The Same Game With Different Players
Readers suggested a topic on political themes. “It is obvious that Obama’s Presidential campaign is going to have a ‘fair share’ theme this year. So I ask, what is my fair share? Is it 25% for federal taxes? 35%? 40? 50 or more? Should there be no cap on what I pay into FICA? Should I be means tested for Social Security when I hit retirement age and not get what I paid in because I saved all of my hard earned money versus somebody who wasted all of their money on McCrapShacks and Hummer’s and $40k birthday parties for their little princesses? Is that fair?”
“I was a working class kid who didn’t have a pot to piss in who worked his entire life to be successful. Is it fair for me to pay the same tax rate than a trust fund baby who went to Harvard or Yale cause his daddy and granddaddy both went there and he was just hired into the family business after 5 years of partying? Is that fair?”
“And who decides what my fair share is? Those *#@*! in Congress who would steal every last penny from all of us just to get re-elected? Maybe a fair share czar?! I don’t know what the right answer is or that there is a right answer…..”
A reply, “Humans have compassion so we like to frame things as fair. In severe cases of ‘compassion’ + ‘hormones’ we can even fall in love. A trait not shared with other species. Do any of the Republicans strike you as compassionate? When the chips are down who will let compassion influence their decisions? Obama or any of the GOP hopefuls?”
Another said, “I feel your pain, but now you must tattoo this on your brain and take it into your heart. When you figure out how to accept it, you’ll feel a lot better, I promise you. Ready? Here it comes…LIFE IS NOT FAIR.”
Click on Detroit. “A landmark ruling by the Michigan Court of Appeals could stop some foreclosures by banks, even if they are late in the process including eviction. The Kim family, of Shelby Township, sued Chase Bank after the bank took over their mortgage that was with Washington Mutual. The Kims purchased the home in 2006 and refinanced with ‘WaMu’ in 2007.”
“According to Chris Christenson, the attorney for the Kim family, Chase did not record its interest with the Register of Deeds. Chase foreclosed on the house, got it from the sheriff’s sale in 2009 for $218,000 and now wants to go after the Kims for $400,000, plus keep the house. ‘They bid $200,000, roughly, on a $600,000 debt. ‘They are reserving the right to chase these folks and take the house,’ he said.”
“The home sits on a private drive on a lake in Shelby Township. Christenson said the Kims want to modify their loan and keep their house. They are still living in it.”
The Independent Florida Alligator. “Vice President Joe Biden visited Florida State University to talk about rising college costs and the various efforts the Obama administration is undertaking to tackle them. During Biden’s visit, a student asked him if increasing government aid and subsidies have been contributing to the increasing tuition costs Biden was speaking about. The vice president’s response was in the affirmative: Government meddling in the funding of students’ college education has led to increased tuition.”
“It’s an inescapable effect of government meddling in the free market. We’ve seen it happen with the housing market.”
“The dream of owning a home is exploited by the government through laws and regulations that are enacted to encourage home ownership among those who desire a home of their own but cannot afford it. Home values rise and the need for financing increases. What happens? The system crashes. Taxpayers are left to carry the costs and the economy suffers. The fact is that the current availability of financial aid should be a cause for concern in that it appears to be the same game with different players.”
“The problem lies in a fundamental misunderstanding of the American dream. Owning a home is not the American dream. Earning a college education is not the American dream. The dream is the pursuit of one’s goals and the pursuit of happiness. Rather than an equal outcome, it means an equal opportunity to rise above one’s background toward a quality of life that one’s ancestors could only dream of.”
“That’s the dream. You have not failed if you do not own a home. You have not failed if you don’t have a college education. You only fail when you give up on pursuing your dreams.”
“That’s the dream. You have not failed if you do not own a home. You have not failed if you don’t have a college education. You only fail when you give up on pursuing your dreams.”
I promise to continue pursuing my dream of exposing the Housing Crime Syndicate.
From God’s lips to HBBers’ ears…
federal reserve of “private bankers” pursuing their dreams all around the World by making its citizens “debt serf slaves” for the rest of their lives!
It’s the New Era feudalism you are describing. Now get back to work, debt slave!
“That’s the dream. You have not failed if you do not own a home. You have not failed if you don’t have a college education. You only fail when you give up on pursuing your dreams.”
Soooo…’Endeavor to persevere’, eh? Nice of Potty-Mouth Joe to share that jewel of wisdom.
‘The fact is that the current availability of financial aid should be a cause for concern’
Not just aid, but very low down payments at rates under 5%. Check this out:
‘Less than $1.5 billion of new U.S. mortgages have been packaged into securities without government backing since mid-2008, compared with the record of about $1.2 trillion in each of 2005 and 2006.’
