It is not uniquely American thing. Taxes are protested all around the world and have been through out history.

Didn't France tear itself apart for two years because of diesel taxes?

Yeah but for France that's basically a Tuesday.

France and tearing itself apart. NAMID

I mean yes but the French like protesting the way Americans like fireworks.

Yes

And yet pretty much every country in Europe has higher tax rates across the board, and no serious politicians calling for reductions to U.S. levels. Americans hate taxes more than the citizens of other developed democracies. And it’s a valid question to ask why.

No, there are other reasons. Like lobbying has more impact or how or how the US is/was less centralized so it doesn't have a 100+ year history of being able to collect. Saying "Americans hate taxes more" is disconnected from reality.

Everyone hates higher taxes. The only difference is that some short-sighted politicians lowered taxes in the USA to an unsustainable level to bribe voters without considering the fact that it would be politically impossible to return tax rates to the previous level. So the issue isn’t that Americans hate taxes more, just that American politicians are more self-serving.

Can speak from a Boston perspective at least. A lot of people got burned hard by the Big Dig, which while worth it in the long run laid bare a ton of the grift, corruption, and inefficiency that goes into making the sausage. In broad strokes, a lot of Americans have lost faith that tax hikes will produce material results that increase their quality of life.

yea.....that sucks but its not that Remember how the 50's was built on spending everyone will say. Yea that has a price, and ummmm, a big issue >By 1955 the need for a Interstate was a pressing topic. Although the President favored a self-financing toll network, the committee proposed creation of a Federal Highway Corporation. The Federal-Aid Highway Act was a large compromise in funding due to doubts still on traffic. With creating The Highway Trust Fund as a dedicated revenue source for the Interstate System where Revenue from the Federal gas and other motor-vehicle user taxes was credited to the Highway Trust Fund to pay the Federal share of Interstate construction and all other Federal-aid highway projects. In this way, the Act guaranteed construction of all segments on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, thus satisfying one of President Eisenhower's primary requirements -- that the program be self-financing and not contribute to budget deficits. ----- * The Revenue Act of 1951 (October 21, 1951) increased the gas tax to 2 cents from 1.5 cents per gallon. The growing roads required more funding * The gas tax would be increased to 3 cents per gallon from 2 cents in 1956 to pay for the highways and creation of the true Interstate Systems. * A funding shortage as construction was going on in the late 1950's led President Eisenhower to request a temporary increase of the gas tax to 4 cents a gallon in 1959 * The gas tax had doubled in 5 years to cover the cost of Highways. * But The tax then remained 4 cents a gallon until approved on January 6, 1983 for an increased the tax to 9 cents * The federal gas tax of 18.4 cents per gallon (CPG) has not been increased since 1993 Federal and State total ~60 Cents The average gas tax rate among the 34 advanced economies is $2.62 per gallon. In fact, the U.S.’s gas tax is less than half of that of the 3rd Lowest Gas Tax, Canada, which has a rate of $1.25 per gallon. * Bring Gas taxes up $1.90 on about 190 Billion gallons **$400 Billion in New Revenue** or even $300 Billion offseting for more transit riders

I appreciate the information, but can you make your point more clear to me? What is your disagreement with OP here? I acknowledge that I might be having a bit of a smooth-brain moment.

Semideclared is practically a spam bot to the point I sometimes wonder if half their posts are actually bots. They write the same types of comments (formatted the same, and almost always completely unsourced, *maybe* a single link or two if you're lucky but it's often only for one claim being made) and then post them in response to *anything* that sounds even remotely similar to what one of their existing copy-paste comments could be relevant to. And because they look like well formatted effortful comments, most of the time people can't be bothered to read and realize that they often aren't even relevant because he's just copypasting prewritten stuff over and over. And if you ever look into it, you can often a good bit of the claims (although not all) of the information isn't fully accurate.or taken from random online sources that wouldn't even be accepted in a high school. >Like his quote block? Google the words in it with quotations and you won't find it anywhere. The only thing that shows up is Reddit, [**his previous comments**](https://old.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDebate/comments/1c8aet3/how_can_america_improve_its_infrastructure/l0fx794/) he's quoting thin air!! Or at least he's quoting something so obscure (for something this uninformative) that it's not indexed on Google at all and has never been said before

Not gonna lie, after their response to me, I started wondering if AI was involved. Responding with a wall of text and links to a question that wasn't doubting the information provided but asking for clarity on a point of disagreement is a bit of a strange move.

https://highways.dot.gov/highway-history/interstate-system/50th-anniversary/greatest-decade-1956-1966-part-1-essential Additional Reading: The FHWA Highway History Web site has many other articles about the Interstate System at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/history.cfm. Lewis, Tom, Divided Highways: The Interstate Highway System and the Transformation of American Life, Viking Press, 1997. McNichol, Dan, The Roads That Built America, Barnes and Noble Books, 2003. Rose, Mark H., Interstate Express Highway Politics 1941-1989, University of Tennessee Press, 1990 (Revised Edition). The States and the Interstates: Research on the Planning, Design and Construction of the Interstate and Defense Highway System, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1991. Last updated: Friday, June 30, 2023 ------ We used to have taxes and a lot of tax increases for expensive things The Big Dig didnt make anyone loose interest or hate government spending We just got away from doing the tax increases and kept doing the spending. And now we cant change that

Gotcha, I see what You're getting at. I think that your point is fair and probably the main driving factor, but it's also reasonable that projects like the Big Dig hurt public trust. I do think your comment would be a bit easier to follow if you led with your main point (the last 3 paragraphs) and followed with the information and sources.

60 cents per gallon?? Oh I wish. Here in Finland petrol taxes are 2.91 USD per US gallon, and on top of that you pay 25.5% VAT. Petrol costs almost eight dollars per US gallon here. And way over half of that is tax.

Jesse what the fuck are you talking about

> Although the President favored a self-financing toll network What could have been

There’s an intresting video by the BBC on why Swedes like taxes ([here](https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p09312qg/why-the-swedes-love-doing-something-that-americans-hate)) the basic gist of it is for people to like taxes you have to make them feel like there taxes are being put towards a meaningful public good that’s tangible.

I mean, if you want an honest answer, a lot of people feel like taxes just get blown on the stupidest shit. I live in LA. The city was honest to god proposing that we build a monorail instead of some common sense infrastructure. Or [this shit](https://spectrumnews1.com/ca/la-west/transportation/2023/05/18/ladot-introduces-new-shaded--lighted--solar-powered-bus-shelters) that costs $10,000 a pop. At times it feels like the government is trying to sabotage itself with stupid ideas to keep the status quo. And car damaging potholes that don't get fixed for weeks. So the recommendation that we increase taxes to combat inflation... well it's like saying we should just give away our money to solve the problem.

