Digital Privacy Further Eroded By US Dept. of Justice Being Libertarian A U.S. magistrate ruled this past Friday that Google has to comply with FBI search warrants seeking customer emails stored on their company servers located outside of the USA, despite a prior court ruling in July of 2016 stating that the government is ... |
Excerpt from:
Digital Privacy Further Eroded By US Dept. of Justice - Being Libertarian
Being Libertarian | Taxation Ruins Representation Why Libertarians Should Hate Taxation Being Libertarian The truth is, taxation completely ruins any hope of true representation for the individual; this is yet another reason why anyone who loves liberty ought to despise the theft of taxation. This (rather odd) justification for taxation, or redeeming ... |
See original here:
Taxation Ruins Representation Why Libertarians Should Hate Taxation - Being Libertarian
Kansas City Star | Sharon DuBois: Libertarians offer a choice of freedom Kansas City Star Fiscally responsible and socially accepting, the Libertarian Party believes that all people have the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they do not interfere with or take that same right away from others. We also believe that when ... |
Excerpt from:
Sharon DuBois: Libertarians offer a choice of freedom - Kansas City Star
February 6, 2017 by Edwin G. Dolan
Edwin G. Dolan is an economist and educator whose writings regularly appear at EconoMonitor.The Niskanen Center is excited to welcome him as a new Poverty and Welfare adjunct focusing on Universal Basic Income research.
In recent post on EconLog, Bryan Caplan writes, Im baffled that anyone with libertarian sympathies takes the UBI [universal basic income] seriously. I love a challenge. Let me try to un-baffle you, Bryan, and the many others who might be as puzzled as you are. Here are three kinds of libertarians who might take a UBI very seriously indeed.
Libertarian pragmatists
Philosophical issues aside, what galls many libertarians most about government is the failure of many policies to produce their intended results. Poverty policy is Exhibit A. By some calculations, the government already spends enough on poverty programs to raise all low-income families to the official poverty level, even though the poverty rate barely budges from year to year. Wouldnt it be better to spend that money in a way that helps poor people more effectively?
A UBI would help by ending the way benefit reductions and welfare cliffs in current programs undermine work incentives. When you add together the effects of SNAP, TANF, CHIP, EITC and the rest of the alphabet soup, and account for work-related expenses like transportation and child care, a worker from a poor household can end up taking home nothing, even from a full-time job. A UBI has no benefit reductions. You get it whether you work or not, so you keep every added dollar you earn (income and payroll taxes excepted, and these are low for the poor).
But, wait, you might say. Why would I work at all if you gave me a UBI? That might be a problem if you got your UBI on top of existing programs, but if it replaced those programs, work incentives would be strengthened, not weakened. In which situation would you be more likely to take a job: one where you get $800 a month as a UBI plus a chance to earn another $800 from a job, all of which you can keep, or one where your get $800 a month in food stamps and housing vouchers, and anything extra you earn is taken away in benefit reductions?
Or, you might say, a UBI might be fine for the poor, but wouldnt it be unaffordable to give it to the middle class and the rich as well? Yes, if you added it on top of all the middle-class welfare and tax loopholes for the rich that we have now. No, if the UBI replaced existing tax preferences and other programs that we now lavish on middle- and upper-income households. Done properly, a UBI would streamline the entire system of federal taxes and transfers without any aggregate impact on the federal budget.
Classical liberals
Not all of those with libertarian sympathies are anarcho-capitalist purists. Many classical liberals, even those whom purist libertarians lionize in other contexts, are more open to the idea of a social safety net as a legitimate function of a limited government.
In his book Law, Legislation, and Liberty, classical liberal Friedrich Hayek wrote,
The assurance of a certain minimum income for everyone, or a sort of floor below which nobody need fall even when he is unable to provide for himself, appears not only to be a wholly legitimate protection against a risk common to all, but a necessary part of the Great Society.
Philosophically, classical liberals see social insurance of this kind as something to which they would willingly assent if they considered it behind a veil of ignorance, where they did not know if they themselves would be born rich or poor. Once the philosophical hurdle is overcome, the practical advantages of a UBI become highly attractive. In terms of administrative efficiency and work incentives, a UBI wins hands down over the current welfare system, and beats even the negative income tax famously championed by Milton Friedman, another classical liberal,.
Lifestyle libertarians
The libertarian sympathies of still others arise from the conviction that all people should be able to live their lives according to their own values, so long as they dont interfere with the right of others to do likewise. These lifestyle libertarians are drawn to a UBI because of its contrast with the nanny state mentality that characterizes current policies. Why should social programs treat married couples differently from people living in unconventional communal arrangements? Why should welfare recipients have to undergo intrusive drug testing? Why should food stamps let you buy hamburger and feed it to your dog, but not buy dog food?
Writing for Reason.com, Matthew Feeney urges libertarians to stop arguing in principle against the redistribution of wealth. Instead, he says, scrap the welfare state and give people free money. Feeney sees a UBI as an alternative that promotes personal responsibility, reduces the humiliations associated with the current system, and reduces administrative waste in government.
