Taxpayer Vs Citizen

Cookie_Monster

So when did the change over happen. Everything in the paper these days is about how we, the taxpayer fund this and that etc. When did we stop becoming citizen and suddenly become taxpayers?

The Celtic Tiger era, or post it?

Is this term restricted to just Ireland or has it become a common EU/US term these days?

Did it spring from the media or government and what is the ultimate point of it, to split those who contribute taxes from those less well off, to further split the populace to take pressure off the gov ala the public vs private "war" or is it simply the media trying to have a go at the government?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sleepy

Not just an Irish thing, the taxpayers in the UK are quick to distinguish themselves from non-contributing citizens too.

I'd never suggest that all citizens should be expected to contribute. Only the hardest of hearts would insist on those past retirement age, incapable of work due to disability, currently unemployed etc are 'lesser' members of society. I'm not sure that argument could be extended to those who simply aren't prepared to contribute to society and live a parasitic existence off the efforts of their fellows.

Nody

As noted a citizen don't fund anything; a tax payer does.

The two are not interchangable as a person here on visa or a member from another EU state is not a citizen but would be a tax payer. As a tax payer they have every right to ask that the money they pay in are used in the best way possible since they are the once paying the bill, the citizen by definition does not (though the citizen may be a tax payer as well).

pumpkinsoup

I think citizen is more appropriate. If government revenue is being spent on a particular project, then that revenue is not available for spending on other services which are potentially to the benefit of all citizens, not just taxpayers.

My small children for instance are too young to be taxpayers. Money spent on a bank bailout is money diverted from schools and hospital services that they might avail of. The bailout is being funded by them too.

ei.sdraob

government spending like aid helps people in other countries

are they "citizens" too by your reasoning @pumpkinsoup

dont confuse "vulnerable/dependant" with "citizen" with "taxpayer", the 3 are there separate but mostly overlapping sets

We were never 'the citizen'..
we were 'the consumer' before..

simplistic2

The word taxpayer doesnt make much sense to me. Paying for something implies that the action is voluntary. Theft payer does not sound right either but theft victim does.

Sand

Citizenship isnt directly linked to your payment of tax as far as I know. Certainly the constitution doesnt define citizenship in such terms. Tax evaders dont have their citizenship taken from them.

There are people in the country who are taxpayers without being citizens. There are Irish citizens who dont pay Irish taxes. Theres not much linkage other than Irish taxpayers and Irish citizens both tend to be resident in Ireland.

Political inclinations can be revealed through use of either term - but some things are factual: taxpayers are funding the bailout. Thats just reality. And at the risk of revealing my own political inclinations I think its good that people are reminded that they are the people underwriting this circus and they get angry over the waste, incompetence and corruption that characterises the way in which their money is employed.

Citizens just wont get as angry - after all, its someone elses money, isnt it?

Cookie_Monster

Sand wrote: »

Citizenship isnt directly linked to your payment of tax as far as I know.

no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"

ei.sdraob

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"

yes because the burden of all this **** that was created by few is being put on the taxpayers

there is a parallel thread where we discuss the figures, and its quite shocking only about half of the workforce pay any direct taxes

if more "citizens" actually paid anything or something at all they might get more interested and involved in the running of the country

dsmythy

I think it comes from the media. Lets their audience think they are with them, the taxpayer.

Scofflaw

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

no its not, and I didn't mean in exact terms for the point of this debate. Just in the general sense everything seems to be about the "taxpayer of this country" these days rather than the "citizens of this country"

Largely because the current mess is financial. During other types of scandals the preferred media term is "citizens". It doesn't really tell you anything beyond that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

P. Breathnach

simplistic2 wrote: »

The word taxpayer doesnt make much sense to me. Paying for something implies that the action is voluntary. Theft payer does not sound right either but theft victim does.

I thought this was a forum for discussion, but simplistic2's point seems to me more like sloganeering.

I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

Yes, you can point to some waste, and you can tell me about welfare cheats, and I will agree with you that such things are wrong and should be dealt with. But you don't deal with such things by dismantling the whole apparatus of state, any more than you deal with an ingrown toenail by amputating a leg.

Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax, and I take a jaundiced view of those who create and exploit some tax avoidance schemes.

Hagar

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax

The real thieves are those who misuse the tax paid in good faith and put into their trust.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I thought this was a forum for discussion, but simplistic2's point seems to me more like sloganeering.

I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

Yes, you can point to some waste, and you can tell me about welfare cheats, and I will agree with you that such things are wrong and should be dealt with. But you don't deal with such things by dismantling the whole apparatus of state, any more than you deal with an ingrown toenail by amputating a leg.

Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax, and I take a jaundiced view of those who create and exploit some tax avoidance schemes.

Do you agree with spending billions on NAMA, Bailouts and continue to spend billions more than we have on welfare and public services?

As a taxpayer I have every right to demand better value for money

If we dont hold the government responsible and in check they endup doing stupid things, and thats exactly what they have done alot of lately

since they bribed enough people out of the taxnet, they can get away with murder on the economic front without meeting much resistance from people who no longer pay (yet) for any of the past and present mistakes

Tipp Man

The major problem is we have far few people in the taxpayer subset reletive to the demands of the citzen set

This needs to change

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Do you agree with spending billions on NAMA, Bailouts

When I consider the alternatives, yes. I won't go further than that in this thread, because there are enough other discussions either related to NAMA or derailed to become NAMA discussions.

and continue to spend billions more than we have on welfare and public services?

No. Again, I choose not to elaborate because we have a sufficient number of discussions on those matters.

As a taxpayer I have every right to demand better value for money

And so have I, and I am willing to do so. But here's the rub: we don't have full agreement on what constitutes good value for money.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

we don't have full agreement on what constitutes good value for money.

For me value for money means fiscal responsibility
the idea of having to borrow alot of money just to pay wages and keep the country going, money that will have to be payed back + interest by me and future generations
is downright perverse

you only borrow money to invest in capital projects like infrastructure that will benefit everyone in the long term, paying wages by borrowing is just madness

I find it very funny that they Greens harp on about saving the planet and environment for future generations, but are willing and are complicit in saddling those generations with debt

MazG

While many people are out of the income tax net due their their low earnings (eg single person earning less than €18,300 will not be subject to income tax - that's only €800 or so p.a. above minumum wage), the fact remains that such people still contribute by paying indirect taxes along with their PRSI and income levy. VAT of 21% is charged on all goods except for staple food items and children's shoes and clothes. If a low-wage earner has a car then he/she pays car tax, VAT and levies on petrol/diesel. These indirect taxes also apply to those in receipt of Social Welfare payments.

We are all taxpayers

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... I find it very funny that they Greens harp on about saving the planet and environment for future generations, but are willing and are complicit in saddling those generations with debt

I have declined to be diverted into discussions about NAMA or social welfare or the public service.

Now I decline to be diverted into discussing an attack on the Greens.

Sleepy

MazG wrote: »

While many people are out of the income tax net due their their low earnings (eg single person earning less than €18,300 will not be subject to income tax - that's only €800 or so p.a. above minumum wage), the fact remains that such people still contribute by paying indirect taxes along with their PRSI and income levy. VAT of 21% is charged on all goods except for staple food items and children's shoes and clothes. If a low-wage earner has a car then he/she pays car tax, VAT and levies on petrol/diesel. These indirect taxes also apply to those in receipt of Social Welfare payments.

We are all taxpayers

But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?

Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?

MazG

Sleepy wrote: »

But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?

Who says that the term 'taxpayer' refers exclusively to those paying income tax? Income tax is just a category of taxation. And besides, someone on minimum wage does contribute something - they would be subject to the 2% income levy*. As tax categories go, surely this one belongs in the 'income' category, thus complying with your requirement.


*Assuming a full-time job on minimum wage = 39 hrs p.w @ €8.65 p.h x 52 weeks = €17,542.20; above the income levy lower limit of €15,028

MazG

Sleepy wrote: »

Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?

Little Jimmy's Dad will have to take that up with Little Jimmy, I reckon!

Riskymove

MazG wrote: »

*Assuming a full-time job on minimum wage = 39 hrs p.w @ €8.65 p.h x 52 weeks = €17,542.20; above the income lower limit of €15,028

even if you were right and I am not 100% sure you are...thats about €50 a year i think

P. Breathnach

Sleepy wrote: »

But only some of us pay income tax and that is what the term 'Taxpayer' generally refers to.

Why shouldn't someone on minimum wage be contributing something?

Or to take the argument further, why should little Jimmy who's earning minimum wage in his part time job on Saturdays whilst living at home with mammy and daddy get to drink every penny he earns whilst his dad who's supporting a family could be left with less disposable income since he has to pay tax on his income?

If little Jimmy spends all his money on drink, he might be paying more tax than his dad.

MazG

Riskymove wrote: »

even if you were right and I am not 100% sure you are...thats about €50 a year i think

Thanks for the vote of confidence :rolleyes:, however it would seem that it is your calculations and not mine that are inaccurate.

