Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - For my Libertarian friends
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedFor my Libertarian friends

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 269>
Author
Message
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:04
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
Not necessarily- arguably the biggest argument about abortion is whether or not it is murder (from a moral standpoint if not a legal one).  If a libertarian had to be pro-choice due to his philosophy, then he would have to say it's all right to shoot the slow checkout lady at Walmart because she's an inconvenience to him.  That of course is absurd.

 
You mean it isn't??? Confused
 
Oops.  I could be in some trouble.  Ouch
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:07
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

 
Not necessarily- arguably the biggest argument about abortion is whether or not it is murder (from a moral standpoint if not a legal one).  If a libertarian had to be pro-choice due to his philosophy, then he would have to say it's all right to shoot the slow checkout lady at Walmart because she's an inconvenience to him.  That of course is absurd.

 
You mean it isn't??? Confused
 
Oops.  I could be in some trouble.  Ouch


Believe me...I chose Walmart for a reason...

It seems like whichever line I get in, no matter how many people are in front of me, the cashier inevitably flicks on the light over the register to get a manager...

We had one cashier who insisted on wrapping EVERY glass jar we bought in two inches of plastic bags....Dead
Back to Top
The Wizard View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 18 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 7341
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:08
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by The Wizard The Wizard wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by The Wizard The Wizard wrote:

It seems like a lot of Republicans these days are becoming libertarians without actually taking in the full ideological stance of the viewpoint. It's just a way for them to be a little more edgy and anti-socialist. 


Yes, isn't that funny. I never heard the term really mentioned in national politics until a certain man from Texas by the name of Ron had a big internet campaign. After that I swear Libertarians started coming out of the woodwork.
Sure, many were and just decided to some out in support, but I see it like a baseball team that did good.
Now everyone is a "fan"

Especially with Obama, the Democrats and their "socialism" sudddenly EVERY republican speech, regardless of content, manages to work the "big evil hand of government" into it?

And I agree with Doc on the excise tax on cigarettes. They are WAY to high, esp in NJ and NY. It does hurt lower income earners mostly.

And Wizard. I DO think legalizing it will make money, of course it will. I just do not think it is to the level advocates say....Although I would LOL if we were able to pay for a new health care system from cannabis money.


We could not only pay for healthcare, but arguably healthcare costs would go down. Marijuana would probably replace alcohol and tobacco as the drug of choice for many, and since marijuana is far safer and healthier than both drugs then medical situations associated with both would be reduced. Also, marijuana is an effective medecine for a variety of conditions, and those with such ailments could easily grow their own medecine in their backyard instead of having to pay for it. Everyone wins.

Also, stress is associated with life threatening illness, and cannabis does wonders for reveilving stress. Big smile




Don't get me wrong. I am 100% in favor of legalizing it, (and no I do not use it and never have).
I'm just saying, I would like some numbers here.
And what do you think about selling?  Obviously possession, growing, use of would be legalized. But I've heard many say they still think drug dealers should be punished. Either because it is still profiteering or because of crime.
OH! And on more reason for legalizing it we forgot. The jails which are filled past the brim, which is not only bad for conditions but our taxes. It would reduce the overall prison population, lessening the burden on the system, and of course making sure we have more room for murderers and rapists who deserve to be there.


Selling should be treated in the same way selling alcohol or tobacco is treated - regulated. There should be an age limit on who can buy and possess as there is with alcohol and tobacco.
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:11
Originally posted by The T The T wrote:

The benefits of legalizing it far exceed the cons.... with one single problem: the prescrption drug industry lobby will never let this happen.... As well as the tobacco and alcohol industry, all of which have links with each other...

And I have enough experience to tell you that it FAR less stupidity-inducing than Alcohol and death-inducing than cigarrettes. And nowaday it's already an american-grown product, we no longer import it.

Tobacco is on it's way to be illegalized. As an ex-smoker, I feel I can see the slow migration is in process. Already anyone who smokes is viewed as lesser. It's unspoken, but evident. Even if it never becomes illegal, it will be taxed to high heaven to the point that it won't be worth the pleasure. Sad indeed.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:12
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.

 
I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.   


By the way, I disagree.

I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then! Big smile
Back to Top
The Doctor View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 23 2005
Location: The Tardis
Status: Offline
Points: 8543
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:18
Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive.  Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items.  That might be ok.  Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc.  That might be alright.  Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation.  For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%.  Something like that would be fine.  Big smile 
I can understand your anger at me, but what did the horse I rode in on ever do to you?
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:24
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive.  Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items.  That might be ok.  Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc.  That might be alright.  Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation.  For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%.  Something like that would be fine.  Big smile 


Good luck becoming a homeowner.  LOL
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:25
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.

 
I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.   


By the way, I disagree.