Does anyone believe the US govt has become the source of housing loans for the whole country out of concern for the little guy?
Perhaps the concern is for all the little guys who own homes and vote?
I know life isnt fair….that wasnt my point. I know from reading this blog that there are more than a few posters who slant towards the left and feel there are those in this country who dont pay their “fair share.” So what is my fair share? If i make $200k, how much should local, city, state and federal entities take from me? Somebody throw a figure out there and let everybody discuss…..
“If i make $200k, how much should local, city, state and federal entities take from me?”
My total tax burden is about 45% of my take home. Income tax is by far the largest, but property tax and sales tax do add up.
At 200K (assuming all W2 income) you’re probably looking at about 75-80K in total tax. The vast majority of that will be income tax; a tax that close to 50% of the country pays “0″ or gets a refund.
Given my screen name, you probably know what I’m going to say, but, IMHO, those numbers are insane. The one that particularly annoys me this year is capital gains taxes. I’ve had nothing but losses for the past few years, and, this year, have a big gain. When I lost close to 100K in the market a few years ago, I get to deduct 3K. When I make 100K, I get to pay it all? What the heck is that? I have a carry forward loss that I’ll never be able to use entirely.
Capital gains taxes are a pure “heads I win, tails you lose” arrangement in this county.
If you ever want to shut a liberal/socialist up ask them this question.
“At what point between 0% and 100% taxation do you become a slave?”
I never get a straight answer.
If life was fair:
Congress would live under the same laws they impose on us
Congress would have to balance the budget every year
You could not vote if you received more from the government than you put in (talk about a conflict of interest)
etc.
‘want to shut a liberal/socialist up ask them this question…At what point between 0% and 100% taxation do you become a slave?’
Wasn’t it a Republican that said, ‘Reagan proved deficits don’t matter’? IMO, they keep us squabbling over stuff like this while they print as much as they need.
“‘want to shut a liberal/socialist up ask them this question…At what point between 0% and 100% taxation do you become a slave?’
Wasn’t it a Republican that said, ‘Reagan proved deficits don’t matter’? IMO, they keep us squabbling over stuff like this while they print as much as they need.”
^^^THIS^^^ It should be obvious to everyone that both parties are equally corrupt, tainted, broken and wrong. The entire political system has been subverted, either by accident or design and neither party has the desire to change it- much less the will. Aside from abortion and gay rights, they are effectively identical and both will continue to behave in the same way after they are elected- regardless of what they promise. Antone who doesn’t ‘get’ that by now is an unwitting tool or ‘useful idiot’ political jargon.
Backing either party anymore is like running on a treadmill: Run as hard and fast as you can until you pass out, but when you come to- you are STILL in the same room you started out in. Frustrated by that? Switch parties. Vote for the other guy. Turn your treadmill 180 degrees facing the opposite wall and run like hell until exhaustion. Guess what? Yup, still in the same old room.
Sick of that scenario and don’t want your kids trapped in the same quicksand? Vote for somebody else- anybody else.
“If I make $200k, how much should local, city, state and federal entities take from me? ”
Nobody cares about your piddly $200K. What we need is real incentives for those making over a million. Make them pay 75% in tax on their personal income (including bonuses, fees, perks, etc) and then lop off a % for every job they create in the United States.
As for what is a fair share — I don’t bother with how much tax I pay, I look more at what I have left over and decide if THAT’s fair.
When Mitt Romney released his tax returns, the talking point distributed to the sheeple for wide dissemination was “He paid $3 million in taxes! When’s the last time YOU paid $3 million in taxes?” Of course the brilliant purveyers of such talking points will never see $3 million in their lifetimes. Nor did they seem to object to the $23 million or so that Mitt Romney still had left over. And I don’t recall Mitt Romney creating a whole lot of jobs.
I care about my piddly income. The “target the guys making 1M+” is a red herring argument. Depending on the metric, that’s .5 to .25% of the population, and they take home about 10% of the income in the country. Guess what, you can take them all at 100% and still not come close to eliminating the tax burden for the other 99.5%.
And, if you raised the top income tax rate to 75%, how many people do you think would report in that category? People making 1M+ per year have plenty of money to pay lawyers and accountants to help shift/hide their income.
“As for what is a fair share — I don’t bother with how much tax I pay, I look more at what I have left over and decide if THAT’s fair.”
That’s one way to look at it. The other is that if I take my entire housing and auto budget for the year and add them up, they still aren’t close to as much as my income tax burden. That means I’m paying enough in tax to support another couple living in a very nice (by my standards anyway) house with 2 luxury cars parked in the driveway.
