The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Clarification

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:21:23 -0000

Laurens,

(1) and (2): We are apparently in agreement now (note that I distinguished utility from profit maximization -- I apologize for the spelling error).

So you're now retracting your earlier claim that voting, and donating money to NPR, are irrational acts? Make up your mind.

This means that we also agree that donating to the government is irrational, unless it makes you feel good.

You have a strange habit of attributing to me positions that are the exact opposite of what I have said. No, I do not agree that "donating to the government is irrational, unless it makes you feel good." The claim is absurd. Obviously, donating money to the government could be rational because it helps to solve a problem, just as donating money to charity could be rational for that reason.

You still haven't explained why donating to the government would not be justified by this benefit, or why the donor would not "feel good" from donating money to the government to solve a problem if he "feels good" from donating money to charity to solve a problem.

Re: Clarification

Laurens — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:54:34 -0000

Mixner: The post you were responding to was mine.

(1) and (2): We are apparently in agreement now (note that I distinguished utility from profit maximization -- I apologize for the spelling error). This means that we also agree that donating to the government is irrational, unless it makes you feel good.

(3) People who support higher taxes do not have to make the choice between an equal amount of government spending or charity spending. I support higher taxes because I believe that $1,000,000 for the government (of which I pay $100) is better than $100 for charity (of which I pay $100). This is exactly the difference between donations and taxes.

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 23:24:10 -0000

Jay,

(1) This discussion would be easier if you weren't (pretending to be) unaware of basic concepts of economics. Profit maximalization basically implies that rational actors try to maximalize their wealth.

No, rational choice theory does not hold that actors will act to "maximalize" either "wealth" or "profit." What they seek to maximize (not "maximalize") is utility or benefit. If you knew a bit more about economics, perhaps you would be able to express yourself more clearly, and wouldn't keep confusing terms with very different meanings.

(2) I don't discourage people from donating or voting precisely because it makes them feel good, which is another way of saying it improves their utility. I'm not sure why this is controversial -- people derive utility from irrational acts all the time.

If the act increases the actor's utility, by "making him feel good" or in any other way, even if it also causes him a monetary loss, it's not irrational, because rationality is defined in terms of utility, not merely monetary wealth. Again, you and Laurens seem very confused about the meaning of "rationality" in this context.

(3) Now, the final (?) remaining point seems to be: If donating to charity makes people happy, why doesn't donating to the government? It's quite simple really: say you want to get rid of some money you have lying around, and you can either donate it to the government or to charity. Most people would give it to a specific charity, because the good feeling they get from donating is related to the purpose their donation is used for. A donation to a charity more directly advances this purpose than a donation to the government.

Then again, if they think their money would "more directly advance" their purpose if given to a charity than to the government, why do they think they should be paying more to the government in the first place, instead of donating the money to a charity instead? You can't have it both ways. Either they think the money would be better used by the government, or they don't. If they do think that, they should send it to the government. If they don't think it, they shouldn't be complaining that their taxes are too low.

Re: Clarification

Jay J — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:05:09 -0000

Mixner, as Megan said in a recent post,

the pool is just too big for your money to make that much of a difference.

However if you know of an already established charity, and you know of political candidates who pledge to put tax rates at where you like them, then one can conceivably do just as good or better following that route rather than spending their time trying to organize groups of people large enough to make a difference to the government's finances.

This is a problem for Megan's argument, since if there is another way (or even a more effective way) to achieve your goals than banning together and giving more money to the government, then no one is under any rational obligation to actually spend time doing what you and Dan Simon suggest.

CAN they do it? Sure. But no one is made inconsistent, necessarily, for not doing it.

BTW, I never said voting was irrational. Things can be rational for varying reasons, FYI.

Megan's claim is the one we should focus on, which is that people who want higher taxes are under moral obligation to send more money to the government.

If another way is available, that is not obviously less efficient, then Megan's claim is unwarranted.

Do you seriously not realize this? I mean, are you just being stubborn now?

Leftists don't have to PREFER charities to the government, but in times when they feel that taxes are too low, their time may be more rationally spent by contributing to ALREADY ESTABLISHED charities and trying to get more leftists back in power, so they can use the might enforcement mechanisms.

