When I could save the lives of a billion innocents by pressing a button and at no risk or expense to myself or anyone else, but I do nothing because I would find it entertaining to watch them suffer and die, I suppose there's nothing immoral about that. If it's your loved ones that die, I'm sure you'll have no hard feelings about it what-so-ever.
Where do you think the "right to self defense" comes from? It's just a determination of maximum individual liberty based on a weighted measure of the liberty of those involved. The weighting (which is a complicated function) will favor the victim over the perpetrator (due to the perpetrator demonstrating they are quite willing to infringe on people's liberties and are in fact in the act of doing so).
And what exactly does that have to do with my "tie is stuck in a machine" example? No matter how many examples you try to come up with to prove a principle right, that's not how proofs work. It only takes a single counter example to prove a principle wrong. (E.g., I can claim "all vehicles are smaller than my living room" and I can point out countless vehicles that are in fact smaller than my living room. That doesn't prove the claim right though. One person pointing out one vehicle that does not fit in my living DOES prove the claim wrong.)
You are just fucking around with definitions, assuming "theft" = "involuntary". Many people die, involuntarily. That doesn't mean there was theft. Therefore lack of theft dosn't imply "voluntary"/"willing". And it really makes no difference whether or not you define "theft" as always including taxation because the implication being made is much more important here than definitions. When someone yells "TAX = THEFT" they are trying to say that taxation is immoral (because it's theft). I don't really care whether or not the definition of "theft" necessarily always includes taxation, but either way I will state that taxation is not necessarily immoral. In fact, it's pretty easy to concoct examples where even unambiguous "theft" is perfectly moral. (E.g., a guy makes a transmitter built into a toy and gives it to a kid. Playing with it enough will cause it to activate. Same guy later has the idea to put a bomb somewhere that will kill lots of people and that bomb is triggered by that transmission. You find this out. Is it moral to take the kid's toy away even though that's theft? I say "yes, it is".)
Look up "tragedy of the commons" dipshit. Individuals generally are NOT willing pay the true cost when it comes to commons, and government is a common.
Not quite. TAX ~ like SEX. Everybody has to have it, for things to work properly.
And like Sex, Taxes may be CONSENSUAL or FORCED. Forced + Punitive Taxes = FINANCIAL RAPE
Any links to or descriptions of any consensual tax system that would actually work? (If your answer is anarchocapitalism's "hire your own thugs" non-solution, then don't bother posting it.)
You don't need a tax system at all. "Hire your own thugs" is not the anarchocapitalist solution, their solution is typically the insurance company or subscription fee model. If it did not work, then Brinks and G4S would not be in business.
Could you be any more retarded? Private security companies operate (at least when not having government in their pocket or otherwise getting away with something) under the system of law created by governments. They are in no fucking way, shape or form evidence that such a thing works well when there is no such legal environment. Furthermore, the corruption and power grabs that are inevitable when hired thugs (effectively) "are the law" does not manifest when hired thugs have to operate under a system of law they don't control. (It's pretty much the same dynamic that makes governments get out of control, except with a "you get as much 'thug power' as you can buy" kicker added in and no valid moral basis for the system.)
And what the fuck is the difference between "insurance company or subscription fee model" and "hire your own thugs"? Riddle me this: I decide not to use any "insurance company" or any such thing. You do. I then do something you don't like. What are you going to do? You're going to go to your hired thugs and try to get them to deal with me. Let's say you are wrong and unjust and your hired thugs go along with you (because you're a good paying customer and they think they can rough me up pretty easy), maybe you lied about the whole incident and just want something I've got so you told them I stole it from you, what do I then do? My only chance is to run away or hire my own thugs to make your thugs reconsider the economics of the situation.
I always said the best tax would be a jacking off tax. We could place some sort of device on every young male...and everytime he wanks one....a drop int the bucket for the tax man. Speaking personally, I could have funded a couple of hospitals by the time I was 20.
feminazis would love this Tax
We already have one, it's called a child deduction, and if you can't take advantage of that, well then, we will just tap you out at the court house.
In the interest of fair play there should be a dildoo tax then for each time its used.
Congress would be exempt.
"Middle-class squeeze: From day care to health care"
This was on Yahoo! if you can believe it, at the top of the news:
"For a typical married couple with two children, the combined cost of child care, housing, health care and savings for college and retirement jumped 32 percent from 2000 to 2012 — and that's after adjusting for inflation."
Obamacare (ACA) is a tax, and so are FED money printing, QE, and bailouts for Wall Street.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/middle-class-squeeze-day-care-health-care-155139877--finance.html
"In the days of ancient Rome, it was tradition for the upper class to liberate their slaves after a set number of years.