I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then! Big smile

Now that is a concept. It would push becoming self-sufficient, wouldn't it. Especially for the penny pinchers.
Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:26
Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive.  Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items.  That might be ok.  Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc.  That might be alright.  Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation.  For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%.  Something like that would be fine.  Big smile 

Heh...tobacco and alcohol are taxed like a super luxury. Ouch
Back to Top
TGM: Orb View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: October 21 2007
Location: n/a
Status: Offline
Points: 8052
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:30
My basic issue with Libertarianism as a concept is that it sort of assumes that maximum freedom is created by a lack of or 'minimal' presence of government restraints, while in fact you are born under the yoke of natural restraints which good government can effectively remove. Hence, having more government does not make you less free, it can, in fact, guarantee your freedom.

Hence, removing the freedom to murder allows a right not to be murdered to be effectively enjoyed. Pooling resources via tax to create roads and the general right to travel by car (and by foot safely) is a form of government subtracting 'economic freedom' per se (in the sense of not giving them absolute independence with regard to the use of their money), but at the same time allowing a vastly expanded general freedom to travel efficiently and in relative safety and indeed to move socially and economically, to travel a longer distance to work in something that suits you better, to give you more opportunities in education, social life, work, purchasing, selling etc.

Now, is road maintenance an absolute necessity of government. I think you'd be hard-pressed to say it is (unless you're defining necessary government intervention as something private agreement couldn't accomplish)... everyone could walk, live more locally and stop financing these roads, but I think that nonetheless it is creating freedom of a much more important kind and much more significant extent than would be possessed by retaining that amount of tax money.

So, basically, that's my beef with libertarianism itself and why I consider myself a liberal socialist... I think economic restraints and government control can, if properly exercised and exercised with an appropriate measure of restraint, result in a society where we collectively possess more genuine and guaranteed freedom.

Regardless, very interesting clip, but I can't say I'm convinced by her arguments here (and I admit, I haven't read enough of her work to say I understand them in context). Firstly, her definition of objective existence appears to me insufficient and after that I can't really see how she's going to the end results from there.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 14:47
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Sales taxes are generally regressive, whereas income taxes are progressive.  Unless of course we are talking about taxing the sh** out of luxury items.  That might be ok.  Maybe a 30% tax on the Plasma TV, the new luxury car, the mansion, etc.  That might be alright.  Or maybe a progressive sales tax...the more the item costs, the higher the rate of taxation.  For example...something less than $100 is tax free, up to $1000 at 2%...all the way up to anything over 100,000 at 45%.  Something like that would be fine.  Big smile 


Good luck becoming a homeowner.  LOL


OK well throw in an exemption for homes.  LOL


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2009 at 15:51
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:05
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.

 
I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.   


By the way, I disagree.

I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then! Big smile



AHHHHH....I take it you mean the "fair tax" or removing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax?
Here is my problem with that:
It would be a regressive tax. Those at lower incomes, (and not just the poor) the working class, lower middle, even middle class in some areas spend all, if not most of their income. They have to. Between what you MUST buy the few things you would want, usually all of their income is spent.
Like wise as income goes up, spending goes DOWN. Yes, obviously they buy things but they save a lot more of their income.
If you want proof, my old roommate came from a very affluent family, (he said his WHOLE family is worth about $1 million) but he lived SO frugally. Seriously, his place looked like a slob lived there.
Side note: His family also kept most of their money in offshore accounts, and of course gets tax breaks from Bush Angry

But anyway. As income goes up you spend less, and save more...because you can. SO, a consumption tax unfairly impacts lower earners. They would be paying the bulk of the tax and almost all of their income would be going to taxes...
Also, the sales tax would have to be high. The number in the "Fair Tax Act" puts it at 23%. That could really impact their ability to purchase. I know I would spend alot less if I had to pay a 23% sales tax!

How is shifting the tax burden to the middle class good? And call me socialist all you want, but a progressive income is the right thing to do. Why do you think the income tax has ALWAYS been progressive, and from the 30's to 81 it was WAY more progressive than it is now.

If a consumption tax like that was imposed I am going to Canada. See ya later eh!?

Only way I would support a consumption tax is if it is....surprise: a progressive sales tax.
Lower earners would HAVE to receive some money back.
Not to mention there would still have to be an estate and luxury tax. Also there would still have to be corporate taxes.


Edited by JJLehto - July 15 2009 at 15:20
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:21
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by The Doctor The Doctor wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

I say make weed legal and tax it like cigarettes and liquor.

 
I say stop taxing cigarettes and liquor, at least to the excessive point that they are taxed.  As use of cigarettes and alcohol is relatively inversely proportional to income levels, these are regressive taxes and should be ceased.   


By the way, I disagree.

I say stop taxing income...let the government be funded on American consumption. We'd be rich then! Big smile



AHHHHH....I take it you mean the "fair tax" or removing the income tax and replacing it with a national sales tax?
Here is my problem with that:
It would be a regressive tax. Those at lower incomes, (and not just the poor) the working class, lower middle, even middle class in some areas spend all, if not most of their income. They have to. Between what you MUST buy the few things you would want, usually all of their income is spent.
Like wise as income goes up, spending goes DOWN. Yes, obviously they buy things but they save a lot more of their income.
If you want proof, my old roommate came from a very affluent family, (he said his WHOLE family is worth about $1 million) but he lived SO frugally. Seriously, his place looked like a slob lived there.
Side note: His family also kept most of their money in offshore accounts, and of course gets tax breaks from Bush Angry

But anyway. As income goes up you spend less, and save more...because you can. SO, a consumption tax unfairly impacts lower earners. They would be paying the bulk of the tax and almost all of their income would be going to taxes...
Also, the sales tax would have to be high. The number in the "Fair Tax Act" puts it at 23%. That could really impact their ability to purchase. I know I would spend alot less if I had to pay a 23% sales tax!

