A mind reader, are we?
> for some reason
If only someone could find out what it is! /sarcasm
Here are some pretty standard reasons why many Americans oppose ever expanding taxation and redistribution schemes:
- government redistribution schemes often create perverse incentives, even arguably perpetuating the very problems they were intended to solve
- government redistribution schemes are often inefficient and have significant administrative costs
- when a private charity is behaving badly, you can simply choose to send your money to a more effective charity. Cutting back failed redistribution schemes is all but unheard of.
- Lastly, we do technically have laws that restrict our government's ability to levy taxes. This is based on the very reasonable moral position that citizens should not be serfs, and that the government does not have an unlimited claim on the people's productive output (no matter how well intentioned the government is).
You may think those reasons are insufficient, but they are reasons nonetheless and it is not merely an outgrowth of fear.
- When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
- Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient. When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
- We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
- How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom. The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
> When a private company is behaving badly because of the power imbalance between you and a corporation that literally doesn't need to sleep your chances of getting any recourse are almost zero. You have no right to not have your water poisoned by a company and generally those companies will just declare bankruptcy if things get too expensive to avoid having to pay. No executives choosing to poison the water for profit will go to jail.
Non sequitor. We're talking about private charity vs. government redistribution. If you want to have a debate about moral legitimacy of for-profit corporations that's fine, but it's a different matter.
> Citation needed that somehow a single entity processing taxes versus literally hundreds of different charities is less efficient.
Having literally worked for a tax collecting government agency, I can assure that is the case. Many charities publish what percentage of their revenue goes to the intended recipient vs. administrative overhead.
> When there's a natural disaster it's not your local charity you're calling, it's FEMA.
That a government has more resources to bring to bear does not mean it is more efficient. Also, you don't need to call charities because they are usually already there.
> We've literally had numerous tax cuts go through federal government. The idea that it doesn't happen is just plain false.
Your not addressing my point. How often are redistribution schemes evaluated or rolled back? We can only cut taxes because the government borrows a lot of money to fund its programs.
> How does a body of government made up of Representatives elected by it's constituents in any way relate to serfdom.
Serfdom has less to do with the structure of the ruling authority and more more do with whether that ruling authority is constrained by the rights of its citizens. If the government (even one elected by popular consent) can arbitrarily deprive ordinary citizens of their liberty or property, then the people are serfs. There are plenty of historical examples of this exact thing happening.
> The country literally had slaves at the founding. Your point is entirely invalidated. The idea that the government cannot compel someone to pay into a system that they use but that it was totally okay to literally own people falls flat on it's face.
That slavery existed somehow invalidates the Taxing and Spending Clause, due process, or the 14th amendment?
What exactly is your argument here? Is it "because slavery was once practiced in this country, the government can and should impose arbitrary taxes on the people regardless of their property rights or the restrictions laid out in the constitution?" It may not be your intended point, but it follows logically from what you said.