398
AI Billionaires Are Starting to Get Scared (futurism.com)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/fuck_ai@lemmy.world
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

As data centers are shut down by angry mobs and AI surveillance cameras are ripped from their poles, the world’s tech billionaires and CEOs are waking up to the reality that the masses are, broadly speaking, not on board with their plan to automate the world with AI.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 132 points 5 months ago* (58 children)

    I’m not.

    We live in a society and enjoy or use services that benefit all. Schools, roads, infrastructure, etc. all need to be paid for. I have no problem paying for taxes to do my part, and have never had a desire to avoid that responsibility. I live in a society. It benefits me, and I pay back into it, just as everyone should.

    I have a problem with the people who have the most to give not doing so. They’re leeching off society without giving back to it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 58 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago (25 children)

    Classic neolib playbook. Defund public services so much that they barely function, claim that the government can't do anything right and/or that public services are "net negative", then privatize everything and enshittify it even more while extracting as much value from people as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 25 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 16 points 5 months ago (18 children)

    Not paying taxes because you don't like the government or what the tax dollars are spent on is problematic. It's a subjective judgement. If you are justified in not paying taxes for what you don't like, someone else is justified in not paying taxes when the government does things that you like just because they don't like it.

    The purpose of democracy is to find some kind of consensus. If you don't like what the government is doing, find like minded people and work to change minds and the government.

    The only way to justify not paying taxes is to argue that you are being denied the ability to participate in the government system and have no legitimate recourse. Honestly, we are at that point now that the government is transparently corrupt. That's just not the angle you were arguing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (10 children)

    Lets explore a hypothetical. A theoretical person, who I'll randomly call Ronald Drump, loves raping and torturing. He does it every chance he gets. Can't get enough of it. Men, women, children - all are fair game in his eyes. He's got enough money for body guards to make sure he isn't interrupted by peasants. He doesn't like the law of the land. The law says he must not do what he wants to do and have a good time. Jerking off in the middle of the street to the tortured screams of his victims is apparently against the law! They send Police to stop him!

    He didn't agree to these laws. He never consented to be governed by them. Everywhere he goes, the government tells him to stop. He can't escape it! Is he justified in refusing to comply? He has no recourse! He's not welcome anywhere. Is the freedom to choose what tyrannical government he wants to live under really a choice at all? Why can't he just establish the Republic of Ronald on main Street and be free from the unjust system?

    Edit: We live in a society. Democratic rule of the majority over the minority in its simplest form is not ideal, but most of humanity has been moving away from that simple method bit by bit. Laws established by the majority that try to protect the rights of those in the minority, to shield them from such outcomes. Its not perfect, but it's a work in progress. Without consensus of some kind society regresses to might makes right and tyranny of the powerful.

    You don't choose where or to whom you are born. That's just life. It sucks, but there is no way to change that especially since you have no concept of any of these things or what you believe until years after the event. Raging against the unfairness of these facts seems... silly to me?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago (2 children)

    I feel like I'm failing to communicate the issues I'm seeing here.

    My problem is that different people have different ideas on how things should be and so far they have been forced to come to some impossible compromise (which usually ends up forcing good people to violate their consciences) because they are not allowed to do what is natural and associate with those they prefer and form harmonious societies. The availability of this option is necessary for any government to have the consent of its people, which is in turn necessary for a government to be legitimate.

    You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?

    It's not something that somebody who has broken the law can use to avoid consequences because once the law was broken on the land to which it applies then nothing can undo that.

    Lets say my parents were in such a society. In this society, they are theocratic and Christian. They punish anyone caught committing a "homosexual act". Now imagine I am caught kissing someone of my own gender in, I don't know, middle school, and I'm punished harshly. How is this society any more just for me just because my parents were able to consent to it? I am born into this society - I did not choose it or consent to its governance. Can I, as a middle school kid, just... go to another society before I'm able to explore who I am? Where do the resources come from? Who cares for me while I travel and after I get there?