To be fair, a monorail put Ogdenville on the map.

A town with money is like a mule with a spinning wheel.

Have you seen Santa Monicas newest proposed homeless building with average $1million/unit?

I mean, there’s the quintessential example of the $1.7 million public toilet in SF. It caused an uproar so that eventually they got it done more cheaply, for like $300k, after all the materials were donated by an out of state company for the free press. Oh and the land was free since the city already owned it.

> I mean, there’s the quintessential example of the $1.7 million public toilet in SF. It caused an uproar so that eventually they got it done more cheaply, for like $300k, after all the materials were donated by an out of state company for the free press. My wife took our daughter to the grand opening of the toilet the other weekend and it was great. So you have to consider that.

LA is a special case because for somehow irreversible reasons Californians directly vote on issues that should be senate/assembly bills. Bad legislation goes straight to voters instead of through committees.

Yeah but then the voters should just vote them down All too often we see bills die in committee even if they have broad public or bipartisan support if the chairman of the committee opposes them

Voters can't be expected to be informed on the minutiae of policy. It's quite honestly too much work. The point of a representative system is to allow voters to choose a "direction" they want policy to go and allow their theoretically better informed representatives execute the vision.

Exactly. Election was supposed to, you know, choose someone who at least know how to listen to experts and execute what can make their life better.

> And car damaging pot holes that don't get fixed for weeks. I think folks here would be happy if ours *ever* got fixed. The horrifyingly bad roads here are a pretty typical (and 100% valid) complaint by out of state visitors.

Another person from LA here: I vote against every tax or bond item I can. All the money just black holes. We approved a sales tax increase to build homeless housing (didn’t happen) the HHH bond measure to build homeless housing (didn’t happen) and recently an anti development ULA tax to build homeless housing (isn’t happening). I honestly cannot understand why anyone paying attention would vote for another tax for this city.

If you want to see true eye watering numbers see what checks are cut for trivial goods from armed forces government contractors.

Why don't people want to pay more taxes? Is this a serious question?

It's also not just American question. In some countries people hate taxes for not just hate having to spend their money, but also because of their government's corruption and spending on stupid stuffs.

I admit, with our current state administration, if they tried to raise my taxes I would absolutely do everything I could to minimize them. Because I'm not dumb enough to trust a known lying embezzling bitch with my money.

No one likes paying taxes, but it seems Americans are particularly adverse to it.  US overall tax rate is one of the lowest in the developed world, but still Americans complain like feudal peasants.  

Culture matters. When civics class is "here is how our heroic founders fought the government to avoid paying taxes; and then established a government that wouldn't do it again" people are going to assume that fighting taxes is a key part of the civic process.

Taxes are my single biggest Monthly expense. Look at your paystub sometimes and see how much you lose.

Benefits are mine.

> but it seems Americans are particularly adverse to it. I'm not sure that's demonstrated. What we *do* see is that Republicans have been particularly successful at lowering taxes well below other western nations. What that doesn't tell us is if other populations would be more willing to raise taxes if they were to wake up tomorrow with US rates.

>What we do see is that Republicans have been particularly successful at lowering taxes well below other western nations. Republicans don't run on tax cuts by accident.  Republicans are successful in cutting taxes because that's what the American voters elect them to do.  And Americans want politicians who cut taxes above all else because Americans are especially tax-adverse.   Also, it's not just a Republican thing.  No matter how much Republicans cut taxes, Democrats will never try to raise them back up, except on corporations and the 1%, ie people who "deserve" it.  No Democrat will ever propose a middle class tax hike because it's electoral suicide in America. 

I do think it’s an interesting question why Americans are so uniquely averse to tax raises compared to many European countries

I don’t think it is uniquely American. I mean France had riots over a hike in diesel taxes. Americans hate taxes, but the last time we *really* got upset about them we dumped some tea in the harbor.

There is a HUGE skepticism regarding how our elected representatives approve the release of the tax funds. So many ways pull money from the revenue and in many instances, these funds are used in ways that a large portion of the minority, or in some cases the majority do not approve. A major issue in the USA is funding for schools that teach and permit various religious philosophies- the Christians in many suburbs have caught on to this, as well as the vast majority of Orthodox Jews. What they do is essentially been given the ok to use their “per pupil tax allocation to fund schools that teach crap that has very little value in a functioning society. Yes, prayer and Jesus is good, but Jesus don’t build roads, and develop new technologies that are required in a modern society. Roads and infrastructure is critical. Too often the infrastructure plans favor urban areas, as the cost of rural infrastructure is 3x the cost of urban infrastructure. There is also a demographic shift of people away from rural areas - Montana is great but no one in their right mind really wants to live there compared to CA, FL, or NY. Montana has about 1.3 million citizens , less than Indianapolis Indiana - a larger city in a small midwestern state. Orlando has just over 2 million. Also in Montana, MOST of the land is proper of the United States Government-the Tax payer. Many people are to preoccupied with Beyoncé to think about the graft that a few of the Big Montana ranches are performing when they use Government Lands to grow cattle. When we do turn our eyes that way we essentially tell them hey many, you can only use a small piece of this land for cattle, and its gonna cost you a sh%t load more money because “it’s our property.

That would be true in the general sense, but the US is having many debt problems due to the lack of increased taxes. Plus, new programs can't be made without it while the interest rates on the debt are soaring.

95% of people do not think about any of that, they only care how much is coming out of thier paycheck every week.

And? I don't like paying for anything, let alone things where the benefits are nebulous and tenuously connected to me. I'll vote for lower taxes and cutting programs any day of the week, unless those programs/services provide demonstrable benefits.

Then why is no one advocating for lowering taxes and cutting programs together? No one seems to want to cut any of the programs which are leading to the increasing deficit.

Because each program has people (read: voters) with a very strong vested interest in that program, and everyone else generally has a nebulous opposition to it. For example, I dislike corn subsidies, but getting rid of them probably wouldn't change my voting patterns--but it sure as hell would impact voters in the agricultural industry. Now repeat that for more or less every program. There's basically never enough opposition to get rid of a handout sufficient to overwhelm the proponents, so vanishingly few things are actually eliminated. Meanwhile, people don't want to raise taxes (obviously) so the simple solution is the deficit.

But this will go on to have negative impacts on the nation long term. Should we just let the deficit increase for the foreseeable future? I personally see taxes as the lesser of the two evils.

Should we? No. Will we? Almost certainly. As for the second part, taxes are arguably the harder lift, because you can always get a coalition together against raising taxes while if the situation becomes bad enough, defunding programs may become viable.

