Beltway Banter: The quick, initial read regarding U.S. Representative Charles Rangel's (D-New York) hedge fund/buy-out firm tax bill introduced Thursday is that the measure, as composed, would produce a certain veto from President Bush, but that the Bush Administration may be willing to work on a revised Rangel measure.

A revised bill, provided it successfully snakes its way through the U.S. Senate, may be legislation President Bush can work with, as a way to solve the alternate minimum tax issue. Designed to prevent wealthy Americans from paying no tax via tax shelters, the AMT -- due to inflation -- applies to a larger number of upper-middle-income Americans each year. Without an AMT patch, 21 million households will be obligated to pay the alternate minimum tax.

U.S. Rep. Rangel's measure would more than double the tax rate on carried interest, the executive compensation at buy-out and venture-capital firms, and would require hedge-fund managers to pay tax on income they defer in offshore accounts, among other bill features.

U.S. Rep. Rangel calls his bill "the mother of all tax reforms." Republican leaders disagree. In a statement, they called the bill, "the mother of all tax hikes" and assert that the bill would raise taxes by $1 trillion over a 10-year span, Reuters reported. Rep. Rangel countered by saying that U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson had recommended the business tax changes.

Some BloggingStocks readers have been kind enough to comment on my blog post regarding the tax protest undertaken by Mr. and Mrs. Brown of New Hampshire. It seems to me that in light of the many ways in which our government has mishandled issues with its citizen over the last several decades, the issue of taxation should be taking more of a front seat. Not a one of us enjoys paying taxes, but most all of us agree that they are a necessary evil. Many of us see serious inequities and abuses in the system. I'll clarify some of my positions on the subject and I'll certainly provide some fuel for debate.

I don't disagree that the Browns have a right to protest their taxes in their own way, but what they are doing is, in my opinion, selfish, short sighted, ill-thought-out, and probably illegal. They are acting like the little child who hurls insults at the boogie man from under the covers. They buttress their actions by claiming that the system is so completely broken that any attempt to work with it is useless. Therein lies my reason for suggesting they should go elsewhere. There are a hundred ways that the Browns could stage an open, effective, and legal protest. They, however, have chosen to hide themselves in protest. In my opinion, they are shameful, loud-mouthed cowards.

Does our government overtax us? You damn bet they do. When hard-working citizens reach a certain income level, their governmental tax load is between 30% and 40% of their income. It approaches 50% if you add in all the permits, licenses, user fees, and a host of other city, county, and state hidden payouts. To me this is completely unacceptable. I've been saying for quite some time that, if you consider that our incomes start with a finite 100% and the governments keep taking one additional percent after another, how long will it be before we no longer have the funds to effectively operate as a public? Even more upsetting to me than the amounts of the funds taken is the fact that we have little to no say in how that money is spent. Taxation without (effective) representation? It wouldn't be too hard to argue that such is the case.