[Kellis91789]

“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.

[JTHomes]

Ah, that distinction clarifies your position for me. I agree that taxes that go to support anything but protection of property and person amounts to plunder (other infrastructure that benefits all could be argued I suppose). I wouldn't advocate ever direct payments/credits for dependents. I also believe however that a society must perpetuate itself, not just for survival at the societal level, but to allow for division of labor and increased productivity that benefits all individuals. It is the next generation that will provide that protection to the individual. All I'm really advocating is a basic exemption from tax that applies to each individual. I see how that could be interpreted as a subsidy for a family with children, but I just look at it as fair treatment to each individual. And lack of such an exemption I would interpret as a discouragement to creating the next generation, or supporting the prior one for that matter.

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.