GOP Proposes $4.5 Trillion Tax Giveaway to the Rich, CUT MEDICAID AND FOOD STAMPS

Not to mention these tax cuts increase the debt by massive amounts, so they can later claim they need to cut more programs. It a shell game that only stupid people fall for. It 100% is to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor and middle class.

 

Bingo. This is the end game. Cut taxes so low that the interest on the debt overwhelms our budget so that we are forced to cut everything but the military.

It’s a libertarian wet dream.

 

whoa, so is the consensus that this stros4bros person is actually Conquistador/Trader Jorge?

 

You asked how we could have a military without taxation. I was giving you a list of tax-free military options. My preference would be for the way we had a military for 100+ years without a federal income tax.

Obviously, I do. There is no moral justification for forcibly taking from person A to give to person B. I can't rob you because you have more money than a homeless person and absolve myself because I then buy the homeless person a sandwich. I would still be guilty of robbery.

Maybe you are. I am not getting anything from the government in exchange for my income tax. I don't receive any benefits. At most I receive the nebulous protection of the military. Almost all of my tax dollars go to other people.

We don't have **** to pay for. People who have less than me have voted to take my money and give it to themselves. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

I want harbor fees to pay for the harbor (maintainence, security, etc.). I want park fees to pay for the park. I want road tolls to pay for the roads. I want people to pay for what they use and get what they pay for.

I want to pay for the military without income tax, the same way we did for a hundred years in our history. As for why the military isn't the same as food stamps, you said it yourself. Everyone "uses" the military, not everyone uses food stamps.

Either way is fine. I want the military to be far more limited, rely mostly on a volunteer force (the militia), and to be funded as it was prior to the implementation of the income tax.

None of those qualify as anarchy. I don't want a system without any laws. I am a minarchist/classical liberal. We have a Constitution that defines what the government is supposed to do. It enumerates the powers of the federal government. I suggest sticking to those things.

Fortunately, I am not very concerned with the opinions of people who think the problem with our government is that we don't take enough money from the people who produce or give enough to the people who do not.

I'll let far-right, anarchist (Nazi-esque?) governer Gavin Newsome give you an illustrative example:

 

Hmm.. where did you go to school? Just trying to understand where you are coming from. What kind of education do you have.

 

University of the Pacific (School of Engineering and Computer Science). Pepperdine Law School.

 

I feared this would be a response, to be clear my intention wasn’t to ask for random possibilities but specifically the ones you think work within your ideology.

We’ve been around this one a few times not much for me to add here.

I’m not currently but I have had help before. My wife and I went to public school, my wife got grants for college. I was on Medicaid as a child.

I home school my 2 eldest (for the time being, plan on putting them all in school at some point).

My wife and I went through a very difficult time where we were on food stamps for multiple years, wic and Medicaid.

During that time my wife was able to attain a degree and land a well paying job. Now we make over double the median family income. We have private health insurance, etc. No longer on or eligible for any assistance, and again currently not even using the public school system for our eligible kids. We do use the library, public parks, roads, etc.

I have not forgotten what that help meant to us, I will happily vote for higher taxes if it were for the betterment of America. Im very concerned with raising the floor for the poorest of us.

We do, we collectively voted for it. That’s how it works.

I was under the impression that you originally brought these up as fees that could pay for the military or prisons. If I’m wrong on that then apologies.

Google says (sorry I wasn’t around at the time, and don’t have formal education that I’ve retained on the specifics here, so feel to correct me if it’s wrong)

that we paid for the military with tariffs and excise taxes, prior to income taxes. Again these all seem to function roughly the same as a tax.

I wasn’t suggesting that they are anarchic, just that they are so insufficient that they would lead to anarchy.

To clarify my last bit was not taking a shot at you, kind of the opposite.

I don’t think the problem with our government is that we don’t pay enough. We are currently within the normal range, it could be a good bit higher (Ala nordics), or slightly lower (Ala Swiss), I’m indifferent as long as things are functioning well.

