[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
We agree on where the money comes from, and how it's spent -- ... the money comes from the rich (because they have it), half of the people pay nothing (because they don't have it), and it is spent for the benefit of all. But that's not wealth redistribution in your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which of those government creations that I mentioned do you think should not exist, NORAD, the FBI, or federal highways?

If you believe that they (and a myriad of others "gov't-funded" things) should exist, then you need to explain your position as to how such things should be funded. Do we divide the cost of new Highway XYZ by the number of tax payers and each one of them pays an equal amount of money? But then the poorest taxpayers would not desire to have Highway XYZ constructed at all because, even if it is deemed necessary for motoring, it would represent a big hit on their fortune! It would not be worth it.

I am not denying that progressive taxation is wealth-redistributive. Which is equivalent to taking something from A and giving it to B, roughly speaking. All I'm challenging is the notion that A only gives and B only receives - neither of which notions is accurate at all. And the equally false notion that a flat tax is "fairer" (when actually it's "redistributing" wealth the other way around, the "wrong" way)!

[ QUOTE ]
You comment reminded me of a story -

[/ QUOTE ]
You were actually baited into that! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

The "restaurant bill" fable is standard right-wing fare. Being around for ages! (And it's based on false notions as well.) Thanks for the memory.