As I've said before, I think both parties are rotten to the core, but right now the Dems seem to be the lesser of two evils. The system needs to be opened up to more parties, though.
yes small biz is taxed but what is really killing them is the cost of liability and health insurance. my chicago hostess this weekend runs a biz arranging travel for rich peeps. she has two employees and spent 20 grand on insurance.
Goddammit, there you go. $20K from ONE small business employer going to health insurance megalocorporations who exist solely to weasel out of their responsibility at every opportunity to actual supply health care to the people who pay them. Bullshit. Fuck the insurance industry.
That makes me furious and I am in exactly the same boat.
uh, evil, the rich don't pay payroll taxes - us working slobs pay payroll taxes - it comes out of your paycheck, not your employeer's. If you add in your payroll taxes the burden of the bloated gov't (and it is bloated - see: military industrial complex + corporate welfare + bailouts for the Neil Bushes and Lee Iacocca's of the country) shifts heavily onto the "average american" and less on the richie-rich investor class. They have been generously alleviated of their burden by every administration from Reagan on (including, though to a lesser extent, the one with the D after his name) with cushy exceptions and loopholes. Hell, you can have a 100% tax rate (which you seem to think "the liberals who hate americans almost as much as us'es freedoms and want to see nobody make any money and only grow potatoes to turn into vodka" want) but I'm merely pointing out that if everything you do is tax deductible (like in high-end capital gains/large corporations), then what the supposed "tax rate" is means nothing because at the end of the day they wind up OWING NO MONEY.
Plus, I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is poor - I mean, you want poor, go to africa or asia south of russia (which, to continue the analogy, russia is more "working class"/hand-me-down territory).
And finally, WE ARE being governed by the moneyed elite RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW. How many millions are being raised by giant corporations bribing, I mean offering campaign contributions, to every top tier candidate, except (to bring it all back) Edwards.
Finally, if we're going to be poor, I'd like no GM-foods and some free freakin' health care for my money - I'll take being your definition of "poor" if my tax $$ go to something useful.
lets just have a carbon tax with relief for those below the median income and have all corporations doing business here pay too (ie no tax shelters for the rich). (oh, free health care too)
Damn me and my long posts - EvilP, I agree that we need to encourage the entrepreneurial class, one of the traditionally strongest aspects of this country, we just disagree on what we need to do to reinvigorate it.
I think the way to do that is:
a: openness wherever possible - both in the private and public sector
b: increasingly stringent standards as the size of the company grows, as well as higher penalties for violating those standards.
c: shifting the tax burden away from payroll and sales and shift towards the exchange of large aggregates of money or capital.
d: single-payer health care
I personally think every Sharper Image store and Hummer dealership should have a red phone directly connected to the IRS. If people are shopping in those places, they obviously aren't paying enough in taxes.
Crow - I know this, but your employer pays the payroll tax on your deduction. That 30% comming out of your check, the employer is paying on top of it. Thats why its not income tax. Fucking Whores.
because 10% of $10mil is $1mil, and people who earn $10mil/yr fight having to pay such a percentage.
it's like big commissions, the percentage you get for fee always goes down as the size of the job goes up.
i'm not saying i disagree with the flat tax, but the top earners have been fighting it tooth and nail to keep it dead.
since we're on the subject of wealth...what about massive estate taxes? like back in the day when only a portion of your estate could be handed down to your family, and the rest returned to the commons in the form of school subsidies, health care subsidies, etc.
warren buffet seems to have the right idea, mike bloomberg has said he planned to give most of his money away when he's through with politics...
wealth attracts more wealth and the power to keep it.
I seriously wonder what would happen if all the special interest lobbists where to disapear tomorrow. Would we actually see stuff getting done in Congress? After all if you think about it, they're the ones that are are holding all the cards (IMHO)
"because 10% of $10mil is $1mil, and people who earn $10mil/yr fight having to pay such a percentage....the top earners have been fighting it tooth and nail to keep it dead."
I seriously doubt this, Mighty. Upwards of about 350,000 your taxes are 35 percent. I bet a lot of "top earners" would sign up TODAY.
most of the resistance to a flat tax is that it's not "progressive" enough to suit the liberals.