You've multiplied €17,452.20 by 2% and come up with €50? Check the batteries in your calculator... Fair enough though, the figure is not huge, it's about €350. Still a (small) contribution though!

Riskymove

MazG wrote: »

Thanks for the vote of confidence :rolleyes:, however it would seem that it is your calculations and not mine that are inaccurate.

You've multiplied €17,452.20 by 2% and come up with €50? Check the batteries in your calculator... Fair enough though, the figure is not huge, it's about €350. Still a (small) contribution though!

well I said I was not sure

I thought you would only pay the 2% on earnings above the threshold

MazG

Nope - once you're above the threshold you pay 2% on the lot. Reasonable assumption though...:)

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Now I decline to be diverted into discussing an attack on the Greens.

Just pointing out the many "oddities" of modern day Ireland

You might like to stick spuds in ears and sing la-la-la, that's your choice

But its there, it happened and downright hypocritical

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If little Jimmy spends all his money on drink, he might be paying more tax than his dad.

We should encourage more people to drink so, might cover the 20 billion hole in our finances

Riskymove

MazG wrote: »

Nope - once you're above the threshold you pay 2% on the lot. Reasonable assumption though...:)

out of interest I used a tax calculator and it indicates that someone on 17,452.20 would actually pay €1660 PAYE and €524 PRSI on top of the €350 levy

it seems to indicate that the htreshold for income tax is around the €14,000 mark so certainly people in minimum wage could in fact pay tax

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Just pointing out the many "oddities" of modern day Ireland

You might like to stick spuds in ears and sing la-la-la, that's your choice

But its there, it happened and downright hypocritical

stop being so overly dramatic, his point is there are plenty of other threads for debating NAMA, Greens etc...not that he is ignoring such issues

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

... You might like to stick spuds in ears and sing la-la-la, that's your choice ...

It's more a matter of my liking to focus on the matter in hand, and not allow myself to be dragged all over the place.

We should encourage more people to drink so, might cover the 20 billion hole in our finances

Personally, I think that many Irish people drink too much already, but that's a side issue. The point I was making is that many people who pay little or no income tax still pay tax, often quite a lot of tax.

ei.sdraob

Riskymove wrote: »

stop being so overly dramatic, his point is there are plenty of other threads for debating NAMA, Greens etc...not that he is ignoring such issues

:rolleyes:

The "issue" is very much on topic

A certain group is responsible for putting a large burden on the "taxpayer", and by doing so will negatively affect the "vulnerable" from whom the money will be diverted, this single act will impact all "citizens" as well over time

Riskymove

ei.sdraob wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The "issue" is very much on topic

based on the OP I dont agree but c'est la vie

Zamboni

MazG wrote: »

While many people are out of the income tax net due their their low earnings (eg single person earning less than €18,300 will not be subject to income tax - that's only €800 or so p.a. above minumum wage), the fact remains that such people still contribute by paying indirect taxes along with their PRSI and income levy. VAT of 21% is charged on all goods except for staple food items and children's shoes and clothes. If a low-wage earner has a car then he/she pays car tax, VAT and levies on petrol/diesel. These indirect taxes also apply to those in receipt of Social Welfare payments.

We are all taxpayers

Is a social welfare recepient paying VAT not just an internal accounting exercise?

douglashyde

I paid €15.34 on tax and €8.66 on an income levy this week.

Meanwhile somewhere in Ballym** a junkie is shooting up €15.34 worth of heroin and drinking a a 6 pack of dutch gold which cost €8.66; the money came from his Social welfare.

I'm a taxpayer. The junkie's a citizen.

MazG

Riskymove wrote: »

out of interest I used a tax calculator and it indicates that someone on 17,452.20 would actually pay €1660 PAYE and €524 PRSI on top of the €350 levy

it seems to indicate that the htreshold for income tax is around the €14,000 mark so certainly people in minimum wage could in fact pay tax

Hmmm... I think the tax calculator is a little dodgy, can I ask for a link please? By my calculations, a personal tax credit for a single person of €1,830 plus a PAYE credit of €1,830 (assuming minimum wage example is not self-employed or director of company) should shelter income of up to €18,300 from income tax.

According to revenue.ie, "Employees earning €352 or less per week in 2009 or 2010 are exempt from PRSI and Health Contribution.", so in theory, PRSI shouldn't apply either...

MazG

Zamboni wrote: »

Is a social welfare recepient paying VAT not just an internal accounting exercise?

A similar argument could be put forward to describe the spending of any government employee, or employees of any government funded organisations. It's still tax. They are still taxpayers.

