Ok, but who's fault is that? We are the ones who vote for these people.

> If that is the case, then a certain portion of wealth going to actually good causes rather than the government would be a good thing, not an ethical violation. If the government cannot be relied on to spend the wealth of its people responsibly - if instead it fritters that resource away in power games and appeasement - then avoiding said taxes is not, fundamentally, immoral.

I disagree because fundamentally taxes are used to support public services that benefit society as a whole. Cheating that process is cheating society. You may have the luxury of being able to forego many of those services but a lot of people do not.

> Off the top of my head for other bad and expensive government programs, there's the TSA and other Department of Homeland Security initiatives that fall under the umbrella of Security Theater; the support, both legal and economic, of the private prison industry; arms sales to ethically dubious partners; political vanity projects like the "Bridge to Nowhere"; ideologically driven propaganda (Reefer Madness, anyone?); and straight-up war crimes.

Yes, and I strongly encourage us to use our power in the democratic process to oppose those things. If people really didn't want those things, they would vote for politicians who also didn't support them. The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things.

> Representative government may be a good reflection of the people - I have misgivings about that claim, but I'll let them go - but the people should demand better than a reflection.

I think that's a very strange statement. If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people even if it is not in our individual best interest. You are demanding that the government be better than the people who elect it, but that very demand can only possibly be implemented by said people!

> I want someone better. I want someone who isn't afraid to make an unpopular decision when it's the right thing to do.

Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes.

A large part of my point is that this claim is not true. The purpose of a system is what it does. Taxes are used to appease constituents, not improve society. They may be related, they may overlap at some points, but they are not the same.

>The fact that they don't means that they have other priorities in selecting politicians and are willing to compromise on those things.

Not necessarily. People aren't machines of pure rationality. They do not vote for their best interests or their moral beliefs. They are misled and trained against seeking alternatives. They vote for their "tribe," not out of a sense of moral duty. And your impression of democracy is extremely idealistic - you should read the book Democracy for Realists. It sheds a lot of light on the actual patterns and causes of voting behavior. In any case, votes don't matter as much as you think they do. The democratic process acts more as a relief valve for societal tension than an effective method of enacting change in government. Policy implementations remain relatively static across the aisle; much ado is made over the 5% difference between blue and red, and every other position on the political spectrum is quietly kept out of the public's eye.

>If we want our government to be better all we have to do is vote for better people

Strongly disagree. "Better people" doesn't fix the problem, just like "Kill the dictator" doesn't fix the problem. The problem is systemic. One good person in a position of power, two people - it doesn't matter. The solutions to this problem, historically, have been extremely painful for the societies implementing them. Hopefully the US can do better, but I've never been an optimist.

>Then vote for that person and encourage others to do so, that's how our society works. You are extremely arrogant to think that you should be able to dictate to society how it should work and then get pissed off when it doesn't listen to you and claim moral superiority by not paying your taxes.

1. I don't have voting rights. 2. I'm not dictating how society should work, I'm explaining my preferences and ideals for government. 3. I'm not angry, just disappointed. 4. I'm not claiming moral superiority, just denying moral inferiority. 5. I pay my taxes.

Regardless, I don't think a billionaire looking at the elected government of their country and saying "I know better than the people you elected, so I am justified in evading taxes and spending that money how I think it should be spent" is a morally justified position even if it is true.

I don't think "taking advantage of all the benefits of a nation's resources and infrastructure while simultaneously contributing nothing, which I can only really get away with because I'm so successful" is a very good form of "resistance". Let's be frank here: there is absolutely no billionaire out there evading taxes because they have a moral problem with how their government uses it.

> If it is true that an individual knows better than the elected government and is more moral than them, and you still insist that their power (for what is wealth but liquid power?) be squandered or used for evil ends, I just don't know hwat to say to you.

I believe pretty much every individual will claim that they are those things. Which one do believe actually does know better and will be more moral? If only there were some kind of system where we could choose...

> To abnegate your own will and submit to that of the people, out of blind faith that they will be right. It is the core to the surrender to every lynch mob, every witch hunt, every moral panic that blinds people and initiates their frenzies of hate.

