🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug14.022300.5331@mercury.unt.edu>, ian@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Ian Parberry) writes:
|>> 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?

"Roughly half" is from a number of sources, but the only one I have here in my
office is a 1991 almanac which shows national "Tax Freedom Day" for 1990 as
occurring on 5 May, or about 34% of the year.  Tax Freedom Day "is the day on
which the American taxpayer will have earned enough money to pay his 1990 total
taxes."  The number, however, does not include indirect taxation such as cor-
porate taxes passed along to consumers as part of retail prices.  As I recall,
Tax Freedom Day was a week or so later in 1992 than it was in 1990.

"Roughly half" is exactly that: "rough".  But the number is _at_least_ a third
and, including the other factors, "half" seems perfectly reasonable.  Or perhaps
perfectly UNreasonable.

As to "stolen", well, to start with, they threaten you with various sorts of
fines and imprisonment if you even try to refuse to pay taxes; maybe "extorted"
would be a better word than "stolen", but the effect is the same: money is taken
from the citizenry by force or threat of force.

[...]

|>>                      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.

Considering the unbelievable quantity of data handled by the Federal IRS, as
well as all the state taxing agencies, I doubt if the overhaed would be sig-
nificantly greater than what it is now.

|>>                                                                       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).

No argument there.  From what I keep seeing in the news, the "average taxpayer"
may not be capable of _reading_, let alone making rational decisions.  But the
current system doesn't seem to encourage governments to make rational decisions
either.  What it does encourage is a process wherein politicians promise mira-
cles, deliver mediocrity, and at tremendous cost.

[...]

|>> >|>> 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.

Now, _that's_ depressing.

|>> ____
|>> 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"

-- 
IBM pays absolutely no attention to my	|   "The trouble with this country is
opinions, ergo the foregoing cannot	|   that there are too many people
possibly represent its position.	|   going about saying, 'The trouble
					|   with this country is --'"
Christian H. L. Moller			|     -- Sinclair Lewis