|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 24, 2004 15:33:30 GMT -5
If I could put in more fields I'd have given more options, but I think I got the big ones.
Anyway, I'm just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ms. Jellybean on Oct 25, 2004 15:28:38 GMT -5
Well, I can't vote yet, but you didn't have a category for "Ineligible/prefer that Libertarian dude". So there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 2:10:41 GMT -5
Well I AM eligible, and I DID vote for that Libertarian dude. So there.  Vote with your heart, not for a winner, this isn't a horse race people! -BladeStarr |
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Nov 2, 2004 8:48:51 GMT -5
Is it true Libertarians want to abolish income tax or is that just specific to the Libertarians at my college?
Well it's election day...I was thinking if watching the news and taking a drink every time someone says "swing state" but I don't think my liver can take it.
|
|
|
|
Post by siegeshot on Nov 2, 2004 8:56:23 GMT -5
vote for the librarian!!!!!! yeay!!!!!!!!!
no new taxes on books!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Nov 2, 2004 9:44:34 GMT -5
Is it true Libertarians want to abolish income tax or is that just specific to the Libertarians at my college? Well, I am not a Libertarian, but it's my understanding that they want to drastically reduce the federal government (they believe the private sector can take care of most things). It's my understanding that with regard to taxes, they would like one or more of the following: -vastly reduced or no taxes -a flat income tax -a national sales tax |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 11:13:45 GMT -5
I'm a die-hard Libertarian and this is the tax position.
In an ideal world, the federal government would be small enough to run off of excise taxes, which are the taxes we charge foreign countries to import and sell their goods here. There would be NO income tax. As for how the heck this would work (with social security, welfare, etc.), those government programs would be GONE. Right now if you include income tax (both at the state an local), the cost of regulating business (which only makes things much more expensive and not better) and the cost of these inefficient government programs, it is too much. If these were all handled by the private sector in a free economy, not only would we KEEP that money (over 30% more of our income, w00t!) but we would also be working in a more efficient economy where things cost less and are worth more, because a free market will create the greatest value for consumers at the lowest cost.
This is a proven economic fact. It is when government gets involved in economics that we screw things up and make things more expensive for everyone.
And as for your bleeding hearts that worry about the poor people and old people that depend on social security and welfare, think about this. Before I was a Libertarian I was an EXTREMELY liberal Democrat, and I realized that if EVERYONE has 30% more of their income every paycheck nobody will NEED welfare or social security, and out of all those people keeping all that money (including me) what are the odds that a good amount of them will give at least some portion of that money to private charities or to people directly? Pretty good. You can also join a mutual fund with that money that will make over 5 times (theoretically) the amount of money that you would get out of your social security.
Any more questions? ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 11:17:52 GMT -5
Oh, here you go by the way, this is the official page describing the Libertarian Party's view on all the major issues. If you have any more questions ask away! Sorry, I get excited about this party, don't know why... since I never really get excited about anything... www.lp.org/issues/ |
|
|
|
Post by TheLuckyOne on Nov 2, 2004 11:57:24 GMT -5
On that front, also worth noting is the perspective of Berkeley Breathed -- writer of Bloom County, one of the three best comic strips of the last 20 years -- regarding his political views.
The Onion: Is the liberal stance of the early strips indicative of your own personal politics?
BB: Liberal, shmiberal. That should be a new word. Shmiberal: one who is assumed liberal, just because he's a professional whiner in the newspaper. If you'll read the subtext for many of those old strips, you'll find the heart of an old-fashioned Libertarian. And I'd be a Libertarian, if they weren't all a bunch of tax-dodging professional whiners.
-D
|
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 12:00:40 GMT -5
HAHA! love it! Thanks D ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Nov 2, 2004 12:08:57 GMT -5
I realized that if EVERYONE has 30% more of their income every paycheck nobody will NEED welfare or social security I'm not American, and this is the first I've ever heard of the Libertarian tax ideals, so this is just me. Let me pose a hypothetical question. Let's say you suddenly made 30% more take-home money. Would you REALLY religiously put away 30% of every check on your own into an account to wait for a rainy day when you needed medication? Most people would probably do 30% more eating or drinking or videogame buying, especially in the States. I know full well that personally when I started working for real, when I got a raise, I didn't sock away the extra few percent. I spent more. Eventually I moved away from that habit, but if you think every single man and woman in the US is going to put every penny they wouldn't spend on taxes in the bank, I think you're mistaken. I agree it would make sense in a perfect world, but we're not living in it. Still, interesting theory. |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 12:16:14 GMT -5
Yes I do realize that Pooly, but I would like to point out that the Libertarian Party is the party of personal freedom AND personal responsibility. If I am not smart enough to save any money like a rational adult, then I expect to pay the price for my own actions. People in America have been spoiled by a system that coddles them into thinking that the government should be like a good parent and protect its children from themselves. There are many problems with this way of thinking:
1. People then begin to think that the government should take care of everything, thus we move from a capitalist government to a socialist government then finally a Big Brother 1984 communist government.
2. The people themselves DO become like spoiled brats and never learn what it means to take responsibility for their own actions, thus they never mature into responsible adults.
3. Any large bureaucracy is by definition going to be inefficient and cause a loss of value. It will also create a greater concentration of power at the top, and as we all know, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Decentralized government is always the best method. Better to have many people make the decisions rather than one person.
On top of that, we can also assume that private charities will then receive 30% more donations, as the same people that are already donating will likely donate that much more. And private charities are far more efficient than a governmental system, as while you can fool the large governmental system into giving you free money, it is much harder to fool someone that is actually looking you in the face, looking at your life and determining your need themselves.
NEXT! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by PoolMan on Nov 2, 2004 12:35:29 GMT -5
You make excellent points, Blade. Bureaucracies are terribly innefficient, totally true. People depend on their government, totally true. Change is needed at the level you're speaking at. However, human nature is human nature. If you give the American public 30% of their money back and cut off all social programs, you will see anarchy. As Agent K once correctly said, a person is smart. People are dumb, scared animals and you know it. The American people more than most any in the world. As individuals, the Americans I've met are all smart, kind, nice people, like Justin. I'm sure *you* could handle your extra 30% of your own pie just fine. But *you* are not the majority. What happens when someone spends through their cash and suddenly runs out of money AND social services? They're coming through your kitchen window looking for yours. Look at the number of bankruptcies every single year. You think those people would suddenly change their tune because they have 30% more cash to mismanage? Even at the fundamental level that not everyone is good with basic fiscal planning (took me years to figure out), it's a bad idea. Your plan might "grow people up", but it would probably kill a lot of people, too. To respond to your other point: On top of that, we can also assume that private charities will then receive 30% more donations, as the same people that are already donating will likely donate that much more. I say this: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... Sure. I'd love to be a telemarketer calling your house. |
|
|
|
Post by bladestarr on Nov 2, 2004 12:50:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on Nov 2, 2004 12:51:39 GMT -5
Pooly brought up pretty much every point I was going to say except: And private charities are far more efficient than a governmental system, as while you can fool the large governmental system into giving you free money, it is much harder to fool someone that is actually looking you in the face, looking at your life and determining your need themselves. I may be looking at efficiencies somewhat differently than you, but I think that in some cases you need the federal government simply because of economies of scale. Examples I can think of off the top of my head are the military (compare the wage we pay our soldiers versus what private contractors get) and maybe big public works projects (dams, roads, etc.) Also, the capitalist system is generally not very good at accounting for externalities, which is why we have things like the EPA and federally subsidized student loans.
|
|
