From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Wed Jan 02 2002 - 20:54:59 MST
On Wednesday, January 02, 2002 9:51 PM Neil Blanch neilb@nswcc.org.au
wrote:
>> One, I don't think tax money should be taken at all. So, there can
be
>> no moral justification for tax funded aid to Afghanistan. I did not
>> bomb Afghanistan. Nor did I voluntarily support said bombing. In
>> fact, I've been against the war from the start -- and probably every
>> military effort of the US that has happened in my adult life -- e.g.,
>> the Persian Gulf War and the wars in the Balkans. (Those who did
>> support the war are another matter. I did not.)"
>
> While I sympathise that you do not want your tax dollars going towards
such
> ventures (particularly military ventures) I feel your reasoning is
flawed.
Oh. I'm really trying to lessen my involvement in this list for now,
since I've got a lot of studying to do, but your post demands a reply.
> If taxpayers were able to decide exactly where their tax dollars would
go
> there would be chaos - people who don't drive cars would refuse to
> contribute towards road maintenance, healthy people would refuse to
> contribute towards public health, young people would refuse to
contribute
> towards care for the elderly, employed people would refuse to
contribute
> towards welfare of any kind (justified or not). Pacifists would refuse
to
> contribute towards any military (& possibly any police) funding. I
think you
> can see where I am going with this...
Heaven forbid! But this is exactly how I think it should be: no taxes.
Funny thing that drivers should not get subsidized to use roads. What
would be wrong with that?
Also, even with people paying taxes now there is massive voluntary
charity. So, I don't think that if no one paid taxes, suddenly every
last person who couldn't support herself or himself would suddenly die
out. Instead, without the burden and waste of taxation, things would be
more efficiently done. E.g., roads that really were economically
efficient instead of politically attractive would get built. (On
private roads, see Dan Klein's _many_ papers on the subject at
http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/default.htm) Ditto for just about
anything else the government does.
Also, if you think that people would only make socially bad choices with
their money if it stayed in their hands, why would you trust them to
vote for a government? By your logic, why should they be allowed to
vote? After all, wouldn't they only vote for stuff for themselves? Do
tell!
> Taxation, the great bug bear of American citizenry, HAS it's uses. Tax
> dollars can & should be used to provide services that the community as
a
> whole needs otherwise these needs would not be met. I am the first to
say
> that current tax structures, both here in Australia & in the US, do
not do a
> very good job of catering to those needs, & much work in tax reform (&
> government spending) is needed. However the constant obsession with
lowering
> tax burdens (particularly for the wealthy, who through tax avoidance
> schemes, contribute increasingly small portions of their incomes) is
slowly
> killing off vital public services such as education and healthcare
without
> trimming the often ridiculous excesses of state & federal government.
I'm not for lowering taxes just for the wealthy. I'm for abolishing
taxes for everyone. Likewise, I'm also for cutting government spending
to zero and abolishing it too -- both here and in Australia. (To be
honest, I'm support this position morally, but I'm not devoting my life
to it. I've got a lot of other living to do that comes before politics.
Part of that right now involves studying.)
Anyhow, see my site for more on this and check out my Libertarian
Sources links. That might give you a better idea of some of my beliefs
in this area since I don't want to participate in a big discussion right
now.
Cheers!
Daniel Ust
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:32 MST