Re: Clarification

Laurens — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:03:47 -0000

Mixner:

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:51:37 -0000

Laurens,

Mixner: My definition of rationality is the definition of rationality in economics.

What definition is that? State the definition.

Re: your second point, I have explained several times why people donate to charity, or vote: because it makes them feel good.

I didn't ask you why you think they do it. I asked you why you're not discouraging them from doing it, since you think the behavior is irrational.

I also asked you why you think that, if it "makes them feel good" to engage in these allegedly irrational behaviors of voting and donating to charity, it would not also "make them feel good" to engage in the allegedly irrational behavior of giving extra money to the government in lieu of the higher taxes they think they should be charged.

What are your answers to these questions?

Re: Clarification

Laurens — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:39:59 -0000

Mixner: My definition of rationality is the definition of rationality in economics. I am of course willing to accept an alternative definition, but you'll of course have to propose one. Saying that your definition of rationality allows you to rationally donate to NPR is a meaningless statement if it's not backed up by a definition of rationality.

Re: your second point, I have explained several times why people donate to charity, or vote: because it makes them feel good.

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:28:30 -0000

Laurens,

I don't believe my donation to NPR is irrational because I don't accept your criteria of rational action.

The question is, since you believe it's irrational for people to donate to NPR, and that it's irrational for them to donate to any other charity or non-profit organization, why aren't you urging them to stop donating? And since voting also fails your test of rational behavior, why aren't you urging people to stop voting?

Re: Clarification

Laurens — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 20:11:57 -0000

Mixner: I believe you have said that you donate money to NPR (or some other charity). What do you think NPR would do without your donations? If your answer is, They would not feel the difference, then your donation is irrational (in the sense of strict profits maximalization). You could have saved $10 by donating $10 less.

So the question becomes, Why do you donate to NPR?

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:55:54 -0000

Laurens,

Mixner: Are you seriously arguing that charitable donations are rational in a strict sense of profit maximalization?

Unless you explain what you mean by "a strict sense of profits maximalization," I have no idea. Whose "profit?" Charities aren't in the business of making profits.

Let's say I give $100 to NPR each year, because I enjoy their programming. If I stopped doing so, NPR would still continue in exactly the same way. I will still be able to enjoy the same programming and now have $100 in my pocket to enjoy a fancy dinner. Hence, it is rational for me to stop donating.

So why aren't you urging everyone to stop donating to NPR? And to stop donating to every other charity or non-profit? According to you, their act of donating is irrational. Ditto for voting. Since any one person's vote is very, very unlikely to make a difference to the outcome of the election, by your argument it is irrational for them to invest the time and effort to vote. So why aren't you urging people to stop voting?

Why would they feel good simply about "being the sort of person who gives money to NPR?" What "sort of person" is that? Why isn't it also the "sort of person" who would feel good about giving extra money to the government in lieu of the higher taxes they think they ought to be paying?

Re: Clarification

Laurens — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:23:51 -0000

Mixner: Are you seriously arguing that charitable donations are rational in a strict sense of profit maximalization? Because that would be wrong.

Now let's say I actually gave $1,000,000 to NPR each year. Stopping this donation might make a difference in their programming, but the difference will not be worth $1,000,000 to me, since I can use this money to buy much more enjoyment (like, say, a home cinema with enough DVD's to last the entire year). Hence, it is rational for me to stop donating.

So why do people donate to charity at all? The most convincing explanation to me is that the donating itself has some intrinsic value, i.e. I feel good about being the sort of person who gives money to NPR. As I explained before, it is unlikely that donating to the government has a lower intrinsic value (if any) than donating to charity.

If you disagree with any of this, please indicate which part, because I feel like we are arguing in circles.

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 19:20:24 -0000

liberalrob,

That's the reason it's silly to demand that people who want expanded government services should simply donate extra money to the government. The amount I would feel comfortable donating to charity on a whim (say $50) is nowhere near the amount required to finance any worthwhile program. A truly beneficial program would require hundreds of millions or billions of dollars to implement; a small group simply cannot collect that kind of money. It must be done through increased taxation on the people best able to afford it.

