Nate Perkins wrote:

SNIP

You guys chant the "ain't the government's money" line like it is some
kind of mantra. You live here, you accept the benefits of national
security and a stable government. You have to pay for these things.
To think otherwise is just looking for a free lunch.

I suppose you could move to some country that doesn't have any taxes
(if you could find one).

Again - you need help with the math. Approximately 50% of
the Federal Budget has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with "national
security and a stable government". Simply by phasing out
Social Security (privatizing it) and by eliminating all the other
entitlements with the stroke of a pen, you could reduce federal
taxation a corresponding 50%. The objection is not to
taxation per se - it is to taxation as a vehicle for wealth
redistribution far beyond any congressional mandate.



conservative group would you trust for verification of this idea?
Check out the Cato Institute or the Heritage Foundation, both are

Cato is NOT a "Conservative" group by any definition. They just don't
lay down for the Idiot Left (Schumer, Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, et al)


Wow, you don't think Cato is a conservative thinktank? I wonder what
you think is conservative then?


The are a _Libertarian_ think tank - considerably different than
Conservatives on many, many issues. So, no, I don't "think" they
are Conservative.

SNIP

I do agree that the definition of rich is fluid in these discussions.
I won't even get into the ranting about wedlock children and Idiot
Liberals. The notion of a flat VAT tax has been floated a couple of
times and it's pretty universally disliked, unless you are middle
class and like the idea of a national sales tax in the 20-26% range or

I LOVE that idea. I am middle class, and the total Federal tax burden
I carry (income + sin taxes + gasoline taxes + excise taxes + ???) is
likely well north of 40%.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/