We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake. This isn't about blind faith in rightness, it's about your society electing a government, you being a part of that society and wishing to continue being a part of that society, and therefore you pay your fucking taxes. It isn't about subsuming your will to a mob, it's about not hypocritically enjoying the benefits of society while bemoaning doing your part in keeping it running.

> "We are not as good and smart as we like to think we are" - so we should just allow the zeitgeist to determine our morality and sink our intellect to the lowest common denominator?

No. We should not pretend that we are justifying not paying taxes for moral reasons when we are still totally ok with benefiting from that same immorality. That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.

You literally said that even if the billionaire is right (i.e. knows better how to improve people's lives with philanthropy), he should still give up his money. Your argument has nothing to do with morality, and everything to do with authoritarianism.

>We're talking about paying your fucking taxes for fuck sake.

No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them. This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way.

>That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral.

So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes is fundamentally immoral because they are doing it to justify greed and because governments incentivize that behavior by offering tax breaks?

He should give up his money because if you are a part of society and benefit from it, that obliges you to contribute to the maintenance of that society. It isn't about authoritarianism and your attempts to equate the two is ridiculous.

> No, we're talking about a society's allocation of resources. If a government cannot or will not allocate them to the benefit of a society, it has no moral right to them.

Then it should be replaced, or abandoned. The solution is not eating your cake and having it too and pretending that is righteous.

> This entire argument started out of the claim that billionaires getting tax breaks for philanthropy is wrong; that they should instead redirect that wealth to governments to do with as they will. If the actions of the government will do less good than whatever ends that philanthropy would have led to, then it is wrong to demand that the money be wasted that way.

Getting a tax break, an exemption. Not that all the philanthropy should go away, merely that they don't deserve special exemption for it... Which isn't even something I'm arguing!

I jumped in to point out that governments appear to waste money because people have different opinions of where money should go and the government represents people. It will always appear wasteful to somebody.

Then this whole thing somehow devolved into trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest, which I find absolutely ridiculous.

> So your argument is that billionaires giving money to philanthropic causes

I never said that philanthropy was wrong. I said people should pay their taxes. Would you kindly stop trying to strawman me as an authoritarian populist who hates charity or whatever the fuck crazy nonsense you'll think of next?

Sure. But that's not what you're actually arguing for; the point you're making is instead that you are obliged to give your money to the government in the hopes that they will contribute to the maintenance of that society. If I or anyone else can and am/are willing to do it more efficiently than the government can or will, you would still demand it go through the government, for no more justification than the fig leaf of the will of the people, which is not a homogeneous thing in any case as you pointed out and therefore is not some sacred duty that only the government is morally authorized to perform. If a billionaire or anyone else can make their money work better for a society than the government can, they should be allowed to.

>Then this whole thing somehow devolved into somehow trying to justify tax evasion as a valid form of protest

Except it didn't? I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government. I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing. It will result in more suffering than allowing tax breaks for philanthropy. My understanding is that you accept that this is true, and are saying that even though it is the case, it is still morally superior for that wealth to go to less effective government projects than more effective philanthropy.

>I never said that philanthropy was wrong.

So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy."

Also, you think I'm strawmanning you? You've claimed that I assume moral superiority for not paying taxes, that I'm advocating for purely extractive economic activity and tax evasion from billionaires, and that my entire point is about masking greed through virtuous language. If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it. Taxes are not a moral good. They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force. If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions.

There are things that tax is necessary for. Critical infrastructure, the unsexy parts of building and maintaining a society (roads, sewers, etc), legislative and executive matters, national defense. There are things that both public money and private money can be useful for - social welfare, education, research, etc. Often, the private money results in much better outcomes in fair trials; it is less bounded by realpolitik and is more agile in redeployment to more effective methods. Often, the tax money is much greater than what is actually necessary for the achieved purpose. The United States spends a roughly equal amount of its tax income on public healthcare as the UK does, and has nothing comparable to the NHS. When it tries to reduce spending, it does so not by adapting itself to the times, reinventing itself like any long-running institution should aim to do, but by accumulating another layer of cruft, becoming ever greater, ever less efficient. The system creaks under the weight of its debts, just as the VA offices creak under the weight of thousands of tons of paperwork, as the halls of power creak under the load of yet more stultifying regulation, presented only to entrench the powers that be. It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths.

