can agree with most of this as long as they keep funding those of us that have already retired. The part about not allowing people to take anything out is good, but will draw lots of flack from libertarians that believe they should be allowed to do what the fuck they want. What would happen to those that raided their funds when retirement came???
I didn't think I would ever agree with you, but there it is. Well, those people would eat a big pile of shit I guess. If you stick your hand in the fire, how can you not be responsible for the burns? People who payed in should get their SSI. It is insurance, if you pay the premiums, you get the payment. People who opt out are saying they don't want it and understand what will happen if they don't do it on their own. Or, as a middle of the road gesture, allow you to control your own SSI funds yet not allow you to take them out of the account. Being Libertarian is like being Democrat or Republican - each of us is different. Libertarians knows they have to have a government, and that it has to be in charge of certain things - each one has a slightly different idea of what that is. A lot of people go Libertarian as an idealist stance more than as a practice. It is because the left and right seem to be trying to control a huge portion of our lives - not as much as a love of anarchy like a lot might assume. I look at it like this... If a car is ice cold and I get in it, I might turn the heat on extra high, it isn't that I want the heat that high or I want it to be that hot. The goal is to get it comfortable again.
It actually cost a hell of a lot of money to raise kids. They have the costs of three-five or more human beings to contend with, Holy crap, just the difference in buying toilet paper when we Had our grandkids living here was atrocious, let alone milk and all the comfort food they consumed.
I know it costs money to take care of kids. My issue is that the children are the responsibility of the parents, not the government or their fellow citizens. The fact that we subsidize the having of children only encourages having them. When my wife and I talk about having kids, I calculate that in when I am weighing it in my mind. If it matters to me - I can only assume it matters to everyone $$ wise. If I get those tax break for having kids more or less, then that is $400-500 a month altogether. That is my electric and one of my car payments.
the "fair" tax isn't fair. We've had this discussion many times. The only really fair tax is a progressive one. The more one makes, the higher % one pays.
I don't know that any taxes are completely fair. However, taxes are a must. The government has to exist in some form for the world to work. Progressive taxes are not fair in any form. That is like me saying my neighbor should mow part of my yard against his will for me because he is in better shape than I am or has more time. It would be great to have someone mow my yard for me, but I wouldn't call that fair. Taxes that tax usage of things are fair in so much as they charge for use. Is it fair that people who make 200k+ pay most of the taxes and really reap none of the federal benefits? No. Also, keep in mind that personal income taxes only make up about a 1.25 trillion dollars a year of the 2.75 we take in a year. It would only take trimming 500 billion a year from our budget to really make a dent in everybodies tax bill. Keep in mind 140,000,000 people file returns. Probably the bottom 25% are getting a refund over what they payed in, the 25-50% is about breaking even and the 50+ are paying. That means 70,000,000 people are a loss or paying nothing. If those people payed just 10 bucks a month(or got 10 less a month back) that would be 8,400,000,000. Granted, with our trillion a year in income taxes 8.4 billion doesn't seem like a lot, but its close to 1%. It isn't just that the rich should have the same tax treatment as the poor - it is the more important point that if we continue to spend as much money as we do we would have to tax the rich more and more at some point.
Agreed with the exception of transferring money between states. I think trying to make for a decent living environment in any state should be priority #1, even if we have to take a little from the richest states.
If the federal government weren't so bloated the states could tax on their own and take care of it themselves. Some states have a better and more streamlined budget. As it is the federal government takes a huge portion of money, and gives back whatever it wants. If you live in a state that sucks you should probably move to a better one. I should not have to pay for someone living in Kentucky anymore than someone living India should have to pay for someone living in Mongolia. The states have plenty of money to pay for themselves - except that the federal government usurped their powers and took the money themselves. With stronger state governments and weaker federal governments it would happen that states who did the smart and correct things prospered and the states that did wrong would fail. Between the state, federal, and county/city governments taking their share you end up with the government getting more of your labor than you. This is a very wrong and perhaps evil thing.