Summary
The IRS anticipates a $500 billion revenue loss as taxpayers increasingly skip filings following cuts from Elon Musk under Trump.
The IRS, set to downsize by 20% by May 15, has seen increased online chatter about avoiding taxes, with individuals betting auditors won’t scrutinize accounts.
Experts warned that workforce reductions could cripple the agency’s efficiency.
Treasury officials predict a 10% drop in tax receipts compared to 2024.
Former IRS commissioners have criticized the cuts, warning of dysfunction and reduced collection capacity.
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.
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.
Somalia is a libertarians wet dream so I hear
I wouldn’t know. I only know how the western world portrays Somalia. And I’m guessing that’s what you’re basing your comment on.
Go there and report back bruh. Check out the Congo too while you’re at it.
Don’t mistake what I am saying as denigrating to the Somalian people. They are hard working and trying to get by.
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