Tea Party 08' Ron Paul

[CARLSON-JET]

From what I can tell so far tonight, Paul passed the previous record of $4.2 Mil in donations within a 24 hour period.
Well the nay-sayers once again miscalculated the popularity of Ron Paul. With hours left to donate still, the last record of contributions in a single 24 hours has been broken.
I'm sure once again the media will try and discount it. What ever, they can prop up their lying sacks all they want. The mainstream media and republican party are in for a shock at whats to come and I hope they keep feeding each other all the bullshit they can eat. If Paul isn't nominated, the GOP is really going to take a hit. Much worse then in the last round of elections.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

From what I can tell so far tonight, Paul passed the previous record of $4.2 Mil in donations within a 24 hour period.
Well the nay-sayers once again miscalculated the popularity of Ron Paul. With hours left to donate still, the last record of contributions in a single 24 hours has been broken.
I'm sure once again the media will try and discount it. What ever, they can prop up their lying sacks all they want. The mainstream media and republican party are in for a shock at whats to come and I hope they keep feeding each other all the bullshit they can eat. If Paul isn't nominated, the GOP is really going to take a hit. Much worse then in the last round of elections.
Carlson,
Ron Paul's following is growing more every day. I know many very intelligent folks who like him, but remain concerned about his electablility(sp)

[sanger rat]

Look who donated. :D http://picsorban.com/upload/lolhillary.jpg

[sanger rat]

Oh and one more special doner. :D http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/1600/rudygv9.jpg

[Blown 472]

As much as I would like to see him win, he wont. There will be some patsy put in office.

[QuickJet]

Oh the Dems would love to run against Ron Paul. A shoe in for Hillary no doubt.

[sanger rat]

Ron Paul's TV Special for Iowa. Part one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQNWHmiGj-k&feature=user Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wekzQrQfacg&feature=user

[QuickJet]

He said some good things but I think what kills him is his interpetation of the constitution and his view on Iraq. Deal killers for true conservatives.

[cdog]

He said some good things but I think what kills him is his interpetation of the constitution and his view on Iraq. Deal killers for true conservatives.
What he's saying is conservative. Maybe those who don't agree with what he's saying are republicans. The guy's dead nuts right about damn near everything.:)

[bigq]

What he's saying is conservative. Maybe those who don't agree with what he's saying are republicans. The guy's dead nuts right about damn near everything.:)
Well he is wrong about one thing...getting elected;)

[delemorte]

Oh the Dems would love to run against Ron Paul. A shoe in for Hillary no doubt.
I woudl vote Paul before i would vote obama edwards or hill dawg.

[delemorte]

So legitimate question. here. Paul wants to cut federal spending and dump the income tax..
so how exactly is the goverment expected to pay for an army and other federal jobs? i think he just lost me there. Im down for taxing less and spending less but you have to raise money some how. Does the goverment raise funds by other means that i am missing?

[AzMandella]

So legitimate question. here. Paul wants to cut federal spending and dump the income tax..
so how exactly is the goverment expected to pay for an army and other federal jobs? i think he just lost me there. Im down for taxing less and spending less but you have to raise money some how. Does the goverment raise funds by other means that i am missing?
Flat Tax Rate

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Flat Tax Rate
Yes Sir.

[delemorte]

Flat Tax Rate
So i asked my mother about the flat tax. and how it would benefit america. Shes a CPA just for the FYI and why i asked her.
here is the issue with a flat tax. Flat tax is meant to simplify the tax code and elliminate the IRS. Seems simple. However did you know with out the IRS you dont get to claim any deductions? NO savings no donations no deductions for what you pay on your home or interest paid. Nothing (too many deductions to even list them all, thats why I love my mother... Free accounting and taxes).
I dont know about you guys but i love my deductions and my credits come return time. But yes i guess you could do the math and simply lower the tax bracket but thats another converstion. I think a use tax would be a better system .If you can afford to buy it then you can afford to pay the taxes on it. Observe washington state that has no state income tax but does tax heavily on non essential goods (anything but food and clothing basicly) we can start a new thread on that one but back on point
My original question still stands unanswered. Ron Paul does not support a flat tax or sales tax. He does support aboloshing the IRS and the income tax and i quote "replace it with nothing". If that is the case how does the Fed bankroll the goverment?

[QuickJet]

The flat tax actually makes sure that EVERYONE pays into the system from what they use. This will turn the estimated 20 million freeloaders into tax payers.
As far as Ron Paul's plan...........who knows . He has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the nomination let alone the White House so I don't really pay much attention to him

[ULTRA26 # 1]

The flat tax actually makes sure that EVERYONE pays into the system from what they use. This will turn the estimated 20 million freeloaders into tax payers.
As far as Ron Paul's plan...........who knows . He has absolutely no chance in hell of winning the nomination let alone the White House so I don't really pay much attention to him
QJ, I think you are referring to the Fair Tax. A flat tax still relates to income.

