A question on the Libertarian Party and Taxation

[xpanda]

I find the Libertarian Party quite interesting and have read over their party platform on their website. In reading over the question of taxes, I am understanding that it would be their intention to dramatically decrease the number of government programs and eliminate those that don't protect your 'lives, rights and property.' Additionally, it calls for the abolition of income tax ...

This in mind, I am wondering what services (besides a new and improved military) this party would care to uphold, and where they would get the money? Are property taxes to avail? What about sales taxes? Or, conversely, would they ensure ownership of natural resources as a means to generate revenue?

Answers appreciated.

 

[Oceans11]

Sounds like a recipe for a re-enactment of the Wild West.

A tax-free, gun toting, no-responsibility-for-society wet dream that certain individuals have.

I would hazard a guess, that most participants will be relatively wealthy, and mean as fuk.

--------------------------------
They might be a bit more convincing if they all handed their accumulated wealth and title rights over to society,(back to society I should say) in exchange for the opportunity to participate in this 'brave new tax-free world' they allegedly crave.

They can have some Island in the Pacific to start with.

 

[Phaedrus]

eek

That's one lovely civilised society you seek, one so civilised that everyone should be stolen from at gunpoint. Utopia I tells ya.

Read up on your Hayek; he understood Britain a lot better than you apparently do.

xpanda

I don't know what the Libertarian plan for taxes is, or if they have a cohesive plan. I personally like James Ostrowski's $ 21 Trillion Tax Cut. I am not certain that the idea was meant seriously, but I think it's the best plan I've ever heard. Where I live I have worked on implementing a smaller-scale version of this plan as an alternative to the endless sales, property, vice and "usage" taxes which have been added over the years, which have all but destroyed our local economy. We're situated right on the state border. Between the state, county and municipal sales tax, you pay 9% on all of your purchases. Or, you drive 2 miles across a bridge and pay 6% sales tax. You pay $ 1.70 for a gallon of gas, or drive 2 miles across a bridge and pay $ 1.50. You pay $ 3.85 for a pack of cigarettes, or drive 2 miles across a bridge and pay $ 3.25. And as stores go out of business one after another, there are op-eds from the local pundit chastising everyone for "abandoning" our city by shopping elsewhere. Even more apalling, little if any of this money goes towards such useless, wasteful Socialist "services" as welfare and education; it all gets pissed away on stuff like "beautification projects" and preservation of derelict buildings, because the city council does not understand the difference between the words "historic" and "old."


Phaedrus

 

[lander]

I found this bit of content on the libertarian website (www.lp.org) and found some of the stats to be very interesting (and quite disturbing).

I bolded a section that I found to be very sickening. This is by no means a Republican or Democratic problem rather is is a Republican AND Democratic problem.

Do any of you policital gurus (Bill, D2) see a future for a competative 3rd party in American politcans (Libertarian, Green, etc ...)?

-------------------------------------------
http://www.lp.org/issues/family-budget.html

What Happened to Your Family Budget?
Do you remember when the standard of living in America was the best in the world?


Today it is doubtful if our children will be better off than we are. Today, buying a decent home is no more than a dream for many hard-working American families.

Something has caused your family's budget to be cut. Something is going to destroy your family's future unless you act to stop it.

That something is the Federal government and its policy of taxation and inflation. Let's take a look at a median income family of four in the 1950s. At that time, the Federal income tax amounted to only 2% of the family budget. Americans enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world.

By contrast, in the 1990s, the Federal income tax takes 25% of income for the same family of four. Taxes at all levels -- federal, state, and local; hidden and visible -- take about 50% of a family's income. We must work from January to June just to pay taxes.

It now requires two paychecks to keep many families from going bankrupt. Typically, a working mother brings home 32% of a family's income.

So, whether she chooses to work -- or must work to make ends meet -- taxes have stolen her contribution to the family budget. In other words, one spouse now works all year just to pay taxes.

Ask yourself: Is the government spending that half of your income wisely?

You Work Harder
During those same years, the government has increased the money supply -- producing inflation. Whether the inflation rate is 12% or 3%, the result is the same: groceries cost more; clothing costs more; your car costs more. You work harder every year for less purchasing power.

The Federal government is driving your family into bankruptcy.

The government hasn't stopped there. They have borrowed so much money that your children will be sacrificing their entire economic lives to pay the Federal debt.

It seems that no matter who we elect to public office, the government budget gets bigger and the family budget gets smaller.

All too often we have only two choices in an election: a Democrat or a Republican. And no matter which one you vote for, you get higher taxes, bigger deficits, and broken promises.

There is Hope for Your Family
There is a political party that believes the family budget is more important than the Federal budget. A political party that is working to restore the hopes and dreams of every hard-working American family.

It is the Libertarian Party.

Over one hundred Libertarians are currently holding public office. Each of them is working today to keep the government from taking any more of your money. And each of them believes that if government were limited to protecting us against force and fraud, then most Americans would be better off. Less government corruption. No more expensive "boondoggle" projects. No more "special interest" favors at your expense.

