It is widely understood that perpetual deficits are not sustainable. Yet it is political suicide to support tax increases. How can we make 'fiscally irresponsible' bear more electoral stigma than 'tax raiser'?
- Sign in or Sign up to post comments
- send to friend
- report as spam
It is natural to want to lower taxes. Certainly many voters are looking out for their own best interests and simply want to keep more of their money. Others are more responsible and point out that higher taxes disincentize hard work. You can tell which are which by their position on inheritance taxes, since large inheritances also disincentize hard work. It is certainly true that lower taxes cause higher economic growth. But we cannot undertax forever. The debt will eventually become overwhelming, and that will undermine the economy more traumatically than higher taxes ever will.
A rational strategy would have us undertax when the economy needs a boost, and overtax during economic bubbles, similar to the way the Fed adjusts short term interest rates. One could imagine an alternative to the balanced budget amendment where taxes and spending do not have to match, but must meet a deficit/surplus 'target' specified by the central bank according to prevailing economic conditions. This would give us the flexibility we need to borrow when necessary, but take that decision out of the hands of self-serving politicians.
One of Reagan's favorite rhetorical devices was the Laffer curve. Imagine a graph of tax revenue as a function of tax rate. If the tax rate is 0%, revenue will be 0. If the tax rate is 100%, revenue will also be 0, since taxpayers will have no incentive to work. The curve must peak at some optimal tax rate which produces the most revenue. Of course maximal revenue is not really our goal. But the argument as used by Reagan, Cheney, and others also fails to account for the fact that the curves are very different at different income levels. Someone who is just barely able to get by with his best efforts would be broken under a 5% tax burden. He would be forced to quit work, and carry a carboard sign on a streetcorner. But he might be able to continue working under a 1% tax rate. This is the peak of his Laffer curve. The richest americans, on the other hand, have more money than they could ever spend in a lifetime. Most are no longer motivated by what their money can buy, but they may still be in competition with each other. Reduce their income in parallel, and they would still compete. In any case, the peak of their Laffer curve is far higher than 1%, and almost certainly far higher than their current marginal tax rates.
Since when is it the role of government to maximize tax revenue?
The economics community has no idea where we presently are on the laffer curve. Any discussion of the Laffer curve by politicians is unlikely to have any basis in current economic theory.
A discussion about fiscal responsibility is not about taxes, its about spending. There is certainly enough money being taken from the citizen already and I support less taxes not more.
That is a centrist position for sure.
Taxes do not disincitivize - unreasonably high taxes do. The key is responsible spending, ethics reform, the elimination of earmarks. Americans are intellectually lazy but not totally stupid. Most recognize, emotionally if not intellectually, that taxes are our investment in the public sector, and that there are vital functions of our society best served by the public sector. To name a few, public education, national defense, regulation of commerce and corporations, etc.
The logical result of your illogical argument would be that zero taxes would be the utopian ideal - certainly not a centrist position.
David is right regarding the Laffer curve. Assuming the spending is reigned in to cover only those programs widely supported by the people, there are optimum rates per segment that will generate adequate revenue while retaining the maximum level of incintive to produce. Is our current system perfect? Hardly. Can it be improved? Most certainly. This is a centrist position...
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Um, ah, Mark, we agree on over-taxation and under taxation. Some level of tax is reasonable. I agree with a graduated tax as well.
My point was whoever starts a thread about fiscal responsibility then launches into taxation issues is giving the impression to me that the problem is rooted in taxation.
The real problem is, in my opinion and in the opinion of evey pole I have seen, is wasteful government spending.
Sorry, was running my traps quickly this morning and didn't catch the underlying substance. As a former local elected official I get very upset when folks mix the two - another red herring from Milt Friedman's "starve-the-beast" philosophy. There is an appropriate level of government services which should be acquired at the best possible price on behalf of the taxpayers. Then there is the revenue system which ideally fairly and sustainably distributes the burden of paying for these neccessary services.
Mark Greene
Texas Democrat in the Middle
Raising taxes will always be political suicide, because people don't want more money taken from them. Increasing the debt may be just as bad, but most people don't see it the same way.
