= new reply since forum marked as read
I agree with a simplified tax code, but a flat tax is very regressive.
Imagine two people, one who makes $10,000/year, and one who makes $1,000,000/year. Suppose the flat tax rate is 25%.
After paying taxes, the person earning $10,000 only has $7,500 left. If the poor bastard's rent + utilities = $500/month, that's another $6,000 for housing. If he can get by on $100/ month for food, that's another $1,200. He'll have to get by on $300 worth of clothing for the year just to meet the basic necessities of life. (Food, shelter, clothing.) And at the end of the year, he's still just barely treading water.
Now, let's head out to the 'burbs. After taxes, Joe Millionaire has $750,000 left over. To keep it all nice and round numbers, let's assume his mortgage + utilities = $10,000/month. Let's suppose his food bill is $2,000 a month (he buys caviar and champagne, rather than ramen noodles and malt liquor) And let's suppose he's a raving metrosexual who drops $20,000 a year on clothes.
Joe Millionaire still has $586,000 left over at the end of the year to buy Porsches, vacation in Arruba, and invest in his kids' trust funds.
THAT'S why the flat tax hurts the poor more than the rich - food, shelter, clothing. Those basic necessities don't scale equally.
As for the minimum wage, I don't know what studies you've seen, perhaps you can provide some citations, but here's some data ...
Contrary to the conservative narrative, unemployment actually decreases a majority of the time when the minimum wage is increased. The few times that unemployment increased after a raise in the minimum wage can only be used to claim there is no correlation between minimum wage increases and job growth. The idea that there is statistical proof that raising the minimum wage kills jobs is laughable at best.
Monthly unemployment statistics were not available until 1948 but yearly unemployment when the minimum wage was established was 19.1% and I think we all know what direction it went after that.
Here's the most recent results ...
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119440/states-raised-their-minimum-wages-had-stronger-job-growthIn 2014, 13 states raised their minimum wages, five through legislation and eight through inflation indexing. Gould compared wage growth for the bottom 10 percent of Americans in those 13 states with the rest of America. In the former, real wages grew 0.9 percent, a non-negligible increase. In the remaining 37 states, real wages declined 0.1 percent. In other words, wage growth for the bottom 10 percent of Americans is entirely attributable to states that increased their minimum wages.
.....
That’s good news, but it’s not unexpected. Conservatives largely concede that raising the minimum wage increases wages. They oppose it, they say, because it will reduce job growth. So, did that happen in those 13 states? Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist for Vice President Joe Biden and a senior fellow at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, looked at the data. He found that job growth was higher in states that raised their minimum wages than it was in those that didn’t (1.8 percent versus 1.5 percent).
As for limits on firearm ownership, it sounds like you draw a line between fully automatic rifles and shoulder-fired missiles. I'm not sure how this fits into the definition of libertarian.
As for "freedom of association", it sounds like you are OK with businesses having the right to discriminate and refuse to serve certain classes of customers? Is that right?
You'll get much agreement here on the topic of marriage.
Finally, you didn't mention government regulation of business. As this is a basic principle of classical libertarianism, it's curious you didn't include it in your definition of what makes you a libertarian. Do you advocate getting rid of the EPA, FDA, OSHA, USDA, etc?
Last edited Tue Sep 23, 2014, 05:11 PM - Edit history (1)
I didn't say a 10% flat tax is "more" fair; I just said it would tax people less, leaving considerably more money in your pockets for those pesky living expenses. Also, I did not say that a flat tax is unfair to lower wage workers; I simply observed that $1,000 means more to a lower earner than to a higher earner. That observation, however, is not a justification to punish someone who has more money by taxing them at a higher rate. Fairness and equality are not the same thing. If you want fairness, tax everyone the same. If you want (eventual) equality, tax everyone based on their income. So which are you after? Fairness or equality?
I should have mentioned before that I have several objections to a minimum wage, one of them being out of fear of job loss and another being out of principle (although as a libertarian, that shouldn't surprise you). I admit that was my mistake. I did not intend to deceive. However, I don't appreciate how quickly you dismissed my charge of a violation of liberty as meaning "exactly nothing" without explaining yourself. It's akin to shooting down a point by simply saying, "That's stupid." I even gave you an example, which you did not mention. The mention of wage increases due to inflation indexing is not simply a "red herring", another point you quickly dismissed as irrelevant. You believe that minimum wage increases help increase jobs, but if wages are only being increased because of inflation, then they have no effect on jobs because they are only keeping pace with the devaluation of the dollar. Whatever job increases may happen are not because of minimum wage increases at all.
Nukes and chemical/biological weapons do not conform to any definition of just warfare as they have no capacity for distinguishing/targeting combatants from non-combatants. Therefore, there is no moral argument for anyone to possess or use such weaponry. I'm sure you and I can agree on this matter. Your pessimism regarding citizen-owned firearms preventing tyranny is not a justification to remove/diminish citizens' abilities to arm themselves. And if you really feel that way about the US military, then we have a much bigger problem than citizen-owned rocket launchers.
