What is Digg?Sponsored by Microsoft
Microsoft responds to the headlines. view!
microsoft.com/everybodysbusiness - Read our developers’ points of view on the headlines making news.
286 Comments
- PeppermintPig, on 10/12/2007, -22/+89Bring it on! The federal government should not be competing with or prohibiting the actions of individuals and businesses in the free market via industry law, nor should it endorse the actions of one group over another as in the device of incorporation that limits the accountability of big businesses when they harm individuals or smaller businesses and those groups bring legitimate grievances. More liberty and responsibility for all!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+38Okay people. Listen up.
Just because this would limit FEDERAL government back to levels where it's SUPPOSED to be doesn't mean that most of those functions can't be taken over by state and local governments, where the majority of power is SUPPOSED to be, as per the Constitution.
You people act like the Federal gov't is the end-all, be-all of everything and anything to reign it back would cause nationwide disaster, which is just NOT the case. - xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -16/+48@afeitarse:
Making the wealth gap bigger should not be a concern of anyone. The people on the high end of it have figured out how to do well in the system. Complaining about this would be the exact same as making all good athletes play blindfolded and handcuffed so the less exceptional of them can compete on equal levels. Making all things equal by restricting those who do well is a complete perversion of equality.
Half of your second point belongs in the first, as it is a further complaint on income tax being removed. As for the second half, without those programs in place by the government, people could use the money they save to put it towards what they would use!
If I don't have to pay for social security, I can invest that money where I see fit and get better returns on it. If I don't choose to invest that money, and instead spend it on booze, that is MY CHOICE. Who do you think you are to tell me that I have to invest that money in social security, even with the knowledge it won't be there when I retire.
Your view on America is completely backwards. Instead of rewarding those who work hard at finding a way to succeed, you wish to punish them. Instead of allowing people to choose what they wish to do for themselves, you want to force them. Your America is a land of ignorance and slavery, and I suggest you re-evaluate it.
Still, I will digg your comment up for the argument. As the quote attributed to Voltaire goes: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -7/+36What about agencies like the USPS?
- cogen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31"It prevents the federal government from collecting income taxes..."
A clarification from the site: personal income taxes.
Corporate income taxes would still apply - stephenv, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29You know... if they couldn't get this kind of thing passed in 1933, I really have doubts today's breed of politician would be caught dead even bother acknowledging it ever existed (with the exception of Ron Paul, who as a libertarian Republican somehow manages to stay under the national media's radar anyways).
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -15/+39Do you really think it is the government's job to be a burden to the people?
- TheTankengine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25You make two great points. The only problem is, you think they are bad things, where as I think those are incredibly good things.
More liberty and more responsibility to the individual is a Good Thing. Letting the federal government run my life is not. - natelloyd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22What no one seems to realize is that "INCOME" is not the same thing as "LABOR". My labor is my personal property, and it is not the same thing as income. Any money I make from labor is my own property and cannot be taxed. However, any stocks / bonds / bank interest is INCOME and can and should be taxed as such.
The real fraud is the Federal Reserve, which despite the name is NOT a federal organization. Fundamentally, it prints new money, and loans this newly invented money to the Federal Government and charges INTEREST ON THE MONEY THEY JUST CREATED. Only the Federal Government itself should have the power to create new currency, and they do NOT have to pay interest on it! The Federal Reserve is a private bank racket! - xenofiend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+22@Kyderdog
Forced humanity is not humanity. If 20% of my measly income weren't vacuumed up by the federal behemoth I could afford to help people a little more than I already do. As it is now, if I don't pay taxes which supposedly "help" people, my assets are seized at gunpoint. That is extortion and robbery sir, not humanity. - livesNbox, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27@WarpFox - That's a good question - I think we could get by without a government run postal service (Think FedEx, UPS, DHL, etc), but it's not something I feel strongly about getting rid of--I think they do a good job (but I'm sure privately owned companies would do it better, faster, and cheaper)
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20"If you all forget, government agencies, along with world war II together ended the great depression. "
No. the new deal did not end the great depression. All it did was give jobless people work, at the expense of the taxpayer. WWII ended the great depression because the govt. borrowed money and spent it. Sound familiar? Reagan did the same thing in the 80s. It comes back to haunt you if you don't pay back the debt. - zediker, on 10/12/2007, -17/+35I dont seem to remember where the government earned its share of the money from my labor... You are also acting like the government could not function before FDR took office and implimented the income tax...