So accept reality, and don't propose any tax increases. Cut spending to balance the budget.
Too difficult? It shouldn't be -- spending is up nearly 50% in the past 6 years. Even with inflation, we should be able to go back to Clinton-era spending levels. Was government too small and anemic then, or too big and wasteful?
The states are doing it. Here in Arkansas, they have started taxing services, and I know that our sales tax rates are going up the first of January. What I would like to see is that taxes be raised progressively, not regressively. That means income tax. I have read that many of the largest corporations are paying no tax at all--why is this? It would seem to me that taxing corporations would be popular with individuals, especially those who have been hurt by corporate misdeeds and finagling in the past. I don't mind paying my taxes (it is one of the duties of citizenship), but I like it when Wal-Mart down the road has to pay its fair share.
Avesha: I agree with you thoretically, but corporations do not really pay taxes. Their taxes are passed on to the consumer. Always have and always will. All companies do that Congress just passes corporate taxes to make us think they are taxing the big boys to.
A Schooner Independent
Craft6 : You make a good point, but I do not think Congress has the guts to cut spending. I think a good plan would be to roll back the Bush tax cuts, but not without a guarantee that they would start a spending policy based on a pay as you go approach. Do I think that will happen? No, I really think they will do nothing until a fiscal crisis erupts, then they will hike taxes, its either that or eventual bankruptcy in my opinion.
A Schooner Independent
Do away with the IRS. Install a 12% tax on everyones income. This will make the RICH, as well as the poor, and all the middle people EQUALLY! No more tax breaks for the rich. We all pull the same weight. No tax loop holes for the rich. It can work. 12% of what you make. WWW.Tee4president.US
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
Tax the rich....just like Ben Stein says.
The wealth divide in this nation should make EVERYONE ashamed.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
I see that government takes about the maximum tax from the nation already. So my point is that its simply an obvious fact that they are spending it on the wrong stuff. That is the truth that an average american sees.
One guy's right stuff is another guy's wrong stuff. The current fiscal tax/revenue/spending breakdown is clearly unsustainable. We do not have enought revenues to pay for the services we require and demand. To be intergenerationally fair and sustainable we need to synch up what we truly need with what we are truly willing to pay! If taxes have to go up in some way to synch that up then so be it. If spending has to be cut to synch that up then so be it! I think it will be a combo of both. We need sustainability on this, less an Entitlement mentatlity (in control now), and more of an Endowment mentatlity. Concord Coalition givs a good overview of the choices in all this its Fiscal Wake-Up Tour that all should check out -http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/ .
To me Unity08 should be taking the Intergenerational tack on these Fiscal Sustainability issues. That is a key to our success in my estimation!
If we weren't fighting a war in Iraq, our current collection/spending seems to be fine. Obviously Social Security and Medicare are issues, but I see those as demographic issues not spending issues.
Ok I've discounted all the problem areas and I'm asking where the problem is, kind of stupid. In the same breath, I feel that SS, Medicare and the war should be addressed independently and not seen soley as a matter of budget. Obviously in war time costs will be higher. SS and Medicare should be self sufficient programs.
Please explain what you mean by this statement....
"I see that government takes about the maximum tax from the nation already."
Compared to other nations, American's pay a remarkably LOW percentage of their income in taxes.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
GEA - For the services we demand, our taxes and revenues are way low Compared to other nation's the U.S. is right now the Biggest Debtor nation in history. And as the GAO has portrayed in it's "Fiscal Wakeup Tour" below it's getting worse and this is unsustainable:
"GAO has prepared a future scenario using assumptions very similar to those outlined in the 10-year outlook.... Discretionary spending grows with the economy and expiring tax provisions are extended. Here are some notable signposts on that unsustainable path:
2024 -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and net interest consume all revenues; the deficit hits 10 percent of GDP.
2025 -- Net interest exceeds Medicare; debt held by the public exceeds 100 percent of GDP.
2035 -- Net interest exceeds Medicare and Medicaid; debt held by the public equals 200 percent of GDP.
2037 -- The deficit reaches 20.5 percent of GDP, exceeding the size of today's entire federal budget.
