Paying the bills

[kandrathe]

Yet, you agree with "Funding policing by force", "Road upkeep by force", and many other things thata re done by "Force"
And likewise, I can see your ideas as a slippery slope that will ineviatably lead to The Irish Problem with the inevitable Modest Proposal. There's a reason for why this is called the slippery slope fallacy.

But... I don't. I agree we need a police force and roads. I believe I've expressed before that my views are that those who use the thing should pay for it. So, for police it would be property taxes for my local police. For Highway Patrol and other State officers it would be from the States general funds. For a State tax I would like to see consumption based taxes only. I would like to see no income tax at all. Consumption is a voluntary tax. If you don't like the price of a good or service, then you can choose not to consume it. I would like to see zero sales taxes on farm produce that are for human consumption, and a modest sales tax on processed food. I would also limit taxes on health care and medicine. At the Federal level it would be up to the States to negotiate on how to fund the Federal government, but the apportionment should be based on the States population.

As for the slippery slope... Let's look at France's socialism and its severe back lash, shall we? Great post on Soviet ideological warfare

Better yet, let's explore The Netherlands two social slippery slope issues;

1st opening up the definition of marriage...

The Dutch journey towards the destruction of marriage began when they legalized homosexual civil unions in 1998. This was followed in a mere three year's time by the legalization of homosexual marriage and adoption of children. Now just four years later they have certified the civil union of one man and two lesbians.

With homosexual polygamous civil unions now being permitted can anyone doubt that homosexual polygamous marriage will be far behind? They have gone from the top of the slope with traditional marriage to their current position in just seven years. And given what they've allowed thus far, how could they justify slowing the wheels of "progress"?

and 2nd euthanasia.

When it comes to the sanctity of life, the Dutch have even more to be proud of. In 2001 they began with voluntary euthanasia for people that were terminally ill, but then moved rapidly to expand the franchise to those who were disabled. By 2004 they had moved to the euthanasia of disabled and terminally ill newborn babies and granted twelve-year olds the right to assisted suicide without parental consent. In addition, they began to allow the euthanasia of the terminally ill who were mentally incapable of deciding whether they wanted to live or die.

Dutch hospitals have petitioned the government to allow the killing of terminal infants and young children, as well as the severely mentally retarded. They have also pushed ahead with establishing guidelines to euthanize newborns that are determined to be in pain associated with incurable diseases or severe physical deformities. Hitler would be proud.

Now, I'm not taking a stand on either of these Netherlands socialist items, but using them to illustrate what I mean by a socialist slippery slope. We've hashed out out views on both topics in the past.

Here is a local example from my State. We went along with the "ideological" Federal program labeled "State Children's Health Insurance Program". Which politician could ever be against health care for low income children? The reality is that in Minnesota, 87% of the participants in the program are adults. We have 5 State/Federal health insurance programs in Minnesota. The legislature is trying to pass legislation this session that would extend State low income health coverage to some households that make up to $100K in income.