The Libertarian Party always defends the family budget. In its entire history, elected Libertarians have never voted to increase taxes. In fact, Libertarians were instrumental in having the Alaska state income tax repealed.

The Libertarian Party will stop the waste in government by decreasing its size and power. We will work to roll back the power of Washington bureaucrats and politicians -- and leave you and your neighbors in control of your own lives.

 

[xpanda]

Personally, I am not necessarily opposed to paying high taxes (we pay among the highest taxes in the world) but would strenuously object to government spending on anything but the people. We have a very unhealthy level of monies to special interest groups, welfar programs that are both demeaning and ineffective, and the like. In fact, the only Canadian program that receives international criticism that I would wholeheartedly support (although would change its bureaucracy) is our health care for all program.

I think the Libertarian party deserves some credit for at least raising the question.

 

[angusr]

When it comes to governments collecting revenue I've always thought that sales taxes are the way to go.....
A tax on consumption rather than income seems more fair to me. Would also seem to have the added benefit of promoting saving/investment and discouraging accumulation of huge personal debt.....

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Angus Ontario:
When it comes to governments collecting revenue I've always thought that sales taxes are the way to go.....
A tax on consumption rather than income seems more fair to me. Would also seem to have the added benefit of promoting saving/investment and discouraging accumulation of huge personal debt.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Angus, it's really not because it disproprtionately effects those that make just enough to get by. At the very least I think you have to exempt neccessities like food and shelter. The day that sales tax us implemented is also the day prices skyrocket. I think you would find a lo of unreported sales and probably more tax-dodging than now.

 

[PatPatriot]

X..the job of goverment is not to provide any "services" outside of basic infrastructure.
Any "services" that the goverment provides can be provided by the private sector,twice as efficently.(In the pure sense).Less goverment is better...when goverment wants money for something "No" should be the starting point.

 

[angusr]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by D2bets:
Angus, it's really not because it disproprtionately effects those that make just enough to get by. At the very least I think you have to exempt neccessities like food and shelter. The day that sales tax us implemented is also the day prices skyrocket. I think you would find a lo of unreported sales and probably more tax-dodging than now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey D2, some good points.....
I think you can get around the undergound economy by using a similar system of income reporting to the one we have now.....just determine total expenditure from total income minus savings/capital gains and tax the difference.

...could have a "tax bracket" system to ensure people at subsistence levels aren't crucified.....

..obviously not a perfect system, but no system of taxation is....


Patriot.....

Please explain why any service provided by the government can be provided by the private sector at twice the efficiency. Never understood this one and I suspect it's just rhetoric repeated by right-wingers to numb us into submission

 

[D2bets]

Agnus, the argument that private sector is more "efficient" is true in some cases but not in others. There are inequities and inefficiences in the private sector that can be smoothed out by the public sector. Anything who takes an all or nothing, black and white, approach is just naive IMO. It is true that government has done some things that could have been done more efficiently by the private sector. That does not mean it holds for all things. In addition, "efficiency" is not always the sole overriding goal. Fairness, opportunity and justice are also goals.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by Angus Ontario:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Please explain why any service provided by the government can be provided by the private sector at twice the efficiency. Never understood this one and I suspect it's just rhetoric repeated by right-wingers to numb us into submission
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you mean right-wingers like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, who each increased the size and scope of the federal government by a greater margin than any other presidents in history? Just curious.

The private sector is more efficient than government because the private sector does not have a choice but to be careful in its resource allocation. There are no guarantees of success in any given endeavour, but the state can always just raise more taxes or divert money from other sources. Private enterprise does not have this luxury. Does that make sense?


Phaedrus


PS. See the thread "Private Highways: A Solution Whos Time has Come (Again)?" for some insight into this idea.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by D2bets:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Agnus, the argument that private sector is more "efficient" is true in some cases but not in others. There are inequities and inefficiences in the private sector that can be smoothed out by the public sector.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This only applies to "services" which the federal government applies that few if any people actually want. Much of what goes on in the DoT and DoAg are a examples of this; federal agencies all but controlled by lobbying groups, which get tremendous benefit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. So yes, the federal government is much more *efficient* at graft, bribes, and bureacracy than any private company could ever hope to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Anything who takes an all or nothing, black and white, approach is just naive IMO.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So is anyone who can justify theft at gunpoint for the greater good. IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
In addition, "efficiency" is not always the sole overriding goal. Fairness, opportunity and justice are also goals.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Efficiency is the sole over-riding goal of any government or private sector enterprise, as defined as "maximum result for minimum expenditure." This also plays over into fairness, opportunity and justice, although the first two ideals are hardly appropriate things for the federal government to be enforcing (look at what a wonderful job they've done so far with the ERA and subsequent bastard legislation like Affirmative Action. "Egalitarian" and "equal" are two wholly seperate concepts.)


