I am appalled tht someone is this dense. If a SUPERMAJORITY of Americans choose to make it an American RIGHT to learn the theory of Evolution and to learn how to put a condom on a banana, then they can form an alliance to enshrine those rights in the US Constitution (although this interpretation of constitutional supremacy is anti-Federalist and not how the system was originally designed).

Kropotkin, you seem to think that “tyranny of the majority” means that YOU don’t get pass the laws for everyone in Kansas.

sheesh.

In a recent blog entry at www.factorfictionblog.com, I talk about the flat tax and how deductions might work.

A future entry is definitely going to be about the myth of the tax cuts hurting the poor. You can look at the cuts in dollar amount or as a percentage of income to bolster your opinion one way or the other. The poor get a small benefit in actual dollars, while the rich get a big benefit-so argue the liberals. The rich get a very small improvement in their tax situation as measured by the percentage of their income-so argue the conservatives.

And, worst of all, how can you argue that a tax cut hurts someone who already doesn’t pay taxes? I suppose they want to cut those people’s payroll taxes for some reason. Social security is totally different than income tax…don’t get me started.

Except, of course, when conservatives are in the majority. In Kansas, this means that the ridiculous “Intelligent Design” “theory” will be taught, that world history will be downgraded, and that dangerous “abstinence only” sex “education” will be taught to post-pubescent adolescents and only then if their parents specifically request it. This has happened because a majority of Kansans believe in the literal “truth” of Genesis.

nice..

“Thomas Frank has hooked a lot of people’s attention with a very intriguing title, and he’s drawn them in with his very simple answer: the people of Kansas are really stupid.”
http://www.claremont.org/writings/050919shankman.html

“It was actually an attempt to turn Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas? around, indicating that the real problem is with today’s progressivism, not with Kansas.”
http://www.claremont.org/writings/050830busch.html

“Thomas Frank wrapped an entire bestseller, What’s the Matter with Kansas?, around this idea. It’s a “false consciousness” diagnosis that betrays rather than describes the Democrats’ problem: the smug assumption that we know, far better than they do themselves, the “real interests” of people who live in dorky places and went to schools no one has heard of.”
http://www.claremont.org/writings/crb/winter2004/voegeli.html

1. Even if contributory taxation isn’t as good at raising funds as direct taxation, a somewhat underfunded government when the US is a poor and weak fledgling nation is a much bigger problem than when we are the wealthiest nation on earth.
2. States could just put their money into escrow dependent upon other states also kicking in. That would minimize the free rider problem and put massive public pressure on the states that do not put in their fair share of the defense budget.
3. But if that is still a problem, we do not have to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We could give the federal government the power to enact excise taxes on imports. And if import tariffs are not enough, we could still use an anonymous tax like a retail sales tax. The standard arguments against a sales tax do not apply when the rate is only 3% (or so) instead of 23%.

Here is a dialog of economics research papers debating whether or not the contribution method (having the states pony up money without specifying of taxation was effective. The first article says that compared to other methods that were available in the 18th century that it actually worked pretty well. A response points out some flaws with the original methods used to make the comparison. And a response to that was to adjust the model somewhat and still find some value in the initial claim. The articles are behind paid subscription walls, I’m sure they would be interesting reading.

It seems like it boils down to this issue: a government that is strong enough to enforce legally granted taxation powers is also strong enough to enforce illegal taxation powers - and power corrupts. But a government that is too weak to enforce legally granted powers will have under funded public goods.

Maybe the voluntary approach is superior. Dominant assurance contracts seem pretty utopian. But it might be more manageable when you only have to get fifty states to agree instead of millions of people.