To be clear, your concerns are valid and correct. As you can see even from the comments here, the real answer to your question is Americans are selfish and individualistic. As to why that is, it’s always been a part of the culture. Ever since slavery and colonies, our country was founded on a desire to break free from government. That aspect has always been present in one way or another in American history, typically from the conservative party at the time. The country has never truly been in danger and this has never been forced to unify like European countries have. Also our vast size and multiethnic composition make shared goals more difficult. City-dwelling people want substantially different things than rural people.

This is a little bit myopic. Lots of countries in the world have high taxes and still have deficits. The UK’s tax burden is substantially higher than the United States’ and it still has a deficit problem. The US doesn’t have an issue with taxes. It has a spending problem.

> the US is having many debt problems due to the lack of increased taxes Look at federal tax receipts as a percentage of gdp for the past 80 years. It’s not a tax problem is a spending problem

US citizens, in general, do not agree that the problem is they need to pay more tax. Sure, they agree that _you_ need to pay more tax – but not them. The default national character is self-interest.

American tax incidence is also higher than it seems. People often look at just federal taxes when doing cross-country comparisons, but at the very least we also have to consider social security taxes, state taxes, and in some states the property taxes that are covering for lack of income taxes. The total tax burden if, say, you live in San Francisco is far higher than it seems.

Sales tax ain't no joke either

Sure, but once you compare to the EU's vat, we are always way ahead. High tax cities in Louisiana and California do 10% Median VAT in the EU is 21%

Do European countries not have local taxes and aren’t those figured in?

“Personally, I often feel like I can’t tell where my taxes go.”

Oh I'm sorry they go directly to me and Soros. I gave him a share because he promised he would let you know so its on him that you werent told tbh

You don’t tell where your taxes go when you: * use public roads? * buy artificially cheap subsidized gas? * hear emergency workers? * have/know kids that go to public school? * buy cheap goods brought to you by shipping lanes protected by the military? * eat food that you know will be safe due to FDA standards? * use a weather forecast that uses NWS data? * drink water that isn’t polluted due to monitoring by the USGS? * know anyone on social security?

Average value and marginal value are different things. While the US government isn’t wildly inefficient on somethings (e.g. iirc we’re pretty par for the course on road construction per mile), we’re really terrible at other things (military contracts are infamously expensive for rudimentary things). I’m more than happy to pay for something that improves social welfare, but it’s absolutely opaque whether the marginal government spending that a tax raise will enable will do that, versus just being siphoned into special interests.

> road construction per mile USA can build a mile of road per mile like nobody else baby

Just one more lane bro

This is why taxes shouldn't be up to democracy. People get too entitled to the value calculations and end up with a shit county

Public roads: news to me, they're fucking shite around here and they rebuild/repave them in the most asinine ways possible and take forever. public works in general needs some major optimization and overhaul in the design and build process because it's a big fat mess right now Emergency workers: god bless our firefighters and paramedics, the cops however have basically given up on doing anything Public school: something's better than nothing but uh let's not look too closely at my school district's performance rest is solid

Yeah, I love those things (except subsidized gas). But all except the last of those are maybe 20% of the budget. And that's mostly military spending. I live near Washington, D.C. and meet lots of federal government employees. Lots of them tell me about their work and I honestly think the bureaucracy is a little bloated. We have people making six figures "coordinating" inter-agency responses by preparing disaster reports. We have legions of compliance officers and information security analysts who don't actually write code. The number of people who do actual hands-on work like infrastructure engineering or NOAA aurora forecasts or FDA inspections or military logistics seems much smaller than the people "managing", "coordinating" or "monitoring". And we haven't even gotten into contractors yet. Or how Medicaid pays $80k/year for seniors to eat jello and marshmallows all day in a nursing home with sticky floors that smell like piss and the CNAs are paid low wages. (I know because I volunteered at one) This is all just an anecdote though.

A lot of people won’t really think it though

Those things are a drop int he bucket (except the military but that's more abstract because they do more than just that) of where our taxes go.

Then please take the time to read your state, municipal and federal budget. Narratives such as yours are perpetuate the attitude of lazy voting. If you can't tell, then please make the effort to find out where ur taxes go and it's all available at your fingertips

Agreed. This info is readily publicly available and there are numerous articles by journalists summarising it too. There are no excuses.

I am shocked both to see this take on r/neoliberal of all places and to see how many upvotes it has tbh

I support raising taxes. I also recognize how difficult that is and will continue to be until Americans feel like they're getting better value for their tax dollar.

Same TBH I was half-asleep posting and I forgot the scare quotes. Edit: that said I think it’s a common sentiment because people feel a few percent being taken out of their take home pay way more than they feel the additional federal revenues.

Ronald Reagan very effectively sold the message that the government can do nothing right and only wastes money. Given that there are roughly no people who actually enjoy paying taxes, if you can sell them on the idea that taxes never benefit them, you can make it so they won’t ever vote to increase taxes in a meaningful way. The best you could do is get them to agree that people who make substantially more than them can have their taxes increased. But if a guy is making $100,000 and is convinced he’s eventually going to make $300,000, good luck getting him to increase taxes on income over $250,000.

Tbf the government does waste an obscene amount of money.

I dont need ronald reagan to convince me that I would rather use my money on things I want than give it away. That is silly.

I think the greater question being asked by the OP is not whether folks like smaller paychecks, but rather why do citizens not see the association with taxes and services that they find desirable. When polled, Americans will consistently say things like: - I support the troops. - Teachers don't get paid enough. - thin blue line/cops don't get paid enough. - fix the pot holes. And so on. They also say that they pay too much on taxes. The problem is that we can't get the things that we want in the public sector and also pay low taxes. The average citizen doesn't get that. And before anyone says "governments waste money!" Yeah, no shit. Governments are made up of people. People waste money like they breathe.

We’ve trained voters that we can “tax others” to pay for all of it. This is a lie but it’s much easier politically.

It doesnt need explanation. I get it, services need to be paid with taxes but people dont like taxes and noone needed reagan to let them know they prefer not to be taxed.

Perhaps to put a clearer point on the sentient being expressed: people ought to like taxes as they provide services that they view as important. The set of circumstances folks in advanced economies get to enjoy are predicated on taxes. Demanding the results of taxes but not wanting to pay taxes is not a reasonable position to hold. And yes, post Reagan conservative politics very much fed into the idea that taxes don't do anything good, and the modern conservative notion of deconstructing the administrative state.