As for freedom of association, I've already told you that I'd also agree that such discrimination to be morally abhorrent, but I think you exaggerate the problems, if any, that would actually arise. The police don't have the right to go anywhere they please. That's what search warrants are for. If they want to enter/search the private premises of a business, they get a search warrant. Do you ever see the police "tail" a suspect right into the suspect's own house? Nope. Get a warrant for that. The police will be just fine. If a business owner is found out to be an intolerant person, public opinion will quickly turn against them, and the free market will weed them out. The free market is great at doing that. You really should trust it more.
I don't doubt that my time on the DU will change some of my thinking. But what those changes will be, only time will tell 
It's a pleasure debating with you.
You've been led astray regarding the benefits of government regarding the rich and poor. Law enforcement spends much more time protecting businesses than private residences, as do fire departments. Sewer, water, roads and other public infrastructure are much more heavily used by businesses than individuals.
Here's some data (notice these are all sourced, not just my opinions) ...
Your link regarding minimum wage failed (404 error). Can you please re-post it?
Police don't need a warrant to tail someone. Tailing someone is how they gather the evidence to support getting a warrant. And what about the liberty of the black law enforcement officer who can't do his job if a business is allowed to discriminate against him? What about the liberty of the family that wants to buy food but can't because the business decides it's OK to discriminate against them? Seems like you're OK with individuals denying others their liberty in the name of liberty. Doesn't one's liberty end where another's begins?
Are you strongly anti-regulation, or stongly anti-corruption of regulators? If there was no corruption would you be less anti-regulation? If so, shouldn't ending the corruption be the goal? Some police are corrupted. Do you want to end law enforcement?
I agree that most of these issues are not window dressing to the rank-and-file libertarian. They are however, simply wedge issues for the anti-regulators who hold the power in the libertarian political landscape. Their goal is to let corporations profit without interference from government, polluting the environment, having unsafe working conditions, offerering sub-standard wages that leave workers reliant on food stamps and Medicaid. IMHO, working full time should pay enough to lift workers out of poverty. If your business can't cover the costs keeping the environment clean, providing safe working conditions and non-poverty wages, then it's not a viable business. The modern libertarian politician disagrees.
On edit: Just read your post #40. Agree on # 1 and 2, but not on 3. Externalizing costs issue as already explained in another reply.
I've been doing some digging over the last few days after reading your most recent reply, especially in regards to regulation and tax expenditures.
Let's clarify what "tax expenditures" means in the context of your first figure (titled "Wealthy Households..."
. Tax expenditures, as defined by the CBPP (which is where the first figure comes from), are subsidies delivered through the tax code as deductions, exclusions, and other tax preferences (i.e. "tax breaks" . This is different from "tax spending", which is how services, programs, and infrastructure get funded (e.g. cops, sewer, etc.). A flat tax would eliminate these very same breaks that disproportionately favor the rich. Furthermore, federal money doesn't generally fund police, fire, sewer, water, roads, schools, etc. That stuff comes from state and local tax spending. Therefore, we should be looking at state and local tax data, and I still haven't found hard data showing that state and local tax spending favors the rich. Lastly, keep in mind that although a flat tax would tax everyone at the same rate regardless of income, the rich would still by far pay the most taxes relative to lower earners.
Sorry about the minimum wage link not working. Here it is:
This short 8-minute video sums up my minimum wage views rather nicely.
You're right, police don't need a warrant to tail someone. But they also don't have the right to trespass on private property either. Neither does a family have the "right" to enter someone's private business for any reason, whether to buy food or otherwise (it's a privilege granted by the property owner). No liberty is being denied because these aren't guaranteed rights in the first place. They're terrible situations, yes, but that does not mean that liberty has been denied or rights have been violated; you aren't guaranteed the right to not be discriminated against. To force a business owner to serve someone on their own private property is not only unconstitutional but also an act of aggression and therefore a violation of the non-aggression principle, which I strongly adhere to, as do most libertarians.
Even more than I am anti-regulation, I am indeed anti-corruption. This should come as no surprise. However, problems arise when the only one responsible for the regulations (the government) has no accountability, the inevitable result of which is mass corruption. Let's be clear here. The government does not regulate things, such as the environment, because it is moral to do so; they do it because of monetary kickbacks. That, my friend, is a conflict of interest. Seeing a bureaucracy such as the FDA get in bed with big pharmaceutical companies should not surprise you. I want a clean environment and safe food as much as the next guy, but I would never trust the government to see that end met because of the sovereign immunity they have. To take manage our national parks, for example, I would much sooner trust any non-government naturalist organization, such as the Audubon Society, before I would trust the hapless EPA.
Just because corporations would profit without interference from the government doesn't mean they wouldn't experience interference elsewhere. That is where non-government organizations, such as the aforementioned Audubon Society, come into play. These are the groups that provide actual accountability and transparency, not government bureaucracies like the EPA. You see, it's not that I'm anti-regulation, really; it's more just that I'm anti-government with respect to regulation. The big lie is that the government is the only one who knows how to properly impose regulations, when that simply isn't true at all.
