$14K wage earner gets $8k tax refund?????
- Thread starter rmattox
- Start date
I think there are factions within the Republican Party that value individual liberty and the principles that our founding fathers set forth. I don't think the party as a whole feels that way. I am a Republican and I consider myself a Constitutional Conservative. I believe in individual liberty, first and foremost. That means preserving the concepts in the Constitution. Consistent with that is the idea that adults should be able to do pretty much anything they want unless it infringes upon the rights of other citizens. It also means that government does not have the right to take money from one individual and give it to another. That includes giving it to corporations, etc. The Government has the right to collect money for the purpose of running the Government and nothing more. If you think about the concept of individual liberty, what Government can and cannot do, is pretty much common sense.
The Democrats, as a whole, seem to value liberty in terms of social policy, but fiscally they think more in terms of social objectives and don't seem to care at all about individual liberty.
That being said, if you look at the party as a whole, the Libertarian Party is probably closest to what you describe, but they have a lot of trouble fielding legitimate candidates and are often portrayed in the media as nut jobs.
Yes, you're right. In fantasy land, that is the way it works. But, just like coke doesn't lower their prices today, Pepsi doesn't either. Pepsi has found the sweet spot for their prices and customers, and they aren't going to drop from it. If you eliminated taxes and Bill gates left all his money to them in his will, pepsi would still cost 1.89 for 20 ounces.
Do you people not work for a living? I find ways for my company to save money every day. They just roll up the extra profit and give it to the shareholders and executive bonuses. Price is based on demand, that's it.
^^ The way it is now, its a two party system, and that's pretty much how its going to be until the US goes the way of Rome. Its just depressing, especially with how corrupt the political system is right now. The republicans (to me, an impartial observer) represent themselves as pro-life, pro-gun, anti gay marriage, religious people. I do not share those values at all, but I find myself more in-line with their economic policies (though still not perfect). Its a pretty ridiculous situation that I have to either compromise what I believe in with regards to how we treat our citizens vs. how I want to get taxed and where my money goes. Its pretty ridiculous that that has to be a choice, but that's just what it is now, and it'll never change.
The problem with this is that old age or injury basically becomes a death sentence. Or at the very least a poverty sentence.
Bingo. Which is exactly why a cold 20oz costs $1.89, a 2 liter costs $1.79 and a movie theater 22oz costs $4.50.
Actually that isn't true at all. That is what charity is for. Also, just because the Federal Government should not be involved in such programs, it doesn't mean state and local governments can't be. Once again, to preserve individual liberty, it is okay for state and local governments to do many things that the Federal Government should never do. If you don't like what your local or state government does you can escape it by moving to an area with policies you are more in agreement with. When the Federal Government takes it upon itself to do these kinds of things it strips individual liberty from the population. You also have more influence locally over policy than do you do nationally.
Finally, a catastrophic circumstance that may happen to someone is not an argument to strip away people's liberty. Freedom is risky. When you allow the government to remove risk, you strip away liberty. I would rather have the liberty any day, and i want my children to have the same.
I'm sorry, but you are the one living in fantasy land. Price is based on the interaction of supply and demand. Demand is not constant at any price. Demand is a function of price and other variables. To suggest that the demand for a product will be the same regardless of the price of its competition is absurd. The soft drink industry isn't the best industry to look at in terms of new competitors because there is a huge barrier to entry in that industry because of the bottling and distribution network required. However, even in that industry the demand for Coke would change if the relative price of Pepsi changed significantly. You can't judge what would happen in a market if a significant variable changed by using the current market conditions as the model.
First of all, state and local governments couldn't even come close to providing social safety nets, fiscally.
Secondly, liberty isn't defined as "don't take my money to do something that benefits all of society."
Why couldn't local governments have taken on this task instead of the Federal Government?
Wrong again. Our system of government is based on the idea of individual liberty, not what is best for society. The idea of government taking action based on the greater good is a completely different concept than what we are supposed to have. Our government is supposed to take actions that preserve individual liberty, period. I'm not sure how this notion that government is supposed to create policies based on what they perceive as greater good comes from. It is not at all consistent with the Constitution or what our founding fathers envisioned. When government does that, it picks winners and losers, and seldom does it achieve anything remotely similar to the greater good. In theory, individual liberty maximizes the greater good.
In theory, if you have the freedom to pursue things that maximize your benefit according to what makes you happy and satisfied with life, and I have the freedom to do the same thing with mine, then as a society we have maximized our benefit (greater good) as well. When a single organization makes a decision for everyone, it can't possibly maximize the benefit of every single citizen because we all have different priorities, etc. The sum of each individual maximizing his or her benefit is greater than the benefit realized by a central planning agency creating a policy for everyone to adhere to.
CBS Marketwatch
An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.)
Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
An estimated 45.3% of American households — roughly 77.5 million — will pay no federal individual income tax, according to data for the 2015 tax year from the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan Washington-based research group. (Note that this does not necessarily mean they won’t owe their states income tax.)
Roughly half pay no federal income tax because they have no taxable income, and the other roughly half get enough tax breaks to erase their tax liability, explains Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center.
You may want to go back and read the constitution.
The Congress shall have power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
Obviously welfare in this instance meaning general well-being, not free handouts. But it says "general welfare," which means that they had the greater good of the whole in mind.
Hell, even the Declaration of Independence says the role of the government is to promote principles that will ensure "safety and happiness."
You may want to read a few things written by our founding fathers to get some context on what is in the Constitution. Keep in mind, I am not saying that is how we operate the Government today. We have strayed quite a bit from where we started, so if you want to argue that that is not what we do in practice today, I will wholeheartedly agree with you. That being said, the powers of the Federal Government were enumerated in the Constitution for one reason, and that was to place very strict limitations on what they could do. The purpose behind this was to protect individual liberty from the encroachment of government. The powers not listed in the Constitution as powers of the Federal Government are left with the people and the States. Therefore, the people and States have more leeway to do things than does the Federal Government. The General Welfare Clause does not expand the powers of the Federal Government. It has been interpreted that way by people who want a more socialist form of Government, but the powers were enumerated for a reason. The general welfare clause means to act in the general welfare within the powers enumerated in the Constitution. It does not expand those powers beyond what are enumerated. That would make no sense. Why would the founding fathers go to the trouble to specifically list each and every power the government has only to put in language that gives them unlimited power. They wouldn't. It's illogical. It renders everything else written as mute. A contract would never be interpreted that way, yet liberals interpret the Constitution that way all the time to get expended government. If you read the Federalist Papers and other writings by Madison, Hamilton, etc., it is clear that our system is based on natural rights and restricting the power of government so that it cannot strip away those rights.