I vote blue, but on principle I'm against any corporate tax or capital gains tax--each dollar should only be taxed once, IMO. For that reason, I think you should only have one or the other of income or sales tax. My other "red" sympathies: Anti-gun control, pro-privatization (school, USPS), pro-military.
I still vote blue because I have no interest in curbing the right to choose, I support environmental legislation and providing health care to all. I have no illusions that this has to be paid for, and would love to see us live within our means for once--not just 2000-2001.
What I'd want from a government
@ Johnny My "blue" concerns I think are better addressed at the federal level, actually, because polluters can often pick up and go to a more laissez-faire state, while someone in need of an abortion may not be able to. To ask folks to relocate or travel far for health care also seems unfair and inefficient. N'est-ce pas?
I agree on the environment (even though it is demonstratively ineffective in current practice). I think corporations should absolutely be under federal authority (not the other way around we see today). As far as individuals, the federal government should be concerned with protecting the Constitutional rights, not pontificating on the morality or legality of say dogfighting, abortion, ect.
Frankly I don't think anyone has the right to either healthcare or abortions. If you want them you can very probably get either, but to treat them as if they're in the Bill of Rights doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anyone would be asked to relocate for anything. If your values are more represented in another place, then it is your right to move. Heck, I'm moving to a different state over tax issues.
Frankly I don't think anyone has the right to either healthcare or abortions. If you want them you can very probably get either, but to treat them as if they're in the Bill of Rights doesn't make sense to me.
I don't think anyone would be asked to relocate for anything. If your values are more represented in another place, then it is your right to move. Heck, I'm moving to a different state over tax issues.
@ Johnny Your argument seems consistent and sound. In a perfect world, health care would be provided by communities who value it enough to give it to everyone, and all communities would have this value. I don't say "communities who could afford it," because all communities can (in the US); it's just a matter of priorities. Do people have the right to health care? I agree that they don't. At the same time, I believe that any community which doesn't provide health care to all is immoral.
Speaking of priorities, I think statists and libertarians would answer the following question differently, but with similar end results: "If you saw a man dying in the street of a curable ailment, would you help?" Statist: "I'd call an ambulance and the state hospital would take care of him." Libertarian: "I'd put him in my car and take him to the hospital. If he was uninsured and the hospital refused to serve him, I'd find one that would and make sure he was taken care of." IMO, the latter is a more compelling human experience because it's an individual leaning on an individual, rather than an individual benefiting from a faceless institution. Again, in a perfect world...
Let me give you a brief example of the inefficiency caused by different health care policy between states. In New York, the lieutenant governor has called for a change in rules in who qualifies for Medicaid because people have been relocating to New York to take advantage of the system here. If such provisions were uniform across the country, you wouldn't have this phenomenon and we'd all shoulder the burden equally. I would never equate needful human beings with pollution, but the effect is similar here: States without good public medical programs effectively palm off their sick poor on those who do have them.
Speaking of priorities, I think statists and libertarians would answer the following question differently, but with similar end results: "If you saw a man dying in the street of a curable ailment, would you help?" Statist: "I'd call an ambulance and the state hospital would take care of him." Libertarian: "I'd put him in my car and take him to the hospital. If he was uninsured and the hospital refused to serve him, I'd find one that would and make sure he was taken care of." IMO, the latter is a more compelling human experience because it's an individual leaning on an individual, rather than an individual benefiting from a faceless institution. Again, in a perfect world...
Let me give you a brief example of the inefficiency caused by different health care policy between states. In New York, the lieutenant governor has called for a change in rules in who qualifies for Medicaid because people have been relocating to New York to take advantage of the system here. If such provisions were uniform across the country, you wouldn't have this phenomenon and we'd all shoulder the burden equally. I would never equate needful human beings with pollution, but the effect is similar here: States without good public medical programs effectively palm off their sick poor on those who do have them.
@Zev: perhaps, but it seems to me like it's NYs problem. If it is a problem at all, and they should have realized it could turn out like this.
Without insane egalitarian measures people are going to be moving state to state for reasons like health care... My state just pushes people the high wage earners to neighboring states with lower income tax. Kind of interesting the market between states.
Without insane egalitarian measures people are going to be moving state to state for reasons like health care... My state just pushes people the high wage earners to neighboring states with lower income tax. Kind of interesting the market between states.
Concerning the "each dollar should on be taxed once" issue. That sounds all well and good, but if you did this the richest would pay even less taxes. Buffett brings this up all the time (though, his argument is more on dividends). His tax rate is less than his secretaries. I'm not saying he should be taxed excessively, but he shouldn't be lower than his secretary.
@ Chad In principle, I think Buffett should pay zero percent on his capital gains and dividends. He provides an invaluable service of extremely efficient capital allocation--this efficiency is attested to by his soaring gains. Presumably, the capital he started out with was post-tax (income, sales, property), so all additional taxes he's paid on his gains and dividends are a double (and triple and...) tax.
@ Johnny Are egalitarian measures as seen in Europe's health care programs insane? Insane because of the cost or because the recipients don't deserve it, or...?
@ Johnny Are egalitarian measures as seen in Europe's health care programs insane? Insane because of the cost or because the recipients don't deserve it, or...?