New RINO talking points. Higher taxes and austerity for all

[jmdrake]

In case you missed it, over the weekend Fox News called out GOP Senator Rick Scott's plan on raising income taxes on everyone so they have "skin in the game" (foreskin?) and passing a law to sunset Medicare and Social Security. Okay. Make those poor people pay their "fair share" (as opposed to simply repealing the income tax). Take away that those entitlements from grandma. She doesn't need them! Not to be outdone, Mitt Romney, who once infamously complained himself about poor not paying income tax, recently went a step further and said that young people's PRIVATE retirement benefits should be cut.

Of course here's the real big lie. While Mitt Romney and Rick Scott complain about the poor paying not paying income taxes, and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren complaining about the "rich" not paying their "fair share", the dirty truth is that it's people who earn money without working for it that don't pay income taxes. That includes the Warren Buffets and Donald Trump's of the world.



So....why do this? The GOP is guaranteed to retake the House and possibly the Senate this year if they don't screw up. Some in their party seem INTENT on screwing up. Any advantages for libertarians?

 

[acptulsa]

I have a better idea. It's a simple three step plan.

1. End inflation by taking back the billions printed and given to Big Pharma for trying to kill us and burn it, causing deflation.

2. Fire everyone who works anywhere between Fredrick, Maryland and Fredericksburg, Virginia.

3. Move everyone over 65 into Mitt Romney's numerous mansions.

The austerity will be over in a week.

 

[Anti Globalist]

And what exactly is a GOP House and Senate going to do under Biden? Pretty sure they'll continue to complain and talk about how bad Democrats are while doing nothing to improve the lives of the American people. They'll also probably still give Biden whatever he wants.

 

[ClaytonB]

I'll never get tired of pointing out the following historical facts:

When unapportioned Federal income tax was first introduced in the US, it was billed as a way for the very wealthy to "give back" to society in ways that would benefit everybody (including the poor). Initially, Federal income taxes were only collected in meaningful amounts from the very wealthy. The idea was supposed to be that this money would be spent on roads, dams, improved education and other public works measures. In other words, "Collect from the rich, and disburse to everybody". That way, the poor get a free leg-up, and since the taxes collected affect the rich very little, it's a win-win. That was supposed to be the theory. From the rich, to the poor, and the middle class could take care of themselves. Of course, things very quickly changed and tax rates even at the lowest tax bracket began rapidly rising.

If you do the math on today's IRS tax brackets and multiply the tax collection per earner by the number of US earners in those tax-brackets, you will find that the biggest pile of cash -- by far -- is collected from the middle class. It's a sheer numbers game... even if Buffett were to pay a gazillion dollars in taxes, there are just so many more middle-class people that their $5k, $10k, $15k tax bills, when multiplied by the number of people paying them, ends up swamping out the tax liability of the rich. You can whine and cry "Eat the Rich!" all you want, but you will never get around the fact that distributed interests always lose against concentrated interests in the calculus of politics and lobbying. See Ben Powell's excellent explanation of this phenomenon, here:



This is why 99.9% of the hare-brained "solutions" that people type into Tw@tter or whatever, are worse than wrong, they're completely pointless. Go ahead, go to Washington and knock yourself out Mr. Jefferson. You're going to get nothing done, not because of some grand Illuminati conspiracy to control Congress, but because your idea is just plain stupid and could never work in any Universe in which the laws of cause-and-effect hold.

The Founding Fathers specifically intended that the Federal government would not collect any unapportioned direct tax -- in plain language, income tax is a direct tax. When the time is right to have a Constitutional Convention, we need to pass an Amendment to overturn the 16th Amendment and clarify that any income tax is, indeed, a direct tax, as the Founding Fathers clearly wrote in the Constitution. In addition, we need to prohibit the Federal government from issuing anything but gold and silver coin as dollar-denominated currency and leave all private banking to the private banks. Mixing State and Banking has created a century-long nightmare of war and social devastation.