So there you are. A UBI is a policy for pragmatic critics of well-intentioned but ineffective government, for classical liberals, and for advocates of personal freedom. No wonder so many libertarians take the idea seriously.
Original post:
Why Should a Libertarian Take Universal Basic Income Seriously? - Niskanen Center (press release) (blog)
Picture credit: The Huffington Post
Recently graduating from a left-leaning university, in a left-leaning city, with a majority left-leaning friends, all of whom are overly-equipped with cuddle bears and safe spaces, every day Ive had to suffer through hearing about the glorious socialist utopia that would come about with a Bernie Sanders presidency.
Having actually studied political science, focusing heavily on various countries policies and economics, I have to fight a constant urge where I dont lower myself to the lefts standards and go on a peaceful protest rampage. Fortunately, it has never come to that. Being well-equipped with a basic knowledge of economics and morality, one can ask three simple questions to stun any Bernie bro.
This is probably one of the best arguments against Sanders specific idea of socialism, as his views are radical even for a modern socialist.
While socialism never works in the long run, as we have seen with Venezuelas collapse and Sweden and Denmarks reduction in benefits and fragile economic systems, there are measures that can prolong its life.
Sweden and Denmark, both the golden standard for socialists, have some the lowest corporate tax rates in the world. In Sweden and Denmark, the corporate tax rate is 22 percent; whereas in the United States, we have a whopping tax rate of 38.9 percent; the second highest in the world. For socialism to be sustainable, even if it is only in the short run, Sweden and Denmark understood the necessity for investment. They needed incentives for companies to move to their country and employ their population.
As mentioned before, this still isnt enough to save them from disaster that occurs from any type of economic change, which usually leads to heightened unemployment, budget imbalance and increased deficit, and the inevitable removal or reduction in welfare benefits. However, Sweden and Denmarks policy on low corporate tax rates is something Bernie never addresses. Hedoesnt understand this and seeks only to ridicule corporations and the wealthy; the very people that provide the economic means to make socialism as sustainable as it will ever be. Could you imagine a millennial wrapping his head around the idea of lowering tax rates for those evil corporations? Me neither.
This is, arguably, the biggest flaw in Sanders socialist dream.
While this should be common knowledge for a Bernie supporter, youll find many dont actually know the answer or have looked at the in-depth causal effect of what is proposed.
Quoting from Bernie Sanders official site, he states: There is something profoundly wrong when the top one-tenth of one percent owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. While this figure is mostly accurate, there are debates about its validity. Politifact references fellow libertarian Daniel Mitchell when he argues that tax laws in the late 20th century required high income taxpayers to report capital income, while middle income citizens didnt have to. Despite this fact, Mitchell goes on to say that the rich arent rich because the poor are poor; the rich are rich, because they are innovative and provide services which others want.
Back to the question at hand. While Bernie mostly relies on demonizing the wealthy, there are instances where he provides a plan to redistribute the wealth.
They consist of raising taxes on the rich, raising the minimum wage, providing government-funded youth programs, and other expensive programs, all to be billable to higher income individuals. At this time, the top 10 percent already pay 68 percent of all federal income taxes and 53 percent of all federal taxes in general.
What happens when that tax rate widens and the wealthy pay more in taxes and middle class pays less? If you believe those in the top 10 percent are millionaires, youre very wrong. The income for the top 1 to 10 percent is between $380,354 to $113,799. In other words, essentially anyone that owns and operates a successful business. The people that took a risk with their own money, bet on themselves, and came out positive; the people that are providing jobs to the middle class; the people that have to put payroll on their own credit card and often use their own funds to invest in their company; those are the people that Bernie Sanders wants to tax even more, and he hides that fact by having the public perceive the top 10 percent as fat oil men sitting on a mountain of cash.
By redistributing wealth, you are essentially taking money from those that provide the jobs for everyone else, invest and take rise, and essentially keep the economy going. Not only is it morally wrong, but economically idiotic.
The American Dream is based on an idea that anyone can succeed in this country if they have the desire to work hard enough. It is one of the major reasons that America has had the most successful economy since World War II.
The government, specifically under Reagan and Clinton, facilitated an environment where people could achieve anything, because the government would interfere as little as possible. It is why the Reagan and Clinton years (despite the Democrats stance on the economy today, Clintonomics was very much in favor of being enterprise-friendly and making the government smaller) were some of the best economic years in American history.
Bernie Sanders plan is to go against this logical concept, and label the successful and wealthy as the enemy and everyone else as the victim. So, if a successful economy is determined by innovation and a strong working class as Reagan and Clinton proved how do you incentivize people to take risk on themselves and open businesses or try to get a promotion and make more money, when the more money you make, the more is taken away?
* Braden Paynter is your average Joe Schmoe, who loves his country and all the freedom it entails. He has received an education in political science and international politics, being one of the few in his class to emerge without shouting leftist propaganda at the top of his lungs.
The main BeingLibertarian.com account, used for editorials and guest author submissions. The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions. Contact the Editor at editor@beinglibertarian.email
Like Loading...
Read the original post:
3 Questions for Bernie Supporters - Being Libertarian