My original comment does not state my opinions on these parameters of the taxation process. I was commenting on how I felt the act of moving to a new state, just to get out of paying taxes in the state you currently live in (and earned that money in), is, in general, immoral. I could have spent several paragraphs going over every possible exception to this viewpoint, and hedge every assertion with "in general", "except when", etc., but that tends to be tedious to both read and write.
> Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create?
> Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools
Could you restate these sentences? I can't quite understand them.
I do find all of these issues related though, and that your comment is only naive because it isn't nuanced enough. Naive wouldn't have been the word I would have led with, as it is your word for yourself willing to be open to another perspective.
I don't find that action immoral because I don't find the state's goal grounded in morality. I find both agents to be amoral, with the individual's amorality being both compliant and reactionary to the state's amoral aggregate legislative process where the legislatures are inattentive and misguided and misled.
*the current state of the US healthcare system notwithstanding.
right, and I find that unrelated to being obligated to pay it.
its more like
"way to go, guys!" buys gas across the county line
"that's a great cause!" buys property in another state
"yes, build that park Leslie Knope!" moves
if I didn't do any of those things then I would pay it. if I wanted 1% - 50% more money to do a different thing and there was a legally compliant way to do so (enabled by the same authorities, mind you), I would consider it
This has been reinforced by the Supreme Court who could find no distinction between any socioeconomic class optimizing their tax burden, no matter how accessible the privilege becomes for some.
> Perhaps it's naive of me,
I think it would be considered naive to elevate the greed of the state over the greed of an individual. Your current train of thought doesn't seem to factor it in at all, it seems more like "if this kind of authority asks, because I respect it, I must comply" which makes me wonder where the limits are. Any state? Any due process outcome? Any percentage? Would you consider to read the state's law to discover that you are not subjected to the payment in many circumstances that you can create? To me, thats where the naivete lies.
My current thoughts on taxes are that the state incentivizes certain kinds of transactions. And if you don't engage in those kind of transactions then the state taxes a percentage of the remainder. The percentage of the tax being a deterrent, as it would prefer you put your money to use in other ways so that you never pay it. Spending, investments, etc. Which this logic its not about imagining that you are passively paying for roads and schools (you aren't, you are paying interest on the funds the state borrowed from the international markets to pay for the roads and schools that were already going to be paid for regardless, the ones that would be neglected would still be neglected). This is most directly seen with the old healthcare fine: if you don't have healthcare through an employer and don't pay for the affordable care act plan then you pay a $1,000 tax. They are incentivizing you to shift capital to certain areas of the economy, with the fallback being the state. This will be a more productive way for you to think of all transactions with the state.