For my Libertarian friends

The T wrote: By the way, the comment that started all this was a joking comment I did on MOM's going to play golf that even included an emoticon (!?). I just said wht he probably believes we would be saying. Then he got pissed off as I pushed his patience, poor MOM, and then suddenly it appears I was proposing taking all the wealth of rich people. I don't see "trickle down" as a successful move, but of course this is equal to fascist-communism for some here. Whate er. I have a doctor appointment now. Later on we can resume discussions without people getting pissed off when I push their patience.

 

In a way, needs are tied to basic rights. The right to live needs the need for healthcare to be taken care of, for example. Healthcare is one of the basic needs which I put in the level of a right. Unemployment coverage is also tied to the right to live (caution: I'm not implying a government has to keep paying forever... But has to give those who are unemployed a chance not to fall in utter misery). Education is a need which is also tied to a right, the right to freedom. Those who aren't educated are very prone to become slaves.

I don't want a government thT fulfills all people's needs. But which is there to provide some assistance. (again, I'm not asking for a Cuba-style goverment which does everything for you as some here appear to think).

 

Epignosis wrote: How am I thinking extremes?  I think we should have a federal consumption tax in place of a federal income tax.  Wealthy people spend more money than poorer people do, so they will wind up paying more taxes, yet would be freer to reinvest their wealth into their businesses.

How, though, can you prevent this from either screwing over poor/lower middle class or not generating enough revenue? Even if you did work out a correct system of rebates and exemptions, what would prevent a rich person from buying their stuff overseas and evading the tax? Even John Kerry doesn't want to pay taxes on his yacht.

Henry Plainview wrote:   Epignosis wrote: How am I thinking extremes?  I think we should have a federal consumption tax in place of a federal income tax.  Wealthy people spend more money than poorer people do, so they will wind up paying more taxes, yet would be freer to reinvest their wealth into their businesses. How, though, can you prevent this from either screwing over poor/lower middle class or not generating enough revenue? Even if you did work out a correct system of rebates and exemptions, what would prevent a rich person from buying their stuff overseas and evading the tax? Even John Kerry doesn't want to pay taxes on his yacht.

Very easy.  Watch this:

Cut sh*t out of the budget.

Also, an import tax is already a kind of consumption tax we already have.

 

Epignosis wrote:   Very easy.  Watch this: Cut sh*t out of the budget. Also, an import tax is already a kind of consumption tax we already have.

What would you cut? This is all theoretical of course, since we're never going to abolish the income tax, but the majority of our spending isn't even able to be lawfully changed. And what will the people who are currently struggling to get by paying zero income tax do when they're still paying zero income tax but there's a 20% tax on their food? 

Henry Plainview wrote:   Epignosis wrote:   Very easy.  Watch this: Cut sh*t out of the budget. Also, an import tax is already a kind of consumption tax we already have. What would you cut? This is all theoretical of course, since we're never going to abolish the income tax, but the majority of our spending isn't even able to be lawfully changed. And what will the people who are currently struggling to get by paying zero income tax do when they're still paying zero income tax but there's a 20% tax on their food?

There wouldn't be a 20% tax on food.  Don't be silly.  And also don't give me that about "how will they survive" when the liberal war cry for higher taxes among the rich is "make them pay their fair share."  So how is zero a fair share?

As for what I'd cut...gosh...we're over 13 trillion dollars in debt.  What would you cut?  I'd get rid of lots of superfluous government nanny programs.  We can start with the letter A.  "Do you protect the rights or serve the needs / wants of the American people?"

And how is the "majority" of our spending unable to be changed by law?  Source?

Edit: I'm not even sure you would need to tax food at all.  Florida has no state income tax and doesn't tax food either.


Edited by Epignosis - August 03 2010 at 16:52

No. Unemployment clearly has to have rules. I'm not asking for a parent-government.

People with education mame more money in average than people without (and people with higher education make more than those with lower) as studies have shown. Of course some people start off bad ( like in a broemn family) and some people, even with education, are not too efficient.

And the basics? Reading, math, some history... One doesn't go to school just to learn stuff anyway. One learns other things, social skills, respect for authority, etc etc. Though I don't know how good American schools are anyway.

Taxpayer money should we "wasted" in at leqst providing basic education.

Epignosis wrote: Henry Plainview wrote:   Epignosis wrote:   Very easy.  Watch this: Cut sh*t out of the budget. Also, an import tax is already a kind of consumption tax we already have. What would you cut? This is all theoretical of course, since we're never going to abolish the income tax, but the majority of our spending isn't even able to be lawfully changed. And what will the people who are currently struggling to get by paying zero income tax do when they're still paying zero income tax but there's a 20% tax on their food?  There wouldn't be a 20% tax on food.  Don't be silly.  And also don't give me that about "how will they survive" when the liberal war cry for higher taxes among the rich is "make them pay their fair share."  So how is zero a fair share? As for what I'd cut...gosh...we're over 13 trillion dollars in debt.  What would you cut?  I'd get rid of lots of superfluous government nanny programs.  We can start with the letter A.  "Do you protect the rights or serve the needs / wants of the American people?" And how is the "majority" of our spending unable to be changed by law?  Source? Edit: I'm not even sure you would need to tax food at all.  Florida has no state income tax and doesn't tax food either.

Mandatory spending like Social Security, public pensions, and Medicare/Medicaid together make up the majority of the budget, and we can't really change them very much because of the current laws and of course because of the unbearable fit AARP throws whenever somebody tries to touch them (while the old people ironically attend Tea Party rallies). I would certainly support drastic cuts to defense spending, but Republicans never want to cut that, although at least we managed to kill the stupid F-22s.

I was going to debunk your point about Florida by saying that Florida receives more federal tax dollars than it pays and it is being subsidized, but it's actually one of the few southern states that does pay in more, so good job Florida. It is interesting how the Federal Government is losing money on 3/4 of the states. But I'm sure there's plenty of other reasons why Florida is horrible. ;-)

Henry Plainview wrote:   Epignosis wrote:   Very easy.  Watch this: Cut sh*t out of the budget. Also, an import tax is already a kind of consumption tax we already have. What would you cut? This is all theoretical of course, since we're never going to abolish the income tax, but the majority of our spending isn't even able to be lawfully changed. And what will the people who are currently struggling to get by paying zero income tax do when they're still paying zero income tax but there's a 20% tax on their food?

From thirty-six pages ago:

thellama73 wrote: Once I succeed in abolishing the department of education, the IRS, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Obamacare, the post office, PBS, NPR, Agriculture subsidies, Amtrak subsidies, corporate welfare/handouts/bailouts, unemployment benefits, affirmative action and most (if not all) regulations on private business, then I will turn my attention to legalizing drugs.

I also make my living from rich people who don't want to raise their children, so they shove them in music lessons. Hooray for rich people!