I hope that these things will happen in my lifetime, but I have effectively zero expectation that they will happen. The point is that you cannot treat a snake-bite by putting skin salve on it. You need to get to the root cause and inject an anti-venom. If you don't, the snake's venom is just going do ever-increasing damage resulting in agonizing pain and maybe even death.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

Inflation steals big time. Your house supposedly doubles in value. What happens your property tax bill goes thru the roof. Restaurants change the price of a McDonalds value meal from $2.99 to $9.99 and the tax goes from a dime to a dollar. Income doesn't come close to keeping up with the appetite of the beast.

 

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

[MENTION=6186]Danke[/MENTION] always claimed to be able to legally avoid taxes.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

When unapportioned Federal income tax was first introduced in the US, it was billed as a way for the very wealthy to "give back" to society in ways that would benefit everybody (including the poor).

The first federal income tax, introduced in 1861, was intended to finance the federal government during the Civil War. Its constiututionality was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.

The Founding Fathers specifically intended that the Federal government would not collect any unapportioned direct tax -- in plain language, income tax is a direct tax.

The first part is true, but the second isn't. The income tax isn't a "direct tax" as that term is used in the Constitution. The only time this has not been the case was when the Court ruled in 1895 that a tax in investment income (and only investment income) was equivalent to a tax on the property producing the income and that a tax on property was a direct tax. 21 years later the Court stated that the result in the earlier case was incorrect because it was based on the erroneous premise that in determinining whether a tax on income was direct or indirect it is necessary to determine the source of the income.

Seven of the original thirteen states had a form of income tax before the Constituton was ratified, and there's nothing in the language of the Constitution suggesting that an income tax was to be considered a direct tax. So if you want to get rid of unapportioned income taxes, you'll need to amend Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 as well as repealing the 16th Amendment. You'll also have to convince any Constitutional Convention to dramatically increase other federal taxes to cover the shortfall (about half of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes) or cut federal government spending by half. That ain't gonna happen.

 

[ClaytonB]

The first federal income tax, introduced in 1861, was intended to finance the federal government during the Civil War. Its constiututionality was upheld by a unanimous Supreme Court in 1881.

You and I have already gone around on this and I'm not going to cover the same ground with you a second time. Despite the fact that you are incorrect in your views of constitutional history, for the sake of discussion, I'll even grant you that unapportioned Federal income tax somehow would not fall under the term "direct tax" as used in the Constitution. But it ought to be, and when we're ready to have a Constitutional Convention, we should pass an amendment to make this completely crystal-clear. A national government with the power to directly tax its citizens, without apportionment, is guaranteed to be a populist government and, therefore, anti-freedom and tyrannical. And that is precisely what has happened in US history, despite the express intent of the Founding Fathers to the contrary.

The first part is true, but the second isn't. The income tax isn't a "direct tax" as that term is used in the Constitution.

Yes it is, but it doesn't matter, see above, it ought to be. The "tax-protester"-neuron in your NPC brain-circuit keeps firing every time you see the words "Federal income tax" and "direct tax" in the same sentence. It's a malfunctioning circuit, get it checked.

So if you want to get rid of unapportioned income taxes, you'll need to amend Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 as well as repealing the 16th Amendment.

BOOM. He finally gets it!

You'll also have to convince any Constitutional Convention to dramatically increase other federal taxes to cover the shortfall (about half of federal revenue comes from individual income taxes) or cut federal government spending by half. That ain't gonna happen.

Why the hell would a convention of States give a damn about Federal shortfalls? Iowans are afraid we don't have enough aircraft carriers??

 

[Krugminator2]

Romney is right on both points. A large percentage of people don't pay income tax and Social Security and Medicare benefits should be gradually reduced. People didn't fully fund the system so why should they get more than they paid in. The programs are underfunded by multiples of the national debt. I am not for raising taxes on anyone but I do think people would be less inclined to vote for spending if they had skin in the game.

