Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

10% Opt Out

PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 2:42:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At the last CPAC convention, Ron Paul gave an ad hoc speech about paying a 10% flat tax for the ability to opt out. If you could pay 10% taxes for the rest of your life, and keep the rest of your earnings, with the proviso that you cannot receive government aid, would you do it? Would you not do it?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 2:45:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
YES

I would start a business that payed people to opt out in exchange for 10% taxes and health/education/welfare services.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 2:53:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
does gov't aid include police/fire protection? public school for your kids? mail delivery? use of public roads?

also since the gov't provides funding for all kinds of things... if you use some service indirectly funded by the government would you be breaking your vow?

personally i don't think i could manage it because i want to do scientific research when i finally get my degree that thats almost exclusively funded by the government.

in general i think given how the government is involved in so many things its impractical for anyone to opt out without teh government scaling back its presence in many areas.

now, if you want to limit aid to "direct" aid such as unemployment, food stamps, social security, and financial aid for college that might be a bit more doable. i still would have a hard time doing mah research though :(
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:11:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
This would totally destroy the school voucher movement. People opting out of government programs just make it that much harder to hold them accountable since it does not affect the people that opt out. Maybe it is possible all government services will be even more wasteful than they are now when people can choose to just opt out and ignore it.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:13:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 2:53:02 PM, belle wrote:
does gov't aid include police/fire protection? public school for your kids? mail delivery? use of public roads?:

It isn't clear on what precisely it would include, but knowing Ron Paul I would imagine national defense, fire, police, critical infrastructure (roads, highways), postal service, etc.

also since the gov't provides funding for all kinds of things... if you use some service indirectly funded by the government would you be breaking your vow?:

Give me an example of what you're referring to.

personally i don't think i could manage it because i want to do scientific research when i finally get my degree that thats almost exclusively funded by the government.:

The idea is that with government down, private industry can thrive again, creating jobs and driving prices down. Because more people would have a lot more spending power, it would increase retail sales, thus strengthening the economy.

The way the system works now is catered to the lame, think about it. Societies most productive citizens don't see the fruits of their taxes nearly as much as the sick, lame, and lazy do. Endemic of the system is the inherent design of having the strong keep the weak, weak.

in general i think given how the government is involved in so many things its impractical for anyone to opt out without teh government scaling back its presence in many areas.:

With the way the government is now you are right. This would obviously be contingent on a Constitutional government, not a government that fights overseas wars on everything or one that sticks its hand in everything. The government would necessarily have to be scaled down to what it was designed for.

now, if you want to limit aid to "direct" aid such as unemployment, food stamps, social security, and financial aid for college that might be a bit more doable.:

Watch the clip, some it was addressed, minus social security. Interesting thing about SSI. When it was created there was an opt function that was promised. It later became compulsory because of it's an abysmal failure and it needed funding.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:16:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:11:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
This would totally destroy the school voucher movement. People opting out of government programs just make it that much harder to hold them accountable since it does not affect the people that opt out. Maybe it is possible all government services will be even more wasteful than they are now when people can choose to just opt out and ignore it.:

Explain your rationale. How would it make it worse?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:29:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:16:01 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:11:38 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
This would totally destroy the school voucher movement. People opting out of government programs just make it that much harder to hold them accountable since it does not affect the people that opt out. Maybe it is possible all government services will be even more wasteful than they are now when people can choose to just opt out and ignore it.:

Explain your rationale. How would it make it worse?

I'm just exploring the possibility like lets say food stamps... there are many people that can qualify for foodstamps, I would say a good portion of the people that are on food assistance do so with the idea "well I pay so much in taxes, I should get something back" ... so they go to the office, see how mismanaged it is, and use whatever pull they have to to get things fixed through activism in the local media. It's in their own personal interest. Personal motivators are very important.

Now explore a different system where those people who were reluctant to get food stamps in the first place now have an option to opt out and now only support a fraction of the food assistance program. They have no incentive to see what is going on at the welfare office, and even less reason to care if there ever was any public outcry over mis-management of a government program. It's just an Idea, I may be wrong.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:42:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.:

Yeah, it can't continue its criminal racket through extortion anymore. That's the whole idea. And why would the State disappear versus simply getting smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient?
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:50:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.

Ya the rich of the united states prop up the government and allow for our welfare state to exist. You just think people should be forced to have their wealth redistributed, which is fine, though I don't agree.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 3:58:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Now explore a different system where those people who were reluctant to get food stamps in the first place now have an option to opt out and now only support a fraction of the food assistance program.:

Yeah, but you're forgetting that pay you're only paying 10% taxes, which means you keep 90% of your paycheck, which is nothing to scoff at. Being that you're 90% richer per paycheck, why would you need food stamps?

See, this is the problem. People are so conditioned to being poor because they're paying so much in taxes. "But what about my SSI? What about my food stamps?"

How about enriching your life so that you can pay for it yourself without being under the heel of the government? Think how inefficient it is! Let's say the government deducts $1,000 per paycheck. Now, you're strapped for cash because you have bills that need to be paid. The gov't says, "Hmmm...? Yes, you qualify for $500 in foodstamps every two weeks. Here's a $1,000 per month."

Wait, but you deducted $1,000 from paycheck, and now you're giving it back to me. Why did you take it in the first place?!

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. – Milton Friedman

They have no incentive to see what is going on at the welfare office, and even less reason to care if there ever was any public outcry over mis-management of a government program. It's just an Idea, I may be wrong.:

You stop being a tax paying citizen at a 10% flat tax? You're paying taxes still, which gives you the right to b*tch.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 4:01:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:50:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.

Ya the rich of the united states prop up the government and allow for our welfare state to exist. You just think people should be forced to have their wealth redistributed, which is fine, though I don't agree.:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." -- Margaret Thatcher
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 4:03:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:50:08 PM, lewis20 wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.

Ya the rich of the united states prop up the government and allow for our welfare state to exist. You just think people should be forced to have their wealth redistributed, which is fine, though I don't agree.

I agree with you Lewis, but I seriously doubt legislation that would call for the extreme cutting of these programs would pass into law. I think what is being proposed is that we pay slightly less taxes and have less people to service, therefore the programs still get their funding but there are less people serviced. The problem I see is that there will be a limited, poor class of entitlement receivers that will be a minority when it comes to holding these programs accountable.

If you don't like the programs then just ban them, or fix them, but don't abandon them to the wayside, it won't help society as a whole. And just for the record I am not a Liberal at all, I just have a responsible conscious.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 5:17:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.

Well it would force the government to offer competitive services. I think we already determined that competition is highly remedial.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 6:42:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
assuming it's genuine opting out of everything, i.e., no police protection/fire protection/ability to sue etc for you

No, I would not opt out, and yes, I'd be quite happy with that policy.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 6:44:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
oh wait, misread. Opting out of all but 10%? That means I'm still paying 10% for f***ing nothing. that's a mockery of liberty. still wouldn't opt out, nor be happy with it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 7:00:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I think its cus you still get national defense and all those other public goods. There are also other theoretically private goods that they'd have to massively restructure in order to charge you for (roads).
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 7:26:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 7:00:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
I think its cus you still get national defense and all those other public goods.
Unless you get police protection, national defense is worthless to you. Strictly speaking, national defense is a cost of maintaining jurisdiction for the purpose of police protection.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 7:51:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 7:26:28 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 2/18/2011 7:00:04 PM, Sieben wrote:
I think its cus you still get national defense and all those other public goods.
Unless you get police protection, national defense is worthless to you. Strictly speaking, national defense is a cost of maintaining jurisdiction for the purpose of police protection.

Well maybe people rob you sometimes, but at least you're not prayin to alla
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 8:22:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 6:44:27 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
oh wait, misread. Opting out of all but 10%? That means I'm still paying 10% for f***ing nothing. that's a mockery of liberty. still wouldn't opt out, nor be happy with it.:

We'd have to crunch the numbers to see exactly what it could realistically fund, but I know it could easily fund national defense, police, fire, critical infrastructure, etc.

Again, this is all contingent upon a government that is massively scaled down. We can't afford that under the current budget. But as a fellow libertarian, please consider how much government waste could go.