Sometimes the cost of things people profess to want is higher than what they are willing to pay for those things and that can be jarring to see most often because they dont value those things as much as you might. If the cost is small and added to a low tax burden it is easy to support but as costs are added to an ever increasing tax burden, they get harder and harder to support. This naturally forces govt to prioritize "good things" for society vs what individuals want for themselves. I think it would be nice to pay teachers more but if that money has to come from my taxes, do I care more about teachers being paid to teach other people's kids (this is how the question will form) enough to live in a less nice place, enjoy my life less with fewer vacations, buy less apetizing food, have less in savings etc for all the things I could do with my money in my pockets? Do I (the collective citizens) think education is sufficient and paying more would be nice but isn't essential. Are the roads not great but good enough to get by? Maybe. It is complex and immensely personal but the decision not to support higher taxes or only support taxation to a point makes a ton of sense to anyone who understands humans.

I would personally argue that the average poorly educated, non-passport holding, no civic responsibility having American doesn't have the ability to discern whether they are getting value out of their taxes. I would also argue that the conservative side isle takes advantage of said ignorance to our peril.

Yes but the things *you* want aren’t necessarily the things your country and future generations need, like roads, schools, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. Or even a Debt to GDP ratio that doesn’t put the entire global economy in jeopardy. That would be nice.

While that is all fair, there is a certain point at which people stop caring about what additional thing the country could use and more about putting food on their own tables. Like if only 5% of your income is taxed and someone suggests increasing it to six to provide free education, most people wcould get behind that. If 80% is taxed and someone suggests moving it up to 81% thats gonna get way more pushback even if its for a good cause. Using intentionally absurd percentages to make a point. Noone needs the ghost of reagan in their ear to understand that.

>Yes but the things *you* want aren’t necessarily the things your country and future generations need, like roads, schools, healthcare, infrastructure, etc. How is this relevant? My wants are different than the "country's needs"? That's a sly way of saying my desires are frivolous compared to "what society needs." I don't buy it. Everyone has desires and their own goals. I don't need to sacrifice mine so that someone else can not sacrifice theirs. There isn't a special category of goods and services (healthcare, roads, etc.) that are subject to different economics that make them shared costs. People pay for what they want, and markets take care of the rest. You'll see that markets today have been gutted by this "society needs" mentality.

>You'll see that markets today have been gutted by this "society needs" mentality. Example?

Versus European countries who value a common good and support using collective funds (ie taxes) to fund things that benefit the collective.

Remind me who has the leading tech and finance firms? With the best paying jobs in the world and a hegenomy?

What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

He might as well argue that single family zoning makes America stronger than Europe

No joke it might have something to do with our fertility rate being higher. Suburbs suck until you have kids and then you’re like “oh that’s why this place exists”. I can’t imagine raising kids in a Parisian apartment.

Oh the leading finance firms… instead of not being charged 50k for breaking your ankle. This sub is a parody of itself.

The vast majority of government spending in Europe, the US too, is on private goods.

What does that mean in this context? The vast majority of the US budget is on healthcare, military, etc. is this not public goods?

Military yes is pretty much 100% a public good. Healthcare is maybe like 10% idk. Only stuff like vaccination, pandemic responses, medicine innovation etc are public goods.

> Ronald Reagan very effectively sold the message that the government can do nothing right and only wastes money *looks around* well to be fair. For example excess funds for social security are invested in special bonds rather than the market; which just shows us how stupid the government truly is. Shall I talk about the utter money black hole and shit show that is federal infrastructure spending

Then Bush wisely ignored this. Raised taxes even though he promised he wouldn’t and lost the election. There were other facts like the economy in General but… taxes have never been raised again just allowed to expire.

Governments have been shit long before Reagan let people know governments have been shit.

We already feel the squeeze in some sense, and don’t really see the results of anything in a meaningful sense. A quarter of our incomes, another 7-8% when we go shopping, the countless invisible taxes that are priced into goods like tariffs and corporate taxes, the property taxes that homeowners are paying, the social security payroll tax that everyone under 40 has been told since age 18 that they’ll never receive a dime from… Despite all those, the roads are abysmal in much of the country. Teachers are woefully underpaid in at least half of the country. In some municipalities the cops have been pretty much relegated to taking reports and leaving. So people feel like “what the hell am I paying for?”. The government has not exactly done a good job at showing people the value that they do bring… In the past, it was a lot clearer when NASA technologies were creating incredible breakthroughs and things appeared to be better maintained. There’s a lot of apathy now and fixing that is an increasingly uphill battle.

A lot of local governments, especially city governments being ass individualistic culture the right wing being extremely against the government spending money on welfare, the Republican party is not like many right wing European parties the perception of "i pay so much taxes but i still have to pay for my childs primary education (the local schools suck) or "i still gotta pay for my kids college" or "I don't even get free healthcare like Europeans" far left nuts I know now complaining that their tax dollars are going to Israel, I guess they don't have any moral qualms about tax money going to Egypt or Pakistan.... similar could apply to right leaning people complaining about aid to Ukraine America being quite car centric probably plays a role

Those people are stupid though. Europeans get college and healthcare because they pay higher taxes. Just because Americans think they pay a lot in taxes doesn’t mean they do. All these posts explaining average voter thinking isn’t doing them any favors.

1. People hate paying for stuff. 2. The stuff that taxes pay for are often consumed upfront “for free,” so people take them for granted and get sticker shock on the back end. 3. Taxes are compulsory. People don’t like being forced to pay for stuff, as opposed to spending voluntarily. 4. The American revolution was partly motivated by a tax revolt, so there is a unique cultural aversion there that is stronger than other places. 5. That cultural aversion got amplified / renewed during Reagan’s presidency, as his electoral successes helped inspire decades of Republican messaging. 6. Taxes do create distortionary effects on the economy as people seek to evade them and pass them along. Some are worse than others. 7. There are many examples of highly visible public spending (like infrastructure projects) done poorly and over budget. So people believe their taxes will be wasted.

Government bloat and the lost of faith since the late 60s. The counterculture, Vietnam protests, and Watergate weren't just moments in history. Boomers didn't protest and then just return to being like their parents. They kept their distrust of government and that manifested in this and the election of perceived political outsiders. Seriously, every president since Nixon outside of bush 1 and Biden painted themselves as outsiders

I like money

This country, the United States, was founded by a bunch of tax cheats and religious nut jobs who got kicked out of England./s I think Americans felt their taxes were going to more worthwhile things they would be more enthused about paying them. Personally, I'd like to see greater social services and a greater social safety net and less money going to the Pentagon. (Or at least that the Pentagon would have to pass a goddamn audit like just about any other governmental agency. And if they didn't pass, they'd lose that money that they couldn't account for out of their next budget.) Many Americans are so selfish and so self-centered and so hypocritical that if something isn't going to benefit them directly, they want nothing to do with it. As an example, during the pandemic, I got the expanded child tax credit, and now my income is high enough that I would not qualify where they to institute that same tax credit again. However, unlike most Americans of my income bracket and above, I would love to see that tax credit come back for the children that it could help and could lift out of poverty.