This is just utter nonsense. Numerous charities also have budgets in the millions or billions of dollars. The United Way's budget is almost $4 billion. The American Red Cross's budget is over $3 billion. The American Cancer Society's budget is almost $1 billion. Most of this money is raised through voluntary donations from individuals. It is obviously not necessary for your individual donation to cover the entire budget of either a government program or a charity in order to be beneficial. Your donation is a small contribution to the budget, whether you give it to the government or to a charity. It is obviously not necessary to impose taxes in order to raise sums of money in the millions and billions of dollars. And the millions or billions of dollars that people who think their taxes are too low should be sending to the government as voluntary donations could be used to fund all sorts of new government programs, or could be added to the budgets of existing programs to enhance their benefits.

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 18:14:46 -0000

Jay,

And I still believe that if someone thinks their taxes are too low, and the explanation for that, as Megan gave, is that they wish for the government to have more money to do what it needs to do, then these people aren't rationally obligated to, like, arbitrarily send their money in, since that probably won't alleviate the perceived problem, which is why they wanted their taxes to be higher to being with.

How do you know that it "probably won't alleviate the perceived problem?" If you send $25 to NPR, that "alleviates the problem" of keeping NPR on the air. If you send $25 to Planned Parenthood, that "alleviates the problem" of unplanned parenthood. If you send $25 to the Red Cross, that "alleviates the problem" of humanitarian need. And if you send $25 to the government, that "alleviates the problems" that the government addresses by spending its revenues. Yes, in each case your individual donation is a tiny fraction of the total amount of money spent to "alleviate the problem," but that obviously doesn't mean your donation has no effect at all.

You seem to have argued yourself into anonymouse's bizarre position that small donations to large funds are too small to be meaningful and therefore irrational. If people followed your advice, charities and non-profits would lose most of their income, since they really on precisely the kind of small donations that you say are irrational.

Another illustration of this is voting. According to you, voting is irrational, because any one person's vote is very unlikely to decide the outcome of an election. Why take the time and effort to vote if your vote is very unlikely to make a difference to the outcome of the election? Again, if everyone followed your advice, democracy would be impossible, because it relies on people enaging in the very type of act you claim is irrational.

Re: Clarification

liberalrob — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:55:51 -0000

I want to make another point here. There's been a lot of indignation from people about those evil, nasty liberals who only want to increase other people's taxes, not their own. Big hypocrite liberals, so eager to have others pay for their pet projects! Left out of that accusation is the fact that the highest marginal tax rates have been dramatically slashed over the past 30 years or so. Liberals like myself feel that regardless of the notional economic benefits of allowing the wealthy and successful to keep more of their earnings, morally (or "normatively" in Megan's parlance) this has been a fundamentally unfair development. There's quite a bit of room for marginal tax rates to go back up, in the name of recapturing some of that revenue for the general benefit of society. I'm sure we'll disagree on the economic desirability of raising the top marginal tax rates (and re-establishing more brackets at the higher end of the scale), but a lot of our eagerness to raise taxes on the wealthy is knowledge (or at least the perception) of how they have been reduced so much from where they were in the past.

Re: Clarification

liberalrob — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 12:40:23 -0000

Indeed, it is VERY rare for government to actually split spending out.

1) Every year, every Federal agency submits a budget authorization request specifying their funding needs for the coming year. These agency requests are aggregated into departmental budget authorization bills that are submitted to Congress; those departmental authorization bills are the ones we hear about Congress wrangling over every year.

2) Congress adds "earmarks" to these authorization bills to fund pet projects for their home districts (and to please major fundraisers and lobbyists).

3) New legislation enacting new government programs must assign budget authority to finance the expenses of those programs.

4) Spending also must be specifically authorized to expand existing programs if such expansion is deemed desirable.

In each case, while budget authority may come from a "general fund" or other amorphous bucket of tax dollars, I think it is clear that in fact government spending is very much "split out." Congress does not simply raise taxes on a whim, just to have a big pool of money sitting around in case they might someday think about spending it on something (I'm not aware of any Federal "rainy-day" funds, though many States do have such funds). Taxes are raised to accomplish specified spending priorities, certainly at least initially.

