While browsing through the global feed and reading comments, I get a general sense that I'm not quite in step politically with the general population of hubski. Which is cool, cuz you peeps are cool. Anyway, hubski, here's my question(s): How would you sum up your political beliefs in a few sentences? What issues are most important to you?
I am a Fabian situationist a Veblenist a Union guy, I believe the world should contain all worlds, I am a localist , a anti-nationalist, an Anarchist, I believe the bullies are the bad guys and that people with power are more at fault for the state of things than the powerless. I believe Capitalism is alien and alienating to homo sapiens. I believe that the state was invented for the purpose of War and that cops do more harm than good regardless of their intentions. I believe social class and wealth have no positive correlation with any sort of virtue. I believe generosity and kindness should be the default positions.
1. I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me. 2. I think that government has a role to play but that it should be limited to protecting it's citizens. This protection is broad though and can mean providing military protections, education and healthcare (including mental health care) etc. I have never declared myself a republican or democrat and never will. The person I deem the most capable will get my vote. That said, I now wish I had voted for Romney but I couldn't stomach his running mate. I sincerely think the country/economy would be in a better place had he won. Leadership qualities and experience are key when you need to work through others in order to accomplish things on this scope. But yeah, most people see politics in the same way they do sports or religion. They feel the need to "pick a team" and root for it no matter what. That's just odd to me.
Yes sir, same here. Not an independent either... or a communist... or a nazi... In addition, I think the Parliamentary system in theory has much stronger potential for democratic representation than that in the U.S. but it's clear that in reality that representation is easily skewed, and corrupted via $$$. So that doesn't work either. I just hope I can continue to strive for values as true and honest to myself as I can. edit: wait. Ryan was your problem?! I couldn't stand Romney! Every time I saw his smile on tv I felt like punching him right in the hair.I have never declared myself a republican or democrat and never will. The person I deem the most capable will get my vote.
I'm Green as a green thing, but our new Internet party (headed up by Kim Dotcom) has some good ideas too.
My political beliefs trend towards me buying a private island and living in a hut. I'd rather just have nothing to do with any of it.
First principles: The longer a set of laws is the more open to abuse it is - the more loopholes there are. In particular, convoluted and vague laws lead to selective enforcement, at which point they are no longer just. I.e. in general trying to write convoluted laws that cover all edge cases will cause more issues than they solve. As short a set of laws as possible. This colors my entire political beliefs. So. I do not believe there should be laws restricting what a person does to themselves, as long as it doesn't materially harm anyone else and they are of the age of majority. I believe that there should be one age of majority, and one age only. (It makes no sense that a person can die for their country and control several tons of metal at high velocity, but cannot smoke, for example.) I believe that abortion should be illegal. For various reasons. For one thing: straight economic reasons. The net value of a standard human life in economic terms is non-negative. For another: it causes issues with the definition of murder. We can save babies born more prematurely than many abortions - is kicking a pregnant women, causing her to miscarry, murder? I am firmly in favor of freedom of speech. In the sense of "no person may censor another", that is. I personally believe it's fine for person B to refuse to allow person A to talk to them, but not for person C to refuse to allow person A to talk to person B. I am mildly in favor of a subsidized health care system but only with a set of restrictions: anything that is a personal choice (as opposed to intrinsic) requires a license that costs the maximum of a small service fee and the difference between the average citizen's costs to health care and the average cost of someone with the license. (Amusingly enough, some things, like smoking for example, would not actually cost.) I am in favor of a flat income tax. Again, can cause issues, but less issues than the number of issues caused by tax loopholes.
I am inclined to say that I'm generally dissatisfied with the U.S. political system but given the sheer complexity of the federal government and even state and local government, I really don't have any strong ideas on how government might be made more responsive or accountable to the will of the people. I think that like a lot of people, I do what I can to make the best of a less than ideal situation. I really think that how U.S. politics interacts with world politics and how the American public understands that relationship in their lives will become increasingly important and I'd really like to contribute to healthy political relationships both at home and abroad.
The first principles from which I operate are self-reliance and self-determination. That's the metric by which I evaluate proposed laws. As far as the role of a national government, I believe it should be restricted to these four things: 1. Enforcing contracts (i.e. judiciary) 2. Ensuring for the defense of the nation 3. Maintaining infrastructure 4. Regulate commerce (lightly)
There are some areas of public activity that are, in my opinion, appropriate for local government action but should be outside the national government's purview: 5. Education 6. Building codes 7. Law enforcement
I do not believe government at any level should engage in social engineering programs or advocacy, which is primarily what puts me at odds with my more liberal-minded brethren. I don't believe that personal choices of free adults that impact no one other than the consenting parties should be restricted, monitored or prohibited, which is where I come into conflict with my more conservative friends. I tend toward free-market libertarianism inasmuch as I think that quick, reactive markets create efficient marketplaces, and an efficient marketplace is the best way to create prosperity. I'll never argue that it's a perfect system, but I believe that erring on the side of ground-up (rather than top-down) solutions will do the most good for the most people.
