XPost: talk.politics.misc, alt.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
XPost: alt.politics.usa
From: pxhxz@cadence.com
In article SnapTrap
ouchyouf*cker.ork writes:
>After all is said and done, it's my opinion that we need less taxes
>instead of more. If you feel we need more taxes, you should lead by
>example and voluntarily double your annual tax bill. That way you can
>walk the walk instead of being a hypocritical little Robin Hood on the
>internet.
Yes, but we need some taxes, else you can't fund government, and unless you
are a complete anarchist you must admit we need some government, and if you
need some government you also need to pay for it.
Of course, I like some of Heinlein's suggestions for ways to pay for
government with individual taxes (most of the "tax-free" schemes for paying for
government aren't really tax-free -- the taxes are just removed from the money
stream at other points).
So you either pay tolls (a/k/a "use taxes") or you pay some other way.
Personally, I think the graduated income tax is the fairest because those who
benefit the most from our system of government then also pay the most.
If anyone thinks that any currently illegal drug will be legalized without any
taxes being required is living in total fantasy land.
-Pete Zakel
(phz@seeheader.nospam)
"Till then we shall be content to admit openly, what you (religionists) whisper
under your breath or hide in technical jargon, that the ancient secret is a
secret still; that man knows nothing of the Infinite and Absolute; and that,
knowing nothing, he had better not be dogmatic about his ignorance. And,
meanwhile, we will endeavour to be as charitable as possible, and whilst you
trumpet forth officially your contempt for our skepticism, we will at least
try to believe that you are imposed upon by your own bluster."
-Leslie Stephen, "An agnostic's Apology", Fortnightly Review, 1876
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
