MERGED--> So...Ron Paul + Vote Ron Paul

[anitram]

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.

 

[financeguy]

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.

 

[U2DMfan]

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.

 

[BVS]

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...

 

[No spoken words]

I wish I were in a better position to call any of the candidates an asshole.

 

[BVS]

I wish I were in a better position to call any of the candidates an asshole.

I know the guy personally...

 

[U2DMfan]

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.

 

[Infinity]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

 

[Infinity]

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.

 

[BVS]

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.

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.

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.

 

[melon]

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.

 

[Infinity]

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.

 

[anitram]

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).

 

[financeguy]

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....?

 

[anitram]

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

Since when do we have to be professionals to post our thoughts on theories here? If that were the case, then 90% of the people here should refrain from commenting on any scientific-related posts here alltogether.

And if you're wondering about 'back up' - frankly it's quite simple. Look up Henry George, he articulated the principles of taxation back in the 19th century. Look up the Haig-Simons model, and that third guy (Shanz, I think?). It isn't as if I spit it out of my ass.

 

[financeguy]

Since when do we have to be professionals to post our thoughts on theories here? If that were the case, then 90% of the people here should refrain from commenting on any scientific-related posts here alltogether.

We do not, of course, 'have' to be professionals to post our thoughts here. That isn't the point. However, when a newly qualifed lawyer starts laying down the law on tax matters, and does so without citing any evidence or source, I'd probably look for a little evidence of expertise in the discipline, and nothing you've said in your follow up gives me any great confidence that you do actually have such expertise.

And if you're wondering about 'back up' - frankly it's quite simple. Look up Henry George, he articulated the principles of taxation back in the 19th century. Look up the Haig-Simons model, and that third guy (Shanz, I think?). It isn't as if I spit it out of my ass.

I find it odd that you're citing as a reference someone known for advocating the abolition of all taxes save those on unimproved land value.

I find it quite fantastic it that you can reduce a very new discipline such as taxation to a few simple precepts.

"And if you're wondering about 'back up' - frankly it's quite simple. "

No, it's not simple at all. For each and every point you've made, I can find a tax theorist (in some cases, many) to rebut it. I'm surprised, to be honest, that they didn't teach you that.

 

[anitram]

No, it's not simple at all. For each and every point you've made, I can find a tax theorist (in some cases, many) to rebut it. I'm surprised, to be honest, that they didn't teach you that.

Well like similarly you'll find economists who will dispute melon's claim that returning to the gold standard is insanity. You'll always have separate factions arguing 180 views on the exact same point and often they'll both have statistics that support their views.

Ultimately, don't you decide for yourself what makes the most sense and what theory speaks best to you? I don't believe that a flat sales tax of 23% makes any economic sense, and it acts to punish the middle and lower classes. And ultimately, I see no way that big business would ever allow Paul to legislate any of his ideas anyway, which is probably the final nail in his coffin. You're free to disagree, it's not as if either one is going to be law at the end of the day.

Aside from all this, the Ron Paul supporters remind me of Naderites in many, many, many ways. Which is why I'm mostly interested in whether he'll run as a third-party ticket.

 

[financeguy]

I don't believe that a flat sales tax of 23% makes any economic sense, and it acts to punish the middle and lower classes.

I agree, but in the unlikely event that Paul is elected President this proposal will have long since been watered down. In fact I personally think that he will have ditched it before his campaign even ends (which I'm sure we'd agree will be long before next November!)

Aside from all this, the Ron Paul supporters remind me of Naderites in many, many, many ways. Which is why I'm mostly interested in whether he'll run as a third-party ticket.

Yes in a way but I think he's more in the Ross Perot mold.

 

[BVS]

I agree, but in the unlikely event that Paul is elected President this proposal will have long since been watered down. In fact I personally think that he will have ditched it before his campaign even ends (which I'm sure we'd agree will be long before next November!)

It's one thing to know your canidate is going to have to compromise their platform, but it's useless to know they well ditch it...

