It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Possible Democratic and Libertarian Teamwork to End Drug War?

page: 2
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:03 PM
link   
I support a flat tax and believe it can pass
Newt Gingrich proposed 20% flat tax let's start there.
Getting rid of deductions and loopholes or capping returns at $15,000 is a must or the rich will continue to pay far less than the 20% we would be paying.
Lower our rates on the backs of rich people who have been paying 5%. I'm in. Only people paying less than 20% now would see increases.

The holdup is dems want to use the increase on the deficit.
Republicans want a revenue neutral flat tax so they can say they didn't raise taxes,
But like I said, if you're a billionaire that paid 5% cuz of deductions or loopholes, your taxes would go up.
These people love the complicated system we have now.
They also have sway in congress , I don't see republicans bringing this common sense legislation to the floor




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp



Rand Paul is not an isolationist, btw.


Neither am I.
I just trust him more than establishment candidates on both sides that continually want to raise budgets for war and spying on citizens.

As to my OP, there are enough like minded republicans to join libertarians and progressives to form a majority...

Darn Hastert rule



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: HighFive

I agree.




posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: HighFive

Both republicans and democrats don't want it because they both use the tax code to their advantage. I don't think it needs to be as high as 20%. I'd like to see it down around 10-15% with no distinction on the varying types of income. If the tax rate is low enough, there is no reason to distinguish between cap gains and wage earner income, etc.

The reason you have rich folks seeing lower rates is because they are earning money from investments, not necessarily working. Capital gains is low because it is to encourage reinvestment of capital. That money has already been taxed before. It is like you took $100 out of each paycheck and after a while you have say $10k to invest. You invest that money and it makes you say $10k of profit. You'd only get taxed at 15% because the initial investment was already taxed at whatever bracket you were in for regular income. The flip side is if you lost your $10k investing, you could only write off $3k. This is why the cap gains rate is lower. EVERYONE benefits from low cap gains, not just rich people.

Not to derail the thread, but my point was simply that we really have to look at what people's intent is in regards to their positions. I see alternative intent a lot of times with progressives when we may agree in theory. usually, they seem to agree only as so far as it is hurting something they disagree with ideologically, not that they necessarily are embracing freedom.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
originally posted by: Edumakated
I think repealing the 16th amendment is where to start, there should be no federal income taxes.

If we need more revenue, let the states attempt to raise it so citizens have a non-political mechanism to restrain funding (leave the states whose taxes are too high).
edit on 6-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated
The money spent on the drug war alone could probably fund all the social programs those on the left think we need. The drug war is unwinnable. At this point, I'd say just legalize all drugs and then use the money saved to fund rehab. I rather get rid of the violence associated with drug sales / use with the gangs and just warehouse the addicted losers in huge rehab centers and help them get their lives together.


Shocked to see there is something the two of us agree upon!

Thanks for sharing your thoughts!!!

Sadly the drug war is about fear, control and political ideology more then it was ever about drugs.
edit on 6-3-2015 by AlaskanDad because: grammar



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Point taken.

Capital gains tax is 15% now, and it would have to be a system where everyone earnings were taxed the same no matter how it was earned. But going to 15% would require other cuts not strictly tax reform. 20% is feasible now

All the more reason for flat tax. An uncomplicated system is easy to adjust. 20% now 15% by 2017, 18% when we start the next war......

Flat tax and drug war reform could be done this year



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Edumakated
I think repealing the 16th amendment is where to start, there should be no federal income taxes.

If we need more revenue, let the states attempt to raise it so citizens have a non-political mechanism to restrain funding (leave the states whose taxes are too high).


I agree. I just don't see us realistically getting rid of Fed Taxes though.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: greencmp
originally posted by: Edumakated
I think repealing the 16th amendment is where to start, there should be no federal income taxes.

If we need more revenue, let the states attempt to raise it so citizens have a non-political mechanism to restrain funding (leave the states whose taxes are too high).


I agree. I just don't see us realistically getting rid of Fed Taxes though.


We have repealed an amendment before so, I have no reason to dismiss the possibility.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I believe that government is the progenitor of strife.