The Roman government, however, looked at this as an opportunity to generate revenue, and they taxed the newly freed slave on his freedom.
I can’t imagine anything more repulsive than paying tax on freedom. But they gave it a pretty good try–"
Talk about some shitty research. It WAS NOT the tradition to liberate slaves after a set number of years. Manumission was done sporadically as a special favor or as a reward for loyalty in a will, etc. And even then the Roman master paid the manumission tax. A slave only paid the manumission tax is he/she bought themselves out of slavery. The tax was 5%. Since 5% is 1/20 the tax was referred to as a Vicesima. If the author of this screed can't at least get this part right who the hell wants to read the rest of his BS?
Good analysis. But... you're new here, aren't you? We all just smile and nod at "Simon" the way you might avoid a tedious blowhard uncle at family reunions.
OK. I understand. But what upsets me is I used to come to ZH for some really good information I couldn't get from the MSM. Now it seems there is so much stupid stuff about political issues (and most of that is slanted as hell) that the website has become tiresome and unreliable. What's happened to this place anyway?
It's become more tabloid and less hard-hitting. I don't know the inside scoop but it seems that early on a number of different people with different personalities and interests came together to create the site (anyone remember Marla or Project Mayhem? Bruce Krasting's regular articles?). Most of them seem to have drifted away. It now seems to be one Tyler, or maybe some corporation, running the site as a financial tabloid with many ads. It's still useful for some things, but there is vastly more chaff than grain now.
Several years ago I had thought Simon was the least likely outside contributor to hang around, but obviously I was wrong. I can only guess that he's either one of the most reliable advertisers, OR maybe he is Tyler.
The ads have become really annoying. I routinely have to shutdown flash processes to prevent my PC resources being eaten up by this crap.
Also the commentary has gotten a lot more joospiracy since years ago.
Since the buyout (or sellout?), much more tabloid, much less technical. The London whale analysis of the actual trades, tranches, and convexity was great. I had to read that article 3-4 times just to get it right in my head. Then, do you remember when ZH was going to post one person per week that was responsible for all the Tom-fuckery in the world? There was a few posts, a BIS guy, some Citi asshole and his linked in. Not so much of that any more. Comments began to be moderated heavily too.
In fact, it seems like the hard hitting financial analysis has waned to almost nil and none of the 'who's who' to boot.
Disappointing.
Adblock.
Infowars has gone the same route.
Before Jones was famous from the Charlie Sheen scandal, he was extremely hard hitting. You needed to put a seatbelt on before visiting the site so you wouldn't fall out of the chair from the total shock.
The articles nowadays are mostly copy paste jobs from Drudge Report links. The original reports are few and far between. The comment quality on Infowars has gone way downhill. He had a forum many years ago that had contributors cover Snowden-type information on cyber security way before Snowden. Those contributors are long gone (maybe whacked, who knows?) Now it has been reduced to Christian versus Atheism bore, and moar drudge report copy/paste jobs.
Zero Hedge is still moar hard hitting than infowars, so keep enjoying it while it is here.
Another site I enjoy is the Mtsar Forum, (google it) which is Michael Tsarion's blog.
Nor was this the most outrageous tax invented.
During the late Imperial period, there was a tax that had
to be paid with the coinage of an earlier administration.
The then current coin of the realm was unacceptable,
because it did not have the precious metal content
of the previous coinage. Oh, and there were taxes
that were outright in weight of gold. Again, ( debased )
coin of the realm was unacceptable.
Coming to a jurisdiction near you (?) ... yeah think!
No, by far the worst was later Roman requirement that made tax burdens and tax debts inheritable, creating genearational serfdom (coloni). The slowing of conquest and revenues forced the Romans to begin debasing their currency and increasing taxes on the (shrinking) middle classes, to pay for ever more lavash undertakings, bread and circuses for the growing prolitariet, while the wealthy and powerful wrote themselves exemptions and enriched theselves. The empire had also grown too large and complex, resulting in what anthropologiest like Dr. Joseph Tainter (The Collapse of Complex Societies) call a "maintenance crisis". The result was tax burdens that could no longer be satisfied, resulting in a return of nexum (debt bondage), and the creation of coloni (forcible serfdom).
A colonus was a type of Roman peasant farmer, a serf. This designation was carried into the Medieval period for much of Europe. Coloni worked on large Roman estates called "latifundia" and could never leave. Latifundia raised sheep and other types of cattle. Traditionally, the latifundia had used slave labor, but in the third century AD, the cessation of Roman conquests induced a labor shortage due to a shortage of actual slaves, so that in some cases the land was worked by free tenant farmers. Fiscal of Diocletian tied the peasants to the land, and reduced them to a serf-like status. The tenant farmers were known as coloni (singular:colonus). The coloni farmed the land and paid rent to the owner of the latifundium. Their rent usually consisted of a portion of their harvest, labor, or money.
