Charity has a place, but it's seriously flawed, especially when it's most needed: hard economic times. Many great charities work better during strong economic periods and fail during economic recessions and collapses, when government supports are most needed. We saw this in during most of the Thirites, as well as in the 19th century 1893. Donations fell when they were most needed.
Moreover, charity is random and sporatic, and charitable agencies lack the scope and infrastructure of government, which automatically makes them inferior for large scale, long-term issues.
Personally, regarding the whole shtick of "taxes = theft", "wealth redistribution = theft/bad", vs. "wealth redistribution = good", "taxes = need more".
I probably fall somewhere in between the two extremes, with a lean towards the side of "taxes = bad".
I think our current setup is far too large, demands far too much in taxes, and spends even more than it demands in taxes.
I also think too small a government and/or no government welfare/whatever is a bad idea.
I think a basic, low-level "safety net" to prevent those who fall through the cracks from outright dieing is necessary.
But I also think that our current system, supposedly designed for that purpose, needs major overhaul.
Additionally, it needs to, instead of just giving people money, actively demand and force (if necessary) them back into a job/workplace.
To do that, more and better (so that people can move upwards out of the basic ones) jobs are necessary...
To do THAT, targeted tax breaks/incentives are necessary, IMO.
Targeted at those businesses/groups of people that, given enough incentive, are willing to start/expand a business - and in the process, hire more people.
And even more closely targeted, so that the start/expansion is required to get said tax break.
My underlying theory here is that, if the economy is going downhill (or at a low point after doing so previously), tax cuts/breaks and overall budget cuts are the way to go, in a generalized way.
Obviously, if there's an imbalance in tax rates (as an extreme hypothetical example, say if the tax rate on those making $1m or more were 15%, and on those below that, 30%), then such can be addressed into the mix.
But really, this current idea of "expect a tax increase on those making $250,000 or more per year" is a bad idea.
If anything, it should be at least only on those making $1m or more per year.
Small - medium businesses probably fit into the $250,000 - $1,000,000 range, depending on how they are put together legally, I would think.
Further, I strongly disapprove of the seemly current theme of “we must raise taxes to make up our budget shortfalls…
No, damnit, the reverse is the case - you must make budget cuts to meet your tax income.
Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller
If race wasn't an issue in 19th century American politics, I'd probably be a pretty good Democrat.
Kind of funny how a Progressive, Bryan, became the Democratic Presidential candidate only four years after a much more Classical Liberal Grover Cleveland ran.
You should pause and self-reflect about Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism, and just where it comes from exactly. Objectivism is pretty close to Libertarianism ideologically given the Libertarian party is an offshoot of Objectivist thought.
Last edited by Technocratic; 10-03-10 at 12:16 AM.
Last edited by DrunkenAsparagus; 10-03-10 at 12:25 AM.