JoeD I read the Davy Crockett article and I see elements of truth in the particulars of that one case (assistance to be provided to the widow in question was not fair, given that other widows were ignored). However, that story is by no means representative of the wider case being made against taxation - it argues against the provision of charity, ANY charity, by central government. But if this were to be removed then:

Hurricane Katrina victims would have been abandoned by the US government and left to get on with it

Victims of the 9/11 attacks would be similarly left to fend for themselves (at least one of the comments on the article argues exactly that - they should get no help at all)

Disabled people - no help for you from the government. Get a job and pay for your own damned wheelchairs.

Similarly, the homeless, the elderly, in fact anyone in need at all, would have to rely purely on the charity of people in their communities if government assistance ('charity' in the terms of the article) were not available.

In other words, let the people who need help the most plead their case to their communities and hope that someone will help them. And if that doesn't happen, the government should not lift a finger to help them.

How comfortable is life for people who are forced to beg for help?

What a contemptible point of view. It is not 'charity' to provide assistance to people who are in need, it is civic DUTY. Helping its own citizens to prosper is the ONLY business the government should be in. That takes many forms, but it the very essence of government - to make sure its citizens lead better lives.

As for your example of taxes collected in 1941 compared to 4 years later, 1945... I wonder why taxes had to increase in those years. Could it have been something to do with that costly little skirmish known as World War Two?

The UK was practically bankrupted by WW2 and yet in 1948 still managed to put together the National Health Service, which provides universal healthcare for everyone, regardless of their ability to pay. Before we had that, people had to rely on their own income to pay for healthcare, or on charity, and if none was forthcoming they simply died.

If it is government 'charity' to keep people comfortable who would otherwise suffer, and if I am compelled to pay for it (we all pay National Insurance, which is a percentage of income), then I'd prefer that system any day of the week to the one espoused by a man known for his love of silly fur hats.

JoeD, name me a country where there are no taxes and the whole country is run on charity.

Do you seriously think there should be no public school system, no roads, no police force, no armed forces, unless people decide they want to contribute to those things out of the goodness of their hearts? Here's how that will work: 5% of people will contribute, 95% of people won't bother, because it's voluntary and they prefer to hold onto their money. And even the 95% probably won't pay nearly enough to cover what is needed for basic infrastructure. Nobody wants a huge tax bill, so what makes you think they will want a huge 'charity bill' every month? If it's optional, many will simply opt out.

Richer people would presumably be able to decide that they don't want to fund the infrastructure of poor areas, and of course the poor people in those areas wouldn't be able to afford to do so. So the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor, with no chance of climbing upwards. Who wants to pay for affordable housing and good schools for minorities when they can just as easily put their money into something which would benefit their already wealthy communities?

And do you really want to see TV ads where the fire service begs you for money so they can do a more effective job? Sorry poor people, you get a pump and a bucket, because the rich folks uptown put their money into state-of-the-art equipment. What? You don't have any water even for your pump? That will be the huge dam we funded so that all the water could stay up-river where we live.

Extreme examples, but if people think that 'charity begins at home' they are more than likely to be charitable towards THEIR home, not someone else's.

Yes you can fund SOME projects with charity. If there's an earthquake or a hurricane people will obviously give what they can. But you cannot run a whole country on nothing but charity, not year after year. People are too selfish, and they also get tired of giving, particularly if they are bombarded with requests from dozens of different charities wanting their money, which is what would happen under a 'charity only' system.

We have to be taxed so that those people who DON'T like paying still have to share the load.

ForReallyReal, you say "If I want to make a million dollars a year and use up the same resources as someone who makes 20,000 a year, shouldn’t I pay the same as them?"

My answer: No.

No, because the poorest people are hit hardest by that kind of tax system. It's why in the US millions of people on low and moderate incomes have no health care - they simply can't afford it. So (let's be blunt about this) the poorer you are the less likely you are to survive a major illness - no money, no operations, medicines, etc. Can't pay your medical bills? Sad day for you.

High sales tax hits the poor harder because a greater proportion of their income goes on buying essentials. 20% on a new limo is a luxury, 20% on a loaf of bread is not.

Those Americans who resent paying income tax are saying 'I want as much money as I can get and I want as little of it as possible to be used for anyone else's benefit'. Thankfully I don't have to live in that kind of anti-social country.