Although technically still free, coloni could be hunted or flogged if they left the latifundium. Under Constantine, any coloni who fled the latifundium and was recovered could be kept in chains as though they were slaves.[1] Increasing numbers of people were forced to become coloni due to the decreasing number of slaves to support the economy because of Rome's failure to win battles. Coloni became bandits and bagaudae, with Bulla Felix as a prime example, which further harmed the trade system.
By the fifth century Rome’s economy collapsed, stripped of money. Subsistence life reverted to the countryside, where the Roman serfdom system would live on, as feudalism.
After reading that, a tax on gratuitous bold type cant't be far off.
drop income tax
replace with
Tobin tax
watch the elites squeal in horror
more like - watch ordiary folks retirements squeal in horror
I think uncle warren auto pay all our taxes.
Wasn't the Canadian fedral tax introduced "temporaly" to pay for WW1? We still have it to this day.
look at your cable or phone bill - there ought to be a law against silly and arbitrary tax names....
Why haven't libertarians led a mass protest at the NY FED? Seriously - if I were in town I'd roll down, hold a sign, smoke a J, and try to bang a slut...
What if 100 people spraypainted the fucker all at once?
I'm not sure most Americans even know it exists.
Why would libertarians engage in statist, protest activities designed to create a political mandate?
You do realize about half of those supposed taxes and fees aren't actually taxes at all, but stuff the companies added to make it look like taxes, when it's just pure profit?
The cell companies have been caught doing this so many times even the no-teeth FTC has actually done something.
Actually the window tax existed in the US as well -- but it was in lieu of property tax. Interestingly, when people moved, they brought their windows with them.
Pet tax. Mirror tax. True.
The TV license in the UK is NOT per TV as the author suggests - its per household.
Taxes, and indeed government, are just like a cancer. Neither goes away on its own. Both taxes and government must be killed or excised out of the body for the host to live.
What you failed to state is the BBC (the reason we have to pay a licence fee) has no commercials between programs, hence the "tax".
However, I absolutely detest paying it, thus every year I wait for the letter threatening legal action, then I post payment in the form of postal orders, which probably cost as much to process in admin than the licence itself.
If they want to continue with a totally out-dated tax system, I'll continue to pay, after the final demand letter, using totally out-dated payment methods.
Really? We do have to pay the GEZ in Germany for every househol, even if there is no television or radio. And the ARD and ZDF still show advertisements till 20:00 or the like. So I'd argue the britisch government is still generous in comparison to ours....
Broken window tax? Krug would love that.
Eliminate the USD's GRC status, and all kinds of good stuff happens.
Actually, the dumbest tax of all time was the "luxury" tax in the 1990 budget. Democrats wanted to stick it to the "rich". It actually cost the government several orders of magnitude more in taxes than it collected. It virtually wiped out the private boat building industry in the US in two years before being repealed, costing more than 100,000 jobs.
Wasn't there a "Bachelor Tax" that they were trying to pass in New Jersey in 1898 to apply to men????
Wasn't such a tax actually applied in Germany until recently????
In Poland there is TV tax as well but unlike UK you pay it only once rather than for every TV set. recently the gov tries to push new law that makes everyone pay that tax even if they do not have TV sets - because theoretically you could watch state TV via internet.
Here is the list of taxes we in Italy pay on gasoline:
War in Abissinia 1935: 1.9 Lira
The Suez canal crisis 1956: 14 Lira
The disaster of Vajont (collapsed dam: 1910 victims) 1963: 10 Lira
Florence flood 1966: 10 Lira
Belice earthquake 1968: 10 Lira
Friuli earthquake 1976: 99 Lira
Irpinia earthquake 1980: 75 Lira
Mission in Lebanon 1983: 205 Lira
Mission in Bosnia 1996: 22 Lira
Renewal of train conductor contract 2004: 0.02 Euro or 39 Lira
Decree for the maintenance cost of cultural goods 2011: 0.0073 Euro
Emergency immigration crisis from Libia: 0.04 Euro
Flooding in Liguria region 2011: 0.0089 Euro
Urgent needs for fixing public finances 2011: 0.112 Euro
Earthquake in Emilia 2012: 0.02 Euro
The total amounts to roughly 0.41 Euro
Of course those are only the added tax on the production tax which brings the total tax on gasoline to 0.7284 Euro on which the VAT at a rate of 22% is added. Therefore we pay a tax on taxes.
We pay an average of 1.72/liter of wich .72 are taxes
Want to come to live in Italy, my friends?