GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:37 pm
Not so much. No one said that there is a doctrine of "fairness" associated with paying for group services. Never did. You're just inventing the concept out of thin air for convenience. Thus conclusions based on this false premise are also false, such as labeling taxes as "theft".
Huh? Are you suggesting fairness ought not be a consideration in the apportionment of taxes?
And I didn't suggest ALL taxes are theft, as your re-phrasing implies. Only those which pay for services from which the taxpayer receives no benefit.
[/quote]
Taxpayers receive a benefit. It's called "due process". The situation is simple: rich people have all the money, therefore they pay the vast majority of the taxes. On a related note, corporations must, by design and law, benefit their rich owners to the maximum extent possible (no, teacher's union pensions don't matter). That's a big Twinkie (Ghostbusters) and it's an overwhelming fact of American life.
GE Morton wrote: ↑November 28th, 2022, 1:37 pm
Who does or does not agree with it is irrelevant. Whether Alfie derives benefit from a particular government expenditure (for which he is compelled to pay) is an empirical, factual question. So the alternative is to assure that taxes pay only for services which unquestionably do benefit everyone compelled to pay for them. I.e., the government may not seize wealth from Alfie to deliver benefits to Bruno, no matter how many allies and cheerleaders Bruno can muster.
Unless, of course, "might makes right" is your governing moral standard, or if you perhaps hold the view that governments are "supreme beings" exempt from plebeian moral constraints.
You're leaving out little things called Democracy and Law. There just isn't any truth to your argument here. There are plenty of pay-to-play taxes. It's not a revolutionary or forbidden concept at all. There are means tests and benefit numbers as part of every bill that appropriates revenue. The Congress regularly decides not to tax at all for a huge portion its spending.
So, the dynamic you cite doesn't exist except insofar as lawmakers have to decide what part of their constituency is topmost in their consideration. Primarily they are is almost always state-centric. Even the most liberal Democrats will vote for corporate subsidies and tax breaks if the corporation is located in their state and/or district.
There's a way to get rid of the 16th Amendment if you want.
Meanwhile I'd ask you to consider the taxless Federal budget I outlie above. It's not only possible, we and the rest of the Western world are heading there at speed. What would you say if money creation rather than taxes financed the Federal budget? We already finance about 2/9 of our budget with borrowing.
Finally, remember: rich people pay the vast majority of taxes anyway. Unless you make over $80,000-$100,000 your taxes are not very important to the budget.