Quote:
Originally Posted by Skerlnik
Maybe I could agree to that.
One social program that I think would be of immense benefit would be some sort of day care system. No idea what the details would be but anything that could enable young mothers to go to school and/or work is a good thing for everyone, in my book.
Overall, much like my views on education and health care, it's all about smarter spending, not necessarily less (or even more). If we're all able to reap tangible benefits, I think there's be less arguments about this stuff.
|
Contrary to many libertarians, I support state-sponsored optional education through high school (many of the fringe guys want it entirely privatized), which if done properly can definitely help the poor advance their children's future. I oppose federal educational spending however, as it is patently unconstitutional. Your "day care" type proposal could be folded into the educational system, perhaps expanding it to include pre-k (some districts offer this, some don't), and expanding after-school activities by paying teachers extra if they double as a coach or club sponsor.
Health care should always remain the responsibility of the individual (save children under the age of majority) because otherwise it risks a government-style fitness regimin, food laws, assigned doctors, and horrible inefficiency. I can however support health care for children whose parents are demonstrably unable to pay for care (meaning, W-2's, paystubs, or other type of evidence required). Hell, if we're going to take care of violent prisoners, surely we can take care of children whose only crime was being born poor. Once you're an adult though, take care of yourself.
Quote:
Quite true. And when they pay it, that's great. When you've reaped disproportionately more benefit, you pay more in taxes to pay for it. Simple.
It's not like I'm advocating for a salary cap....... (although the idea intrigues me....hmm.....)
|
Naturally you pay more in taxes as your income goes up, but I propose a flat RATE of taxation that makes every individual a legal equal. We're compromising, but you're not going to get me to budge on the salary cap issue, it already pisses me off enough when my favorite sports collectives can't load the bench with all-stars.
Quote:
I think if we got rid of all the dodges, and made corporations pay what they truly owe, as well, things would be greatly improved, I agree.
I dimly recall reading somewhere that GE ended up paying about $100,000 in taxes one year. Tell me that's fair! We're killing ourselves with corporate giveaways, cities compete to NOT tax companies, and we allow them to skip out and outsource. The corporations are who REALLY need some reigning in, here.
|
How's this:
Simplify the tax code. No more write-offs, no more exemptions, no more credits. After "x" amount of money in income ("x" can be anything we need necessary via legislation) the remaining income is taxed "y" percent (preferably, "y" would be no greater than 10%). Stiffen penalties for tax evasion and pass legislation that treats companies like Ford (who take advantage of our tax system while making inferior trucks in Mexico) like foreign companies, complete with all manner of duties and excises that would be imposed on any other foreign company. I'd rather do away with all duties and tariffs, but if we're going to have them, why should "American" companies get around them just because their corporate HQ is here?
Quote:
|
I see what you mean, now. I'll have to think about that. But, as you know, I am certainly more autocratic than you are, and am primarily concerned with ends more so than means.
|
That's fine, my ideology permits me to tolerate your confusion (joke) so long as you do not violate my rights.
Quote:
|
Unless and until we can actually determine what our taxes get spent on, this is all just talk, anyway. I may not like my taxes going over to Iraq, and I'd much rather it be spent on a fellow American, but it's not like we can control that.
|
Oh but we can. Following the Constitution strictly and encouraging greater voter interest (not turnout, interest, ie substantive understanding of issues) can yield greater control of government. Since you clearly want more control over the government, let me ask you; is a tiger easier to handle as a cub, or when it is 500lbs of mean? Apply that principle to government, and I'll see you at the next Libertarian ice cream social.
Quote:
|
Excellent points. I think we're looking at it from very different angles.
|
And yet remarkably nobody has been stabbed, don't you love the free exchange of ideas? I doubt you and I will ever vote together given the sharp differences in perception of reality (positive v. negative rights and such), but we're making progress. In this respect we have outperformed many a sitting of the federal legislature. Cheers.
Quote:
|
My basic question, then, is, what to do about poverty, assuming that in our capitalistic system, there will ALWAYS be winners and losers, by definition? I see your point about the institutionalization of a poverty cycle.
|
Poverty is relative, so it can't be "cured" or whatever word we use so long as human beings are born unequal (height, strength, health, etc). In Somalia, a rich man is eating every day and might have electricity, here we would see his standard of living as far worse than some hobos. Even if we provided housing, medical, food, water, and clothing to the poor, they'd still be "poor" because they didn't have a car, or the nicest clothes, or enough leisure time. Thus, poverty cannot be eliminated (better word than "cure") regardless of our actions because as society advances, even in entirely communist or egalitarian societies, there will be haves and have-nots.
Quote:
|
I do applaud recent reforms to conditionalize the welfare system.
|
As do I, but I would still prefer they be handled by private charity. State money should only be paid to state employees or those contracted by the state.
Quote:
|
That's at least an arguable point. Social spending isn't just direct, actual "welfare".
|
Granted, but I don't think we disagree that the Fire Department or roads are more readily seen as benefits to the community at large than social spending.
Quote:
|
I wouldn't go that far. And, I think we've agreed that there should be at least SOME level where one doesn't pay taxes, period.
|
I've always had a problem with income taxes in general because they tax the right to live. What I mean by that is you NEED money to pay for rent, food, clothing, and transportation, and you work to get that money. To tax such money would literally be to tax life, which as a libertarian you can imagine I find very offensive. Thus yes, a minimum level of income should be left untaxed (again, number to be determined by SIMPLE legislation), so long as no benefits are paid to the taxpayer like food stamps or housing assistance(since the whole purpose of not taxing them would be so that THEY could buy food and pay for shelter). That's really what irritates me about the current system; the poor are allowed to "double dip" via nontaxation AND welfare benefits while the rest of us pay taxes and still have to pay for expenses. One or the other, but not both.
Quote:
|
Maybe taxes are simply something that is going to be inherently "unfair" to some degree. If so, I'd rather err on the side of those who can best absorb it.
|
And I'd rather err on the side of legal equality. That's where we differ, and I think that's where each of us becomes intractable. I had planned to finish my post from earlier, but I think we're starting to understand each other (plus I'm about to fall into a cheesesteak-induced coma, lunch was nice). Still, if you want any of the points you made earlier addressed, let me know and I'll be sure to address them appropriately. I'll say that this discussion has been very civil and coherent, a welcome change from that which usually occurs on this board (and we're all guilty of it). I thank you for that sir, you've renewed my faith in polite discussion.