<![CDATA[The ideal tax policy should balance social justice through income redistribution, as proposed by John Rawls, with economic freedom and individual property rights, as emphasized by Robert Nozick, to create a fair and sustainable system. This study analyzes the differences and similarities in the theories of distributive justice according to John Rawls and Robert Nozick in normative, philosophical, and sociological aspects, as well as examine their implications for tax policy to formulate an ideal taxation system. This article employs a normative legal method with conceptual, legislative, and comparative approaches to analyze the theories of distributive justice by Rawls and Nozick in tax policy, using a literature study technique and descriptive-comparative analysis of tax regulations in various countries. The findings reveal that differences in the theories of distributive justice between Rawls and Nozick have significant implications for tax policy, where Rawls advocates progressive taxation to reduce social inequality and improve the welfare of disadvantaged groups, whereas Nozick rejects tax redistribution as it violates individual property rights and supports a proportional tax system instead. An ideal tax policy could adopt a mixed approach, with moderate progressive taxation to support social welfare and lower corporate taxes to encourage investment and economic growth, thereby effectively balancing social justice and individual freedom.]]>
Copyrights © 2025