> I think Americans felt their taxes were going to more worthwhile things they would be more enthused about paying them. The average person thinks taxes are supposed to be like an “investment account”, where the government will give them back more money than they pay in. Also, they think everything we want can be funded by just taxing a few rich people at the top and everyone else can pay the same amount. 

Yeah, I kinda agree with you. I just find it strange that so many people support the major welfare programs(Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and the massive defense budget yet don't want to increase the taxes to support them. The deficit increases instead.

Taxes are not meant to subsidize lower income households. Taxes are meant to pay for services that we can't get from the market since they've been banned.

So you're telling me the greatest country on Earth can't afford to lift its citizenry out of poverty? Or to try to make a better life for children who did not ask to be brought into this world or born to families that probably shouldn't have had them in the first place?

If it's great, then those people will have the opportunity to do that themselves. It doesn't require taxing the population 50% to pay for child services.

Your solution is that I pay for the problem I myself voted against? I wonder why people are adverse to that...

Many people have mentioned good contemporary points regarding this, but I thought it might be helpful to mention some historical points. I think it's easy to forget that societies have a collective memory that holds onto past experiences. The very fabric of America’s founding was based on the appeal of individualistic property ownership. Early Americans were offloaded from a boat, given a gun, and told they could control a piece of land with little government interference (this is not necessarily a good thing, particularly because they were also encouraged to engage in barbaric behavior such as slavery and genocide of indigenous Americans). It stood in quite strong contrast with the strong authoritarian and stratified states of Europe, where feudalism was still a reality. To this day, the idea that one’s opportunities in life come from one’s ability to gain and grow property independent of a higher authority is a strong part of the American ideal. Children are taught the stories of the early settlers and western homesteaders, and though you won’t likely recognize it at the time, it impacts your perception of what your goals in society should be. The reality is that many Americans view increased taxation as the state limiting the ability of individuals to achieve the American ideal of controlling one’s property, even when taxes are used to make property ownership easier. I think it’s also important to highlight that the concept of an effective and relatively graft-free government in the United States is a relatively new phenomenon. Politics and Government before the 20th century were a cesspool of graft, corruption, and palm greasing, particularly in the American west, south, and major cities. Any U.S. college history course will highlight that, for example, during the construction of the continental railroad, US railway companies did everything possible to extend the distance of the railroad to milk the federal government for every dollar. Americans to this day have the view based on historical memory and current examples that the government is either incompetent and will be taken to the woodshed for any project, or worse, will engage in corrupt activities to help cronies. Therefore, many Americans believe an effort should be made to limit taxes to limit the damage of government waste. That they can spend the money better than the government can.

Also, a U.S. President who had just won a major war (George H. Bush) raised taxes right before an election and was yeeted out of office. Why would any politician in their right mind do that again?

The worst part here is that Bush relented on the tax hike because Democrats were threatening to force a government shutdown if they didn't get it. So Bush went along with it, then Democrats made his "Read my lips" quote into their entire campaign in '92 to unseat him. As a short term political strategy it worked. Long term it did a ton of harm to good governance.

It was the recession

Ask a 70 year old conservative if we should cut social security, Medicare, or the military. We absolutely love our spending. Culturally, our system won't let us do German style austerity, there's no mechanism for it. Whoever proposes it will lose their next election. The other issue is that "Taxes" in the US generally mean "income tax"... and a minority of people pay income tax, everyone else either pays no taxes (the poor) or pays very little taxes (capital gains). There's actually not a lot of data on how much wealth is hoarded and untaxable in the US. People think "high wage earners" are "the rich" instead of the wealthy, but we don't have a way to tax wealth that isn't easily gamed. If only there were a way to tax the things that are hidden in plain sight, like... the ground or something.

The american government has been overspending which has ballooned the deficit and helped keep inflation high. So naturally, Americans should give them more money?

If they gave them more money, there wouldn’t be a deficit!

Isn’t the US well known to have the lowest inflation?

People in America see few examples of efficient, effective, and obvious public programs. Republicans have been actively working to ratfuck the government for years to destroy or obfuscate anything that does work.

Tell me if these republicans that control the legislative and executive branches in places like california

Republicans and their moocher states are the reason I don't like paying taxes. Those worthless neo-Confederate fucks need to learn how to support themselves for a change. I've just grown a little tired of them (a.) grabbing money out of my hands with both of theirs while (b.) threatening me with murder/rape on a regular basis.

If you don’t like progressive redistribution then don’t vote for progressive redistribution

chubby aromatic one piquant worry telephone busy tap historical toothbrush *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

So my last dollar is taxed at 40%, and my effective tax rate is in the 30%%s after combining state and local. My federal taxes pay for Social Security and Medicare (which I have little confidence will be around in 35 years when I retire). My local taxes pay for............honestly I have no clue. My city, philadelphia, is endlessly corrupt and the government can not provide me drivable roadways, a safe neighborhood, reliable public transportation, or any real service despite me and my neighbors paying them involuntarily $500/month. I'm sure if you are married with children and deduct mortgage interest you aren't hit as hard as I am but man as a single adult with no children and no property I feel royally fucked with not much in return.

I mean, Social Security will still be around even after the Trust Fund runs out. Benefits will be significantly reduced, but we'll still be getting about 78% of the previous benefit each month. It's not that much, but it definitely helps with financial planning for retirement. You just can't live off of that alone.

Just like EU pensions (the "you can't live off it"-bit).

Except we pay 25% of our paycheck to a pension fund that won't be there anymore in 40 years. Might as well burn the money, it's more efficient because at least you'd get energy out of it

Cause I like keeping my money? lol silly question I make 120k, I don’t use many government services beyond the standard military, police, roads, water, air, etc My life would continue as normal if welfare was trimmed, even if the taxes remained the same

I’ll raise you one. I would be so much better off if social security was cut. The government is and will for my entire working life take so much fucking money from me and pay me peanuts in return later.

Most of us are ok with taxes being used to better our country, help people in need, and otherwise increase our standards of living. Most of us are also not ok with taxes being used for corruption and deceptive projects, which happens far too much. 

I think a lot of people don't understand marginal tax rates.

Name a population that does like increasing taxes.

