3 ms·

I don't take pride at all. It is burdensome, worrying, and hostile for the following reasons. 1) My taxes are overly complicated. I have to hire lawyers and

I don't take pride at all. It is burdensome, worrying, and hostile for the following reasons. 1) My taxes are overly complicated. I have to hire lawyers and accountants to help. They have made mistakes but I am still liable. 2) My tax bracket pays a very high rate. With state taxes included I am near 50% on income. I don't think that's reasonable and the justification, in my opinion, is more based on a suspicion or dislike of people in my bracket than because I can afford to pay. The government spends far more than it's revenue anyways. If my bracket were moved to 100%, there would still be revenue deficits. 3) The IRS treats me as if I am hiding money. The higher your bracket it seems the more likely you are to be audited. My father has been audited multiple times. I have been audited once. It is not a pleasant experience and every letter the IRS sends causes more anxiety. Honest or trivial mistakes are treated as if done with criminal intent. 4) Nearly half the population does not pay taxes but can elect people who can choose what my rates are. I will never have a majority representation or much power to lower them. This doesn't seem fair to me. 5) The IRS can very well be incompetent or corrupt in the sense of being political but no one will admit that. The assumption is generally that tax cheats are a problem but not a biased IRS. For me to be proud, I think lowering my rate, simplifying taxes, requiring more Americans to pay, even if it is just a few dollars, and putting something in place to report overzealous IRS agents or corruption there would go a long way.

beatgammit 8y ago
I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits. The more important thing IMO is that the government is not careful with the money we give it, and it supports causes the majority disagree with (e.g. upholding the federal marijuana ban). When you couple runaway spending with a feeling of lack of representation, paying taxes feels more like extortion than "paying your share". If having everyone pay a little in taxes means they're more likely to vote for responsible spending, I'm all for it. But the tax system is so convoluted that many people think they're making money with their refund. Maybe having few people get a refund would be better, IDK. But the current system makes people apathetic toward federal spending.
- nybble41 8y ago
  > I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits. What's silly is letting people who are net tax-receivers have any say in how much other people pay in taxes. No representation without net taxation! Caveat: It's difficult to measure, but the cost of regulation (which does not include merely respecting others' natural rights) should really be counted as a form of tax. One idea would be to actually pay people to follow the regulations, as an equitable trade and not a benefit. The net tax-payers in charge would then be responsible for contributing the resources needed to make it worthwhile for the rest to comply with the regulations they propose. Anyone who doesn't comply simply doesn't get paid.

beatgammit 8y ago

I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits. The more important thing IMO is that the government is not careful with the money we give it, and it supports causes the majority disagree with (e.g. upholding the federal marijuana ban). When you couple runaway spending with a feeling of lack of representation, paying taxes feels more like extortion than "paying your share". If having everyone pay a little in taxes means they're more likely to vote for responsible spending, I'm all for it. But the tax system is so convoluted that many people think they're making money with their refund. Maybe having few people get a refund would be better, IDK. But the current system makes people apathetic toward federal spending.

nybble41 8y ago
> I agree with most of what you said, but it seems silly to have everyone pay into taxes when they're net receivers of benefits. What's silly is letting people who are net tax-receivers have any say in how much other people pay in taxes. No representation without net taxation! Caveat: It's difficult to measure, but the cost of regulation (which does not include merely respecting others' natural rights) should really be counted as a form of tax. One idea would be to actually pay people to follow the regulations, as an equitable trade and not a benefit. The net tax-payers in charge would then be responsible for contributing the resources needed to make it worthwhile for the rest to comply with the regulations they propose. Anyone who doesn't comply simply doesn't get paid.