3 ms·

I don't think we're on the same page. I'm just saying, personally, I would definitely choose myself and my family over the government and pay zero taxes legally

I don't think we're on the same page. I'm just saying, personally, I would definitely choose myself and my family over the government and pay zero taxes legally if I could. Now, if the law was ridiculously immoral, like I could only avoid taxes legally by siphoning money to North Korea or something, maybe I would think twice about the moral component, but some tax loophole in a Roth? I don't give a shit. I'll choose my family, thanks. And I don't see how you have the moral high ground here either. Does the US government have better morals than me? Who'll spend the money better for humanity? I bet I would honestly. And I would go as far to say that the majority of people think the same way as me. Who the hell wants to pay more taxes? Now, I'm not saying we should all pay no tax. I'm saying it's a prisoner's dilemma: we're all better off individually if we don't pay taxes, but as a group we're all better off if everyone pays taxes. I don't see how this is controversial or triggering for you, and your response style sucks.

harry8 5y ago
No property rights for your family, you wave them. No legal recourse - you don't get your day in court. No roads, no driving for you and no delivery involving driving. You believe that if your compatriots were uneducated your life would be better. All worth more than the tax saved to your family... It's basically impossible to refuse the benefit of the externalities - national defence, National parks, peace on the streets. So yeah, paying zero tax is straight up freeloading on those around you who do pay so they don't live in a failed state. There are a few of failed states around. Probably don't have to pay tax if you move to one. The Bahamas is not a failed state and arguably closer to what you're advocating. We /are/ on the same page because now you've moved from ethics free argument to one involving your version of ethics. Plenty to discuss there, that barely scratches the surface and any deeper is likely a waste of time. There is a huge difference between genuine libertarian belief an just being a "tax karen" with a pretence libertarian justification. The only thing they really want is not to pay. The latter have really messed up libertarianism and that's a pretty big loss. Including in our tax bills if we can't or choose not to avoid it all.
- Moodles 5y ago
  Again, we’re going in circles. Yes, society is better if everyone pays their taxes. But again, each individual is better off if they don’t pay their own, obviously. And I don’t blame people for legally paying as little as they can get away with if it’s just some loopholes in a Roth. Honestly, I could respond with the exact same comment as you replied to because there’s really no new material to respond to. Yes, I realise taxes go to national defence. What are you trying to pontificate to me? At the end of the day you’re kinda pontificating fundamental morality? Mine is (roughly) me and my family > friends, people I know. > people in general > animals. Now with that rough framework, obviously an individual not paying their share of taxes (it being a drop in the ocean) while everyone else pays, it makes sense to take advantage of a Roth loophole. But again, it’s a rough framework because there’s obviously an extreme contrived scenario where you wouldn’t be extremely terrible to a lower ranked group in the framework to benefit a higher group only slightly (e.g kill 1000 strangers to be 1% richer), but I don’t think a Roth loophole is it. I’ve actually been consistent about this if you literally read my comments, but you seem to think I’m not. I also don’t know why you care at this point, as we seem to be clashing on fundamental values. I’m speaking for myself, and also human nature generally. Trust me, if people could legally exploit a Roth loophole this way, most would.

harry8 5y ago

No property rights for your family, you wave them. No legal recourse - you don't get your day in court. No roads, no driving for you and no delivery involving driving. You believe that if your compatriots were uneducated your life would be better. All worth more than the tax saved to your family... It's basically impossible to refuse the benefit of the externalities - national defence, National parks, peace on the streets. So yeah, paying zero tax is straight up freeloading on those around you who do pay so they don't live in a failed state. There are a few of failed states around. Probably don't have to pay tax if you move to one. The Bahamas is not a failed state and arguably closer to what you're advocating. We /are/ on the same page because now you've moved from ethics free argument to one involving your version of ethics. Plenty to discuss there, that barely scratches the surface and any deeper is likely a waste of time. There is a huge difference between genuine libertarian belief an just being a "tax karen" with a pretence libertarian justification. The only thing they really want is not to pay. The latter have really messed up libertarianism and that's a pretty big loss. Including in our tax bills if we can't or choose not to avoid it all.

Moodles 5y ago
Again, we’re going in circles. Yes, society is better if everyone pays their taxes. But again, each individual is better off if they don’t pay their own, obviously. And I don’t blame people for legally paying as little as they can get away with if it’s just some loopholes in a Roth. Honestly, I could respond with the exact same comment as you replied to because there’s really no new material to respond to. Yes, I realise taxes go to national defence. What are you trying to pontificate to me? At the end of the day you’re kinda pontificating fundamental morality? Mine is (roughly) me and my family > friends, people I know. > people in general > animals. Now with that rough framework, obviously an individual not paying their share of taxes (it being a drop in the ocean) while everyone else pays, it makes sense to take advantage of a Roth loophole. But again, it’s a rough framework because there’s obviously an extreme contrived scenario where you wouldn’t be extremely terrible to a lower ranked group in the framework to benefit a higher group only slightly (e.g kill 1000 strangers to be 1% richer), but I don’t think a Roth loophole is it. I’ve actually been consistent about this if you literally read my comments, but you seem to think I’m not. I also don’t know why you care at this point, as we seem to be clashing on fundamental values. I’m speaking for myself, and also human nature generally. Trust me, if people could legally exploit a Roth loophole this way, most would.