What we need to do is get rid of all the worlds leaders, including congresses, parliaments and what-not, and reorganize government so that its more service, where you live off donations and don't get paid as much as congress does. If we do that and put some common sense into political parties (which George Washington said would be the ruin of the country) then maybe we could advance as a planet instead of countries. Unite into a large republic or something of the like.
But its nice to dream even if you know it wont happen.

I do in fact think a government that does little or nothing is better for the public. It was just wasting so much effort of such a silly thing. I'm sure their constituents would have rather have them fix pot holes than get into a stupid discussion.

<font color='white'> They have not found anything yet, but the searching has really begun yet.

What ever became of those mobile labs they found a while back? There was speculation they were used to be used for something. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean these trucks?

Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'
unless hydrogen is now a WMD ;)

Damn Rokenn, I thought I was cynical. While I agree that spending on government (not just defense) is highly inefficient and loaded with fat, to to view it as wealth redistribution is way out there. Contracts produce something. Wealth distribution just shuffles money from one person to another for little practical purpose. You may argue that defense spending has little practical purpose, but that is a differnt issue.

As for how a dollar is taxed .... well with multiple levels of taxation, all you do is decrease the value of that dollar at each level - forcing everyone, gov included to loose out. </font>[/QUOTE]The practial purpose of the wealth redistribution aspect of a progressive income tax system is just that: to redistribute wealth. And there a people out there, like me, who believe that that purpose is an absolutely indispensable one in a free market economy, a system with many wonderful inherent advantages, but also some inherent drawbacks, with one of the most important being that it produces an steadily increasing degree of social inequality, if left completely unregulated. Yes, the efficiency of the mechanisms used for that purpose is of course highly debatable.

No, sales taxes do not target everyone the same. Sales taxes fall much heavier on the lower income brackets then the upper (this is known as a regressive tax structure). As a percentage of income the lower incomes pay much more then people in the upper income bracket, since they are generally living paycheck to paycheck. So, it does not target everyone the same. </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">

Nope they pay exactly the same, everything you just said is nothing but sheer propaganda created by accountants and lawyers to confuse the issue. Jay Rockefeller would pay the same $ amount on a whoopi cushion as Homeboyz would.

You call it regressive, I call it fair. All the crap about it hitting the poor hardest is just crap to excuse the idea of taking money away from people who have more than someone else. It is anti-capitalistic and it is anti-accomplishment. You want to rake those who succeed over the coals just because they succeeded. We see things differently, and we will not solve that difference. There is no moral rationale (that I can agree on) that says it is ok to charge fred $1 in taxes but you charge Charlie $73 in taxes...on the same item. Perhaps it is philosophy and not accountancy that is at work here.

Edit: I want to make clear I only favor taxing non-life essentials, not food, water, medicines or shelter. Transactions on those items would be exempt since Everyone needs them....But things like DVD players ...now ther e is where Joe Six pack shoul pay exactly the same tax $$$ amount as JP Morgan</font>

[ 06-18-2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

<font color='white'> They have not found anything yet, but the searching has really begun yet.

What ever became of those mobile labs they found a while back? There was speculation they were used to be used for something. </font> </font>[/QUOTE]Do you mean these trucks?

Blow to Blair over 'mobile labs'

Quote:

An official British investigation into two trailers found in northern Iraq has concluded they are not mobile germ warfare labs, as was claimed by Tony Blair and President George Bush, but were for the production of hydrogen to fill artillery balloons, as the Iraqis have continued to insist. The conclusion by biological weapons experts working for the British Government is an embarrassment for the Prime Minister, who has claimed that the discovery of the labs proved that Iraq retained weapons of mass destruction and justified the case for going to war against Saddam Hussein. Instead, a British scientist and biological weapons expert, who has examined the trailers in Iraq, told The Observer last week: 'They are not mobile germ warfare laboratories. You could not use them for making biological weapons. They do not even look like them. They are exactly what the Iraqis said they were - facilities for the production of hydrogen gas to fill balloons.'

unless hydrogen is now a WMD ;) </font>[/QUOTE]<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
You know...you cannot show me a single live footage shot from any of the photogs in the field in Iraq that depict an "artillery" balloon....oh and you forgot to mention the Uranium Enrichment tools that were ment for "peacful energy projects only" of course this comes from one of the most oil rich nations on the planet and doesnt need nuclear energy production and it would in fact be too expensive compared to their oil genertaor stations.... :rolleyes:
</font>

Less forceful emphatic hyperbole and more (or some) actual physical evidence that hasn't been discredited would help the case on WOMD a whole lot more. It seems to me that Blair and Howard are taking much more heat over this issue in their countries than what Bush is back home. In OZ and GB, the "we put our faith in G Dubbya and we still believe him" approach of the leaders is not playing well to the masses. Just my 2c.

On taxation - well I sit somewhat between the income tax and the goods and services taxes. I support statements that shift some of the burden of taxes to the broad base of consumption rather that basing solely on income. Income tax is regressive in that it kills the desire and reward to anybody that is trying to better themselves in life. I think a mix is required though, so a low level of consumption tax (ie 10%) on as broad a base as possible, and make up the budget shortfall in income tax.

And yeah - local and regional goverents are a waste of time, and contribute to keeping my income tax rate up higher than it should be.

So you are saying a British expert(s) is wrong or lying? It does help to know what the wind is doing at high altitudes when you are firing artillery, so you can make corrections and hit what your aiming for.

And which Uranium enrichment tools are you refering too? These aren't from like 10 years ago or anything are they? A link would be nice and since this topic is off-topic and kind of against Ziroc's wishes with regards to war talk in the GD forum you can PM me a link if you have or find one. [img]smile.gif[/img]