🚀 go-pugleaf

I've so far kept my lip zipped since my last posting.  This response, however,
is too tempting.

In article <1992Aug12.144201.5381@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:

>Nothing self-evident about it.  In fact, what is self-evident is that having
>roughly half of of our respective incomes stolen by various levels of govern-
>ment is utterly outrageous.

That is not self-evident.  Where is your figure of "half" from?
And exactly how is it stolen?

>There are lots of things to be done about it.  The current system to a very
>large extent attempts to undertake -- and forcibly demand we pay for -- a
>mathematical union of all the idiotic ways the politicians can think of to
>spend other people's (our) money.  How about considering a system that tries
>to limit government activity to a mathematical intersection of these notions?

I suspect that the intersection is the empty set.

>Wrong!  _I_ hate to pay taxes, and not just because the polidiots waste most
>of the money.  Mostly it's because _I_ want to make the decisions on what to
>support.  I want to make the decisions on what charities my money supports,
>on whether to reward artists for their efforts, on which research efforts to
>help fund.  I'm _very_ tired of having all these decisions wrested from me by
>HUD, HEW, NEA, and the rest of the acronymic governent.  If I want to support
>a charity, I'll write a check to the Red Cross, or whoever; if I want to
>help a starving artist, I'll by some of his/her work; if I want to support
>some research, I'll mail a donation to the Free Software Foundataion.  But
>I want the decision to be made be _me_; not some oily, over-paid, geek in
>Washington.

Once again, how much of your taxes goes to paying for this type of stuff?
How much tax savings will you gain by doing this?  I don't think it is a
significant amount, but let's for the sake of argument suppose that it is.
I hope you realize that not all of us out here think the way you do.
I might go along with your system, but I would probably choose to send
my money in other directions.  If you poll 1000 people, you may find 1000
different ways they'd like their money spent.  So, your system will not make
many people happy.  The naive solution is to let the individual taxpayer
choose, but of course the bureaucratic overhead for maintaining such a system
of choice could mean that it will cost more than the present system.  Besides,
the average taxpayer is as thick as two short planks, and probably not capable
of making rational decisions on where their tax money goes (current company
excepted, of course).

>|>> The taxes are low.
>                               Wrong.

That's where you are wrong.  Nobody on the net has been able to convince me
otherwise.  From personal experience, they are low indeed.

>|>> The service is reasonable.
>                               The "service" is excessive, inefficiently
>			       applied, over-bearing, intrusive, frequently
>                               unnecessary, and not infrequently detrimental
>			       to the welfare of the public it is intended
>                               to serve.

Perhaps that is inherent in all forms of government.  I've yet to see
a government of a large, diverse nation that is any different.
____
Ian Parberry ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (817) 565-2845 Dept. of Computer Sciences,
Univ. of North Texas, P.O. Box 13886, Denton, TX 76203-3886
"Bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of an expanding bureaucracy"