> Don’t we have enough taxes?

Objectively no. For example carbon taxes or other environmental taxes have been proposed by free market advocates since the 70s and never been implemented (from the left you see advocacy for environmentalism but not related to taxation)

Also if we had enough taxes, the wealth inequality would not be ramping up to great depression levels and basic necessities like healthcare and housing would not be catastrophically related to bankruptcies in america.

If you are a worker, specially one in the upper middle class range of salaries, then yes. You are being over taxed. But that is simply because those below you have nothing to contribute and the system refuses to tax those above you appropriately. You are a local maximum in a system that is not globally efficient, so you have too much tax, the country doesnt

How's carbon credits not a tax?

> Taxes should fund government not be used to force people to do things.

Others think differently: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_tax

Considering our massive yearly deficits we definitely do not tax enough.

Taxes are disproportionately applied. We have more than enough taxes on working people and not enough on the wealthiest classes.

It's crazy to get downvotes for this matter of fact, good faith, truthful comment.

What's going on, HN?

Vague assertions with no evidence don't really help the discussion. If someone is going to assert such a strong claim like "We have more than enough taxes on working people and not enough on the wealthiest classes.", they really need to at least define what they mean by "working people" and "wealthiest classes" and then give some evidence to show that "taxes are disproportionately applied" between these groups. (You say it was a "truthful comment" but how can you even be sure you are interpeting the comment the way the original poster meant?)

(In general, whether people agree or disagree with an assertion I would hope they wouldn't downvote something as long as the person contributes enough to the discussion that the reader can understand what they are asserting and can check for themselves if the evidence they give supports or doesn't support the assertion.)

It's not vague at all.

Wealth inequality in the US is so bad that the statement is true with pretty much any reasonable interpretation.

The top quantiles of the population (10%, 1%, 0.1%, billionaires) are paying less taxes than they should in a fair system; and that statement becomes increasingly illustrative of the situation the smaller and richer the quantile you choose is.

The fact that wealth inequality is _accellerating_ should be enough to tell you that the taxation system is unfair towards the poorer end.