> If it's my tax money, I get to say how it's spent.

No? This has never been how it works.

We all get to decide how it’s spent by voting. You don’t get to individually decide because, obviously, you’re always just gonna choose yourself. In which case - why bother taxing you?

There’s really two camps here: people who think taxation goes towards freeloaders, and people who think taxation goes towards the community.

I’m in the second camp. I believe these things are mutually beneficial. I want to live in a country with less homelessness, less drugs, less violence, less crimes, more education. That costs money, and I’m happy to give it up because I think I DO benefit, just not directly.

If you were being ironic/sarcastic in your initial comment, that didn't come through for me.

Given the degree of political friction on this (and other) sites, and the fact that for any "obviously" exaggerated point of view you are quite likely to find absolutely sincere adherents ... it would benefit your writing to be clear when you are or aren't being sarcastic.

And to reply in a positive rather than antagonistic tone, particularly if someone's supporting your own viewpoint.

(I'm not certain even this take of mine is valid. However your writing doesn't make your viewpoint clear as it can be read two ways. Which itself raises the temperature within the thread. Avoid that if possible.)