    Now imagine I'm someone else. I join that same theocratic society and later realize I'm bisexual and want to leave for a different society that is more accepting and tolerant of my sexuality. Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?

    I'm not proposing a solution to all conflict. There would still be tensions between countries just like there are today, and some of them will try to do bad things like they already do. Children would also be under the authority of their parents/guardians just like they already are, which leads to problems if the parents/guardians are bad. I can't control how countries or parents will behave, I can only offer suggestions on how those situations might be handled.

    But you are proposing a more "just" starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?

    You are also more or less hand waving the problem of international conflict by assuming it will be in most countries best interests to police each other... but only to the extent that it doesn't disrupt each society's ability to be what they want to be? Of course, there will be some clear line that most countries will recognize as the point at which it becomes justifiable to suppress that freedom should the citizens of another country cross it...yeah, again, this sounds more less like just hitting some magic reset button and watching everything go bad to what it is now but with all the assholes concentrated together and everyone else divided by nuanced opinions that they may or may not share with the younger generations...?

    Look, I get it. Things suck and it would be great if people who be who they want to be, do what they want to do, and everyone would more or less get along. Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible and might suck for some other people. Part of that is taxes.

    While everything is kind of fucked right now, I still don't think it's good to set the precedent of "If I don't like what the government is doing I don't have to pay my taxes."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 4 months ago (1 child)

    You are proposing that anyone should be able to simply associate with who they want and then, with those people, form harmonious societies/countries/states. Am I misunderstanding this?

    No that is correct.

    Can I, as a middle school kid, just… go to another society before I’m able to explore who I am?

    This is my own opinion, but children (the specific age we're talking about depends on the subject and the culture) aren't generally competent enough to make important choices like moving to another country and therefore it's usually in the child's best interest to have their parents determine things for them like where they live. It also seems part of the natural order that the parents/guardians of a child get to determine how they are raised, including what moral values they are taught. While I may not agree with someone teaching their child to be Muslim, who am I to deprive them of the right to raise their children according to their values?

    Some societies might decide to give children rights to autonomy, and I'm inclined to think that a society should be allowed to try that, although it will end in disaster sooner or later and other countries might in my opinion have a moral obligation to step in eventually.

    But you are proposing a more “just” starting point (inside each society) which, within a generation, may be almost indistinguishable from our current situation. How does the previous generation having consented make it a more legitimate government for the following generation?

    No I'm not proposing a starting point. I'm proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don't like the country they're in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life. This means at any point in time the country is comprised of people (and their children and mentally incompetent dependents) who consent to be under that system. That's what makes the government legitimate at all times and not just for the first generation.

    Unfortunately, we are stuck trying to collectively figure it out something that we hope works for as many people as possible

    But why are we stuck in this situation? Why couldn't we have people separate into groups that agree on things like they naturally want to? Why are we forced to make some compromise between the group A that wants X to be illegal and group B that wants X to be legal? And then either group A is forced to violate their consciences supporting and paying taxes for what they consider evil or group B is punished for what they think is fine or even a moral duty? That just makes groups A and B constantly fight each other and form cliques and the country is divided and inefficient. Why? I think the reason is obvious. Because those who rule the country do not want to give up their power, most of which they would do by allowing secession. But things don't need to be this way. With enough public recognition of the right to individual secession it would have to be allowed. And once one country allows it many will want to move there and other countries would be pressured to uphold the right.

    I still don’t think it’s good to set the precedent of “If I don’t like what the government is doing I don’t have to pay my taxes.”

    But how do can you deny the argument that taxation is theft to those who never consented to their government? It's just taking people's money under threat of force and using it however the illegitimate government wishes. Even if the money was only used for the most upright causes with maximal efficiency it would still be theft because it lacks consent. Charities can't take my money unless I made an agreement with them, and in the same way governments can't unless I made an agreement without coercion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 4 months ago

    No I'm not proposing a starting point. I'm proposing that at any time someone should be able to decide they don't like the country they're in and either move to another country that will accept them or take some land and secede to form a new country or join to an existing one that will accept them. So every competent person once they reach adulthood (however that is defined by the country of residence) will have the opportunity to leave their country, or do so later in life.

