I realize that is not an original work by the poster, but I am a bit disappointed to see it here as I find it completely dishonest.

To begin, the "author" listed at the bottom was not the actual author. This name appears to be included simply to add some validity to an absurd essay. http://www.snopes.com/business/taxes/howtaxes.asp

As for the actual content, as Adfecto points out, "The rich get that way from the consumption and labor of the poor and middle class." They receive great benefits from a stable society that takes care of its poor. These benefits are both monetary and spiritual as they do the ethical thing in sharing wealth. The benefits they receive justify the high level of taxes they pay.

Tax breaks which disproportionately benefit the rich, as those given in the earlier days of the Bush Administration, are problematic as stimulus as well. While the poor have historically used funds to actually buy goods and services that they will use, the rich are more likely to put the money into paper investments which doesn't actually stimulate production.

As far as rlstne's suggestions about paying usage fees and efficiency, there are certain services that we expect to have provided whether or not it is efficient. Recently, some have suggested that we privatize the postal service. If that were to happen, do you really think that a private company would want to deliver a letter to the most remote locations in this country a couple times a year, for just a few dimes each? People constantly claim that private charity would be more efficient for providing social services, but this simply isn't true. Government is accessible to every single person in this country while private charity is not.

Government provides services that we as a society feel must be provided whether or not it is profitable for the provider, and we as citizens have control over government, whereas we do not have this control over private entities.

And as far as companies moving overseas, laws which allow these companies to avoid paying taxes by doing so are more at fault than our internal tax system.

The problem with this "light-hearted take" like so many others, is that it dramatically oversimplifies the truth to serve a specific agenda.

I do want to say however, that I do enjoy Nora Dunn's work, despite my criticism of this post.