Yes, that seems a little excessive to me.
you can take them all at 100% and still not come close to eliminating the tax burden for the other 99.5%.
I believe that would be the red herring.
Who said anything about ‘eliminating the tax burden for the other 99.5%’?
Oxide says:
“Nobody cares about your piddly $200K.”(income)
You may not care and, even if, no other HBB poster cared…the IRS sure as heck cares!
So there is someone/something that cares about Overtaxed’s income.
LOL
“At what point between 0% and 100% taxation do you become a slave?”
It’s a loaded trap of a question meant to open the door to for perpetration of carefully developed half-lies of omission. There is no straight answer, and libs are smart enough to know it.
Oxide,
It is a legit question! Whatever the tax rate is the Dems want more and the Repubs want less. Libertarians are easy they want 0% and they have no problems telling you that.
But Dems/Libs only ask for more and when they get it… they want more. What is the sweet spot in taxation that the Dems say it is good and all is well???
“Libertarians are easy they want 0% and they have no problems telling you that.”
You 0% tax libertarians need to start your own country where all the roads are riddled with potholes, there is no military protection, and gangs of illiterate, uneducated thugs rule the streets, because there is no education or law enforcement.
Enjoy!
CIB,
Good point and I do not dispute it.
On a personal note and for the record, I am not a 0% Libertarian and the ones I have talked to still want income for the government (yes, there is still a small government to them). They advocate user fees. You use the service then got to pay for it.
My problem with that is that you need the government to monitor everyone use of the road as where and when they use it. Not very Libertarian solution to me.
“My problem with that is that you need the government to monitor everyone use of the road as where and when they use it.”
Do you have FasTrak® in your location? I had a transponder when I lived in the Bay Area. It let me pay a toll to avoid bridge traffic when I had a gig on the other side, saving me countless hours that would otherwise have been wasted sitting in traffic. I found the system ran smoothly, and it did not seem intrusive.
“…there is still a small government to them…”
The term I prefer is ‘limited government,’ as the government’s role is limited to things that markets cannot adequately provide, namely public goods such as national defense, clean air or water, education, law enforcement, national economic statistics, etc.
Cantankerous,
No need for FasTrak® in my area, but I did see it in action when visiting Chicago and using the toll roads. I sawthe ease of use for the FasTrak users and lack of waiting to pay the cash toll. It is very practical. Its just that the government can track your every move if they so wish.
Lots of mainland Chinese visit Vegas. I have been told they skip that little box on your windshield and just use photograph your license plate as your drive along the road or before you cross the bridge. I’m sure there is someone besides the toll road operators keeping track of the users.
Your right as “Limited” is a better term than “small government”. Sounds something like the Founding Fathers would describe their idea of governing. Thanks for bring bringing it up!
“You 0% tax libertarians need to start your own country where all the roads are riddled with potholes, there is no military protection, and gangs of illiterate, uneducated thugs rule the streets, because there is no education or law enforcement.”
The upside to this is you are getting EXACTLY what you pay for-no surprises. So, buy a gun and a 4WD. The notion that paying taxes gets us all this “stuff” promised to us by elected criminals is an illusion.
What roads?
0% libertarians?
Polly, the roads that a private company will pave and then charge a toll just to get out of your driveway.
Of course, these days no company will lift a finger without a loan guarantee from the government that they claim to hate.
Michael,
0% Libertarian=100% privatize government functions and have only those that use the service pay for it. Thus no need for an income tax(0% rate).
It’s not an official term amongst Libertarians. Just my own from discussions on the role of government and the income tax with some Libertarians.
“What roads?”
The ones that are riddled with potholes, thanks to Republican low-tax, high-military-intervention-and-spending policy.
I’d like our Republican apologist to answer a question in turn:
“At what point between $787 bn and $4 t does a central bank handing over money to the Wall Street and international banking establishment at below market rates constitute theft from the U.S. Treasury?”
* CRICKETS *
I cannot believe anyone on here is still trying to make the Republican/Democrat argument. They are ALL bought and paid for. Who the hell do you think pays their campaign bills? Why do you think corporations went to the trouble of getting the supreme court to deem them persons? In case you don’t know, it’s because corporate America creates legislation and candidates to carry it out. ON BOTH SIDES!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!
“ON BOTH SIDES!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!”
Your point is well taken. That said, ever since Ronald Raygun demonized taxes, the Republican party stance has steadfastly remained free stuff (e.g. lots of wars) with no taxes to cover the cost. Sounds a bit like financial wizardry to this Rube…
They are ALL bought and paid for.
