// Why should the majority of the tax burden be on the middle class?

I think it's a common misconception that the rich don't pay taxes. According to a quick Google (but in line with prior research):

In 2020, the bottom half of taxpayers paid 2.3 percent of all federal individual income taxes. The top 1 percent paid 42.3 percent of all federal income taxes.

So a few things…

First, that quote you found is cherry picked from 2020 which is not representative of most years. [1] The argument is also sneakily abusing the fact that federal taxes are intentionally applied only to income above the poverty level.

Second, it’s well documented that our billionaires pay around 8% (only on their “reported income”, btw, which is often tiny compared to the wealth they have access to. Google says Bezos pays more like 1% on the money he makes when you account for all of it.) 8% is obviously far far lower than our middle and upper middle classes pay. The millionaires might pay taxes in proportions similar to the middle class, but the super rich do not. The sources on this are plentiful and easy to find.

[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/3894233-how-america-actu...

The reason investment are taxed as they are is to encourage them. Society as large gains much more from what Bezos did than Bezos himself.

However, were we to discourage is courageous act 30 years ago (and others entrepreneurs as well) - we’d all lose.

The only appropriate amount to tax anybody is 0.

Where does that leave you funding commonly useful services? (Military, Police, Roads, etc.)

Tolls and subscriptions, obviously.

This makes me wonder about the free rider problem. If a hostile force invades the country, what do you do with the people that are delinquent on their "Military Defense" subscription?

They wouldn't be able to live there in the first place. If you don't pay, you don't get the service.

The secret ingredient that separates a fee from tax is the same that separates sex from rape: consent.

Then there’s no difference in outcome between the options you’ve described. Nobody’s forcing you to live here, you have given consent.

That's not true. Most countries will want their share of your property of you try to move out, and some like US will try to tax you regardless of where you live.

You’re contradicting your own argument from above, and moving the goal posts. Sure the US will tax if you if you try to keep citizenship. If you wanted to do what you proposed, which is not pay for US services and not live there, then you should actually commit to moving out, right? Taxing your land on the way out is just a byproduct of living there, and happens weather or not you stay or leave. That’s a one time thing, and once you leave it’s done.

> Most countries will want their share of your property of you try to move out,

Under your model, what happens if I buy property and default on my military/police payment? Presumably I at least lose the rights to access that property, and I likely also lose rights to the property itself (since I'm no longer paying for its defense).

This is the correct answer. Disturbing how some people bay for the blood of the rich even if the wealth was gained legitimately and voluntarily.

The standard leftist slogan of "billionaires should not exist" implies that somehow eliminating anyone's ability to accumulate wealth is good for society. The reality is that destroying a few thousand people is cathartic to those who have envy and hatred in their blood, but will not solve any problems of society. I would also argue it will dramatically harm society, as many billionaires accumulated that wealth through building new companies in the private market (and therefore earned their wealth by satisfying more needs of consumers more efficiently), and are therefore far more competent stewards of wealth than our spendthrift and indebted governments.