Flat tax goes nowhere because its basically communism for capitalists - everyone's equal. And just like communism, it looks good on paper but works horribly in practice.
The rich don't like it because they'll have to pay more (10% of taxes with no deductions = 10% more taxes than they have to pay when its 35% with deductions)
The liberals hate it because its not progressive at all. Someone making $10M can handle $1000 worth of taxes a lot easier than someone who is making $20K can handle $20 in taxes. If you made the poverty line "zero" you might pull a few to the flat tax side, but I doubt you'd get too many.
And, with no deductions the following groups will lose their main source of funding:
Churches and other Religious Organizations
Non-Profits of all stripes
Charitable organizations
Start-ups and Venture Capital operations - If I can't write off my loss and the money is really gone, I'm keeping my money in Microsoft.
These all have pull with both parties in congress.
Hey, Crowbert, you forgot a few zeros on your figures. 10% of 10M isn't 1000 bucks.
And are you suggesting that every Joe Blow who happens to make over 350,000 / 35% tax bracket pays zero taxes because of deductions? Now way. Ask someone in that bracket if they'd take the 10 percent deal.
The flat tax idea comes in many proposed forms, and some of the plans still exempt churches and non-profits.
I don't think your 'commmunisim for capitalists" applies. Isn't it the reverse of that? What we are doing right now, with the "progressive" tax smacks of communism -- the more you make the more they take... "from each according to his ability...(Marx)" You get the drift.
Actually, when you think about it, a flat tax is STILL progressive in that sense... you make more you pay more. Citizens would STILL be paying "progressive" rates to, say, drive down the same road, be protected by the same military, etc.
Now a flat FEE tax, that would not be progressive at all.
You pay 35% in INCOME Tax, that's not CAPITAL GAINS or taxes on investments (Typically falling somewhere around 15-24%) but the gem of it is that if you are rich enough you can lump it all together an take a "loss" on your investments (or offset it with charitable donations) and effectively wipe out your income tax.
If you allow anyone to adjust their tax based on charitable contributions, its hardly "flat" anymore, is it?
Uh, I wasn't saying $1000 = 10% of 1M - but I was saying that $20 buys you a lot more when you are poor than $1000 buys you when you're rich. If you've ever had to make $20 stretch over several days you would have gotten that.
Flat Tax = Communism. I don't understand how you can't see this. % of what you make = your tax. How can you not see that you are advocating people being taxed in direct proportion to your means.
Here's what a progressive person (such as myself) sees: The minimum cost to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy and educate a person does not scale. If that costs $40K/person to achieve the above then if you are making less than that you need to cut one of those necessary things out of your life. So a 10% tax on someone who makes $50,000/year halves any savings, investment or growth that person can do, but to a millionaire that same flat tax results in a barely noticeable change in disposable income. $1M = $900K after tax, change in disposable income 10.5% - for $10M that's 1.5%, and so on.
But if you want to make the state responsible for your needs so that all of your income is defacto disposable, then the flat tax is less communistic - except you then have a communist system. Or you could have each person pay everything on a sliding scale - oh, no, wait that's socialism.
Actually, Crowbert, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at --
and by the way, I'm not advocating flat tax. I was pointing out degrees of "progressiveness" after you said it had no progressive aspect.
Your statement "but to a millionaire that same flat tax results in a barely noticeable change in disposable income" is remarkable. How, exactly, can you make that generalization? How do you know what all wealthy people do with their money? I'd contend it's none of your business.
Could we try it this way? Say I make 50K and you make 200K. What should each of us pay?
People who are used to sweeping generalizations usually don't read very well, or at least completely. What you seem to have utterly missed is that:
The minimum cost to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy and educate a person does not scale. Go back and read, as slowly as necessarily - with one change, in the heat of the argument I did use the wrong term, which should have been discretionary income not disposable. Based on your response, you obviously missed the point. Or maybe you didn't and tried to change the subject, given your weak argument.
But lets go through your example at the end. I contend that it matters what you do with your money and that, in part, the tax system should reward constructive behavior and punish wasteful behavior. While I think we do it very poorly now, I do not disagree with the concept itself.
Let us say I am a person with a family, kids, mortgage and I have some degree of ownership in a smaller local business. A partner in a local construction or architecture office, lets say. I am active in a charitable organization where I donate both time and money.
