Businesses merely collect from individuals through higher prices and lower pay and return on capital investment and remit them to government.
No, they don't. Not if people don't patronize them.
I gather you intend not patronize any businesses then, to avoid being taxed again on your ROTH payments.
People will pay those taxes if they agree to a national sales tax.
Just as the pay those taxes today in purchasing anything at all by financing the income and payroll taxes that businesses remit to government. Primary difference between how we are taxed today is under an National Retail Sales Tax system we will know just how much government is costing us instead of it being hidden from our view as citizens and voters.
Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus,
Interesting proposition, especially as you have been false in many of your assumptions.
However even this old latin goody fails close analysis in that one may be wrong in small and immaterial assumptions and yet quite reasonably be very accurate in others and the edifice stands as a whole.
spammer.
Let me guess, your definition of spam is any uncomfortable fact or exposure to reality when it might upset your world view.
No Roth. Conventional IRA, both my original and the R/O accounts. Do I look stupid?
Just as the pay those taxes today in purchasing anything at all by financing the income and payroll taxes that businesses remit to government.
Not to companies they don't patronize. There's a big, fat difference between being contingently billed for it and being legally liable for it in the code.
Besides, it isn't a given that we pay every dollar corporations pay in tax. Sometimes they have to pay it out of their margins -- they take less, and their shareholders take less.
The argument that we always pay it anyway is sucker-bait. Stop trying my patience with it. I will NOT roll over for it.
No, stop guessing. Here is the definition of spam:
br> spam: vt.,vi.,n.
[from Monty Python's Flying Circus]1. To crash a program by overrunning a fixed-size buffer with excessively large input data. See also buffer overflow, overrun screw, smash the stack.
2. To cause a newsgroup to be flooded with irrelevant or inappropriate messages. You can spam a newsgroup with as little as one well- (or ill-) planned message (e.g. asking “What do you think of abortion?” on soc.women). This is often done with cross-posting (e.g. any message which is cross-posted to alt.rush-limbaugh and alt.politics.homosexuality will almost inevitably spam both groups). This overlaps with troll behavior; the latter more specific term has become more common.
3. To send many identical or nearly-identical messages separately to a large number of Usenet newsgroups. This is more specifically called ECP, Excessive Cross-Posting. This is one sure way to infuriate nearly everyone on the Net. See also velveeta and jello.
4. To bombard a newsgroup with multiple copies of a message. This is more specifically called EMP, Excessive Multi-Posting.
5. To mass-mail unrequested identical or nearly-identical email messages, particularly those containing advertising. Especially used when the mail addresses have been culled from network traffic or databases without the consent of the recipients. Synonyms include UCE, UBE. As a noun, ‘spam’ refers to the messages so sent.
6. Any large, annoying, quantity of output. For instance, someone on IRC who walks away from their screen and comes back to find 200 lines of text might say “Oh no, spam”.
The later definitions have become much more prevalent as the Internet has opened up to non-techies, and to most people senses 3 4 and 5 are now primary. All three behaviors are considered abuse of the net, and are almost universally grounds for termination of the originator's email account or network connection. In these senses the term ‘spam’ has gone mainstream, though without its original sense or folkloric freight — there is apparently a widespread myth among lusers that “spamming” is what happens when you dump cans of Spam into a revolving fan. Hormel, the makers of Spam, have published a surprisingly enlightened position statement on the Internet usage.
Source: http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/S/spam.html
In your case, Nos. 4 and 6 apply, and I suspect you of No. 3 as well, but I'm too lazy to prove it, and it just isn't worth the effort. Besides, FR has a TOS about stalking people around the Web just to document their ad homs.