Why would this not happen with libertarians? Are they better people, immune to the draw of money, or what?
“The convoluted wording of legalisms grew up around the necessity to hide from ourselves the violence we intend toward each other. Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. You have done violence to him, consumed his energy. Elaborate euphemisms may conceal your intent to kill, but behind any use of power over another the ultimate assumption remains: “I feed on your energy.”
- Frank Herbert
‘I have a carry forward loss that I’ll never be able to use entirely’
A true story from my tax class days: a guy with a large carry forward loss married a lady with a large cap gain, problem solved!
100% agree with you, same thing happens to me.
“Given my screen name, you probably know what I’m going to say, but, IMHO, those numbers are insane. The one that particularly annoys me this year is capital gains taxes. I’ve had nothing but losses for the past few years, and, this year, have a big gain. When I lost close to 100K in the market a few years ago, I get to deduct 3K. When I make 100K, I get to pay it all? What the heck is that? I have a carry forward loss that I’ll never be able to use entirely.”
This makes absolutely no sense. If you have a large capital loss carry forward you will not be paying much tax on your gains this year as your gains will be offset by your carry forward losses.
If you lost $100k in 2008 and took a $3k loss for 2008, 2009 and 2010 (offset again other types of income including earned income) than you should have a $91k loss to offset your $100k gain in 2011. Yes, you will be paying on $9k in capital gains but not $100k.
Would you have rather taken the entire loss in 2008? What if you didn’t make $100k? Would you have preferred just losing the difference between your losses and your income in the year realized?
The system is not perfect, but for most people with large losses (unless they have large incomes) they are better served by being able to use the losses against future gains.
For anyone:
My $.02 is that this carryover losses should simply be increased to 10k a year as it is more reasonable and may I say even a bit more fair.
Just like the AMT, the loss carryover has never been indexed to inflation.
Your understanding of taxes on capital gains is entirely wrong. You get to deduct all your long term capital loss carry forwards against this year’s long term capital gains. The $3000 limit is only for offsetting ordinary income with capital losses.
Get an accountant.
I’ll throw something out. The marginal rate paid by people making less than $200K/year should not be higher than the marginal rate above $200K, and that includes the distortionary FICA tax, which no middle class household should expect to see returned to them in full when they retire. Warren Buffett agrees with me.
Are you serious? Joe Biden said that…amazing…1st intelligent response from this administation in 3 years….
The more government “controls” something – the more expensive it gets.
Health care, housing, college. You name it. Government has made them more expensive and then ultimately destroyed them.
Ever wonder why cosmetic surgery (not covered by insurance) goes down in price every year?
Ever wonder why Catholic Schools are 1/3 the cost of public schools (on a per pupil cost) for an equal or better education?
Ever wonder why housing was cheap when government back almost NO mortgages? When 20% down payments and 30% total debt were the norm for buying a house?
Etc.
The vice president’s response was in the affirmative: Government meddling in the funding of students’ college education has led to increased tuition.”
“It’s an inescapable effect of government meddling in the free market. We’ve seen it happen with the housing market.”
The more government “controls” something – the more expensive it gets.
Nice slogan but too simplistic. If that were always the case why was the right so scared of a public health-care option? Why? What were they so scared of if what you just said were always true?
The VA government controlled health system is way less expensive than our private system. Medicare is cheaper than private. Government controlled health care in other countries is a lot less expensive than USA’s.
Our armed forces does a lot of things cheaper than private contractors too. There are other examples of government doing things for less money than private industry.
Our armed forces
doesdo“The more government “controls” something – the more expensive it gets. Health care, housing, college. You name it. ”
I call BS. None of this is under government “control.” It was all handled by “public-private partnerships.” The private part of the public-private partnerships promptly screwed over the government, pocketed the profit, and passed the losses onto the tax payer.
HA!!!! The governments eyes are wide open!!! You think the government gets screwed and doesn’t know it? Not likely. Any legislation favoring a particular sector is most likely written by some lawyer representing a company in that sector and passed along to a BOUGHT AND PAID FOR politician to push through as his own bill. You think these idiot politicians actually sit around and think up this stuff for sh!ts and giggles? Here, I will answer that for you. No. They are getting paid for it through campaign contributions or kick backs somewhere. Maybe insider trading tips, who knows… but they are on the corporate payroll somewhere.
Of course, one of the two bought-and-paid-for parties has long called for campaign finance reform, publicly funded campaigns, etc. The other party has always opposed this (Because money equals speech, somehow.)
And I suspect most libertarians don’t want any sort of campaign finance rules whatsoever. Nor any public funding of campaigns.
