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

[BVS]

Why are you so pessimistic about this?

Not pessimistic, realistic.

Even if he cannot elminate the income tax, I have full faith that he will cut taxes as much as possible.

This is a much more realistic approach to Ron Paul.

 

[Infinity]

What kind of spending cuts has Paul proposed?

War in Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, foreign aid to Pakistan, closing many military bases around the world, department of energy, department of homeland security, department of education, the IRS and more.

 

[Infinity]

Not pessimistic, realistic.

I still don't see why it is unrealistic to get rid of the income tax if we cut enough spending, but that is your position and I disagree.

 

[martha]

War in Iraq, nation building in Afghanistan, foreign aid to Pakistan, closing many military bases around the world, department of energy, department of homeland security, department of education, the IRS and more.

Anything more specific? For example, what parts of the Dept. of Energy get cut?

 

[Bluer White]

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.

 

[Infinity]

Anything more specific? For example, what parts of the Dept. of Energy get cut?

I don't have any specifics but if I come accross a speech or article in which he states specifics I will post it here.

 

[Infinity]

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.

That is not bad. Although 0% income tax for all would be much better if we cut enough spending.

 

[anitram]

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.

What exactly do you mean, no deductions?

 

[martha]

That is not bad. Although 0% income tax for all would be much better if we cut enough spending.

And the income for the running of the government and the country comes from sales taxes, right?

 

[Infinity]

And the income for the running of the government and the country comes from sales taxes, right?

It doesn't seem like you have been reading my posts.

RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO REPLACE THE INCOME TAX. HE WANTS TO PAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX BY CUTTING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF SPENDING. HE WILL NOT, HOWEVER, GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX WITHOUT CUTTING ENOUGH SPENDING. HE HAS NEVER VOTED FOR AN UNBALANCED BUDGET AND WILL NOT CARELESSLY CUT TAXES WHILE NOT CUTTING SPENDING.

 

[martha]

THEN HOW THE FUCK ARE THE ROADS GOING TO BE PAVED AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES GOING TO BE PAID?

 

[Infinity]

THE INCOME TAX IS NOT THE ONLY FUCKIN SOURCE OF TAX REVENUE.

 

[martha]

THE INCOME TAX IS NOT THE ONLY FUCKIN SOURCE OF TAX REVENUE.

What are the others? Do they provide enough income to effectively run a federal government? Even with the cuts in spending?

 

[Infinity]

What are the others? Do they provide enough income to effectively run a federal government? Even with the cuts in spending?

Federal income tax, capital gains tax, etc. According to Ron Paul we would be able to effectively run the government with enough cuts in spending. Without the income tax in 2006 we would have the same revenue as in 2000. So we would have to cut enough spending and discount for inflation in order to have the same budget as the year 2000. I sincerely believe we can live off of the budget of the year 2000.

 

[BonosSaint]

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pinocchios_for_ron_paul.html

You know, I've been looking for a practical workplan for Ron Paul's position and haven't been able to find one. He's a little short on details. I'm not overly fond of candidates short on details. It usually has a way of getting us into trouble. Now I'd be happy to look at a comprehensive plan. I don't think he has one. Makes a pretty sound bite though, I guess.

 

[martha]

Federal income tax,

DUDE, DO YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POSTS?

 

[Infinity]

DUDE, DO YOU NOT READ YOUR OWN POSTS?

Okay, that was a mistake. I meant to write corporate income tax instead of Federal income tax. No need to get all upset and write in caps.

 

[BVS]

I still don't see why it is unrealistic to get rid of the income tax if we cut enough spending, but that is your position and I disagree.

One fluxuates, and one will have bottom. They will not always balance each other. It's basic economics. You keep looking at it from a one year analysis, you can't do that.

 

[melon]

What exactly do you mean, no deductions?

Currently, at least in the U.S., you can reduce your income tax burden through a series of deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable donations, etc. So that's why I mentioned that pretty much no one actually pays the income tax percentage, as described for their income level, because there's a dizzying amount of exceptions. And it is those "exceptions" that allow the wealthy and their "creative" accountants to do anything that they can to avoid taxes, whether legally or illegally. Obviously, if it's done "illegally," it's done with the hope that what they've structured is so complicated that no one bothers to investigate.

The flat tax proponents would do just that too, except that they'd have a flat 17% income tax or so. But, as I said before, with upper income people paying around 35% and the poorest paying 8%, it has the net effect of halving the taxes of the wealthy, while more than doubling the taxes of the poor. A "flat, progressive" tax, at least, would simplify, while keeping a basic level of fairness about it.