Lets say you are get all of your income from a trust fund from Old Aunt Millie, who also left you her old city apartment. You have no need nor desire for gainful employment with her money rolling in, and mostly eat taco bell and watch cartoons all day. You have no dependents.
Now to a flat-tax person none of it makes any difference - everyone, no matter how beneficial or how draining they are to a community pays the same rate in taxes. I personally think that type of thinking is wrong.
So, given your example, I make $200K, and lets say with all the deductions and considerations, I wind up with a tax rate of 10% after modification. I've got a lot of mouths to feed and a lot going on, but I will probably still be able to get a Wii for the kids and year-end bonuses to the employees.
My taxes: $20K
You, no deductions and all estate. You are mostly an estate tax whose rate is roughly 50% big sums such as yours (you get this your whole life, and that adds up to a lot of money - $1M for every 20 future years you are alive, I am assuming what you get paid rises with inflation through the interest and investment of your fund)
Your taxes: $25K
Now, lets switch our incomes, nothing else - I'm still an upstanding citizen, you are still a moocher.
I am a lot closer to poverty now, and shouldn't really pay much more than $500 (1%) or so. All my money is going to improve the lives of my family and my community already.
You'd still be under the estate tax, and have even less incentive to work if you're lazy (you are getting more money). You tax bill - $100K.
If you don't understand why the flat tax is flawed and inherently communist after the above you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the concept, and I can no longer help you.
Gin -- a public school system run by Libertarians? Yeah, that would be likely. What was that crack supposed to mean?
Crowbert -- you need to calm down a bit there, tiger. You seem a little too worked up over your need for me to accept your comparison of the flat tax to communism. I could make a similar screwy comparison to prove that it's progressive. It's like standing at opposite ends of a black to white spectrum and attempting to argue whether a shade of grey is blacker or whiter.
My position is neither, anyway. Flat or progressive, the income tax is an oppressive imposition on a free people.
What I am more interested in are views toward the income tax. Your views are summed up in your statement: " I contend that it matters what you do with your money and that, in part, the tax system should reward constructive behavior and punish wasteful behavior."
This is the parting of the ways for you and me. As long as my actions are peaceful and honest, you have no right to tax me up or down based upon yours or anyone else's supposedly well-intentioned assessment of how "beneficial" or "draining" I am to my community. Again, none of yours or anyone else's business. The suggestion of your statement runs counter to a nation based on personal freedom. Counter to what you suggest, I should not be forced by the government to sacrifice that which I earned.
Fine, you don't want to pay taxes? Then you shouldn't be permitted to drive on any public roads, use any public libraries, enroll your kids in public schools, hire employees who have a public education, expect any help when you dial 911, expect the National Guard to rescue you when your house gets flooded, expect to be defended from attack by hostile forces, or expect anybody to pick up the tab when you get cancer and your insurance company drops your coverage.
Otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite, just like every other Libertarian who doesn't live in a log cabin in the woods.
Gin -- your last couple posts seem uninformed and emotional enough to make me believe that you know very little of the true Libertarian platform. The Libertarian Party has been around quite a while -- do you really think they have no plan for the issues you've listed?
My world view is different from yours. That can happen. Instead of the profanity and name-calling, take a look at www.lp.org -- ponder it bit, it could change your life.
Been there, done that. I actually used to consider myself a Libertarian once upon a time. Then I graduated high school, went to college, started working, and got a clue.
By the way, I'm a card-carrying member and contributor to the ACLU, so I share the Libertarians' views on civil liberties. I just find their economic and taxation stances to be hopelessly naive and ill-informed.
Sandy, you don't have to accept anything. This is america, so rather it is I who must accept, on a daily basis, idiots who can't think their way through getting themselves out of a paper bag. I did notice though that as soon as I took apart your argument down piece by piece, all the sudden its "lets agree to disagree".
Its taxation without representation. Not that taxation is inherently wrong or oppressive - its that the taxpayer did not have a say in how his (or her) taxes are to be used. Did you sleep through history class? I want my tax money back for your education, because it obviously didn't work.
