Yes, I never write here. I'm a lurker. I... lurk. But now I need help! While I live in a blue state, my entire family is catholic-far-right conservative, and apparently getting more so as the years go on. However, with the exception of my mother, most of them are open to discussion (but I doubt anything I will say will change their minds).
With that being said, my younger brother, the intellectual scientist of the family, sent me his “tax plan,” with a request to review it, and let him know what progressives would think of it.
I had no idea how libertarian my brother had become. I know, for years, he’s expressed that all charitable services should solely be the responsibility of the Church (ignoring the fact that historically, the Church hasn’t exactly taken care of even a large fraction of the people needing help, and that my brother isn’t the type to work or donate to what little charitable services the Church provides).
Here are the basics of his tax plan:
1) Completely throw out the entire tax plan, and all social services, including social security, unemployment insurance, SSA, SSI, food stamps, etc.
2) Tax rate is now 30% on all income, with an $8,000.00 deduction for everyone
3) If you do not make $8,000.00 per year, the government pays you 8k, or kicks in the difference. (This is the sole social service, a guaranteed $8,000 per year, and $2,000 per child)
4) All disabled are institutionalized (since $8,000 would never come close to paying for care)
He calls this freedom. Says the government is preventing us from the “liberty” to fail, and that is a moral evil. And tax deductions are forcing us into behavior, so the government has taken away our freedom yet again. And it takes too long to do taxes, so we need to completely throw it out.
A couple quotes from his plan:
A progressive may worry about how there are no more programs for healthcare or food stamps or any such thing. If a poor person spends his money poorly, then that person's basic needs will not be met. However, if the poor are to be considered persons, worthy of human dignity, and not pets, they must be given the option to make their own choices. They should only be provided the means to go to the doctor (by giving them enough money to buy health care). They should not be forced to go.
However, consider this hypothetical alcoholic more carefully. $8,000 only buys so much whiskey. Once he runs out, he'll need a job to buy more. In addition, even the most severely addicted man will need food. There are no more food stamps, so he'll have to either conserve his money for food and therefore drink less, or need a job to pay for food. Either way, he is on his way to being a productive member of society.
How do I even respond to this? How could $8000 a year even possibly come close to covering the cost of living without any additional programs? (it wouldn’t even pay rent at a slum-lord apartment for a year in the state we both live, much less heating, water, food, health care, clothing, etc).