How is shifting the tax burden to the middle class good? And call me socialist all you want, but a progressive income is the right thing to do. Why do you think the income tax has ALWAYS been progressive, and from the 30's to 81 it was WAY more progressive than it is now.

If a consumption tax like that was imposed I am going to Canada. See ya later eh!?

Only way I would support a consumption tax is if it is....surprise: a progressive sales tax.
Lower earners would HAVE to receive some money back.
Not to mention there would still have to be an estate and luxury tax. Also there would still have to be corporate taxes.


I hate that you spent so much time formatting a response to what was kind of a joke. LOLWink


Edited by Epignosis - July 15 2009 at 15:22
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:27
Hey man you never know. There are people, and not just a few that really DO want to nix the income tax and replace it with all sales tax.
Especially being the libertarian you are, how could I know you were kinda joking Wink

Although if any DOES condone a consumption tax, at least my argument still stands LOL


Edited by JJLehto - July 15 2009 at 15:27
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:37
Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Hey man you never know. There are people, and not just a few that really DO want to nix the income tax and replace it with all sales tax.
Especially being the libertarian you are, how could I know you were kinda joking Wink

Although if any DOES condone a consumption tax, at least my argument still stands LOL


Let me put it this way (and I'm not really that libertarian by the way...I'm pretty conservative I'd say, despite the tomatoes I'll get tossed my way here)...

I think income tax punishes (bad word that, but I've been drinking too much to come up with another right now, so I'll go with that) earners.

I wouldn't mind it if there was serious discussion about nixing the income tax for a consumption tax.  You made the point that poorer folk (myself included) spend most of their income, but on what?

Rent and utilities, yes?  Things that can easily be exempt?  I go out to eat about twice a month (cheap places almost without exception) and we do not buy anything other than groceries and miscellaneous items (like prog Wink).

Rich folk mostly want money to buy nice things, take trips, and live it up some.  In that way, they would be bearing the brunt of the US federal tax.  So what if they still have millions left over?  "Punishing" (again, poor word) the wealthy is never a good idea.  They are wealthy for a reason almost always.  Good for them.

Also, you forget that if people had no income tax, the middle class would have more money to use at their discretion, and that is always a good thing for the economy.
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:44
Well, the whole thing is that if you try to replace the income tax, there are all kinds of hurdles with implementation.  And I don't believe for one minute that those who have rigged the current system for their benefit won't find a way to do it again.

By the way, I wouldn't complain too much at being tossed tomatoes if they're tasty home grown ones.

File:Tomatina.jpg

And, oh yeah, there definitely has to be a tax exemption on prog, whenever we can agree on just what that is. LOL


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2009 at 15:47
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32531
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:45
Originally posted by Slartibartfast Slartibartfast wrote:

Well, the whole thing is that if you try to replace the income tax, there are all kinds of hurdles with implementation.  And I don't believe for one minute that those who have rigged the current system for their benefit won't find a way to do it again.

By the way, I wouldn't complain too much at being tossed tomatoes if they're tasty home grown ones.

File:Tomatina.jpg


Your sorry liberal hippie ass would probably throw organic ones at me...and organic sh*t gives me diarrhea.

Wink
Back to Top
Slartibartfast View Drop Down
Collaborator
Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam

Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:47
LOL

Sadly enough our tomatoes aren't producing very well this year.  I could spare some cayenne peppers to throw at you though.  The cayenne plant is being very fruitful.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 15 2009 at 15:50
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...

Back to Top
StyLaZyn View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 22 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4079
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:48
Flat tax...same rate for all, no tax exceptions for anyone, especially the wealthy who know the loopholes and how to end up paying LESS tax than the middle class.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: July 15 2009 at 15:51
They would have more income. But 23 cents of every dollar would be spent on what they buy.
So OK, lower earners might be alright, and could be exempt. But a 23% sales tax (and I just use that number since it was the one proposed) is pretty f*cking high, so middle class families may have more money overall but so much would be spent on consumption. I imagine overall they'd have less money.

And as I said, the wealthy can afford to be frugal and in this case they would be more frugal.

I guess I would not be opposed to a consumption tax as long as it's fair.
Lower earners should be exempt from certain purchases.
The actual sales tax should be progressive on the item being bought. Estate and luxury tax remains.
And corporations should still have to pay taxes.
Also, there would be NO Social Security or welfare under this plan. There'd be no money for it, unless you put payroll taxes back. And all this would defeat the idea

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 269>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.320 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.