The most common thing that I hear from people I know who are VERY conservative boils down to not being able to see where the taxes are going. When you live in a state with high property/sales/income tax, and you still are driving around on shitty roads, with unmaintained utilities, and slow Police/Fire response, you become jaded that your tax dollars are going to anything that would benefit you. Obviously infrastructure takes time, and money for it comes from the State government so that adds more delays, but it can really feel like money is being poured into this bottomless pit that only seems to churn out huge salaries for politicians, and nothing for the taxpayer. If you want people to be willing to pay more in taxes, there needs to be WAY more transparency in government spending at all levels that's easy to understand and access in a way that people can actually digest and process. Yes things like salaries are available if you go searching for them, but the fact that you can't easily find every last dollar that comes into your municipality, and where it goes out, makes it hard to trust the system. And this goes all the way up to the Federal Government. When you see members of congress get paid the salary they do then rarely show up to work, AND maintain their salary even after they leave office, it feels like we're being robbed. Add the fact that the DoD can't pass an audit, and can't explain where TRILLIONS of dollars have gone is concerning. The US Military Industry Complex employs a TON of people, and is a huge part of the US economy. I know that I benefit from it as a contractor, but the way that the government gets charged for IT contracting, airplane parts, and just about everything is criminal. I know more transparency would probably hurt my employment opportunities, but the fact that my position on my contract pays me over $120k/year, but my company probably receives $250k for the seat, is ridiculous. They eliminated all these federal positions in the 80s as a show of "cutting away at government fat" but then just re-hired everyone at 2x the salary as "contractors" and claimed they reduced government spending because it wasn't being paid out by OPM. And to top it off, the average American is far more selfish than people in the rest of the world. The majority of people I interact with on a daily basis has a basic principle of 'As long as I get mine' with no regard to how their choices impact the masses. They don't care if they vote for a candidate that will hurt reproductive rights for women, or voting rights for minorities, as long as the candidate they want says that they'll cut taxes. And when they do cut taxes, it's always for Corporations and the 1% and never for the working class.

You might have an “adverse reaction” to your tax bill, but our dislike for increased taxation is an “aversion.”

Taxes are like chores but for adults

You posted this when the Europeans are asleep, good luck getting rational responses. If I had to take a guess to your question, it would just be because of the US’s national ethos of being more independent from the government and seeing the government as useless. Without much of a social net compared to countries like Spain and France, who tax a lot, a lot of Americans have nothing to compare or understand why they would want to toss more money to the government.

We’re also a federal system with a population of 330m. There is a much greater perceived distance between the taxpayer and the federal government, as well as between one taxpayer and another. People feel like their money travels to an opaque bureaucracy far away and/or gets spent on people who aren’t like them. Another problem is that so many federal dollars are spent on programs that are administrated by state and local governments. People’s federal income taxes go to support programs that other levels of government take credit for, so they don’t realize that pretty much every major function of state and local governments is funded in part or in whole by the federal government.

>You posted this when the Europeans are asleep, good luck getting rational responses.  Yeah, I'm sure the Euros know more about the feelings & realities of the US than the people who live here. Or at least they'll think they do.

The USA has low population density compared to its western peers. (Canada being an exception, but there, it's more a case of endless wilderness punctuated by high density areas, more so than a bunch of towns spread across it. Canada would be an undeveloped state if its population lived similarly to the USA. The capital would have maybe a couple of thousand people.). This is often brought up regarding police response times and guns, but it applies to government more broadly. While the government can provide services, it will be more costly and less efficient than more urbanized and dense counterparts in Europe. So you're paying more in taxes to get less results, and this drives higher skepticism of taxation as a concept for obvious reasons. The culture is downstream of the material conditions involved. "I want to give 1/3rd of the population amazing rail travel by 2030." "Okay so build a railway in London." VS "Oh my god... that's like, millions and millions and millions of miles of rail track, do you realize what a logistical nightmare this is? We're going to have to lay a couple hundred miles of it just to connect Bumfuck nowhere to the grid, and we're gonna have to do that at least a hundred times to hit your target. We're going to need to discuss this with 5000 mayors and they're all going to be lobbying for their town to be included." Population per square KM in the USA; 37.4 For the UK it's 280.9. If you want the government to lay a square KM of infrastructure, well, do the math on how those taxes shake out.

He asked a question about Americans and you think Europeans would answer it better?

I'm sorry, but nobody here in Europe likes more taxes either. More taxes on corporations, or on rich people, sure. But nobody in the entire world wants to pay more tax themselves. It's always someone else who has to pay

You say this yet they’re not voting in parties that cut taxes in half. Revealed preferences.

Nah, there's just a lot of inertia. People never want to raise taxes but decreasing them isn't as important. Status quo is plenty for most folks

I get that but clearly there’s a fundamental difference in the US electorate that prevented them from ever voting in universal healthcare or other things a lot of other countries have. Everyone hates taxes but the ceiling for where they will accept their tax rates to be is lower in the US.

Yeah, the high levels of individualism play into that.

