[iamdave]

I can sympathize with someone distressed that their tax dollars get used in ways they may not agree with, voting ostensibly is a measure to somewhat ensure your interests in taxes are represented (without getting into an endlessly caveat-laden debate about the virtues of democratic societies).

But I think, personally my level of sympathizing with that incredulity ends with the understanding that taxes are signatures on a social contract and taxes aren't a zero-sum affair. I fully understand that my taxes might go to fund a war or might go into the landing gear of a bomber plane or a bomb itself. I get that.

I wish I had the answers on how to get this through the minds of other voters "Yes, your tax money might be spent on x, it also might be spent on y. If you want to see more money going into y, vote accordingly, but remember you exist in a society with more than one viewpoint so someone 500 miles away might vote for x. Thems the breaks".

As to your question of why people refuse to pay their country's membership fees...the cynic in me wants to blame ideological dogmatism that perpetuates "my party good, your party bad" and limits the scope of understanding a fuller picture of what being in a diverse society actually looks like (i.e. people value things differently than you)

[bmelton]

> taxes are signatures on a social contract

If taxes were voluntary, I would wholeheartedly agree. As it sits, I consider (rightly or wrongly) most taxes to be voluntary, but the income tax is inescapably not. If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

[iamdave]

>If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

I don't disagree with this at all, actually.

In some respects, would you consider taxes to be a 'necessary evil for a net good (prescriptively speaking)'?

[bmelton]

I'm probably the wrong guy to ask, really. If I were the president, I would do everything I could to abolish the income tax and replace it with use/consumption taxes.

On the whole though, yes, I agree that taxes are likely a necessary evil, and while I object to large swaths of the federal government, I think it would be naive, or even asinine to suggest that they do not have any good functions which I deem wholly necessary.

That said, at the end of the day, citizenship is something that can be relinquished, and as such, an income tax (of any sort) is something that ought to be competitive. California offers a lot of niceties, and presumably, the people who live there don't mind the tradeoff of high taxes and a generally higher cost of living. If they did, they could trade out to one of the zero-income-tax southern states, in exchange for a generally less educated peer group, less efficient state services, etc.

At the end of the day though, if taxes are to be citizenship criteria, then America is in competition with other nations to deliver good value. In addition to economic freedom, social freedoms, fair treatment, social services, safety net and a myriad of other factors are ways in which we compete. I am not likely to move to another country to save some money on taxes, but if another country offered the same freedoms that I value in America, with lower taxes, and a lower incarceration rate, a move would be worth strong consideration.

[mvc]

> If governments are going to charge high and involuntary taxes on things, we shouldn't be surprised when people shop around where they are able.

Presumably they would still like to benefit from our IP and Law enforcement, our medicare subsidies, our healthcare professionals. Will a standard invoice to the shareholders be OK?

[bmelton]

Your comment assumes that Pfizer will no longer be obligated to pay taxes at all, which is untrue. They'll pay less taxes, particularly on capital gains and such that allow them to benefit from double-Irish style tax avoidance, that does not mean they aren't paying taxes.

It would be an interesting though experiment to determine the exact cost those services provide, submit them an actual invoice, and then do the math on whether or not services rendered are more or less than taxes paid, but without it, it seems naive to assume that paying less taxes is in any way equivalent to paying no taxes.

Presumably, they get those same services in their countries of operation, and at a lower cost, which opens up an entirely new pool of questions. Are services in Dublin substantially less than what we have in America? Why is the cost of American services so much higher? If services are similar, how is Ireland able to provide them at such a discount? Will Ireland continue discounting their services as they attract more and more businesses? Etc.