2039 -- Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid consume all revenues.
2041 -- Debt held by the public equals 300 percent of GDP.
2045 -- Debt held by the public equals 400 percent of GDP.
2046 -- Interest costs, at 21.6 percent of GDP, exceed the size of today's entire federal budget.
2047 -- Debt held by the public equals 500 percent of GDP.
2049 -- GAO model blows up because the economy is in ruins.
If nothing changes, future taxpayers will be forced to pay far higher taxes than we pay today, or they will either have to accept much lower spending for all other public purposes -- including national defense, homeland security, and education--or face rapidly escalating deficits and the resulting negative consequences for the economy and future standards of living."
http://www.concordcoalition.org/events/fiscal-wake-up/
Read it and weep - or Act! We should be MAD AS H*** that this has been allowed to going on! History will not look kindly on us if we do not Act to remedy!
So should we go back to a 94% tax on the one present? which slowed growth in our Country. Explain to the diminishing middle class that raising taxes on them is good. I can see I need to look at other issues besides immigration.
"demishing"???? never heard of that word. It's not in my unabridged dictionary either. Is it some form of "demise"??????
I've been proposing what Ben Stein has said. The rich need to pay more taxes. The middle and lower classes pay more tha their fair share.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
KrisW, like no one misspells, do you need me to spell it out. "diminishing" for you to get it. You are right, the middle class pays the highest percentage. Tomorrow I will debate with you.
I have no desire to debate you on anything. I just had a troll repeatedly call Christianity a "delusion" on this board ....
http://www.renewamerica.us/bb/
....for over 2 hours, and have grown rather tiresome of bigoted trolls.
BTW, you can edit your posts yaknow. I often correct my own spelling errors.
http://journals.aol.com/kweinschen/Veritas/
One of the Delegates suggested taxing each individual investment in the Stock Market at 10% so there would be no more need to do personal income tax upon the citizens and Gov't would get more than they are getting now and that at 15% tax temporarily we could get rid of our National Debt...I am all for this way....the Delegate who offered this idea said that taxing the working man's wages never stopped him from working and thus taxing investment activity will not stop people from investing....I SAY WE UNITY 08 PEOPLE ALL STAND TOGETHER TO MAKE THIS IDEA BE A STEADFAST POSITION WE ALL AGREE OUR CANDIDATES MUST EMBRACE OR NOT BE ENDORSED BY US! if you agree with this statement than contact Founders and let them know that you/we hold this position
If anything the tax on capital should be 0% since these taxes cause the largest distortions to the economy according to a standard New Classical model. We shouldn't promote populist policies which tank the economy.
Again, I say the problem isn't increasing taxation, its decreasing spending. Has spending increased dramatically? Are we better off? No. More spending is like throwing throwing down a hole.
Lunacy is doing the same thing and expecting different results.
Hi all.
It's not just the spending of taxes. It's getting everyone to pull there weight. It doesn't help, when the RICH pay very little in taxes to help support America. These rich people have so many loop holes, they pay next to nothing. That adds up to millions or even billions each year, America doesn't recieve in taxes. The middle income pulls most all the load by being over taxed. I would like to see a flat 12% tax on all people. You make a million, you pay 12% on it. You make a hundred dollars, you pay 12% on it. This way we all pull an even amount to support America. No returns, no loop holes. Then, there is Congress and the Senate, they get to vote themselves a payhike ever year. They get an average of 35 to 45 percent yearly. Thats a waste of OUR money. WE should decide if they get a raise, and how much.
Rememer... "WE THE PEOPLE" It doesn't say, we the congress.
Thanks
Tee
"Lets take care of "U.S." first"
U.S. = United States
Yes, its pretty obvious that the rich have more money that could be used to better the lot of more Americans than the few. How far that can go I don't know, but there is some room to tax the rich more.
But overall the problem is spending, not increased tax revenues I think.
I are not talking spending we need, it is the wasted spending. The pet projects of the congress, PORK. Not to mention FEMA. I am stopping here I won't live long enough to list everything and I probably could not find half the stuff because it is hidden somewhere.
