[NTJedi]

Originally Posted by Aezeal

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.

So many problems in this response... first stealing from anyone is WRONG and is one of the 10 commandments, but I guess you're not religious otherwise you'd have recognized this wrong. Second in referencing the true Robin Hood, he stole from the aristocracy; known to be the government of its time and he only started after the government began taking the mass majority of money from the people. If stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is good then it would be okay for the starving homeless to steal from you because to them you are rich. The point is its always easy to point the finger at anyone doing better than you and say take their money. Third my suggested gradual increased flat tax would actually provide those of lower income to pay less taxes and those such as Bill Gates to actually pay more, but somehow you failed to grasp the explanation.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

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.

That's the problem is neither of the candidates will be improving the legislation. Only the congress can change the legistation and this has not been improving during the last 15 years. Currently the democrats are running congress the last two years and the economy is only getting worse.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

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.

In both your responses the government having more money won't solve them. Both of them can be solved if the government provided a strong checks&balances system which better investigates how the money is spent and the end result. This would stop deans from giving themself a raise or wasting money in other ways I won't go into. This would also help the government realize why the single mom is not able to make her life better. Tossing more money at these departments won't solve the problem, they need to investigate and reorganize how current money is being spent.

Originally Posted by Aezeal

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

Not voting on all subjects... that's just silly and funny to even think of such a thought. It would be nice if I could specify exactly which departments recieve my tax money. For example if I knew our government had a good Education system I could write "Education" on line 45 of my taxes form where 50% of my taxes would be sent to this department. The other 50% can be distributed evenly. This idea like the flat tax suggestion should be tested in two counties and then gradually expand.