Yours truly is a fan of the 1986 tax reform. There were two brackets, at 15 and 28%, cap gains were taxed the same as ordinary income, and a lot of special-purpose deductions and exemptions (although by no means all) were eliminated. I don't recall a single Libertarian having a kind word, ever, for that bill, even though it got us as close as you will ever get to what you're talking about, in the actual flesh and blood world we all inhabit. Care to comment?
As far as licenses go. To be fair the state does have to hire people to determine whether or not people have met qualifications to procure a given license. There are expenses associated with this sort of activity. I think it's fair to charge a low fee for them. I don't think that sales tax should be charge on money already going directly to the government, if that's what you mean... Federal tax should be well under half of what it is. States should each be free to charge whatever income tax and consumption tax they deem appropriate. People can vote with their feet. The states will also need the additional income because most of the responsibility (and rights) that the fed has taken from them would be being given BACK to them.
No you wouldn't have heard any libertarian having a kind word since the modern libertarian party was roughly 4-5 years old then... So chances are you wouldn't have heard any words at all from libertarians about anything. What you are talking about is tolerable I guess. It's still not as ideal as Hong Kong, but is on par with Switzerland, which is a fine country to live in. You didn't hear any words at all from Libertarians at that point one way or another most likely for aforementioned reasons. I personally can't speak with any authority on it, as I was very, very young in 1986 and was hence not involved with Libertarian politics. I do know that the 1986 tax cuts were done by the regan administration, and I know that Regan cited Milton Friedman (one of the biggest Libertarian patriarchs in existence) as his biggest personal influence with regard to economic theory and policy. Friendman was one of Regans main economic advisors. So, the very tax cut you were talking about was more or less a libertarian policy. Glad to hear you were a fan of it!
Ill be the novice here and step up. Why should cap gains be taxed as ordinary income? And why two brackets? Why not flat? That would be my first two objections.
Okay. I hold I license in my state to practice. They charge me a fee every two years. But it is the testing boards that determine whether or not I am licensed, and once I pass that test, no one need be used to determine whether or not I qualify next year. So, I would be in favor of a ONE time fee for my license, but every other year, why? I provide a valuable service to the state, and they charge me for the privilege, if they could tell me where that goes via line item, okay. But they don't. As far as other taxation, that is fair enough, people can move. In fact, in my state, doctors are doing just that.
BTW trefoil, you are the lone Neo-lib who grabbed his sack and stepped up to the debate, that is to be respected.
It was actually a joint effort of the Reagan Admin and the Dems, who controlled both houses at that time. Bill Bradley, D of NJ, originally proposed the vague outlines of it, and the rest was hammered out in a series of compromises by both sides. That's why when all was said and done, there were two brackets, a lot of deductions and exemptions were eliminated, cap gains were taxed the same as ordinary income, etc. You can tell who compromised by the provision you might be talking about. It was a beautiful thing when it was finished. The only flaw I saw both at the time and later was that it preserved the mortgage interest and property tax deductions while eliminating deductions for state sales and gas taxes paid. I believe this was a root cause of the late real estate bubble, but it was only one among many others. Outside of that, it was pretty close to perfection. I distinctly remember reading a column by some pundit who predicted it would be promptly torn to pieces, because Congress was then - and still is now - mostly made up of lawyers, and they do a lucrative business advising folks on taxes. Simplification is obviously not in their best interests, so the pundit - I wish I could remember who - said there was no way it would last. He was right, of course. And of course, as you can see by RCG's post (nothing personal, RCG, just that your post was a perfect example), as soon as you let an ideologue loose, he'll try to make it actually perfect according to his particular ideology, instead of just nearly so. Perfection simply isn't possible in this world, and when they said the road to Hell was paved with good intentions, the guys paving that road were ideologues. It lasted four years. The Dems got to it first, but that was only because they continued to control Congress throughout that time. As soon as the Reps got some power, they of course lowered the rate for cap gains, but they had been advocating for that almost immediately after the bill was signed. Between the two parties, they destroyed the delicate compromises that made it so nearly perfect, just as that pundit predicted. RCG: thanks. I would have said something sooner, but I was traveling this past weekend, so I didn't see this thread until I got back.
It's interesting trefoil that you would take the position of the compromiser, because while it takes just that kind of compromise to get something on the President's desk, the present movement of the Tea Party is based on having TOO many compromisers in Washington and not enuf Ideologues. The Tea Party WANTS Constitutional ideologues in office, no? The primary accusation made is that the "ruling class" compromises the "working class"( which would include the middle, or professional class) right out of government. So yea, as a Libertarian I would not be willing to compromise a core principle( non-confiscatory taxation), just so a bill could be passed. I have no issue with that stand. ( Although the cap gains issue has some wiggle room) Edit: That is why Mike Castle got a pink slip, tooooo much compromising. Reaching across the aisle is one thing. Selling out is quite another.
That's great, but finger pointing at one party or another or one administration or another and playing the blame game is not a productive way to spend energy... The fact is that now both parties are morally and philosophically bankrupt. Now, both parties are nearly identical to one another. In terms of policy there is little meaningful difference between Bush and Obama outside of healthcare. We can point fingers and play the blame game all day long, but figuring out how to get things headed BACK to a more desirable status quo is far more productive. Neither party now demonstrates the ability or desire to do so. Sure, I think getting income taxes back down to Swiss levels would be a great start. Remember all this time that politicians aren't moving forward, neither are we. The federal government is the biggest impediment to societal progress, and the biggest parasite on the American people in existence. Why can't the democrat party go back to what it was founded upon? You know, the idea of small, decentralized federal government and liberal state's rights? The whole tea party would jump on board then...