It was just a thought, at least. I'm not dedicated to this, and I'll be quick to abandon the idea, if I later believe it to be wrong. I just know that the "flat tax," as proposed by the wealthy, is wrong.

Personally, though, I'd like to see property and sales taxes either eliminated or substantially reduced, rather than income taxes. Property taxes are generally more burdensome to middle class folk than income tax, while running completely contrary to the idea of "private property" (don't pay your property taxes, and the government suddenly has the power to seize it, ultimately proving that we truly own nothing and that we're just "leasing" everything from the government), and sales taxes, of course, affect our spending habits, which can have a negative effect on our economy.

 

[martha]

It doesn't seem like you have been reading my posts.

RON PAUL DOES NOT WANT TO REPLACE THE INCOME TAX. HE WANTS TO PAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF THE INCOME TAX BY CUTTING HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF SPENDING. HE WILL NOT, HOWEVER, GET RID OF THE INCOME TAX WITHOUT CUTTING ENOUGH SPENDING. HE HAS NEVER VOTED FOR AN UNBALANCED BUDGET AND WILL NOT CARELESSLY CUT TAXES WHILE NOT CUTTING SPENDING.

You're right. All caps is rude.

 

[Vincent Vega]

One fluxuates, and one will have bottom. They will not always balance each other. It's basic economics. You keep looking at it from a one year analysis, you can't do that.

Yes, it's based on the last real boom year where incomes etc. were at its height, the income of 2000. Just look at the income two or three years later.
And it's based on the assumption that all the cuts in spending could be made that are needed in order to finance the budget. Seriously, it sounds nice, but it's not realistic that any government will make such huge cuts in spending worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

 

[Bluer White]

No serious candidate will ever believe it's possible to can the IRS, although it's a good applause line in debates. The tax code can be simplified, but the IRS isn't going anywhere.

I also think it will be tough to make huge cuts in spending, considering the power of lobbyists and the need for politicians to send govt money home to their districts. Not to mention the needs of an increasing, and aging, population. The best we can probably hope for is to slow the rate of increase in spending.

 

[anitram]

Currently, at least in the U.S., you can reduce your income tax burden through a series of deductions, such as mortgage interest, charitable donations, etc.

I do find it interesting that you get to deduct mortgage interest. We cannot do that in Canada except if the property is used for a business purpose (or to earn income from property). I'm assuming you're talking about cutting deductions related to non-business owners?

 

[melon]

I do find it interesting that you get to deduct mortgage interest. We cannot do that in Canada except if the property is used for a business purpose (or to earn income from property). I'm assuming you're talking about cutting deductions related to non-business owners?

Yes. All individuals who have a mortgage on their home can currently deduct their mortgage interest. Prior to 1986, I believe, you could deduct pretty much all personal loan interest.

 

[martha]

Prior to 1986, I believe, you could deduct pretty much all personal loan interest.

I remember credit card interest was deductible.

 

[anitram]

I guess it's to promote home ownership. Then again, if you're exempt from capital gains on the sale of your home, then I don't really see why you should also get a mortgage interest deduction (sounds like double dipping to me).

 

[martha]

There are limits to capital gains taxes, though.

 

[BonosSaint]

If I'm correct, you only get the exemption from capital gains tax only once in a lifetime on a sale of a primary home. You can deduct your property taxes too. But since your total deductions would have to be greater than your personal exemption, many people don't itemize and therefore don't get the deduction other than the personal one and don't take the mortgage interest deduction.

 

[ntalwar]

Personally, though, I'd like to see property and sales taxes either eliminated or substantially reduced, rather than income taxes. Property taxes are generally more burdensome to middle class folk than income tax, while running completely contrary to the idea of "private property" (don't pay your property taxes, and the government suddenly has the power to seize it, ultimately proving that we truly own nothing and that we're just "leasing" everything from the government), and sales taxes, of course, affect our spending habits, which can have a negative effect on our economy.

In times of economic distress in a state or municipality, that setup could lead to sharp cuts in essential government services (police, fire, etc. ) however. Some spending discipline might be in order - far too many people spend beyond their means on discretionary goods and services. Consumer debt is at an all time high. A lot of the "economic growth" of the past few years was illusory as it was financed by a credit bubble, and now the hangover has started. If there is a 23% sales tax implemented, it can be limited to non-essentials and/or somewhat offset by capping credit card interest rates (many people pay credit card rates of over 30%, which is an informal tax paid to banks).

 

[martha]

California substantially reduced our property taxes. It hasn't worked well as far as, say, funding fire departments, libraries, police departments, etc.