So it’s really not as plain and simple as you say it is. Are you sure your eyes aren’t wide shut?
“Ever wonder why Catholic Schools are 1/3 the cost of public schools (on a per pupil cost) for an equal or better education?”
Catholic school teachers are paid crap. But they know they will go into a class of well-behaved students because the students will be in deep dodo if they get in trouble at school.
Public school teachers have to put up with endless BS and parents that don’t care if their kids are educated or not.
One factor that helps to keep the price down.
In my little burg the total cost per student (not the tuition, as the parish HEAVILY subsidizes the school) is comparable to what the public schools spend. And our Parrochial does not have to:
Provide special ed
Provide bilingual ed
Provide bus service
etc.
Private school teachers are paid crap because they don’t have to be credentialed. My cousin taught at a Christian school with just a Bachelors’.
Private schools are allowed to cherry pick students and kick out those that do not conform.
Public schools do not have this luxury.
“Public schools do not have this luxury.”
It shouldn’t be a luxury to have classrooms free from disruption, and hallways free from thuggery. To repair our public school system, we need another layer of schools which provide a fast-track to a military career for those who don’t respond well to ordinary classroom discipline.
The military doesn’t want them. A large portion of high school grads in this country don’t ualify for military service. The years when a judge could tell a juvinile delinquent that he had a choice between prison and the Marines are LONG over.
“A large portion of high school grads in this country don’t qualify for military service.”
All the more reason to have a military school option at the high school level…
“All the more reason to have a military school option at the high school level…”
Which costs more moeny. And what do you do when the little darlings refuse to participate in the military high school? You honestly think you can force a 14 year old to participate in a pre-military program? I thought you had kids.
But what if you have a scholarship available to mitigate the tuition hikes?
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Middle Class Scholarship Act Slashes College Fees by 2/3
Most middle income families are forced to use student loans to cover the thousands of dollars in fee hikes. Students who finish their education leave school further in debt, and end up sending monthly payments to out of state banks rather than contributing to the local economy.
Even worse, some students cannot afford to pay for college, and give up on the promise of higher education about the most damaging thing possible for the long-term health of the economy.
But there is another way. The Middle Class Scholarship Plan, the Assembly’s proposed program to keep college costs way down for middle income families, will ensure that students, graduates and families can keep more of their hard earned cash and stay out of debt.
The Middle Class Scholarship will be paid for entirely by closing a wasteful out-of-state corporate loophole. This win-win opportunity for middle class families and California’s future economy needs your help to make it a reality.
…
“Ever wonder why Catholic Schools are 1/3 the cost of public schools (on a per pupil cost) for an equal or better education?”
Where do you get this information? It is incorrect.
Cosmetic surgery has NOT “gone down in price every year” unless perhaps, you’re getting it in Mexico or from an unlicensed quack. You don’t know what you’re talking about. How unusual.
And in my experience, housing has never been “cheap.” Moreover, it was private banking that made liar loans. FHA loans required documentation.
Lasik eye surgery has gone down to under $1k per eye in my town.
Do you REALLY want to argue with ahansen on this one???
But Obama WILL pay for my gas and mortgage! He told me so for my vote.
—————
Unemployment in February Increases to 9%, Up From 8.6%; Underemployment Increases to 19%
Townhall.com | February 18, 2012 | Mike Shedlock
Gallup only polls those 18 and above while the official BLS number includes 16 and above. Given teenage unemployment, this would (or at least should) artificially lower unemployment numbers for Gallup. Yet, Gallup is higher, way higher, when one considers underemployment.
The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January. The mid-month reading normally reflects what the U.S. government reports for the entire month, and is up from 8.3% in mid-January.
I usually just do a little reading here,but
when reading all the quoted parts after Biden saying he thought¨ increasing government aid and subsidies have been contributing to the increasing tuition costs¨, I thought maybe he had a deep epiphany
rather it was Austin Swink( article author) that had the deeper understanding.
Biden is still Biden
Biden’s brother is involved with Mavericks Charter Schools. Their graduation rate is about 15%!
Innovate, baby, innovate!
Fair? As far as taxes go (regarding income), it should be fair and fair to all. Basically a flat tax is about as fair as it gets, from my point of view. If you got something that came into your house in the way of income, then it gets taxed at whatever the flat rate is. I don’t care if the income was wages, capital gains, stock income, interest, whatever, if it is income then you pay a flat amount of it as tax. I don’t care if you make $100 a year or $1billion dollars a year, we all pay the same rate and THAT is fair. Ditto for corporations. Of course it would help greatly if the dang federal government (not to mention some of the state governments) would cut back on spending, then the flat rate wouldn’t need to be quite so high.
