>>Besides, they'd squander it right away.
>
>Well, besides tax cuts, it doesn't happen often. But the way the proposition was structured it presupposed all money belongs to the state and the individual only has what the state lets him have.

I forgot a smiley there... I went under the assumption that the government of the people for the people has already decided how much tax to take, and that the use of that money was the issue.

> That is the assumption I question. ( oddly reminiscent of an older idea that all power rests with the king and the people only have such rights as he deigns to give them.)

It's the "everything is forbidden unless explicitly allowed" vs "everything is allowed unless explicitly forbidden" type of dichotomy. Either can't really work in a country with common law.

>And "squandering" it would mean spending it on goods and services they personally give value to

ergo beer, sports and porn,

> and enriching those who provide those goods and services so they can hire more workers, produce more product

What product? What's produced here, except monster trucks, more layers of middlemen and innovative invoicing?

> and invest more capital.

...abroad.

>It actually works rather well <s>

...for those who'd be enriched.