Originally Posted by braisler

Kadath, there is no excuse for graft and inequity. Just because the government is large doesn't mean that we should tolerate a certain amount of 'inefficiency' as you euphemistically put it.

I have no problem supporting my fellow man. I agree that our great country has the responsibility and the ability to do just that. I, along with a large number of my fellow countrymen, believe that more of the welfare system is abused rather than used. I currently reside in Kentucky. There are families in eastern Kentucky who have been on federal assistance programs for generations!! There was an article recently that discussed this issue and brought the example of one small eastern Kentucky town where the jobs program office is located right next to the welfare office. The welfare office had a line out the door while the jobs office was basically empty. The people there have worked out a system for getting the most federal dollars with the least amount of effort and they are not about to change.

I have no doubt that there are exceptions to this rule. There are people who really need a helping hand, get it through federal, state, or local aid, and get back on their feet. I would have no problem supporting a system that did more of this rather than the current system which is more geared toward helping those who refuse to help themselves.

But back to my original statement that you took umbrage to: Yes, I believe that income taxes amount to the government stealing my money. They remove that money before I ever see it, without my authorization, under coercion... what else would you call that? I pay taxes in many ways, but the two I find most offensive are income taxes and property taxes on my home. Both of these are completely unavoidable. The first means that I never own myself (amounts to slavery for the government). The second means that I can never own my own home.

There are a ton of reasons why this current system is illegal and wrong. Let's start with the idea that only corporations can have 'income' as it was originally defined. I'm not a corporation. What I am doing when I work effectively amounts to exchanging my labor (work product) in return for money. I am selling my work as an asset and my employer is paying me. I am not making a profit, and therefore don't have income. I haven't bought my labor at a lower price and sold it at a higher price. Corporations do that every day, but they rarely pay 'income' tax because they have ample opportunities to 'write off' expenses to lower that profit. If I were allowed to do the same thing, write off my housing, my food, my entertainment then the playing field would be level. I still wouldn't have any income and therefore no tax burden because ostensibly everything I do in my life is in preparation for me making available my labor to exchange for pay. Perhaps that is not as clear as I could make it, but I hope the point gets across.

I'll stop there for now. I have other examples and ideas, but I'll wait for any replies before going too far in one direction.