When you wake up from your pinko fairy libertarian dreamland and realize that you actually have to pay for services (starting with LiG's hardly exhaustive list above) come on back - but not on the internet, because that was funded and sponsored by the big bad government and its inhuman taxes and nobody asked you if it was worth the oppression you are now suffering under.
It's far more complicated than that; education funding and highway funding each come from a variety of sources, and the particulars vary by state and locale.
Crowbert, I understood your posts well enough. They're not really anything new on the subject, and I've heard/read similar arguments for years. You believe in the "progressive" income tax. I don't. Not sure why that makes me an "idiot". Although we disagree, I doubt that you are an idiot. If you believe you dismantled my post piece by piece, that's fine with me.
I will leave you and Gin to extrapolate outward from the issue originally at hand -- the income tax -- to include all forms of taxation. Might be fun. As I wrote, what really interests me about the income tax, as an example, are not the tiny details of an income tax plan with which I already disagree. I'm far more intrigued by political philosophy at a very basic level -- like how much faith someone may place in the judgement of the federal government. Your position grants the government the ultimate power and discretion over the people. I think oppositely.
In any case, the Libertarian Party is hardly the "naive, ill-informed, pinko fairy dreamland" you and Gin have attempted to characterize. Go check out the Libertarian website -- do some reading. Although you will very likely disagree with most of what you find, you will soon discover that issues such as the income tax, paying for services, etc., are approached very differently but very plausibly in ways that you may not have imagined.
A Letter From Michael Moore
God Bless the Fed.
Reserve thats is!
Well, I agree that small and medium-sized businesses should get a better break. It won't come from the Republicans, though.
Nor from the Democrats, before you beat me to it.
As I've said before, I think both parties are rotten to the core, but right now the Dems seem to be the lesser of two evils. The system needs to be opened up to more parties, though.
yes small biz is taxed but what is really killing them is the cost of liability and health insurance. my chicago hostess this weekend runs a biz arranging travel for rich peeps. she has two employees and spent 20 grand on insurance.
True, that.... Insurance is what's keeping most architects from starting their own shops.
Goddammit, there you go. $20K from ONE small business employer going to health insurance megalocorporations who exist solely to weasel out of their responsibility at every opportunity to actual supply health care to the people who pay them. Bullshit. Fuck the insurance industry.
That makes me furious and I am in exactly the same boat.
Sorry - I had a bit of a moment. Not that I don't feel that way, just didn't need to swear so much to state it. Sorry.
dont provide insurance then. If everyone ( actually just 25% would prob do) quit paying, the scam would end
Wow, you sounded almost like Myriam there. I'm impressed.
uh, evil, the rich don't pay payroll taxes - us working slobs pay payroll taxes - it comes out of your paycheck, not your employeer's. If you add in your payroll taxes the burden of the bloated gov't (and it is bloated - see: military industrial complex + corporate welfare + bailouts for the Neil Bushes and Lee Iacocca's of the country) shifts heavily onto the "average american" and less on the richie-rich investor class. They have been generously alleviated of their burden by every administration from Reagan on (including, though to a lesser extent, the one with the D after his name) with cushy exceptions and loopholes. Hell, you can have a 100% tax rate (which you seem to think "the liberals who hate americans almost as much as us'es freedoms and want to see nobody make any money and only grow potatoes to turn into vodka" want) but I'm merely pointing out that if everything you do is tax deductible (like in high-end capital gains/large corporations), then what the supposed "tax rate" is means nothing because at the end of the day they wind up OWING NO MONEY.
Plus, I don't know where you get the idea that Europe is poor - I mean, you want poor, go to africa or asia south of russia (which, to continue the analogy, russia is more "working class"/hand-me-down territory).
And finally, WE ARE being governed by the moneyed elite RIGHT FREAKIN' NOW. How many millions are being raised by giant corporations bribing, I mean offering campaign contributions, to every top tier candidate, except (to bring it all back) Edwards.
Finally, if we're going to be poor, I'd like no GM-foods and some free freakin' health care for my money - I'll take being your definition of "poor" if my tax $$ go to something useful.
lets just have a carbon tax with relief for those below the median income and have all corporations doing business here pay too (ie no tax shelters for the rich). (oh, free health care too)
anybody want to kick-start the green party?