I think we can all agree that taxes are required to provide those essential services that we all use and want while providing for the defense of our country. I also think that most of us will agree that the current tax system is neither fair nor resonable. I keep hearing some of you wanting to incrase the taxes on the rich; however, you can raise the tax rate all you want without ever touching the rich. The current tax codes have so many loop holes, for those with the means, to avoid any tax increase that might be levied. That is the problem with the current system - for every tax imposed there is some special interest group working on a loop hole that will exempt tax for their support group. Also think of all the money made in this country that is not taxed - legal and illegal money that is never reported nor taxed. I believe the Unity 08 party should make tax reform one of their main issues. Either a flat tax or a national sales tax would seem to be the best way to do away with the loops holes and ensure all personal income is taxed equally. I personally lean toward a national sales tax as a way to tax money as it is spent. We could exempt food and medical care from this tax. Only money spent would be taxed, which would exempt all savings,interst on investments, etc., until these funds were actually spent. Think about it, you don't spend it - it is not taxed. For a country with the lowest individual savings this would not only encourage savings, but would ensure we were all paying our share in supporting this great country.
A similar system which cuts down on the cost of taxation should be implimented. I feel a European style value added tax (VAT) system makes the most sense. This is a largely self reglating consumption tax which is basically invisible and stress free for consumers. Businesses pay taxes on there value added, so consumers don't even see the taxes. No more private accountants, no more income brackets, no more tax shelters: you are taxed on what you consume.
You can add a refund for lower income earners (or everyone) and the system becomes progressive or as suggested above simply exempt food and some medical services.
One advntage to consumption tax is that it gives U.S. producers equal footing with foreign producers. I suspect many of the manufacturing jobs that went to China and Mexico left as much for the tax releif as for the cheaper labor.
I believe that we are all on this board for voice of change to be heard. I am new here so I don't want to over step any bounds as well. Having said that------ if this becomes a forum where a bunch of ideas are hurled & debates & God forbid 'flame throwing' occurs it'll go down with a small inaudible whimper. If however we can stay with the premise of change,good positive change that benefits this country then all of our voices will loudly come through. Taxes are important for all of us. Fire Trucks,police roads etc.etc.etc. would not exist without them. Fair taxes across the board seems to be the over riding theme and maybe where we need to focus. To target the rich or exempt the poor will start class envy and then here comes the debates...Since brevity of time is an issue for this grass roots movement we should all agree to defer to those ideas that are , well, fair. Flat tax on the surface might be fair but take someone who is making 25,000.00--they'll pay 3000.00 per year in taxes. Now someone who makes 1 million will pay 120,000.00. Sure they make more "so they can afford it". But human nature is such that this will cause big problems and in a hurry. What if you were the one who worked your fingers to the bone ( most millionaires work for their money very few just 'come into their loot), wouldn' you feel cheated and lose your incentive real quick to keep producing. Not to say that those earning the 25 don't work hard but the 'divide' is still there as big as ever. I'm no expert but the idea I've seen that makes the most sense and still pays for all of our govermental needs is called oddly enough"The Fair Tax". It was sorta mentioned above with RGR's post. It is a 35 year old idea that already has some steam behind it, it has been researched and vetted very thouroughly. Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder wrote a book about it and explain how it will still provide for social security,medi-care and many other benefits this country needs....such as corporations moving back home from their 'off shore' tax dives. It just makes sense to me that we should invest this opportunity into something that already has alot of support around the country and has been thought out. There are alot of devisive issues left to decide on,this one should be taken up and that'll be 'one down' time to move on.
Thanks
Why can't politicians simply *cut spending*?!? Why do people think we should raise taxes to be fiscally responsible? That's like saying I should hold up a bank rather than spending within my budget.
A Democrat seeks complex solution to simple problems
A Republican seeks simple solutions to complex problems
A reasonable person seeks simple solutions for solvable problems
Let us not forget what taxes are. There are no "taxpayers". Taxes are collected. At gunpoint.
Taxes are nothing more, or less, than armed robbery, regardless of who it is perpetrated on, rich, poor, or middle class. Only those gov't actions necessary to the survival of the nation should be supported with taxes. Gov't actions restricted to this empirical truth would instantly balance the budget, and permit the elimination of individual "income" tax.