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21">>2) Why would it be BAD if some of these systems went away anyway? Social security and welfare are nothing but a detriment to our society.
I guess the word "humanity" doesn't exist in the 21th century."
I guess you're suggesting that the only way to display humanity is to take money from one set of people by force in order to give it to a different set of people. That's what you call humanity? - foobarra, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18@DyceFreak - money is not created by our government, it is created by the Federal Reserve with interest attached - thus the government is placed into a debt situtation. My explanation is highly simplified, but this is the case. The few powerful people who own the private corporation, which is the Federal Reserve, and the collaboration of the privately held banks of the world control the money supply. Not our government. These banks have cycled the money supply available over generations to create recessions, depressions, and booming economies. World War II did not bring our country out of depression - the same entities that created the depression began flooding money back on the world, instigated massive investment in war economies, creating huge profits for those involved, as well as themselves.
Follow the money. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19@Dycefreak
"If you all forget, government agencies, along with world war II together ended the great depression. It pored a HUGE amount of money into the U.S. economy, as well as providing many people who did not have jobs, with jobs. What we learned from this is that the U.S. government is a huge part of the economy, thus it can be used as a tool for economic progression. This amendment abolishes everything that has been accomplished by that. The government would be comparable to a pre-WWII era."
Are you insane? It was the actions of the Federal Government in the first place that put us in the Great Depression?
This is akin to thanking the fire department for putting out a fire they started! Please go out and read a history book before you leave a comment... - xtmno3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18It is unfortunate. In a world with less government, we are all more free to succeed as we choose. I know that America will not accept this anytime soon as people seem afraid of true responsibility and choice.
- AKBryant54, on 10/12/2007, -10/+24@afeitarse
ok,
Imagine a time where charitable giving is at an all time high, all or most drugs are legal, there is not income tax, no social security tax, no welfare state philosophy. This is a time when government was of trivial importance, when individuals had the most liberties and freedoms that they've ever had, and when the free market is booming and prosperous. This was America ca. 1800-1900, and this is when some of the greatest Americans in history lived. Unfortunately, mankind's natural tendency and move towards collectivism sprouted new forms and supports in Europe in Great Britain and elsewhere, and these ideas spread to America, where to this day their influence can be felt.
Now, you say that with no income tax revenue government programs like welfare, social security and public defense, public education, would disappear, I'm going to break that into a couple points:
1) Why would social security and welfare and medicare, and public education etc. go down the preverbial tubes if income tax were eliminated, most of these programs are completely separate from income tax, and work on totally different systems, i doubt you know how some of these systems even work.
2) Why would it be BAD if some of these systems went away anyway? Social security and welfare are nothing but a detriment to our society, as they are based on one illogical and mistaken philosophy, which is that you can do good with other peoples money. This is flawed because if I am going to do good with someone else's money, i first have to take it away from them, which at its core is nothing but violence and coersion. For example, Social Security is flawed because it assumes that all elderly would be unable to provide for themselves, which is wrong. say that 10% of all senior citizens would be unable to provide for themselves without their social security checks, does it make sense to impose a tax on 100% of the population? A tax that has risen from ~3% when it was instated, 3% paid by the employer, and 3% paid by the employee, and has risen to the point of 10% of your total income and 10% from the employer is now being paid to a system that is corrupt, because not all of your money is even making it to these seniors. Furthermore, you are actually paying the 10% your employer is supposed to pay, which the late economist Milton Freidman got a financial board member to admit in a public debate.
