They get the same safety but they don't have the same willingness to pay nor do the they want the same level of service. If people could simply delete the police off their tax bill, who would end up paying for it? If it all came down to the lowest common denominator of willingness to pay, what kind of police force would exist?

I've noticed something about political standing. People on the right wing prefer less tax and more policing and the people on the left wing prefer more equitable distribution of wealth and more social welfare if you want to simplify it, they don't neccessarily want more taxation, just a different distribution of it. Just because both sides tend to not agree, doesn't mean that the compromise which keeps both sides relatively happy is worse than one extreme or the other.

A flat tax would require that there be no in kind transfers, no social welfare of any kind. It would also at its strictest be a flat tax on corporate revenue rather than the current tax on profits to prevent a company from hiding its obligations by fiddling with its profit structure. The problem with that is that other countries would not accept a balance of trade terms set up to keep a nations corporations from finding themselves in a competitve disadvantage against other countries current tax structure because from the outside it would always appear to be unfair. It would also not stop those at the bottom of the economic ladder imparting costs upwards in the form of crime and social unrest.

Since the beginning of time it has almost always been those with the most wealth who paid the cost of governance or at least held the greatest burden. The earliest forms of taxation were paid from either land ownership or trade for the most part. Merchants would pay the rulers of a particular land for the right to safe passage through the territory and in return provided tax revenues, and land owners also paid a price for the upkeep of a military force to keep their lands safe from invaders both foreign and domestic. It wasn't really until income tax came into effect that taxation became equitable between those who held capital and those who did not. Now the bulk of taxation revenue is paid by those who earn a salary or a wage rather than by those who own companies or land.

You mean unless of course you're poor..then it would be your patriotic duty to stand on the backs of others by enjoying the comforts their work pays for...right? 

I mean its not like the system provides any reason for those being taxed to feel like they are being screwed over.

The final line here is almost surreal.

"Some of you act like the government anally rapes you when it does what it has the constitutional authority to do, tax you."

You don't even bother to refute that they are anally raping people...your point is simply that it is their right to do it. 

Not quite what I was saying really.

The point has more to do with wanting the people who make tax policy and set the budget to have an appreciation for where the money comes from.  They seem to currently view it as an endless pile of money that flows forth from the population.  They need to see it as the blood sweat and tears of the american people, and they need to see it as having been afforded an honor to be the one to make decisions regarding its collection and allocation.

Or put simply the point of my post was to underscore the importance of the government respecting those who are taxed. I'd be shocked if anyone actually felt like the government respects them or the public in general...that's pretty much the antithesis of where we are at right now.

You are talking about corporate and business taxes, and we are only talking about income taxes.  Yes, small business and income can be the sometimes be the same thing, but those people are usually not in the lower or upper tax brackets and it would be better to help them in other ways.

Yes, rich people buy goods, but poor people buy goods too with the same effects.

Seattles' mass transit system goes through downtown Seattle.  You use it to get from one place in Seattle to another.  Yes, it is connected to the airport, but that is far from the only reason to use it.

Squilliam -

I don't think that, if you had a flat tax system, would destroy social welfare (although it'd be nice if it transferred the focus to private companies & people to provide it). Flat tax, at it's worst, would require the poor to pay taxes, like the current system does. When I was earning $100/wk, I was still getting taxed at 15% of my income. That doesn't change if the government gives out social welfare to it's citizens. That's a mandate from the government, not the taxation system.

Depending on the level of income you set as being "Rich" enough to be worthy of increased taxes, over 70% of high income earners are self employed small business owners where there is no difference between their corporate and personal taxes?

Both... better cooked and cooled off.  As in you cook them and then let them cool off and eat them cold. 

When you eat something cold (or drink cold water) your body has to heat it up to break it down and therefore you burn more calories. Drink Ice cold water when you can!