Did you have more thoughts on the weapons ownership issue? Just curious.
Response to R.Quinn (Original post)
I appreciate your answer. The truth is, the current system doesn't work perfectly anyway. In my own experience - medical residency - it was better to play along with chronic "hostile workplace" stuff (anti-woman jokes and mockery, mild assault for "fun" than speak up and be hated by my co-workers and supervisors as a snitch and troublemaker. Despite the "whistleblower act,". The fact was that I still had to work long hours with those people, and they would have found it easy to make things even worse for me, or fire me on a hundred pretexts. So I am not a blind supporter of status quo.
But I do find it hard to imagine how an organization of workers could do a better job. If your co-workers are making your life hell, a co-workers' union is gonna be the LEAST sympathetic group. Even if it's the boss doing the stuff because he's (male/white/straight/etc) and you are not, it is hard to imagine that all your (male/white/straight/etc) coworkers would rush to defend you. More likely they are grinning and getting in on the action - after all the boss is giving them the green light!. These situations are often not as simple as "bad boss vs outraged and united employees.".
I don't expect you to come up with a magic answer. I would just ask you to think of real-world solutions if you are going to vote to strip protections away from people who count on them. There is a reason these laws came into being.
Best wishes.
I have only talked with two Libertarians before you. The first was a guy I dated. His ideas were Darwinian - basically "it's a mean ole world and it's not government's job to rescue people.". For example, he wanted to see abortion outlawed, not for the usual reasons, but because it amounted to rescuing people from their own bad choices. I asked, "what if a woman cis too poor to afford prenatal care? What if she was raped? What if she has health problems? Would you be okay with that even if it meant her dying?" He said, well, whatever happens, happens. If she dies, then she wasnt strong enough to survive. And them's the breaks.
The punchline: he didn't have a condom but wanted to have sex anyway. . Meaning he was okay with impregnating me, and then shrugging and (if he ran the government the way he wanted it run), outlawing abortion, watching me die in pregnancy, and calling it my own problem.
This got me thinking of the function of government in repairing inequities so we can have a just society. Fact is, when two people have sex, only one of them bears the burden of pregnancy. When a minority goes to work or walks down the street, he is likely to be outnumbered by the majority. Women will always be in general weaker and less aggressive than men and outnumbered in some workplaces for the foreseeable future; gays will always be just a few percent of the population; etc. If we are okay with a dog-eat-dog world (like my date) we could say, "Those who can't defend themselves: eh, let them suffer!". But assuming we want something better, I think government involvement is the only option.
I am guessing libertarians are mostly straight and white and male. Tell me if I am wrong.
The evening ended with him saying, "Well I wouldnt stop YOU from getting an abortion!" at which point I laughed at him and told him to leave.
So: your thoughts on how to resolve the fact that we are not born equal, not really. And that the nature of the beast is that certain groups can and have and will get a raw deal. Unless the law (imperfect as it is) evens things out somewhat.
The cruel Darwinian view of humanity is indeed that the strong can/should prey upon the weak. Due to my Christian views and what the Bible teaches, however, I believe the opposite is true: it is the duty of the strong to help and protect the weak, to help those who cannot help themselves. This is in recognition of the fact that everything we have has been given to us by God in first place, and it is all far more than we deserve. Therefore, as we have been given to generously, so we will also give to others who are in need. My wife and I give away over 10% of our net income to our church every month, which helps provide housing, food, and aid to the poor in the surrounding neighborhood. We volunteer at our church's food pantry as well, and we give additional money to other charitable organizations throughout the year, such as the Salvation Army.
It is this sort of volunteerism that makes lasting, positive change. By actually getting to know the people we are serving instead of simply throwing tax dollars at them, we are building meaningful relationships and learning what their actual needs are. People always give away more to others when they are giving out of the goodness of their heart, not because they are forced to. You can't end poverty with laws, just like you can't end racism with laws; the only way these goals can be accomplished is by changing hearts and minds first.
I am against abortion for a different reason than your ex-boyfriend: I believe that human life is of the utmost value, no matter how it came into being, and it's not our place to decide otherwise. Only in a situation where the mother's life may be at risk during childbirth do I think an exception can be made, but that decision would be up to the mother. Otherwise, it is our duty to protect the weak, which in this case is the unborn life. Similarly, as you mentioned that women are generally physically weaker than men, I believe it is therefore the duty of men to protect and respect women. I'm not sure how I feel about actually criminalizing abortion, however... still haven't decided on that yet.
In closing, it is not the government's job to "rescue people" because that's my job and your job; it's everyone's job to help however they can. The government can't possibly care about you because the government doesn't know you or what your needs are; it is a non-human entity that can only throw money at problems, which does nothing in the long run.
Let me know what your thoughts are
I love bleeding heart lefties! 
Edited to add:
You might be interested in DU's Socialist Progressive group
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024
I once used to think I was a republican
Welcome to DU!
