4 ms·

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

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.