Look at the nonsense. It's astonishing to actually conceptualize the waste.

http://www.usa.gov...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 9:20:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't know who should share more blame. FDR or the guy who invented alphabet soup.

* Defense Acquisition University
* Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
* Defense Commissary Agency
* Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
* Defense Contract Management Agency
* Defense Department (DOD)
* Defense Field Activities
* Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
* Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
* Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
* Defense Legal Services Agency
* Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
* Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
* Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Defense Technical Information Center
* Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)

There is no department of offense. Thank god.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 9:48:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 9:20:07 PM, Sieben wrote:
I don't know who should share more blame. FDR or the guy who invented alphabet soup.


alphabet soup guy for sure...

(And yes! It is time to be in discussion with you again)



* Defense Acquisition University
* Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
* Defense Commissary Agency
* Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
* Defense Contract Management Agency
* Defense Department (DOD)
* Defense Field Activities
* Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
* Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
* Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
* Defense Legal Services Agency
* Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
* Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
* Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Defense Technical Information Center
* Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)

There is no department of offense. Thank god.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 10:51:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 9:20:07 PM, Sieben wrote:
I don't know who should share more blame. FDR or the guy who invented alphabet soup.



* Defense Acquisition University
* Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)
* Defense Commissary Agency
* Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA)
* Defense Contract Management Agency
* Defense Department (DOD)
* Defense Field Activities
* Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)
* Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA)
* Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA)
* Defense Legal Services Agency
* Defense Logistics Agency (DLA)
* Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board
* Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA)
* Defense Security Service (DSS)
* Defense Technical Information Center
* Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)

There is no department of offense. Thank god.

Lol, and this is just the department of defense.
djsherin
Posts: 343
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 10:53:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 2:53:02 PM, belle wrote:
does gov't aid include police/fire protection? public school for your kids? mail delivery? use of public roads?

also since the gov't provides funding for all kinds of things... if you use some service indirectly funded by the government would you be breaking your vow?

personally i don't think i could manage it because i want to do scientific research when i finally get my degree that thats almost exclusively funded by the government.

in general i think given how the government is involved in so many things its impractical for anyone to opt out without teh government scaling back its presence in many areas.

now, if you want to limit aid to "direct" aid such as unemployment, food stamps, social security, and financial aid for college that might be a bit more doable. i still would have a hard time doing mah research though :(

I would highly highly recommend checking out Terence Kealey's work on science and technology being funded by the market. He's got at least one book on it, and there was a good hour long presentation or so on YouTube I saw a little while ago.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 11:40:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 3:42:04 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.:

Yeah, it can't continue its criminal racket through extortion anymore. That's the whole idea. And why would the State disappear versus simply getting smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient?

What's the point of the state becoming more efficient? That means it's just becoming more efficient with extortion, as you put it.
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/18/2011 11:42:25 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 5:17:02 PM, Sieben wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.

And no, I would not opt out.

Well it would force the government to offer competitive services. I think we already determined that competition is highly remedial.

What do you mean that competition is highly remedial?
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,230
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 12:54:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago

Well it would force the government to offer competitive services. I think we already determined that competition is highly remedial.

What do you mean that competition is highly remedial?

Competition forces accountability through the constant evaluating of a venture's strengths and weaknesses.

You never ran a lemonade stand as a kid?
TheAtheistAllegiance
Posts: 1,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:17:30 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/19/2011 12:54:14 AM, Greyparrot wrote:

Competition forces accountability through the constant evaluating of a venture's strengths and weaknesses.

You never ran a lemonade stand as a kid?

I was running nuclear facilities at 3; I just didn't understand what he meant by remedial.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/19/2011 1:46:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/18/2011 11:40:14 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:42:04 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 2/18/2011 3:22:36 PM, TheAtheistAllegiance wrote:
All the rich people are going to opt out, and then the government loses 90% of its funding. In other words, the state would likely disappear altogether.:

Yeah, it can't continue its criminal racket through extortion anymore. That's the whole idea. And why would the State disappear versus simply getting smaller, less intrusive, and more efficient?

What's the point of the state becoming more efficient? That means it's just becoming more efficient with extortion, as you put it.

By allowing people to opt out, the state would become more efficient at extortion?