lewrockwell.com — Whenever tax cuts are discussed in DC, the media and most politicians use the phrase, “cost to government.” “How much will this tax cut cost the government?” we are asked, as though some crime is being contemplated when we consider reducing taxes. The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they decide....
Oct 24, 2006 View in Crawl 4
vlatroOct 24, 2006
Warning: Tax rant below that strays far off topic.I have no problem with government spendings on military, border security, or the securing of interstate/international commerce. What chaps my ass is the insane amount spent on social services. When the government takes money away from one person only to give it to another person who they deem as being in greater need... That's theft. Don't get me wrong, there are many people in need. I believe in charity, I believe in helping those who cannot help themselves. But when that charity is forced... Money is taken from my wages before I'm even paid...I am given only one vote in a population of over 300,000,000 with which to change policy, and yet see nearly 20% of my income being handed to others who would rally against me if I even mention an idea that doesn't result in them getting their cut of my wages... This f**king Robin Hood Syndrome needs to end. For example: Take the stereotypical Single Mother. She works hard to feed her kids. Their father doesn't contribute a dime. In spite of all her hard work, between rent, groceries, clothes for herself and her children, transportation costs, utility bills etc. she has a great deal of trouble making ends meet. My sympathy goes out to her, but why does that give her a greater entitlement to my pay check than I have? Why is the money needed to feed her children deducted before I'm given the chance to feed mine? The simple answer: Society doesn't want to see the ugliness of starvation, poverty and homelessness. The methods used however make achieving a state of self sufficiency a far more daunting task, by taxing the people who need it the most, unfairly burdened by others who lack the drive or ability to do it themselves. But if that weren't bad enough, those who stop trying are comforted by the fact that they in most cases will not starve. In fact it's become socially acceptable to live with government assistance. The incentive to support yourself or your family is being diminished, along with the pride and dignity of being one of the few who can exist without constant aid. I love the United States, and everything it's constitution represents. To leave this country is out of the question, but to remain in it knowing how far it's fallen... That's equally hard. I'll just have to sit back and pray for a viable Libertarian candidate to help us reclaim our nation.
jeffnessOct 24, 2006
fire departments and emergency medical services are tough to fit into this debate; they are a local tax issue which means that congress (Where Ron Paul is at) doesn't deal with it.And as a counter, I'd like to say that local fire and emergency services ARE infact decided on by the community that needs them. here where i live there was a ballot issue about our fire and emergency services. the issue at hand was whether to levy a slight millage increase, and combine our medical services with a neighboring community.that ballot issue passed, the millage was applied, and everyone pays their fair share based on their property value towards providing our community with fire and emergency medical services.local taxes are a pretty fair thing. your community votes and decides what services should be provided and what taxes should be levied... because of that, im not sure it really belongs in this debate.most of the time when libertarians talk about unwanted government services, we're talking about congressional fat added to please constituents like Alaska's bridge to nowhere or silly over-zealous government programs that have a habit of being abused like social security... not critical local services.the major difference is that local services get a direct vote from the tax payers, while congressional fat is passed by our elected representatives who often don't vote with everyones best interest in mind.
franticiOct 24, 2006
Of course culture comes into play, but security is major player in that culture.If you are afraid to open your door, because it might be a crack addict or someone desperate for cash on the other side, you are more likely to get a closed society.This often start in areas which have lost their main income, and soon it spreads the fear and insecurity to the connecting areas.And then you end up having this as a major problem in America.But if someone knocks on your door and expect to find a neighbor asking for sugar you get security.Now i'm not talking about getting naive and thinking that you solve every single problem by changing the taxes, but you do in fact change the culture.If you go to work and everybody greets you nicely and politely, you would most likely adapt to this environment, but if everybody ignores you and yells at you .. you of course adapt to this environment, this is basic human nature.There will always be outcast's in this, but most of the time this applies.And you have a current policy, that if you don't earn enough cash you can starve, get no medical attention, no dental, at worst no home.If you have 90% which are polite, nice and secure and you bring 10% which have no security and are desperate into the environment you will soon find out that these 10% can change into 50%I could ramble on forever on this issue, but if you study human nature you will soon find out that all we really want is security in one way or the other..For some this might be getting themselves a tank in the front yard, but this causes most others to be afraid of that particular individual, so there is no magic solution.
chijim70Oct 24, 2006
Again... NOBODY, including the Federal government, profits from your Federal income taxes but bankers that run the Federal Reserve banks.Get it?
Closed AccountOct 24, 2006
We tried libertarianism.It was called the Articles of the Confederation.<a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation</a>Go read it! It is uncanny how much the AoC is in line with contemporary libertarian though. That piece-of-crap constitution failed miserably.
leeswOct 25, 2006
HOW ABOUT THIS? How about the government quit wasting money and give what it doesn't waste back to the ones who earned it--US!Just because the government can't manage their budget, doesn't mean I have to pay for it. When my spending is out of wack I don't make them pay me. Cut spending and taxes. Keep what we need like police, military, fire departments, roads, etc. But quit the wasteful spending! Stop making more programs!
joybranOct 25, 2006
@ Ascendant"So that surplus we had under Clinton- how big is it now thanks to the Bush tax cuts?"There was never a real surplus. It was an accounting trick."How much smaller is the national debt that I'll have to pay off thanks to those tax cuts?"Increasing revenue doesn't lower the national debt if you increase spending at the same time."How much less interest do I have to pay on that national debt thanks to those tax cuts?"The increased revenue that resulted from the tax cuts means that the interest is less than it would have been if the tax cuts hadn't happened and the revenue hadn't increased.The point of the article is that SPENDING is the problem, not tax cuts, whether they increase revenue or not. And it doesn't matter whether the spending is done by Democrats or Republicans, it still has to be paid by future generations, unless our economy collapses before then.
traviskicksOct 26, 2006
Ron Paul is the best congressmen in Congress. Period.
koppieMar 1, 2009
Really? The government doesn't spend money on us? Military, infrastructure, medicare, social security . . . Right."The American people have every right to fund the federal government at whatever level they decide...." Yeah. It's called voting. And your party just lost, Ron Paul.