Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Nate Perkins wrote:

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.

Hmm? http://www.truthandpolitics.org/2004...ys-summary.php

Remember that the Social Security and Medicare expenditures don't come
from income tax, but instead come from payroll tax (which is a flat
tax).

The biggest slices are then military, medicaid and social welfare, and
service payments on the national debt.

....

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%.

Heh, no the 20-26% is just what would be required to offset your
*federal income tax*. The others would still be on top of that.
Still seem like a good idea?
http://www.brook.edu/views/papers/gale/20040812.htm