Two Plus Two Newer Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Newer Archives > Other Topics > Politics

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:25 AM
honest1 honest1 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 10
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

I'm not attempting to get off topic, however VAT (usually) means Value Added Tax and is in effect a sales tax which is applied when buying items. I just cannot imagine the Federal income tax being replace with a national sales tax, however if it did I would embrace it wholeheartedly.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:35 AM
adios adios is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,132
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

Article implies that he would keep corporate taxes. Is that right? SS is scheduled to run a shortfall in about 10 years so something would have to change there.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-21-2007, 11:37 AM
Phil153 Phil153 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,905
Default This is great

Can any of the paul supporters provide details on precisely what he is and isn't cutting, and the costing of this given the public promises on the services he's keeping? I mean, the man is advocating and PROMISING a radical shakeup of US taxation and government revenues...there must be a detailed plan somewhere, right?

Until that's produced, Dr. Ron Paul is just a quack and no thinking man should support him.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-21-2007, 12:10 PM
ZeroPointMachine ZeroPointMachine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 753
Default Re: This is great

[ QUOTE ]
Can any of the paul supporters provide details on precisely what he is and isn't cutting, and the costing of this given the public promises on the services he's keeping? I mean, the man is advocating and PROMISING a radical shakeup of US taxation and government revenues...there must be a detailed plan somewhere, right?

Until that's produced, Dr. Ron Paul is just a quack and no thinking man should support him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The military spending is the only thing he can promise he will cut as Commander in Chief. He can guarantee that he will veto any unbalanced budget and send it back to congress requesting neccesary changes. He can guarantee that he will veto any tax increase. He cannot guarantee that spending will be reduced to the level required to eliminate the IRS any time soon.

In any trauma situation the first thing you do is stop the bleeding and try to stabalize the patient. Then you worry about which surgery to perform first and how long the rehab and recovery are going to last.

I believe that it would make a huge difference to have a President that would stand up to congress(both parties) and would tell the American people exactly how they are getting [censored].
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-21-2007, 12:23 PM
pokerbobo pokerbobo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Takin a log to the beaver
Posts: 1,318
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

[ QUOTE ]
Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is.

As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if Hillary would outline all the budget increases she has envisioned for the country too... but that would be too radical for most people too. And as she put it... "she is not going to deal in hypotheticals"

Is'nt that how most people choose a candidate is by what they will do in various hypothetical situations?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-21-2007, 12:39 PM
Bedreviter Bedreviter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 456
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

True, that would be nice too. But I believe more people feel that Hillarys economic reforms are less radical than Ron Pauls, and therefore are less likely to scare away potential voters thinking that her economic vision is unrealistic.

And you put the "to radical too" in the wrong place, because I did not state that Ron Pauls budget would look too radical for most people, I said that for now the idea of completely getting rid of the IRS seem too radical for people, and therefore a budget-outline could make it seem less radical if he could show how it would work.

But the more information the candidates can provide of how they envision their presidency the better.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-21-2007, 12:48 PM
Borodog Borodog is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Performing miracles.
Posts: 11,182
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.

It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO IT WOULDN'T!! RON PAUL IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THIS!! (and I guarantee when he says that he's planning to tax 2009 dollars and spend them in 1998)

Look at the numbers. Setting payroll taxes and SS aside, money raised from non-income tax sources wouldn't cover interest payments.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lying.

Including the income tax, money raised from payroll and SS, plus non-IT sources, plus the IT doesn't cover the Federal budget, by a gigantic amount. What is raised in the IT is a fraction of the spending levels. Just because it is a larger fraction of the tax revenue doesn't mean jack. You emphatically could remove the IT, leave everything else the same, and go back to 199X levels of spending.

The individual income tax accounts for about $1.3T out of a total Federal budget of $3T. Removing it would leave you with a budget of $1.7T, the Federal budget of 1999. Your mileage might vary, but not by much.

The only case that you might have is that the IRS administers more than just the individual income tax. However, you'd still be wrong there, since all Paul has said he wants to do is get rid of the income tax and the IRS, he has NOT said that payroll taxes and the excise tax (for example) could not be collected by SOME agency, just not an evil bloated bureaucracy like the IRS. In fact, since he has stated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that he would not touch the major entitlement programs that people are dependent upon (Medicaid, Medicare, SS), but would instead let young people opt out by saving a trillion dollars on empire and pork, it is pretty OBVIOUS that he his platform does not include abolition of payroll taxes.

You should check your [censored] before calling people liars.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-21-2007, 01:00 PM
bobman0330 bobman0330 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Billion-dollar CIA Art
Posts: 5,061
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

Boro, that's all well and good, but you're overlooking some stuff:
1. RP has said he wants to get rid of the 16th Amendment, which would necessarily involve getting rid of the corporate income tax too. Why are you including corporate IT receipts in your projections?
2. Is your 1999 budget figure inflation-adjusted? If not, why not, other than to mislead people?
3. All this talk about payroll taxes is a big off-topic. Does RP want to use payroll taxes for general government purposes? If not, then payroll taxes don't really matter to the larger picture (except to the extent that the government can't fund any deficits in SS or Medicare without the IT). If he does, then really all he wants to do is replace the income tax with the payroll tax, which is nothing to be lauded for.
4. Whatever other verbal gymnastics you want to go through, the unalterable fact is that less than $200 billion dollars was raised by the government other than through a tax on income. Another unalterable fact is that the US cannot even pay interest on its current debt with that amount, let alone do anything else, except for the payroll-funded stuff like SS.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-21-2007, 01:00 PM
Copernicus Copernicus is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,912
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

[ QUOTE ]


You are lying.

it is pretty OBVIOUS that he his platform does not include abolition of payroll taxes.

You should check your [censored] before calling people liars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in bobmans post says that RPs platform includes abolition of payroll taxes.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-21-2007, 01:04 PM
ZeroPointMachine ZeroPointMachine is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 753
Default Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.

2008 budget: $2.9 trillion
2001 budget: $1.8 trillion

Here's a start:

Stop the wars. Start closing overseas bases. Take 2001 budget and change the 1 to a 9.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.