Need help.... What SHOULD our tax dollars be used for?

[ctnjason]

im been in a perpetual arguement with people at work over this whole planned parenthood issue. It snowballed into me looking like a loony because i dont want our tax dollars used for much. Someone asked me straight up, what DO you want our tax dollars used for and i failed to really go foward after that. I was really winning the debate up until that point.

[Freedom 4 all]

Our tax dollars should be spent on stuff we want (ie not stolen by the government).

[cswake]

At the Federal level, Article I, Section 8.

[AZKing]

Defense on a federal level, roads/highways/infrastructure on state/local level, everything thing can go afaic :)

[PreDeadMan]

Our tax dollars should be spent on stuff we want (ie not stolen by the government).


^Thread win

[Sola_Fide]

Tell him that the premise of the question is unproven (that "taxation" must occur).

I would just throw it back on him. Make him now try to prove his own unproven premise first, then go from there. It will show him that he can't continue to argue from a premise in which he can't defend.

[amy31416]

Our tax dollars should be spent on stuff we want (ie not stolen by the government).

But what if stuff we "want" is not Constitutional? Isn't that the whole reason that we're allegedly a republic, not a democracy?

Legitimate things for the government to spend money on should be detailed in the Constitution, if they are not, then the gov't shouldn't have the power, or there should be a push for an amendment.

[sevin]

Police.
Courts.
National defense.

That's it.

[newbitech]

im been in a perpetual arguement with people at work over this whole planned parenthood issue. It snowballed into me looking like a loony because i dont want our tax dollars used for much. Someone asked me straight up, what DO you want our tax dollars used for and i failed to really go foward after that. I was really winning the debate up until that point.

You just needed the confidence to know that your answer was the right one. If that money is in your pocket, you spend it however you see fit, and that is nobody's business except your own.

Defense, Regulating Commerce by judging and enforcing laws, postal service (including the highway system cobbled together by the states), and protecting individual liberty.

These are the things that come to mind. If I am going to be compelled, the federal government will do well to stay within these bounds. Bastardize or pervert any of these, and I may as well resist because regardless of how I act, I am oppressed when "the government" goes off the chain.

[sailingaway]

In general the government should be limited to doing what people can't do on their own. Remind people that the government is not 'community', it is force, and 'community' and collectives can freely act on their own. Police, courts, military, legislature. Post office (number of days a different point) because some markets are otherwise not 'profitable' and I think all areas should be accessible. I'd go with fire departments (I know some debate this) and libraries (locally funded) and locally funded schools or vouchers. I'd even go for a minimal security net for people who fall between the cracks of community programs, but it should really be limited to that, and frankly, it is too easy to be generous with other people's money, so I'd like any programs of that sort to be local, where the community can protect its money better.

Mind you, that is starting from scratch, philosophically. When you get into people having paid into programs etc you open a different can of worms.

[madfoot]

Personally I like the idea of taking the pooled welfare money and setting up a negative tax for the poor until the well is dried up. I don't think silly things like student grants need to be cut - but get rid of the real wastes, defense spending and the welfare trinity (SS, Medicare, Medicaid).

[Koz]

Tell him that the premise of the question is unproven (that "taxation" must occur).

I would just throw it back on him. Make him now try to prove his own unproven premise first, then go from there. It will show him that he can't continue to argue from a premise in which he can't defend.

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. Why do we have to pay taxes at all. At least at the federal level anyway. We were doing pretty damn good without an income tax for more than 100 years. Most everythig except for defense can be done at the state levels.

[BuddyRey]

They shouldn't be used for anything, since the only acceptable thing to do with stolen money is to return it to its rightful owner.

[Elwar]

What body part on his wife would he let you fondle?

[ctnjason]

can someone tell me a point in time where a free market really existed??

[romacox]

Taxes, as they are now, were unconstitutional until after the civil war when the 16th amendment was added.

The Founding Fathers were against taxing the fruits of our labor or our property (How can the government tax you for what they do not own). They were also warned against the Central Banks (Federal Reserve) because it these two things would enslave the people, and rob us of our freedom.