----------------------------------

I missed out on replying to Dan Simon, which is too bad; I hate to miss out on a chance to add my brickbat to the fray (and I confess some degree of schadenfreude seeing Mixner get taken to the woodshed by squeak). Dan's point is well-stated, but my argument remains the same. Let's say I wanted to implement a massive program on same scale as Medicare (say $300 billion/year). In order to fund this through individual contributions, assuming 200 million willing donors, each would have to pony up $1500 to finance my program. This is over and above what they are already paying in taxes, remember.

Let's say my program only appeals to registered Democrats. That's 72 million people, each of whom would have to contribute $4167 to fund this one program; a program that not only would benefit them, but Republicans (who would refuse to pay in) and everyone else as well.

As we go on down the line, it becomes more and more impractical to fund my program through voluntary contributions (it's going to be pretty hard to round up 300,000 people to each kick in $1 million). So by insisting that programs be funded by voluntary contributions instead of taxes, you're basically condemning any expensive project that does not have obvious broad appeal to failure no matter how ultimately beneficial to society that program would be. Instead of having to persuade 270 people that the program is worthwhile (218 Congressmen, 51 Senators, and the President), one has to convince thousands or tens of thousands. Or tens of millions. I can see how a Libertarian would see this as a feature, not a bug, but to me it seems no way to run a society.

Re: Clarification

Christina — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:48:31 -0000

Brooksfoe,

I'm sure you can guess which outcome I would prefer! Of course, most people, when confronted with such a task as allocating their tax dollars among the myriad of government programs would prefer something akin to the funds developed for targeted retirement dates. So you could have a Democrat allocation, a Republican allocation, and maybe Green and Libertarian allocations, as well as the Standard allocation that would leave the current practice intact, for those who would prefer to let the government decide how best to use their tax dollars.

The best way to proceed with such a plan would be to return to pay-go, because that would be the only way to truly test how much people actually support most programs. The mechanics of subsidizing special interests would be be more difficult because lobbyists would have to make sure that they have support among the general populace, not just a few powerful lawmakers. It would be a fascinating experiment.

Re: Clarification

brooksfoe — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:49:06 -0000

Finally, Jay J is right:

Donating to a favorite charity and donating to people who would put tax levels back where you want them (using enforcement mechanisms) certainly seems like a more efficient and rational way to spend your time, as opposed to trying to create some organization large enough to make a real difference to the government's finances. - Jay J

...but it's necessary to add that when one of Democrats' primary concerns is the structural budget deficit of the federal government, the argument that those who care should simply band together and contribute more money has a basic moral asymmetry, because the cause is precisely that of paying back the money borrowed in our name by the government we all freely elected. This isn't a "free rider" problem; it's a "welcher" problem. We all sat down to dinner together; I ordered the Medicare, you ordered the Iraq invasion; the bill is $60 a head, but you say you're only willing to pay $45. Okay, then, I'm only putting in $45, and not a penny more. When I say we should each be paying $60, but until you agree to pay your share I'm only paying $45, I'm not being hypocritical. I'm just refusing to be your chump.

Re: Clarification

brooksfoe — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:11:42 -0000

Christina: you're right, that would indeed be interesting. One of two things would happen. Either the Defense Department and every other branch of government would be slashed to a fraction of its current size and be rendered incapable of undertaking projects with timelines longer than 3 years, due to revenue uncertainty, much like the charitable sector today; or the federal government would deposit receipts into trusts for the voter-allocated goals, then use those trusts as collateral and borrow all the money needed to fund the yearly budget, which it would apportion however it wanted to, using some bookkeeping mechanism to claim that tax revenues were being used for their intended purposes when in fact they were simply being used to pay down a "deficit" which now comprised 100% of the annual budget.

Re: Clarification

brooksfoeb — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 03:03:22 -0000

Perhaps you could explain how you think your conclusion that I don't think I should pay taxes on the things I buy (by which I assume you mean sales tax) follows from your premise that nothing is preventing me sending money to the federal government every time I buy something (whether it's 5% of the price, or any other figure).

