The opposition in power The taxation of businesses, which in recent months, especially during the election campaign, has been heard to be unfairly imposed on private traders, singers, dentists, doctors, etc., etc., has astonished many people. Moreover, this issue is raised precisely when the PSP is putting forward its voice for a government in a country with a market economy, where taxation is the main means of filling the state coffers. Can there be a market economy without taxes? Certainly not. Tax is a fiscal burden known since centuries past, a levy paid by law for the benefit of the state. Taxes are imposed according to the value of profit, especially net profit. Fiscal law has several criteria for the imposition of taxes. One of the basic criteria is fairness, according to which tax burdens must be distributed among taxpayers according to each person’s ability to pay. Another criterion is undoubtedly ease, that is, the tax must be such that it can be paid easily by the person who owes it. Furthermore, the tax must be worthwhile for the state treasury, not so heavy as to make payment difficult. At the heart of this fiscal principle lies the fact that tax is imposed on a profit or a property; it is imposed on those who earn and possess, and is not meant to be taken from the bread of the poor. It is even clearer that private individuals (it is hard to call them that based on their business or their earnings, since even the smallest one today earns as much as 15 doctors and as many teachers) should not be touched in their minimum means of living by their tax. They say their income is small. That means taxes on small profits should be reduced, but not abolished. Can it be said that a taxed dentist or singer should be protected when he receives for one tooth or one evening as much as the monthly income of several families? If the state does not tax these profits, who will bear the public burden? It is no surprise that representatives of right-wing forces present the abolition of taxes for this category as something popular, because in this way they seek to attract quick votes. But it is surprising when socialists say the same thing, forgetting that the state is not sustained by wishes, but by income. To be for privatization and for a market economy means also to be for the taxation of private profit. Otherwise, a parasitic economy is created, growing rich at the expense of the majority that works for a salary. Much has been said about today’s inequality: a doctor, a teacher, a worker do not earn enough to make ends meet, while on the other side there are people who earn many times more and declare little or nothing. It is precisely here that the state must intervene with law, control, and tax justice. There can be no social state without taxes. There can be no public services, schools, hospitals, roads, order, and administration without a fairly distributed fiscal burden. So the question remains: which power-holders are we talking about—those who want a normal state, or those who in the name of market freedom want freedom from obligations? Anyone who aims to govern must say plainly whether he defends the public interest or the privilege of wealthy groups.