Wait.  You think the police stop anyone from doing drugs? 

So did the police stop people from drinking during Prohibition too?

No, but why do you think they overturned that? HMMM? It was because the rate orf crime went up. Its a fact. Most crime is caused by drugs. It is impossible to stop crime over all, but watching is better the not watchingh.

Big Government is extremely wasteful. It's imposable not to be. All organizations become more wasteful as the grow. My company is very wasteful. In business, the way to reduce that waste, is to release authority at the top, to the lower level leads.

In government, it's the Fed releasing authority to the states, and states releasing authority to the counties, and so on. Our current Administration (and the last really) want to do the exact opposite. Spend as much money as they can, and bribe the states with it to release some of there authority to the feds. It's a recipe for disaster (and increased wasteful spending).

40%. And we shouldn't be able to dictate what the money is spent on unless everyone has that right equally.

I always question this. I know there are fundamental problems with this thought process, but I find it odd that people who only consume the money, get a say into where it goes.

One thing that I think would be nice, is when you pay your taxes, you get to select what program you want your money to go to. Once a program is fully funded, you don't get to select that program. You have to select from the unfunded ones.

All the money would go to the same place in the end, but government would get to see what programs people are most willing to pay for (so what ones to cut first when need be).

If I was in the 1% I would want to be taxed the same as everyone else.

The issue that we have is that there are just too many loopholes that give wealthier people a much easier way to avoid taxes. Do you think that a poor person (or lower/middle class) has a good accountant that can fudge the numbers? Unlikely. Yet at the same time, I don't think it's fair to put a bigger burden on those that actually earned to be in the top 1%.

I say tax them all the same, but actually TAX them. Not give them special loopholes via a swiss account. Do you think Bill Gates actually pays 40% of his yearly pay in taxes?

If 1% of Americans control 90% of the wealth, and make 90% of the money, than they should be taxed for 90% of nationwide taxes. Anything more, or less, is unfair.

Simplify the tax code, and use a flat tax that is non-negotiable. No way to weasel a tax break, or report a loss. If you make $4k, $40k, or $400k a year, pay 10% of it. And make it into such a way to where the taxes are paid involuntarily to avoid accountants fudging the numbers.

60% Wealth generates more wealth when it's in the hands of more people.

No, not really. If wealth is in the hands of ignorant, stupid people, it won't generate more wealth. That's why 33% of all million-dollar lotto winners declare bankruptcy within 2 years of their winnings. They simply can't handle the wealth. We will always have rich, poor, and middle class people. What matters is that responsible people have money. If they take the money from responsible, wealthy people, and give it to ignorant poor people, what will happen?

^That's not what I mean.

Think of it this way: one man earns £150,000, or three men earn £50,000 each.

The three men are much more likely to spent a higher proportion of their money than the other man.

But what will that spending go toward? Useful things, or useless?

I agree that the one man with 150k will spend less than 3 @50k, but what will it go for? Buying plasma screen TVs? Investing in a business? lotto tickets? Just because people would spend more, doesn't mean they'd spend it on useful things that really help the economy, rather than inflate it by artificial means.