cross-posted from: https://kbin.earth/m/[email protected]/t/2771990
As data centers are shut down by angry mobs and AI surveillance cameras are ripped from their poles, the world’s tech billionaires and CEOs are waking up to the reality that the masses are, broadly speaking, not on board with their plan to automate the world with AI.
I’m okay with them evading taxes, just let everyone do that
I’m not.
We live in a society and enjoy or use services that benefit all. Schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. all need to be paid for. I have no problem paying for taxes to do my part, and have never had a desire to avoid that responsibility. I live in a society. It benefits me, and I pay back into it, just as everyone should.
I have a problem with the people who have the most to give not doing so. They’re leeching off society without giving back to it.
I can tell you grew up watching Mr Rodgers.
I mean that as a compliment by the way.
I did, him and Bob Ross. They’re both missed, and I hope their syndication can be a benefit to young people today. (Edit - though from what I’ve seen, the kids are alright. Certainly more compassionate and empathetic today than my cohort or generations before).
Not sure if the shows still air, but some is on YouTube, and I donate to PBS monthly just in case.
Yeah. I grew up thinking all generations hate the younger generations. Then the younger generations get older and hate the younger younger generations.
Nope. Turns out that was just a boomer thing. Gen X typically doesn’t have opinions on anything. Millenials just hate the boomers, and Gen-Z just straight up aren’t having kids.
But I’m whats called a Xenial. Half genX, half millenial. And I’ve never thought of the younger generations as bad. I feel bad for them. 40 years before their birth, the world wasn’t a huge dumpster fire. And then reagan happened, and things have been sliding downward ever since. By the time Gen-Z was born, it was already too late. Then on top of that, their childhood was centered around covid, and now trump being a massive dick. Just in general, at all times.
So I don’t get mad at the younger generations. I kinda feel bad for them. The world sucks, and it’s the only world they’ve ever known.
Pretty much. I’m in my 40s, late millennial. Shit sucked, watching opportunities previous generations had slipping away as I hit adulthood and realized what an absolute mess everything was, and that everything I’d been taught to succeed at life was a lie.
Ended up doing okay for myself thanks to getting into IT and dropping out of college before I racked up more debt but it still took forever to pay off. I managed to get to six figures a few years back, pay off my debts, and I’m able to make things work financially thanks to moving to the boonies and living small, and saving a lot. I also lucked out with good timing and had a home built when the interest rates were still around 3% and paid points to lower it more. My mortgage now is less than I paid in rent in 2021, and rates are up since then.
And now… I mean I’m okay, but seeing everything happening is stressful. No idea how future employment is gonna go with all the AI mess (I’m sure I’ll be fine, but it’s all up on air):, and I don’t think the kids today will even have the opportunities that I had early career when I took jobs that were shitty but at least gave me opportunities to learn and skill up and get various career certs to move up and do better.
I was lamenting the lack of opportunities back then, feeling like I was always one step ahead of inflation, debt, and potential homelessness, and it’s even harder for today’s young adults! I honestly don’t know how someone not already established would even get a foot in the door today, and everything’s gone absolutely crazy.
Tomkatt, I love the way you write and the concerns you expressed for our youth today.
I fully agree with everything you’ve said and I just need to reach out to tell you that you are a great human being.
All the best, be well, and let’s hope things work out for the common man. Thanks again!
We have opinions on everything, trust me.
We don’t advertise them as much. We were the last generation that was told to be seen, and not heard, maybe that’s why. Or, perhaps it’s because we were the first of the screwed generations and we’re nihilistic. Or both. Or neither.
It doesn’t matter. None of this matters.
I feel like that should be taken as a compliment regardless of how it’s meant
Not only that, but have also benefited the most from the services and infrastructure.
Government “services” are a net negative at this point
Classic neolib playbook. Defund public services so much that they barely function, claim that the government can’t do anything right and/or that public services are “net negative”, then privatize everything and enshittify it even more while extracting as much value from people as possible.
But am I wrong though? We have to form new governments that actually listen to people and has their consent before we give them taxes. Any other kind of government is just a mafia.
Not paying taxes because you don’t like the government or what the tax dollars are spent on is problematic. It’s a subjective judgement. If you are justified in not paying taxes for what you don’t like, someone else is justified in not paying taxes when the government does things that you like just because they don’t like it.
The purpose of democracy is to find some kind of consensus. If you don’t like what the government is doing, find like minded people and work to change minds and the government.
The only way to justify not paying taxes is to argue that you are being denied the ability to participate in the government system and have no legitimate recourse. Honestly, we are at that point now that the government is transparently corrupt. That’s just not the angle you were arguing.
Genocide.
I don’t like it. Some do. Am I morally obligated to fund it with my taxes?
You don’t fund Genocide with your taxes. You pay taxes to the government and the government chooses to fund the genocide.
