cliff@unmvax.UUCP (10/05/84)
> Look, I'm sick of hearing knee-jerk libertarians refer to everything that > the government does as 'extortion'. If you are responsible, and pay for > what the government does for you, it's not extortion or theft, it's just > paying for what you use. > > Wayne It is sad, but one consolation for those who are paying too much taxes is at least you don't get as much government as you pay for. Remember, the US went from 1789 to 1913 with no Constitutional authorization for income tax. I do believe that when the income tax amendment (++yes, the Constitution had to be *amended* {Article XVI I believe}) was being ratified that some congressmen thought a ceiling should be included, lest in the future we might face a tax as HIGH as 3% (three percent). Of course popular thought at that time believed a ceiling unnecessary, because Americans wouldn't stand for such larceny. ++this point is not directed at Wayne, but at people who may not have known or forgotten when/how income tax was brought about (I guess it is possible for some netters to remember a time before income tax, but only a few and certainly not me) Libertarians object to income tax, but not necessarily road fees (the roads should be owned by private industry and surely they could choose to collect fees). An effective military is one of the few things that most libertarians and Libertarians agree as a necessity. How to fund it is another matter, and military waste is a third. Let's not paint libertarians as irresponsible and I won't try to portray the Democrats under Mondale as *purposefully* trying to ruin the economy. Both groups mean well and if your article meant only to object to the unthinking libertarians (a subset of the unthinking masses) then I apologize. My interpretation was that you meant to castigate anyone opposed to income tax. --Cliff [Matthews] {lbl-csam, purdue, cmcl2}!lanl-a!unm-cvax!unmvax!cliff {csu-cs, pur-ee, convex, gatech, ucbvax}!unmvax!cliff 4744 Trumbull S.E. - Albuquerque NM 87108 - (505) 265-9143
faustus@ucbcad.UUCP (10/07/84)
> Remember, the US went from 1789 to 1913 with no Constitutional authorization > for income tax. I do believe that when the income tax amendment (++yes, the > Constitution had to be *amended* {Article XVI I believe}) was being ratified > that some congressmen thought a ceiling should be included, lest in the future > we might face a tax as HIGH as 3% (three percent). Of course popular thought > at that time believed a ceiling unnecessary, because Americans wouldn't stand > for such larceny. Things have changed a great deal since then. Perhaps 3% income tax was good enough in 1913 for the government to do what it was supposed to be doing, but after the '30s and the liberal programs created then, there was a basic change in the understanding of what things are the responsibility of the government -- besides the regulation of the economy, to make sure that people don't starve. This costs money, and the fact is that most people are willing to pay a substantial fraction of their income in taxes for this. Libertarians, who seem to be unwilling to do so, are clearly in the minority, and since everyone benefits from this sort of "safety-net" program, including people who don't want it, they will have to pay for it whether they want to or not. It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that. Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated. How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things. Wayne
mrh@aluxz.UUCP (HUDOCK) (10/09/84)
> > Remember, the US went from 1789 to 1913 with no Constitutional authorization > > for income tax. I do believe that when the income tax amendment (++yes, the > > Constitution had to be *amended* {Article XVI I believe}) was being ratified > > that some congressmen thought a ceiling should be included, lest in the future > > we might face a tax as HIGH as 3% (three percent). Of course popular thought > > at that time believed a ceiling unnecessary, because Americans wouldn't stand > > for such larceny. > > Things have changed a great deal since then. Perhaps 3% income tax was good > enough in 1913 for the government to do what it was supposed to be doing, > but after the '30s and the liberal programs created then, there was a basic > change in the understanding of what things are the responsibility of the > government -- besides the regulation of the economy, to make sure that people > don't starve. This costs money, and the fact is that most people are willing > to pay a substantial fraction of their income in taxes for this. Libertarians, > who seem to be unwilling to do so, are clearly in the minority, and since > everyone benefits from this sort of "safety-net" program, including people > who don't want it, they will have to pay for it whether they want to or not. > It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that. > > Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated. > How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government > regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically > ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things. > > Wayne Wayne The basic problem is you and the majority believe someone else should be responsible for you. Mike
slack@wxlvax.UUCP (Tom Slack) (10/17/84)
Wait?! Wait. Isn't a constitutional amendment necessary to change what is the Responsibility of the Federal Goverment? Can people simply change by executive orders and legislation for special interests what they think the central goverment should be doing and have that process legalize a basic change in the power of the goverment? If so, then there was really no power in the people to begin with. Either we believe the power in the goverment comes from the people, or we do not. If it does, then after something like the constitution is accepted, it cannot be simply changed by a large group of people who believe that the central goverment should control the economy, or soak the rich to benefit the poor, or spend more than they get because of some supposed crisis or another, or spend money on anything that does not benefit everyone in this country EQUALLY. To say that everyone benefits when the goverment controls the economy is like saying that illness is caused by bad blood and patients benefit by bleeding them.
nrh@inmet.UUCP (10/18/84)
>***** inmet:net.politics / ucbcad!faustus / 11:20 am Oct 8, 1984 >> Remember, the US went from 1789 to 1913 with no Constitutional authorization >> for income tax. I do believe that when the income tax amendment (++yes, the >> Constitution had to be *amended* {Article XVI I believe}) was being ratified >> that some congressmen thought a ceiling should be included, lest in the future >> we might face a tax as HIGH as 3% (three percent). Of course popular thought >> at that time believed a ceiling unnecessary, because Americans wouldn't stand >> for such larceny. > >Things have changed a great deal since then. Perhaps 3% income tax was good >enough in 1913 for the government to do what it was supposed to be doing, >but after the '30s and the liberal programs created then, there was a basic >change in the understanding of what things are the responsibility of the >government -- besides the regulation of the economy, to make sure that people >don't starve. Okay, now think about it -- NOTHING prevents another "change in the understanding" of what a government should do. That libertarians work hard at producing such a change should be no surprise to you. >This costs money, and the fact is that most people are willing >to pay a substantial fraction of their income in taxes for this. Support, please -- remember, those laws were enacted by executive order and political means in a republic -- not by popular vote. In particular, *WHAT* fraction of their income are they willing to commit -- not the other fellow's income but their own? >Libertarians, >who seem to be unwilling to do so, are clearly in the minority, and since >everyone benefits from this sort of "safety-net" program, including people >who don't want it, they will have to pay for it whether they want to or not. >It's the rule of the majority, and there's nothing you can do about that. Au contraire! We can try to change the majority opinion by pointing out its flaws. In particular, I like the notion that these social programs should have to PROVE their worth, rather than sounding like a good idea. > >Now, aside from these vague ideas, there are many details that can be debated. >How much money should be spent on social programs, how much should government >regulate the economy, etc... But first you have to agree that it is basically >ok for the government to collect taxes and spend them for these things. No thanks. YOU agree to it. I'm not about to cede you the idea that it is (on net balance) worthwhile for government to have welfare programs, school programs, milk supports, and the rest.