59 ms·
I'm dubious of people who equate paying fewer taxes with the concept of evil, as if government ever did anything to earn income. There's far too prevalent a min
by yock 16y ago
I'm dubious of people who equate paying fewer taxes with the concept of evil, as if government ever did anything to earn income. There's far too prevalent a mindset in this country that sees falling tax revenue as a negative, then further perpetrate the lie by ascribing ownership of these missing tax revenues to the people. They use personal pronouns like "you," "we," and "our" when speaking of them.
Follow the money, or the lack thereof. Behind every one of these complaints lies, somewhere, someone who has some self-serving use for that money.
- natnat 16y agoTax revenue is necessary to maintain a functional government. When the government doesn't get enough tax revenue to pay for the things it spends money on, it must either increase taxes on everyone, or borrow money from other people to finance its programs. Either way, everyone else ends up paying more in taxes. That's why people treat taxpayer money as "their" money. The government could choose to spend less money and avoid decreasing the tax burden on everyone else, but then the services everyone receives would decrease, and only those who don't pay as much tax would benefit. If we hold spending constant, someone who doesn't pay their fair share of taxes is increasing the tax burden on everyone else.
- yock 16y agoWhen your income decreases, you buy less stuff. It's a lesson the government has never learned. I'm perfectly happy with fewer services.
- natnat 16y agoI'm not talking about my income or your income. I'm saying that, when spending is constant and Google doesn't pay as much in tax, you have to pay more. If spending decreases and your tax is held constant, you get less back. Either way, Google wins and you lose.