Nate Perkins wrote:

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).

What does that have to do with anything? Tax is tax. Hiding it so that the
individual voter doesn't have his nose rubbed in it doesn't mean that it
doesn't still ultimately come out of his pocket.

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

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)