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?