Phaedrus

 

[D2bets]

The question is how do you define "maximum result". GDP? If the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but those rich get richer to a greater extent than the poor get poorer....is that maximum result? I think I'd rather see personal incomes go up 5%, all to the poorest, than 10% all to the richest.

 

[Phaedrus]

posted by D2bets:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The question is how do you define "maximum result". GDP? If the rich get richer while the poor get poorer, but those rich get richer to a greater extent than the poor get poorer....is that maximum result? I think I'd rather see personal incomes go up 5%, all to the poorest, than 10% all to the richest.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, another part of efficiency is only engaging in those enterprises which are actually extant outside of think tank's planning rooms. What government program has ever increased "all the poor people's" income, or "all the rich people's" income, as its stated goal (or even as a side benefit?) And how could you argue that increasing anyone's income is the responsibility of the state and not of the person who desires more money?

By "maximum result" I mean, the best possible result for a given endeavour. This could be a trans-national highway, or the dinner I'm going to cook tonight. I don't get what is ambiguous about the term.


Phaedrus

 

[angusr]

Phaedrus....

Yes - it makes perfect sense that in many arenas the private sector will be more efficient than the public sector . . . but surely you must agree that there are some areas in which the public sector can do a better job?

I was just reading an article today about this consortium of private hospitals run by Senate majority leader Bill Frist and how that company demands a minimum 20% profit margin of each hospital in the organization. Now if the goal of a hospital is streamlined operation and profit then I agree that the private sector does a good job. But if the goal is to deliver quality health care then it seems to me that by re-investing that 20% back in to health care delivery a not-for-profit (i.e. public) hospital would in theory be an improvement....

 

[D2bets]

It's very ambiguous. So is "best possible result". Increasing income i not the resposiblity of government, but thr framework that a government puts in place will necessarily benefit some more than others. I would simply argue that you want to put a framework in place that will allow the greaest number of people to live at or above a reasonable standard of living, even at the exepnse of some greater real amount of economic activity. History has taught that a huge and increasing disparity between the haves and the have-nots is not good for the perpetustion of the siciety. If government can set a framework to help ensure that the gap doesn't widen, then society will continue to prosper in the long-run. There is always a balance between short and long-term thinking.

 

[angusr]

D2Bets....I like the way you think buddy and you must have read John Rawls....

Phaedrus have you ever read John Rawls? Don't bother reading him if you haven't guy cause I bet he'll make your blood boil....

 

[SENDITIN]

Phaedrus,

There were some private functions such as the self regulation by the accounting industry that have turned out to be a complete failure and cost people a lot of money. I think in the regulatory arena the private sector has failed dismally. But I do concur that in general the private sector is a zillion times more efficient than the government.

Now as for D2 and his socialist income distribution ways...that's another story! The government has no business determining anyone's income level.

 

[Oceans11]

The nitwits had their chances and blew it.

Religious nitwits.
Upper class nitwits.
Free Capitalist nitwits.
Communist nitwits.

All of the above controlled huge swathes of resources at some point, and they all blew their chance.


First Phase: 1000-1500 (elitist dreamer system 1)
The religious nitwits who tried to run society with fire and brimstone.
A majority of society living in pretty bad poverty.

Second Phase: 1501-1750 (elitist dreamer system 2)
Lord and Lady nitwit who believed that they had a divine right by birth to rule over the lower classes as they saw fit, as well as the colonised peoples around the world.
A huge majority of people living in poverty.

Third phase: 1750-1910 (elitist dreamer system 3)
Free Unfettered Capitalist nitwits, who paid almost zip tax. Drove the industrial revolution with millions living in incredible poverty and squalor, no healthcare nothing, except lots of work...
Almost no government intervention and virtually no regulations exist in this phase.
Conditions created by the unfettered capitalists were so bad that millions looked towards communism as a viable alternative.

Phase 4a : 1910 to 1990ish (elitist dreamer system 4)
Communist nitwits who thought they could run the world's resources with committees, decrees and ideology.
Communism actually controlled around half the worlds resources at one time, and boy oh boy did they blow it. Present day infrastructure of most ex-communist countries is in need of serious upgrades.

Phase 4b: 1900-present (elitist dreamers neutralised/diluted)
Mixed economies in the West, medium taxes, some capitalism, some socialism.
Government intervention, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, resulting in the highest standard of living ever seen for hundreds of millions, (not just some advantaged elite).
Healthcare, education, Housing, clean water, sanitation, transport etc etc.


Lesson learned from previous 1000 years.

Do not allow any special interest group of elitists to run your society, the mixed economies of the last 70 years have proven that.

 

[D2bets]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SENDITIN:
Now as for D2 and his socialist income distribution ways...that's another story! The government has no business determining anyone's income level.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said anything of the sort. I never said govt determines income levels. I'm simply saying that lifting the lower and upper classes should be a general goal of society. That certainly doesn't mean that everyone will be equal, or even close to it, it just means that a rising tide lifts all boats. A society where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer is doomed for turbulence (by the way I am NOT suggesting that is currently the case here").