For my Libertarian friends

manofmystery wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I still like the libertarians for standing up for the legalization of grass and other drugs whenever they have the balls to do so publicly.      Well, if our team keeps working to try and legalize pot while your team keeps working on making cheeseburgers illegal and both team succeed then it's going to be a very confusing day for the stoned.

I'm willing to compromise on pot cheeseburgers.

ProgressiveAttic wrote: JJLehto wrote: I've seen the light guys, I've decided that I want to run for office on a true libertarian platform, tell me what y'all think:.I will reduce the size of government by almost 100%, (by dissolving congress, cabinet positions, the supreme court, all agencies, which I suppose will leave just me...).I will completely eliminate welfare and leave it to the hands of competition and self reliance, (by arming the homeless) .I will cut waste in our government, especially in terms of defense spending. I will do this by launching all our nuclear weapons...I mean they're just sitting there.....I will eliminate our deficit totally and permanently (by raising taxes too 110%) .I promise to never, ever abuse my power in officeBy the way, my first matter of business will be an executive order moving the dodgers to Brooklyn,  the Giants get an automatic super bowl birth, and I am immune to all laws.You guys think I'll make a good politician? You are completely missing the point there: 1)Government should be reduced to just tribunals, police and army + congress, supreme court, etc. are necessary to keep balance in the government and its violence monopoly. 2)Arming the homeless? a free market needs the elimination of violence (only roll of the government). 3)The defense, security and tribunals spending are the number one and only priority! 4)Taxes are immoral and as such should be eliminated and substituted by other voluntary forms of financing. I know that a lot of libertarians go for this ideal of a "no-tax society", but it's really nothing more than an ideal. I do agree that the amount of tax money the government gets is way too high, but you can't rely on people to voluntarily give money away to keep the government afloat. I think that the best possible solution is to create a new tax code and in it, outline the bare minimum taxes that are necessary for the government to survive. No more, no less.

Well, he IS techincally....I mean not really in reality, but he does have that "R" next to his name. Unless he's not a Republican?

And horse, you pretty much said exactly what I did. Paul sounds good to conservatives, but conservatism is not libertarianism. If he does stick to his ideas, how are the socially conservative Kentuckyians going to take to that?

I guess that's one upside to running as a libertarian, you don't have to worry about social issues. You can completely and outright not even talk about it, since it'll be left to the state anyway.

Not that social issues really matter, because taxes are evil. And the nerve of Obama to install socialism by wanting to raise the top federal income tax bracket to what it used to be under Clinton! I mean, its an outrage because we know that people with alot of money will totally pay their taxes and not keep it offshore.

manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: I guess that's one upside to running as a libertarian, you don't have to worry about social issues. You can completely and outright not even talk about it, since it'll be left to the state anyway. Not that social issues really matter, because taxes are evil. And the nerve of Obama to install socialism by wanting to raise the top federal income tax bracket to what it used to be under Clinton! I mean, its an outrage because we know that people with alot of money will totally pay their taxes and not keep it offshore.     Let me just point out that you can't hide from a consumption tax.  Somebody on the left want to pass that on up the ladder.

I believe we should replace federal income taxes with federal consumption taxes.  I have no idea why we don't do that.  Makes so much cents.

Epignosis wrote: manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: I guess that's one upside to running as a libertarian, you don't have to worry about social issues. You can completely and outright not even talk about it, since it'll be left to the state anyway. Not that social issues really matter, because taxes are evil. And the nerve of Obama to install socialism by wanting to raise the top federal income tax bracket to what it used to be under Clinton! I mean, its an outrage because we know that people with alot of money will totally pay their taxes and not keep it offshore.     Let me just point out that you can't hide from a consumption tax.  Somebody on the left want to pass that on up the ladder. I believe we should replace federal income taxes with federal consumption taxes.  I have no idea why we don't do that.  Makes so much cents.

Ah the Fair Tax. Well, at least thats the official plan that has been thrown around.
George Linder (R) GA has presented the Fair Tax plan every session of Congress for a while now.
Called for the repeal of ALL federal taxes (income, payroll, gift, estate, corporate etc) and replaced with a national sales tax. Also calls for the end of the IRS and repeal of the 16th amendment (which they want to come first now).