Pay your taxes. But don't pretend that paying taxes is morally superior to just giving money to a good cause.

Most individuals will believe that they can distribute that money more efficiently, partially because they are largely ignorant of vast swaths of things the government supports that keeps society running, partially because everyone suffers from Dunning-Kruger, and partially out of sheer selfishness. We collect taxes from everyone, pool it, and elect a body of representatives to determine how to allocate it for the betterment of all. Sometimes they will not do that, and I say that is on us as voters as much as it is them. It isn't perfect, but what does the alternative look like? What kind of system are you advocating for?

> I have never made an argument either for tax evasion or protest in this thread. The closest I got was the Jefferson quote, which is in the context of an actually evil government.

Yes. How else am I meant to take that quote except as an illustration that one can justify not paying taxes on moral grounds because they don't agree with the way they are spent?

Case in point:

> If you have a point that's not just handwaving away inefficiencies in government as an unimpeachable divine will of the people made manifest, I have yet to hear it.

> It creaks under the weight of politicians made fat over the wealth of the people, vying for power among the crumbling institutions that first generated that wealth, now dilapidated, hollowed out and filled again with sycophants and psychopaths.

How am I not supposed to read this, under the context of that Jefferson quote, as "the government does inefficient stuff sometimes, so that morally justifies not paying taxes".

> I'm making the moral argument for billionaire philanthropy. And yes, removing tax breaks for said philanthropy will reduce it. It may marginally increase tax revenue. And on the whole, the result of that will probably, in my opinion, be a bad thing.

I'm not 100% sold on that idea, simply because the "philanthropy" need not necessarily actually contribute positively to society. That person is effectively taking taxes that might be used to, say, pay for Medicare and redirecting it to, say, an evangelical organization that does nothing but pester people to convert to their religion. I am not sure we should encourage that, but I am not really against the concept either.

> So when you said "That isn't a brave stance against injustice, it's trying to justify greed by masking it as virtuous, and that's immoral" what is immoral, exactly? Because reading that paragraph, the only act that seems to refer to is "philanthropy."

No one is preventing billionaires from using their money to try and make the world a better place, what is being argued is that maybe they shouldn't get tax breaks for it. Is it morally right that a billionaire only gives money to some cause (which again, may not actually be for the betterment of society) .

> Taxes are not a moral good.

...I can't 100% agree with that statement. Taxes are a part of the social contract, and to that extent paying them is honoring the contract, which all else being equal is good.

> They are a strategy for asset reallocation. If they work well, fine. If they don't, we should not pretend that we have to pay them for any reason other than the threat of force.

Again, it is difficult to divorce this from the Jefferson quote. It sounds very much like you are saying you believe that taxes are not working for the betterment of society and are basically theft. As far as I am aware, we are talking about real billionaires in the real world with real governments, not some hypothetical totally corrupt and practically unelected show-democracy.

> If billionaires can do better than the government can through philanthropy, great! Let them. If it seems to be working - and a large part of philanthropy seems to be working - then incentivize that behavior, socially through status or economically through tax exemptions.

I don't necessarily disagree with this, but I am weary of the idea that any given person's choice of where that money should be spent will be better. Especially since I find it difficult to disagree with others in this thread saying that no one gets to be that wealthy without being a bastard in some regards, so I'm especially weary of letting them skip out on their obligation to society in favor of whatever they think is more important. As flawed as it is, I trust the government to allocate those resources better for society because we have at least some measure of control over it via democracy.

Aside from the above mentioned line about sycophants and psychopaths, I agree that our government could be a lot better. However, I seriously doubt that putting our faith in billionaires to be generous is the way forward on that.

Ok, we keep going back and forth on this stuff so let me sum up my position:

Taxes are part of the social contract, so anyone in society should pay them if they are taking advantage of the infrastructure and services that society provides. The elected government of a democracy is not a perfect system for allocating taxes for the betterment of society, but it is the best system we have. I don't trust billionaires, who almost certainly attained their wealth in large part by being ruthless and exploiting loopholes, to not exploit tax-deductible charity, and they certainly have enough wealth to not need to.