Snookie 3

If we agree that one purpose of taxation is to guide money into investment areas of national importance to "win the future" and if we agree that picking these areas of national importance requires a degree of expertise that is uncommon in the national community, then some people should not be taxed--or at least be taxed less--but should be allowed free rein their own money for the betterment of the nation and others should be taxed but their money should go to experts.

Now what about the other, rarely spoken, purpose of taxation: Income redistribution? What is its purpose and how does it play into our plans to "win the future?" If it is reasonable to tax on a sliding scale of productivity, is it reasonable to distribute taxes in the same way? Certainly we should be careful about the industries we subsidize to "win the future"; should we be similarly careful about the citizens and behaviors we subsidize as well?

So,redefining The Snookie Question:

Why it is assumed that "Investment" is a reasonable activity of the federal government?

If it is a reasonable activity of the federal government, is there any evidence the government does it well under the current structure? When Lyndon Johnson declared his "War on Heart Disease" it took cancer research years to recover as money was diverted from all research streams to cardiac disease. Bush ruled out any research into stem cell science with its inevitable ripple effects. Conversion of corn into ethanol as a substitute for petroleum has been a disaster environmentally, economically, agriculturally and intellectually.

If it is reasonable to take money from investors for the purpose of substituting government investing, should the investment efforts of all citizens be equally supplanted?

If it is more productive and efficient for the culture to leave investments in the hands of some citizens and not others, can the same be said for those citizens receiving federal subsidy, that some seemingly qualified citizens should be bypassed in favor of others?