The biggest problems, imo, are corruption, and an insufficient democracy. I don’t think the inherent fix to these problems is going smaller. Nordics function better with much larger govs so our current size isn’t a problem.

 

My ideology would have a volunteer militia that arms itself and comes together as necessary to repel invasion. A small but powerful standing military (mostly nuclear weapons, but also small but highly advanced air, naval, and special operations forces that can be paid for by selling and renting military assets).

Yes, it is kind of key to the whole issue, so not having a response is dodging the heart of the disagreement. If it is okay to rob the rich and give money to the poor, then none of the rest of it really matters.

Not surprising that you would support such things then.

That's awesome.

Private school, I hope. Then again, you are probably being property taxed more than you would receive from the public school.

See above re: not surprising that you would support then.

Would you still use the library, public parks, schools, and roads if they were pay as you go instead of paid by taxes?

Why can't you and the other people who agree with such an ideology contribute as much as you like to said system, instead of compelling other people to do so?

We collectively voted for the current government. I guess there will be no opposition now? We collectively voted for legalized slavery, the internment of the Japanese, the PATRIOT ACT, etc. The fact that a majority of people can be convinced to vote for something doesn't make it good, and it sure doesn't make it morally correct.

Fair enough. For clarification, use fees would pay for what you are using.

Tariffs would be a tax on imported goods. Not perfect, but far more avoidable than an income tax. Excise taxes are essentially use fees, just applied to a specific good vs. a specific service. Neither are ideal. Both are preferable to the current system.

I still don't understand the logic that doing something that we did for sixty years that didn't lead to anarchy would somehow lead to anarchy if we did the same thing again.

I was referring to the people you referred to that take shots without reading it.

I think one of the problems is that we pay too much, but also that we have too much corruption and too much democracy. One inherent fix to these problems is going smaller. Another is much greater protection of rights from corrupt or democratic infringement. Democracy is not an inherent good, in and of itself. It is a useful tool to hedge against undemocratic bad actors. It is useless as a hedge against democratic bad actors.

 

It’s not that I don’t have a response, it’s that I’ve already given it in previous posts. If we repeat things this goes on forever.

I’m fine with either, as long as it’s good.

Right, life can be devastating, one of the most admirable goals/accomplishments for society and humanity is being able to preven suffering.

Today I would, but at other times in my life I would not have been able to. My first born would have not been able to enjoy parks and playgrounds often until he was nearly 5.

I have a deep, deep appreciation for quality built/maintained public areas for this reason. People, and especially children, having access to playgrounds, sporting courts/fields, nature reserves, libraries, and of course, school/education regardless of their or their parents financial situations is a hallmark of a decent community/country.

The thought of poor children being left to rot (regarding the things above, but also of course the necessities in food, water and shelter) in a world with this much abundance makes me violently upset.

Firstly because it’s for everybody, and by nature people are dynamic / in a constant state of flux. What you’re describing dooms people when they hit poverty, which can be anyone.

These programs work, there likely has never been less poverty and suffering for a human society than in the modern highly developed country. This is directly attributable to welfare systems re-distributing wealth in unison with strong, more capitalistic markets/economies.

You’re asking me why I have interest in maintaining and furthering the thing that’s working the best.

If this whole function of welfare is switchable to a private non government involved, let’s say - poverty insurance program, that functions the same as a welfare system, is ran like a co-op, with an internally democratic system so one person can’t decide to singlehanded flip everything on its head one day - then go make it, show me it works better, and I will sign up and abandon welfare through government.

Good luck making something like that work with the ability to both opt out when you are doing well, and opt in when you aren’t.

I ultimately care about people doing well and not creating the most fair unfettered game of money collection.

You can oppose the Gov and its choices through voting.

Yes, the masses can make poor choices democratically. I’m infinitely more comfortable with that than the alternatives when the topic is us being governed.

