Ron Pauls 0% income tax would create 'the most jobs in the history of the world'

[dross]

You're running for president. You're asked about a tax rate. Does a serious person say he wants no income taxes?

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with that concept. But then I understand what's behind it and I understand some of the other ways to fund government. Also, I'd like to see government spending cut down to the bone.

I also realize that any kind of cut that severe is politically impossible. It's the same as saying you want to have cars that fly around. The difference is that the flying car goal is much more likely.

So, without explaining how he would get there in increments, and how the government would operate on a zero tax, he just looks like someone who isn't serious. And frankly, without more explanation, he isn't serious. He may be as I've always suspected, serious about getting the word out there, but with his good showing in Iowa, there are people actually listening to what he's saying. I promise you, he lost a bunch of them with that comment about zero income taxes.

But the choir went crazy with applause.

 

[sepe]

Because there is no civility in society, people exhibit a disturbing lack of logic skills (as evidenced by half the posts in this forum), and in many cases, most folks have no supporting facts on which to base their argument, just emotional knee-jerk reaction.



And among a select few RP supporters. Sepe makes one fact-based argument for every 10 he posts whining about hair styles and sheep. Prometheus is angry and accusatory and alienates more people than he converts with his vitriol and rhetoric. Boiled Owl is just as nasty and hateful on occasion. Every one of them argues from an emotional position that ignores reality and human behavior. They are also prone to whipping out the straw man every now and then, mostly when the argument is judged according to the way things are and not how they should be (which incidentally is another hallmark of leftist debate tactics). And every one of them portrays himself to be irrational and disconnected. Change the names, events, and accusations and they are nearly identical to the left in terms of presentation and execution.

We all get emotional sometimes, but these guys have made it an art form.




because that's not what Americans value today. When people say he his outside the mainstream, they are correct. It doesn't make his positions inappropriate or undesirable. But he does not represent the views of anything more than a handful of Americans. If he did, we'd be seeing it in the polls.

Don't even try playing that crap. You've been one of the first that pulled it with talking how about how he doesn't look presidential. About 75% of what you post is what you assume to think you know about someone based on ONE comment and the rest is you being a hypocrite. And you MAYBE made 1 fact based post about anything in ALL of your posts on this site. Your arguments are all non-arguments because you can't even argue with facts when someone tells you what you think and how they know everything about everything (btw, if you're not bright enough to notice sarcasm without a change in font color, that is not my problem).

 

[88GT]

Don't even try playing that crap. You've been one of the first that pulled it with talking how about how he doesn't look presidential. About 75% of what you post is what you assume to think you know about someone based on ONE comment and the rest is you being a hypocrite. And you MAYBE made 1 fact based post about anything in ALL of your posts on this site. Your arguments are all non-arguments because you can't even argue with facts when someone tells you what you think and how they know everything about everything (btw, if you're not bright enough to notice sarcasm without a change in font color, that is not my problem).

I knew I could count on you to prove my point. Thanks.

 

[sepe]

I knew I could count on you to prove my point. Thanks.

Have you ever actually had a point? There have been many posts where you play up the usual BS that you accuse people of and are asked for facts before you ignore the posts asking you for facts. If you have nothing to add to anything, why even try? The only thing I've ever seen you add is negativity. You come off as nothing more than a 2nd rate troll.

 

[I Love Bourbon]

No, I totally get it. So are you saying that we peg the dollar to whatever an ounce of gold is going for right now? That would be the FDR through Nixon "Gold Standard" which really wasn't much of a standard since the government could either mess with the price of gold, or the exchange rate between dollars and gold, as it was a fiat currency referenced to the going price of gold.

If we go back to pre-FDR gold standard, where coins were actually made out of gold, we'll have to confiscate and re-issue all of our currency, or else, everyone with debt will instantly go bankrupt. If I have to hold $100,000 worth of pre-FDR debt I am totally screwed.

We could use the English Silver Standard, which just moves all the time. One pound used to actually be worth a pound of silver sterling. Then a pound was worth 1/2 pound of silver sterling, and so on etc.

So, what rate of Au oz. / $ do we want to use? Also, will we put that into the constitution or just let someone else dicker with it later?

Well I don't agree with your idea but we can argue about it forever and not get anywhere, but what about this. You say that we would have to recall all the existing currency, I don't agree with that but.... What is our current currency going to be worth if if they keep printing and spending trillions of dollars and the national debt continues to rise? What good is having a pocketful of cash if it's worthless?
No matter how it happens and how (hopefully) it gets fixed it's going to be damn painfull and it isn't going to be quick.

 

[Prometheus]

You're running for president. You're asked about a tax rate. Does a serious person say he wants no income taxes?

A better question is, how can anyone support wealth redistribution and claim to be "conservative"?

And just HOW do we pay what we owe? You writing the gov't a check?