[QuickJet]

QJ, I think you are referring to the Fair Tax. A flat tax still relates to income.
You are right.....Thanks John:)

[delemorte]

Yeah QJ you and I agree on what a fare tax would be.. i called it something different but was not sure WTF it was called in the first place. Who knows about RP's electability however im still waiting for any of his supporters to answer a very basic question.
If there is no answer then i think people who support him need to re-evaluate their posiiton as thats a very fundemental question. With out a federal tax of some sort then how do we bankroll our goverment?

[cdog]

Yeah QJ you and I agree on what a fare tax would be.. i called it something different but was not sure WTF it was called in the first place. Who knows about RP's electability however im still waiting for any of his supporters to answer a very basic question.
If there is no answer then i think people who support him need to re-evaluate their posiiton as thats a very fundemental question. With out a federal tax of some sort then how do we bankroll our goverment?
Here's what I found on his site. He doesn't go into much detail.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/debt-and-taxes/
Then there's the programs he'd cut.
Just look at this.
U.S. - Mexico at a Glance
Foreign Aid
Foreign Aid from USAID (in millions of dollars)
Category
FY 2001 (Actual)
FY 2002 (Actual)
FY 2003 (Actual)
FY 2004 (Actual)
FY 2005 (Request)
Development Assistance
7.885
8.116
13.224
17.895
14.777
Child Survival and Health Porgrams Fund
5.987
9.500
5.205
3.700
3.230
Economic Support Funds
6.178
10.000
11.685
11.432
13.392
TOTAL
20.050
27.616
30.114
33.027
31.399
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html
Bush Has Quietly Tripled Aid to Africa
The president has tripled direct humanitarian and development aid to the world's most impoverished continent since taking office and recently vowed to double that increased amount by 2010 -- to nearly $9 billion.
And we don't have enough money for a fuking fence? Or a tax cut? FUK u uncle sam!
What I support is the fact that he believes our work/progress is ours. Taxes in the US have only been around the last 100 years. I think we can change before this gets more out of control. It's already at 40% for some.
I support his message. He's the only one with the balls to get up and not go lock step with everyone else. You want a change? Here's your guy. If you want to keep sliding into obscurity, vote for gulini or romney and shut up get to work you've got tax's to pay.
I believe the constitution and its fundamentals laid the ground for what’s been accomplished in this country. Take a look around at Europe, Asia and the middle east. They too have rich and powerful that run the show. But no protection of rights that we have. We’re slowly sliding that direction with liberals who want us to be just like Europe and republicans who put too much faith in big business to fix everything. All whipped up by self serving congressmen and lobbyist. Something’s got to change and Ron Paul is the only one who makes sense out of all these trolls..

[delemorte]

I agree we spend way to much money and we need drastic change. but i do believe you still need a central goverment. And a centeral goverment still needs funds so how does he suggest we pay for that? or is his message that we should abolish the federal goverment?

[AzMandella]

So i asked my mother about the flat tax. and how it would benefit america. Shes a CPA just for the FYI and why i asked her.
here is the issue with a flat tax. Flat tax is meant to simplify the tax code and elliminate the IRS. Seems simple. However did you know with out the IRS you dont get to claim any deductions? NO savings no donations no deductions for what you pay on your home or interest paid. Nothing (too many deductions to even list them all, thats why I love my mother... Free accounting and taxes).
I dont know about you guys but i love my deductions and my credits come return time. But yes i guess you could do the math and simply lower the tax bracket but thats another converstion. I think a use tax would be a better system .If you can afford to buy it then you can afford to pay the taxes on it. Observe washington state that has no state income tax but does tax heavily on non essential goods (anything but food and clothing basicly) we can start a new thread on that one but back on point
My original question still stands unanswered. Ron Paul does not support a flat tax or sales tax. He does support aboloshing the IRS and the income tax and i quote "replace it with nothing". If that is the case how does the Fed bankroll the goverment?
That's right it does elminate the IRS. You talk about deductions. If a person such as myself pays out over 30% in taxes throughout the year and files at the end of the year. With my return I still payed out 20-25%. If a flat tax rate of say 20% were instituted I would pay the same or less in the long run without having to deal with all the IRS BS. Not to mention flat tax is payed when you purchase something. So the money you save is not taxed twice(once on income and once on sales tax) and not at all until you spend it. Now all those who work under the table(bartenders,waitresses,landscapers etc. etc. etc.) cannot evade paying their fair share reducing the tax burdon to those of us that do pay our taxes.
No offense to your mother but she is a CPA and she will dissagree with a flat tax rate because it would put her out of buisiness. No tax returns to file, No need for CPA's.