    You ignored a massive point that i repeated in both my examples.

    Am I guaranteed the resources to find that new society?

    Relocating is not a trivial task and, to a degree and depending on where we are moving to, we have the freedom to do that already. The vast, vast majority of societies don't forbid their citizens from leaving if they aren't wanted for a crime... it's the destination societies that place limitations on who they want to admit and how. Is that a right you want to deny to societies in this utopia? If you are free to associate with who you want, why can't you limit who can associate with you?

    It's also not trivial to find land to start a new society. Most land is claimed at this point. If one society or another has already laid claim to every piece of land, what then? Do you propose that unutilized land is unable to be claimed? Can a society that values the natural environment not claim and limit how much of it can be utilized or claimed by its citizens?

    This is what I'm saying - this society assumes unlimited resources for relocation and the formation of new societies. It grants rights that, ultimately, infringe on those same rights when they might be required by others.

    Where does land for new societies come from? Where do the resources to freely relocate come from? How is this so drastically different from the forces that make it difficult to relocate in most existing societies?

    When resources and land are unavailable for your utopia, the core premise is removed and we're where we are right now.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (7 replies)
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Genocide.

    I don't like it. Some do. Am I morally obligated to fund it with my taxes?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    You don't fund Genocide with your taxes. You pay taxes to the government and the government chooses to fund the genocide.

    If you vote for a candidate who wants to vote against genocide but that candidate loses and the winner votes in favor of genocide... did you support genocide by simply casting a vote?

    It's a democracy (in theory). We pay taxes and we collectively decide what to spend one money on. It doesn't matter how terrible the cause is. It changes nothing beyond how vigorously you need to oppose those who want to do terrible things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    If there is no way to forcefully avoid our government from participating in evils, why should I participate? Why should I not dedicate my every waking moment to dismantling that which aids evil? Do you feel that we, we the people, actually decide what our government does? Do you actually believe that the choices are free and open and reflective of the beliefs of the common American? That is the promise given in the contract that says I am to pay the government, and if the government is not going to fulfill its side, why should I?

    What other mechanism does the populace have to voice their displeasure with the actions of the people voted in? Because nothing stops people from doing an about face once in office.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    Do you feel that we, we the people, actually decide what our government does? Do you actually believe that the choices are free and open and reflective of the beliefs of the common American?

    At this point in time, no and no. I'm not arguing against doing whatever it takes to stop the transparent corruption and greed that has taken power over the American government through the Trump administration. I'm arguing against the notion that, generally, not paying taxes is justified because you don't like what those taxes fund.

    That is the promise given in the contract that says I am to pay the government, and if the government is not going to fulfill its side, why should I?

    This is what I said earlier:

    The only way to justify not paying taxes is to argue that you are being denied the ability to participate in the government system and have no legitimate recourse. Honestly, we are at that point now that the government is transparently corrupt. That's just not the angle you were arguing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    You don’t fund Genocide with your taxes. You pay taxes to the government and the government chooses to fund the genocide.

    So, we fund genocide with our taxes. The least you could do is acknowledge it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Paying money into a pool from which good and bad things may be funded and having a specific bad thing (SBT) get funded is not the same as funding a SBT.

    If I refuse to pay my $1000 tax bill and the government decides to cut food aid to needy children by $1000 to compensate while still funding that SBT... was I funding the SBT or was I feeding needy children?

    If I pay my taxes to a government that doesn't do the SBT, and they decide to start doing the SBT that fiscal year... did I fund the SBT?

    It's simple - I was paying my taxes. The government chose to allocate some of that to do the SBT.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Of course you're wrong. That's just Libertarian/Ancap nonsense...

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not paying taxes because 'government is wrong'

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    I said bad governments don’t deserve taxes. Do you think every government is justified to take as much taxes as it wants however it wants?

