[mArVHDO6]

You realize how completely absurd your argument is, right? Just think about it. For a few seconds. An end member case of the tax burden would be that the poor are taxed at 100% and the rich at 0%. Your argument would imply that the politicians would create some kind of workers' paradise in such a tax regime. Why don't you think about what I actually said vice what you irrationally extrapolate from it

Or to put it simply Ramo, did I actually advocate any particular ratio/percentage/regressive/progressive tax scheme?

In any case my only comment is that the tax burden should never be foisted entirely onto the rich (which lets face it, is the secret wet dream of many a liberal) and even stated I was arbitrarily talking about that scenario for the fun of argument.

Your argument would imply that the politicians would create some kind of workers' paradise in such a tax regime. Not my argument, but a fun line to run with. I believe what I actually said was the opposite, but in either instance if the poor are paying 100% or 0% we are basically talking about making them slaves or proles. I don't see how you get a workers paradise in either scenario.

Because of that, you assert that the gov't is not beholden to the very rich? Utterly, utterly ridiculous. Please, with quotations, show where I said that. And before you go off an another adventure in misinterpretation, please note the difference between being beholden and actually owned.

It's not contradictory to believe that you can use some of your money more judiciously to better society than the government, and that the government can in turn do so better than aggregate charity in certain circumstances. The difference, Ramo, is that taxes are mandatory. If you think the government is a good charity feel free to send them a check, they will not turn it down. Good luck getting them to spend it on the cause you want, but you're sending them checks of your own free will so I guess your reconciled with that fact.