[delemorte]

No offense to your mother but she is a CPA and she will dissagree with a flat tax rate because it would put her out of buisiness. No tax returns to file, No need for CPA's.
The majority of her buisness is thru companies and their payroll. yes tax time is a boost but not her sole livelyhood.
besides she is a CPA and i assure you she hates the IRS more than you do and a flat tax would jsut allow her to say F it and retire..
and if you read my post you will see if you do the math right a flat tax will work, but i just think a use tax is better....
but my original question still stands about Pauls idea of dropping the IRS and not using a flat tax or any kind of sales tax. How does he plan to finance the Fed? Can any one answer how the Gov raises money without Taxation?
Also: a flat tax does not benefit the very poor. at current rates and deductions, some one making under 15K annually and supporting a familly, will pay almost no taxes what so ever.

[AzMandella]

The majority of her buisness is thru companies and their payroll. yes tax time is a boost but not her sole livelyhood.
besides she is a CPA and i assure you she hates the IRS more than you do and a flat tax would jsut allow her to say F it and retire..
and if you read my post you will see if you do the math right a flat tax will work, but i just think a use tax is better....
but my original question still stands about Pauls idea of dropping the IRS and not using a flat tax or any kind of sales tax. How does he plan to finance the Fed? Can any one answer how the Gov raises money without Taxation?
Also: a flat tax does not benefit the very poor. at current rates and deductions, some one making under 15K annually and supporting a familly, will pay almost no taxes what so ever.
Isn't a use tax nothing more than diguised luxury tax. If everyone pays the same tax tha rich will still put more in and use less of it. and even though your mother works with corperations it will still be a hit to her because they will not have to pay out and file employes income taxes since there would be none.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

That's right it does elminate the IRS. You talk about deductions. If a person such as myself pays out over 30% in taxes throughout the year and files at the end of the year. With my return I still payed out 20-25%. If a flat tax rate of say 20% were instituted I would pay the same or less in the long run without having to deal with all the IRS BS. Not to mention flat tax is payed when you purchase something. So the money you save is not taxed twice(once on income and once on sales tax) and not at all until you spend it. Now all those who work under the table(bartenders,waitresses,landscapers etc. etc. etc.) cannot evade paying their fair share reducing the tax burdon to those of us that do pay our taxes.
No offense to your mother but she is a CPA and she will dissagree with a flat tax rate because it would put her out of buisiness. No tax returns to file, No need for CPA's.
AZM,
A flat is a flat % of tax charged on your income. The proposed tax that is charged at point of sale is called the Fair Tax which is being promoted by Republican candicate, Mike Huckabee.
Aagin, the "Flat tax" is a % of income with no deductions and the Fair Tax is a National sales tax somewhere between 28% and 33%.
With regard to Del's question about Ron Pauls, if you dump the IRS how is the Govt supported? This is a very good question that deserves an answer.
One last thing. CPA's do much more that calculate taxes.

[delemorte]

you could could say a fair tax could be called a luxury tax but it makes sense to me. If can afford to have it i can afford to pay the tax. I think the wealthy get off pretty good on that one. Say you make 100 K this year and save 50 K of this. you arent paying takes on that 50 K. Some will say thats not fair but one day someone will spend that and when they do you can tax what they spend it on.
These are all great topics that i think should be addressed in their own threads but this is the RP thread and noone has an answer for my question so i think RP just lost my vote.. sorry RP.. a central gov is key too my thoughts about security for a free country.

[AzMandella]

AZM,
A flat is a flat % of tax charged on your income. The proposed tax that is charged at point of sale is called the Fair Tax which is being promoted by Republican candicate, Mike Huckabee.
Aagin, the "Flat tax" is a % of income with no deductions and the Fair Tax is a National sales tax somewhere between 28% and 33%.
With regard to Del's question about Ron Pauls, if you dump the IRS how is the Govt supported. This is a very good question taht deserves an answer.
OK I've got the two mixed up. I'm sure that a form of IRS will still be there to collect the taxes as they come in wether it be a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax. There will still be a need for someone to account for and distribute it where it is needed to run government. Just not in the form of it's present state. It just would be revamped to take politicians hands out of the cookie jar.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

you could could say a fair tax could be called a luxury tax but it makes sense to me. If can afford to have it i can afford to pay the tax. I think the wealthy get off pretty good on that one. Say you make 100 K this year and save 50 K of this. you arent paying takes on that 50 K. Some will say thats not fair but one day someone will spend that and when they do you can tax what they spend it on.
Del, I think the premise behind the Fair Tax is that you pay tax for what you use and not what you make. I Favor a Flat Tax somewhere between 15 and 20% with no deductions. It has been said that this type of tax would increase tax revenues by nearly 75%.