Damn me and my long posts - EvilP, I agree that we need to encourage the entrepreneurial class, one of the traditionally strongest aspects of this country, we just disagree on what we need to do to reinvigorate it.
I think the way to do that is:
a: openness wherever possible - both in the private and public sector
b: increasingly stringent standards as the size of the company grows, as well as higher penalties for violating those standards.
c: shifting the tax burden away from payroll and sales and shift towards the exchange of large aggregates of money or capital.
d: single-payer health care
I personally think every Sharper Image store and Hummer dealership should have a red phone directly connected to the IRS. If people are shopping in those places, they obviously aren't paying enough in taxes.
How much is enough, Gin?
So why can't we do a flat tax across the board? Everyone pay 10% of their income in taxes, and call it a day?
Crow - I know this, but your employer pays the payroll tax on your deduction. That 30% comming out of your check, the employer is paying on top of it. Thats why its not income tax. Fucking Whores.
because 10% of $10mil is $1mil, and people who earn $10mil/yr fight having to pay such a percentage.
it's like big commissions, the percentage you get for fee always goes down as the size of the job goes up.
i'm not saying i disagree with the flat tax, but the top earners have been fighting it tooth and nail to keep it dead.
since we're on the subject of wealth...what about massive estate taxes? like back in the day when only a portion of your estate could be handed down to your family, and the rest returned to the commons in the form of school subsidies, health care subsidies, etc.
warren buffet seems to have the right idea, mike bloomberg has said he planned to give most of his money away when he's through with politics...
wealth attracts more wealth and the power to keep it.
Damn, I missed pretty much missed the whole freakin' debate. Stupid job... taking away from my Archinect time.
I seriously wonder what would happen if all the special interest lobbists where to disapear tomorrow. Would we actually see stuff getting done in Congress? After all if you think about it, they're the ones that are are holding all the cards (IMHO)
I think most congress people would shrivel up and die... Which might not be a bad thing.
LOL!!!!!!! I think you are right Gin
"because 10% of $10mil is $1mil, and people who earn $10mil/yr fight having to pay such a percentage....the top earners have been fighting it tooth and nail to keep it dead."
I seriously doubt this, Mighty. Upwards of about 350,000 your taxes are 35 percent. I bet a lot of "top earners" would sign up TODAY.
most of the resistance to a flat tax is that it's not "progressive" enough to suit the liberals.
Flat tax goes nowhere because its basically communism for capitalists - everyone's equal. And just like communism, it looks good on paper but works horribly in practice.
The rich don't like it because they'll have to pay more (10% of taxes with no deductions = 10% more taxes than they have to pay when its 35% with deductions)
The liberals hate it because its not progressive at all. Someone making $10M can handle $1000 worth of taxes a lot easier than someone who is making $20K can handle $20 in taxes. If you made the poverty line "zero" you might pull a few to the flat tax side, but I doubt you'd get too many.
And, with no deductions the following groups will lose their main source of funding:
Churches and other Religious Organizations
Non-Profits of all stripes
Charitable organizations
Start-ups and Venture Capital operations - If I can't write off my loss and the money is really gone, I'm keeping my money in Microsoft.
These all have pull with both parties in congress.
That's why it won't happen.
Hey, Crowbert, you forgot a few zeros on your figures. 10% of 10M isn't 1000 bucks.
And are you suggesting that every Joe Blow who happens to make over 350,000 / 35% tax bracket pays zero taxes because of deductions? Now way. Ask someone in that bracket if they'd take the 10 percent deal.
The flat tax idea comes in many proposed forms, and some of the plans still exempt churches and non-profits.
I don't think your 'commmunisim for capitalists" applies. Isn't it the reverse of that? What we are doing right now, with the "progressive" tax smacks of communism -- the more you make the more they take... "from each according to his ability...(Marx)" You get the drift.
Actually, when you think about it, a flat tax is STILL progressive in that sense... you make more you pay more. Citizens would STILL be paying "progressive" rates to, say, drive down the same road, be protected by the same military, etc.
Now a flat FEE tax, that would not be progressive at all.
You pay 35% in INCOME Tax, that's not CAPITAL GAINS or taxes on investments (Typically falling somewhere around 15-24%) but the gem of it is that if you are rich enough you can lump it all together an take a "loss" on your investments (or offset it with charitable donations) and effectively wipe out your income tax.