I’m all for a flat income tax. So long as that is the ONLY tax and the first $50k is excluded.
Ready?
For anyone:
Whoever thinks the minimum wage is already too low..
OR, on the flip side, should be abolished.
Just put in a flat tax and exclude the fed min wage paid out for a yearly salary (7.75 x 40hrs x 52 weeks= $16,120) and that slave wage would never go up and with the Federal Reserve would in time reduced that wage buying power to $ 0
What does a flat tax have to do with minimum wage?
RAL,
I have heard some supporters of the flat tax state it should be an exemption for a certain amount of income and one of the income limits was the equalivalent amount of min wage for a workerfor a year about 16K, though not you. Some say a straight 50k.
Just wanted to point out if the min wage is link to any flat tax proposal….it will be kept at a min to increase tax income to the IRS/Gov.
NOPE - like I said before, I don’t care if you made $10 or $10billion dollars, NOTHING excluded for anyone. NOW, I’m ready.
Same rate on all forms of income…no exceptions…would be fair. Congress would never give up that much power.
Most flat taxers call for no capital gains tax at all. They don’t like the idea of paying a flat tax on their form of income.
As usual, even the flat tax would just be for the wee people.
Taxation is theft.
Taxation is theft. because I’m entitled to free stuff.
Rio,
The bullies in my school always wanted the following:
1) Your lunch money.
2) Your property (if you really didn’t have any lunch money).
They just grow up and work for the IRS.
Kidding aside, I believe it is human nature for the more powerfull to take from the weaker. Government is made up people so they take (taxation) and sometimes property (do you really get a fair value for it?).
I believe it is human nature for the more powerfull to take from the weaker.
Perhaps so. That’s why I’m glad we have a democratically elected government doing the ‘taking’, rather than the local warlord/gang leader/duke- which is what we’d have without the government.
If the rest of human history is anything to go on.
Good point. Our neighbor to the south, Mexico, has “small government” as income taxes are tiny.
The bullies in your school were all members of the Future Accountants of America club? Really?
“Kidding aside”
Apparently, you missed the attempt of humor in an other wise serious post.
I’m entitled to good roads, schools, law enforcement and military protection against foreign invasions. And there is no need to tax anyone for it, so long as the Fed’s printing press technology is in good working order.
There is a market for good roads, clean air, clear water. We libertarians like those too. Privatize it all.
Bolivia has privatized water. It’s your paradise, Bill! I’ll help you pack.
I’ll even pay for his one-way ticket, so long as he never comes back.
“There is a market for good roads, clean air, clear water. We libertarians like those too. Privatize it all.”
Due to the free rider problem, using a market to provide public goods such as good roads, clean air or clear water results in suboptimal allocations. This is a basic result in economic theory, which happens to explain why societies which rely on free market solutions to provide public goods tend to not have enough of them.
Privatize clean air? What if someone decides not to pay? You going to privately enforce a requirement that they stop breathing? Excellent. You going to let the companies kill people who can’t afford to buy their air or let them install breathers that make sure the non-payers only breath polluted air? It has to be one or the other.
And by the way, when Bechtel ran the water business in Bolivia, they charged a pretty penny for it and a sent a gestapo after anyone who tried to collect rainwater from their own roofs.
Where, you might ask, was the goverment to enforce the right to collect water from your own roofs, or to force Bechtel to break up its water monopoly so competition could lower prices? Oh that’s right, you didn’t want to pay for a government.
I think there are areas in the US where it’s illegal to collect rainwater from your roof. I remember reading something about it.
“What if someone decides not to pay? You going to privately enforce a requirement that they stop breathing?”
Polly, thanks for explaining what I referred to as the ‘free rider problem,’ which is that selfish people (probably many of the same folks who think they should pay 0% in taxes and who listen to NPR without ever paying a contribution) will not pay their fair share for public goods like clean air. Also, without government enforcement of anti-pollution laws, polluting firms would enjoy carte blanche to foul the air and water for those of us who enjoy breathing and bathing. My personal belief is that it is suboptimal for everyone to go around with their own private oxygen tanks, which is a private market solution to polluted air, relative to sharing the collective public benefit of clean air.
“Where, you might ask, was the goverment to enforce the right to collect water from your own roofs, or to force Bechtel to break up its water monopoly so competition could lower prices? Oh that’s right, you didn’t want to pay for a government.”