You end up paying one fifth of your total income through social security tax, to a system that might not even be there for you when you get old enough to collect the benefits of it, why is this a good system to have? why is welfare good? why do we even have them? Because their goal is a good goal, but the way you attain that goal is not through forceful measures like taxes, but through voluntary co-operation, in eliminating such taxes, you would effectively give every American worker a 20% raise.
With that extra 20%, Americans would be able to invest in their own retirement, and be able to support a higher flat tax, thus ending the cap that our strong central government has put on your ultimate wealth.
Besides, all congress has to do is ask the 'federal' 'reserve' to print some more money, under that particular communist system in place in America. :P
EDIT---Sorry for the giant comment, and this was meant to be in response to afeitarse above :S - 15charmaxwtf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@Kyderdog
Are you one of these people that wants to abolish the word charity? There is no such thing if people have _their_ money stolen from them to be redistributed to things they may not support.
Do you go around forcing people on a street to put money in a charity box? Would you get someone else to do it for you? I see no difference if you get the government to do it for you. It is more obscene than a highway robber, at least he says what he's doing. - Iknockstuffdown, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18@ WarpFox
Thats the first thing that came to my mind when I read this, but I don't think it would apply to that as the post office for the most part is a non-profit organization. If they shut down the USPS then they'd probably have to shut down NASA and other organizations. - brstilson, on 10/12/2007, -5/+18The U.S. Government ran for well over a century without a regular flow of income taxes. It wasn't really a policy until 1913. This isn't a change, it's a restoration.
- faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13In response to the issue of the USPS, having been a letter carrier for 13 years (past), I can tell you the Postal Service is supposed to be a non profit organization. Do they make profit? You bet your ass. Do they give the profit back to support the budget, or pay on the national debt? No. Instead, the money goes to pay for hiring arbitrators (assigned by the PS) to settle grievances with employees, new office furniture for station managers and postmasters, and big bonuses to managers. Now before any union hating idiots go off, let me say this. As one who filed many grievances in defense of others, the large majority of these grievances are valid. Mainly an attempt at getting power hungry, pompous bosses off your ass. I can cite many, MANY cases in which not liking someone was good enough reason for a manager to "write someone up" for some bogus reason, or suspend someone for no reason. When meeting (there are 3 steps) to try to resolve the issue, the same old response of "we don't care, by the time it's settled, they'll lose their house, wife, etc. is usually thrown out in the conversation by management.
The PS several years ago, hired Ross Perot to take a look at them because they were in the red. They wanted his opinion on how to make them lean and mean. They paid him $1mil. for his opinion. At the end of his review, he told them they are top heavy. Too many chiefs and not enough indians, so to speak. The results of the review? His suggestion couldn't hit file 13 fast enough. They are unchecked. One person I know, a letter carrier, had postal inspectors (3 to a car) follow her for a month while she did her route. The reason? She had pissed off the egomaniacal postmaster by filing a grievance to defend herself against being written up for parking in the wrong block. Seems she was 8 months pregnant and still walking her full route, unlike others who take light duty at 3 months or so. Unable to carry the weight of a full bag, she broke the loops down into smaller ones, meaning she had to move her vehicle more often. So you have 3 inspectors, each paid approx. $60k per year, following one hard working woman for 30 days, waiting for her to forget to turn on her blinker so they could suspend her. Pretty efficient, huh?
I don't care if they privatize it or not. It can run fine on its own. Everyone knows what to do to get the mail sorted, get it to the proper PO, and get it delivered to the customer. If the manager didn't show up for a month, nothing would change. Nothing. They need to get rid of so many managers and just let the workers do their job. Give the profit back to pay off the debt, or help with more important issues than bonuses and new office furniture. - Asianwaste, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17It'd probably require another revolutionary war for an amendment like this to be passed.
I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said that the life expectancy of a new government is 300 years. It's scary to think the time is almost up if he's right. - Suzilla, on 10/12/2007, -6/+18RUBBISH!
