Having laws and law enforcement is coercion. Taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is coercion.
How about a 10% flat tax on wealth and property?
Fair enough?
The answer depends on what level of government you are asking about. If it is the Federal government you are inquiring about then Alessan, I believe stated it well.
If you are referring to my Homeowners Association, well, my answer will be something entirely different.
ETA: Response to adhay.
I’m partial to a flat tax across the board myself, although I’ve heard it wouldn’t be a very good idea.
At any rate the government needs taxes to operate*. The debate is, what should the money collected on taxes be spent on?
I personally think it should be limited to
[ul]
[li]Education[/li][li]Medical and emergency services[/li][li]Law enforcement[/li][li]Military and intelligence agencies[/li][li]Infrastructure[/li][li]Programs to help those who cannot help themselves (I.E. unemployment benefits, disaster relief)[/li][li]And probably one or two other things I’m forgetting right now.[/li][/ul]
*I guess Libertarians would probably disagree.
Anarchists would disagree. Libertarians only disagree on how much money the government needs to fulfil its duties.
Applied to income, probably not. Wealth should be taxed across the board at the same rate for all.
Your list is a good start. Let the people decide locally and nationally the tax rate and what it’s spent on.
Essentially.
Absolutely not. Your method is more difficult to implement, encouraging fraud. This incentive for the government to over-value assets would cause future bubbles of the sort that caused the last recession. It would also destroy the freedom to retire, by constantly leeching away the assets a retiree needs to survive.
In short, your ideas are terrible.
This is the first thing I thought of—thanks to the Founding Fathers by way of Schoolhouse Rock.
Also,
[QUOTE=Thomas Jefferson]
all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
[/QUOTE]
I believe you describe the system in place. It’s what happens when the wealthy own the govt.
I thought that Libertarians (big L) preferred everything be pretty much privatized (I.E. police forces, fire departments, etc…)
You do not understand the system currently in place, or the system you propose. Under your system a retiree who owned their own $100,000 home and wanted to retain it for even just 15 years (retiring at 70 and living to the age of 85) would need an additional $386,000, just to cover the taxes. That’s the equivalent of an 80% income tax rate, and that’s before you count the taxes paid while they were still working.
No. Those are the things that shouldn’t be privatized, because they are there to stop you inflicting harm on random bystanders without their consent.
I dissent.
“Maximize” made me cringe. Sorry. Maximize, and maybe this was not your intention, invokes a sense that the government is standing over my shoulder. Which is why the Health Care Bill scares me. The government knows better than I do? But the bill itself is not the whole problem, it’s how it was passed… (but that is a discussion for another thread I am afraid).
I think the framers got it right the first time and we should not deviate. Life, libery, and the PURSUIT of happiness.
Life = Laws protecting citizens obviously from such things as murder. Enforcement of those laws.
Liberty = No law prohibiting discussion or assembly. Does not mean complete freedom of speech. Inciting violence for example should not be lawful.
Pursuit of happiness = The ability to have oppurtunity. Often misinterpreted as equality. Equality is not a good thing. Oppurtunity is a better word. Civil rights should allow oppurtunity, not ensure equality. We are individuals and equality is impossible.
Simple, but this attitude would solve a lot of problems in government. Take the auto industry. Why did we bail them out? For the economy? Yes, but not entirely accurate. They were fiscally responsible and their failing was not their fault? No. They asked nicely? No. To bail out the Unions? Ah… If the government took this attitude with every industry, just to save jobs (or votes), we will end up back in the Dark Ages. Imagine if the government propped up the gaslight industry, ignoring light bulbs and electricity. Or bailed out the canal system even though railroads made it obsolete. Let the U.S. auto industry die if they cannot handle emerging technology. Someone else will take their place.
Actually, in his first draft, Jefferson had it, life, liberty and the pursuit of property. No kidding.
Qin?