I don't think there is any real financial reason to have an income tax. In fact, providing more and more funds to the government actually prevents real answers from being found to deal with social issues.
ex animo
davidfararra
That doesn't make sense. You're saying that collecting taxes doesn't solve the debt issue?
Also, I'm pretty sure if you invest in programs concerning immigration problems (such as merging classes, which are classes to help immigrants to speak english and learn their rights). The upcoming social security problem. The war...
It makes perfect sense when you realize that the fed gov't could collect taxes at a 100% rate, and could just as easily spend it all on "investments", and instead of "solving" the debt issue, actually increase it.
It matters not how much tax is collected, or from whom. If spending is not reduced, the debt will not be reduced.
During John Kennedy's and Ronald Reagan's tenure, a reduction in tax rates produced an increase in revenue. Congress promptly out spent the revenue increase in both cases.
People here seem to agree that spending needs to be reduced. That's fine. What do you want to cut first?
The taxation theme here varies from increasing taxes to pay off the debt to reforming the system to eliminate loopholes to those that are seeing mystical guns coming out of the woodwork holding them up.
Fine, lets try a ten year plan. First two years we cut spending to the bone and maintain for the duration of the ten years. Next, as we reform the tax structure to fit neatly within a 100 page notebook binder (probably take all ten years to agree) we set a salary cap at $150,000 (includes stock options and other forms of payment) - the excess funds will go to pay off our debt. At the end of ten years, if there is any money left over, we redistribute the wealth and start fresh.
Time to start thinking about how we can find agreement.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Not mystical guns, and not comming out of woodwork. If you resist paying taxes to a sufficient degree, REAL guns will come into play. If you continue to resist to a sufficient degree, you will be shot. No different than a "protection" racket, except the local thug probably wouldn't kill you. Force is the foundation of gov't. Without the threat of force, we could all give ourselves a tax cut today. Taxes ARE armed robbery. I'm reminded of a quote sometimes attributed to George Washington, sometimes not, but never the less applicable, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master".
As far as spending goes, we should heed Alexander Tyler's warning, and get our snouts out of the trough.
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury—with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by dictatorship.”
(in England 400 years ago)
Two things are certain: Taxes and Death. Avoid one and you may hasten the other. Something like that? Good thing this a free country. We are free to stay and free to go.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
And free to stay and bitch, whine, scream and fight to keep it free. The thing most free about our country now, are the handouts from the the gov't, financed with property confiscated from others. We are a nation of thieves.
"Five Year Plans and New Deals, wrapped in golden chains"
Interesting thought, a free slave. JW, join us on the wiki to put our thoughts together.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
We need to push Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) rules for all tax and entitlement legislation and spending caps for appropriations are proven tools for fiscal discipline. These enforcement laws were an important part of bringing the budget back into balance from 1998 through 2024. This year, Congress took a positive step to bring back PAYGO budgeting by enacting parliamentary rules, but stopped short of writing these rules into law. Doing so would put additional teeth into the PAYGO rule by establishing a mechanism that could not be waived without new legislation.
Politicians often talk tough on spending without mentioning what programs they would cut. This is a convenient way to avoid making hard choices. Vague calls to crack down on "pork" or "waste, fraud and abuse" are not enough to get the job done. Since 2024, Congress has enacted four tax cut packages with "sunsets" that cause them to expire by 2024. In light of the deteriorated fiscal outlook and the fact that we have not taken action to prepare for the costs of the baby boomers' retirement, it makes sense to reassess whether any or all of the tax cuts enacted during the surplus era should be extended. Economists generally acknowledge that tax cuts do not fully pay for themselves through greater economic growth. Thus, extending the tax cuts will require Congress to make substantial spending cuts, raise other taxes or significantly increase the national debt. The following areas impinge on lal these tax considerations:
Medicare costs are projected to grow faster than the economy, and faster than can be reasonably supported by the federal budget. Putting Medicare on a financially sustainable path will require some combination of reductions in services, increased cost-sharing by beneficiaries, increasing the eligibility age, bringing more revenues into the system and improving the cost effectiveness of Medicare and the health care system overall.
