[Mr. Jeeves]

What I'm saying is that if the government did not exist, the 10th man would have only a minor fraction of what he has with the government.

What if the government were 10% of its current size. How much would he have then?

The issue at hand is the rampant growth of government and the welfare state. Democrats always make the argument that without government the rich wouldn't be rich, but that is a false dichotomy. The argument isn't that government should be abolished - it's that it has grown far too large, consuming far too great a slice of the GDP.

[Age of Reason]

The issue at hand is the rampant growth of government and the welfare state.

I strongly suspect that the need for bigger government grows exponentially with population growth.

If you want to keep the need for government to a minimum, today's massive influx immigration must cease.

In my lifetime I have seen America's population double, and our freedoms halved.

[Deuce]

What if the government were 10% of its current size. How much would he have then?

It depends on which 90% is eliminated; whether 10% is enough to protect his assets against thieves and foreign invaders; etc.

You are introducing a new subject about proper level and composition of government. I favor reducing government and paying down debt before any tax cuts are considered. But the subject on this thread is: given that a tax cut is given, who is entitled to it.