>"pay enough taxes to staff government agencies at sufficient levels"
Our government already runs at a tremendous deficit. They can keep borrowing longer than we can remain on the run from the law.
Edit: I had actually completely misread the GP's comment. I had somehow thought they meant that we should do a tax-strike in order to force the government to reform. My cynical counterargument was that they would just borrow to make up for the missed revenue until the protestors gave-in or were arrested.
> Our government already runs at a tremendous deficit.
Because we pay less in taxes than we (as the people who elect our governments) choose to spend. Sure, we could spend less, but we could also tax more (a LOT more), and have done so in the past.
US tax revenue is broadly about 25% of GDP, significantly lower than the 33% that's average in the OECD
It reached it's lowest since 1965, 22.9%, in 2009. Highest recently was 2017 (27%), and in 2000 it reached 28.3%
The Clinton years were probably what you're looking for, where tax revenues increased linearly from 25.6% to 28.3%, but through the 70s and 80s it varied from 24 to 26%, same as now.
Not sure if an extra 1% of GDP would fall in your "LOT more" category, but it seems far less than normal countries raise.
I completely misread your comment. I had somehow thought you meant that we should do a tax-strike in order to force the government to reform. My cynical counterargument was that they would just borrow to make up for the missed revenue until the protestors gave-in or were arrested.
Our government already runs at a tremendous deficit. They can keep borrowing longer than we can remain on the run from the law.
Edit: I had actually completely misread the GP's comment. I had somehow thought they meant that we should do a tax-strike in order to force the government to reform. My cynical counterargument was that they would just borrow to make up for the missed revenue until the protestors gave-in or were arrested.