Fact check: How do No Kings supporters view taxation and government revenue collection?

1. Historic anarchists rejected central taxation and experimented with collective finance

The most explicit historical claim is that Spanish Civil War anarchists—identified here as “No Kings” supporters—opposed hierarchical state power, including centralized taxation, and created rural collectives that reorganized economic life outside the state tax framework ^[1]. Those collectives commonly abolished money, wage labor, and middle-men in favor of direct-democratic allocation of resources, implying replacement of tax revenue with communal provisioning and in-kind redistribution rather than monetary transfers to a sovereign treasury ^[1]. This account dates to the article published on 2025-09-11, which frames the position as both ideological and practical, rooted in anti-authoritarian principles ^[1].

2. Contemporary political grievances point toward local self-reliance, not explicit tax platforms

A more modern strand in the dataset signals localities chafing at federal mandates, where critics urge decoupling or greater municipal autonomy in response to federal actions, which could include rethinking revenue flows and regulatory compliance ^[2]. The September 26, 2025 piece on King County reflects a practical turn toward local control—it signals a willingness to consider alternative governance arrangements but does not amount to an articulated tax system; rather it frames tax policy as one arena of contested authority between levels of government ^[2]. This suggests contemporary “No Kings”-adjacent rhetoric emphasizes subsidiarity and negotiation over immediate abolition of taxation.

3. Some critiques favor replacing complex tax systems rather than eliminating revenue collection

Another recurring claim in the assembled analyses frames the tax system itself—especially income taxation and enforcement institutions—as inefficient or punitive, prompting calls for alternatives such as flat taxes, consumption taxes, or abolition of particular agencies ^[6]. The September 13, 2025 commentary presents this as a reformist agenda championed by certain political actors who seek to reduce bureaucratic intrusion and simplify revenue collection, not necessarily to eliminate public revenue entirely ^[6]. This view can intersect with anti-state sentiments, yet it stops short of advocating replacement by non-monetary communal provisioning favored by historical anarchists.

4. Global tax-administration examples show diversity in collection approaches and outcomes

Separate policy reporting highlights diversity in modern tax collection outcomes: Kenya’s relatively high tax-to-GDP ratio stems from a broadened base and tech-enabled enforcement, whereas Nigeria’s lower ratio demonstrates collection challenges; Indonesia experienced a decline in revenue in early 2025; and Jamaica ran targeted property-tax drives to boost compliance and municipal funding ^{[3] [4] [7]}. These country-level data points, dated September 2025, illuminate practical options for raising revenue—digitalization, base broadening, and localized drives—options that contrast sharply with the anti-tax ethos of historical No Kings movements and illustrate trade-offs modern reformers consider ^{[3] [7] [4]}.

5. Key claim extraction: three distinct but overlapping positions emerge

From the dataset, three principal claims can be extracted: ^[8] historical anarchists favored abolition of state taxation and collective provisioning ^[1]; ^[9] contemporary localist critiques favor greater local autonomy and negotiation over federal fiscal authority rather than uniform abolition ^[2]; ^[10] policy commentators advocate streamlining or replacing existing tax institutions to reduce perceived burdens, not necessarily to end revenue collection ^[6]. All three claims are present in September 2025 sources or earlier and show how “No Kings” language is used across both radical and reformist registers ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

6. Comparing facts and timelines: historical practice vs. 2025 policy reporting

The historical practice described (collectives in the Spanish Civil War) is presented as established historical fact in the September 11, 2025 piece, while the September 2025 contemporary pieces report ongoing debates and empirical tax-collection outcomes in different countries ^{[1] [3] [4]}. The timeline suggests a shift from ideological abolition in 1930s contexts to pragmatic reform and localism in 2025, with modern actors often borrowing anti-authoritarian rhetoric without endorsing full abolition of monetary taxation ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

7. Perspectives, possible agendas, and what’s omitted

The dataset mixes historical and policy sources with potential agendas: historical anarchist accounts aim to legitimize decentralized, anti-state models; localist reporting highlights resistance to federal authority and may reflect political friction; tax-administration pieces promote administrative fixes and revenue-maximizing techniques ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Absent from the collection are systematic surveys of contemporary self-identified “No Kings” groups, quantitative polling on public attitudes toward taxation among such supporters, and detailed fiscal blueprints that reconcile communal provisioning with modern public-service costs—gaps that limit definitive claims about a unified modern stance.

8. Bottom line for readers: nuanced, plural positions not a single doctrine

The evidence assembled shows plural positions: historical No Kings actors abolished centralized taxation in practice, while modern usage of the term spans proposals for local autonomy, abolition of specific tax institutions, and technocratic reforms to improve collection—none of which converge into a single, contemporary fiscal doctrine ^{[1] [2] [6] [3]}. Readers should treat references to “No Kings” tax views as context-dependent: they can mean radical abolition, decentralizing revenue authority, or technical reform, depending on speaker, agenda, and the empirical setting documented in the September 2025 sources provided ^{[1] [2] [4]}.