Just as long as I get to choose what I want “my taxes to be spent on.”:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=YJ5BT23WGMYVTQFIQMGCM54AVCBQUJVC?xml=/news/2005/01/31/nolly31.xml&sSheet=/portal/2005/01/31/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=94424
Absolute lunacy – they want to be able to opt out of national defense, but would scream like crazy if we ever wanted to stop funding some of their “progressive” agenda items. Yeah, I know it’s in the UK – but do you think the same thing hasn’t been propsed here?
bq. _*Oliver Letwin, the shadow chancellor, is backing plans for pacifist taxpayers to be allowed not to contribute to the Government’s defence spending.*_
bq. _*He was identified yesterday as a supporter of Conscience: The Peace Tax Campaign, which wants the law to be changed to allow conscientious objectors to have their money spent on “peace building initiatives” instead of the military.*_
I would like to start with NPR and the NEA, please. Then let’s move on to all of the nanny programs running rampant through our system.
I believe David Brooks wrote a column in the NY Times a while back under the heading of “what if we could earmark our taxes…” I don’t remember it having much of a point, other than the pinkos would have supported different things than the uber-conservatives, which is a real shock. However, it was somewhat entertaining and relevant to the topic. I’d try to find it, but the article would no longer be free on the Times’ website.
hi