Entirely correct! However, I do remember the old Chinese saying, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step." Any movement to restoring individual freedom, even if it's very minor, should be encouraged. Unwinding the authoritarian, communal approach to society will take generations, but like trying to convince a child to eat healthy food, it takes tiny tastes to convince people of the benefits of Objectivism. If this tax rejiggering results in the economic growth I expect, each successive step will be made easier, as people look forward to an increasing return from their willingness to change. Given the mantra of sacrifice for the greater good branded into the minds of Americans by religious and secular institutions, the idea of enlightened self interest will take a while to sink in. I share Esceptico's trust in Rand Paul, and if Rand sees this plan as a positive step, I'm willing to give it a chance.

WOW! Very well put. I hope you don't mind, but I shared this on my FaceBook Timeline. I will delete it if you wish, but I think this is well worth sharing.

Quite a contribution to the discussion! Thank you!

Well captured!

Income Tax IS Slavery.
Where your master determines the Percentage of YOUR WORK that you can keep!

Which is slavery.

Tax other things. If you read the tax law close enough, if you grow your own food, and eat it, you owe tax on that! It's the same thing!

All that you say about taxes being a disincentive, etc. is true. The root of taxation (say in the Middle Ages or the Roman Empire) was to tax the people, property or goods and services so that those in power can get money to do the things they want to do, like fighting wars, building castles, living the good life, etc.
Today it is not much different, only under our system those in power tax to get money to do the stuff that will bring them votes of those who benefit when the tax dollars are handed out.
All of that begs the question as to do we need taxes at all?
The answer, of course, is yes.
Our civilization needs roads, schools, courts, police, fire protection, sewer, water and the other things we take for granted in our lives. But these are LOCAL services, provided by LOCAL governments.
In terms of Federal services, the Founders got it right in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8. These are the ONLY services of the Federal Government for which taxes should be collected in order to defray the cost of same.
The issue to me is not whether or not taxes are necessary. The issue to me is whether the taxes we pay are 1) reasonable, 2) applicable to the powers allocated to the Federal government under the Constitution, and 3) being spent judiciously and prudently. My answer to all three of these questions is a resounding NO!!
Perhaps the worst misuse of Federal power, and the most unconstitutional taxation, is the application by the Congress, the President, and the Judiciary of the so-called "welfare clause" in the very first sentence of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The result is that over 60% of Federal spending is for things related to powers or services NOT DELEGATED to the Federal Government under the Constitution, and add another 6% for interest on the debt and you have two-thirds of Federal spending going for things that the government does not have the delegated powers to perform. in addition, all of the spending on these things are considered to be "mandatory spending", while the spending associated with the actual powers delegated to the Federal Government under the Constitution are considered to be "discretionary", and thus are subject to all of the tempestuous politics we see each year when funding bills are passed.
So as far as the current tax bill is concerned, I favor anything that reduces taxes on ordinary people, businesses, and the services we use and pay for. This bill purports to do that, but we will need to wait and see whether the result will be any new reform. Meanwhile this bill adds another $1.4 TRILLION to the national debt, and I see nobody willing to propose budgets or other legislation that will do anything about that. I also see nobody who wants to face reality and actually fix our fiscal problems.
I oppose most taxation for the non-delegated and unconstitutional powers and services the government has taken on. If our government spent on the basis of delegated powers only, the government would need only about $1.3 Trillion per year instead of the $3.8 Trillion it spent in 2015. Perhaps that’s why I support an Article 5 Convention of States to propose Amendments to the Constitution that would 1) require a balanced Federal Budget like all States are required to have, 2) propose an amendment that would define the so-called Welfare Clause and cut the legs from under the spendthrift policies it allows out representatives to concoct, 3) propose an amendment that would spell out the steps the Federal Government would need to take whenever a Public Debt is accumulated beyond a certain level, and a process that would be put in place to address how the government borrows and for what purposes.

A better question at the moment may be "Do you reduce taxes without a proportional reduction in the Government's debt?"
Thomas Jefferson is credited with having said that the single greatest threat to Liberty is the Public Debt. If that's true, and I believe it is, we are over our heads in DooDoo and the politicians just keep piling it on "for the greater good". we'll see how that works out after the collapse.

The centerpiece is the slash in corporate taxes. And that was a #1 Trump campaign promise. That is really ALL the tax bill is about, which is why the national socialists are hysterical. Surely that cut in corporate taxes will mean something for production?

Well, Objectivists, of course, assert that the standard should be individual rights. The tax bill and the debate over it had no real reference to rights, and you are correct, it would be difficult to say if individuals rights came out better or worse after 515 pages of new legislation.

Well, the national socialists/leftists are applying a standard: redistribution of wealth. And the Trumpists are applying a standard: Give an incentive to corporations to return to the U.S. or stay here. And Objectivists apply a standard: reduce the size and costs of government as rapidly as possible toward a theoretical zero point. Those ARE standards, but not all of them are standards that can be supported by facts and logic.

Yeah, a lot of percentages. But the implication, really, of all of them, is that talk about the "lowest income" group getting screwed and the upper income brackets making out like bandits is ridiculous. Half of all Americans who file tax returns are essentially irrelevant to the outcome; they aren't even in the game except for getting tax credits--tax related welfare.