Posted on 02/18/2012 11:26:25 PM PST by JediJones
It is an interesting thread.
That is why I pinged the FairTax list. We need to be aware of what the PooBaahs have in mind for us, don’t we?
Ultimately, Santorum’s tax plan is what its always been: Higher taxes for small business. that pleases his union owners.
I didn’t read the details. I like Newt Gingrich’s. He’s the only one who actually put thought into his plan.
He’s remains the only solid and serious candidate. I pray he rebounds.
Yes, we do.
I believe somewhat differently. When during years of paying income taxes with two children I often thought that it was wrong that government forced someone without children, we had several such married friends, to pony up for our children. I believe it is much better to have people pay for their own children. A similar situation exists with young people having babies others have to support
True, that would enable lower rates generally for everyone and bring a lot more people back onto the tax rolls. I just don't like the government to stake claim to every dollar I make. I agree I don't like opening the door to social engineering with deductions and credits. But I'd also like to see people keep 100% of the first dollars earned as a personal exemption. Everyone gets it and it is the same for everyone - a subsistence exemption. It doesn't make sense for someone on a low income who can barely afford food and lodging to pay taxes then need foodstamp assistance. Overall though I'd still prefer eliminating taxes on wages, and switching to a tax on consumption.
I never join those trial offer deals and “Specified Organs Required” concerns me, Apollo. I see a possibility of some folks being automatically discriminated against in your fan club. Anyone supporting Anyone but Gingrich has effectively been lobotomized, so I trust brains are not required??:)
I don’t qualify as a star or a cool cat, but I appreciate someone fighting the good fight. Fight on , McDuff!
“Everyone gets it and it is the same for everyone - a subsistence exemption.”
But this is based on a false premise. The assumption is that government is not a “necessity” in the same league as food. While the vast majority of federal government is worthless, there is SOME government that is indeed a necessity — national defense, judiciary, penal system, etc. These are the government services that provide relative freedom for the individual without constantly needing to use violence to protect your property. It is morally incorrect for anybody to expect others to provide these services to them at zero cost.
Today the personal income tax collects a total of $1T each year. This is less than 10% of total personal income. I posit that even the minimum wage worker should be required to pay a dime out of every dollar they earn to pay for those service above that I think everyone would agree are necessary and can best be provided by government. Taxing the amount that you term “subsistence level” at 10% will only provide $250B per year and comes nowhere near paying for those “proper” government services. The vast majority (the other $3T) of government services — which we as conservatives think of as improper government spending — will still need to be paid for by taxes on earnings “above subsistence” if you will. So I am not asking the “poor” to shoulder a lion’s share, just a minimum that doesn’t even really cover their share of the “proper” government they benefit from. It is enough of a tax bite, however, to make them aware that government isn’t free.
This “subsistence” premise applies to consumption taxes as well. The FairTax would only need to be 15% to replace the income and payroll taxes, but by the time you add in the prebate for “subsistence” it leaves large groups of people paying nothing and others paying 23%.
You wanted an article. http://www.eubios.info/EJ124/ej124i.htm
This one is by a bunch of fascists who believe in overpopulation. But my point about labor force participation lowering fertility is part of this commie document.
A FReeper from Germany just made this post that bears on whether encouraging Earners and TaxPayers to have children:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2850249/posts?page=50#50
I simply must put the individual on a higher footing than the collective or the government. This is a critical point, one that if not allowed concedes that ultimately we do not have any fundamental rights whatsoever, that we exist at the pleasure of the collective, and service to that collective in whatever form it takes is mandatory - i.e. slavery.
A small exemption from that obligation is a statement and practice of the supreme nature of the individual right. Those who choose to participate more fully in society and commerce then show their consent to be governed and then own the responsibility to pay for it. This also is why I do not support any government safety nets. Someone who chooses to live at a subsistence level should not enjoy the support of a system that they do not support.
That's the most ironic thing I've read - on this thread anyway. Kellis, you seem to want everyone to pay for the government as the enforcer and protector of society, which is a fair and arguable point; but then you choose not to see any correlation to society investing in the very resources that perpetuate itself. While I still argue that society does not come first, that the individual is supreme, I infer from your logic that military spending is good and police, jails and courts are good to keep us all in line and paying our taxes, but paying for education and allowances for breeders to feed the machine is somehow a burden not to be shouldered by society.
“Kellis, you seem to want everyone to pay for the government as the enforcer and protector of society, which is a fair and arguable point; but then you choose not to see any correlation to society investing in the very resources that perpetuate itself. While I still argue that society does not come first, that the individual is supreme, I infer from your logic that military spending is good and police, jails and courts are good to keep us all in line and paying our taxes, but paying for education and allowances for breeders to feed the machine is somehow a burden not to be shouldered by society. “
You do seem to misunderstand my position. I said the individual owes taxes to an entity that protects them personally, not society as a whole. “Keeping us in line” is not the goal but the side-effect. The goal is to protect the individual from the predations of an anarchist society. Paying breeders to produce more have-nots to threaten the individual’s property is not in the interest of the individual.
I reject the idea that an individual must rely on someone else’s children in their old age and they are therefor obligated to share the cost of raising those children. If the individual takes care of themselves their whole life and is not continually drained by welfare taxes, there is no reason their own savings cannot support them in their old age and they will not burden their own or other people’s children. Carrie_Okie’s position assumes that individuals must necessarily be a burden on future generations because they will not have prepared responsibly for their own future. She sees those children as the investment, which is tantamount to making them slaves forced to work to support strangers.
“But one thing that keeps me on the fence, if we’re talking false premises, I’d offer that just because you are born in a country, that is not an affirmative consent to be governed by whatever power claims control over a geography.”
It isn’t simply geography. It is the legal framework to protect contracts and property, access to modern conveniences, etc.
Thousands of people every year disappear to Caribbean and Central American countries as ex-pats. They stop paying taxes and it isn’t worth the effort for the IRS to track them down. They live cheaply, lack modern conveniences, and take their chances with other legal systems and property rights. By choosing to stay, consent to be billed for basic services is obtained. This is not true of the really wealthy, as the IRS will indeed hunt them down. Those people who are a net cost are free to leave, as indicated by IRS inaction.
This has been an interesting discussion, one kept at a civil level, which often is lacking on threads that get down to elemental positions as this has. While we get down to differences in the end, I doubt tax and social policy will ever bend enough in our direction as to make those differences come into play. If it ever does, I look forward to the prosperity and restored liberty we'll enjoy in spite of those differences.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
