Another big issue with US taxes is that tax dollars aren't well spent.

I'd be happy to pay the amount of taxes I'm currently paying in California if tax dollars were used well, but as it stands the public schools are underfunded, the highways are full of litter on the side, higher education isn't free, healthcare isn't universal, social security is underfunded, public transportation is dysfunctional, and so on.

When it comes to international corporate interest, American tax dollars are extremely well spent. The US State Department, Military, and to a degree, Intelligence Agencies do everything they can to compel favorable treatment for large American companies from every other country.

I guess it's possible that large companies have outgrown the need for US Government support internationally and figure its cheaper and more effective to lobby the leadership of countries directly. The problem is that this approach opens up Western nations to a new form of neo-colonialism. When Western "democracies" are controlled by large corporations, the door is open for the state-owned companies of China or Saudi Arabia to acquire these companies, and thus, their influence over Western nations.

> "When it comes to international corporate interest, American tax dollars are extremely well spent."

That just makes it worse: people pay taxes but don't get value for their money, while corporations pay no taxes but get lots of value for other people's money.

This is true, US isnt so bad at public spending management. Still, that doesn’t make taxes voluntary

It's a different issue, but yes, I can totally see how people would be less happy about paying taxes when those taxes are wasted on stupid crap and not used to improve the situation of them and their fellow citizens.

It's not totally separate. Paying taxes to fund orphanages, or to fund weapons of mass destruction, or actual wars that one considers to be intrinsically immoral, are radically different acts - and the moral act of payment is affected. To fund an orphanage might be considered an obligation by many, while to fund an immoral war might be considered a form of slavery and the funds taken under duress.

In other words, the morality of paying taxes is directly dependent on the legitimacy of the government demanding payment. And that legitimacy in part derives from their very actions, for which in an ideal wold they would be held accountable.

California has high pension obligations that will only make the problem worse. The pension recipients refuse to discuss the matter. They wont even let grandfathered changes. Fees and taxes will continue to increase and services will be cut to pay pensions.

If you had a contract with the state to provide you money in retirement based on a career of working for the state, how much flexibility would you personally have on the state unilaterally changing the terms of your source of income?

> What's even worse, US citizens (US "persons" even, you don't have to be a citizen for this) that live and work abroad and have nothing to do with the US, still have to pay their taxes there.

That’s the price you pay to have the most powerful country in the world as a destination to which you can always retreat.

We are aware that is the price you have to pay. However "The United States is one of just two countries (the other being the African nation of Eritrea) that taxes individuals’ based on their citizenship".[1] That should at least give you pause to ask why, whether it is fair, and most importantly, if there is not a better solution to whatever problem this policy attempts to solve.

[1] https://taxfoundation.org/how-countries-define-their-income-...

If that was a justification then why aren't corporation's paying that price?

It is also worth noting that expats can exclude something like $100k from taxes with the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. My understanding is that relatively few US expats actually pay anything.

From what I understand, they usually don't have to pay anything as long as they do pay some reasonable amount of taxes in the country where they live, but they still have to file taxes in the US, which, from what I understand, is quite a horrific process.

Doesn’t change the fact that US corporations aren’t so bound.

Please don't confuse income taxes with taxes on profit. Income tax is like a tax on revenue - you pay it where you get it, you can't deduct costs. You can tax corporations on revenue or you could tax consumption (by VAT or sells tax) and that wouldn't be evaded either. The problem is with taxing profits and elusive concept of "profits in specific market". The concept doesn't really makes much sense though.

It also isn't a just concept if you think about it. Why should France (for example) get more tax just because Ireland made it possible to produce things cheaper? If they feel you should pay for access to the market tax that. It's really is not your business how much I spend in my country to produce goods I sell in yours. Trying to police that across borders, varying accounting regulations, labor laws etc. is just insanity.

> "It's really is not your business how much I spend in my country to produce goods I sell in yours."

That's exactly my point: you tax the economic activity only in your country: the revenue minus the profits in your country. What the company does in a different country is irrelevant to this.

Note: this is my tax proposal. Not how I claim things currently work, but what I think they should be changed to.

Although on a different level, I think what happens across borders absolutely does matter: I think countries should not import products created through slavery, child labour or other forms of oppression. Companies and countries should take more responsibility for the entire supply chain and not just the bits inside their own border.