FAIR TAX

[bloodyminded]

That would be fair if the basic standard of living was flat, but it isn't. Taking $2,000 dollars from a guy who earns $20,000 will have a far more significant impact on their capacity to pay for the basic necessities than $20,000 from a guy who makes $200,000.

Exactly and 100% the point I made, but you articulated it better.

This is the classic Libertarian conundrum in all its forms. What you have reiterated, from the taxation angle, is basically that the low-wage earner has the right to starve to death. Take 10% from a low income family, and what you've done is anything but fair. You've probably guaranteed a below poverty line existence. In fact, I'd suggest that what you would do is basically swell the welfare lines, because people would make more money by being on the dole than on a paycheck. If you deny them welfare, then you're dooming an underclass to working starvation.

Yeah, that's fair.

You're right, and this is closely related to another libertarian conundrum. (One I've never heard any of them address, though perhaps one or two of them has, somewhere.): all the principled objections to "big government," to "unaccountable power" incredibly ignores the fact--the truism--that wealth is power.

If unaccountable democratic government is an issue, what about totally unelected, utterly non-representative power?

The choice seems to be between anarcho-capitalism and unelected tyranny. Both choices sound sucky: and at any rate, the underclass (which could be huge indeed under libertarian scenarios) wouldn't even be able to make that much choice. They'd have to take what they're given.

That some people evidently have no problem with this suggests a pretty profoundly anti-democratic impulse.

Interestingly, many libertarians seem to be (top-down) class warriors.

[ToadBrother]

Interestingly, many libertarians seem to be (top-down) class warriors.

A Libertarian state would be one where the upper middle and wealthy classes would basically lived in gated communities, paying a goodly coin to police forces to shoot at any of the underclasses who came a'knockin'.

Sounds a lot like the French Revolution... I think a Libertarian state would soon have its own version of Viva La Revolution! I can well imagine Ron Paul announcing "Let them eat cake."

Edited September 28, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Michael Hardner]

A Libertarian state would be one where the upper middle and wealthy classes would basically lived in gated communities, paying a goodly coin to police forces to shoot at any of the underclasses who came a'knockin'.

Yes, but the state wouldn't be using "force" to take taxes from people. That would presumably comfort people as they strolled through their barbed wire fences, avoiding the snapping guard dogs.. etc.

[RNG]

So the majority of you guys think that tax policies are a legitimate form of social engineering.

[nicky10013]

That would be fair if the basic standard of living was flat, but it isn't. Taking $2,000 dollars from a guy who earns $20,000 will have a far more significant impact on their capacity to pay for the basic necessities than $20,000 from a guy who makes $200,000.

This is the classic Libertarian conundrum in all its forms. What you have reiterated, from the taxation angle, is basically that the low-wage earner has the right to starve to death. Take 10% from a low income family, and what you've done is anything but fair. You've probably guaranteed a below poverty line existence. In fact, I'd suggest that what you would do is basically swell the welfare lines, because people would make more money by being on the dole than on a paycheck. If you deny them welfare, then you're dooming an underclass to working starvation.

Yeah, that's fair.

Yep. This line of thinking also assumes that the rich are constantly making big capital purchases which isn't often the case. Furthermore, you better believe that if a 30% consumption tax is introduced that those luxury acquisitions would be hit hard. Fact is that day to day living between the rich and the poor isn't monumentally different. Certainly no where near enough to justify the existence of a flat tax.

[nicky10013]

So the majority of you guys think that tax policies are a legitimate form of social engineering.

What do you mean by social engineering? That people born poor should remain poor? Frankly, this is what this tax policy accomplishes, and nothing more.

[RNG]

What do you mean by social engineering? That people born poor should remain poor? Frankly, this is what this tax policy accomplishes, and nothing more.

So, please tell me your fix. Not being a smart-ass. I want to know. There are tons of things I am against, and there are tons of things I am for. But firm knowledge is lacking I admit. Help me.

[nicky10013]

So, please tell me your fix. Not being a smart-ass. I want to know. There are tons of things I am against, and there are tons of things I am for. But firm knowledge is lacking I admit. Help me.

I still haven't recieved your definition of what "social engineering" is. It seems to be a watchword in the libertarian community. I've never recieved a definition from pliny, you or any others.