[delemorte]

Del, I think the premise behind the Fair Tax is that you pay tax for what you use and not what you make. I Favor a Flat Tax somewhere between 15 and 20% with no deductions. It has been said that this type of tax would increase tax revenues by nearly 75%.
I can see both sides and i dont think one is better than the other. I jsut have my preference.
A fair tax allows the poor guy to pay less as he uses less and a rich person to not pay taxes on money he earned but has saved. its a win win to me. a flat tax will actually make the poor guy pay more than he would in todays fubar tax code, as a poor guy gets all kinds of deductions which reduces his actual tax debt.
but still.. i need to hear how RP plans to raise money.

[delemorte]

OK I've got the two mixed up. I'm sure that a form of IRS will still be there to collect the taxes as they come in wether it be a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax. There will still be a need for someone to account for and distribute it where it is needed to run government. Just not in the form of it's present state. It just would be revamped to take politicians hands out of the cookie jar.
with either of these plans you dont need the IRS. The IRS does not disperse funds. the congress approves budgets. The IRS is there to process deductions and to enforce tax code. Get rid of deductions and the tax codes elliminates the need for the IRS.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

I can see both sides and i dont think one is better than the other. I jsut have my preference.
A fair tax allows the poor guy to pay less as he uses less and a rich person to not pay taxes on money he earned but has saved. its a win win to me. a flat tax will actually make the poor guy pay more than he would in todays fubar tax code, as a poor guy gets all kinds of deductions which reduces his actual tax debt.
but still.. i need to hear how RP plans to raise money.
Del, very low wage earners are exempt from the flat tax and it doesn't allow thousands of deductions/loop holes/writes off at the extreme high income level. As equal % for all, except the very poor.
I agree, I want to hear how RP supports the Govt.

[delemorte]

Del, very low wage earners are exempt from the flat tax and it doesn't allow thousands of deductions/loop holes/writes off at the extreme high income level.
I agree, I want to hear how RP supports the Govt.
IF low income earners where exempt then i could roll with that. but what is the limit on what consitutes low income and how it is derived? If i make 20 K but have no children am i exempt? what if i have kids? those are all deductions and who decides that or enforces that.. Flat to me means flat for all regardless of wage or status.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

IF low income earners where exempt then i could roll with that. but what is the limit on what consitutes low income and how it is derived? If i make 20 K but have no children am i exempt? what if i have kids? those are all deductions and who decides that or enforces that.. Flat to me means flat for all regardless of wage or status.
To me flat means a fixed % being paid, w/o deductions by all who make a taxable income. IMO, $20,000 with no kids would pay.
OK I've got the two mixed up. I'm sure that a form of IRS will still be there to collect the taxes as they come in wether it be a Fair Tax or a Flat Tax. There will still be a need for someone to account for and distribute it where it is needed to run government. Just not in the form of it's present state. It just would be revamped to take politicians hands out of the cookie jar.
No problem.
It sounds like all three of us would like an answer to how RP plans to support the Govt.

[AzMandella]

with either of these plans you dont need the IRS. The IRS does not disperse funds. the congress approves budgets. The IRS is there to process deductions and to enforce tax code. Get rid of deductions and the tax codes elliminates the need for the IRS.
Congress may approve the budget but someone must collect the taxes and distribute them towards their respective uses.

[delemorte]

To me flat means a fixed % being paid, w/o deductions by all who make a taxable income. IMO, $20,000 with no kids would pay.
Ok but what if i had kids? what if i was a student paying my own tution? Do i think 20k with no dependents shoudl pay? Hell yes..
Do i think a 20k with kid trying to go to school to better them selves should pay? maybe not and that where deductions come it. its a hard to tell where to draw the line.
Where as a fair tax, taxing non essentials is easy? Car=yes tax it. Groceries=no dont tax it. Booze and beer= yes tax it. College tuition= no probably not as its education. We have states that dont have a state income tax that work on this model so we already know they work.

[delemorte]

Congress may approve the budget but someone must collect the taxes and distribute them towards their respective uses.
Yes currently you do send your tax dollar to the IRS but that is to insure you followed the tax code and did not take to many deductions. those funds are handed off to congress to figure our how to dispurse them. With out deductions or a complicated tax code we could send them direct to congress. Yes there would still be some finacial office but it would not be the IRS as we know it.

