Thanks, and for the welcome, too. We all must be having a quiet Sunday afternoon. Yesterday, I worked my butt off cleaning the garage, 8 hours on concrete. Today, until my fam gets home soon, my feet are up.:thumbsup:
Yes, it is familiar. I understand the distinction, and the things they were protesting. But, I guess I say, if not for the existence of the East India Company, would there have been any imposed tax? The government, serving the economic interest of the company (and, it's own), advanced it's interest to the detriment of colonists. It had done this in many spheres, including, for example, not allowing the manufacture of goods, like some clothing, in the colonies. If the India company did not exist, would tea taxes have played the same? Would our servicemen and women be in "The Royal" something or other today? History might have played differently if the British were more forbearing, and less beholden to the economic powers in their country that, to that point, controlled large parts of the world. The tea protesters were in fact upset with a corporate favoritism policy, where the companies interests were woven with the kings.
We all want a say in policies that affect us, and in this country fortunately, we can do that by and large. But also, conversely, if government fails to control unrestrained economic thievery, like for example folks paying for insurance coverage they never get, or lose because they get sick or hurt, then we call for government to address that problem even though the companies, those particular economic conglomerations, want to be free to continue to collect money for services they strive to never provide, or provide stingily, to maximize their profits. In health care, that hasn't worked, and so we are where we are. When any of us pay taxes we don't like, OR get screwed by companies that could care less, or worse, when both of these things get combined somehow, we get annoyed and, sometimes, we fight it. For me, I find fighting government easier mostly, because CEO's just have you arrested, where politicians have to usually let you have your say. Of course, when government just wants to disappear you, something we used to think America never did, we are screwed. (We need habeas corpus back again.) The problem is biggest where the corporate, or economic interest IS the government interest, and the government just lets them have their way, and even actively aids and abets their power to do what they want to us. Anyway, that's how I see it.
And as to a flat tax, I am just not informed enough to have an opinion on that. Tax details and their effects are not my area mostly. But the removal from politics of some of the influence of money, at least overtly, through election campaign reform, I am all for. But we seem to actually be going the other way, now that all the companies providing me services are apparently "people" that can give money to electing pols without limit. If we re-instituted a "draft", how will Wal-Mart serve? Can Exxon run for the Senate? That decision, applied logically, ends up with some truly bad results.:confused2: Thanks for this discussion, it's an interesting one.:thumbsup:
