Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Pandering at it's finest. Suck the votes out of the lower paid group and sacrifice the top .1% since they aren't voting for you anyway.
By the way, what should we set as the absolute limit of wealth for Americans? Something like if you make 5 million the government takes it all and sends you back to the bottom? Sure seems like Obama wants to do that with individuals and corporations alike. That magic Obscene profits tax, all that's left is to determine where that magic number is.
And another by the way...Ron Pauls numbers would be the same for everyone, reduction of 100% across the board.
Pandering at it's finest. Suck the votes out of the lower paid group and sacrifice the top .1% since they aren't voting for you anyway.
By the way, what should we set as the absolute limit of wealth for Americans? Something like if you make 5 million the government takes it all and sends you back to the bottom? Sure seems like Obama wants to do that with individuals and corporations alike. That magic Obscene profits tax, all that's left is to determine where that magic number is.
And another by the way...Ron Pauls numbers would be the same for everyone, reduction of 100% across the board.
I highly highly doubt Ron Paul would not advocate a full 100% reduction in federal taxes across the board, a statement as such seems like absurd and exaggerated to the point of being uninformed.
I highly highly doubt Ron Paul would not advocate a full 100% reduction in federal taxes across the board, a statement as such seems like absurd and exaggerated to the point of being uninformed.
He's for the dissolution of the IRS. No income tax at all--for anyone.
He A) doesn't believe a federal income tax is constitutional, and B) necessary if federal spending/power/reach is reigned in to where it should be. There are other avenues of revenue for the federal government that are sufficient to run as it should.
Don't go calling someone uniformed when it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
He's for the dissolution of the IRS. No income tax at all--for anyone.
He A) doesn't believe a federal income tax is constitutional, and B) necessary if federal spending/power/reach is reigned in to where it should be. There are other avenues of revenue for the federal government that are sufficient to run as it should.
Don't go calling someone uniformed when it's you that doesn't know what you're talking about.
How does he propose we pay for a military? I guess I didn't realize he was as radical as such. Hence the highly highly doubt. Honestly I think talk of such is pretty crazy. I stand by my statement that proposing a 100% reduction in federal taxes seems uninformed of the reality regardless of who originated the concept. Thank you.
When I need you to tell me what I think about a statement I'll ask.
Last edited by DWKB; September 22nd, 2008 at 10:50 AM.
Well, he's also a proponent of not have military bases out side of the United States, so you have to also understand that defense spending would be greatly reduced. But, currently there are a number of other income sources outside of federal income tax: excise taxes, employment taxes, corporate taxes and estate tax. But, I'd imagine he'd also have the states pay into the federal coffers based on population.
Our state taxes wouldn't go away, in fact, they'd likely go up. But it puts the power back where it belongs: at the state and local levels.
Quote:
I guess I didn't realize he was as radical as such. Hence the highly highly doubt. Honestly I think talk of such is pretty crazy.
IMO, it's only because of your current frame of reference. You're used to living in an empire, not a republic.
The federal government is only supposed to be a uniting mesh/framework for the states. The states are suppoosed to be the bodies making legislation and decisions within the framework of the constitution, but all of that power has been shifted to the Feds, and, IMO, we're worse of for it.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
IMO, it's only because of your current frame of reference. You're used to living in an empire, not a republic.
The federal government is only supposed to be a uniting mesh/framework for the states. The states are suppoosed to be the bodies making legislation and decisions within the framework of the constitution, but all of that power has been shifted to the Feds, and, IMO, we're worse of for it.
Who, and how, do we pay for any federal salaries? What do all of the unemployed federal workers do after they're all fired?
You basically said "don't comment on anything I say unless I ask." That's paramount to "don't speak unless spoken to."
You're more than welcome to comment, but when I say an idea appears absurd to me and so radical that it looks uninformed, accusing me of calling that person uninformed questions ones reading comprehension. If you're going to lunge, it would first make sense to understand what you're attacking.
You're more than welcome to comment, but when I say an idea appears absurd to me and so radical that it looks uninformed, accusing me of calling that person uninformed questions ones reading comprehension. If you're going to lunge, it would first make sense to understand what you're attacking.
Same seems to apply to both sides, then. I've just "informed" you of why, in theory, eliminating federal income tax and reducing the size of the federal government might work.
Granted, it IS a radical departure from the way we're currently running the United States. But that doesn't mean it's not sensical.
__________________ America cannot have an empire abroad and a Republic at home.
Linear Mode