What we need is an amendment clarifying the term "person" to mean a human being, not, for example, a corporation. I'm not against the concept of a corporation, per se. However, to say that a corporation, which has no conscience and is therefore a sociopathic entity, should be granted the same rights as people -- humans -- is ludicrous and ill-serves society. - typo180, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I think the opposite - I think that with a little research I could set up my own retirement fund. I think I could probably do a better job with my money than the government can. Of course, that's not speaking for the entirety of the population. Maybe it's time that we start forcing people to take some responsibility - we're not living a sustainable lifestyle at the moment.
The 3-year time frame is somewhat worrisome. That seems like a huge change to force through in just 3 years. - beker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13"How would this work? Sure, I'd love it if there were no income taxes ... but without them how would we: - Support schools "
Schools (in america) are paid with property taxes.
"Sure, that would work fine in rich states and wealthy areas, but what about the vast majority of America?"
That is already an issue; just look at the difference between the public schools in rich areas and poor areas. - Rickler, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The gasoline tax pays for roads and my property tax pays for schools. Corporate taxes can pay for national parks... although I think nature can handle the parks just fine.
- blueskydiver76, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15All of your personal income tax that you pay doesn't go towards any of these government programs. It goes 100% towards interest that the government owes to non-government entities such as the Federal Reserve (privately owned like the IRS).
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+fascism - WarpFox, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14I'm not certian the USPS is non-profit, however it is required by law to not operate in the red. and as far as doing it faster and cheaper - My business sends a lot of mail, and 95% of the time we use priority mail by USPS- 2-3 day delivery for 4.05 cant be beat. If we had to pay the 12 or 13 dollars fedex charges, we'd be in trouble.
edit: didnt know the constitution allowed for a post office. good thing :) i'd like nasa to stick around, but is nasa a business? does the amendment ban non-business agencies like the FBI and CIA? We should probobly keep those too - Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Amen! People seem to have a very difficult time accepting responsibility for their own lives and families. It's my responsibility to take care of myself and my family. It is not my responsibility to take care of you and your family. That's not being callous, either.
- IceWing, on 10/12/2007, -5/+16You ask how would we
- Build roads
- Support schools
- Create public/national parks
- Provide social security
Well, let's see... Roads are local or state... Schools are local or state... I don't know about you, but, my state and my municipality have state or city parks. My state provides for unemployment insurance, as well as the Dept of Job and Family services, which is there to give people a HAND when they're on hard times. There's this thing called personal responsibility, which says that you need accept the consequences, good or bad, for what you do. So, decide to save your own money, not expect the gov to invest it for you... oh, wait, they don't... they take from peter to pay paul... the money that I have paid into ssi is already gone... it's not in the proverbial 'lockbox' for use when I am supposed to get it...
The Constitution is very clear when it comes to what powers the fed is supposed to have (specifically said in the constitution that all fed powers have to mentioned), versus the states (which get everything else)
Ice - MusicalGenius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Are we forgetting what this article is about?
Besides, as much as I like something to limit their power, do you really think congress will do it?
They couldn't spend their money right so they added an income tax around the turn of last century. Then they got worse. Now, do you give a child who wastes his money a million dollars? Of course not, tell him to learn how to spend what he has first. Congress is a child who got addicted to what powers it has and will they give it up? Not a chance.