 

[Infinity]

Ultimately, don't you decide for yourself what makes the most sense and what theory speaks best to you? I don't believe that a flat sales tax of 23% makes any economic sense, and it acts to punish the middle and lower classes.

Again, if elected his goal will be to eliminate the income tax and thats it.

Even if he cannot elminate the income tax initially, he will work his best to reduce all sorts of taxes, and will do his best to help the middle class.

For example, did you know that he recently introduced a proposal to eliminate the tax on tips? Most people who earn tips are part of the middle and lower classes and this proposal is aimed to help these people.

He also realizes that inflation hurts the middle class much more than the rich and is taking a stance to fight it as much as possible. Basically he says that the rich can protect their wealth against inflation by owning high-return assets on Wall Street while the middle class suffer due to the lagging growth of wages in times of inflation.

 

[BVS]

Again, if elected his goal will be to eliminate the income tax and thats it.

Even if he cannot elminate the income tax initially, he will work his best to reduce all sorts of taxes, and will do his best to help the middle class.

Why are still so sold on this? He will not be able to eliminate the income tax without another tax taking over. It's just impossible. It would take much longer than 2 terms to make this kind of change.

So, yes, he can make moves towards this. But don't think he can do this.

For example, did you know that he recently introduced a proposal to eliminate the tax on tips? Most people who earn tips are part of the middle and lower classes and this proposal is aimed to help these people.

Well this is kind of like getting rid of a useless law... Believe me, most people don't and can't document their tips accurately.

He also realizes that inflation hurts the middle class much more than the rich and is taking a stance to fight it as much as possible. Basically he says that the rich can protect their wealth against inflation by owning high-return assets on Wall Street while the middle class suffer due to the lagging growth of wages in times of inflation.

Honestly, I don't think Paul has that great of a grasp on the economy, his plan as you paint it, almost completely neglects inflation. And his support of the flat sales tax doesn't really sit well with the middle class and poor either...

 

[Infinity]

Why are still so sold on this? He will not be able to eliminate the income tax without another tax taking over. It's just impossible. It would take much longer than 2 terms to make this kind of change.

Why are you so pessimistic about this? He will not be able to eliminate the income tax without cutting enough spending, so we do not have to have another tax taking over. Is there a reason why you said it would take much longer than 2 terms? Even if he cannot elminate the income tax, I have full faith that he will cut taxes as much as possible. I personally don't see more taxes being cut from any of the other candidates. So I think we will have the most tax cuts from him and the most controlled spending. This is what I believe. If I find someone better for the job of President, I will support that person. But right now I think Ron Paul is the best suited for the job.

 

[Infinity]

Well this is kind of like getting rid of a useless law... Believe me, most people don't and can't document their tips accurately.

You know, Democrats always complain that Republicans don't do shit to help the middle class. And when with this bill he tries to do something, you brush it off as if it doesn't matter.

No I won't believe you. Even if you are factually correct that "most people don't document their tips accurately," they are still breaking the law. And what about the people who are fair and actually document their tips? We should get rid of the tax on tips so that these people can earn their money without cheating the tax code or having to pay taxes on their tips.

By the way, this is an example of making progress towards cutting as many as taxes as possible. Ron Paul will try to cut as many as possible, the more the better.

And before you say that the idea is unrealistic let me repeat: We must cut spending also! Or else it wouldn't work. He has said this repeatedly!

 

[BonosSaint]

Edited to "Never mind."

 

[melon]

Yes in a way but I think he's more in the Ross Perot mold.

I would agree here too.

Interestingly, back when Perot expressed his opposition to free trade in the early 1990s, Al Gore brought up the specter of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act as a reason why such opposition was a bad idea.

 

[melon]

For example, did you know that he recently introduced a proposal to eliminate the tax on tips? Most people who earn tips are part of the middle and lower classes and this proposal is aimed to help these people.