[cdog]

Flat tax is a percentage of what you make. Say 100k @ 20% tax = 20k a year in tax to uncle sam.
Consumption tax is higher tax on non essential goods like cars, boats, TV’s and consumer crap. I believe food is exempt. This has huge consequences for retail and luxury goods, but may be what we need for a fiscally sound country.
I'm for the consumption tax. Studies have shown most prices on goods will stay about the same because the businesses pay no corp. tax so they pass the savings on to the consumer. Not to mention the US would be big biz Mecca again due to the healthy low tax environment.
Cato Study
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-289.html
Conclusion
The results in Tables 3 and 4 indicate that a shift from the current income tax to a broad-based retail sales tax would be a regressive shift, whether measured on an annual or a lifetime income basis. The analysis using annual income, however, dramatically overstates the regressivity of the shift. Various efforts to add progressivity to the tax system can mitigate regressivity. In particular, a national sales tax with a universal rebate based on poverty thresholds looks nearly as progressive as the current income tax system when households are ranked by lifetime income.
What is the practical importance of these results, given the common objection that people are not--strictly speaking--operating according to a lifetime budget constraint? Liquidity constraints, for example, might be one objection to the lifetime income approach. But the convention of using annual income analysis may be equally flawed. The annual income approach ignores any savings and asset accumulation that allows consumption to depend on income at other points in time. Thus, one might reasonably think of incidence analyses as falling along a continuum with a strict annual income approach at one end and a strict lifetime income approach at the other. Truth lies somewhere in between, and while the regressivity of a shift from the income tax to a broad-based retail sales tax may be greater when measured using a lifetime income approach, it is surely less than when measured with an annual income approach.
The results in this paper suggest that when evaluating the merits of major tax reform (in particular, a shift from income taxation to a national sales tax), policymakers should not focus unduly on distributional considerations. Rather, Congress would be better advised to focus on the efficiency gains and the broad economic benefits of moving to a consumption tax system.
There are important distributional considerations that I have not considered in this analysis. Transitional gains and losses will be substantial in any tax reform and in particular a reform that shifts from income to consumption taxation. A shift without any transitional rules from income taxation to a national sales tax will (among other things) induce a transfer from the current elderly to the current young. [35] It is also worth noting that this study does not take into consideration the broad economic gains that might be expected from converting to a consumption-based tax system. Low-income Americans may very well realize gains in after-tax income from the tax shift if the economy improves and wages rise. [36]

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Ok but what if i had kids? what if i was a student paying my own tution? Do i think 20k with no dependents shoudl pay? Hell yes..
Do i think a 20k with kid trying to go to school to better them selves should pay? maybe not and that where deductions come it. its a hard to tell where to draw the line.
Where as a fair tax, taxing non essentials is easy? Car=yes tax it. Groceries=no dont tax it. Booze and beer= yes tax it. College tuition= no probably not as its education. We have states that dont have a state income tax that work on this model so we already know they work.
Fair Tax Car= yes. TV=yes Housing=? Rent=? Tuition=? Fast Food=?
Check this out
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_beyond
Consumption tax is higher tax on non essential goods like cars, boats, TV’s and consumer crap.
Where does the Fair Tax proposal indicate non essential goods like cars, etc.?

[cdog]

Fair Tax Car= yes. TV=yes Housing=?
Where does the Fair Tax proposal indicate non essential goods like cars, etc.?
Huckabee quoted a study. I'll have to find it.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Huckabee quoted a study. I'll have to find it.
Thanks. I will look too.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Take a look at the following. From what I can see, food and medicne are not exempt.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers
Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple?
Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.
Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.
Sounds to me as if EVERYTHING is taxed under the Fair Tax.

[delemorte]

quick thought. isnt it nice having a politcly inspired argument with out all the name calling...

[ULTRA26 # 1]

quick thought. isnt it nice having a politcly inspired argument with out all the name calling...
Sure is. :D

[delemorte]

Take a look at the following. From what I can see, food and medicne are not exempt.
http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_faq_answers
Why not just exempt food and medicine from the tax? Wouldn’t that be fair and simple?
Exempting items by category is neither fair nor simple. Respected economists have shown that the wealthy spend much more on unprepared food, clothing, housing, and medical care than do the poor. Exempting these goods, as many state sales taxes do, actually gives the wealthy a disproportionate benefit. Also, today these purchases are not exempted from federal taxation. The purchase of food, clothing, and medical services is made from after-income-tax and after-payroll-tax dollars, while their purchase price hides the cost of corporate taxes and private sector compliance costs.
Finally, exempting one product or service, but not another, opens the door to the army of lobbyists and special interest groups that plague and distort our taxation system today. Those who have the money will send lobbyists to Washington to obtain special tax breaks in their own self-interest. This process causes unfair and inefficient distortions in our economy and must be stopped.
Sounds to me as if EVERYTHING is taxed under the Fair Tax.
ok thats different then what i was understanding... damn i hate taxes...
Ron Paul Save us !!!!!! :D