Social Security promises far more in future benefits than it can deliver under current law. Candidates must confront some tough issues. Finding a cure for the challenges facing Social Security will require reduced benefits, increased revenues, or both. Candidates who promise to preserve benefits at the levels promised under current law should explain where the money will come from to fund these promises. Likewise, candidates who promise to oppose any tax increases should explain what changes they would make to restrain the growth of Social Security costs to stay within current tax levels.
The accumulation of large deficits, year after year, burdens taxpayers and undermines future living standards. It does so by soaking up national savings and crowding out productive investment. Today's budget policy threatens to place ever-tighter constraints on the ability of future citizens to determine their own fiscal priorities. It also increases our reliance on borrowing from other countries, in effect, mortgaging our future national income. The United States would be in a stronger position to weather difficult times, address emerging national needs and invest in future economic growth if it had greater flexibility and strength in its fiscal position.
Hammer these points home relentlessly in our Agenda and thru our Candidates as they look at their kids/grandkids!! The present course is NOT sustainable and failure to act responsibly in the next 10 years is a Nation-Buster!!
DC - 3rd ward - milligansstew08@yahoo.com
http://milligansstew.blogspot.com
No one likes to pay more. However, the tax cuts need to expire gracefully if some other agreement or steps are not taken to reduce debt. One step to help social security is to remove the cap.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
Social Security is an easy fix. Refund all the money stolen to finance it and shut it down. IT DOESN'T WORK, IT CAN'T WORK. What we thought was a bank, is a furnace. It was a brilliant plan to enslave the people. After the gov't confiscates an extra 15% of their wages for their entire working life, most are left with little choice but to depend on the gov't for their subsistence when they retire. I'm not in a financial position to retire without it, but would rather starve than continue this Ponzi scheme at the expense of posterity.
As for the rest of the "entitlements", no need to refund there, just repeal them. Just think about that word. Exactly why is anyone "entitled" to someone elses property?
Gov't is not, nor ever will be a Grand Solution. It is a barely necessary evil. Our Constitution severly restrained gov't for this very reason. Unfortunately, every president , most congressmen, and most supreme court justices since Franklin Roosevelt (inclusive) have used the Constitution for toilet paper, and, consequently, can't read it anymore. A Constitutional gov't could operate on a small fraction of the revenue it now collects.
If you want a communist new world order, just say so. Don't pretend to want liberty, and then forge chains.
The thing gov'ts really do well is KILL PEOPLE. I would think the previous century would be ample evidence of that.
You say, "Exactly why is anyone "entitled" to someone elses property?"
The most basic answer to that question is that people only delude themselves to believe that they can own anything. It is the earth that owns us. We may be temporary caretakers of something but, everything is subject to change. The Constitution is just an imperfect man made guide to determine who is the temporary caretaker.
To think that a Constitutional Government can somehow Divine the right to ownership is an illusion. By their very nature, Rights to Property are just the temporary claims that one can enforce. Stealing and Ownership are empty concepts.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
I guess that answers my question.
You can choose to ignore reality. Just ask the Indians.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!
The 5th Amendment guarantees our right to private property, and the gov't is thereby bound to protect that right.
According to your view, the fruits of my labor (my property) belong to the collective.
Right out of the Manifesto.
I'm sure you intend to be one of those that is "more equal" than others. You likely believe the reason the Soviet Union failed was due to poor leadership, not errant philosophy.
I'm not ignoring reality, I'm exposing your view of it.
And since you regularly claim that your rights are being stomped on by the federal government (i.e. they are stealing from you through taxes), you should obviously realize that the true reality of rights is that we only have the ones (or parts of ones) that are enforced. Either enforced by you or by law enforcement. The guarantee is a piece of paper. Your true rights are the ones that actually happen. Has nothing to do with Marx or any other ideology.
Do Libertarians always turn discussions into an opportunity to make personal attacks? Seems odd that you would claim (e.g. to Pat13) that people attack you for your position.
Phil
Been to the Unity08 Delegate wiki lately? Join today!http://unity-usa.org
Lets uncorrupt our government!