> Proponents don't automatically presume this I respectfully disagree. Dogmatic clinging to political and economic ideals is rampant in society. People do this

> Proponents don't automatically presume this I respectfully disagree. Dogmatic clinging to political and economic ideals is rampant in society. People do this all the time. That doesn't apply to EVERYONE who holds the opposed opinion, though. Nor was it my intention to imply that. > Yes, there is a tremendous amount of inefficiency in the entire process. It's not just a matter of inefficiency. Inefficiency is intrinsic to any economic system as large and complex as that of the US, and that's to be expected. What isn't to be expected, or at least condoned, is the ACTIVE measures taken by those in office/places of power to squander money that is not naturally misappropriated by that complexity. Our current political/economic client is rife with this. > The other problem with this sort of argument is that it works at literally every tax level. The fact that an argument is right at every level isn't a problem, nor does it make it invalid. I'm of the opinion that no tax is going to be truly utilized correctly until the underlying problem of corruption is fixed. And please don't take my tone as accusatory. I do appreciate people taking a critical look at an issue and still coming up with the opposite of my stance.