To: Selectric II who wrote (10723 ) 2/8/2002 12:44:48 AM From: MSI Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284 "Who wouldn't? " Waitaminnit, you're saying conservatives are only conservative if the opportunity is unavailable to do otherwise? That's not much of a philosophical distinction. "institutional dependence is another matter" you got that right entire segments of the economy scream when the teat is removed. Like large agribusinesses getting paid not to farm, and complaining about welfare recipients. And tax accountants that need highly complex tax law to survive. It's strange, but above a low threshhold, it's easier to game the system, hire the accounting necessary to avoid taxes, and leave the burden on Joe 6-Pack to pay the last of his discretionary income through automatic payroll extraction, and through hidden domino effect of taxes at all levels of contact with commerce, sales tax, fees, licenses, penalties, parking fines that become actual taxation, property taxes etc. When rich players can game the system in ways unavailable to the average, it gets damn near unconstitutional, IMO, due to the inability to be represented, due to lack of time and funds. "Cruel and unusual punishment", more like. This causes a disparity in your philosophic distinction between "don't need no government" conservatives who if they are lucky can game the system and escape the same relative tax levels of the poorer sot, but get disproportionate rewards through lobbyist-generated corp benefits at work, paid for by taxes on the poorer sots. In other words, I doubt the taxes on we privilaged don't balance out the aggregate benefits from government through to our sources of income. A solution - Taxes should be simple and flat, IMO, putting the accountants into a better line of work, auditing Enrons.