It's not a legitimate tax.
That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.
That's why it taxed the economy much worse than a legitimate President would do.
Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.
One that goes through all three branches of government, the way it's been since we decided "no taxation without representation" is how such things should be collectively implemented.
If a citizen's stance is there is no such thing as a legitimate tax, perhaps there should be a legal process for banishing them from all public services, including roads, electricity, telephone, fire and rescue services, etc. and make consuming them a crime. But I guess even that would be a problem because we need to pay for the justice system that would prosecute such a sovereign citizen that breaks the rules...
Basically an "opt-out" of modern life almost in its entirety. I think most people that subscribe to "no legitimate taxes" might be surprised how isolating that would be if they actually think it through.
To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, it's simply a thought exercise.
from another comment you made> The way I see it, those who can't see through my statement to the true meaning with some form of EQ, are the ones downvoting.
Nah.
Does it feel good to say the people that disagree with you have lost the ability to reason? I hope you don't actually believe that flamebait self-aggrandizing nonsense.
Though I'm surprised you're citing the guidelines after writing the comment I referred to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47093780
I'm not trying to backseat mod here but do you really think that comment is okay?
Not knowing exactly who you're attacking doesn't make the attack okay.
I'm going to keep hoping you said that out of anger rather than actually meaning it. It's a completely unreasonable inference to make about people.
So, that line was snarky. But my last few comments have been far from flaming, and I'm not going for a cheap putdown. You made some very harsh judgements about people based on a tiny interaction. That's bad for discussion in a whole bunch of ways.
And I guess that's about all I can say, and as clear as I can make it.
For instance complaining about downvotes always draws more as does collectively insulting the community you are participating in.
As to the original question the problem is that it suggests confusion on a basic topic that was decided here centuries ago and taught in elementary school. If someone said what even is addition in an adult forum would you teach them addition or would you assume that they actually know addition and are arguing in bad faith because they feel math really ought to work differently?
Also when you can divide a particular topic into clearly delineated camps appearing to disagree or question the basic premises that one camp holds is oft taken for disagreement and alignment with the opposing camp even when you are just debating a side issue and may in fact be mostly or entirely aligned with the people who feel like you are opposed to them. This shortcut as far as identifying motive and perspective can misfire but it's often correct and "just asking questions" is often underhanded opposition.
Lastly a legitimate tax is one that is passed by Congress in the normal fashion and not overturned by the courts.
As for talking about what shall not be talked about, how else shall we talk about it? Once I hit -4, it doesn't matter anyway so a few drops on what I have is not really a big deal. In reality, I'm not counting the numbers, I'm counting the people who have fundamentally lost the cognitive ability to reason about deeper meaning in a more philosophical sense and just click click click.
Legitimate from a cultural / legal sense, but not from a philosophical one.
I lean quite heavily myself.
In more ways than one though ;)
The most legitimate tax I see is one that citizens would cheerfully pay willingly under any economic conditions.
Citizens still need to come to some consensus.
One key feature I didn't emphasize was the requirement for the tax rate to never rise to a significant enough level to be a burden on the wage-earning taxpayer.
Otherwise it's just a sinkhole which brings down the prosperity ceiling with it.
But that’s irrelevant - excise taxes are the classic example of taxes people pay willingly.
excise taxes are hidden taxes, so I wouldn't agree with "willingly"
When Donald Trump didn't run his tariffs through Congress he blatantly violated separation of powers. In normal times this would be 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court for being so open and shut and it would not have taken over a year for the decision, but those times have passed.
The expression "this is a tax on..." is analogy for purposes of deciding if this tax was legal based on the process for enacting new taxes.
I'm actually impressed. Trump's allies figured out how to raise taxes on the working class without the George H. W. Bush backlash. And now they're going to get enormous refunds that will not be passed on back to the consumers. It's yet another wealth transfer from the poor to the rich and their voting base is standing up and delivering thunderous applause.
That's means its not a legitimate tax
I don't know if your comment was intentionally ambiguous or not but it makes sense to either extreme, plus anything in between.
Really one of the things that can (has) stimulate ideas from many directions.
Too bad when you end up as a punching bag from the fraction of partisans just because some of them are so extreme, usually it's only the ones that harbor a lot of hate more than anything else, where negative outlook emanates in all directions.
So you get put down from all directions :(
When the message stands alone as completely neutral and it ends up as a target of the "non-nattering nabobs of negativity" it is still kind of disappointing. So much better responses could be made. I still haven't found any reason to downvote anybody, ever.
Hope it wasn't my mischaracterizing your comment that dismayed anybody worse.
Now with more meat on the bone, infrastructure and real public utility are table stakes which somebody has to pay for, and I'm perfectly willing. Cheerful only if the rate is not exorbitant, which is the real problem.
I'd like to be more cheerful but the corruption sunk in so long ago that it's not pretty. One of the reasons that things dedicated to the public are always more expensive than they could be.
But I also don't agree with the taxes I pay because I feel like too much goes to waste and that I don't get the value back from what I'm putting in. Most of the roads I drive on today, are very poorly maintained. Where did the money go?
I pay the taxes that employ local lifeguards at my beach. They save people's lives. Good. But they also get angry at me when I'm not holding my dogs leash, even if there are no other dogs around. I don't think that overlapping ocean safety with a nanny state around dogs, is a good use of my taxes. Especially when there are people living in RVs at the beach who are breaking the laws stated on posted signs and they do nothing about it.
The original question about legitimacy was more philosophical. If you are a believer in government and laws, then legitimate is that a group has made up a rule (or law) in order to make it legitimate. I don't agree with that defining legitimacy, it is something else. It isn't law, it is a social contract. We should contribute to society by definition, not by law
So at the end of the day, it is a lot of give and take. Some better or worse. It is what it is. I just try to live my best life and ignore the rest.
Why do you feel this?
Why do you feel this