If you vote for a candidate who wants to vote against genocide but that candidate loses and the winner votes in favor of genocide… did you support genocide by simply casting a vote?
It’s a democracy (in theory). We pay taxes and we collectively decide what to spend one money on. It doesn’t matter how terrible the cause is. It changes nothing beyond how vigorously you need to oppose those who want to do terrible things.
So, we fund genocide with our taxes. The least you could do is acknowledge it.
If there is no way to forcefully avoid our government from participating in evils, why should I participate? Why should I not dedicate my every waking moment to dismantling that which aids evil? Do you feel that we, we the people, actually decide what our government does? Do you actually believe that the choices are free and open and reflective of the beliefs of the common American? That is the promise given in the contract that says I am to pay the government, and if the government is not going to fulfill its side, why should I?
What other mechanism does the populace have to voice their displeasure with the actions of the people voted in? Because nothing stops people from doing an about face once in office.
Yes, we have no legitimate recourse. We never did. For example, the US constitution wasn’t legitimately ratified and even if it was, that was 250 years ago. Did we agree to be under it? And even if 99% did agree to be under it, what is the recourse of the 1%? Their only recourse is find another country. But every country is like this and none of them have the consent of the governed. It’s an oligopoly of power-hungry countries. True recourse would be the ability to form your own country. Secession, not only by states but by any group or even an individual. Without that we just get a choice between which prison we prefer.
Lets explore a hypothetical. A theoretical person, who I’ll randomly call Ronald Drump, loves raping and torturing. He does it every chance he gets. Can’t get enough of it. Men, women, children - all are fair game in his eyes. He’s got enough money for body guards to make sure he isn’t interrupted by peasants. He doesn’t like the law of the land. The law says he must not do what he wants to do and have a good time. Jerking off in the middle of the street to the tortured screams of his victims is apparently against the law! They send Police to stop him!
He didn’t agree to these laws. He never consented to be governed by them. Everywhere he goes, the government tells him to stop. He can’t escape it! Is he justified in refusing to comply? He has no recourse! He’s not welcome anywhere. Is the freedom to choose what tyrannical government he wants to live under really a choice at all? Why can’t he just establish the Republic of Ronald on main Street and be free from the unjust system?
Edit: We live in a society. Democratic rule of the majority over the minority in its simplest form is not ideal, but most of humanity has been moving away from that simple method bit by bit. Laws established by the majority that try to protect the rights of those in the minority, to shield them from such outcomes. Its not perfect, but it’s a work in progress. Without consensus of some kind society regresses to might makes right and tyranny of the powerful.
You don’t choose where or to whom you are born. That’s just life. It sucks, but there is no way to change that especially since you have no concept of any of these things or what you believe until years after the event. Raging against the unfairness of these facts seems… silly to me?
Of course you’re wrong. That’s just Libertarian/Ancap nonsense…
Forming governments is ancap? Sure, dude.
Not paying taxes because ‘government is wrong’
I said bad governments don’t deserve taxes. Do you think every government is justified to take as much taxes as it wants however it wants? No? Then shut up! :)
What was your excuse before this administration?
Every administration has been the same, and it’s all based on an illusion of democracy and a form of government we never got to vote on and have no way of overturning.
There it is. Knew there’d be one.
If you seriously think every administration is the same, I don’t know what to say. It’s not easy to communicate when someone is both deaf and blind.
Of course they’re not exactly the same but they’re all working toward the same end goal of subjugating the masses instead of doing their bidding. The Republicans pretend to support traditional values and the Democrats pretend to support welfare but they both actually promote surveillance, war, big companies, environmental damage, subversion of nature, anti-human technologies, wealth extraction from the public, global government and so on.
Dont down vote me to oblivion, but ive been told they (gov) dont need our taxes one bit. If they need money they print it. Taxation is a scam, basically, and the majority goes to war, right? Or used to.
Why is it I still in 2026 can’t easily see where every single cent of my taxes goes? Why? Because it goes directly in government pockets is why.
“I’ve been told”
brilliant.
By the very bestest most smartestest people, I’m sure
Thats actually why i said it. I never said it was true.
The person who told me it is also not reputable either. I just wanted to bring it up because who knows if its true or not? We dont know what hapoens behind the scenes.
what would you like to know because i have written a few laws.
You think laws apply to government, billionaires, or cops?
i’ll take that as a no.
I mean sure I’m here to learn. I just have 0 belief that any law is binding anyone in those groups, based on who us walking around free right now who should be in prison for life or worse.
you were told incorrectly.
Apparently so
That stuff has a name, and it’s called MMT, modern monetary theory, and it’s generally considered a bad idea.
Yes, the government can in principle just print money, but that has consequences, and they’re not pretty. The understanding of the problems this was causing has been the historical reason for the independence of the central banks from the executive branches.
