Does that basic function include 500 billion dollars for the Pentagon?
Just wondering, since that's the largest thing in the United States budget. And we've got 50 billion just for our spy network.

Jefferson, one of the fathers of the Constitution, was a huge advocate for public schools. He was pretty much self educated (home-school) but he understood that his family was rich enough to afford such a thing. He also understood that the smarter the population of voters, the more likely the republic would stand the test of time.

The majority of the federal tax dollars for this country from its inception have been tariffs. As the government grew, its need for a stabile income was pre-eminent. People in the army would often have to wait 4 or 5 months until Uncle Sam got enough money to pay them. Can you go 4 or 5 months without a paycheck?

Just a few thoughts.

Here's another one- why are Americans so concerned about how much taxes rich people pay? Is it because they believe that one day, they too will be rich?

Now- last thought. If I had 100 million dollars to my name, I can pretty much fund a few political campaigns. Have lunch with people like Dick Cheney. Discuss energy policy. Discuss how my company can benefit from upcoming legislation. If I had 100 million dollars, I'd be a super citizen, right? I'd have more clout with the political process than Jim over in California, who is doing some good work for cats and living a relatively happy life as a teacher... but hell, he's just one vote. I bet I could bulldoze his cat sanctuary if the land could make me another 10 million dollars.

The problem with conservatives- as I see it- is with their preoccupation with the glorification of wealth, and the supposed happiness/power that it will bring into their lives. It's being consumed by consumerism. It leaves everything empty with a social darwinistic world- tax policy is one of the best ways to keep an entrenched aristocracy out of the republic's politics (we've done a horrible job of this since 1878) and to ensure that everyone gets a fair shake.

Oh, I forgot to finish my thought.

Anyway, if I have 100 million dollars, you know, just sitting in my basement, and I expect the government to protect my property- do I really need the same kind of protection that Jim might need, who has say, about 10k of wealth in his home? Will my accumulation of wealth require more defense than a flatfoot with a badge to keep those pillaging marauders from buring my house down and taking my money?

So if I require more security to protect my 100 million dollars, and Jim only requires a percentage of that defense to protect his 10k, then by your reasoning- my 100 million should be taxed exactly the same as Jim's. You don't think that would mean that Jim is paying higher costs to protect his wealth just because he's got a wealthy neighbor? Wouldn't Jim pay less in taxes if there were no millionaires in America, since then America wouldn't need to spend so much on defending property? Since marauders and thieves are drawn to wealth?

See your a bit off there with that reasoning. My father isn't saying that the entire contry should be taxed one set dollar amout like you make it sound. He isn't even hinting at it. What he is saying is that the better off shouldn't be charged a higher RATE. That meanst that you pay the same portion of you 100 mil that Jim pays on his 10k. If it costs Jim $100 to have his 10K then it shouldn't cost you any more then 1million to have you 100 mil. Under the current system it would cost you more then that to have you 100 mil. That means that under your system you would be charged a higher cost to protect your wealth. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..." If all men are created equal then why are you being exploted based on higher wealth? That doesn't sound like equality to me.

Except that the State provides a common defense. The fact that the state has to protect my 100 million dollars increases the costs to the state to provide that defence. That raises Jim's taxes. That means that Jim and everybody that is in Jim's income tax bracket is subsidizing the common defense for my 100 million. To protect my 100 million takes say, a fighter jet. To protect Jim's 10k, that requires a flatfoot with a badge. Get rid of millionaires, and now the common defense is geared toward defending a number of 10ks instead of beefing up the defenses for a fighter jet to protect a few 100 million jackpots (well, jackpots to marauders from Canada and Mexico that is).

Is it equal for me to have 100 million and Jim to have 10k either? For me to have a greater political voice than Jim does, just based upon the cash I have on hand?

I'm not feeling sorry for the rich man- he's already got more power because money is power in this country. It's the engendered elites that maneuver a system to their own benefit at the cost of the many- the progressive tax system is the fairest way to kill two birds with one stone; limit the wealth gap which always precedes revolutions, and make sure rich people pay their fair share for heightened security/defense requirements based upon their special needs.

This country goes to war for corporations- it has for a long time. Go read Butler's "War is a racket."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0922915865/qid=1133411802/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-9487129-6570227?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

But you ARE paying more money to subsides that protection. Instead of the 100 jim pays your pay 1 million. Don't you see that. Are you so blind as to miss that.

I'm not blind- maybe you don't get it.

Jim doesn't need a fighter jet to protect his wealth. He needs a flatfoot with a badge. I need a fighter jet. My presence, and my wealth, increases the overall costs for Defense and bloat the federal government to nightmare proportions. As the wealth in this country has increased in private hands (mostly corporate), the state has grown as well- to protect citizens from the massive wealth accumulated by ammoral collective entities, and also to protect those entities from reprisal, and secure resources for those corporate interests.

My fighter jet is vastly more costly than what my flat tax rate provides to the defense budget- because I'm using my wealth to employ cheap labor, soaking up local community economies and otherwise getting poor people to do my work to make me richer.

