[Aezeal]

I'm just gonna react on NTJEdi's post (reaction on mine, both page 8) since it contains SO MUCH I disagree with.

One of the biggest and most important long term benefits would be changing taxes into a flat tax rate.

Well as a lift wing person I of course disagree with this (and in our country only the most radical right pplz would even suggest this) I'm a firm believer in incom nivellation. Government needs money (how much is irrelevant, work for either high or low taxes) so pplz need to "give" it. Most fair and social and general "good" solution is to take more from the richest... even Robin Hood understood this (and in that role seen as a "Good guy" and not as a criminal) and I guess most of us have cheered at that as kids.. I'm surprised a lot of people lost that general sense of right and wrong when they grew up.

I do see higher taxes as money vanishing... I'll provide just two personal examples.

Sure if there is more money there is more too loose but I don't really think that makes it worse.. you 2 examples are somewhat flawed and more a reason to just improve the legislation around it all and not to say taxes should be lower. Even so I still have more to say about this.
1. The single mom thing: if there was yet MORE cash for the government then maybe there could be an arrangement where she didn't loose all when getting a job but there would be more of a gliding scale (costing more money)
2. university: well nothing new just want to sy again that this whole example has nothing to do with taxes, just with inefficency in general.

So until I have the option to vote where my taxes are being spent

you alway have an option to vote where you cash goes... candidates have different opinions on it.. to bad that in the american system of campaigning even though it takes a lot of cash etc etc a lot of these points don't seem to be adressed much. It's a daydream to think you'd ever be able to vote on all topics where spending cash is concerned it would create an unworkable situation to have either polls on all subjects (yeah about 500000 a year.. this is what you have a senate for they do the job of voting if you get (about) the right person there. Or the other solution would be there would need to be a zillion different parties all with the specific differences to their programs.. which would mean about half of them would need to team up to get a majority and they'd still need to comprimise with each other.