Has he proposed the way he was going to go about getting rid of the income tax or his time frame? I've been arguing with my Cain-loving boss and all I can find about Paul's plans pertaining specifically to income taxes is the extension of the Bush tax cuts, but nothing to do with getting the income tax down to zero. My response so far has been that I believe his plan is to cut spending to a point that the income tax will not be necessary, but I'd like to have some specifics, thanks!
Tom Woods' 111 plan sounds good, too. "One trillion dollars cut in one year, yields one restored economy." Of course, zero always sounds better when talking about the Leviathan.
Paul has a plan out where he wants to cut the budget by 1 trillion dollars in the first year. I assume he would cut the income tax by whatever percentage each year to keep the budget balanced.
@Anon 4:21, Ron Paul would ultimately like to get rid of the income tax completely but there would be a transition period. Just as he would end the fed but would do it by allowing competing currencies rather than just closing up its doors. As far as the income tax you want to understand how he frames the problem. He states that the taxes come from spending. That when the government spends money it has to either tax it, borrow it, or print it. Borrowing is just a future tax and printing is just an inflation tax. So in order to lower taxes he would eliminate the spending in order to make the taxes unnecessary in the first place. You may have heard him say in the past when asked how he could eliminate the income tax and he has responded that you can't if you believe the government needs to take care of us from cradle to grave but if you believe in very limited government then you can have no income tax just as we did before 1913. If he is asking you how Ron Paul will eliminate the income tax without shrinking the size of the government then you can tell him that he has no plan for how to do that. His plan does lower taxes a lot though that you could point to that would benefit your boss.
Yes, Ron's plan calls for a $1 trillion reduction in the first year, but he then calls for a balanced budget within 3 years. The logical deduction of this is that taxes will be reduced over this time due to revenues.
You cannot cut taxes in real terms without cutting spending, otherwise it is merely a continuation of the status quo (i.e. the phrase "paying for tax cuts". Most politicians propose cuts in taxes, but they never propose cuts in spending, therefor the gap in accounting must be either borrowed or printed (i.e. future taxes or reduction in PPM).
The fact that Paul wished to reduce spending at such a drastic rate and then balance the budget within three years automatically assumes a lower tax rate. His first suggestion is to abolish the income tax.
To be honest, this is the only currently proposed tax plan that is tenable, because it is practical in realizing that spending must be cut before taxes, otherwise you're just pushing off the tax burden to future generations.
Much of this is lost by the talking heads and commentators discussing Paul's tax plan. They fallaciously assume that whatever the government doesn't spend isn't spent at all. What they forget is that his plan allows the people to do with their money what they wish (the market process) rather than the government making arbitrary decisions upon the expenditure of tax revenues.
Ultimately, his plan is a bold statement that says, "who spends more rationally, those who have earned the income, or those that have obtained the income by the use of force?
I side with individual valuation over that of bureaucratic valuation.
Zero federal individual income tax? Who is gonna pay for this? The Fed is printin' and we are screwed. 737 U.S. Military Bases-Over 2,500,000 U.S. personnel across the planet.2009 DoD budget 680 billion on the books. Cost for a single soldier to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan is about $775,000 per year.Cost of US Wars since 2001-$1,279,971,981,615(costofwar.com counters).
Foreign aid see it here (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm
Drug war cost here:http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
I totally understand and agree with RP's reasoning and i know that his plan is to cut the spending first, i was just curious if he's described what the period between his extension of the Bush rates and the final 0 income tax (or repeal of the 16th amendment or what have you) would look like more specifically. I can't really find much on the internets.
Sounds like a winning plan to me!
ReplyDeleteAwesume.
ReplyDeleteBrillant. Don't forget to donate to today's Veteran's Day $$ bomb...
ReplyDeleteExcellent !
ReplyDeleteThe RP supporters response to Bill O"Reilly's nonsense is also excellent.