There is a branch of the left that doesn’t like the idea that there are limits to public spending, but now that Trump is trying to take control of the Federal Reserve we just might find out how much of a bad idea it is to have the central bank under the executive.
The shortest version of why MMT is very dubious at best, is that if you print too much money you get inflation, and MMT proponents acknowledge this. You know how they suggest controlling inflation? By levying taxes. And there you go, taxes are back.
BTW the breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent is here: (at least if you’re in the US, which it sounds like you are)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget
Thank you, I will read up on this!
I won’t downvote, but whoever told you that was telling stories. Yes, money gets mishandled at times, and we’re currently in a period of absurd corruption, but overall governmental programs are very efficiently run compared to a lot of private sector since there’s zero need for profit.
The government is also essentially the largest negotiating body in the country for bulk rate bids.
Which is a leading cause of inflation. It’s very conservative financial behavior. Budgets need to be balanced. Republicans don’t bother and tend to leave the mess for whoever comes after. Democrats aren’t a ton better, but budgets are at least considered, and the only time we’ve ever had a surplus budget in my lifetime was under the democrats.
Its amazing how the psyop works to brainwash us into thinking government is less efficient than private corporations. This is an argument I have a lot with people who worship musky and think he should run the world.
Right, we are currently in awful inflation even now!
Its hard to explain to people that what theyre saying is false though. How can we prove tax money really goes where they say? There doesn’t seem to be actual proof.
The only thing worth noting is private industry with publicly traded options will always need to show quarter over quarter profit (or best effort to do so) as a literal legal obligation to shareholders. They have a legal obligation to profit as much as possible within legal limits, and even skirting them where legislation is up for debate. That means in the long run, going private will never be the cheapest option.
The government has no such obligation, and no need to profit. Their only “shareholders” are the American people, and voting essentially makes us the board to remove them if we feel their choices are not to the public benefit.
taxation removes money from the overall monetary supply. Central banks can’t ‘run out’ of money and do not require that spending be ‘matched’ to a tax base. There is a practical limit on how much money can be printed, in terms of productive capacity but also inflationary pressure, but mostly the boomer narrative of ‘fiscal responsibility’ is there to discipline popular expectations about social services and public spending generally. The logic of austerity is a leash around the neck of the working class, working silently to condition them to interpret spending which benefits their class interests as being ‘irresponsible’.
Well yes but printing it is a horrible idea cuz inflation.
This is exactly what they want. If no one pays taxes and we all get that back into our paychecks, the price of goods goes up by the same amount or more. The taxes are still paid, they just go straight to the shareholders instead of through the government. These billionaires don’t pay their fair share now but they would love to pay nothing at all. 30% inflation doesn’t affect them but it does make them richer. This is why they’re floating the idea of zero income tax.
Taxes are money collected by the government ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living and care, as well as essential services. Taxes are important. Don’t blame taxes just cause America can’t use tax money correctly.
Good taxes yes.
How about the taxes funding war and dumpys ballroom?
taxation and government spending are two different things
It was mentioned in the message you replied to.
Youre right, me bad
So you’re saying taxes are good when we have a government that serves the people? So how about we require the government to serve the people before we let them take taxes?
And what are you doing to work towards this goal?
I could answer that question but you obviously aren’t interested in the answer, you’re just looking to argue.
So, nothing?
Proving my point, John
Yes, there’s interstate compacts starting to form around this sort of thing. They’ve been in the works for a while now.
We need hospitals, roads and schools now, not in a perfect-world future that will never come.
A society without taxes is not a society I want to live in. What, I have to build my own roads? Or are they all going to be for-profit toll roads? Fuck that noise. I want a government whose job is to make a society I want to live in. We don’t have that government, but once we do I will happily pay taxes to that government.
Agreed. So we need a decent government before we pay taxes.
I’m up for a tax strike if it’s sufficiently organized. We aren’t going to accomplish shit going up against this system on our own.
Yes an organized strike would be good, and even an unorganized mass strike would do. Without a mass strike we can still be effective however by opting out of the system as much as possible, minimizing taxes and forming parallel societies.
If people want the benefits of society, they need to be paid for.
Life Pro-Tip: You definitely want the benefits of a functioning society.
The alternative is nasty, brutish, and short as a wiser person than us once said.
A functioning society needs a functioning government. A functioning government based on consent of the governed is a precondition of taxes being justified. Otherwise tax is theft.
I’m assuming the individual gives the consent. So what happens if you don’t consent?
What happens if you don’t consent is you get locked up. Which means you don’t live in a free country founded on consent of the governed.
You do realize I was asking about your “functioning government”? What happens if you decide to no longer consent?
For a government to operate on consent of the governed they must have a fairly easy way to break off from that government. For example, they could allow anyone who purchases land on the border to secede and form their own country over the land that they own. And collectively there should be ways for towns or the whole country to vote and throw off their governments and institute new ones, like the Declaration of Independence says.