483
IRS braces for $500bn drop in revenue as taxpayers skip filings in wake of DOGE cuts
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 23 Mar 2025
483 points (100.0% liked)
Economics
805 readers
107 users here now
founded 2 years ago
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So you enjoy killing people. Got you. Because that's what your tax money is used for. To fund wars halfway across the globe. For people you've never met and who have caused you no harm.
What a disingenuous take. Surely you can see how no one's going to take that message seriously, and no one will be convinced?
Taxes also pay for health care, roads, libraries, arts, and countless other things. Do you hate health care, roads, libraries, and art? I mean, maybe, but I wouldn't be confident about guessing that based solely on your position on taxation.
None of this is supporting your initial claim of "taxation is theft"
Oh yes, because the United States has such great healthcare that a CEO was shot in broad daylight on the streets of New York. But a couple of months ago. As for roads and libraries and such, that's what state taxes are for. Mind you, I somewhat disagree with state taxation as well, but at least state taxation benefits you directly.
You have an issue with capitalism not taxation and that's ignoring the fact that if we reverted back to pre 1940 tax schemes we would be taking in more money and only the richest people in America would pay a dime.
That is irrelevant to your claim of "Taxation is theft". Taxes pay for programs like medicare, medicaid, and social security, which are extremely popular.
Pushing stuff down to the state level makes coordination difficult, some projects impossible, and again is irrelevant to your argument that taxation is theft
If taxes pay for Social Security, then why do I keep hearing that Social Security is bankrupt or will be by like 2031? If pushing taxation down to the state level makes a project impossible to do, then perhaps that project should not have been done to begin with.
Because conservatives have been trying to kill social security since its inception. It shouldn't really be in any danger of insolvency, barring conservative sabotage. A trivial search finds many articles about this: https://www.forbes.com/advisor/retirement/social-security-bankrupt/
This is clearly pants on head stupid. Postal service. Interstate transit systems. Weather forecasting. Just off the top of my head.
And again, one more time, you haven't backed up your initial claim that "Taxation is theft".
Taxation is theft simply because you did not agree to it or you did not have a choice but to agree to it. The only difference between the IRS demanding taxes from you and a street criminal demanding part of your paycheck every month not to hurt you is that you see the IRS as legitimate where you see the street criminal as a criminal. But they are both criminals.
You have a choice, go somewhere government isn't but I guarantee you choose not to.
Right, I'm all ears. Where exactly on planet Earth can you go that is not ruled by a government? As far as I can tell, you have no choice.
Somalia is a libertarians wet dream so I hear
Nowhere that's the point. There are places that have very little actual government and a lot of violence or places with lots of government and comparably less freedom to do some things. You choose, you just don't like your choices and that's understandable, what's not understandable is assuming no government is better than functional government.
Why are they both criminals? What law are they going breaking? I think the IRS, as part of the sovereign government of the US, cannot really be criminal. I think that's getting into some like philosophy of "what is the state?" stuff though, which is beyond my expertise.
You seem to be rejecting the whole idea of social contracts and representative government. Which, ok, but that's going against quite a long history.
Of course the IRS isn't breaking the laws, because they write the laws, and therefore they can exempt themselves from said laws. If you tried to do the same thing the IRS does, you would be arrested. So for the same action, you get penalized while this other group gets legitimized.
That doesn't explain how they are "criminal". that was the word you used.
Many things are either subject to penalties or legitimacy based on context. If you cut someone open and take out their kidney, that's probably a crime! Unless you're a doctor doing a surgery in a hospital. Context matters.
When you were born, were you given the option to sign a contract agreeing to the taxation policy? If not, were you given the choice and free will to leave with the full understanding that you would try to find an area that better suited you? If the answer to these questions are no, which I'm going to assume they are, then you did not agree to the taxation policy and were not given the option. Therefore, it is a criminal act. If a doctor cuts out your kidney, it's because you gave consent for that to occur.
That's not what criminal act means. Criminal means it's a violation of a law.
