Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
Your comment is important because no one believes that those who are needy should be ignored. The debate is whether such charity should be legislated, i.e., forced upon other people. I wish to be charitable in my own way. I do not necessarily wish to be charitable as the law commands. By what right do we allow such laws to be imposed on the minority?
|
This is, no offense, a false argument. You're misusing the term force, and you choosing to ignore the social contract. You were born into or became a citizen of the United States of America. By benefiting from the services the government provides—military, police, social safety net, fire protection, etc.—you are agreeing to pay into the system. The nice thing about our system is that our system is a Republic, a social entity wherein the people are allowed the ability to change laws and redress the government, which creates and enforces the law. If you are no longer able to tolerate the system and the change you wish is highly unlikely, you also have the opportunity to opt out of the agreement and enter into a different one. Assuming the new government will have you, you can switch your citizenship.
There's no force, only voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. Acting as if there's force is a way to rationalize the stripping of successful social programs away from the people they benefit the most.
Also, and perhaps more importantly, many social programs have been proven to stimulate the economy more than any form of charity. Food stamps, often the target of libertarian mire, increases economic activity $1.73 for every dollar spent, making it the most efficient economic stimulus in modern history. Unemployment insurance returns $1.62 for every dollar spent. These are wildly successful programs, programs that contribute greatly to economic stability that you benefit from.
Tax breaks, btw, generally return a dollar or less for every dollar spent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy recluse
You mention "fair" progressive taxation, but why is your conception of "fair" the right one, and mine is wrong? Is your argument any more than, "Well, that's just how I feel about it"?
|
Do you really want me to lay out the various argument for a progressive tax system and against a flat tax in a pub discussion? I can, but it will probably take me a good three hours.
Let me put the argument in its most simple terms: If make $250,000 a year and you make $25,000 a year and there's a flat tax of 25%. Is this your idea of fair? Who in reality is shouldering more of a personal burden for the sake of the state? The simple answer in this hypothetical situation would clearly be you. You would lose over $6,000 a year in income, which would be financially devastating. I'd still be taking home nearly $190,000 a year. As I'm wealthy, I'd statistically be less prone to use all of my income to consume. I'd be able to invest more, thus getting a return. In the end, a flat tax is a regressive tax. If you actually take a look at the reality in the 24 countries that currently have a flat tax, it's hugely beneficial to the wealthy and burdensome to the poor, particularly in former communist countries.
If you want me to elaborate, I can, but as this is a pub discussion, I can't cite my sources so you'll have to google them yourself.