Has he proposed the way he was going to go about getting rid of the income tax or his time frame? I've been arguing with my Cain-loving boss and all I can find about Paul's plans pertaining specifically to income taxes is the extension of the Bush tax cuts, but nothing to do with getting the income tax down to zero. My response so far has been that I believe his plan is to cut spending to a point that the income tax will not be necessary, but I'd like to have some specifics, thanks!
ReplyDeleteFABULOUS!!!
ReplyDeleteI want this poster for my house!
ReplyDeleteTom Woods' 111 plan sounds good, too. "One trillion dollars cut in one year, yields one restored economy." Of course, zero always sounds better when talking about the Leviathan.
ReplyDeleteI love this. Now THIS means hope for America.
ReplyDelete@Anon 4:21:
ReplyDeletePaul has a plan out where he wants to cut the budget by 1 trillion dollars in the first year. I assume he would cut the income tax by whatever percentage each year to keep the budget balanced.
@Anon 4:21, Ron Paul would ultimately like to get rid of the income tax completely but there would be a transition period. Just as he would end the fed but would do it by allowing competing currencies rather than just closing up its doors. As far as the income tax you want to understand how he frames the problem. He states that the taxes come from spending. That when the government spends money it has to either tax it, borrow it, or print it. Borrowing is just a future tax and printing is just an inflation tax. So in order to lower taxes he would eliminate the spending in order to make the taxes unnecessary in the first place. You may have heard him say in the past when asked how he could eliminate the income tax and he has responded that you can't if you believe the government needs to take care of us from cradle to grave but if you believe in very limited government then you can have no income tax just as we did before 1913. If he is asking you how Ron Paul will eliminate the income tax without shrinking the size of the government then you can tell him that he has no plan for how to do that. His plan does lower taxes a lot though that you could point to that would benefit your boss.
ReplyDeleteAnon 4:21,
ReplyDeleteYes, Ron's plan calls for a $1 trillion reduction in the first year, but he then calls for a balanced budget within 3 years. The logical deduction of this is that taxes will be reduced over this time due to revenues.
You cannot cut taxes in real terms without cutting spending, otherwise it is merely a continuation of the status quo (i.e. the phrase "paying for tax cuts". Most politicians propose cuts in taxes, but they never propose cuts in spending, therefor the gap in accounting must be either borrowed or printed (i.e. future taxes or reduction in PPM).
The fact that Paul wished to reduce spending at such a drastic rate and then balance the budget within three years automatically assumes a lower tax rate. His first suggestion is to abolish the income tax.
To be honest, this is the only currently proposed tax plan that is tenable, because it is practical in realizing that spending must be cut before taxes, otherwise you're just pushing off the tax burden to future generations.
Much of this is lost by the talking heads and commentators discussing Paul's tax plan. They fallaciously assume that whatever the government doesn't spend isn't spent at all. What they forget is that his plan allows the people to do with their money what they wish (the market process) rather than the government making arbitrary decisions upon the expenditure of tax revenues.
Ultimately, his plan is a bold statement that says, "who spends more rationally, those who have earned the income, or those that have obtained the income by the use of force?
I side with individual valuation over that of bureaucratic valuation.
Zero federal individual income tax?
ReplyDeleteWho is gonna pay for this? The Fed is printin' and we are screwed.
737 U.S. Military Bases-Over 2,500,000 U.S. personnel across the planet.2009 DoD budget 680 billion on the books. Cost for a single soldier to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan is about $775,000 per year.Cost of US Wars since 2001-$1,279,971,981,615(costofwar.com counters).
Foreign aid see it here (http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm
Drug war cost here:http://actionamerica.org/drugs/wodclock.shtml
Cost of membership to UN,IMF,NATO...on and on.
anon@3:05 why do they cost anything if troops aren't there?
ReplyDeleteI totally understand and agree with RP's reasoning and i know that his plan is to cut the spending first, i was just curious if he's described what the period between his extension of the Bush rates and the final 0 income tax (or repeal of the 16th amendment or what have you) would look like more specifically. I can't really find much on the internets.
ReplyDelete