That reminds me of a musical my wife and I attended last year at the local high school. In light of the Bolivia story, I can’t say whether life was imitating art or vice versa…
Tony Awards - Urinetown
You have a good point. The late Murray Rothbard was a hard core libertarian and a very well-known Austrian economics scholar. His book “For a New Liberty” and the Tannehills’ “the Market for Liberty”, along with Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority” are rather unknown by 99 percent of Americans, but they really changed my mode of thinking to see government as it is: a band of thieves. Well I have to survive, so I do business with those thieves. I play by their rules so that I can keep doing business with them. That means I have to respect the thieves. It does not mean I must regard them as moral or anything otther than thieves and criminals. I am an anarchist at heart, as well as an atheist. I am also a realist. I have to eat.
10% federal tax rate for everyone is fair. Tithing is long held tradition. If 10% is good enough for God than it’s good enough for Uncle Sam. He will just need to learn to live within his means. For years I never understood the much of the left’s hatred for religion. They certainly don’t mind pulling the social contract card to tax me to pay for every irresponsible person who won’t care for their own needs. Read today’s NYT about the rise in unwed mothers. Many say they’re independent. Many also are sponging off the taxpayer. Then figured it out. God / church asks for 10%. Shows how really greedy the politicians are. And anything given to church is less for government.
Also I think people should be tax for separate government fuctions.
A tax for dept of defense is mandatory and a few other essentials functions. But taxes for welfare, space program, dept. of education, Solyndra, Lawrence Welk museum, etc… should be voluntary.
No. A group of thugs calling themselves government offer you a protection racket in exchange for X percent of what is yours. I prefer competing governments. X percent tax is fair to you, unfair to others. Who are you to decide what is fair?
Last time I checked you couldn’t vote thugs out of the mafia.
For someone who has benefited so much from the government spending other people’s money, you sure hate it when others benefit from it.
In a thugocracy, no libertarian can survive living qua libertarian because the thugs enforce their monopoly on all of us. You are stupid to think hat means we should not fight for privatization.
You could go live free in the woods, or on a self-sufficient farm way out in the country. Oh, but you enjoy all those benefits of living in a society? Well, that’s what taxes pay for.
I agree it’s hard to find a society in which to live the libertarian dream. Perhaps that’s indicative of the impossibility of the dream working? Kind of like communism? A nice idea that simply doesn’t work, for all the obvious reasons?
Nope. Not impossible. The thugs have more firepower. Ireland was a libertarian society from 700 to 1700.
Nope. Not impossible. The thugs have more firepower.
Huh? Why would the ‘thugs’ (if you mean the gov) give a damn what you were doing on a farm in the middle of nowhere? If you have no income, you will owe no tax. Maybe a little property tax, but so what? It’s still a hell of a lot more libertarian than how you’re living now. If you must have total freedom, head for the woods. The ‘thugs’ won’t bother you there, unless you start breaking into cabins, or growing naughty plants.
Your libertarian dream is there for the taking, if you so desire. Or is it all talk?
Why are there no libertarian settlements, small communities based on barter, etc? It’s not outlawed. Does it just not work in the real world? Kind of like communes?
“”If 10% is good enough for God than it’s good enough for Uncle Sam. He will just need to learn to live within his means…God / church asks for 10% “”
I agree 100% and I think the tithe is the fairest tax for income.
I agree to we should look to the history of tithing. Did I mention that I happen to be an athiest?
I saw Bill’s post after I posted, I guess there is on thing we disagree one.
I should elaborate that I think the Founding Fathers laid out the best form of taxation…the tariff. But as the Southeners would learn, in time, that it was not fair to them. If you read the Confederate Constitution one reason for going alone is that they wanted the Confederacy to be a free trade zone.
This whole graduated income thing was written up as the fairest in a little book called the “Communist Manifesto.”
If i to have this force down my throat by arm of government…then no more than a tithe.
Typo alert!
This whole graduated income TAX thing was written up as the fairest in a little book called the “Communist Manifesto.”
Why is “tax for the Department of Defense mandatory?” I don’t support it; in fact, I’ve spent most of my life railing against it. Why should I have to pay for something I fundamentally don’t want? (You see where your argument begins to break down here?)
And who is going to keep track of who’s using all these services you think should be taxed “voluntarily?” Because no one cheats on their taxes now, do they…?
As for public education, by all means, let’s make paying for it voluntary. I’m sure you and Bila will have a dandy time in your dotage dealing with the results.
I will go along with that if you grant me the wish not to provide welfare money, section 8, finance HUD, and fund any other social welfare program.