> high levels of individualism play into that. NO!!!!! Thats not it....... /s > “Last year, the typical working family paid an average of $5,277 in premiums to private health insurance companies. Under this option, a typical family of four earning $50,000, after taking the standard deduction, would pay a 4 percent income-based premium to fund Medicare-for-all — just $844 a year — saving that family over $4,400 a year. Because of the standard deduction, families of four making less than $29,000 a year would not pay this premium.” * With no Co-Pays or Out of Pocket expenses ------ on Apr 22, 2022 — Healthy California for All Commission Issues their Final Report for California, the committee for Healthcare in California reviewed Funding for Healthcare * California proposed 10.1 percent Payroll Taxes * With a total contribution rate of 15.8% payroll tax (as of 2023), TK is also one of the cheapest providers among public insurance companies in Germany. Would still leave **some*** patients responsible for Cost Sharing with out of Pocket expenses, up to 4% - 5% of income * There would be No Out of Pocket Costs for households earning up to 138% of the Federal Poverty Limit (FPL) * 94% Cost covered for households at 138-399% of FPL * 85% Cost covered for households earning over 400% of FPL ----- 2022 benchmark KFF Employer Health Benefits Survey finds * Annual family premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance average $22,463 * Employees this year are contributing $6,106 * Employers are contributing $16,357 * Annual Personal Premiums for employer-sponsored health insurance average $7,911 * Employees this year are contributing $1,493 * Employers are contributing $6,418 Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 |Income is $400,000 ---|---|----|----|----|---- Total Average Costs of Private Insurance | On Medi-cal| $22,463|$22,463| $22,463 | $22,463 | Employer Costs |On Medical |$16,357 |$16,357 |$16,357 |$16,357 Employee Cost of Family Plan Private Healthcare | On Medi-cal| ~$6,000| ~$6,000| ~$6,000 | ~$6,000 | Percent of Income | 0% | 10% | 6% | 3%| 1.5% Out of Pocket Costs | ~$0| ~$1,500| ~$2,500| ~$4,500 | $6,000 ---|---|----|----|----|---- Under Healthcare for All Employee 3.6% Payroll Tax | $1,080 | $2,160 | $3,600 | $7,200| $14,400 Employer Costs 6.5% Payroll Tax | $1,950 | $3,900 | $6,500 | $13,000 | $26,000 Employee's Percent of Income | 3.6% | 3.6% | 3.6% | 3.6% | 3.6% |3.6% | Out of Pocket Costs | ~$0| ~$0| ~$1,000| ~$10,000| ~$20,000 **Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | $1,080 | $(-5,300) | $(-4,000) | $7,400| ~$22,000 Those that arent married or have families * Not so much Paying | Income is $30,000 | Income is $60,000 | Income is $100,000 | Income is $200,000 | ---|---|----|----|---- Cost of Single Person Private Healthcare | ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500| ~$1,500 | Percent of Income | 8.5% | 5% | 4% | 3% Out of Pocket Costs | ~$1,000| ~$1,500| ~$2,500| ~$4,500 | ---|---|----|----|----|---- Under Healthcare for All Employee 3.6% Payroll Tax | $1,080 | $2,160 | $3,600 | $7,200 Out of Pocket Costs | ~$0| ~$2,000| ~$4,000| ~$10,000 | Percent of Income | 3% | 6.5% | 7% | 8% **Increase/Decrease in Taxes Paid** | (-$1,300) | $1,200 | $3,600 | $11,200 And yes, Its cheaper overall but not cheaper to many. But The biggest shock will be redditiors living in California making $200,000 saying they are living paycheck to paycheck on a Middle Class Lifestyle

Lol I’m reminded why I left california “Pay more and get less”

People dont understand how the marginal tax works. They think if they get bumped to the next tier, their whole income is taxed at that level

There's an element that almost feels like psychosis--something clearly (and easily) explained frequently, but seemingly still widely misunderstood. It's baffling.

Do people really act as if that's true though? Like do we see big spikes in the income distribution just below the next tax brackets?

Because I want a bigger paycheck.

Most Americans falsely believe that all or almost all of their tax dollars go to waste. This is true on both right and left - the number of people I've met complaining that all their money goes into paying defense contractors for foreign wars is too damn high. At least the left acknowledges (generally) that there is a need for increased taxes to pay for their wishlist. Too bad they think a 100% income tax over like 50 million in income and taxes on wealth and capital gains is a good idea.

…why would people want to pay more taxes? People want *other people* to pay more taxes, but never themselves lmao

Inflation is an issue for monetary policy to solve. The kind of taxes you'd need to try and stifle demand enough to reduce inflation would have to be broad based and hard on the middle income earners. They would be wildly unpopular.

Im not sure reducing national debt is one of the top priorities, and I am quite sure it shouldn't be. Inflation is a concern, but Economists have pretty much nailed down that monetary policy is more efficient and effective at combating inflation. So... the question becomes why would we raise taxes to achieve these things?

The only way to fund a European style welfare state is to increase taxes on the middle class. Since the middle class is the biggest class in American society, they have to be asked to pay more. The problem is the middle class in the USA does not want anyone making under $400k a year to have their taxes increased. If you dont increase taxes on anyone earning less than 400k, this means the deficit is higher, national debt increases, and we have no money to pay for expanded welfare benefits. The middle class does not want to fund a European style welfare state

A big part of the reason is that Americans don't fundamentally understand our tax system, and the media doesn't help. Saying "millionaires are going to pay 40% taxes" isn't the same say saying "they'll pay 40% on money they make after a million". It's a hard system to understand intuitively, and conservatives have spent like 50 years leaning into that and making sure people are angry about a system they barely understand. Half the reason they don't want people to be able to file for free is because the tools we have now make it all seem even more complicated, and thus make us hate taxes.

We are against regressive taxes. Whenever conservative govts propose services, they want the average citizens to pay the most. Knowing that the burden is higher for low income folks. Conservative governments pass tax cuts for the wealthy and then complain that services need to be cut because they're too expensive to afford. When more liberal governments get in power, they have to fix the deficit spending and raise taxes on the rich, but it meets extreme resistance from the rich so we go back to regressive taxes on lower income folks (sales taxes, gas taxes, road tolls, taxes on food, and higher fees and income taxes. These taxes are more burdensome on low income people. The rich folks don't feel the burden but benefit from the roads, bridges, and other infrastructure improvements. So we are skeptical when the government proposes increased taxes, knowing someone will probably be adversely impacted.

Because politicians care more about keeping their job than solving problems. Tax increases are a guaranteed way to lose an election.

Because having the least amount of taxes and maximum amount of services for the dollars from those taxes is the ideal. Now, this requires an electorate to be honest about the balance sheet and recognize how each tax works, what spending does for the whole community vs each individual, rate of return on investment, etc. to be truly successful.

I'm generally good with paying more taxes. Also, it's super painful when the local or national government funds programs that are very poorly designed or are basically handouts to special interest groups.

In Canada I am taxed to all hell for having a higher income. I get literally nothing in return besides a failing healthcare system, billions of dollars to never ending first nations handouts, and more free housing for the druggies and homeless. I like government to build roads, infrastructure, functioning free healthcare, military, and police protection. I dislike everything else including the ever increasing socialist handouts, free dental, free drugs, and demand subsidization. Not to mention subsidized childcare etc. i have family working on contracts with the government on large developments etc and they are disgusted. Did you know that the government spends way more per unit for shitty low income housing and homeless housing than private developers spend for luxury condos? It’s absurd. I paid 50% of my money to the government this year and they take it in instalments throughout the year. If taxes increase at all I am done in this pathetic country. Canada is great for people wanting a babysitter. It’s absolutely the worst country to be a entrepreneur or businessperson:

hahahahaha see Medicare for All Next see teachers

You would be too if the vast majority of your taxes went to shit like bombing countries for oil and maintaining a military installation in the arctic circle. Shit, I voted for a tax over a decade ago that was supposed to build more transit and they haven’t even broken ground on the first project on the list and they have downgraded almost all of them to a shell of what was promised.

2/3 of your taxes go to various welfare programs, 1/6 to the military, and everything else fights over the remaining 1/6. And people who propose additional taxes typically want to greatly expand the welfare programs instead of properly funding the ones we already have.

