Don't forget your only talking about income tax here. When you add up all the taxes you pay, most people pay around 50% to the gov't.

Absolutely. Property taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes, they all add up.

This is true, but to a smaller extent than you must think it does.

That's probably true. I really doubt prices would double. There is some intrinsic value to things and certain price ceilings -- especially as we look at the economy within the larger scope of the global economy. There would be more monies freed up.

As for the 90%, that's exactly what happened when the tax was introduced. The ultra-rich (people making millions -- on passive income only, no less -- in the 30s and 40s) top tax rate was near 90%. This meant that most people paid no taxes. Somehow, people have been convinced that taxing the rich is a cardinal sin, and that we need to spread it around more. Somehow, politicians have got people to vote against their own self-interest.

Just because it might be better in the US is not a good argument by any stretch.

I completely disagree. The only way to objectively measure something is to compare it to something. If we're just subjectively saying "taxes are too high," with no basis for comparison, we're just being whiny. If we can say "we are paying X, and they over there are paying 1/4 X, what the hell?", then we have something. Sure, it could be lower, but we're a first-world country, and the world's only superpower (although that may be fading). We can't maintain those statuses simultaneously with a minimalist government. We can give up the superpower (which is the path I would choose, by gutting the defense budget, removing subsidies to countries, and minimizing foreign affairs). We can give up the first-world nature, becoming more like costa rica or something, but it means radically changing the style and/or pace of life (and not necessarily for the worse). But I remain absolutely unconvinced that a country of our size and complexity can maintain a completely libertarian political system. It's obviously a fantastic way to govern at a smaller (city, county, post-colonial america with 13 states on 1 coast ...) level, but when you start talking about managing 350+ million people, on geographies from arctic to tropical, deserts to plains to rainforests, with wildly varying backgrounds, I just don't see it working. And it's a chicken/egg problem -- both sides can make fantastic claims about the potential, because it's never been tried at this scale, complexity, and with such expectations. Fun times.