Ron Paul on taxation?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no surplus. Payroll taxes are no different than other taxes; it all goes to the same place: building aircraft carriers and giving money to super old people.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a huge difference between payroll taxes and social security taxes.
Payroll taxes are progressive, social security taxes are not.
Payroll taxes are taken from all of your wages, social security taxes apply to only your first 92k. So, people making 1 million a year, pay social security taxes on the first 10% of their earned income, while middle class workers pay social security taxes on 100% of their earned income.

Because of this inpropriety, and the fact that the social security surplus is a huge part of the total taxes, the middle income workers are being drained of their spendable income, as compared to the rich, and, it's the rich that benefit the most from a robust economy and the defense of this country, as their investments continue to double.

If the social security surplus wasn't used to offset the deficit, Bush would not have been able to give the rich and the oil companies those huge tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]


Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[/ QUOTE ]

momentary hijack

I'm wondering what people think when they hear this statement. What does it mean to you?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[/ QUOTE ]

momentary hijack

I'm wondering what people think when they hear this statement. What does it mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. And when he says the "riches 1%" (sic), does he mean top 1% of income earners in that year?

"Obviously" 20% is too much. I'm wondering, then, how much is the "correct" amount for the top 1% to earn. And what measures need to be taken to get to the correct distribution.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[/ QUOTE ]

momentary hijack

I'm wondering what people think when they hear this statement. What does it mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. And when he says the "riches 1%" (sic), does he mean top 1% of income earners in that year?

"Obviously" 20% is too much. I'm wondering, then, how much is the "correct" amount for the top 1% to earn. And what measures need to be taken to get to the correct distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

14.7% Clearly we simply need to randomly take 5.3% and hand it out in a lottery.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no surplus. Payroll taxes are no different than other taxes; it all goes to the same place: building aircraft carriers and giving money to super old people.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a huge difference between payroll taxes and social security taxes.
Payroll taxes are progressive, social security taxes are not.
Payroll taxes are taken from all of your wages, social security taxes apply to only your first 92k. So, people making 1 million a year, pay social security taxes on the first 10% of their earned income, while middle class workers pay social security taxes on 100% of their earned income.

Because of this inpropriety, and the fact that the social security surplus is a huge part of the total taxes, the middle income workers are being drained of their spendable income, as compared to the rich, and, it's the rich that benefit the most from a robust economy and the defense of this country, as their investments continue to double.

If the social security surplus wasn't used to offset the deficit, Bush would not have been able to give the rich and the oil companies those huge tax cuts.

Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[/ QUOTE ]
You've convinced me. Now I'm for abolishing social security as a mandatory taxation too.

[bobman0330]

Anyone? What I've got so far is that the RP plan for taxation will be OK because it's so insane that no one will ever let it be fully implemented. I'm reluctant to accept that explanation.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if we generously assume that SS and all payroll-tax-funded programs are canceled or balance out, how could we conceivably run even a limited government on $172 billion, which is about 18% of current DISCRETIONARY funding (excluding SS, Medicare, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

By conceivably cutting out a bunch of [censored] the government does poorly or shouldn't be doing in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure interest payments alone are substantially more than $172 B.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wiki has the 2007 budget ~247 billion in interest.

[lehighguy]

Spending ($1637.53 billion: cut $1034.99 billion)

http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/...rt.budget06.pl

May not be exactely what RP will do.

[pokerbobo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Meanwhile, the riches 1%, earn 20% of all income in a year, while the bottom 50% earn 12%.

[/ QUOTE ]

momentary hijack

I'm wondering what people think when they hear this statement. What does it mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. And when he says the "riches 1%" (sic), does he mean top 1% of income earners in that year?

"Obviously" 20% is too much. I'm wondering, then, how much is the "correct" amount for the top 1% to earn. And what measures need to be taken to get to the correct distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow life is more fair than the WSOP main event.... the bottom 80% earn no prize money, and the top 10 or 20 % get 100 percent of the prize money. Middle class in poker really sucks. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Spending ($1637.53 billion: cut $1034.99 billion)

http://www.nathannewman.org/cgi-bin/...rt.budget06.pl

May not be exactely what RP will do.

[/ QUOTE ]

link's not working for me.