If you allow anyone to adjust their tax based on charitable contributions, its hardly "flat" anymore, is it?
Uh, I wasn't saying $1000 = 10% of 1M - but I was saying that $20 buys you a lot more when you are poor than $1000 buys you when you're rich. If you've ever had to make $20 stretch over several days you would have gotten that.
Flat Tax = Communism. I don't understand how you can't see this. % of what you make = your tax. How can you not see that you are advocating people being taxed in direct proportion to your means.
Here's what a progressive person (such as myself) sees: The minimum cost to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy and educate a person does not scale. If that costs $40K/person to achieve the above then if you are making less than that you need to cut one of those necessary things out of your life. So a 10% tax on someone who makes $50,000/year halves any savings, investment or growth that person can do, but to a millionaire that same flat tax results in a barely noticeable change in disposable income. $1M = $900K after tax, change in disposable income 10.5% - for $10M that's 1.5%, and so on.
But if you want to make the state responsible for your needs so that all of your income is defacto disposable, then the flat tax is less communistic - except you then have a communist system. Or you could have each person pay everything on a sliding scale - oh, no, wait that's socialism.
Actually, Crowbert, I'm not at all sure what you're driving at --
and by the way, I'm not advocating flat tax. I was pointing out degrees of "progressiveness" after you said it had no progressive aspect.
Your statement "but to a millionaire that same flat tax results in a barely noticeable change in disposable income" is remarkable. How, exactly, can you make that generalization? How do you know what all wealthy people do with their money? I'd contend it's none of your business.
Could we try it this way? Say I make 50K and you make 200K. What should each of us pay?
People who are used to sweeping generalizations usually don't read very well, or at least completely. What you seem to have utterly missed is that:
The minimum cost to feed, clothe, shelter, keep healthy and educate a person does not scale. Go back and read, as slowly as necessarily - with one change, in the heat of the argument I did use the wrong term, which should have been discretionary income not disposable. Based on your response, you obviously missed the point. Or maybe you didn't and tried to change the subject, given your weak argument.
But lets go through your example at the end. I contend that it matters what you do with your money and that, in part, the tax system should reward constructive behavior and punish wasteful behavior. While I think we do it very poorly now, I do not disagree with the concept itself.
Let us say I am a person with a family, kids, mortgage and I have some degree of ownership in a smaller local business. A partner in a local construction or architecture office, lets say. I am active in a charitable organization where I donate both time and money.
Lets say you are get all of your income from a trust fund from Old Aunt Millie, who also left you her old city apartment. You have no need nor desire for gainful employment with her money rolling in, and mostly eat taco bell and watch cartoons all day. You have no dependents.
Now to a flat-tax person none of it makes any difference - everyone, no matter how beneficial or how draining they are to a community pays the same rate in taxes. I personally think that type of thinking is wrong.
So, given your example, I make $200K, and lets say with all the deductions and considerations, I wind up with a tax rate of 10% after modification. I've got a lot of mouths to feed and a lot going on, but I will probably still be able to get a Wii for the kids and year-end bonuses to the employees.
My taxes: $20K
You, no deductions and all estate. You are mostly an estate tax whose rate is roughly 50% big sums such as yours (you get this your whole life, and that adds up to a lot of money - $1M for every 20 future years you are alive, I am assuming what you get paid rises with inflation through the interest and investment of your fund)
Your taxes: $25K
Now, lets switch our incomes, nothing else - I'm still an upstanding citizen, you are still a moocher.
I am a lot closer to poverty now, and shouldn't really pay much more than $500 (1%) or so. All my money is going to improve the lives of my family and my community already.
You'd still be under the estate tax, and have even less incentive to work if you're lazy (you are getting more money). You tax bill - $100K.
If you don't understand why the flat tax is flawed and inherently communist after the above you are either unwilling or unable to grasp the concept, and I can no longer help you.
I'm starting to think SandRoad is the product of a public school system run by Libertarians.
Gin -- a public school system run by Libertarians? Yeah, that would be likely. What was that crack supposed to mean?