    These are two separate things. Do bad governments deserve taxes? How else will roads, transit, schools, parks, etc be paid for? So yes, I believe even bad governments not only deserve taxes, but require taxes to function. Are governments justified in taking as much tax as they want whenever they want? Of course not. Especially since those taxes often don't fund roads, schools, parks, etc but rather imperialist wars and genocide.

    Unless you're working towards the goal reforming or establishing a new government, your actions are purely performative. It sounds like you simply don't like paying taxes (who does really?). This is pure Libertarianism.

    Do you go to local meetings to vote on tax codes? Do you vote in progressive candidates who have a more favorable tax code? Are you fighting billionaires and corporations who pay virtually ZERO taxes? Are you protesting wars and genocide in the streets? Are you fighting ICE and their bloated, unlimited budget for killing and kidnapping? Are you going to town council/board meetings and protesting AI and Data Centers?

    No? Then shut up!

    I'm a Socialist and I'm actively working towards all those goals, and more. You are individualistic. You think individual actions will achieve whatever it is you think your goal is. It will not. We need collective action of the working class, united in a fight against the Capitalist class, who (and you're right, here!) do not represent us.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    What was your excuse before this administration?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    "I've been told"

    brilliant.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    We dont know what hapoens behind the scenes.

    what would you like to know because i have written a few laws.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    i'll take that as a no.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    taxation removes money from the overall monetary supply. Central banks can't 'run out' of money and do not require that spending be 'matched' to a tax base. There is a practical limit on how much money can be printed, in terms of productive capacity but also inflationary pressure, but mostly the boomer narrative of 'fiscal responsibility' is there to discipline popular expectations about social services and public spending generally. The logic of austerity is a leash around the neck of the working class, working silently to condition them to interpret spending which benefits their class interests as being 'irresponsible'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    I won’t downvote, but whoever told you that was telling stories. Yes, money gets mishandled at times, and we’re currently in a period of absurd corruption, but overall governmental programs are very efficiently run compared to a lot of private sector since there’s zero need for profit.

    The government is also essentially the largest negotiating body in the country for bulk rate bids.

    If they need money they print it

    Which is a leading cause of inflation. It’s very conservative financial behavior. Budgets need to be balanced. Republicans don’t bother and tend to leave the mess for whoever comes after. Democrats aren’t a ton better, but budgets are at least considered, and the only time we’ve ever had a surplus budget in my lifetime was under the democrats.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Its amazing how the psyop works to brainwash us into thinking government is less efficient than private corporations. This is an argument I have a lot with people who worship musky and think he should run the world.

    Right, we are currently in awful inflation even now!

    Its hard to explain to people that what theyre saying is false though. How can we prove tax money really goes where they say? There doesn't seem to be actual proof.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    The only thing worth noting is private industry with publicly traded options will always need to show quarter over quarter profit (or best effort to do so) as a literal legal obligation to shareholders. They have a legal obligation to profit as much as possible within legal limits, and even skirting them where legislation is up for debate. That means in the long run, going private will never be the cheapest option.

    The government has no such obligation, and no need to profit. Their only “shareholders” are the American people, and voting essentially makes us the board to remove them if we feel their choices are not to the public benefit.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    That stuff has a name, and it's called MMT, modern monetary theory, and it's generally considered a bad idea.

    Yes, the government can in principle just print money, but that has consequences, and they're not pretty. The understanding of the problems this was causing has been the historical reason for the independence of the central banks from the executive branches.

    There is a branch of the left that doesn't like the idea that there are limits to public spending, but now that Trump is trying to take control of the Federal Reserve we just might find out how much of a bad idea it is to have the central bank under the executive.

    The shortest version of why MMT is very dubious at best, is that if you print too much money you get inflation, and MMT proponents acknowledge this. You know how they suggest controlling inflation? By levying taxes. And there you go, taxes are back.

    BTW the breakdown of how your tax dollars are spent is here: (at least if you're in the US, which it sounds like you are)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 40 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I can tell you grew up watching Mr Rodgers.

