How Many Libertarians on this Board Were Born Into Poverty?

As long as the appropriate taxes were paid as it was accumulated, why should it be taxed a second time? Personally, in my opinion, if the person who earns a million dollars a year was to pay 30%, or $300,000 in taxes, it would only be fair that the person who earned $10,000 per year should also have to pay 30%, or $3,000 in taxes. Government should have no right or responsibility to use the tax system to redistribute the wealth of one individual to another. That is a component of Marxist Socialism and Communism.

 

I'm a fiscally and environmentally conservative social libertarian....

I'm not poor, but I'm sure as fuck not on the level of the koch brothers, or any of those other self serving rich fuckheads who give libertarians a bad name. (Companies are not people, and as such, do NOT have the rights or entitlements of people, but instead responsibility to those people..... Most rich people who bill themselves as libertarian are evil fuckheads.)

I love the comic with the dumbass smoking tobacco and complaining about being taxed for being clever.

 

For someone who's whole belief is having to make your own way through life how can you support a trust fund baby receiving an enormous lump sump of money for doing absolutely nothing at all without some kind of penalty on it. I mean you're really just rewarding laziness and stupidity.

 

We do each make our own way through life. I just don't see government having a responsibility to reduce envy by trying to make each individual more equal to one another by taking from one and giving to another. The so called "trust fund baby" while viewed with envy is one less burden on society, and that enormous lump sum(p?) of money has no use except to spend, wisely or not.
And it's not you or I who are rewarding anyone, but the one who earned the money originally who alone is providing what you call a reward. From where does society derive a right to a share in the past earnings which had been taxed when they were earned?
Be it sufficient to just state that I am NOT a socialist, nor do I believe in Socialism, Marxism, or Communism as a centralized form of government. I view societies as numerous, not singular, each one with cultural similarities as well as dis-similarities, that relate with one another primarily on a basis of trade.
In my opinion, good governance begins with the individual, and flows downward through the family, friends and neighbors within the community, State, and at the very bottom exists the Federal government which should constrain itself to nothing more than what is literally allowed within the U.S. Constitution.
So, do you really prefer a government that evaluates what each individual has and uses the application of government determined and imposed penalties to equalize outcomes?

 

This is the same mistake anarchists make.

They decide how they would like it, and then try to apply human nature to this idyllic picture, instead of the other way around.

 

I am just kind of thinking out loud here, but:

Let's say the above individuals each agreed with you. Let's further assume that both are happy with the lifestyle 70% of their earnings affords them, but understandably the lower wage earner, despite careful and wise budgeting, simply can not feed, clothe, house and educate his family on less than 70% of his income.

What would be fair for that society of 2 to do when the cost of governing themselves exceeds $303,000.00?

 

There exists a collage of idyllic pictures. It is people, individuals, who first create a society which in turn creates a government which then tries to reduce the individual which in turn diminishes and eventually destroys the society.

The U.S. government as initially created was to the left of anarchy, recognizing that for freedom to exist "some" government was necessary. It has gradually been moved further and further to the left, well past the center to the point that insufficient teats exist to feed everyone.

 

I don't think any government would be necessary for a society of 2, and if each of the two found no value in the other it would likely become a society of one in short order. Besides, what purpose would money have in a two person society? If one was a male and the other a female, they could marry and become one as a family. Of course today the same could occur if both were of the same sex, but they would become extinct in the end of their own generation.

 

you try and live on the remaining $7000 a year

your stupidest assertion in a long career . . .

 

I currently live on slightly more than $300 per month, you work it out.

Fair is fair. How about creating a surtax for all registered Democrats or at least all who openly claim to support socialism, who earn more than the median annual income? Would such persons willingly submit the additional tax?

 

IN FUCKING LAOS!

geez

 

lol I live on $300 a month in a country that's still a net receiver of foreign aid.

 

I was born fairly wealthy. My father made 200 grand a year and my mother made 80 grand. When i was about 7 or 8 my mother devorced my father and quit her job. I lived with her for years and was exposed to real poverty.. It's had quite a profound effect on me. I consider myself a left libertarian.

 

If you're mother still made $80,000 a year you're not anywhere near poverty.

 

After devorce she had NO job and servived off of food stamps and $400 a month via child support.

 

Well then remember, under true libertarianism you wouldn't even have had those food stamps, and most people on food stamps have never had anywhere close to a $80,000 job beforehand to have saved up any money.

 

Indeed. My life was rather rediculous for some time. :l But i'm quite thankfull to have ben able to experince both the upper and lower class states of living in my short life. Without the experince i fear i might have turned out to be some punk ass hypocritical hipster.

 

Now you're assuming, and it appears your socialist views may be somewhat biased in favor of your own greed, or is it just racism being exposed?

 

At least you're living.

 

You'd have to explain that for it to make any sense.