True Example: When the Dutch and British opened rubber plantations (ext) in South Africa they had trouble procuring the labor force to work their fields. The inhabitants had no desire to work the newcomers land because natives farmed their own land, and traded with cattle rather than gold or fiat money.

The British and Dutch used an age old tactic, they taxed the Africans land, and said they would have to pay with fiat money available only from the British government, and not with cattle. The natives were forced to work for the British and Dutch farmers just to keep their own land. Sound familiar?

Judge Napolitano explains that revenue the government obtains should be limited to the enumerated powers within the Constitution in its use. See his video's at the following link: http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html (http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html)

[RyanRSheets]

I can't really defend any coerced government expenditure, but if I had to pick a few things the government would do and eliminate all other functions:
- Education: Strictly voucher based, zero college loans by the government, no standardized testing and leave curriculum up to the most local level possible.
- Emergency services: Firefighters, 911 and EMTs are pretty important, but could probably be privatized. 911 seems like an obvious role of telecom companies, and home/auto insurance companies have a definite interest in putting out fires. We definitely don't need so many policemen.
- Roads: Interstates should have been privatized from day one (probably deriving revenue from tolls). If government is to build roads, it should not be building roads to other governments, and as a rule of thumb, government should be as local as possible. On the other hand, we should not be building driveways for people who live far off of the roads we do decide to build. Housing additions should build their own roads, and government might build a road connecting up to the various additions. In short, government could have a far smaller role without too much disruption.
- National defense: We could definitely shrink this budget. We don't need bases all over the world. We don't need F-22 Raptors. There is a lot to be said for the way our military technology is patented and bidded on. Contractors soak up way more than they're worth. Treating the War on Terrorism like a conventional war is foolish and will just ensure it becomes a conventional war. We shouldn't topple democratically-elected governments.

[erowe1]

im been in a perpetual arguement with people at work over this whole planned parenthood issue. It snowballed into me looking like a loony because i dont want our tax dollars used for much. Someone asked me straight up, what DO you want our tax dollars used for and i failed to really go foward after that. I was really winning the debate up until that point.

No matter what use of tax dollars you're talking about, less is always better. The ideal tax rate is zero. Support changes that move toward that and resist ones that move away from it.

[ctnjason]

Taxes, as they are now, were unconstitutional until after the civil war when the 16th amendment was added.

The Founding Fathers were against taxing the fruits of our labor or our property (How can the government tax you for what they do not own). They were also warned against the Central Banks (Federal Reserve) because it these two things would enslave the people, and rob us of our freedom.

True Example: When the Dutch and British opened rubber plantations (ext) in South Africa they had trouble procuring the labor force to work their fields. The inhabitants had no desire to work the newcomers land because natives farmed their own land, and traded with cattle rather than gold or fiat money.

The British and Dutch used an age old tactic, they taxed the Africans land, and said they would have to pay with fiat money available only from the British government, and not with cattle. The natives were forced to work for the British and Dutch farmers just to keep their own land. Sound familiar?

Judge Napolitano explains that revenue the government obtains should be limited to the enumerated powers within the Constitution in its use. See his video's at the following link: http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html (http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html)

thank you very much for this. very helpful indeed.

[newbitech]

can someone tell me a point in time where a free market really existed??

on the micro-level I believe the free market will always exist. Do this. Get a piece of paper and make a dot. Label that as "You". Draw a circle around that dot. Label that as "Family". Draw another circle, label as "friends/associates". Keep drawing circles and label them based on your relationships in society. For instance, my next circle after friends and associates is "neighborhood".

Now when you start in the middle, with you as an individual and map the relationships and interactions between all the circles, what you will see is that those transactions closest to you represent the free market. As you move further away from the center (you), the largest circle (the government) begins to impede those transactions. The problem we are all facing is that the large circle is constricting inwards and overlapping the inner circles. This is government intrusion in to our lives.

