-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Ron Paul wants to abolish the Income Tax?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
BoomerD
No Lifer
There's never going to be a form of taxation that everyone considers to be fair to them.
Flat tax sounds pretty fair to most of us, but many lower income people will object, because the percentage they pay will hurt them more than it will a rich person...which is true...
One thing that will (IMO) need to be done, is to eliminate ALL tax breaks and deductions.
No more mortgage deductions, no more charitable deductions, no more 2nd home deductions, etc.
MAYBE leave in deductions for those who have to travel for their work and are not reimbursed by their companies, and things like moving deductions, with some still requirements to claim them.
Also, tax capital gains just like any other form of income.
If I have to pay X% on my wages, then the rich should pay the same rate on their income, no matter what the source.
A sliding tiered rate may work as well, but also, without the current deductions and tax shelters. If you earn it in anyway, you get taxed for it.
A consumption tax also SOUNDS fair, but in reality, it will hurt the poorer people MUCH more than it will the richer ones. Granted, even with food and drugs exempted from taxation, paying taxes on the basic necessities will still take a larger % bite out of their disposable income than it will someone who makes considerably more.
You'd have to have a lower level cut-off, whether it be the Federal poverty level, or what, I don't know, but anyone earning below that much pays $0 in taxes.
The EIC has some benefits for the working poor, but I still don't like giving someone elses tax dollars to a person who hasn't earned it...we have enough welfare-type of programs.
We maybe should also consider eliminating exemptions to 2 children. If you have more than 2, tough break.
YOU chose to have a large family.
Like I said, there is no tax scheme that will make everyone happy...
Flat tax sounds pretty fair to most of us, but many lower income people will object, because the percentage they pay will hurt them more than it will a rich person...which is true...
One thing that will (IMO) need to be done, is to eliminate ALL tax breaks and deductions.
No more mortgage deductions, no more charitable deductions, no more 2nd home deductions, etc.
MAYBE leave in deductions for those who have to travel for their work and are not reimbursed by their companies, and things like moving deductions, with some still requirements to claim them.
Also, tax capital gains just like any other form of income.
If I have to pay X% on my wages, then the rich should pay the same rate on their income, no matter what the source.
A sliding tiered rate may work as well, but also, without the current deductions and tax shelters. If you earn it in anyway, you get taxed for it.
A consumption tax also SOUNDS fair, but in reality, it will hurt the poorer people MUCH more than it will the richer ones. Granted, even with food and drugs exempted from taxation, paying taxes on the basic necessities will still take a larger % bite out of their disposable income than it will someone who makes considerably more.
You'd have to have a lower level cut-off, whether it be the Federal poverty level, or what, I don't know, but anyone earning below that much pays $0 in taxes.
The EIC has some benefits for the working poor, but I still don't like giving someone elses tax dollars to a person who hasn't earned it...we have enough welfare-type of programs.
We maybe should also consider eliminating exemptions to 2 children. If you have more than 2, tough break.
YOU chose to have a large family.
Like I said, there is no tax scheme that will make everyone happy...
Dave has become so liberal that he can not even think logically.
For him:
Texas == Bush == Oil == Profits
Therefore Texas and anything can be related to it is bad.
But is is Ok for him to attempt to join the corporate world by having a business that is intended to create a PROFIT (gasp).
For him:
Texas == Bush == Oil == Profits
Therefore Texas and anything can be related to it is bad.
But is is Ok for him to attempt to join the corporate world by having a business that is intended to create a PROFIT (gasp).
zinfamous
No Lifer
so how would we pay for public schools, federal funding of research and development (which accounts for the majority of research in this country), etc?
Sure, the income tax is essentially "illegal," but when the money goes to the right places (this is the real problem), I have absolutely no problem considering that my contributions in some way aid the public good.
Sure, the income tax is essentially "illegal," but when the money goes to the right places (this is the real problem), I have absolutely no problem considering that my contributions in some way aid the public good.
imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
I would prefer the "FairTax" .
Reasons to abolish the income tax.
#1. Americans would have a better understanding of the tax load the Federal Government imposes on them. Too many people only think in terms of take home pay, which is great for the government.
#2. Fairness, replaced with a "FairTax" and everyone who spends money pays taxes! Suddenly those cash for hire jobbers pay tax.
#3. Fairness, suddenly all those special tax breaks become easier to understand and can be eliminated.
Frankly the tax load many of us pay is criminal. With direct and embedded taxes we are beyond what led to the boston tea party. However politicians love to keep people ignorant of the true load, throwing guilt on corporations (who merely collect taxes for the government - they pay none) and the wealthy.
Vic
Elite Member
Saving is an integral part of any economy. Without it, there could be no investment (in fact, as long as it isn't stuffed under a mattress or buried in a jar in the backyard, pretty much all saving is invested in some fashion). So it's not exactly something you would want the government to discourage.
I think you might be going off the idea that a market can become "glutted" if there is excessive saving, but that is no longer accepted economic theory. Scarcity always exists, and people always want more, so it's not the saving that can cause the glut, but a lack of desired and/or available products.
HardWarrior
Diamond Member
More new-age liberal crap, and in every way just as stupid as: "Take my money at gunpoint for my own good, please!"
imported_Shivetya
Platinum Member
I propose the exact opposite. Pay taxes on the amount of money earned and didn't spend.[/quote]
and the idiot award of the year goes too her209!
Uh, so you would punish the one activity that makes an economy truly strong over the long run? You would punish people for saving for their future? Do you want to enslave EVERYONE to the government?
what an absolute idiot. Pull your head out of your ass, oxygen starvation obviously set in
her209
No Lifer
Why is it okay for businesses to pay taxes only on net income and not gross income? Are they, in your own words, enslaved to the government?
No one is saying you can't save your money in the bank. Just like no one is saying you shouldn't spend your money because you'll be taxed on it or you shouldn't work because you'll have to pay income taxes on it.
I'm curious. Under your "Fair Tax" plan, if I bought a food, clothes, do I have pay taxes on it? What about rent? What if I bought a house or car? Stocks/bonds/mutual funds/hedge funds/etc? What if my child is attending a college or university. Is their tuition taxable? What about the books and school supplies? What if I decide to start a business, is everything the business purchases subjected to the same tax? And if so, wouldn't you consider that a form of double taxation?
Capitalizt
Banned
bingo...The monster needs to be SLAYED, not dressed up in a cute new uniform.
All those things you just listed are things Paul does not want to cut. They are all authorized by the constitution. Even those programs which would not exist if we followed the rule of law he would not simply axe (even if he could). He's stated he has no desire to simply remove welfare and medicare, and that his goal really isn't to cut them at all, even though he believes America would be better off without them. There are bigger fish to fry, after all, and Paul is hardly an extremist.
Most people don't realize this, but many (most?) of the founders were libertarians. Back then it was just called liberalism, which is why libertarianism is sometimes called classical liberalism today. The meaning of the term "liberal" changed around the time of FDR's New Deal, and so classical liberals chose a different term to name their ideology. Most people nowdays of course think FDR saved this nation from the great depression, not realizing the cause of the great depression was in fact government interference in the form of the Federal Reserve, as our current Fed chairman has admitted.
The constitution was written expressly to limit the power of the federal government. The founders considered the issue of civil rights important, but a lesser problem, hence the bill of rights which came later. Their largest fears were democracy (more or less what we have now, since the constitution rarely limits federal power) and aristocracy. Yes, thats right, the founders feared democracy, or "mob rule" without the powers of a constitution to restrain the lawmakers. Such a "pure" democracy (as its now known) had been feared for some time, dating back to Socrates and the democracy of Athens. Fortunately, while the federal government rarely looks at article 1 anymore, they do pay attention to the amendments and people's civil liberties.
I would also warn you that your argument is a classic mistake of socialist thinkers. Namely that if the government didn't do X, then X would never get done. This is simple false, although in many cases if the government didn't do X, the people would use the money which would have gone towards X and might do something else with it. In those cases the market usually makes a more intelligent decision and fills a greater social need, since market forces have a more direct relationship to demand than a lobbyist's bill does.
Ultimately, Ron Paul's campaign is more about education, and not really education of politics as much as it is education of economics. Few people bother to think about what taxation is on an economic level. It is literally a third party taking the money from an individual by force and spending it for its own ends. The only way this is moral or economically advantageous is if that third party knows how to spend the individual's money better than he or she can spend it. In some circumstances this can clearly be true. But in most circumstances it is not, and this truism is part of the foundation of modern economics dating back to Adam Smith. And, as Friedman was fond of pointing out, no one spends their own money as responsibly as the owner does. The government does not spend your money as responsibly as you spend your own. This is why public education is more expensive (to the society as a whole) than private education, and one reason why healthcare costs have gone up (doctor's spend insurance money with much gusto).
You cannot separate economics from politics. Unless the public at large becomes educated on basic economic principles, they are never going to elect leaders who serve their interests. If people knew more about economics, they would at least be able to vote for socialistic policies with their eyes open, knowing they would be more wasteful and less effecient than reducing spending and taxation.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
I'm probably going to leave the U.S. for good within about 5-8 years and the income tax is one of the main reasons (along with property tax, sales tax, state income tax etc.) . One of the other main reasons is that the welfare state in the U.S. is going bust within about 20 years and I don't want to be around to have to foot the bill or suffer from the fall out.
Yes, I will miss my family and it will be a surprise to them, but the way I see it, I am leaving the U.S. for a lot of the same reasons Europeans came to the U.S. in droves. I'm just not going to sacrifice a huge portion of my working life for the politicians' wars and welfare (both of which are disastrous).
I've talked to quite a few people who are just as mad as I am about what the country has devolved into. But they aren't willing to leave like I am. I explained to them that the system will never change just because they are mad, or because they vote. They have to be willing to grow the balls and move away and take their business with them. The main problem for them though a lot of times is that they have a family and a career. Fortunately, I'm young, don't have a family and am about to get my college degree.
BTW, call me a fool if you will, but at least this fool isn't going to fund the U.S. government and its war adventures forever.
Yes, I will miss my family and it will be a surprise to them, but the way I see it, I am leaving the U.S. for a lot of the same reasons Europeans came to the U.S. in droves. I'm just not going to sacrifice a huge portion of my working life for the politicians' wars and welfare (both of which are disastrous).
I've talked to quite a few people who are just as mad as I am about what the country has devolved into. But they aren't willing to leave like I am. I explained to them that the system will never change just because they are mad, or because they vote. They have to be willing to grow the balls and move away and take their business with them. The main problem for them though a lot of times is that they have a family and a career. Fortunately, I'm young, don't have a family and am about to get my college degree.
BTW, call me a fool if you will, but at least this fool isn't going to fund the U.S. government and its war adventures forever.
tomywishbone
Golden Member
Income tax, gives our warlords the money to buy the war machine that crushes our enemy (and all others as well). Why would you ever want to stop that?
Capitalizt
Banned
Dissipate
Diamond Member
My first stop will probably be Dubai of the United Arab Emirates. They have no income tax there in their economic free zones. So even if the pay is somewhat lower I will probably still make more over there than I will in the U.S.
If I get tired of the Islamic culture over there (and I probably will), after I've saved up enough money I will probably move to Hong Kong or possibly Switzerland.
Dissipate
Diamond Member
No, but my girlfriend has. She loved it and went ga ga when I told her that they are making a movie starring Angelina Jolie. Text
I agree with Rand's dramatic endorsement of capitalism, and entrepreneurship, but I disagree with her egoism.
I prefer a modified version of Max Stirner's egoism (which no doubt influenced Rand's egoism), which he explains in his book: The Ego and His Own.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
