NO MORE RUNAROUND, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!

Dec 2018
6,723
1,967
New England
You illustrate a problem of statism, not libertarianism

Or more correctly, the fact that statism creates problems that libertarianism cannot solve is a flaw in statism, not libertarianism.

The problem with your scenario is that IT would have no way not to freeload. As soon as he leaves his house, he's on a tax-funded road. if he moves to the mountains, he can live off the land and avoid using any tax-supported resources. But there is no way he can avoid the protection offered by the military.

But your scenario is completely fictitious. Neither IT, nor anyone else "agrees" to government tax and spend, because there is no meaningful way to disagree with it.
My scenario is no more fictitious than yours.

You described a scenario where one is not compelled to pay taxes. I described a version of that scenario where some voluntarily agree to do so and some do not; it seems to me in that case that those who do not pay taxes can effectively freeload on the work done by others. Do you agree that is the case or do you not?
 
Feb 2020
1,663
606
Houston
My scenario is no more fictitious than yours.

You described a scenario where one is not compelled to pay taxes. I described a version of that scenario where some voluntarily agree to do so and some do not; it seems to me in that case that those who do not pay taxes can effectively freeload on the work done by others. Do you agree that is the case or do you not?
Yes.

But I think that there is nothing wrong with that in our current system.

Our system is designed to reward freeloading and punish productivity.

If I could change that, I would.
 
Dec 2018
6,723
1,967
New England
Yes.

But I think that there is nothing wrong with that in our current system.

Our system is designed to reward freeloading and punish productivity.

If I could change that, I would.
I think swinging from one system that rewards freeloading to another is hardly ideal.

I think a system where everyone pays a flat rate, regardless of source or amount of income, strikes a good balance. We can debate what that fixed rate should be, and whether to exclude very low levels of income from that rate, but a framework of basic fairness begins here, IMO.
 
Feb 2020
1,663
606
Houston
Hey, I would appreciated if you answered the OP questions too, flops.
Sure, Free.

I thought those questions were for statists.

1. Why do the rich have to pay their fair share?

I don't think in terms of "fair." "Fair" comes to town once a year and this year it was shut down by the Panic Pimps. Doh!

Generally speaking a system in which everyone pays for government services is good. Some people will always be unable or unwilling to work and therefore won't have anything to pay. The wealthy are able to take up that slack better than the working class.

2. How much is rich?

Like most people, I would probably call someone "rich" if they had income and property of about fifty percent more than I have.

3. What % is a fair share and why?


The people who promoted Christianity claimed almighty God was on their side and would punish those who failed to give their fair share. With that kind of backup, the most they dared ask was 10% I see no reason government should demand more.

4. What is the legal definition of Middle Class? (What is the starting and ending salary requirement to qualify for Middle-Class status?)


I don't know the legal definition, but I would say if you can afford to live in a nice house or condo have decent late model cars and take a vacation trip once a year, while saving for the future, you are middle class.
 
Mar 2020
1,429
371
Land of Freedom
Hey, thanks flops. So I guess you can be a millionaire plus and still identify as very middle class.
 
Jul 2008
19,388
13,566
Virginia Beach, VA
3. What % is a fair share and why?[/B]

The people who promoted Christianity claimed almighty God was on their side and would punish those who failed to give their fair share. With that kind of backup, the most they dared ask was 10% I see no reason government should demand more.


Because Christians aren’t paying for our defense, our infrastructure or our social security programs.
 
Feb 2020
1,663
606
Houston
Because Christians aren’t paying for our defense, our infrastructure or our social security programs.
Our "defense" has for the last seventy years or so, consisted of spending massive amounts of money on a nuclear arsenal that had long since passed the point where we could destroy every living thing on earth and then have three more rounds to bounce the rubble.

On the conventional warfare side, our "defense" has consisted of seventy years of finding excuse after excuse to drop bombs on and shoot people whose skin is several shades darker than that of the average lobbyist for the Industrial side of the Military Industrial Complex.
 
Dec 2018
6,723
1,967
New England
Our "defense" has for the last seventy years or so, consisted of spending massive amounts of money on a nuclear arsenal that had long since passed the point where we could destroy every living thing on earth and then have three more rounds to bounce the rubble.

On the conventional warfare side, our "defense" has consisted of seventy years of finding excuse after excuse to drop bombs on and shoot people whose skin is several shades darker than that of the average lobbyist for the Industrial side of the Military Industrial Complex.
What are you trying to say? ;)
 
Jul 2008
19,388
13,566
Virginia Beach, VA
Our "defense" has for the last seventy years or so, consisted of spending massive amounts of money on a nuclear arsenal that had long since passed the point where we could destroy every living thing on earth and then have three more rounds to bounce the rubble.

On the conventional warfare side, our "defense" has consisted of seventy years of finding excuse after excuse to drop bombs on and shoot people whose skin is several shades darker than that of the average lobbyist for the Industrial side of the Military Industrial Complex.
I’m not saying that we don’t spend too much on defense, we do. It is a cost, however, no church has ever had to pay.