I get the benefit of my taxes in public services, and perhaps I won't get more of those services if I earn more, but the more I earn the more tax I pay (and remember I'll still have more money to keep for myself) and the more tax I pay the more will be available to benefit the OTHER people of the country I live in.

And if I'm ever down on my luck I know there'll be a safety net. If I need a major operation I'll get it and I won't have to sell everything I own to do so - I've paid into a system which lets me benefit from that system if I need it. I know that if my business goes through a bad patch I won't have to pay as much income tax. When things pick up, I'll pay more - because I can afford to do so.

Any money I earn is accumulated inside a country built and paid for by taxation. I profit from the infrastructure maintained by those taxes, so I think it's only right to contribute, and to do so according to my ability to pay.

ForReallyReal and Indy, your way of thinking is 'if I don't benefit from it, I don't want to pay for it'. But we don't live in isolation. You get to keep most of the money you earn, but some of it belongs to your country. It's where you live. I don't know why you wouldn't want to pay for the town or city you live in, and instead see it as money which has been 'confiscated'.

In my opinion, sharing the benefits of wealth (and I'm not 'wealthy' by any means, but I do okay) is a good thing. I'm all for it.

If 30% of my income is taken to pay for universal healthcare (I'm British), roads, police, fire service, the armed forces, roads, schools, street lighting, public parks and outdoor spaces, conservation, care for the elderly, the homeless, and the disabled, and for foreign aid to those countries without all these and many other advantages which we first world people take for granted... I can't really see a problem with it.

Income tax: the more you earn, the more you pay. Yes, that seems fair to me, given that the more we earn the more we can AFFORD to pay. I never see the money anyway, so it's never really mine. I wonder if Indy wants all the benefits I've listed provided for free. The money has to come from somewhere.

Is it raining outside? It rarely rains anywhere else, so the 'outside' isn't needed.

The mother went to the school specifically to ask for permission but they are back pedalling and saying that none was given, which I find highly unlikely. If she went to the trouble of actually going to the school, she wouldn't come away without a definitive answer. From the story it sounds like the school gave her the go-ahead, but verbally. If she made a mistake it was in not getting something in writing, as she now admits.

I don't think they should have given permission in the first place. School dress codes are put in place for very good reasons. However, if the 'front office' did give verbal permission they should be reprimanded too, for their mistake.

All you can eat means exactly what it says. They can refuse to serve him altogether, that's their right, but once he's started to eat they've essentially entered into a contract - they've agreed to feed him 'all you can eat'.

You could argue that they were running low on supplies and perhaps he should have been the better man and accepted that other customers would also be affected by the shortage, but that's bad planning on the restaurant's part - the signs says they are open for 11 hours, and if the place is busy that's a lot of fish, so one 'big eater' wasn't to blame for the shortage, even if you assume he packed in enough to feed 4 or 6 'normal' all-you-can-eaters.

Fish is a tricky one for these kinds of offers - it doesn't sit heavily in your stomach so most people can eat more of it than, say, all-you-can-eat steak, which take much longer to digest.

The internet provides so many fun and exciting ways for people to prove how stupid they really are!

JP, you evidently did not read the article. They were looking for an excuse to fire here because she wanted to take leave for a recurring medical problem, and that was their way to do it. She had become an inconvenience, so they used bigotry as a lever to get her out. The fact that you have not an ounce of compassion for her merely emphasises your own bigotry, which matches that of the university in question. Of course she should have known better than to expect anything other than bad treatment at a Christian organisation - intolerance is the first lesson in Christianity 101.

The suspect is described as being a black man wearing black. Perhaps asking a blind person to 'describe what you saw' was the wrong approach :)

Whether you are pro- or anti-tipping, the key words here are "the gratuity policy was clearly marked on the restaurant's menus", so the customers don't appear to have much of a case. However I'd like to see the wording on the menu to get the full picture.

That's not tanning, that's polishing your boots and not knowing when to stop. I've seen antique mahogany tables which look like stripped pine in comparison to her face :)

Prohibition. Yep, that'll work.

What goes around comes around. Earlier this month Congressman Allen West told a town hall meeting 'I believe there's about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party. It's called the Congressional Progressive Caucus.' And he isn't backing down from his statements either.

He'll be okay right until he gets an itchy nose.