[cdog]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5
Taxes/EconomySend to a friend
I support the FairTax.
As Governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. I left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which I urged should go back to the people.
Our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending.
To control spending, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade.
Globalization, done right, done fairly, can be the equivalent of a big pay raise by allowing us to buy things more cheaply.
I'd like you to join me at the best "Going Out of Business" sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.
Our current progressive tax system penalizes us for working harder and becoming more successful. As we climb the ladder, the government lurks on each rung, hungry for a bigger bite out of our earnings. The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend - it is revenue neutral.
Expert analyses have shown that the FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden of all of us: single or married; working or retired; rich, poor or middle class.
The FairTax will instantly make American products 12 to 25% more competitive because the cost of those goods will no longer be inflated by corporate taxes, costs of tax compliance, and Social Security matching payments. When we buy products now, those taxes are built into the cost, so all of us pay corporate taxes indirectly on top of the personal taxes we pay directly. Compliance costs are just make-work with no real added value, yet they consume as much as 3% of our gross domestic product annually. These costs are an especially heavy burden on small businesses, which generate most of our jobs.
If you buy a bottle of domestic wine, you're paying the taxes/compliance/matching payments of all the folks who produced the grapes, the wine, the bottle, the cork, the label. If you buy a bottle of French wine, the producers had their Value Added Tax rebated to them when the wine was exported. So French consumers pay those taxes, but you don't. Our current tax system puts our goods at a disadvantage both here and overseas. Other governments give their goods an advantage on the world market, an advantage estimated at 18% compared to American goods.
So no matter how hard Americans work, no matter how innovative and creative we are, no matter how superior our products are, we suffer from a built-in competitive disadvantage simply because of our tax system. A recent study by MIT found that our tax system deprives us of about $1 billion in exports annually. When you export over-priced goods as we have, you inevitably end up exporting jobs and industries as we now are. We are the square peg trying to fit into the round hole of international trade. The rest of the world isn't going to change, it's time that we do.
Under the FairTax, American companies are far less likely to move overseas and foreign companies are far more likely to come here, hiring Americans to build and work in their new plants. The FairTax encourages growth by promoting investment and capital formation.
We have to scrap a 20th century tax system that is holding us back and keeping us down in the 21st century. The FairTax is the path to greater prosperity and job security for us and for our children.
As Governor of Arkansas, I pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history - a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families. I also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married. Some taxes I eliminated entirely: the marriage penalty, bracket creep caused by inflation, income tax on poor families, and capital gains on home sales. To encourage investment, I cut capital gains for both individuals and businesses. To help people better themselves, I provided tax credits for employee training and education. In total, I cut taxes and fees nearly 100 times during my ten-and-a-half years as Governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million.
When I left office in early 2007, Arkansas had nearly $850 million in state surplus, which I urged should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut.
I believe that our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but due to the federal government's over-spending. Achieving and maintaining a balanced federal budget is an important and worthy goal necessary to our long-term economic well-being. To achieve a balanced federal budget, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families and real lives and real pain. I'm running for President because I don't want people who have worked loyally for a company for twenty or thirty years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, "I'm sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here."
I believe that globalization, done right, done fairly, can be a blessing for our society. As the Industrial Revolution raised living standards by allowing ordinary people to buy mass-produced goods that previously only the rich could afford, so globalization gives all of us the equivalent of a big pay raise by letting us buy all kinds of things from clothing to computers to TVs much more inexpensively.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

