Fair Share

[Kulindahr]

So feudalism, and even the Plantation system, work for Libertarianism.

Sure, if they're entirely voluntary. You could have a libertarian monarchy, if it was totally voluntary.

I always laugh when libertarians assert that government is "close to the people" on account of geographical proximity. What the hell has that to do with anything?

To me, government being close to the people means they anticipate my needs, and the needs of my fellow citizens, more accurately.

Government is close to the people when I can go down and just walk in the office door of my elected official and ask him WTF he thinks he's doing, and get an answer.

Government is not close to the people when the elected official can't pronounce the name of my town and has no idea what it means to have 400 cows down in a flood plain... so they come up with "solutions" that accomplish virtually nothing except providing jobs doing things that even the workers are laughing at.

 

[bankside]

Sure, if they're entirely voluntary. You could have a libertarian monarchy, if it was totally voluntary.



Government is close to the people when I can go down and just walk in the office door of my elected official and ask him WTF he thinks he's doing, and get an answer.

Government is not close to the people when the elected official can't pronounce the name of my town and has no idea what it means to have 400 cows down in a flood plain... so they come up with "solutions" that accomplish virtually nothing except providing jobs doing things that even the workers are laughing at.

Which government official is closer to you (or any other number of historical citations one might add), the local sheriff, whom I understand to be a bit of a power-mad bully who's not too interested in the judicial niceties of things like...oh...freedom and the rule of law...

Or a remote judge in the capital who might one day rake the sherriff's ass across the coals.

When you can just walk in the office door of your elected official and ask him WTF he thinks he's doing, and NOT get an answer, vs. picking up the phone and starting a long process to bring the person to justice at the court of a far-away official who doesn't know the name of your town but who has read law since the magna carta, I contend it is the central remote government which is closest to the people.

Geographical proximity is the biggest libertarian red herring since fishing was invented.

 

[construct]

No savings should be taxed. If your IRA is invested in stocks or something, fine; if it's basic savings or a CD or something, no. We need a higher savings rate.

Yes saving is a good thing.

Now, IRAs are not made out of nothing. In a traditional IRA, money put into it is not taxed at the time it is contributed. It is taxed when it is withdrawn. All interests and dividends are taxed as such just as they would have been in previous years had they not been in the IRA.

In a Roth IRA, the contributions are taxed before they are put into the IRA. Then the interest and dividends are tax-free. It is this untaxed income which I believe to be an unfair effect of the Roth IRA. That is why I oppose them.

And yes, interest and dividends should both be taxed as income . . . which they are.

 

[Kulindahr]

Which government official is closer to you (or any other number of historical citations one might add), the local sheriff, whom I understand to be a bit of a power-mad bully who's not too interested in the judicial niceties of things like...oh...freedom and the rule of law...

Or a remote judge in the capital who might one day rake the sherriff's ass across the coals.

When you can just walk in the office door of your elected official and ask him WTF he thinks he's doing, and NOT get an answer, vs. picking up the phone and starting a long process to bring the person to justice at the court of a far-away official who doesn't know the name of your town but who has read law since the magna carta, I contend it is the central remote government which is closest to the people.

Geographical proximity is the biggest libertarian red herring since fishing was invented.

That local sheriff is one of those officials the county commissioners would like to do something about but can't. I wouldn't be able to walk in his door unless I had twenty grand to hand him for his personal use.

Geographical proximity isn't as big a deal as it used to be, but it's still important. When the elected officials start to think the real game is in the capital, we in the hinterlands get forgotten or neglected.

 

[Kulindahr]

Unsure about the threshold for zero tax 25K 26K 27K 28 29 or 30K or...23,334 for instance due to some formula output.

Maybe it should be tied to the poverty level but a fmaily of four is often used a defining unit.

It's all very confusing.

I think the poverty line needs to be better defined.

Also any amount is arbitrary and means if someone make 300 bucks more they get kicked into non zero tax. They would argue they are close enough to the line and shouldn't owe anything.

Poverty level is given for individuals, up to a family of four. How it's figured... I don't know. It's a very conservative figure; from my experience I'd say it's a good 20% low.

Yes, they'd get kicked into non-zero tax -- on the $300.

Individual or family hardships of many kinds are not taken into account with such a limit.

I suspect fair share is insensitive to individual cases too.

That's why a flat tax is troublesome. It assumes an average circumstance but in fact everyone has vastly different circumstances. Even the tax system as such isn't sensitive to that.

This is where deductions came from. Then all sorts of things started getting tacked on -- it was the game of, "Well, if he gets a deduction for that, I should get a deduction for this!"

For example, mortgage interest. The problem is there's no limit on it. Mortgage interest should only apply on an amount needed for getting a decent house. Trouble is, that varies -- a house across the street here might go for $200k; the same house where my buddy lives in Indiana wouldn't bring more than $90k. Put on the bluff down by the bay it could pull $300k, no problem -- and sit it in Monterrey, $500k. So how does a fair mortgage interest figure get set?

 

[bankside]

If I buy a wheelbarrow at the hardware store, my fair share is $130. If a millionaire buys the same model of wheelbarrow, her fair share is $130.

Maybe we're both well paid. Maybe I'm getting screwed since I'm not a millionaire.

But we're both paying our fair share for the wheelbarrow. Why should we pay any different for government?

 

[construct]

If I buy a wheelbarrow at the hardware store, my fair share is $130. If a millionaire buys the same model of wheelbarrow, her fair share is $130.

Maybe we're both well paid. Maybe I'm getting screwed since I'm not a millionaire.

But we're both paying our fair share for the wheelbarrow. Why should we pay any different for government?

Because the government is a common good, everyone should chip in what is reasonable for them in their circumstances--here measured by the amount of money they've made this year.

Because the wheelbarrow is a personal good, the price should be what the parties agree to. If you go to a flea market for your wheelbarrow, the price might depend on your skill at negotiating a price. At a store, it's not likely to vary from person to person, but the price is still individual. In neither case is it likely to be influenced by the circumstances of the parties.

Now, would your friend sell you his wheelbarrow at perhaps even a loss because you were poor and you needed it badly? Maybe, perhaps probably. Would he sell it to his rich friend at a loss? Only if he needed to free up capital and didn't foresee a likely buyer.

Thanks for helping me think this through a little more than I had already.