Quote:
Originally posted by Sidd Finch
So are you against all taxes? Or just anything that goes past a flat tax?
|
No. The federal government plays an important roll and must be approrpriately funded in order to do so. I'm most concerned with (a) income taxes and (b) the amount of all taxes as a percentage of income. There have been many studies done on (b) which place this percentage at above 50% when all taxes are factored in. To me, there is something seriously wrong with a system where a person needs to work more than 6 months out of each year for free.
Quote:
|
Are you against other instances in which the majority enacts rules that affect the minority? Against regulation of businesses? Criminal penalties?
|
I am against a majority taking a minority's property without any rational justification. We can discuss specifics, but I'm not against regulation per se nor against criminal penalties.
Quote:
|
As for the "more benefit" argument, the greater income alone is reflective of that benefit. Could you make your above-average salary without a government?
|
You seem to suggest that the government provides the conditions necessary for me to make money. At the 50,000 foot level, you are probably correct, in that we need a stable society and methods of enforcement to allow the economy to function properly. But at a lower level, I disagree with that premise. In most of the deals I'm involved in, the law plays a very minor roll and the parties agree to opt-out of the system, and choose private arbitration instead. So, yes, I could make the salary I'm making without a government. There would still need to be an enforcement mechanism, but the private courts are perfectly able to provide this, so long as they are backed by the threat of the gun.
Quote:
|
Was that a WSJ article, or an editorial? The latter is pretty suspect, especially if it asserts "a couple of trillion" in new spending.
|
An article. I believe it was from Friday's edition.
eft
