I wanted to address this all by itself. As I noted in my previous post your first condition is being met because everyone pays taxes to fund both the state and federal government. Not all pay an income tax but that's only one form of taxation and I can't even count how many forms of different federal taxes we can potentially pay. You and I will unquestionably agree it's one hell of a lot of different types of taxation. What I really want to address is reducing the spending because we both agree that needs to be done. The only real question is whether we reduce spending responsibly or irresponsibly. The irresponsible way to reduce spending is to simply cut the authorization for the spending and ignoring the reason for the spending. The responsible was is to eliminate the reason for the spending. For example if we want to reduce welfare spending then we need to address the reason for the welfare spending. Welfare assistance is a means of mitigating the effects of poverty. Welfare assistance doesn't reduce the poverty anymore than an aspirin will reduce a brain tumor but the aspirin mitigates the pain created by brain tumor. People often ignore the brain tumor and complain about the cost of aspirin. Cure the brain tumor and the need for the aspirin goes away. So if we want to reduce welfare spending then we need to address the problem of poverty. If we reduce poverty then the reason for the amount we spend in welfare assistance is reduced. You've argued against "minimum living wage" and regardless of your arguments a "living wage" eliminates poverty for fulltime working households and it would reduce federal spending on welfare by about $400 billion a year and probably an equal amount in state welfare spending. Support it or not but without a "living wage" the welfare assistance is necessary and can't be reduced responsibly. I've heard presidential candidates today talking about creating more jobs but with unemployment under 5% we don't really need more jobs. We need better compensation for the jobs that already exist. I've made a proposal in the past to privatize Social Security but unlike Republican proposals mine was based upon the minimum wage and required 45 years because Social Security/Medicare is based upon the 45 year working career of the person. It also requires imposing the Social Security tax on all income regardless of source or amount during the 45 year transitional phase. In the end the safety net provided for by Social Security shrinks to virtually nothing and Medicare isn't required at all because proposal would provide benefits at least four-times greater than today's Social Security program. It's a pragmatic and responsible way to dramatically reduce federal spending over time but it does cost money to get there. Agree with me or not on specific proposals but the principle remains the same. Either we reduce spending responsibly by reducing or eliminating the necessity for the spending or we irresponsibly cut the spending authorization ignoring the reason for the spending. There are lots of ways to responsibly reduce expenditures as opposed to just irresponsibly cutting the spending authorization without considering the reasons for the authorization. I'll leave it up to you to imagine your own cases where you can responsibly reduce spending by addressing the reason for the spending. Don't address the cost of the aspirin but instead address the brain tumor that creates the need for the aspirin. My tax plan does none of this directly because it doesn't address the spending directly but it does address it indirectly. If the spending goes up or down relative to the national income then the tax rate goes up or down because linkage between the two is established. That isn't happening now because there's no linkage between the spending and the tax rates. If the government increase or decreases the spending today it will not affect the taxes we pay because there's no linkage between the two. I also eliminated the nefarious use of the GDP as a metric for income taxes because there's no relationship between the GDP and personal income taxes. Only gross personal income (GPI) has a relationship to income taxes and the GPD and GPI are different. I addressed the linkage taxation and spending in my proposal with an example. For example in 2013 the tax rate on all income above the Exemption would have been 29% but in 2014 that dropped to 24% based upon the spending relative to the gross personal income of the nation.