To Dem,

If you had been where I have been and felt like you were a piggy bank for "enlightened" social engineers, then maybe your perspective would be different as well.

To Raytri,

All of the benefits you listed are enjoyed equally by all. Its silly to say a rich person benefits more from low crime than a poor person. If a poor person gets shot in the head, then he is just as dead as he would have been if he were a rich man. The only difference is that I am more likely to be paying for these benefits you and I equally enjoy than you are.

As for the things we all enjoy equally, I go back to my old formula. Have the top 20% of income earners pay for their share and that of the bottom 20% & have the middle 60% pay for its "Fair Share". I do not mind subsidizing those who have nothing, but I do mind subsidizing the discretionary income of the middle class just because they make up a larger voting bloc.

To say I am against the rich getting soaked is not the same thing as saying I want to cruch the poor. Maybe you assumed a bit too much in your last post?

Remember that without the top 20% of income earners you would have a lot of problems. First, you would have to find some other way to replace 60% of the tax base. Who is going to pay for all of those government services you enjoy if you don't have us to kick around? Second, you would have to find some other way to create jobs & health insurance coverage. Who do you think starts most of the businesses in this country? Third, you would have to take the time to find another scapegoat.