Can you answer this WITHOUT YELLING?:

Which scenario has the greater cost/revenue benefit? (thus allowing for lower costs to consumer):

1) Wiring up and connecting 5 towns in a 100 square mile radius, each with a population of 10,000 people. That line you run out to each town services 10,000 people each!

2) Wiring up and connecting 5 towns in a 100 square mile radius, each with a population of 1,000 people. That same line to each line only services 1,000 people.

Both scenarios require similar amounts of infrastructure in place, but one scenario offsets the cost with more revenue. If you can do that, you can lower the cost per customer... Higher population density = more revenue/cost.

Except France's small villages are extremely close to each other.

France (not including it's territories) spans 213,010 square miles and has a population of 63,460,000. A population density of 297.92 people per square mile.

Comparatively, If you take the US state I live in and an adjoining state (Arizona and New Mexico), they span a combined 235,587 square miles (comparable to France) and host a combined population of 8,638,538. A population density of 36.6 per square mile. And like France, there are only a few large cities (large is relative).

There is actually an even easier way to do this:

1) Make the Tax flat.. no exceptions for any "type" including food, health.

2) Only tax new goods and services: used car-> no tax

3) At a local level figure out what a family/person pays for the bare necessities: enough food, rent, basic healthcare, transportation costs etc.. every month (Have them publish the formula). Then figure the amount of tax there would be on that. Electronically transfer that amount every month in the form of a prebate to everyone.

Keep in mind that at this point you are taxing consumption, and not income so the idea of "wealthier" people paying a lower effective tax rate only applies if you reintroduce income (or somehow "wealth") into the equation. (Remember: income != wealth != consumption)

Poorer people are less likely to buy a BRAND NEW house, or car and so pay no tax on it. They are less likely to buy that $18 bowl of granola or $50 t-shirts. If someone wants to buy caviar for all there meals... they pay tax on it and the prebate probably won't cover even a slight bit of it. Politicians can still monkey with the prebate amounts, but as it would be law/amendment I cannot see how to permanently and in perpetuity fix the law as untouchable. However, once you stop taxing income, it becomes harder to track income (I think this is a good thing)

Here you go:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/1358063/I-was-one-of-the-Talibans-torturers-I-crucified-people.html

RE: "They just don't."

Really?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnenden_school_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_school_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphen_aan_den_Rijn_shopping_mall_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cumbria_shootings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kauhajoki_school_shooting

For either/both sides to call shenanigans when the vote does not go their way. I wonder if someone has done a study on the amount of press voter fraud gets vs. party election outcome and if there is as stark of a difference as I perceive. And if people really think that one party only wins when they "cheat", does that just reinforce myopic visions of political views (i.e. Most people think the way I do and so the only explanation is fraud)?