the reincarnation of suzy wrote:So what do you want to do? Pay the cops every time you need them? Maybe we could have police and fire insurance instead! Anyone who wanted to utilize these services could just open a policy. Then only the people who can afford it could be protected, Yeah! That's morality! Buy all your books instead of go to the library? Pay for your kid's school, teachers, books, etc by writing a check each semester? Build the roads yourself? Pay for an independant food tester before each meal to make sure your food is safe? Eh, who needs taxes?
I don't like that they're ALL beholden to somebody.
Where to start?
That's right, taxes are necessary. I'm not sold on the national sales tax like most libertarians I know. I believe property taxes are some of the worst philosophically, essentially charging you to use your own land. I think we ough to change tax day to the end of September. Then once you've paid taxes you get a slip in the mail that certifies that you paid taxes and that you're now eligible to vote in the upcoming election. This plan's probably got lots of problems, but I like the concept. That way only productive members of society who file taxes like all the other productive schmoes out there get to vote.
And I readily admit that we have very low taxes compared to much of the rest of the world.
But do we need to take 25% from the top wage earners? Do we need to take 17% from people that make $50,000 per year (I know that's lots in the rural midwest, but I'm from one of those blue counties on the new election maps, and $50,000 doesn't go very far to raise 7 kids in the county with the second highest cost-of-living (adjusted for average income, behind New York City).
Allow me to return to that classic trickle down argument. The more money people get to keep, the more they'll save and spend. Even saving money in today's banking system is a light for of investment, generating more money. And the more money spent, the more is returned to circulation. Even the richest people invest in companies, allowing the hiring of more workers.
The government does this too, but it is inherently inefficient, as it does not exist in the strengthening environs of the free market.
Does the government need our money to function? Yes, unequivocaly. Does it need as much as it takes? No.
And to get down to the very principle: Yes, I would prefer to pay for my kids education by writing a check each semester. Once again, it has been proven over and over that the government's solution to poor grades of throwing more money at the schools does not work. The districts with the highest per-student spending are generally near the bottom of the score sheet. Private schools and school choice are more efficient economically, but (so much more important) also better at teaching my kids (oh and what about home schooling?).
