Posted on 12/03/2012 1:39:01 AM PST by Smokin' Joe
Most commentators agree that Mitt Romney has committed political suicide by pointing out that 46pc of Americans pay no income tax but he may have done us all a favour by raising a fundamental weakness in many developed economies – including Britain’s – which is also one of the causes of the credit crisis.
Whether or not his candour costs the Republican candidate any hope of winning the Presidential Election in November, he has certainly demonstrated the modern meaning of the word ‘gaffe’ – that is, a statement of the bleedin’ obvious by someone in the public eye.
There can be no doubt that substantial numbers – on his estimate, nearly half – of electors who decide how a democracy spends its money no longer make any financial contribution to the taxes it must raise to do so. Bearing in mind that one of the rallying cries of America’s founding fathers was “no taxation without representation” is it really so unspeakable to ask whether some link between representation and taxation should be restored?
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Possibly because it's an article from Europe comparing conditions between there and here?
I'd prefer for the bulk of taxes (and government) to be State and Local--they're easier to vote out, our Federal Representation is the Constitutional minimum, and one size just doesn't fit all--but that would ideally require a much smaller Federal Government, not a much larger State and Local one (with the Federal leviathan remaining the same).
If you don’t pay federal income tax you are almost certainly a net tax consumer, which is to say that you get more than you give. Even some who pay federal income taxes are net tax consumers.
Net tax consumers pay no taxes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.