Crowbert -- you need to calm down a bit there, tiger. You seem a little too worked up over your need for me to accept your comparison of the flat tax to communism. I could make a similar screwy comparison to prove that it's progressive. It's like standing at opposite ends of a black to white spectrum and attempting to argue whether a shade of grey is blacker or whiter.
My position is neither, anyway. Flat or progressive, the income tax is an oppressive imposition on a free people.
What I am more interested in are views toward the income tax. Your views are summed up in your statement: " I contend that it matters what you do with your money and that, in part, the tax system should reward constructive behavior and punish wasteful behavior."
This is the parting of the ways for you and me. As long as my actions are peaceful and honest, you have no right to tax me up or down based upon yours or anyone else's supposedly well-intentioned assessment of how "beneficial" or "draining" I am to my community. Again, none of yours or anyone else's business. The suggestion of your statement runs counter to a nation based on personal freedom. Counter to what you suggest, I should not be forced by the government to sacrifice that which I earned.
Fine, you don't want to pay taxes? Then you shouldn't be permitted to drive on any public roads, use any public libraries, enroll your kids in public schools, hire employees who have a public education, expect any help when you dial 911, expect the National Guard to rescue you when your house gets flooded, expect to be defended from attack by hostile forces, or expect anybody to pick up the tab when you get cancer and your insurance company drops your coverage.
Otherwise you're a fucking hypocrite, just like every other Libertarian who doesn't live in a log cabin in the woods.
Gin -- your last couple posts seem uninformed and emotional enough to make me believe that you know very little of the true Libertarian platform. The Libertarian Party has been around quite a while -- do you really think they have no plan for the issues you've listed?
My world view is different from yours. That can happen. Instead of the profanity and name-calling, take a look at www.lp.org -- ponder it bit, it could change your life.
Gotta go. Take care.
Been there, done that. I actually used to consider myself a Libertarian once upon a time. Then I graduated high school, went to college, started working, and got a clue.
By the way, I'm a card-carrying member and contributor to the ACLU, so I share the Libertarians' views on civil liberties. I just find their economic and taxation stances to be hopelessly naive and ill-informed.
Sandy, you don't have to accept anything. This is america, so rather it is I who must accept, on a daily basis, idiots who can't think their way through getting themselves out of a paper bag. I did notice though that as soon as I took apart your argument down piece by piece, all the sudden its "lets agree to disagree".
Its taxation without representation. Not that taxation is inherently wrong or oppressive - its that the taxpayer did not have a say in how his (or her) taxes are to be used. Did you sleep through history class? I want my tax money back for your education, because it obviously didn't work.
When you wake up from your pinko fairy libertarian dreamland and realize that you actually have to pay for services (starting with LiG's hardly exhaustive list above) come on back - but not on the internet, because that was funded and sponsored by the big bad government and its inhuman taxes and nobody asked you if it was worth the oppression you are now suffering under.
This argument relates to a video I posted on another thread http://www.archinect.com/forum/threads.php?id=69354_0_42_0_C
I would suggest checking out the video series http://youtube.com/watch?v=3ueEfRXZCVA
FYI, property taxes pay for education and fuel taxes pay for roads.
It's far more complicated than that; education funding and highway funding each come from a variety of sources, and the particulars vary by state and locale.
Crowbert, I understood your posts well enough. They're not really anything new on the subject, and I've heard/read similar arguments for years. You believe in the "progressive" income tax. I don't. Not sure why that makes me an "idiot". Although we disagree, I doubt that you are an idiot. If you believe you dismantled my post piece by piece, that's fine with me.
I will leave you and Gin to extrapolate outward from the issue originally at hand -- the income tax -- to include all forms of taxation. Might be fun. As I wrote, what really interests me about the income tax, as an example, are not the tiny details of an income tax plan with which I already disagree. I'm far more intrigued by political philosophy at a very basic level -- like how much faith someone may place in the judgement of the federal government. Your position grants the government the ultimate power and discretion over the people. I think oppositely.
In any case, the Libertarian Party is hardly the "naive, ill-informed, pinko fairy dreamland" you and Gin have attempted to characterize. Go check out the Libertarian website -- do some reading. Although you will very likely disagree with most of what you find, you will soon discover that issues such as the income tax, paying for services, etc., are approached very differently but very plausibly in ways that you may not have imagined.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.