Mixner, this is Megan's argument! What she initially stated was that the fact that people are not availing themselves of the opportunity to send extra money to the government proves that they don't think taxes should be higher; to the extent they say they think so, they only think taxes on other people should be higher, not on themselves. This is precisely analogous to saying that if you do not now voluntarily send a percentage of the price to the federal government every time you purchase something, you are not actually in favor of a national sales tax that would include you, only one that would tax other people; or that if you do not now voluntarily send money to the government every time you use a carbon-based fuel source, you are not actually in favor of a national carbon tax, but only a carbon tax on other people.

I agree that this is a completely absurd argument. If you too think it's absurd, then you disagree with Megan's initial premise.

Re: Clarification

Christina — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 00:51:14 -0000

1) Just because some revenue is attributed to the "Tax Me More" fund does not mean that there is a fund separate from the General Fund from which government spending is taken. In fact, this is the way much of public and private accounting generally works. The Feds are keeping track of our Social Security and Medicare payments, but the money is still lumped with the General Fund. Don't confuse revenue accounting buckets with spending buckets. Indeed, it is VERY rare for government to actually split spending out. I was personally impressed to learn that my new home is located in a county that actually keeps proffered money for roads in a fund for building roads!

2) It would not be difficult to actually split out revenue and payables according to people's personal preferences. A few more keystrokes in processing, but it could be done. Taxpayers could allocates their remittances to the Feds the same way they allocate their 401(k) contributions. Liberals could be comforted knowing that their taxes are paying for social spending, and conservatives could take comfort in knowing they are paying for national defense. Now, that would be interesting!

Re: Clarification

Jay J — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:22:07 -0000

BTW, the argument started out in a round about way, seeming to talk about leftists, so that's the language I used. And I also thought it would make my posts more real-world or understandable with that type of language.

But I realize that the same logic applies to anyone who feels like our government has insufficient funds, say, like someone who thinks we need more money to fight terror or a minimal-stater in a third world country who wants better roads and enforcement of property rights, etc.

I realize that leftists aren't the only ones subject to criticism over coercive enforcement. The anarchists are the only ones who avoid this critique completely, but they are of course, vulnerable to one or two other critiques, but that's for another day.

Re: Clarification

Jay J — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 23:08:28 -0000

I don't think I can keep up with the thread any more.

But let me take a stab at a solution:

MM's original argument was silly. Dan Simon came along and refined it, which made for a better discussion.

The arguments that "warm fuzzies" are relevant at all isn't persuasive, since our hypothetical people see the government's coffers as a moral matter, so giving to the government ought to give them the warm fuzzies too.

If the response is that one's charitable donations go directly to something you want, and that you don't have to worry about it, and that government may squander it, well that does seem to fall right into the Libertarian argument since that's why so many of them don't like taxes.

So we're clear, we're no longer talking about why unassembled individuals should just arbitrarily giver more money to the government, which seems to be what the silly argument was at the beginning.

No, now we're talking about why liberals don't ban together and donate money to the government. The problem of people backing out is present in giving to charity as well, but this generally doesn't stop anyone from giving.

Once again, the fact that people derive a good feeling out of giving to charity doesn't seem relevant because the hypothetical people we started with ought to get warm fuzzies from giving to the government as well (in large assembled groups that is) since this is, after all, a moral matter.

So there's been some superfluous stuff on both sides, and the original argument was so sloppy as to have caused some confusion.

But after trying to cut down some of the weeds, I think 'Laurens et all' have won the debate. Here's why:

It's true that IF leftists could ban together and significantly increase the amount of money the government had to carry out it's duties, and that this activity would be just as (or more) efficient than giving to an already established charity, then liberals who felt that the government had insufficient funds to carry out its duties, and that it was a moral imperative that this change, would be inconsistent if they failed to ban together in mass and donate more money to the government.

The problem is, it's NOT as efficient. From the perspective of the leftist, times when centrist Democrats or particularly times when Republicans are in charge, can be seen as the "lean years."

During that time, a leftist has a choice between giving to already-banned-together charities, (with an already proven track record of fund-raising), and giving to candidates who share their view of government, or spending time and resources trying to organize people together to form some sort of large organization which could collect funds to give directly to the government.