Eliminate the current tax code….Go with a VAT and allow it to be progressive…VAT on a 20k car is 10%…On a 200k Ferrari its 20%…The rich dude will squeal but he will still buy it because his ego will not accept anything less…
Put in place a reasonable Estate tax exemption…After that, tax the crap out of it and don’t allow any gimmicks to hide or defer it…Generation skipping is just one example…
Tithing was just for maintaining the priests and their helpers. Social welfare was handled through requiring people to not harvest the corners of their fields and not pick up any grain or other goods that fell to the ground during the harvest process. Military was handled by requiring men of the appropriate age to serve whenever needed.
You need to read the rest of the book before deciding how that society was ordered.
“Here it comes…LIFE IS NOT FAIR.”
Ergo if you notice banksters doing things that resemble white collar felony, don’t bother complaining, as this is simply another manifestation of life’s inherent unfairness.
There is a difference, Prof, between unfair and illegal. There’s even a difference between unfair and immoral. Accepting that the universe is not just in no way implies that we cannot (or should not,) strive for creating a level playing field.
Unless you’re really into making strawmen….
When is the last time you heard a Bible-thumping Republican politician quote this passage from the Holy Scripture?
Here is another Bible passage which is seldom quoted by money grubbing, yet oddly pious, Republican politicians:
Republicans only like the Old Testament’s moral philosophy (and even then only for everyone else). They’ve given themselves (with the help of Paul) the following get-out-of-jail-free card when dealing with Jesus’ admonitions: “No one’s perfect! So just love Jesus with all your heart, and you can ignore all that crap he said, and died for. He really just wanted us to idolize him, not follow him.”
Here’s a little piece of the definition of your fair share these days:
US taxpayers to subsidise $40bn housing settlement
“Neil Barofsky, a Democrat and the former special inspector-general of the troubled asset relief programme, described this clause as “scandalous”. “It turns the notion that this is about justice and accountability on its head,” Mr Barofsky said.
BofA, for instance, will be able to use future modifications made under Hamp towards the $7.6bn in borrower assistance it is committed to provide under the settlement.”
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/29834f52-582b-11e1-bf61-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1mmSGYOy2
Speaking of taxes I just finished mine this year. I bought a house last year after renting for the previous 10. I was shocked that I had almost $8k in refunds coming my way, where as in previous years I’ve always owed a little bit. I don’t understand why the government rewards people just for owning a home. This actually puts my interest + property taxes - deduction at just a hundred or so over what my 1 bedroom apartment in the same area is renting for now. However, if it wasn’t for this government manipulation housing prices wouldn’t have bubbled in the first place and I probably could have bought sooner.
Maybe we should look into going back to a tariff system. Think of it as an import sales tax.
So we should start taxing imported real estate…?
You usually come across as fairly well versed in the subjects you write about, except this, here you come across as quite ignorant, perhaps you should read a bit more about them, try Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Thomas Woods and especially Butler Shaffer… a few others here would benefit from reading them as well, imho. Besides, it kind of describes how things are now:
Comment by Cantankerous Intellectual Bomb Thrower©
You 0% tax libertarians need to start your own country where all the roads are riddled with potholes, there is no military protection, and gangs of illiterate, uneducated thugs rule the streets, because there is no education or law enforcement.
Enjoy!
Also, you come across as a slaver with this statement, not to mention crushing their American Dream as described above:
CIBT: To repair our public school system, we need another layer of schools which provide a fast-track to a military career for those who don’t respond well to ordinary classroom discipline.
And this makes no sense, it’s just more of the same:
CIBT: But what if you have a scholarship available to mitigate the tuition hikes?
I too am surprised that so many here fall into the false pardigim of there being a difference between the two big political parties.
Nothing changes when one side replaces the other, it’s just The Same Game With Different Players.
You come across as a name-caller with almost all your statements. Not that I really care — I think most of the regulars here know the difference by now between an argument and an ad hominem attack.
I tried my best not to attack you, I’m truly sorry you felt that way.
To say you’re ignorant of something is Not an ad hominem, it’s just a fact in light of your comment.
Also, someone who supports involuntary servitude is a slaver, what else would you call it?
The authors I’ve cited have refuted your arguments, please read them… as there is not enough space here to convey large ideas.
I’ve watched your reading list through the years here,… please consider expanding your reading list, if for nothing else than to understand.
Seek understanding.
The not-so funny thing is, based on what I’ve read, at one time I thought you might be Butler Shaffer… I can’t imagine you reading his stuff and not agreeing with the conclusions.
I came across an article that touches on just about every statement made in this thread - if not all of them - it contains links to some in depth reading.
Pay Up or Die
by Laurence M. Vance
Please consider reading it.
Oops, here’s the link
http://lewrockwell.com/vance/vance279.html