I tend to oppose virtually all forms of taxation. If theft is defined as the taking of any other's possessions without that person's consent, then taxation is in the very least theft. However, theft does not imply violence, and taxation does. Therefore, taxation is more akin to robbery or extortion--give me your money or else!
That said, I am bothered by politicians who pledge to cut taxes but make no such promises to decrease spending--hence the gas tax "holiday" debate.
Taxes must be cut! But also federal spending must be cut! If you can't cut spending, then you'd better not reduce your revenues. Otherwise, your credit goes to hell. That's econ 101.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain seem to support the idea of a temporary injunction against the federal gas tax, but neither offer any support of cuts to offset the injunction. At least Barack Obama is consistent. He pledges to tax and spend us into poverty. The other two try to suggest that we can spend our way into prosperity, though any half-witted person can tell you that running debts up on your credit card will not make you a whit wealthier--unless your debts are an investment in something real and promising.
When the government spends more than it has, it decreases the value of the dollar. This becomes an "invisible" tax on consumers. Since the dollar is worth less, it costs more to buy things. Clever politicians blame greedy corporations on such price increases, but any intelligent person can see that the current rise in prices is due to poor fiscal policy.
Ron Paul offered a real solution to the tax burden. He would have seen taxes reduced in proportion to spending reductions. Among the various cuts in spending, the most important thing that he would have done was pull us out of Iraq. That alone, if done quickly, will probably save trillions (as opposed to McCain, who says that we should be in Iraq for 100 years, if "necessary"--who defines "necessary"? Hopefully not the military industrial complex!).
What about Clinton, who now, apparently, opposes the war but is on record as having supported it throughout her tenure as a senator?
Obama is able to claim that he never voted for the war, but he never had the opportunity to vote for the war. Ron Paul did have that opportunity, and he declined it. All of Obama's supposed opposition to the war in Iraq is made with the benefit of never having been put on the spot for it. Look at his record. It tells you that Obama is the consummate politician. When the war was popular, he would have voted for it--just as Clinton did. However, only Ron Paul stood up for actual principles and voted against the invasion.
In hindsight, Ron Paul was right about the invasion. Eventually, in hindsight, people will look back on this election and realize that they missed a golden opportunity when they overlooked Ron Paul.