[wolverine876]

> Plus, someone’s got to pay for everything:

Bizarrely, even experts miss this obvious fact. If not income taxes, then how does government pay the bills? Income taxes are usually the most progressive tax, so no income tax usually means less wealthy people pay more. If government spends less, what services are cut?

No income tax != free lunch. Someone has to pay.

[dillydogg]

Yeah it's very funny hearing my dad talk about how nice it is to have no income tax in Washington (he's a dentist). But when you tell him that the relatively higher income tax is worse for poor people he doesn't seem to agree. Washington is certainly a progressive state on the whole, but the taxation is horrible.

[wolverine876]

> relatively higher income tax is worse for poor people

How is it worse for poor people?

[dillydogg]

Poor people spend more of their income on things that have sales tax. In other words, someone who is worried about their 401k is probably spending less of their income each month by percentage compared to someone living paycheck to paycheck.

https://itep.org/whopays-7th-edition/#sales-and-excise-taxes

[lobocinza]

Governments can do less and spend more wisely.

[wolverine876]

What solution does that offer? People have been debating what to keep and cut for generations, as well as ways to improve spending; I don't see any low-hanging fruit or big improvements there.

[lobocinza]

> What solution does that offer?

Really? If people weren't forced to pay as much taxes as they have today they would have more resources to invest in what really matters to them instead of having a bunch of bureacrauts wasting it.

> I don't see any low-hanging fruit or big improvements there.

There are tons of low-hanging fruits, at least in South America, the issue is that government doesn't exist to provide services and seek the interests of the population. Government is just a big mafia and things are corrupt and inneficient by design because their true goal is to fill their pockets.

[johnnyanmac]

>invest in what really matters to them

You see libraries and schools barely having enough funding to function while consumers spend thousands on entertainment. I don't really trust the average Joe to know "what really matters". Or at least not realize it matters until it's too late.

Not to say government spending doesn't have its share of inefficiencies and outright corruption. But they at least have some checks to keep it from going off thr deep end (both literally and socially via elections).

[lobocinza]

> libraries and schools barely having enough funding

Probably because they are public and government responsibility.

> I don't really trust the average Joe to know "what really matters".

Average Joe live paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't have disposable income.

[johnnyanmac]

>they are public and government responsibility.

My point exactly. They barely get funding by people whose job is to allocate and get people to fund them. How many will actively think to fund these institutions if optional? And how much would they fund? And to which schools? Can't you see all the emergent issues?

>Average Joe live paycheck to paycheck. It doesn't have disposable income.

Average Joe makes 70k and pays 1300 in rent. Average Joe is fine, problem is half the people by definition aren't average and average is only a decent living with no kids and two incomes.

The truly poor Joe isn't taxed much or at all. This would affect them the least.

[wolverine876]

> Really?

Are you surprised I'm just not accepting the trope as God-given truth? Get used to it. :)

> If people weren't forced to pay as much taxes as they have today they would have more resources to invest in what really matters to them instead of having a bunch of bureacrauts wasting it.

And they'd have less services provided by government.

Anyway, your claim is a trope, but let's actually examine it:

People want government to do certain things; government does things that "really matter". Nobody gets exactly what they want from anything - the restaurant, their family members, employers, etc., or from government.

I know the word 'bureaucrat' has been demonized, but that's not evidence (in fact, it's evidence IME of right-wing propaganda). I personally know some government bureaucrats well, and they are serious professionals, completely committed to their job and to public service.

Government waste is long been a trope of the right-wing propaganda, as a way to persuade people to cut taxes (for the wealthy) and reduce government's influence (which democratically counters that of powerful people), but I've never seen evidence that government is more wasteful than other sizeable institutions - if you've seen the inside of a mid-sized corporation, you would recognize it. Same with churches, non-profits etc etc.

If you have evidence, that's one thing. Just repeating these claims doesn't make them true. It makes them ripe to be challenged.

> There are tons of low-hanging fruits, at least in South America, the issue is that government doesn't exist to provide services and seek the interests of the population. Government is just a big mafia and things are corrupt and inneficient by design because their true goal is to fill their pockets.

Who is there only to provide services? Don't businesses also want to fill their pockets? Also, we are grouping all of South America, from Columbia to Argentina, into one broad generalization?

[lobocinza]

> Who is there only to provide services? Don't businesses also want to fill their pockets?

Business don't put me in jail if I don't buy their services. Choice, freedom is an important distinction. Also this is nonsense because taxes are a one-way obligation, government has no obligation to provide services just because you paid taxes. There's a distinction between taxes and fees.

> Government waste is long been a trope of the right-wing propaganda, as a way to persuade people to cut taxes (for the wealthy) and reduce government's influence (which democratically counters that of powerful people), but I've never seen evidence that government is more wasteful than other sizable institutions - if you've seen the inside of a mid-sized corporation, you would recognize it. Same with churches, non-profits etc etc.

I have experience working for big-sized organizations including NGOs. The bigger the more inefficient. And you know what are the biggest organizations in the world? Government. e.g. California budget for 24-25 is $291.5 billion.

The truly wealthy are able to circumvent high taxes. They can have fiscal residencies in tax heavens along dozens of other loopholes to avoid taxes.

> If you have evidence, that's one thing. Just repeating these claims doesn't make them true. It makes them ripe to be challenged.

Honestly I think your worldview is limited to "Democratic" vs "Republican" parties. There's ample evidence. Historically socialism and big government lead to poverty. This is explained both by economical and political theory.

e.g.: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice

If you want to learn more there's Milei speech in Davos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfcd0gWNIog

> Also, we are grouping all of South America, from Columbia to Argentina, into one broad generalization?

Yes, because unfortunately this is a broad issue in South America. If you want specific cases look at Venezuela, Argentina and Brazil. I'm Brazilian.