So, without explaining how he would get there in increments, and how the government would operate on a zero tax, he just looks like someone who isn't serious. And frankly, without more explanation, he isn't serious. He may be as I've always suspected, serious about getting the word out there, but with his good showing in Iowa, there are people actually listening to what he's saying. I promise you, he lost a bunch of them with that comment about zero income taxes.

But the choir went crazy with applause.

See that's where the silly comes out.

Only 30% of US income is derived from the personal federal income. About 1 trillion dollars.

Paul wants to cut 1 trillion from the federal budget YEAR ONE. It would be a virtual wash.

It is a perfectly reasonable goal.

For all those reaganBots, if you really believe in trickle down and that lower taxes means a better economy, how can anyone support personal federal taxes?

Socialists. If you support wealth redistribution YOU ARE A SOCIALIST. Personal federal income taxes are wealth redistribution. Period.

 

[dross]

A better question is, how can anyone support wealth redistribution and claim to be "conservative"?





See that's where the silly comes out.

Only 30% of US income is derived from the personal federal income. About 1 trillion dollars.

Paul wants to cut 1 trillion from the federal budget YEAR ONE. It would be a virtual wash.

It is a perfectly reasonable goal.

For all those reaganBots, if you really believe in trickle down and that lower taxes means a better economy, how can anyone support personal federal taxes?

Socialists. If you support wealth redistribution YOU ARE A SOCIALIST. Personal federal income taxes are wealth redistribution. Period.

Everything you say above is correct, except I'm reading it's 45% that comes from income taxes. I won't quibble, however, with your larger point.

That said, even if Paul were to be elected, that's not going to happen. I'd like to know what he would really do, and not pretend do, as if by being elected he'd actually be able to do everything he thinks should be done.

The choir isn't going to elect him. He lost a lot of people with his cut to zero statement. I know some. And these are smart people who think taxes are way too high and understand much more than the average person about politics. They dismissed Paul as being off his rocker until I explained the context and where Paul is coming from, but then of course they said and I agree with them, that politically that's completely impossible.

So what's his real plan? Incremental cuts for a few years, then hope we get a President who will continue the reduction? How much, how quickly? Because he or no one else is going to cut a trillion dollars immediately. It can't happen, because the President is not a dictator. Any president at the best will end up with a Congress that is controlled by his party, but not one that can go too far out of step. Congress loves its pork and you must play the game to get what you want. You don't just order up what you want.

Which is why a President Paul will be completely ineffectual or he'll be called a sellout by you guys before his first term is complete. If he gives up something here to get something there, you guys will forever blame him for what he compromised on, if you're consistent. I read here all the time what this or that President signed, so therefore they are more of the same. Paul will do the same thing, or nothing he wants will get done.

If his attitude is no compromise, you pass my agenda and I'll give you nothing in return that I consider socialist, his only ability will be to obstruct. In which case he will last one term and libertarianism will be relegated to the frontier for our lifetimes.

 

[88GT]

Have you ever actually had a point? There have been many posts where you play up the usual BS that you accuse people of and are asked for facts before you ignore the posts asking you for facts. If you have nothing to add to anything, why even try? The only thing I've ever seen you add is negativity. You come off as nothing more than a 2nd rate troll.

I know. I shall endeavor to become a first rate troll. Please be patient with me, however. I have a long way to go and you have set the bar so high.

 

[firehawk1]

Everything you say above is correct, except I'm reading it's 45% that comes from income taxes. I won't quibble, however, with your larger point.

That said, even if Paul were to be elected, that's not going to happen. I'd like to know what he would really do, and not pretend do, as if by being elected he'd actually be able to do everything he thinks should be done.

The choir isn't going to elect him. He lost a lot of people with his cut to zero statement. I know some. And these are smart people who think taxes are way too high and understand much more than the average person about politics. They dismissed Paul as being off his rocker until I explained the context and where Paul is coming from, but then of course they said and I agree with them, that politically that's completely impossible.

So what's his real plan? Incremental cuts for a few years, then hope we get a President who will continue the reduction? How much, how quickly? Because he or no one else is going to cut a trillion dollars immediately. It can't happen, because the President is not a dictator. Any president at the best will end up with a Congress that is controlled by his party, but not one that can go too far out of step. Congress loves its pork and you must play the game to get what you want. You don't just order up what you want.

Which is why a President Paul will be completely ineffectual or he'll be called a sellout by you guys before his first term is complete. If he gives up something here to get something there, you guys will forever blame him for what he compromised on, if you're consistent. I read here all the time what this or that President signed, so therefore they are more of the same. Paul will do the same thing, or nothing he wants will get done.

If his attitude is no compromise, you pass my agenda and I'll give you nothing in return that I consider socialist, his only ability will be to obstruct. In which case he will last one term and libertarianism will be relegated to the frontier for our lifetimes.

