>Using the word "taxes" (implying all taxation) as a substitute for "Federal income taxes" (a very specific form of taxation).

Granted, property-tax heavy taxation isn't going to work nowadays. In any case, I'm asking this out of geniune curiosity and not to be combative: Do you have a source for your claims regarding income taxes? Sure, I've heard batshit fiscal ideas from some libertarians (which is part of why I hesitate to call myself one, I prefer "Libertarian but not crazy") but I've not heard any super-duper-reactionary fiscal ideas spouted from anybody of importance.

Originally Posted by: Porforis 

I predict in the next decade, you'll see what is called a VAT tax

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FValue_added_tax&ei=OtPbUL6MBMPm2gWP_IHQDA&usg=AFQjCNEWs3ok_hJomfRy07M7_4PxY4kmDg&sig2=mcTn2a7bISLo6Myi7wgPGw&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I 


The reason for this is because our treasury needs an influx of revenue and because wealthy people have become so resourceful at paying 14% of their income instead of 39% like they are suppose under current income tax codes, so this tax has become necessary - and it is exactly the type of regressive tax that kicks the little people in the nutz. Maybe a national sales tax will be implented.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

What rights have you had taken from you since King Barry took over? Now be specific. How exactly is your life any different?

All you jackasses have to offer is that it's going to be this way or that way someday. If the leaders of all you sheep were so smart at forecasting the future, how come none of you are wealthy yet or better yet - smarter?

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

Yes I believe that, because their goal is to not pay any taxes, and without revenue, all programs are gutted. And their rationale is that the country didn't need taxes before the two World Wars so why do we need them now? That kind of thinking drives me up a wall because it is so ass backwards to the times we are living in. The fact of the matter is that we all live in this wonderful country and to ensure that we all have happines and a chance for a good life we need to pay back to our country when we are doing well. That is what a progressive tax system is designed to do - and 30 years of trickle down moronics from the right wing has put us in the current shithole we find ourselves, but the wealthy got to gut the country of it's wealth by legalized tax evasion. It doesn't really get much simpler than that. All the social issues are wag the dog tactics to draw attention away from the thievery.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

If the US gubment suspects you or I of terrorist activities, they can detain us indefinitely without trial. 

We continue to lose our rights to fly without being molested by poorly trained TSA agents.

C'mon man. You're making it easy for me.

Originally Posted by: Formo 

And at what regularity is this happening? Give me some cold hard facts and I'm sure it is way less than 1% of our population being detained. You're talking about an administrative law that happened because of an invasion of our country. When the Japanese Americans were detained without doing anything wrong during WWII, they just sucked it up, didn't whine about it at all.

Originally Posted by: DakotaT 

There you go again, DakotaT.

Ok, time for you to put your brains where your mouth is....

Please provide some evidence that government produces more value than it costs. I'll even allow you to provide "indirect" benefits that come from "public goods". I'll also allow you to count as "benefit" any "other costs" that are saved as a result of having government do X, Y, or Z for us. You can do it for government overall, or just for the feds if you want.

I'll only require three things of you. (These are what I would require of one of my undergraduate econ majors, and you're a heckuva lot smarter than most of them.)

1. The evidence must be "quantitative" or otherwise empirical. No mere waving of one's arms about all the things government does for A, B, C, and D. You have to put a number on the benefit and you have to compare it to the amount of spending required to get that benefit. (As a bona fide producer of real economic value (i.e., that nectar of yours!) in excess of the costs of production, I know you know the difference between expenditure to make something (e.g. your labor and overhead costs) and the benefit created by said expenditure (in your case, a good measure of the benefit of much honey is the price people will pay for it).

2. If the benefit is indirect (i.e., we pay government for X and therefore we get more of the valuable thing Y), you must explain the logic whereby more X leads to more Y AND provide empirical evidence of how much X gets how much Y.

3. If the expenditure works primarily a "transfer payment" (i.e., it takes $$$ out of Peter's pocket, e.g., through taxes, and puts it in Paul's pocket), you must provide quantitative evidence that the extra value that Paul will produce over and above the costs of administering that transfer payment (i.e., the IRS and its enforcers, extra CPAs and tax lawyers and lobbyists that Peter will hire to reduce the transfer, extra CPAs and lawyers and lobbyists that Paul will pay to increase the transfer.

I'll even let you get the help of anyone else here considers themselves something other than a "bat shit libertarian" or "even crazier anarchist" to help you out. I'm not sure that allows you to use the slayer of zombies to help you or not, but I'm pretty sure it allows you to draw from anyone else here other than yours truly. Even vikesrule (who, except for that ND v. MN thing, I think you pretty much agree with) and Formo (who, I'm pretty sure you don't).

If you, by yourself or together with the massed intelligence of PackersHome-1, can do all three of the above provide credible sources for your numbers other than a political speech, ad, or editorial ... heck, if you can provide empirical evidence for two of the three, I'll abandon anarchism and vote for whichever Presidential candidate you wish in 2016.

So, yes, I'm giving you until the 12:01 a.m. on the first Tuesday of November, 2016.

I am not, however, going to hold my breadth.

Go to it.

[grin1]

Originally Posted by: Wade