I always did a get a chuckle at how Libertarians LOVE the constitution, except for the 16th amendment.


I know Ron Paul talked about repealing it as well. Not like he wants to remove the 15th or 17th, or any of the others, just that one...

Anyway, the idea sounds good, when I first heard of it seemed like a good solution. About a consumption tax though, consumption goes down with income. At lower levels, and even some middle/upper middle levels in places like NJ....almost all income goes into consumption. So, you keep all your money, but if there is a 23% sales tax (the # in the fair tax act) and all of your income goes into consumption...isnt that basically a 23% income tax? At least at a quick look, seems like a consumption tax just hits lower/working people hardest and again people on top seem to escape.
For many of you this is probably fine, but as a flaming liberal like myself, not as much

I guess at lower levels there could be rebates given, but that opens up the current can of worms which is wealtheir people loopholing their way in. Someone I knew at Penn State was fairly well off, before Obama took office his family moved all their money offshore to the Dominican Republic. He gloated about how his family was now "poor" and was gunna get $ from the government.
Also, the Fair Tax act does call for rebates up to the poverty line. Without the IRS, how would that be determined? On good faith? What would be stopping someone making $250,000 a year to claim only $20,000?



Edited by JJLehto - June 28 2010 at 19:55

I guess I'm too much a of a theoretical guy. Consumption does go down with income, (I mean they can afford to do so, we all would probably save if we could) so a consumption tax is, by nature, kind of regressive.

This is kind of pointless because I already know the answer to this.....but:
With a consumption tax people could get out of paying more taxes. I mean they could not buy yachts, live a bit more frugally, etc
I'm going to say you guys have no problem with that because, well that's the point ...you can control your money, and its your choice to spend or not, and thus live with it. But higher earners get that choice. A faily of four earning $30,000 can't make that choice. They have to spend all of their income.

My other concern was also this rebate business, and how it could be easily abused, especially if nothing was there to keep an eye on it. Someone could buy a Ferrari, but then file as earning $0 that quarter, or whatever and get some of that money back...
 And I think it'd be wrong to have a consumption tax w/out somehow reimbursing lower earners. Again, if a family is making $30,000 a year they would, in effect, have an income tax of 23% which is quite high.

But, I already see where this debate is gunna go, nowhere   So I'll just say I personally would never support a consumption tax. Well 99% sure, Im open to anything IF done right.

EDIT: And Rob, you bested me on that one....I had to look up what the 18th amendment was. I'm not as familiar with the later ones


Edited by JJLehto - June 28 2010 at 21:25

Oh yeah, "trickle UP" economics! Money to lower/middle class earners, not only do they deserve it the most, since they spend all their $ its the best way to stimulate the economy!

And I do get the idea: Reward saving. If you are a lower earner and save what you can, you will have more $ and  you will eventually pull yourself up.
Like I said, we're on an ideological difference here, we can talk details but we're not gunna make much headway in this debate.

I just don't like the idea, and I'm open...but I dont see what may change my opinion.
Anyway, there's no chance for a consumption tax happening in some time.

What can I say? It aint perfect, and no system is.

What is the best possible out there? In my opinion, we havnt found it yet.
I won't lie...Ive been up for 30 hours now, a lot of that time filled doing class work, I'm gunna pull a cop out
Glad Im not in office and can talk about all this, but dont have an actual answer....

Wait...
When I'm 25 totally running for the House! Make sure its a democratic district, the regular people really have no idea what youre doing anyway, and I can suggest crazy, yet good sounding, "solutions" that wont ever get passed, and reap the benefits all around!
Politicians do got it nice.

Or I'll run as a true libertarian candidate and never show up or do anything


Edited by JJLehto - June 28 2010 at 22:40

Wait why not? Do it man!
Regardless of belief, let's really start throwing the bums out and get regular people in there. You and me Rob, we will truly work together across the aisle. Sure we agree on little but f*ck it!