Tax policy comes from the laws that are made (typically) by elected representatives. That's the government we live under, which is allegedly maintained by the consent of the people. If you knock that pillar out and just say "Government only applies to people who explicitly consent" then you're going to get some hellish mix of sovereign citizens and the purge.
Like, if you're not consenting to the laws of the US, can I just shoot you dead? Why not? Are you cherry-picking which laws you want to apply?
You can't really seriously be making the "I didn't ask to be born and thus I'm not subject to the rules of the land" argument, can you? I feel like every teenager comes up with that point, and then takes like a history class or philosophy class.
Well, to be fair, the teenager has a point and then they go and take a history class or a philosophy class which indoctrinates them to the government's worldview. School is to teach kids the "approved" narrative.
That's a pretty big claim that like all of philosophy is the "approved" narrative. I don't have a degree in history or philosophy, but maybe read up on like Hobbes and Kant?
You didn't respond to my part in the middle asking if you're just cherry-picking laws.
(Also I have to go get dinner and such, so I'm going to stop responding in a bit. This has been interesting.)
I unfortunately can't find the damn thing right now, but there's a YouTube video that talks about rules without rulers and discusses a world in which laws are made and enforced by market participants. So you would have security company A, and somebody else would have security company B. And if there was a dispute between the two individuals, the companies would mediate on their behalf. If Alice steals a television from Bob, then bob's security company will ask Alice's security company to allow them to seek monetary compensation from Alice or the return of the television. If Alice says that she did not steal Bob's television and Alice's security company agrees with her, then the two security companies would take the case to a binding arbitrator and let them decide and respect their decision on the matter.
Edit: found it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-Ibq-9wulQ
This sounds like it would devolve into monopolies or cartels, which are famously bad for end users.
Also what happens if someone doesn't have private security? Are they just unprotected?
You're kind of describing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism which isn't taken seriously by many people because it has a lot of big problems.
You might also enjoy "A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear", which you can read about https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21534416/free-state-project-new-hampshire-libertarians-matthew-hongoltz-hetling , or probably get a copy at your local library (if it hasn't been defunded and shut down)
I appreciate you taking the time to find the video you found compelling, but right this moment I can't watch a 23 minute video in entirety. I usually prefer transcripts, personally.
That's just an argument that the military budget should be dramatically reduced (absolutely agree!), not that taxation is a problem in general.
Can't fund the military without taxation. If you told citizens to donate to support a war effort halfway across the globe that has no impact on their daily lives, they'd be absolutely certain to do it. /s. Now, coerce them with the threat of being thrown in a cage, or at the barrel of a gun, and that's different.
Yes, but you CAN have taxation without funding the military. You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
I don't think taxation is the only way to do this, but you do need some kind of process for ensuring common social services and infrastructure exist and are maintained. Taxation is what we have now. How would you support those services without it?
If you absolutely must have taxation, then have state taxation. Because I don't see the state of Texas declaring war on Pakistan.
How would you fund federal services?
Seems to me the problem isn't taxation, it's the process for deciding how that government spending is distributed..
You can't fix that problem. The fact that there is a big pile of money there means that greedy people will attempt to get their hands on it. No matter what. So the only way to fix that is to not have the big pile of money sitting there to begin with.
So... you think that: a) you can't change the way government spends money, but b) you can change the way government receives money?
That's an interesting world view.
Don't give the government money at all.
Get off the internet, it was started because of government funding. Don't drive on roads, government funding. Don't use gas or a car, or helmets or drink water, or take any medicine. You can't wear clothes you didn't make yourself, don't live in a house that was built to code. Forget gfic outlets. Electronics that meet safety regs? Get rid of them. You better not have an up to date Electrical box either. Food safety? More government overreach funded by taxes. Those wastages.
So you do not like educated people? Because that is what taxes are used for.
So you don't like education? Because that is what taxes are used for.
Not in my country. What? You forgot the USA wasn't the only country in the world?
It seems like you have a problem with capitalism, not with the concept of taxes.