Let me ask you something- who is more likely to join the military? Jim, who has 10k in wealth, or me, who has 100 million in wealth? Why do a number of soldier families need food stamps to make ends meet? Why is the military the largest jobs program in the United States? Why is it often the only choice for minorities and recent immigrants? And why don't rich people like to serve?

rich people don't like to serve because they don't have to. they don't want to. No one forces anyone to join the army.  Your right, jim doesn't need the fighter jet. which is why he isn't paying asmuch as you are. see, his 100, and his neighbors 100, and the rest of the block they live on's 100 is what they use to pay the flatfoot to guard threir money. and you million and your neibors million and the rest of your neighbors millioin is used for that fighter jet. I don't know why soldier familys come from the bottom of the income charts. However, you statment about being the only choice for minorities and immigrants seems to have no backing. Everytime in the last year or two that i've looked at economic data i see that more jobs are being created. more jobs means there are other options. rich people probably don't like to serve because in the process of acumulating wealth, be it by growing a business or inheriting dads, they have grown used to not doing much of anything except writing and cashing checks. "(mostly corporate)" Lovely crack there at corporations. They provide jobs to millions of people, the provide products and services to millions. And because they don't give away all their profits they are labeld evil. I'm going to nicely ask you not to bring up corporations again before I go on another fact finding mission and dig up a list of the major corporations that support the activities of the liberal left that is so "against" them.

I think you understand my point. just not my dads.

"Ability to pay" is another good one. Seldom is liberal hubris better illustrated than here. This is them saying to you, "We know your finances and your life better than you do". Recall, often have Democrats argued against tax cuts saying, "the government can't afford it". Do they ever argue for the the people, their supposed constituency, "they can't afford that tax increase", of course not, because government is their true constituency"

That is his strongest arguement against liberal tax policy. And despite what jim says about the new tax code "robbing the poor to give to the rich". Our taxes haven't gone up any.

Corporations have bought liberals as well- the Dems were weak in the 80s and 90s against glut of Republican cash (raised mostly by wealthy individuals and donors)- so the Dems got strung out on K Street Lobbyists in order to compete with ever increasing campaign prices (mostly television, which is funny, since the airwaves are public domains that we rent to the television stations who then sell air time to politicians).

Minorities and the economically weak join the military- the poor man is fighting the rich man's wars. Here's a few articles.

http://www.notinourname.net/resources_links/green-card-troops-1sep03.htm

This next link is from the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Notice that they don't bother to list the income of recruits, only the income of those soldiers after joining the US.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda05-08.cfm

I have friends from the military. A majority of the grunts in their unit were black or hispanic and poorly educated. A majority of the officers are white and better educated.

Here's Wikipedia's article on the military-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces

As for ability to pay- it's all about quality of life. If I make 100 million a year pre tax, because I can bank on the US for security and its infrastructure, then paying 32 million a year isn't so bad- heck, I've still got 68 million to put in my piggy bank. Raising the tax rate one or two percent isn't going to force me to sell my cars, my houses or my yachts. However, if Jim's taxes go up (and remember, we have multiple tax burdens- so when the feds lower their rate, state and local governments end up raising theirs), then he could lose his house and become homeless.

Take a good look at who the donors are to the Republican Party- look at how much they have raised in the past and then google "K Street Project".

The hubris of conservatives is evident- they claim to be everyman, but I've never met a living Republican politician that didn't come from corporations.

My last point is this- you assume that under a flat tax that the cost of defense is proportional to the citizen. Does Jim need a nuclear arsenal to protect him and his? Tax law is not a simple argument- the GOP's assertion that it is simple is wrong, and plays into social darwinism- that it's your own fault for being homeless, poor, and black/hispanic/irish/nameyourethnicity.

The problems in this country are systemic, and the progressive tax policy is the best counterweight to corporate super citizens (and which 62% pay no taxes whatsoever).

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,3604,1187212,00.html

Now, is that fair?

I'm only going to address one of the points you made because i've lost interest in this argument. "A majority of the officers are white and better educated."

NO SHIT. You have to go to college to be an officer. Just like most of the wealthy are better educated because you have to have more training and managment knowledge to run companies that will make you wealthy.

where have you been?

I've been here, just ridiculously busy. Barely even had time to read the Poo, much less try to contribute. Did I miss anything? And thanks for asking.

you haven't missed much, really. i've been kind of busy, too, but i need my time to write. it's theraputic.

I wish I could really write. All I can do is argue and bitch. But I suppose that's enough to keep Mindsay fun.

lol, that's pretty much all i do.

Welcome back Julio,

I am a Fairtax.org kinda guy myself.  to undo whats done could do more damage than heal things.

We just cant flip flop governemnt life as we know it over night and will take years of rebuilding to basically unbuild.

I do believe however we could start by anal_izing the usefulness of each politician and see what fat we could cut there. 

That would be an excellent start.  Restructuring should always begin at the top