I hope that illustration helps. I have a better way of describing it with a 3d model, but I'd have to draw it out. Maybe I will get around to doing it in sketch up one of these days.

[erowe1]

Judge Napolitano explains that revenue the government obtains should be limited to the enumerated powers within the Constitution in its use. See his video's at the following link: http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html (http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html)

If the government only spends the money it steals in exercising the enumerated powers, is that ok?

If so, is that because the powers enumerated in the Constitution just happen to accord with some transcendent principle that dictates that those things are ok things to fund via theft? Or is it because there's something about enumerating a power in the Constitution that makes it ok to fund with theft once it's been so enumerated, no matter what that power is?

If the former, then where do these transcendent principles come from?

If the latter, then where does the Constitution get the right to delegate that authority to politicians?

[Original_Intent]

Firing squads for every legislator that votes for an unconstitutional law. I predict a surge in voluntary revenue.

[ctnjason]

Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Can i have an interpretation of this as well. Lay and Collect Taxes.

[ctnjason]

ok i just went facepalm.......... my apathy meter just almost bottomed out.

Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Can i have an interpretation of this as well. Lay and Collect Taxes.

the person im arguing with 100% thinks that "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" can mean cradle to the grave care if he choses to interpret it that way AND as long as ones that think like him outnumber ones that think like me, i lose. I asked him what will happen when we can no longer print or borrow money NUMEROUS times and ive gotten NO answer.

[madfoot]

Well, that's how the government interprets it, that's for sure. @_@

[erowe1]

ok i just went facepalm.......... my apathy meter just almost bottomed out.

Article 1 Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Can i have an interpretation of this as well. Lay and Collect Taxes.

the person im arguing with 100% thinks that "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States" can mean cradle to the grave care if he choses to interpret it that way AND as long as ones that think like him outnumber ones that think like me, i lose. I asked him what will happen when we can no longer print or borrow money NUMEROUS times and ive gotten NO answer.

Your friend is wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution. But before I say why, hypothetically, if he were correct in his interpretation that the Constitution delegates cradle to grave care to the federal government, would that make it ok?

[ctnjason]

Your friend is wrong in his interpretation of the Constitution. But before I say why, hypothetically, if he were correct in his interpretation that the Constitution delegates cradle to grave care to the federal government, would that make it ok?

like i said, he thinks its A OK as long as the ones that think like him outnumber the ones that think like me....... i warned him to forever remember that comment. The day will come when the checks dont cash, the money doesnt print, and the social program receivers will come looking for the handouts at HIS doorstep. Of course im the crazy one in his eyes :(

[therepublic]

Taxes, as they are now, were unconstitutional until after the civil war when the 16th amendment was added.

The Founding Fathers were against taxing the fruits of our labor or our property (How can the government tax you for what they do not own). They were also warned against the Central Banks (Federal Reserve) because it these two things would enslave the people, and rob us of our freedom.

True Example: When the Dutch and British opened rubber plantations (ext) in South Africa they had trouble procuring the labor force to work their fields. The inhabitants had no desire to work the newcomers land because natives farmed their own land, and traded with cattle rather than gold or fiat money.

The British and Dutch used an age old tactic, they taxed the Africans land, and said they would have to pay with fiat money available only from the British government, and not with cattle. The natives were forced to work for the British and Dutch farmers just to keep their own land. Sound familiar?

Judge Napolitano explains that revenue the government obtains should be limited to the enumerated powers within the Constitution in its use. See his video's at the following link: http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html (http://www.read-phonics.com/us-constitution.html)

CtN Jason: You will likely be asked how did they get money for the enumerated powers? Under the Constitution the government was quite small, and needed little money to operate.

Before the union the separate colonies were often taken advantage of by foreign entities and even by larger colonies. So one of reasons the Constitution was created was to form a limited government that would give them the power to defend against foreign evasions. Survival needs like these were the reasons the Founding Fathers said they wrote the Constitution to create "a more perfect union"...not perfect, but "more perfect.

