🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.022300.5331@mercury.unt.edu> ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
>In article <1992Aug12.144201.5381@awdprime.austin.ibm.com> moller@netmail.austin.ibm.com writes:
>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).

Actually, let's not except current company.  Would it then be possible
that you could decide that you have more of a claim to spend my money
as you see fit because your way is more rational?  Suppose you think it
may be more rational to feed and house the homeless while I decide that
it is more rational for me to spend my money on quality stereo
equipment.  Who gets the money and what is the justification supposing
you can't persuade me and I you?


>>|>> 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.

Relative to other countries or in absolute terms?  If relative, then
would you still consider taxes in the U.S. low if the average tax rate
were 75% while the rest of the world taxed @ 95%?

Later,
Brendan
-- 
Brendan B. Boerner		Phone: 512/346-8380
Internet: bboerner@novell.com	MHS: bboerner@novell
Please use ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ if replying by mail.