So your issue with welfare is the methods in which the taxes that fund it are collected?
Don't make this about just him. He's expressing the Libertarian viewpoint on this issue.
OUR issue with welfare is that taxation to cover it is in fact immoral. It's Theft.
Ron Paul, the *real current frontrunner for president of the USA is a full-on libertarian. This means the majority of the country could actually agree.
*If you discard all the poll rigging and paid votes going on right now.
What is your solution then?
I hear a lot of bitching, the only solution I see is "Fuck the poor people" and "The wealthy will take care of the poor, if only they weren't forced to pay taxes"
You see NO "fuck the poor people" among libertarians. Your apparent limited education would seem to allow you no other options but than to think we mean that when we say "remove the welfare system."
The best solution that isn't too radical (i.e. that could possibly happen without overthrowing america in a bloody revolution) is to replace the tiered taxation system with a flat-fee system that FAIRLY taxes everyone UNLESS THEY OPT OUT... Of course they'd lose entitlements if they did so, however.
That's only fair.
Ron Paul himself has proposed this even recently. Here are the details of that specific plan:
Ron Paul Suggests 10% Flat Tax to Opt-Out of Federal Govt Programs | Truth is Treason
As for the rest of the poor, OF COURSE charities would step up to help things like your brothers situation. If everyone with money is giving up a ridiculously large amount of it for taxes now and then opts out of taxes altogether, then they'll have a huge surplus of money with which they can give to charities of their choice.
So if churches and charities are receiving huge amounts of donations now with our currently high tax rates, imagine what they could be when there is no tax for those giving.
I think people like you don't believe this would happen because you have no faith in the richer people to do the right thing. You want that money from the top 10% of earners to go to everything you care about.
But that's where you're imposing immorality on 10% of the country again. Why not just get a gun and go force them to give your brother some housing yourself instead of using the government to do it for you?
Meanwhile, the richest 10% is currently being forced to give up OVER HALF of their income every year to support people who currently don't give up any of their income. This is not only wrong, but it's a
slap in the face to the top wage earners who simply do not believe in rewarding failure.
It's not the poor who should revolt in this country; it's the rich! No one is being treated as unfairly as them.
So the argument against having welfare is that poor people should die in the streets to save you having to pay taxes so you can keep 100% of your income.
Only heartless fools would make that argument. Kstanki is not arguing the libertarian viewpoint at all. Plz ignore.
I think it's the ultimate display of selfishness and lack of empathy for people and society to take the view that everyone should pay for themselves.
Well the libertarian stance isn't simply that "everyone pay for themselves only" simply because we know that people like tspesh's brother and all mentally retarded people exist. MINARCHISTS (people for as small a government as possible) would still allow some kind of tax in their government like Ron Paul has proposed with his flat tax. Presumably some of that could help their situation.
ANARCHISTS, like myself, believe that there should be no government at all, and all services should be subscription based. Every part of the government would be broken up into private services, including justice, security, health, all of it. Roads would all be either toll roads or private, and fireman and sewer would be just more services you pay for each month. That's the definition of fair... And it means that there is no such thing as bureaucracy to send your money where you don't want it to go or worse, waste it with inefficiency.
In the case of the mentally handicapped the family of the handicapped person would simply have options that aren't allowed right now. A service they could subscribe to that would take care of those special needs that tspesh just explained can't be done under the current government structure.
Also tax isn't the redistribution of wealth, two seconds of thought would show that o be nonsense.
LULZ!
I'll assume that you understand the point being made in the "George Ought to Help" film above so you must be missing the part where once the government has your money, you have NO SAY WHATSOEVER over what happens to it and how it is used.
I dare you to call your congressman or whatever you have and tell him that you'd like the money sent in on taxes this year only applied to people at the same wealth level as yourself. :1bluewinky:
So since the guv is definitely going to be taking your money and giving it to whomever they see fit, and that likely includes people in different wealth classes than your own, would you like to rephrase that point you were making here?
You're missing the point.
The onus is on us to get the country we want, not on them. We (supposedly) have the power. If you don't like the job your politician is doing, get rid of him.
A politician that is good is a politician that gets legislature he or she wants to be passed passed. A good electorate ensures that the politicians doing the passing of laws is passing the laws they want.
Alright, then I believe you meant to use the word "Effective" not "good."
Assuming so, then making statements like "It's not up to politicians to figure out what gets passed" is simply naive. It's like you don't understand what a Republic is.
But heck, we're not even a republic anymore. The USA has become nothing but a plantation run by corporations and banks. All politics these days is simply for show at this point. And you and I are the slaves on that plantation. Even most of the millionaires here; still slaves. There really is no power held by the masses here anymore, and Dr. Paul's run for presidency right now is showing exactly how quite brilliantly.
