maybe i lean too much in one direction, but what is a "legitimate tax"?

Once again, count on hn for the downvotes. Yep, those shall not speak of downvotes, or taxation.

> but what is a "legitimate tax"?

One that goes through all three branches of government, the way it's been since we decided "no taxation without representation" is how such things should be collectively implemented.

If a citizen's stance is there is no such thing as a legitimate tax, perhaps there should be a legal process for banishing them from all public services, including roads, electricity, telephone, fire and rescue services, etc. and make consuming them a crime. But I guess even that would be a problem because we need to pay for the justice system that would prosecute such a sovereign citizen that breaks the rules...

Basically an "opt-out" of modern life almost in its entirety. I think most people that subscribe to "no legitimate taxes" might be surprised how isolating that would be if they actually think it through.

To be clear, I don't think this is a good idea, it's simply a thought exercise.

In this context it simply means "legal".

One the usually friendly Supreme Court doesn't strike down as too blatantly illegal even for them?

Whatever society decides it is via a legal and consistent proccess?

Libertarians, please sit this one out. We can have the taxation is theft dialog some other comment section.

Excellent question.

I lean quite heavily myself.

In more ways than one though ;)

The most legitimate tax I see is one that citizens would cheerfully pay willingly under any economic conditions.

Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution makes it the job of Congress, not the President, to levee taxes.

When Donald Trump didn't run his tariffs through Congress he blatantly violated separation of powers. In normal times this would be 9-0 ruling from the Supreme Court for being so open and shut and it would not have taken over a year for the decision, but those times have passed.

Often comments are sufficiently poorly reasoned or defecient that it makes more sense to downvote than reply.

For instance complaining about downvotes always draws more as does collectively insulting the community you are participating in.

As to the original question the problem is that it suggests confusion on a basic topic that was decided here centuries ago and taught in elementary school. If someone said what even is addition in an adult forum would you teach them addition or would you assume that they actually know addition and are arguing in bad faith because they feel math really ought to work differently?

Also when you can divide a particular topic into clearly delineated camps appearing to disagree or question the basic premises that one camp holds is oft taken for disagreement and alignment with the opposing camp even when you are just debating a side issue and may in fact be mostly or entirely aligned with the people who feel like you are opposed to them. This shortcut as far as identifying motive and perspective can misfire but it's often correct and "just asking questions" is often underhanded opposition.

Lastly a legitimate tax is one that is passed by Congress in the normal fashion and not overturned by the courts.

usually one imposed by congress, from my distant memory of reading the us constitution.

Down votes because the supreme Court ruled it was illegal.

That's means its not a legitimate tax