True enough, with an enforcement mechanism, more money would be raised, (rather than voluntary funds) so it is more efficient for a leftist to give money to charities which build schools, feed the homeless, put on talk radio, etc, and try to get left-democrats elected. There's really no way for someone to come along and say that a leftist's time would be more rationally spent by trying to donate to government, since it may be better for the groups the leftist is trying help, if the leftist instead spends his/her time just giving to charity and trying to get leftists back in charge of government so enforcement mechanisms (and all the benefits that come with them) can be used again.

Re: Clarification

Jay J — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 22:06:53 -0000

Mixner,

Yea I see Laurens' point. But it doesn't seem to prevent large sums of money being raised in circumstances without enforcement mechanisms. If the concern is that others won't pay, and then the government won't have enough money, and the person would have been better off using their money on something else, then large scale action would seem to remedy that. The free rider thing seems to be less of a concern than the possibility that one's money will be wasted since others won't give that much. If it's only a free rider thing, then that sounds like, well, not that important to me.

The question of why people who feel this way don't ban together and start large scale pledge drives is a different one, and I don't thing saying "The money might not be raised" is a good argument. I certainly don't think concerns about free riders is a good response. And if people get a better feeling donating to charity than government, then they don't seem to be the people we started otu considering, who happen to believe, quite specifically, that they government lacks to resources to carry out its duties, which include protecting us from attack, educating our children, funding college for those who can't afford it, etc.

Those are seen as moral imperatives by many of the left, so why wouldn't donating to that give you the warms fuzzies too?

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:55:15 -0000

The problem I'm having is that the possibility of others backing out seems to be present in non-profit giving as well, and yet, Barack Obama's campaign can raise $32 Millions in one month.

The problem Laurens is trying to describe with this "backing out" business is generally referred to as the "free-rider problem." The basic idea is that unless we force everyone to pay their "fair" share for a public good such as helping the poor, funding medical research, cleaning up the environment, or whaetver else it may be, some people will get a "free ride" on the backs of others. Some people will pay less than their "fair" share, and others more. Dan Simon mentioned a classic example: public broadcasting. I think I read that NPR estimates that for every listener who makes a donation, there are 10 who don't. All those non-donating leeches are getting a "free ride" from the kind souls who send in their checks during pledge week.

The point is that "free riding" is already pervasive in all public goods we fund through voluntary mechanisms. It doesn't mean we should stop providing those public goods, or stop funding them voluntarily. And it doesn't mean people who think their taxes are too low should fail to voluntarily increase their funding of the government, either. Yes, some people will get a free ride at their expense, but so what? The same is true every time they send a check to NPR or Planned Parenthood or the ACLU or the Red Cross or whatever other charities and non-profits they support.

Re: Clarification

Mixner — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 21:33:19 -0000

brooksfoe,

Mixner, once again, if your objection is to the fact that taxes are compulsory, then any conversation about taxation is about "forcing other people" to do something.

Of course. Were you seriously under the impression that I don't believe taxes are compulsory? I'm still mystified by your bizarre claim that "the compulsory nature of taxes is neither here nor there." If the compulsory nature of taxes is "neither here nor there," why not use a non-compulsory funding mechanism instead?

If I say we should eliminate sales taxes, and you say no, then it's not that you think you ought to be paying sales taxes; you think everyone else should be paying sales taxes. If I say we should eliminate the income tax, and you say, no, that wouldn't be wise, then it's not that you think you should pay income tax; you think everyone else should pay income tax.

No, I think I and everyone else should be paying sales and income taxes. I have no idea why you think I think I should be exempt from those taxes. But then, that weird diatribe in your last post tells that you have some very strange ideas about what I believe.

Indeed, I believe I've seen you argue for a national sales tax.

I don't recall ever arguing for a national sales tax, although I'm not opposed to it on principle.

Clearly, you don't actually think you should pay tax on the things you buy, since nothing is preventing you from sending 5% to the USG every time you buy something; no, you think everyone else should have to.

You're really outdoing yourself in incoherence this time, brooks. Perhaps you could explain how you think your conclusion that I don't think I should pay taxes on the things I buy (by which I assume you mean sales tax) follows from your premise that nothing is preventing me sending money to the federal government every time I buy something (whether it's 5% of the price, or any other figure). Your statements just get more and more bizarre.