    I mean that as a compliment by the way.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 33 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    I did, him and Bob Ross. They’re both missed, and I hope their syndication can be a benefit to young people today. (Edit - though from what I’ve seen, the kids are alright. Certainly more compassionate and empathetic today than my cohort or generations before).

    Not sure if the shows still air, but some is on YouTube, and I donate to PBS monthly just in case.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Yeah. I grew up thinking all generations hate the younger generations. Then the younger generations get older and hate the younger younger generations.

    Nope. Turns out that was just a boomer thing. Gen X typically doesn't have opinions on anything. Millenials just hate the boomers, and Gen-Z just straight up aren't having kids.

    But I'm whats called a Xenial. Half genX, half millenial. And I've never thought of the younger generations as bad. I feel bad for them. 40 years before their birth, the world wasn't a huge dumpster fire. And then reagan happened, and things have been sliding downward ever since. By the time Gen-Z was born, it was already too late. Then on top of that, their childhood was centered around covid, and now trump being a massive dick. Just in general, at all times.

    So I don't get mad at the younger generations. I kinda feel bad for them. The world sucks, and it's the only world they've ever known.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I don't get mad at the younger generations. I kinda feel bad for them. The world sucks, and it's the only world they've ever known.

    Pretty much. I’m in my 40s, late millennial. Shit sucked, watching opportunities previous generations had slipping away as I hit adulthood and realized what an absolute mess everything was, and that everything I’d been taught to succeed at life was a lie.

    Ended up doing okay for myself thanks to getting into IT and dropping out of college before I racked up more debt but it still took forever to pay off. I managed to get to six figures a few years back, pay off my debts, and I’m able to make things work financially thanks to moving to the boonies and living small, and saving a lot. I also lucked out with good timing and had a home built when the interest rates were still around 3% and paid points to lower it more. My mortgage now is less than I paid in rent in 2021, and rates are up since then.

    And now… I mean I’m okay, but seeing everything happening is stressful. No idea how future employment is gonna go with all the AI mess (I’m sure I’ll be fine, but it’s all up on air):, and I don’t think the kids today will even have the opportunities that I had early career when I took jobs that were shitty but at least gave me opportunities to learn and skill up and get various career certs to move up and do better.

    I was lamenting the lack of opportunities back then, feeling like I was always one step ahead of inflation, debt, and potential homelessness, and it’s even harder for today’s young adults! I honestly don’t know how someone not already established would even get a foot in the door today, and everything’s gone absolutely crazy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Tomkatt, I love the way you write and the concerns you expressed for our youth today.

    I fully agree with everything you've said and I just need to reach out to tell you that you are a great human being.

    All the best, be well, and let's hope things work out for the common man. Thanks again!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    A society without taxes is not a society I want to live in. What, I have to build my own roads? Or are they all going to be for-profit toll roads? Fuck that noise. I want a government whose job is to make a society I want to live in. We don't have that government, but once we do I will happily pay taxes to that government.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 44 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Taxes are money collected by the government ensure that everyone has a basic standard of living and care, as well as essential services. Taxes are important. Don’t blame taxes just cause America can’t use tax money correctly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (3 children)

    So how about we require the government to serve the people

    And what are you doing to work towards this goal?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (5 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    If people want the benefits of society, they need to be paid for.

    Life Pro-Tip: You definitely want the benefits of a functioning society.

    The alternative is nasty, brutish, and short as a wiser person than us once said.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    I'm assuming the individual gives the consent. So what happens if you don't consent?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
    • load more comments (1 reply)
    • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    This is exactly what they want. If no one pays taxes and we all get that back into our paychecks, the price of goods goes up by the same amount or more. The taxes are still paid, they just go straight to the shareholders instead of through the government. These billionaires don't pay their fair share now but they would love to pay nothing at all. 30% inflation doesn't affect them but it does make them richer. This is why they're floating the idea of zero income tax.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent