That’s a pretty big claim that like all of philosophy is the “approved” narrative. I don’t have a degree in history or philosophy, but maybe read up on like Hobbes and Kant?

You didn’t respond to my part in the middle asking if you’re just cherry-picking laws.

(Also I have to go get dinner and such, so I’m going to stop responding in a bit. This has been interesting.)

Progressive taxation has been systematically attacked by conservatives for years. That’s why you see people saying we should make the top marginal tax rate back to 90% like it was in the 60s. https://taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-highest-marginal-income-tax-rates

You also need to address problems like stepped-up-basis, and buy-borrow-die strategies. I think there are also unpatched problems with corporate income, but I’m less familiar with the details there.

This is a complicated and storied part of humanity. I really recommend reading more about it.

That’s not what criminal act means. Criminal means it’s a violation of a law.

Tax policy comes from the laws that are made (typically) by elected representatives. That’s the government we live under, which is allegedly maintained by the consent of the people. If you knock that pillar out and just say “Government only applies to people who explicitly consent” then you’re going to get some hellish mix of sovereign citizens and the purge.

Like, if you’re not consenting to the laws of the US, can I just shoot you dead? Why not? Are you cherry-picking which laws you want to apply?

You can’t really seriously be making the “I didn’t ask to be born and thus I’m not subject to the rules of the land” argument, can you? I feel like every teenager comes up with that point, and then takes like a history class or philosophy class.

I think we should organize and go demand everyone working for DOGE… stop. And not demand like with funny signs and chants, but like with 2nd amendment arms.

That doesn’t explain how they are “criminal”. that was the word you used.

Many things are either subject to penalties or legitimacy based on context. If you cut someone open and take out their kidney, that’s probably a crime! Unless you’re a doctor doing a surgery in a hospital. Context matters.

Ok, I kind of get what you’re going for, but that’s still a very regressive taxation model. Assuming we could reach some consensus on “taxation has a place in government”, in my opinion you want to tax people who can better afford it. This is why flat taxes kind of suck.

Like let’s say we did a flat 10% tax of money. Someone who makes $10,000 pays $1000, and is left with $9000. Barely enough to live on. Someone who makes $1,000,000 pays $100,000 and is left with $900,000, which is a shit load of money. This is why progressive taxation is more popular. We say, don’t tax the first $10,000 at all, then tax stuff from like $10,001 to $100,000 at 10%, then $100,001 to $500,000 at 20%, and everything above that at 50%. (Numbers made up). Now people who have a lot of money pay more, and the cost of being rich scales.

We don’t really want very wealthy people. We don’t want money and power to consolidate in the hands of a few people. We want a flatter distribution of wealth. Now you have more people living life, having ideas, making inventions and art. If you put all the money in the hands of a few, and everyone else struggles to meet their basic needs, your society isn’t going to thrive.

Taxing what people purchase would be regressive, because there’s a certain floor for what everyone needs to buy. Some rich guy just isn’t buying so much more stuff that it’s going to work out.

Why are they both criminals? What law are they going breaking? I think the IRS, as part of the sovereign government of the US, cannot really be criminal. I think that’s getting into some like philosophy of “what is the state?” stuff though, which is beyond my expertise.

You seem to be rejecting the whole idea of social contracts and representative government. Which, ok, but that’s going against quite a long history.

I honestly have no idea what you’re trying to say. No one is talking about poor people buying five cars and yachts. I’m talking about how when you’re poor, and you’re trying to make what little you have cover (for example) clothing, paying $10 in taxes is a bigger portion, and thus hurts more, than if you were rich and had to pay the same tax.

Do you know how money works? How the more money you have, the less each dollar matters?

Because conservatives have been trying to kill social security since its inception. It shouldn’t really be in any danger of insolvency, barring conservative sabotage. A trivial search finds many articles about this: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/social-security-bankrupt/

If pushing taxation down to the state level makes a project impossible to do, then perhaps that project should not have been done to begin with.

This is clearly pants on head stupid. Postal service. Interstate transit systems. Weather forecasting. Just off the top of my head.

And again, one more time, you haven’t backed up your initial claim that “Taxation is theft”.

Are you Elon Musk? Because “cut 99% of the government” is the kind of uninformed ass-pull I would epxect from him.

Consumption taxes on goods is extremely regressive. That will tremendously impact the poor.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

That is irrelevant to your claim of “Taxation is theft”. Taxes pay for programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security, which are extremely popular.

Pushing stuff down to the state level makes coordination difficult, some projects impossible, and again is irrelevant to your argument that taxation is theft

Apply it to healthcare, science, finances, and the world will become a better place, especially in healthcare.

That’s all kind of moot if we continue down the capitalist hellscape express. What good is an AI that can diagnose cancer if most people can’t afford access? What good is AI writing novels if our homes are destroyed by climate change induced disasters?

Those problems are mostly political, and AI isn’t going to fix them. The people that probably could be replaced with AI, the shitty “leaders” and such, are not going to voluntarily step down.

What a disingenuous take. Surely you can see how no one’s going to take that message seriously, and no one will be convinced?

Taxes also pay for health care, roads, libraries, arts, and countless other things. Do you hate health care, roads, libraries, and art? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn’t be confident about guessing that based solely on your position on taxation.

None of this is supporting your initial claim of “taxation is theft”

No it’s not. Not paying your taxes and using public services is more arguably theft.

things like this are why anyone saying the right wing is fiscally responsible should be laughed out of the room

There’s a shared theme with like all of humanity’s woes: people don’t care that much.

From pollution to injustice to shitty websites, if people cared just a little more the problem would be dramatically reduced or even eliminated.

But so many people are just apathetic. Overwhelmed and checked out.

Whenever I ask someone out I make sure to explicitly use the word date. I don’t know how people fuck that up so often. The bad feels of uncertainty over many hours (or days) are so much worse than the brief stress of just asking.

I’d like to privatize Wells Fargo, where I also mean “dismantle and leave behind an unrecognizable corpse”

We should probably come up with a system where money doesn’t mean more access to the legal system.

Maybe you’re just not allowed to hire a lawyer directly, but you have to go through some magical entity that’s not corrupt and they assign you people.

Or fuck it, just fix everything else so no one is super rich compared to everyone else.

certainly aren’t seeking out the kinds of spaces that would be partisan on it in some way. their opinions on this are accordingly malleable based on “does this feel good or bad,”

That’s in line with what I was saying - that most people’s takes on congestion pricing (and honestly all other policy) is just vibes. I’d hope that stats and facts would sway them, but I’ve met people. But then again you cite there a large change towards supporting it as evidence builds, so maybe there’s hope.