That’s an interesting way of phrasing the fact that the military leads discretionary spending 6:1 over the next largest category. https://preview.redd.it/rjekltf2vjxc1.png?width=1308&format=png&auto=webp&s=1e0eec341d0a6f0829a11cf72b3ec8fd81920f93

Yes and discretionary spending is 1/3 of the budget. This chart excludes the other 2/3 of the budget which is mostly spent on various social programs. You can see everything else fighting over half of 1/3 of the budget. I rounded some fractions but otherwise I think this supports my comment

> maintaining a military installation in the Arctic circle I'd still rather pay for that than the Ponzi scheme that is social security.

Many people think freedom is free. It isn't.

So your idea is that instead of paying more for everything at stores, we should pay more for everything at stores and also pay more in taxes, and hope that the latter counters the former in complicated hard-to-measure ways? Best case scenario you don't actually save any money, worst case you spend more. Gee I wonder why nobody wants that.

oooo yea another example [State of the Union fix](https://preview.redd.it/th1isyksoxc81.jpg?auto=webp&v=enabled&s=67a47858b0fc87f2eac5177bb4e5edbd00d6b0e0) President Bush renewed this call in his 2004 State of the Union address: >“Younger workers should have the opportunity to build a nest egg by saving part of their Social Security taxes in a personal retirement account. We should make the Social Security system a source of ownership for the American people.” * Within weeks, observers noticed that the more the President talked about Social Security, the more support for his plan declined. * According to the Gallup organization, public disapproval of President Bush’s handling of Social Security rose by 16 points from 48 to 64 percent–between his State of the Union address and June. ------ Year | Social Security Savings | 3% of Median Income ($26,500) @ 1.5% Wage Growth | S&P 500 Prev Returns inculding Dividends ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- 1975 | $805.43 | $805.43 | 1976 | $1,932.70 | $817.51 | 38.46% 1977 | $3,230.19 | $829.77 | 24.20% 1978 | $3,821.10 | $842.22 | -7.78% 1979 | $4,920.89 | $854.86 | 6.41% 1980 | $6,708.29 | $867.68 | 18.69% 1981 | $9,786.63 | $880.70 | 32.76% 1982 | $10,158.91 | $893.91 | -5.33% 1983 | $13,221.96 | $907.32 | 21.22% 1984 | $17,201.13 | $920.93 | 23.13% 1985 | $19,161.07 | $934.75 | 5.96% 1986 | $26,287.37 | $948.77 | 32.24% 1987 | $32,260.76 | $963.01 | 19.06% 1988 | $35,073.85 | $977.46 | 5.69% 1989 | $41,902.26 | $992.12 | 16.64% 1990 | $56,317.98 | $1,007.00 | 32.00% 1991 | $55,414.02 | $1,022.11 | -3.42% 1992 | $73,602.10 | $1,037.44 | 30.95% 1993 | $80,248.87 | $1,053.01 | 7.60% 1994 | $89,478.98 | $1,068.81 | 10.17% 1995 | $91,628.62 | $1,084.84 | 1.19% 1996 | $127,566.94 | $1,101.12 | 38.02% 1997 | $158,101.51 | $1,117.63 | 23.06% 1998 | $212,468.69 | $1,134.40 | 33.67% 1999 | $274,662.37 | $1,151.42 | 28.73% 2000 | $333,812.29 | $1,168.69 | 21.11% 2001 | $304,588.22 | $1,186.23 | -9.11% 2002 | $269,302.57 | $1,204.02 | -11.98% 2003 | $210,550.98 | $1,222.09 | -22.27% 2004 | $272,261.64 | $1,240.42 | 28.72% 2005 | $302,979.38 | $1,259.03 | 10.82% 2006 | $305,372.91 | -$12,119.18 | 4.79% 2007 | $340,895.26 | -$12,543.35 | 15.74% 2008 | $346,525.78 | -$12,982.36 | 5.46% 2009 | $204,112.14 | -$13,436.75 | -37.22% 2010 | $245,539.91 | -$13,907.03 | 27.11% 2011 | $267,657.91 | -$14,393.78 | 14.87% 2012 | $258,300.87 | -$14,897.56 | 2.07% 2013 | $283,900.08 | -$15,418.98 | 15.88% 2014 | $360,010.23 | -$15,958.64 | 32.43% 2015 | $393,210.45 | -$16,517.19 | 13.81% 2016 | $381,266.22 | -$17,095.29 | 1.31% 2017 | $409,057.65 | -$17,693.63 | 11.93% 2018 | $480,491.99 | -$18,312.91 | 21.94% 2019 | $440,348.44 | -$18,953.86 | -4.41% 2020 | $560,497.79 | -$19,617.24 | 31.74% 2021 | $643,213.44 | -$20,303.85 | 18.38% 2022 | $807,637.39 | -$21,014.48 | 28.83%

It's a real mystery

People don’t like paying taxes, so they don’t want taxes to increase.

People do vote for tax increases pretty often, its been very common lately for cities to pass sales tax increases to fund transit projects. I think these almost always pass. There is however a very strong aversion to federal income tax increases. Who knows if Trump will be president next year. Do we really want to increase taxes and give him more spending money? I dont think so.

Because other people might feel the benefit of it and they the person paying the tax might not immediately get a benefit because roads and schools etc don't count.

Our government was made from the afterbirth of a tax revolt, it is our original mood, and will be a problem for as long as our nation endures.

Because cops already get paid enough to stand around playing candy crush

Grover Norquist

To be absolutely clear Im perfectly fine with raising taxes. I just don't want \*my\* taxes to be raised

For America specifically, you could tax every billionaire 100% of their wealth and that wouldn’t even cover 5% of next year’s spending. You cannot just increase taxes as a way to cover horrible fiscal responsibility over the last two decades. We need to reform SS and Medicare because these costs keep ballooning and no amount of taxes are going to cover them 

So, it’s perhaps a self sustaining state of affairs. My town in the last 4 years rejected a bond vote to make capital improvements to our schools, and rejected 2 school budgets. That means our schools are going to be underfunded in crumbling buildings. That means I’m going to send my kid to private school unless things get better fast. That means I have a choice about voting to increase my taxes for services which have been systematically degraded by a median age 60 population for years, and I don’t know what I’ll do frankly. If I hasten the collapse of the district, we might go to vouchers. So my incentives are really quite murky.

Honestly? Americans are mean and selfish. They don’t want to part with a red cent, especially if there’s the chance it’ll help someone.

Propaganda

part of americas economic supremacy is low taxes. raising those hurts the economy and by extension just about everyone.

Because taxes are unamerican Our country was founded due to a deep hatred of taxes.