Waiting for the response to this, THIS should be good.

BTW,

 

[John Galt]

No, I totally get it. So are you saying that we peg the dollar to whatever an ounce of gold is going for right now? That would be the FDR through Nixon "Gold Standard" which really wasn't much of a standard since the government could either mess with the price of gold, or the exchange rate between dollars and gold, as it was a fiat currency referenced to the going price of gold.

And you don't think our currency isn't being manipulated now? Why not let the markets determine the value of the "dollar" and let private currency compete with the counterfeit "dollars" that we are being plundered with now? Didn't we used to do this, without inflation? You've done a great job of making my point that our government knowingly allows the manipulation/theft of our property, so why continue with this system?

 

[sepe]

I know. I shall endeavor to become a first rate troll. Please be patient with me, however. I have a long way to go and you have set the bar so high.

Well, admitting you're a poor excuse for a troll is a start. Maybe when someone asks you for facts to go along with your trolling, find some even if they don't jive with what you're saying. I know it'll be pretty difficult for you but I have faith you can step up your game.

 

[Prometheus]

[Consider the catch phrase:]

“This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions.


Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory.

If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”?


If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions.

(The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.) | Philosophy: Who Needs It, 14

 

[ATOMonkey]

And you don't think our currency isn't being manipulated now? Why not let the markets determine the value of the "dollar" and let private currency compete with the counterfeit "dollars" that we are being plundered with now? Didn't we used to do this, without inflation? You've done a great job of making my point that our government knowingly allows the manipulation/theft of our property, so why continue with this system?

I absolutely know it's being manipulated now, and I don't agree with our current system. We had a really good system prior to the dictator FDR, and he pooched it for everyone.

I'm just trying to get a handle on which "gold standard" everyone wants to switch to.

 

[88GT]

[Consider the catch phrase:]

“This may be good in theory, but it doesn’t work in practice.” What is a theory? It is a set of abstract principles purporting to be either a correct description of reality or a set of guidelines for man’s actions.


Correspondence to reality is the standard of value by which one estimates a theory.

If a theory is inapplicable to reality, by what standard can it be estimated as “good”?


If one were to accept that notion, it would mean: a. that the activity of man’s mind is unrelated to reality; b. that the purpose of thinking is neither to acquire knowledge nor to guide man’s actions.

(The purpose of that catch phrase is to invalidate man’s conceptual faculty.) | Philosophy: Who Needs It, 14

Since when is a theory a set of guidelines for man's behavior? I thought that was a moral code.

I think there's some question about the validity of the premise upon which the conclusions are made, namely the part that ignores the fact that a man thinks on many things, not just the hypothetical ideal.

 

[Garb]

If *I* want to go that way? Don't you think we have to? At least for starters? There is no way in hell we'll get the income tax eliminated without replacing it with something else.

I agree. The government does have to fund itself somehow. Tariff's are the least intrusive way to do that IMO.

 

[Garb]

Well, admitting you're a poor excuse for a troll is a start. Maybe when someone asks you for facts to go along with your trolling, find some even if they don't jive with what you're saying. I know it'll be pretty difficult for you but I have faith you can step up your game.

Actually, I think 88GT is someone who is one of the more reasonable neocons (I kid I kid ) on this forum. His/her arguments are pretty well grounded in reality, and although I come to different conclusions quite often, I am able to more easily see a different side I hadn't thought of before. 88GT is more like somebody who really gets on your nerves because you can't always think of a good answer to their inquiries rather than a troll.

 

[kludge]

No income tax, no sales tax. Let the states figure out how to finance the federal government and how to collect it or levy an across the board duty on imports. Just leave the average citizen out of the day to day direct feeding of the federal beast.

^ This. ^

 

[John Galt]

I absolutely know it's being manipulated now, and I don't agree with our current system. We had a really good system prior to the dictator FDR, and he pooched it for everyone.

I'm just trying to get a handle on which "gold standard" everyone wants to switch to.

Mankind worked it out for thousands of years before we allowed ourselves to fall victim to the Central Banks. Only within the last 100 years have we tolerated the acceleration of our own destruction through fractional reserve/Central banking. We are tolerating plunder and financial rape with our eyes wide open! What's worse, we're allowing our children to be REALLY plundered, and this is the true crime. I would much rather this corrupt system crash and come to a screeching halt and we be forced to deal with our tolerances of such evil than to pass this mess onto our children. It would be painful, but if we allow this debt bubble to continue, the unavoidable implosion will be magnitudes worse than a controlled transition to sound money.

It.
Will.
Crash.

"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day that my child may have peace." - Thomas Paine

 

[ATOMonkey]

Agreed.

My worry is that it won't be total crash, and we'll end up limping away from it, saddled with all the debt we collected under the former system.

Realistically, we'll probably be buying and selling with International Credits in 20-50 years.