Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It sure is. Even though the tax rate would be flat, the first earner is paying only $6,200 while the other is paying $23,250 for access to the exact same government services and benefits.
So even with a flat tax rate, some earners will pay SIGNIFICANTLY more than others.
But 31% of a lower income hits that person harder than it hits the one with higher income, wouldn't you agree?
Correct. The higher income earners ARE affected in a very different way. They pay MANY multiples more in taxes than everyone else. MUCH more than their share of the income. Why penalize them for hard work and achievement? Why DISincentivize that?
While high income earners may pay more in taxes, it's been proven many times over that low income earners pay more for goods and services than those in higher tax brackets.
I don't think there is anything wrong with this view but it's definitely not in line with Libertarian ideology.
Libertarianism is based on freedom. Coercion goes against freedom and since taxes are a form of coercion then they go against freedom and therefore, against Libertarainaism. The official Libertarian platform calls for an end to income taxes, an end to the IRS and any other federal government program that is not required by the US Constitution.
Some Libertarian proposals for taxes (because a government does need some revenue in order to function) are flat taxes based on consumption of resources, low sales taxes, property taxes, excise taxes.
But such taxes (sales, property, etc) again hit the poor harder than those of higher incomes. Also, how do anti-tax L's think things like schools, roads, etc get built and maintained without taxes? The reason we have public access roads and schools is because it was proven that the "Haves" did not care to make sure "Have-nots" had these things without being compelled to pay taxes. What do anti-tax L's feel about a well educated populace?
IMO, an LL like me sees that in order to achieve true personal liberty for all we must make sure all of us have access to the things that guarantee it.
Location: On the "Left Coast", somewhere in "the Land of Fruits & Nuts"
8,852 posts, read 10,456,964 times
Reputation: 6670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
I wonder if hardcore L's would support legislation like civil rights, education and healthcare for all, etc. I wonder if they would have supported emancipation legislation or just tried to get slave owners to stop owning slaves on their own. Sometimes I think L's overestimate other men's drive to do the right thing of their own volition, as much as it pains me to say that.
Nah, as we already see here, the only ''liberty'' they ever really talk about is keeping their money.
I understand that being LL is different than being L. HOWEVER, the article I linked is clearly about the different types of philosophies under the LL label.
Almost 200 posts of a discussion on Left Libertarianism and people are still running around in circles as to what it is or even whether it is an oxymoron...
Before we start, let me denature the biggest misconception batted around in this thread (and ad nauseum in these forums):
(Left = Liberal) = False. Liberals fall under the Left umbrella, but that does not make the Left the same as Liberal anymore than being both flesh, a fish is a type of cow.
Moving on, Libertarians are Libertarians, that is both sides (L and R) are focused on a single unified philosophy. However, this point can be viewed through two lenses, a Right-positioned lens and a Left-positioned lens.
The following article illustrates fairly well how a Right perspective and a Left perspective can both fall on the same point, Libertarianism.
I wonder if hardcore L's would support legislation like civil rights, education and healthcare for all, etc. I wonder if they would have supported emancipation legislation or just tried to get slave owners to stop owning slaves on their own. Sometimes I think L's overestimate other men's drive to do the right thing of their own volition, as much as it pains me to say that.
Legislation? No. The government's role would be to uphold the rights given to citizens under the constitution. In present day, this would include all citizens which includes women and minorities.
There would not be federal funding for education or healthcare for all.
But 31% of a lower income hits that person harder than it hits the one with higher income, wouldn't you agree?
Yes. All the more reason to work harder/smarter and/or pool resources to pay your fair share. Allowing the lower-income earners to pay SIGNIFICANTLY less than others for access to the exact same government benefits and services incentivizes complacency and dependence. That results in a stagnant to declining society, which apparently is what liberals want.
Legislation? No. The government's role would be to uphold the rights given to citizens under the constitution. In present day, this would include all citizens which includes women and minorities.
There would not be federal funding for education or healthcare for all.
State funding?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