Even then, look at how many sessions are closed doors. They don't care what we think anyway and it would take millions upon millions of people to rally to get them to do it. But honestly they would do it and write some other legislation which we wouldn't know about to secretly keep their power and it would all be covered up. Or the media would make it look like it's bad legislation to begin with...etc It won't work. We gave too much candy to the baby. Now it's an adult in it's prime with a bazooka. There isn't much we can do by asking them to stop. - jstevewhite, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@xtmno3
Your argument would be fine if it were accurate. There are those who posit that, since those who 'do well in the system', as you put it, they 'use' more of the infrastructure, and therefore are responsible for a greater percentage of that infrastructure's cost. Additionally, those who 'do well in society' cannot do so without laws created by the whole of society that allow, and benefit, them. For example, to make it very rudimentary; if there are no laws against theft (ie, enshrining the concept of 'ownership' in law), a producer will have trouble making a profit by selling things. There are many more complex examples, coming to a head with the current situation, where the legislature is being lobbied by those who have 'done well in the system' to alter the copyright and patent laws in such a way as to further increase their value to 'those who have done well in the system' at the direct detriment of those who have not; without laws supporting them, their particular means of 'doing well in the system' will fade away in the face of advancing technology.
In the end, those laws were (ostensibly) made for the benefit of *society*, not vice versa.
I once saw Paris Hilton say that everyone woke up with the same opportunities every day, whereupon she got on a plane and flew to France to go shopping. The failure of the "everyone has the same opportunity" argument is that it's false; it makes us feel good, and makes us self-righteous, but in the end, it's a lie that performs only those services. - IHaveIssues, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10This will never come close to happening as long as senators and the like continue to accept "donations" from lobbyists.
- Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14"The Libertarians are basically puppets controlled (without their knowledge in most cases) by a few select corporate interests, operating under ambiguous-sounding entities like the CATO Institute."
What color is the sky in your world? - JohnnyZito, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13After reading the FAQ it seems the government only gets 42 percent of it's budget from income tax and wastes over 50 percent of its budget on running private industries.
Cutting the tax and liquidating the commercial businesses would leave an 8 percent surplus to build roads, support schools etc...
The idea seems to be simply enough the government isn't a bank and shouldn't pretend to be a private business. - Jorenko, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13afeitarse:
Allow me to quote the FAQ from the site for a moment.
'"How can Government get along if the income tax is repealed? What will they do for money?"
The latest Federal budget shows that individual income taxes supply only 42 percent of the Federal revenue; the rest comes from other sources. There is ample documentation to prove that getting the Federal Government out of these unauthorized businesses would cut the cost of Government at least 50 percent, while revenue is reduced only 42 percent, would give a surplus of 8 percent.' - natelloyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income :
"Outside the U.S., the term is usually profit or earnings."
Profits and earnings are what most of us get when we get a paycheck. Our wages are taxed because the term was 'fudged' in the US to include personal gain from labor. - NoMoreNicksLeft, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11@Neiby
I think the point is, we can bypass the politicians at the federal level. They don't have any say at all. Get your state government to endorse this... and once so many do, it would only require ratification by the states once more. ***** the feds. - CerebralVisions, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I think most of those things are not built with federal tax dollars..but State, local, sales, property taxes and state lottery's. and social security comes from social security from your pay
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+13You can't protect people from the badness and evil of the world and IT'S IMPOSSIBLE, stupid and harmful to try to. That's part of what you get when you live in a free society—you accept the consequences of your actions. Tough, yes, but life wasn't meant to be easy.
- livesNbox, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10@anitab83
I think building roads should be (and maybe it already is) a state-run endeavor.
Also - Public schools -- do you really think you're getting your money's worth ?
Public / National parks -- should be maintained... I agree... I think we can do that with only 58% of our gov't income.
Social Security -- was supposed to be temporary. what happened?!?! Nobody is fiscally responsible anymore.. expecting the Gov't to just take care of everything for them (while people like me who actually are planning for my future have to suffer with giant income tax burdens) - omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13I'd be willing to take up arms for this amendment.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@Pile -- "The Libertarians are basically puppets controlled (without their knowledge in most cases) by a few select corporate interests, operating under ambiguous-sounding entities like the CATO Institute. Basically they're oil and pharmaceutical companies and other very powerful corporate lobbies that resent government regulation -- they resent the notion that the government can tell them how much ***** to pump into the air or dump in your backyard, or how safe their drugs need to be, or that someone will sue them if their products kill their dads, SO they create this goofball "libertarian" notion focusing on peoples desire for smaller government, when all they really want is to neuter the government so they can be as immoral and profitable as possible without the government interfereing."
