"L Smith" wrote in message
link.net...
C J Campbell wrote:


So, to get to the heart of the matter, people who claim taxes are too
high, but who
refuse to consider what they are getting in return for those taxes, must
fall into one of
two groups. Either you don't wish to accept your responsibility for
living in modern
society (e.g. you want to enjoy the protection afforded by the police
and fire departments,
but you don't want to pay to maintain them), or you disagree with what
your taxes are
being spent on. It it's the latter, then quit hiding behind the tired
old "taxes are too high"
banner. Get to the point, and tell us exactly which programs you think
need to be
eliminated.


A good point. After all, no one has the right to complain just because
virtually every business in the country sends more money to various
government agencies than it pays out to the owners and employees. Imagine
people having the temerity to demand that the government actually prove that
it provides something in return. Instead, here you are asking us to prove
that it does not provide fair value for the money, even though that money is
being taken from us by force.

Well, we can start with the education system, which is excessively top
heavy. We seem to be getting a lot less for the dollar every year. Around
here the typical school administrator or high school principal has an office
that rivals that of a senior partner in a large law firm, even while the
teachers are badly underpaid. That sends a rather contradictory message. The
taxpayers who are paying for this stuff would sure like to have offices like
that.

I doubt if the prison system needs to be so large. A lot of non-violent
offenders could probably be just as easily taken care of with electronic
monitoring devices.

Aid to Families of Dependent Children should be provided only to those who
are willing to contribute community service in return. Those who refuse to
work should get nothing.

It is questionable whether we need a rain forest in Iowa.

Public funding for the arts ought to be eliminated entirely. If an artist is
so terrible that he or she cannot make a living in the private sector that
is just too bad.

We don't need to buy food and destroy it simply to prop up prices. No one
has a God-given right to be a farmer. Marginal operators should be squeezed
out just as they are in every other form of business.

And while we are at it, we can stop forcing Americans to buy ethanol.

A lot of programs don't cost much as far as the government is concerned, but
they impose tremendous regulatory burdens on businesses. OSHA comes to mind.

We could completely eliminate unemployment taxes and workers' compensation.
If people want insurance they ought to be able to buy it from the private
sector. These two programs are probably the biggest source of fraud and
corruption at all levels of government.

We could also eliminate Social Security, which generally adds a small amount
of income to the wealthiest sector of the population.

The same goes for Medicare. People get along just fine on their own
insurance until Medicare kicks in. There is nothing magic about a particular
age where people suddenly need socialized medicine.

Sure, some people might not be able to afford to retire. But you know, when
these programs first started, most people did not even live long enough to
retire. Retirement is not a right that you should be able to demand that
others pay for.

Those will do for starters; I can probably think of several more. The IMF,
for example.