Riskymove

MazG wrote: »

Hmmm... I think the tax calculator is a little dodgy, can I ask for a link please? By my calculations, a personal tax credit for a single person of €1,830 plus a PAYE credit of €1,830 (assuming minimum wage example is not self-employed or director of company) should shelter income of up to €18,300 from income tax.

According to revenue.ie, "Employees earning €352 or less per week in 2009 or 2010 are exempt from PRSI and Health Contribution.", so in theory, PRSI shouldn't apply either...

I used

http://www.deloitte.ie/tc/

NOTE: I just tried the PwC one and it agrees with you, just levy no income tax..so booo to deloitte

http://download.pwc.com/ie/budget2010/budget_calculator_2010.html

simplistic2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I thought this was a forum for discussion, but simplistic2's point seems to me more like sloganeering.

I apologise, I was attempting to point out the power that words have to skew and distort the meaning of certain actions. I believe that the media use the word taxpayer because it causes a feeling of devision between people. The label citizen seems to me to give the impression of equality when discribing a group of people. We all know that the media have a knack of using words that cause emotional responses.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

I aslo believe in social solidarity. My rough definition being helping others less fortunate than myself through voluntary actions.

My question is though P.B why should I be forced to pay? And would your personally force me to conform to your definition of social solidarity?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Yes, you can point to some waste, and you can tell me about welfare cheats, and I will agree with you that such things are wrong and should be dealt with. But you don't deal with such things by dismantling the whole apparatus of state, any more than you deal with an ingrown toenail by amputating a leg.

Why not what does the state provide that could not be done voluntarily?

I prefer the metaphor of the state being an aggressive cancer that grows and grows until it consumes the healthy body and collapses. If you had cancer in your leg removal is preferred to shrinkage.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Taxation is not theft; the real thieves are those who evade tax, and I take a jaundiced view of those who create and exploit some tax avoidance schemes.

But when does it actually become theft for you P.B ?An 80%, 90%, 99% tax rate?

MazG

Riskymove wrote: »

I used

http://www.deloitte.ie/tc/

NOTE: I just tried the PwC one and it agrees with you, just levy no income tax..so booo to deloitte

http://download.pwc.com/ie/budget2010/budget_calculator_2010.html

Boo to Deloitte indeed. Ah... I see the problem, its default setting for the question of 'are you an employee' is 'no'. Gives a little insight into the most likely category of people who would use Accountants to 'minimise' tax

As to the OP, I agree with Scofflaw that the term 'taxpayer' is being used instead of citizen during this crisis because it is a financial one.

It is also more accurate in describing the people who are funding the bank bail outs etc, as many of those who pay tax in Ireland are not Irish citizens

Riskymove

MazG wrote: »

Boo to Deloitte indeed. Ah... I see the problem, its default setting for the question of 'are you an employee' is 'no'. Gives a little insight into the most likely category of people who would use Accountants to 'minimise' tax

no I changed that to yes the first time, just re ran and its the same issue even though I select yes

P. Breathnach

simplistic2 wrote: »

I apologise, I was attempting to point out the power that words have to skew and distort the meaning of certain actions. I believe that the media use the word taxpayer because it causes a feeling of devision between people. The label citizen seems to me to give the impression of equality when discribing a group of people. We all know that the media have a knack of using words that cause emotional responses.

I aslo believe in social solidarity. My rough definition being helping others less fortunate than myself through voluntary actions.

My question is though P.B why should I be forced to pay? And would your personally force me to conform to your definition of social solidarity?

Why not what does the state provide that could not be done voluntarily?

I prefer the metaphor of the state being an aggressive cancer that grows and grows until it consumes the healthy body and collapses. If you had cancer in your leg removal is preferred to shrinkage.

But when does it actually become theft for you P.B ?An 80%, 90%, 99% tax rate?

I'll make my answer short and simple. I am not a libertarian. I have no interest in discussing libertarianism.

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, either.

MazG

Yeah, that happened to me too. It seems to ignore a change to that setting sometimes. I tried it again and it worked this time. Either way, it's a poor tax calculator.

simplistic2

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'll make my answer short and simple. I am not a libertarian. I have no interest in discussing libertarianism.

I don't believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, either.

Yet sill like a child you put your hands over your ears and lalallalala

P. Breathnach

simplistic2 wrote: »

Yet sill like a child you put your hands over your ears and lalallalala

No. I decide what lines of discussion interest me.

sceptre

If some of you tomcats could remember that personalising the discussion is a no-no, that'd be mighty cool.

If you could all remember the concept and practice of on-topic as opposed to off-topic that 'd be great as well.

/mod

Sand

I have sympathy for the wish to focus on particular issues on particular threads. Obviously views on context of that particular issue will feed into the debate, but NAMA has tons of threads.

Like I said, usage of the term "taxpayer" when it comes to explaining whose paying for the various bailouts is a statement of fact. The "citizen" is not paying other than the opportunity cost of losing out on the some of the sugar being extracted from the worker drones. That said, the usage of taxpayer vs. citizen can depend very heavily on how a person sees the relationship of the individual and the state. For example:

I am a compliant taxpayer (and that includes disclosing some income that I know I could successfully conceal). I do not see myself as the victim of theft, because I believe in social solidarity. Further, I get a lot in exchange for my taxes. Probably, if I had enough data available and had an interest in doing so, I could establish that the direct benefits to me amount to less than the taxes I pay, making me a net contributor. That's okay with me: my next door neighbour is disabled, and dependent on disability benefit, and I am content to contribute to that.

P.Breatnach does not see himself as the victim of theft, due to his own beliefs and his own wish to contribute to the welfare of others. A civic duty. In this, there is nothing that couldnt be reasonably accomplished by an effective charity group to which P. Breatnach could contribute however much he felt able to do so - I doubt a charity would waste money on frivolties like government jets when theres people living on the streets. To this worldview, the state is basically some form of community driven charity...and we all owe this entity, even if it engages in waste like government jets, pageants, great feasts and quangos.

Others see it differently. They see the state not as a charity but as a common enterprise...to which all citizens contribute on some basis considered fair (difficult to define) and to which people are willing to pay a fraction of their wealth to accomplish certain stated goals....those goals do not include flying President McAleese around the world to witter on about total rubbish, enriching failed bankers, subsidising a lifestyle of dependance, underachievement and petty crime or various nonsense such as the recent government scheme to open a train route that runs slower and less often than existing private routes.

The former will tend to the usage of "citizen" as citizenship has always implied common privledges and responsibilities to the state, whereas the latter will favour "taxpayer" because to pay implies receiving something in return - at the very least honest, efficient and effective government.

P. Breathnach

Sand wrote: »

...
P.Breatnach does not see himself as the victim of theft, due to his own beliefs and his own wish to contribute to the welfare of others. A civic duty. In this, there is nothing that couldnt be reasonably accomplished by an effective charity group to which P. Breatnach could contribute however much he felt able to do so - I doubt a charity would waste money on frivolties like government jets when theres people living on the streets. To this worldview, the state is basically some form of community driven charity...and we all owe this entity, even if it engages in waste like government jets, pageants, great feasts and quangos.

Others see it differently. They see the state not as a charity but as a common enterprise...to which all citizens contribute on some basis considered fair (difficult to define) and to which people are willing to pay a fraction of their wealth to accomplish certain stated goals....those goals do not include flying President McAleese around the world to witter on about total rubbish, enriching failed bankers, subsidising a lifestyle of dependance, underachievement and petty crime or various nonsense such as the recent government scheme to open a train route that runs slower and less often than existing private routes.

The former will tend to the usage of "citizen" as citizenship has always implied common privledges and responsibilities to the state, whereas the latter will favour "taxpayer" because to pay implies receiving something in return - at the very least honest, efficient and effective government.

I do not see the state solely as an agent for income redistribution, and it is disingenuous to interpret what I said as if one example of something I believe to be good represents my entire political position.

As I said, I have no interest in discussing libertarianism and, in fact, your post contains one of the reasons why I have so little time for it: the supposition that the needs of those unable to provide for themselves can be met by charity, and the associated implication that people in need do not have some right to have those needs met. That is so at variance with my worldview that there would be no common ground on which I could engage with a libertarian.

[As a minor point, I dislike the tendency of many libertarians to conflate rhetoric with discussion.]

Sand

I do not see the state solely as an agent for income redistribution, and it is disingenuous to interpret what I said as if one example of something I believe to be good represents my entire political position.

I was referring to your views on taxation as theft, not so much on your views on the state - though for the record, Id imagine your views on the role of the state arent wholly in disagreement with your views on taxation as theft.

the supposition that the needs of those unable to provide for themselves can be met by charity

Private charity, state charity...whats the difference?

and the associated implication that people in need do not have some right to have those needs met

Ah...this is why some people refer to citizens and others to taxpayers...one term hides the fact that others rights are sacrificed to meet the demands of others.

That would open a wider debate - do people have a right to internet access?

As I said, I have no interest in discussing libertarianism

If you confuse the expectation of at the least efficient, honest and effective government with libertarianism it only credits libertarianism and discredits socialism.

For the record, I am not a libertarian. I am a taxpayer who expects at the least efficient, honest and effective government.