Wow. Just wow.
First, big, greedy corporations and conglomerates don't mind regulations. Y'know why? Because those uber strict regulations make it almost impossible for any startups to compete with the existing corporations.
Say, if a large corp has a containment failure at one of their plants and can't clean up quick enough, they get hit with a huge fine. That fine is no big deal because the corp can handle it. If the same happens for a much smaller competitor to the corp, the fine could essentially bankrupt them, leaving less competition and more money for the corp. REGULATIONS HELP HUGE CORPORATIONS.
Secondly, corps don't mind the regulations because they get huge doses of corporate welfare (subsidies) in the form of no-bid contracts and actual, direct handouts. How do you think Big Agra got so big? How do you think Amtrak and a large number of airlines stay in business? How about Big Pharma? Corporate welfare subsidies from the government. Do you honestly think huge insurance corporations could survive if they weren't propped up by laws REQUIRING us to buy their overpriced insurance? Wake the f'k up, man!
What Libertarians want is immediate stoppage of all subsidies to corporations by the government. No more corporate welfare. When we talk about the "free market" we mean a TRULY free market where corporations actually HAVE to compete instead of getting propped up by the government.
Also, we don't want ALL regulations abolished. Some regs are good. Some are just wasteful and do nothing but HELP the corporations. Those are the ones we want gone.
Taxes are a completely different issue which has already been addressed. I just refuse to allow you to spread your absolute ignorance and lies about the Libertarian movement. Take your FUD elsewhere. - Necoras, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8@anitab83
roads are paid for by gas taxes and tolls
public schools (which aren't fairing too well as it is) are paid for by state property taxes.
Social security (again, deeply flawed) is seperate from income tax
So really, your only argument here is for national parks, which I tend to believe are a worthy endeavour. However, I don't want to pay 30% of my income for TREES!!!
Income tax mostly pays for
A) Military (necessary, but horribly run recently. see IRAQ)
B) Congressmen's individual pet projects, all of which should be cut.
C) Public employee salaries.
D) A whole lot of busywork made up jobs.
I'm all for repealing income tax and living off of oh, i don't know, maybe sales tax? works with gasoline. - borchard76, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9@warfox
The best result in anything that drastically reduced the size of gov't would be to leave the USPS alone, as they are completely self-supported (as in, $0 in taxes are received by the USPS), so are one of the few gov't agencies with the ability to support what they do. - BrewmasterC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution."
The constitution already has enumerated powers given to the congress. The problem is that FDR packed the court to pass new deal legislation and the judicial check on them went out the door. I would support an amendment to put congress's enumerated powers in boldface type. - faskippy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9The USPS does not operate on tax money. All revenue is from postage sales.
- GeneralAntilles, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Government hurts people no matter what they do.
- Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12@xtmno3 -- Your sports analogy is not apt. The rich in this country are more like juiced athletes, and libertarians want to remove all steroid bans. The problem with a purely laissez-faire system is that as wealth accumulates and is passed down through generations, the wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a small aristocracy that's done absolutely nothing to earn their privileged status in society. Corporations consolidate into monopolies and put a stranglehold on competition and innovation. The goal of a free market economy (and a free market society) is a meritocracy, and that's not the end result of an economy that operates with no government intervention.
Most liberals don't want monetary equality (i.e., communism), they want greater equality of opportunity. History has proven, again and again, that an unregulated economic system provides an absolute inequality of opportunity. Economic freedom is only possible if the government shakes things up every once in a while, to counteract the free market's natural decline into a monopolistic unfree market.
The problem with radical libertarian ideologues, such as those who would support this amendment, is that they take the counterfactual position that every good period in our nation's history would have been even better if the government had been less involved. Fervent, unwavering belief in the free market is more of a religious argument than an economic one. -
Show 51 - 100 of 286 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is