http://www.mikehuckabee.com/?FuseAction=Issues.View&Issue_id=5
Taxes/EconomySend to a friend
I support the FairTax.
As Governor of Arkansas, I cut taxes and fees almost 100 times, saving the taxpayers almost $380 million. I left a surplus of nearly $850 million, which I urged should go back to the people.
Our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but to the government's over-spending.
To control spending, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade.
Globalization, done right, done fairly, can be the equivalent of a big pay raise by allowing us to buy things more cheaply.
I'd like you to join me at the best "Going Out of Business" sale I can imagine - one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly. But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And I do mean all - personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment. All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
The FairTax will replace the Internal Revenue Code with a consumption tax, like the taxes on retail sales forty-five states and the District of Columbia have now. All of us will get a monthly rebate that will reimburse us for taxes on purchases up to the poverty line, so that we're not taxed on necessities. That means people below the poverty line won't be taxed at all. We'll be taxed on what we decide to buy, not what we happen to earn. We won't be taxed on what we choose to save or the interest those savings earn. The tax will apply only to new goods, so we can reduce our taxes further by buying a used car or computer.
Our current progressive tax system penalizes us for working harder and becoming more successful. As we climb the ladder, the government lurks on each rung, hungry for a bigger bite out of our earnings. The FairTax is also progressive, but it doesn't punish the American dream of success, or the old-fashioned virtues of hard work and thrift, it rewards and encourages them. The FairTax isn't intended to raise any more or less money for the federal government to spend - it is revenue neutral.
Expert analyses have shown that the FairTax lowers the lifetime tax burden of all of us: single or married; working or retired; rich, poor or middle class.
The FairTax will instantly make American products 12 to 25% more competitive because the cost of those goods will no longer be inflated by corporate taxes, costs of tax compliance, and Social Security matching payments. When we buy products now, those taxes are built into the cost, so all of us pay corporate taxes indirectly on top of the personal taxes we pay directly. Compliance costs are just make-work with no real added value, yet they consume as much as 3% of our gross domestic product annually. These costs are an especially heavy burden on small businesses, which generate most of our jobs.
If you buy a bottle of domestic wine, you're paying the taxes/compliance/matching payments of all the folks who produced the grapes, the wine, the bottle, the cork, the label. If you buy a bottle of French wine, the producers had their Value Added Tax rebated to them when the wine was exported. So French consumers pay those taxes, but you don't. Our current tax system puts our goods at a disadvantage both here and overseas. Other governments give their goods an advantage on the world market, an advantage estimated at 18% compared to American goods.
So no matter how hard Americans work, no matter how innovative and creative we are, no matter how superior our products are, we suffer from a built-in competitive disadvantage simply because of our tax system. A recent study by MIT found that our tax system deprives us of about $1 billion in exports annually. When you export over-priced goods as we have, you inevitably end up exporting jobs and industries as we now are. We are the square peg trying to fit into the round hole of international trade. The rest of the world isn't going to change, it's time that we do.
Under the FairTax, American companies are far less likely to move overseas and foreign companies are far more likely to come here, hiring Americans to build and work in their new plants. The FairTax encourages growth by promoting investment and capital formation.
We have to scrap a 20th century tax system that is holding us back and keeping us down in the 21st century. The FairTax is the path to greater prosperity and job security for us and for our children.
As Governor of Arkansas, I pushed through the Arkansas Legislature the first major, broad-based tax cuts in state history - a $90 million tax relief package for Arkansas families. I also doubled the standard deduction to $2,000 for single taxpayers and $4,000 for those who are married. Some taxes I eliminated entirely: the marriage penalty, bracket creep caused by inflation, income tax on poor families, and capital gains on home sales. To encourage investment, I cut capital gains for both individuals and businesses. To help people better themselves, I provided tax credits for employee training and education. In total, I cut taxes and fees nearly 100 times during my ten-and-a-half years as Governor, saving the people of Arkansas almost $380 million.
When I left office in early 2007, Arkansas had nearly $850 million in state surplus, which I urged should go back to the people in the form of either a tax rebate or tax cut.
I believe that our massive deficit is not due to Americans' being under-taxed, but due to the federal government's over-spending. Achieving and maintaining a balanced federal budget is an important and worthy goal necessary to our long-term economic well-being. To achieve a balanced federal budget, I believe the President should have the line-item veto.
I believe in free trade, but it has to be fair trade. We are losing jobs because of an unlevel, unfair trading arena that has to be fixed. Behind the statistics, there are real families and real lives and real pain. I'm running for President because I don't want people who have worked loyally for a company for twenty or thirty years to walk in one morning and be handed a pink slip and be told, "I'm sorry, but everything you spent your life working for is no longer here."
I believe that globalization, done right, done fairly, can be a blessing for our society. As the Industrial Revolution raised living standards by allowing ordinary people to buy mass-produced goods that previously only the rich could afford, so globalization gives all of us the equivalent of a big pay raise by letting us buy all kinds of things from clothing to computers to TVs much more inexpensively.
Thanks for finding this. The link that I posted was to FairTax.org which is the website for the Fair Tax movement. It lays out things clearly.
Thanks again
PS I agree with Del Taxes Suck

[delemorte]

Thanks for finding this. The link that I posted was to FairTax.org which is the website for the Fair Tax movement. It lays out things clearly.
Thanks again
PS I agree with Del Taxes Suck
and this all proves my point. you will still need CPA's as who the hell can understand all of this nonsense.
had to get one in for Mom's...

[cdog]

Our wallets have more power than our votes do these days. For those of you republicans in California especially.
Good discussion here. I think Ron Paul and Huckabee would be a good ticket. I like Thompson but he’s been hiding or something.
For those who say Ron Paul is un elect able I’d say you don’t know your history. The guy is setting new benchmarks in political history. People have had enough of the status quo. Giuliani and Romney are not republicans in my book. And if they are considered republicans. I guess I’m no longer one.
Is it still a democracy when 51% of the voters are self serving morons?

