HumanBeing
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 13, 2013
- Messages
- 761
- Reaction score
- 358
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Wrong. You misunderstood. It libertarianism where the govt only provides services that benefit everyone equally, like security and justice. And services that only some people use are fee based.
Security clearly doesn't benefit everyone equally, the more you have to lose, the more you stand to benefit from it. Libertarianism is fundamentally about the concept of voluntary association and freedom of political and economic choice, so there is nothing libertarian about a geographically enforced government monopoly on security or justice. The idea that libertarianism is compatible with modern forms of government is simply a scam created by those who call themselves libertarians, and yet seek to hold powers contradict the very foundation of libertarian philosophy.
You're assuming that security is only relevant to life and death situations. It isn't. As such, my point stands; those with more to lose have more to gain from good security. That's why they spend more on it when they feel the government isn't up to the task. It's a simple fact.IMO, everyone benefits equally from security because there is no way to put a objective value on life. Thus, like netflix, everyone pays the same amount whether they value it greatly or not. Everyone has the same opportunity to get the most or least benefit from it.
You're talking about modern american libertarianism, which is completely and utterly separate from traditional libertarianism. It's also a complete contradiction. You can't have geographical monopoly on judicial juristiction while maintaining individual political freedom and voluntary association. Again, it's simple fact by definition. If someone claims to have juristiction over you based purely on your location (despite not being on their private property), then it isn't voluntary, nor is it free. It is also an oppression of economic freedom.jonny5 said:And libertarianism is entirely in line with a centralized security method because they view it as neccesary to ensure freedom. A unit is stronger than an indvidual. This works for things that everyone benefits from and agrees with, and does not work with things that only some benefit from, and many dont agree with (like healthcare).
You're assuming that security is only relevant to life and death situations. It isn't. As such, my point stands; those with more to lose have more to gain from good security. That's why they spend more on it when they feel the government isn't up to the task. It's a simple fact.
You're talking about modern american libertarianism, which is completely and utterly separate from traditional libertarianism. It's also a complete contradiction. You can't have geographical monopoly on judicial juristiction while maintaining individual political freedom and voluntary association. Again, it's simple fact by definition. If someone claims to have juristiction over you based purely on your location (despite not being on their private property), then it isn't voluntary, nor is it free. It is also an oppression of economic freedom.
What you described is simply the idea that "it's ok to compromise on the core basis of the philosophy because security is just THAT important". What you don't see is how backwards that is. Security is one of the most important things there is in life, so why subject it to an artificial monopoly, when everything else in libertarian philosophy teaches that artificial monopolies are harmful and that economic oppression is unjust?
Back on topic, as I said before, all forms of taxation that are enforced against people involuntarily by means of violence and imprisonment are ethically abhorrent. This is especially true in cases where this taxation will be used to further fund the same organization (government) that is instigating this violence and imprisonment in the first place. It is ethically unjustifiable no matter how you spin it.
Yes, it definitely needs an overhaul. I don't think we need a new system, just a vastly simplified version of our current system. Keep the income tax, but treat everyone and everything the same. Make it a flat tax rate with a single cost-of-living deduction based on family size. No special taxes for medicare/medicaid and social security. They come out of the general budget and the general tax income. And no special tax rates for investment income or inherited income. They're treated the same as everything else. Think of all the money that would be saved every year if most people didn't have to file their taxes ever, because the right amount would already be deducted for you.
Why should family size matter? Family size is a personal choice and should be budgeted for just as anything else...
Because people should never have to make a choice between paying their taxes and feeding their kids. And people should be encouraged to have children since if they dont', the human race will die out. I agree that people shouldn't have more kids than they're capable of supporting, but sometimes that isn't the case.
Budgeting won't necessarily help either. Your budgets kind of get thrown out when someone loses their job or something like that.
Encouraging/discouraging behavior is exactly why we are where we are today with the tax code.
Give each individual a deductible amount on their income, then collect the appropriate tax on the excess...
And not taking children into account when giving tax deductions will discourage people from having kids.
Unless you're going to get rid of child labor laws, this won't fix the problem, since kids cost money from the day they're born, and can't start working til 16 in most places.
All that will really happen if you go this route is that the deduction will be set high enough for an individual or couple that it covers the cost of living with 2-3 kids, so a bunch of people with less than 2 kids will get a bigger break than they would if it was based on family size, and a few people with more than 3 would be hurting.
Sorry, I can't buy into this ideal considering the process for adding Amendments to the US Constitution. Maybe it's different in your country.Back on topic, as I said before, all forms of taxation that are enforced against people involuntarily by means of violence and imprisonment are ethically abhorrent. This is especially true in cases where this taxation will be used to further fund the same organization (government) that is instigating this violence and imprisonment in the first place. It is ethically unjustifiable no matter how you spin it.
I disagree. Marriage is a civil partnership and should be treated as such.No, you simply set the deduction for the individual. If that individual decides to marry and the spouse chooses not to work, it shouldn't matter.
To some extent, yes.If one chooses to have 5 children versus one or none is a personal choice and should have no relation to tax policy. Do you really believe tax policy determines the number of children a couple decides to have?
I disagree. Marriage is a civil partnership and should be treated as such.
To some extent, yes.
I guess your accounting scenario was incomplete, then. I'd certainly consider an extra $100/mo important with more up the road in the form of further tax breaks as the child got older.Tax policy never entered into the equation when we decided to have children, but budgetary constraints did...
I guess your accounting scenario was incomplete, then. I'd certainly consider an extra $100/mo important with more up the road in the form of further tax breaks as the child got older.
I have three grandsons.If you think $100/month helps with the expenses relating raising a child, you must be childless...
I have three grandsons.
If you think $100/mo is peanuts then you must be rich. I had to worry about $100/mo until my daughter was almost out of high school.
:lamo A proponent of eugenics! You should change your lean. :lamoIn the overall scheme of raising a child, yes, $100/month is chicken feed, and anyone who would base their decision on having a child based on it, shouldn't be breeding...
:lamo A proponent of eugenics! :lamo
In the overall scheme of raising a child, yes, $100/month is chicken feed, and anyone who would base their decision on having a child based on it, shouldn't be breeding...
No, you simply set the deduction for the individual. If that individual decides to marry and the spouse chooses not to work, it shouldn't matter. If one chooses to have 5 children versus one or none is a personal choice and should have no relation to tax policy. Do you really believe tax policy determines the number of children a couple decides to have?
If you think $100/month helps with the expenses relating raising a child, you must be childless...
Good evening, AP.:2wave:
$100 isn't even two weeks of coffee and lunch at work anymore.:shock:
That's not going to happen. Well, speaking realistically none of it's likely to happen, but that's even less likely. We're not going to say as a country "Yeah, we don't care if you have kids, we don't care about the cost of raising them when factoring in your taxes". If the deduction was fixed and didn't scale to family size, it would be large enough to account for at least whatever the average number of kids people have is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?