Seems like an act of haphazard pandering. Why just people with tips? Why not all people who make less than x amount a year? Some people who rely on tips make an awful lot of money, compared to us who work on regular wages. Strippers certainly come to mind as those who make the most in tips, but, depending on the restaurant, you can rake in quite a bit. Why should these people get a special tax break?

He also realizes that inflation hurts the middle class much more than the rich and is taking a stance to fight it as much as possible. Basically he says that the rich can protect their wealth against inflation by owning high-return assets on Wall Street while the middle class suffer due to the lagging growth of wages in times of inflation.

But like I said before, Paul's solution to this--which he has made incredibly clear--is to scrap the Federal Reserve and make a return to the gold standard. Such a move would not only make our currency overvalued, making our exports undesirable, but then we'd risk both hard recessions and potential economic depressions, due to the inherent monetary inflexibility in the gold standard. As such, inflation will be a secondary concern to unemployment and investment loss (due to hard stock market drops) concerns.

I would agree that the lagging growth of wages can be a problem here, and there are a variety of reasons as to why this is. However, Paul's rather extreme assessment of our monetary system seems like a rather draconian and poorly thought out "solution" to this problem that will cause far more harm than good.

 

[melon]

We should get rid of the tax on tips so that these people can earn their money without cheating the tax code or having to pay taxes on their tips.

That's quite a stretch in logic. Let's apply this to a different hot button issue:

"We should get rid of immigration laws, so that foreigners can enter and work in our country without breaking immigration laws."

Your issue, though, reminds me of something that former Treasury secretary, Andrew Mellon (served 1921-1932), advocated:

Mellon proposed a series of tax cuts--in 1921, 1924, and 1926. He won approval of reduced income tax rates across the board, and also got the estate tax lowered.

He was a strong supporter of tax cuts for the rich. Mellon also believed that the income tax should remain progressive, albeit with lower rates than those enacted during World War I.

Mellon has also somewhat been depicted, incorrectly, as a person who was trying to shift the tax burden from the rich to the poor. He believed that, taxing the rich for 73% of their money, would only drive them to hide it away in tax-free equity bonds. He felt that they would only pay their taxes if rates were 25% or lower. His plan worked, and in 1926, 65% of the government tax money came from incomes $300,000 and higher, when 5 years prior, less than 20% did.

Mellon championed preferential treatment for "earned" income relative to "unearned" income. As he argued in his 1924 book, Taxation: The People's Business:

"The fairness of taxing more lightly income from wages, salaries or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it and old age diminishes it; in the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life and it descends to his heirs. Surely we can afford to make a distinction between the people whose only capital is their mettle and physical energy and the people whose income is derived from investments. Such a distinction would mean much to millions of American workers and would be an added inspiration to the man who must provide a competence during his few productive years to care for himself and his family when his earnings capacity is at an end."

In other words, Mellon noted that we should strive for efficiency and simplicity in our tax code, not necessarily the abolishment of it. As it stands, it is quite obvious that few people actually pay the actual income tax percentage that they should be paying on their income. Instead, we have a dizzying amount of exemptions and deductions that can be utilized to, legally or illegally, evade taxation. This has made some people call for a set flat tax across the board, but, again, I believe currently that this disproportionately benefits the wealthy. In fact, in all flat tax scenarios, the lower class always ends up paying more than double the income taxes they currently pay, while the upper class always ends up paying less than half. I am, however, interested in the possibility of a "flat, graduated" income tax, where the tax rates are set at lower across the board, but with no exemptions. That is, just to throw a number around that's not based on anything researched, the upper income tax rate would be lowered from 35% to 28%, the lowest income tax rate would be lowered from 8% to 5%, etc. but with no deductions allowed. At the very least, I think it would be worth studying.

 

[martha]

What kind of spending cuts has Paul proposed?

 

[Vincent Vega]

Gold standard... interesting. Is there even enough gold in the world for all the dollars that are currently stuffed in all the nations' vaults?