[Trailer Park Casanova]

So i asked my mother about the flat tax. and how it would benefit america. Shes a CPA just for the FYI and why i asked her.
here is the issue with a flat tax. Flat tax is meant to simplify the tax code and elliminate the IRS. Seems simple. However did you know with out the IRS you dont get to claim any deductions? NO savings no donations no deductions for what you pay on your home or interest paid. Nothing (too many deductions to even list them all, thats why I love my mother... Free accounting and taxes).
I dont know about you guys but i love my deductions and my credits come return time. But yes i guess you could do the math and simply lower the tax bracket but thats another converstion. I think a use tax would be a better system .If you can afford to buy it then you can afford to pay the taxes on it. Observe washington state that has no state income tax but does tax heavily on non essential goods (anything but food and clothing basicly) we can start a new thread on that one but back on point
My original question still stands unanswered. Ron Paul does not support a flat tax or sales tax. He does support aboloshing the IRS and the income tax and i quote "replace it with nothing". If that is the case how does the Fed bankroll the goverment?
I would gladly give up my deductions for the Forbes flat tax system.
CPA's and accountants are against it because it'll put a hit on their business too.

[delemorte]

I would gladly give up my deductions for the Forbes flat tax system.
CPA's and accountants are against it because it'll put a hit on their business too.
So oh smart one then please inform the ill informed of us sitting here as to what to do about the poor and this flat tax?
and why you are at it explain how paul would raise money with out federal taxes?
and to clarify im not anti flat tax i jsut think it leaves some room for discussion.. and the poor are the discussion. and for the record i am no where near being able to ask for a tax free status so this is not greed we are talkin about here.
Even with a flat tax you will still have CPA's and acccountants buisness and the such will still need them. and as far as my own personal needs here there are none. She should be retiring in the next year or two and i am not in that bizz.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

Steve Forbes has done a commendable job spelling out why America's tax system must be simplified. Scrap the mind-numbingly complex, loophole-filled, savings-averse code, advises the editor-in-chief of this magazine, in favor of one elegant, clear rate. A flat tax is what America needs.
That all sounds good to me. But I think we can do even better. Under Steve Forbes' plan the flat rate would be 17%. All families would get generous personal exemptions, so that a family of four would not pay taxes until its income exceeded $46,000. To encourage growth, the Forbes plan exempts income that is saved and invested. Which means that the Forbes plan is really a consumption tax. It taxes people based on what they take out of the system, not on what they put in.
http://www.forbes.com/opinions/free_forbes/2005/1017/042.html

[sanger rat]

Ron Paul on Taxes. http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=0

[sanger rat]

Why we need Ron Paul. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8327695139643041382

[CARLSON-JET]

delmorte,
I'm not going to speak for RP directly but imo. he feels that there are enough sources of federal level revenues at this time to support our federal government if brought down to a sustainable level. He does not want to initiate another form of the IRS or any other flat tax etc.
Right now the feds are spending well over what is being brought into the coffers by waisting huge amounts of money building our federal empire. He feels if the spending limits were set to year 2k levels that there are currently plenty of revenue sources. The feds get huge amounts of money from other sources other then direct income taxes from working citizens and small business.
When you purchase anything, part of the price is figured in as doing business which includes taxes, whether it be from mom & pops to G.E.
By increasing tariffs on all these chinese/foriegn goods that are imported and not subsidizing them we could generate huge amounts of federal income. This is part of the ever increasing trade deficit problem we have been building for 2decades now.
Taxes are actually one of the smallest reasons I choose to support Paul. His TRUE conservative ideas of getting back to basic government, Border issues, supporting our 2nd amendment rights and getting government out of the business of policing the world are just a few. I really believe the lack of TRUE conservative leadership has been hurting this nations fiscal and moral values
If taxes are your only concern with the feds in the current state of the nation Then you most likely will not be voting for any official currently running. I have not heard one word of how they are going to balance the budget and get rid of the national deficit. (except paul)
NOT ONE (but Paul) has a very good record of voting against higher taxes or voting to keep spending in check. All but Paul can't decide where they stand on any issues over the last 10 years.
One of the greatest tools we get from the internet is to see how our representatives have voted and most likely will vote with a few key strokes in seconds. We also get to see what bills they propose, support or are against. Ron Paul Votes against alot of BAD bills. When he votes NO he is also saying yes to the opposing views of said bad bills.
Sanger rat.. Nice posts :D
This has been great watching the discussion without a bunch of aggression taking place.
I have to get to work.. Every one have a good night. R.B.

[ULTRA26 # 1]

It's good to see folks passionate about a candidate. :D