What if other countries continued their tariffs, subsidies, etc. while we renounced all of them?
Than the benefit of the action would be reduced, but tariffs are directly harmful to the US, not just because they tend to encourage tariffs elsewhere.
If you don't want to pay taxes to support, say, education of other people's children that's ok.
From the post you responded to -
"They could retain public funding, but there is no need for the school to be owned and run by the government."
Obviously retaining public funding would mean that I would still be paying for the education of other people's children.
There certainly is no reason for public funds to go to exploration for the likes of Big Oil companies
Those companies may get tax breaks, but they don't directly use public funds.
Still I'm against targeted tax breaks as well. Its one thing just counting it as a legitimate business expense, but getting special benefits beyond that isn't something I'd support.
I suspect FedEx would cherry pick urban addresses and leave the rural ones out completely as they are not cost effective.
I believe Fed Ex does deliver anywhere in the US, as does UPS. Those rural addresses will get service of some sort in a private system, even if its more expensive (or just more expensive for the cheaper types of mail delivery). But if you insist, allowing competition in the 1st class mail market with all competitors required to deliver to every US address, would still be beneficial.
I don't think that many people wish to have nothing but SS to rely on in their old age but it is there if they need it.
Obviously scores of millions of people have for decades planned their life around having social security, so I wouldn't suggest it be canceled (one more of those once you try it you can't easily go back situations with public benefit systems), but if the system didn't already exist I would not support it. You can have public assistance for those who are desperately poor (elderly or otherwise), but funneling hundreds of billions of dollars to people just because of their age (even wealthy people get social security checks) doesn't make a lot of sense.
Also the program, as currently constructed is unfordable, or close to it. Its not just an issue of the baby boom (although that's the biggest mid term problem), but generally of people having less kids, while they live longer. Perhaps if you indexed the retirement age to life expectancy, it could be afforded.
Making SS mandatory also makes your much reviled transfer payments less likely.
No it makes them 100% likely, because it is a transfer program.
but it would be nice it people didn't go to war for profit either. There is fantasy and then there is reality.
And your whole "we are at war for profit" meme, is the fantasy.
Why should the public be taxed to fund private, for-profit schools?
Why should the public fund for profit grocery stores??
Because if you decide to assist people, there is no need to socialize the system, or keep it socialized, and doing so is usually a bad idea.
If you cannot afford to do so then do not demand transfer payments from me to subsidize your choice.
If I had a school age child, and you lived in my county paying property taxes towards the schools. Your property tax payments going to educate my child at public schools would be the equivalent of the same sort of transfer to me or my kid. Either way your paying for the service for my child. |