The mid-late 1800s was definitely more archaic than today. Today is a different world and what worked for that time is not guaranteed to work now. Point to somewhere where it’s working now.

I don’t see any evidence that a country can’t function well while spending more. On the contrary, there are numerous examples of exactly that, and again like mentioned in another discussion, are actually zero examples of any functional places with very low spending.

I think a truly well functioning democracy has the best shot at representing the people’s interests in the long run. The difficulty is creating and maintaining the well functioning part, for sure.

 

couple of questions. How did we get nuclear weapons? How did we maintain the technological advantage over other countries when it comes to military since you want to talk highly advanced air, naval and special forces?

 

Why does that require forcible redistribution? What prevents all of the like minded people from participating in voluntary redistribution, and allowing those who don't agree to not participate in the redistribution system.

Charity exists. Nothing prevents people from building/maintaining a park or playground open to everyone without using tax funds. It happens all the time.

Why would anyone be doomed when they hit poverty if all of the same programs that you are talking about now were voluntarily funded by all of the people that want them publicly funded? Let's use the word Progressive here to represent the group of people that want there to be collectively funded parks, libraries, schools, sports fields, food, water and shelter. What stops all of the Progressives from contributing to a communal fund that provides for all of those things. You could even make an irrevocable trust that does exactly that and requires the members to contribute at the same level as they pay in income tax under the current system.

I don't want people to opt in or opt out as and when they choose. I want everyone that wants that system to irrevocably opt in, and everyone that doesn't to irrevocably opt out.

You would substantially reduce human suffering if people weren't allowed free speech. You could substantially reduce human suffering if people were restricted from travelling more than 25 mph. You could substantially reduce human suffering if all violent criminals were immediately put to death. You could substantially reduce human suffering if 10% of humans were enslaved for the betterment of the remaining 90%. I don't believe that you actually believe in your utilitarian ideal, I think you just find some infringements acceptable.

Sure you can, and the majority can vote against you and your opposition is quashed.

A philosophical impasse.

It isn't being implemented now. The last time it was implemented, it worked. Then, the people democratically voted to go a different direction.

Only if you discount the past.

I don't think it has the best shot at representing an individual's interests in the long run. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

We got nuclear weapons through the Manhattan project and maintain technological advantages through military/industry partnerships. Are you under the impression that there is only one way to do things?

 

Who funded the advancement in military warfare?

 

So what happens to people who irrevocably opt out if they fall on hard times? What happens to that persons kids? at what age does someone make this lifelong one time choice?

Labeling the welfare group progressives is funny because I can imagine there would be tons of poor culturally conservative folk who would happily opt out, then creating devastating pockets of poverty.

I could also go into a whole spiel on “what percentage of people even want this” but honestly we should just start a private conversation before dragging out this 1v1 and derailing this thread any further.

I don’t think suffering is substantially reduced by reducing free speech protections.

I never said I had some pure utilitarian ideal. Yes I can accept some levels of restricted person freedom at the benefit of greater general outcomes, some level but not just any level. Enslaving people not being okay, and slower speed limits being okay are good examples of that balance.

I have a feeling you might view there being a balance as an ideological failure here. Agent94 kind of touched on that point a few pages back.

On my ideology, I’ve been very upfront, here’s my current digital pamphlet; I’m partial to what works best, particularly within a democratic system. On what “best” means, I’ve always been infatuated with the statistics on various things health, safety and economics related, it’s a combination of those markers that add up to an idea of “societal wellbeing”.

Nordic social democracy model is currently king to me, once something knocks that off I can jump ship. If something more privatized focused topped that like the Swiss system, I’m fine with that. If one day a charity based small Gov system shows more promise, I’ll be open to it all the same.

If something non democratic or heavily authoritarian shows great success (think systems in Singapore, UAE) that would tough for me. I really do value democracy, and again, a relatively decent (to me) amount of individual freedoms.