Any federal legislation beyond that which is necessary for the operation of the few responsibilities which are delegated to it under the constitution is pure folly and cannot be reconciled with the principals of libertarianism.

Artificial preference of any kind fosters inequality and therefore unequal treatment under the law. I think that is where we begin to diverge.


We don't diverge there. I agree that this is the case. Most of the time that I agree with government intervention is because the majority is actively using the system to discriminate against the minority. I don't LIKE those interventions, but I see them as necessary because this group wouldn't achieve equality otherwise.


Remember that libertarians defend pacifism, they do not endorse it. To use the Rothbardian example, if a citizen is wronged by another citizen, he should have the exclusive right to decide whether to prosecute or not.


I never forgot that, but America hasn't had a war of defense for 70+ years, and our war of aggressions FAR outnumber our defensive wars. It's ridiculous.


While foreign wars are greatly discouraged, even Hayek agreed that he would be "better dead than red".

The only defendable libertarian viewpoint is to completely remove the legal institution of marriage and treat it like any other civil contract with zero benefits or penalties of any kind (such as tax breaks, etc.)


That is what I'd like, but that will never happen thus I make concessions on my beliefs. Government should never have been involved in the first place, but it is and it won't go away therefore government must extend this position equally.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:11 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

That isn't necessarily true. People who work from the government spend their paychecks which works its way back through the economy through the multiplier effect. Yes their income does partially remove themselves from the economy, but their expenses can still be calculated in the economic flow.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

That isn't necessarily true. People who work from the government spend their paychecks which works its way back through the economy through the multiplier effect. Yes their income does partially remove themselves from the economy, but their expenses can still be calculated in the economic flow.


For example:

A dig holes and refill them program pumps non-market based currency into a local economy.

The local economy responds by expanding services to accommodate the increase.

When the 'stimulus' program runs its course, the local economy is left with misallocated capital and resources which must contract with consequences more dire than if no manipulation had occurred.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

But that isn't an example of removal from the economy. That is an example of artificial stimulation of a local economy. Money is being double spent without being earned again, but it is STILL being spent again. There is still economic effects of this.

But if you are against fixing our infrastructure, then who should fix it and upgrade it with new technology?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

But that isn't an example of removal from the economy. That is an example of artificial stimulation of a local economy. Money is being double spent without being earned again, but it is STILL being spent again. There is still economic effects of this.

But if you are against fixing our infrastructure, then who should fix it and upgrade it with new technology?


The source of the destructive funds come from other communities and ultimately produce negative results in the target community. A net loss across the board for everyone involved except the benefactors of the welfare (state workers).

If you didn't take 25% (or much more) of everyone's income away from them by force, they could easily afford to pay tolls/service fees on privately constructed infrastructure.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: greencmp

But that isn't an example of removal from the economy. That is an example of artificial stimulation of a local economy. Money is being double spent without being earned again, but it is STILL being spent again. There is still economic effects of this.

But if you are against fixing our infrastructure, then who should fix it and upgrade it with new technology?


The issue is that the government does not produce anything of real value. So while the government employees may be spending their paycheck, that money was actually forcibly taken out of the larger economy from productive citizens through taxes. Had it not been, that money could have been more efficiently allocated. No, I am not arguing that there shouldn't be government employees, but when government is bloated it becomes a drag on the productive economy.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

So government shouldn't be spending money to improve infrastructure?



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated

So government shouldn't be spending money to improve infrastructure?


No.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:46 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

You know, looking at how Verizon treated Netflix with its pipes, I highly doubt privately constructed roadways would be so simple. Somehow I have a feeling they would be INCREDIBLY money draining. I for one happen to ENJOY not having to pay money every time I get into my car to drive.



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm not sure I follow what you mean.

Nothing could be more expensive than government run public works.

Nothing is free.
edit on 6-3-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2015 @ 01:55 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

The government doesn't nickel and dime you for any little thing. If it were possible a corporation owning a road would charge you to change lanes.

In my book, infrastructure is one of the government's responsibilities. I understand that needs to be paid for with taxes and I'm ok with it.
edit on 6-3-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join