They were very dependent on England for goods, and the Founding Fathers knew they had to break their dependence on such goods if they were ever to be independent of England. So to encourage manufacturing in the United States they taxed imports from England. (tariffs).

[erowe1]

like i said, he thinks its A OK as long as the ones that think like him outnumber the ones that think like me....... i warned him to forever remember that comment. The day will come when the checks dont cash, the money doesnt print, and the social program receivers will come looking for the handouts at HIS doorstep. Of course im the crazy one in his eyes :(

What about you? Do you think it's ok? If you don't think it's ok, then why would it matter if it were constitutional or not?

[Fredom101]

Let's go back to what taxes are: theft.
The deeper question is, do we want society run by a group who gets to steal from everyone else under the threat of violence?

[madfoot]

sensationalism -_-

[therepublic]

CtN Jason: You will likely be asked how did they get money for the enumerated powers? Under the Constitution the government was quite small, and needed little money to operate.

Before the union the separate colonies were often taken advantage of by foreign entities and even by larger colonies. So one of reasons the Constitution was created was to form a limited government that would give them the power to defend against foreign evasions. Survival needs like these were the reasons the Founding Fathers said they wrote the Constitution to create "a more perfect union"...not perfect, but "more perfect.

They were very dependent on England for goods, and the Founding Fathers knew they had to break their dependence on such goods if they were ever to be independent of England. So to encourage manufacturing in the United States they taxed imports from England. (tariffs).

P.S. Originally the colonies were all separate entities, so to fight England they united under what was called The Articles Of Confederation. However, it presented several problems...chief among them was that they had no power to collect money to fight the Revolution. Washington repeatedly found himself with an army that often went unfed, and he had stop fighting to beg the colonies for money to continue the fight...not a good situation. so that is a second reason they united under the Constitution which they referred to as a "more perfect union" (not perfect but necessary).

[ctnjason]

What about you? Do you think it's ok? If you don't think it's ok, then why would it matter if it were constitutional or not?

i do not believe in stealing. no.

[erowe1]

i do not believe in stealing. no.

Ok. Well that seems like the most important point, then. I doubt your friend has a good response to the fact that stealing is wrong, no matter what he thinks is in the Constitution.

But given that stealing is wrong, regardless of the constitutionality of it, the question remains of whether or not the Constitution happens to be on our side when it comes to justifying cradle-to-grave care via the general welfare clause. In that question, the Constitution is on our side. This is discussed in Federalist Paper 41, which provides us with an understanding of what the states understood the general welfare clause to include when they ratified the Constitution.
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/histdox/fed_41.html

It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare. "But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?

[Wesker1982]

Someone asked me straight up, what DO you want our tax dollars used for and i failed to really go foward after that.

Listen to your instincts :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you want to tow the libertarian line as much as you can while also being for the State, just say courts and local constabulary's. Defense can be done by the citizens in the Republic (Militia). As for the courts, you only need a Judge, and the Judge in a common law system is merely a neutral observer to make sure both parties are equally represented. The jury which again, citizens in a Republic can handle all the duties of the law (aka nullifying unjust laws, etc.). As for legislators, well, I could imagine a system where they convene for a few months out of the year, are only paid travel and lodging expenses and the Constitution about a page long. No internal taxation would be needed. A small flat tariff could easily pay for the entire Government.

Or alternatively you could go the Stateless route -- which I believe to both be more practical and moral.

[Echoes]

I dont want a State at all, but i might actually be open to the idea of a State that allowed competition in all aspects and every last service they provide (or desire to). It would have to compete for consumers just like any other business, and if the State is as great as it purports to be then it should excel in the free market.

[Freedom 4 all]

But what if stuff we "want" is not Constitutional? Isn't that the whole reason that we're allegedly a republic, not a democracy?

Legitimate things for the government to spend money on should be detailed in the Constitution, if they are not, then the gov't shouldn't have the power, or there should be a push for an amendment.

By "stuff we want" I'm thinking like a new TV from Best Buy or stuff like that we can buy with money not stolen through taxation to fund unconstitutional things.