The Liberal Gun Club Forum

Sometimes, when people agree with me, it causes me to question my own positions.

In CDF's defense, he was not calling individual libertarians heartless, merely the mindset of a libertarian program heartless. Why is there a difference?

Individuals may certainly donate to charity, to the best of their ability. However, the larger point is, what happens when there isn't enough money in the charity to help those who need it? Let them die on the streets? There have been multiple studies done over the years that show that the wealthy donate about 30% less (as a percentage of their income) than the middle class or poor. There's no real reason to believe that they would do otherwise.

If we're relying on donations and charity to fill the need, much like what we saw with seniors in the 1930's, there would be widespread failures to get help where it's needed the most. In the case of seniors, starvation was common. In the case of addiction treatment, there simply wouldn't be enough to help all those that need it. This is where targeted government spending can make a difference- if our goal is to reduce crime and increase self reliance, giving those that need it the most the help they need is crucial.

shinzen wrote:In CDF's defense, he was not calling individual libertarians heartless, merely the mindset of a libertarian program heartless. Why is there a difference?

Individuals may certainly donate to charity, to the best of their ability. However, the larger point is, what happens when there isn't enough money in the charity to help those who need it? Let them die on the streets? There have been multiple studies done over the years that show that the wealthy donate about 30% less (as a percentage of their income) than the middle class or poor. There's no real reason to believe that they would do otherwise.

They also pay a whole lot more in taxes than the poor and the middle class. End the income tax, and I bet charitable giving goes waaaaay up.

shinzen wrote:If we're relying on donations and charity to fill the need, much like what we saw with seniors in the 1930's, there would be widespread failures to get help where it's needed the most. In the case of seniors, starvation was common.

There are studies that show lifespans increasing during the Depression. I doubt many folks were starving.

shinzen wrote:In the case of addiction treatment, there simply wouldn't be enough to help all those that need it. This is where targeted government spending can make a difference- if our goal is to reduce crime and increase self reliance, giving those that need it the most the help they need is crucial.

Well, it's certainly easier for government to print money and exchange it for the votes of the recipients, and programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.

Government does two things well:

1. Kill people
2. Break stuff

Nobody ever became self-reliant by becoming dependent on largesse from the public coffers.

Taxation is force; it's a knock at the door in the dead of night, a visit from men with guns.

Would I use a gun to prevent a rape, robbery, or murder? Yes.

Would I use a gun to build a library, care for dope fiends, or provide for folks without the foresight to save for retirement. Probably not.

From a total dollar perspective, sure. From a percentage perspective, not so much. When the top 1% is broken into, then a very large majority of the income generated is taxed at capital gains rates, which actually reduces the effective tax rate massively. Instead of being at the top 39% rate, the percentage drops to 15%- lower than that of most in this country. So it's a progressive tax rate, but only if you actually work for a living.

During the depression there were certainly reports of people dying from starvation. There may not have been hundreds of thousands literally starving to death because it takes awhile, and even just a bit of food can keep someone alive. Doesn't mean it's a pleasant way to live. During this time frame there were also advances in sanitation, which is one of the drivers of the longer life span.

There are programs rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. 99% of the actual money lost is not due to small time crap of someone staying on food stamps for an extra month, or pulling of the extra $34 in vouchers. The real waste, fraud, and abuse comes from big swindles. CEO's of medical services companies lying about the number of patients treated, bogus pork stuck into unrelated bills, getting swindled into wars that we don't belong in. The percentage of money taken by the so-called "welfare queens" that Reagan demonized and popularized is minuscule. And those programs help far more than they hurt.

As to retirement, if you are unable to get a higher paying job and live in an unsafe neighborhood, putting away extra money for retirement might well be a pipe dream when your entire paycheck is taken by rent, heat, and food. Doesn't mean that there shouldn't be dignity in retirement or that you should work until you die serving one more burger at McDonalds.

Government is neither bad nor good. It's us. How we choose to use it to better the lives or hurt the lives of our citizenry is completely up to us. Or it used to be. Until it was bought and paid for by Wall Street and their ilk.

FiremanBob wrote:So to correct CDFingers: "This allows persons to choose from a variety of private care providers rather than having the heartless government bureaucrats impose their one-size-fits-all program on them."

So, to correct FiremanBob, "This allows private industry to extract maximum profit from the weakest and most vulnerable members of our society, slipping one of the last, deadly dirks between the ribs of the Common Weal."

And Coach writes:

"End the income tax, and I bet charitable giving goes waaaaay up."

Not likely.






CDFingers

While charitable giving among those making over $100k has dropped 3-5% from 2006-2012, the same folks have seen their capital gains tax rate increase from 15% to 43.4%. Their income tax rate has increased 5%, too.

As a percentage of take-home, people making over $100k are actually donating more.

Coach wrote:While charitable giving among those making over $100k has dropped 3-5% from 2006-2012, the same folks have seen their capital gains tax rate increase from 15% to 43.4%. Their income tax rate has increased 5%, too.

As a percentage of take-home, people making over $100k are actually donating more.

But how much of that is to a charitable trust that they control and helps their tax breaks and their buddies? Donating to you college for football scholarships and then getting a Season seat is not what I would call charity.

Merkwuerdigliebe wrote:I believe one aspect of this that anti-drug types loose sight of is that the quickest way to reduce the availability of drugs is to remove the profits from the drug enterprise.

^^^THIS^^^

We tried Prohibition. It didn't work worth a shit, but repealing the sonofabitch certainly cured a pile of social ills that it had created.

Agreed Swampgrouch, 100%.

As for charity in lieu of taxes? No, I don't see that working. It sounds really great, and I'm sure money would just come flowing in from the 1%. Well, no, I'm not sure, actually. I don't understand how the invisible hand works both ways like that; where on the one hand benign self-interest enriches one's self and allows for that same self-interest to let all that hard-earned cash flow back out again. I don't buy it. Coach, I'm not saying you are not charitable - I take you at your word.

Coach wrote:While charitable giving among those making over $100k has dropped 3-5% from 2006-2012, the same folks have seen their capital gains tax rate increase from 15% to 43.4%. Their income tax rate has increased 5%, too.

As a percentage of take-home, people making over $100k are actually donating more.

43.4%????? Where in the world are you getting that? Current capital gains tops out at 20%. Unless you're talking about short term capital gains- those have been taxed as normal income for longer than you outlined, at least going back to 2008.

shinzen wrote:43.4%????? Where in the world are you getting that? Current capital gains tops out at 20%.

http://taxfoundation.org/article/federa ... -1988-2013

Yeah, that's short term capital gains. Should never have been taxed differently than regular income.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

shinzen wrote:Yeah, that's short term capital gains. Should never have been taxed differently than regular income.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Shouldn't be taxed at all.

Different argument.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk