MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-19-2007, 05:13 PM   #61
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


It is like taking a small step towards an ultimate goal. The best thing would be to get rid of the income tax and not replace it. But it will be hard to convince people to do that. So a small step towards the fair tax will replace the income tax, but atleast it will get rid of the IRS.
Then you shouldn't have reacted so hysterically to my factually correct post.
__________________

__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 12-21-2007, 07:46 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
The more I read about Paul, the more I see Pat Buchanan, not a libertarian. I also know that there's a rather large anti-war sentiment out there, and for good reason. However, it is not a good enough reason to elect a bad candidate on all the other matters of importance.
That's your opinion, and that's fine.

The reality is that there is a huge potential constituency out there for an anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-statist candidate and Ron Paul fits that bill perfectly.
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 01:20 AM   #63
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:29 PM
I pray to Chewbacca for something different in this election. Don't give me all-government or non-government or rubber stamping right wing assholes or chicken little leftists, somebody with a brain enough to admit some kind of truth.

Just give me some truth. All I want is the truth.
cue the Lennon song.....


Oh! On topic:
Ron Paul is great because he's principled but he's worthless because he's completely fucking unrealistic.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 01:33 AM   #64
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by U2DMfan

Oh! On topic:
Ron Paul is great because he's principled but he's worthless because he's completely fucking unrealistic.
Yes, he is pricipled, and I give him credit for that. But he is unrealistic...


and in reality an asshole, but I'm sure other presidents were too...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-22-2007, 01:35 AM   #65
Blue Crack Supplier
 
No spoken words's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Where do YOU live?
Posts: 43,241
Local Time: 02:29 PM
I wish I were in a better position to call any of the candidates an asshole.
__________________
No spoken words is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 01:37 AM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by No spoken words
I wish I were in a better position to call any of the candidates an asshole.
I know the guy personally...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-22-2007, 01:45 AM   #67
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
U2DMfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: It's Inside A Black Hole
Posts: 6,637
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar

and in reality an asshole, but I'm sure other presidents were too...
I'm okay with an asshole, if he's a smart mallable asshole.
A sweet, workable, flexible, agreeable asshole.

One that just did his job and remained strong enough to allow you to release your ambitions.
__________________
U2DMfan is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 02:54 AM   #68
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Then you shouldn't have reacted so hysterically to my factually correct post.
Yes but with your post you acted as though that he is totally for raising the sales tax to 23% as his main tax goal. But it is not, as we know.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 12:29 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


Yes but with your post you acted as though that he is totally for raising the sales tax to 23% as his main tax goal. But it is not, as we know.
And with your post you acted as though he wouldn't replace the income tax with anything. But that's false, as we all know.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-22-2007, 02:26 PM   #70
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


And with your post you acted as though he wouldn't replace the income tax with anything. But that's false, as we all know.
NO. If he had the POWER to eliminate the income tax and not replace it he would do it.

But until then, he would rather have the sales tax instead of the income tax.

I admit, the way I said my comment I said it as if he didn't even support the fair tax bill. But his final goal is to elminate the income tax and not increase any tax at all.

The man has NEVER voted for a tax increase in his life, nor has he voted for a Congressional pay increase, which is something I like a lot about him.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 02:59 PM   #71
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,662
Local Time: 04:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98


NO. If he had the POWER to eliminate the income tax and not replace it he would do it.
And if I had the power to eliminate war I would do it.

This is the part you don't get, you are trying to sell a fantasy as a fact.


Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98

But until then, he would rather have the sales tax instead of the income tax.

I admit, the way I said my comment I said it as if he didn't even support the fair tax bill. But his final goal is to elminate the income tax and not increase any tax at all.
That's a final goal that I just don't ever see happening. I've never seen an economic plan that really works, sounds good, but isn't realistic.


Quote:
Originally posted by Infinitum98

The man has NEVER voted for a tax increase in his life, nor has he voted for a Congressional pay increase, which is something I like a lot about him.
Admirable.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 12-22-2007, 06:22 PM   #72
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by financeguy
The reality is that there is a huge potential constituency out there for an anti-war, anti-globalist, anti-statist candidate and Ron Paul fits that bill perfectly.
That's fine and all, but that will just make me question why. I would understand why you'd be interested in Ron Paul. As a non-American, I'm sure that anything that reduces American economic and cultural imperialism might be desirable to you--correct me if I'm wrong, if I have made too broad of an assumption here. And, as for Ron Paul's tax cuts, who doesn't like, at least, the thought of a "tax cut"?

At least in terms of his grasp of economics, I believe that Ron Paul is a nut, and this is not strictly because of his advocacy for tax cuts. This is, instead, because of his support for the resumption of the gold standard, which most credible economists think is a terrible idea. And I'm inclined to agree. Since the gold standard substantially reduces monetary flexibility in times of economic instability, one greatly risks having a hard recession or even an economic depression. The prevailing monetarist theory as for the origins of the Great Depression puts the blame almost squarely on the failures of the gold standard.

Secondly, "anti-globalism" is about as ridiculous, today, as it would being "anti-gravity." That is, no law is going to effectively stop global trade without risking substantial economic harm on the economy supposedly being protected. The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in 1930 is a very extreme example of this. In attempting to make domestic products more desirable, while making foreign products seem undesirable, it had the ultimate effect of not only angering all of our trade partners, but also substantially reducing our exports, so that any supposed benefit from this act was completely negated. In the short term, of course, globalism has hurt, as any corporation will naturally gravitate to where they can operate the cheapest. On the other hand, these third-world countries that have benefited from the Western world, like India, have grown so much that they have now become increasingly "expensive" and, likewise, some Indian corporations have grown so much as to start investing and creating businesses in the West themselves. It is complicated, sure, but I feel as though we have no choice but to embrace globalism, while continuing to try and perfect it.

Third, Paul is not strictly "anti-statist," as much as he desires shifting government from the federal to state levels. Historically, "states' rights" have been a rallying cry in America, but, in practice, it has generally been a failure. Most of our state governments are generally run by idiots who make our "federal idiots," by comparison, seem like geniuses.

Admittedly, I found him appealing, at first, too. But, reading further, I do not see him to be the "Savior" that everyone wants him to be. In contrast, I think Paul would be an unabashed disaster as president. His elimination of the income tax vastly benefits the rich (most middle class people who bitch about income taxes are probably more likely bitching about the AMT, which is a separate taxation issue), while the large sales taxes required to make up for that loss in tax revenue would be highly detrimental economically. Just as rich people don't like income taxes, imagine having to lump 20%+ onto everything we buy--in addition to, at least, 6% in state sales taxes? At that point, guaranteed, the rich will just go off and buy things in cheaper nations, the millions of people who live on the border of Canada and Mexico will be more enticed to buy things there, and we'll be in more trouble then.

I guess that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but it is my opinion, which I have elucidated above, that Paul is not only not the "Savior" that everyone wants him to be, but that he would cause substantial economic harm trying to enact his economic policies. Paul is nothing but a dangerous reactionary ideologue in maverick's clothing.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 07:37 PM   #73
Refugee
 
Infinity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,188
Local Time: 03:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


That's a final goal that I just don't ever see happening. I've never seen an economic plan that really works, sounds good, but isn't realistic.

But why wouldn't it work? We all know that there is ridiculous amounts of spending going on. We have more military spending than the entire world combined. We've spent half a trillion dollars on this unnecessary war. It can't be done overnight, and he himself has admitted this. But it is not a fantasy, it is totally possible if we control spending.
__________________
Infinity is offline  
Old 12-22-2007, 08:30 PM   #74
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,277
Local Time: 05:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon

His elimination of the income tax vastly benefits the rich (most middle class people who bitch about income taxes are probably more likely bitching about the AMT, which is a separate taxation issue), while the large sales taxes required to make up for that loss in tax revenue would be highly detrimental economically. Just as rich people don't like income taxes, imagine having to lump 20%+ onto everything we buy--in addition to, at least, 6% in state sales taxes? At that point, guaranteed, the rich will just go off and buy things in cheaper nations, the millions of people who live on the border of Canada and Mexico will be more enticed to buy things there, and we'll be in more trouble then.
His economic ideas are completely contrary to the basic notion of taxation. Taxes, in theory, should not drive economic decisions. Obviously, in practice they do, but this is mostly contained within corporate practice, which is why tax planning is such a lucrative field. There, it makes a huge difference in the timing of business expenses and so on. But for regular people who are basically taxed on property, sale of goods and services, and income (with some minor capital gains in there), taxes generally do not drive their financial outlays. People may bitch about property taxes, but if they like a house, they'll probably buy it even if they could get a house in a less desirable suburb for $800 less per year.

What Ron Paul proposes be done will change the economic decisions that people make based on taxation. It will change the types of goods they buy, and as you mentioned, the location where they buy them. As such, this taxation system is a failure even in theory, much less in practice. Nevermind the crippling effect it would have on American tourism in an increasingly global society where people can hop on cheap charter planes and shop in bulk elsewhere (as Europeans happen to be doing already).
__________________
anitram is online now  
Old 12-22-2007, 09:29 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
financeguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ireland
Posts: 10,122
Local Time: 11:29 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


His economic ideas are completely contrary to the basic notion of taxation. Taxes, in theory, should not drive economic decisions. Obviously, in practice they do, but this is mostly contained within corporate practice, which is why tax planning is such a lucrative field. There, it makes a huge difference in the timing of business expenses and so on. But for regular people who are basically taxed on property, sale of goods and services, and income (with some minor capital gains in there), taxes generally do not drive their financial outlays. People may bitch about property taxes, but if they like a house, they'll probably buy it even if they could get a house in a less desirable suburb for $800 less per year.

What Ron Paul proposes be done will change the economic decisions that people make based on taxation. It will change the types of goods they buy, and as you mentioned, the location where they buy them. As such, this taxation system is a failure even in theory, much less in practice. Nevermind the crippling effect it would have on American tourism in an increasingly global society where people can hop on cheap charter planes and shop in bulk elsewhere (as Europeans happen to be doing already).
Some interesting claims and opinions there, with little in the way of backup.

Your experience as a tax professional would be....?
__________________

__________________
financeguy is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com