Anymore I dont know where I stand, because I find things I like and detest about most all political beliefs. I believe that healthcare, education, protection of borders, and municipal services should be run by the government. I also believe that there should be a market that is open for competition, but limits foreign investors and is regulated so things like the recession cant happen. The government should have no place in what you do with your own body (drugs, sexual orientation, etc) and should have a minimal role in your daily lives. Taxes are to be expected, but the more you make, the more you should be taxed.
Taxes are to be expected, but the more you make, the more you should be taxed.
-Would you be a proponent of a flat tax with no deductions/loop holes? Meaning everyone is taxed at say, 20% regardless of income?
I'm of the mind that the tax system should be progressive, but that the marginal rates shouldn't be so easy to manipulate. That is, income is income and the tax rate is the tax rate. Tax breaks give specific industries huge gifts that I see as unfair to everyone else. For example, the mortgage interest deduction encourages borrowing of sums that otherwise would be untenable, which is a monster gift to the finance industry. And given that every tax deduction is a subsidy that every other tax payer has to make up for, why the hell should a renter have to support my lifestyle? It's ridiculous. That said, I'm certainly going to pay the least tax that I can within the law, so I can't blame anyone else for doing the same. Don't hate the player; hate the game. The players you can hate are the ones who make up the game, the politicians, lobbyists and big donors.
Well said. I would add that that particular deduction is destructive because it 1) disincentivizes prepayment and 2) it artificially inflates the cost of housing, which makes home ownership less accessible to people with low (or no) credit.For example, the mortgage interest deduction encourages borrowing of sums that otherwise would be untenable, which is a monster gift to the finance industry.
Yes and those people, in turn, are the people who are going to make up for the crazy amount of money not going to federal government due to people like me. There's almost no justification for it other than we can't get rid of it, because people's current spending is based on the projection that they'll continue to have this deduction. The behavior is entrenched in the system, and probably can't be removed now. Certainly there are many other evil deductions and credits besides the mortgage deduction, but I chose that one to pick on in particular, because 1) it's taken by lots of people, and 2) I'm included in that lot, and it's easy to pick on oneself.2) it artificially inflates the cost of housing, which makes home ownership less accessible to people with low (or no) credit.
Seems pretty fair to me. If you make $40,000 per year, and were taxed $8000 to go to infrastructure, healthcare etc, then received a return or whatever it would make sense. It is a lot of money if you think about it, but the average person making that should be okay. Also, 20% of 1,000,000 would pump serious money into the government. As long as its fair Im for it. How idiotic is it that we have people who make more money paying less taxes? I refuse to believe the trickle down effect, because if the US dollar went to shit tomorrow, all these billioniares would just go somewhere else today.
There's a group of earners that I believe are unfairly in the crosshairs right now. Granted, there are those people pulling in a lot of money that through loop holes and low capital gains tax are gaming the system, but it's important not to confuse the two imo. That's what I like about a potential flat tax above the poverty line. If there were truly no loop holes and capital gains were also set at the same rate, it would be great. -I'm sure to any actual economist, this is la-la land stuff and has no shot in hell of ever coming to fruition.How idiotic is it that we have people who make more money paying less taxes?
-I think there is a popular misconception that all people that are higher earners are paying less taxes. There are a lot of people that fall in to that "over $250k" household bucket that pay 30 plus% of their income to taxes. This is because they are earning an actual income through salary etc and not through dividends or other investment/inheritance earnings. You find a lot of small business owners and other professionals in this space. Imagine you earned $100k a year and had to give $30k+ of it to a govt you thought was doing a piss poor job of managing it's finances? Now, imagine you had some people holding up signs and screaming about how your family was wealthy and needed to pay more.
While researching California's Paid Family Leave plan, I saw this on Wikipedia: This arrangement contributed to a budget crisis when capital gains tax income fell along with the stock market. The flat tax idea enjoys a lot of support, and is practiced more-or-less in a few places. It is still interesting to talk about, even if it is not likely to come into existence. I would be curious to know how close your 20% figure would come to generating the same amount of tax revenue.One potential problem is that a substantial portion of the state's income comes from income taxes on a small proportion of wealthy citizens. For example, it is estimated that in 2004 the richest 3% of state taxpayers (those with tax returns showing over $200,000 in yearly income) paid approximately 60% of state income taxes.
I would be curious to know how close your 20% figure would come to generating the same amount of tax revenue.
I would too, but I'll be damned if I have the time to find out. I assure you, it's not laziness. .....(walks away to take a nap).