On Sun, 29 Apr 2007 11:42:39 GMT, kontiki
wrote in :

Larry Dighera wrote:


You feel that way despite the fact that Halliburton earned their
income from the US government?


Larry, your fixation with 'Haliburton' demonstrates
you can't think rationally.

It's a valid question that illustrates what you are advocating.

You're dismissal of it in a thinly valid personal attack demonstrates
very clearly, that you are unable to respond to it without admitting
that it is your reasoning that is faulty, and emotionally based on
subjective self-interest.


In your ideal world, how would the US government be funded?


If its functions were limited to those specified by the
Constitution it would be funded by various excises [sic] taxes
and that's it.


What amount of excise tax, expressed as a percentage of sale price,
would have to be charged to fund the military, NAS, maintain the
nation's infrastructure (roads, courts, national parks, ...)?

If producers were paying such an excise tax on the raw materials they
used in the production of their products, could they be competitive in
foreign markets?

If such an excise tax as you advocate meant that there would be no
escaping the payment of taxes by any person or entity, I would
consider supporting it. But if you're going tell me you advocate
certain exclusions, it betray's your hidden agenda.

You seem to forget the fact the government functioned fine
without income tax for the first 150 years of its existance.

I'm not advocating any increases in any taxes. Where'd you get that
idea?