News To Obama: The OECD Says the United States Has the Most Progressive Tax System

October 29, 2008 https://taxfoundation.org/news-obama-oecd-says-united-states-has-most-progressive-tax-system/

" In fact, America’s federal tax code is already the most progressive in the OECD, even adjusting for income inequality. The Congressional Budget Office reports that the top-earning 20 percent of taxpayers earn 53 percent of the income, yet pay 69 percent of all federal taxes, including 88 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 40 percent of earners earn 14 percent of the income while collectively paying no income tax, and less than 5 percent of all federal taxes. Tax code regressivity is not the problem." https://opportunitywa.org/u-s-federal-income-tax-structure-most-progressive-in-the-world-more-than-offsets-regressively-of-state-local-taxes/


U.S. Tax Code Too Progressive https://www.cato.org/blog/us-tax-code-too-progressive

, the dirty truth is that it's people who earn money without working for it that don't pay income taxes. That includes the Warren Buffets and Donald Trump's of the world.

Buffett pays corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes. I don't think it would be crazy to make the capital gains and corporate rate flat with an income tax. I also don't think it would be crazy to eliminate the capital gains tax altogether. Money is already taxed when it is earned. It seems kind of ridiculous to penalize people for saving and investing and rewarding people who spend money right away.


Entitlement spending is more than all other spending combined. https://www.federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-money-go/

Social Security and Medicare should be the first programs to get cut. People are getting undeserved benefits and they are the biggest budget problems. The only reason they aren't is because it is hard to take away free stuff.
https://www.realclearpolicy.com/art...care_and_social_security_benefits_775259.html

That’s according to truthinaccounting.org, which noted that there’s $96.3 trillion owed in promised but unfunded Medicare and Social Security benefits — $55.1 trillion for Medicare and $41.2 trillion for Social Security.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Why the hell would a convention of States give a damn about Federal shortfalls?

When the delegates to the convention realize that the states and citizens they represent are gonna lose a huge chunk of the federal money they've been getting in the form of grants, wages from federal jobs, Social Security benefits, etc, they will give an enormous damn, especially the delegates from the 40 or so states that receive more than they pay out in taxes.

 

[Invisible Man]

Instead of stealing more money from anyone, why don't they first talk about cutting refundable tax credits?

That form of welfare has gotten so prominent today that now when lower income people say the word "taxes" they mean money the government gives them, rather than money they give the government.

 

[Invisible Man]

When the delegates to the convention realize that the states and citizens they represent are gonna lose a huge chunk of the federal money they've been getting in the form of grants, wages from federal jobs, Social Security benefits, etc, they will give an enormous damn, especially the delegates from the 40 or so states that receive more than they pay out in taxes.

If I made an offer to you where you pay me $1,000 and I give you back $1,200 worth of goods and services of my choice with strings attached on how you are to use them, would you take that deal? Or would you rather just keep your $1,000 to spend however you want?

 

[ClaytonB]

When the delegates to the convention realize that the states and citizens they represent are gonna lose a huge chunk of the federal money

OK, I'm just going to stop you right there -- do you realize this forum is named Ron Paul Forums, after the famous American statesman, Ron Paul, who has explained in excruciating detail the mechanics of the Federal Reserve scam whereby money is printed in Washington DC in order to rob the American people, then sent out as bribes to the 50 States? If you haven't heard about that, I suggest you read up on Ron Paul and stop trying to fly this garbage on this forum, as if everybody here isn't smart enough to see right through your Fed-talking-point BS.

they've been getting in the form of grants, wages from federal jobs, Social Security benefits, etc, they will give an enormous damn, especially the delegates from the 40 or so states that receive more than they pay out in taxes.

You drank the entire Kool-Aid bowl...

 

[ClaytonB]

If I made an offer to you where you pay me $1,000 and I give you back $1,200 worth of goods and services of my choice with strings attached on how you are to use them, would you take that deal? Or would you rather just keep your $1,000 to spend however you want?

More accurate: How about you pay me 1,000 ClaytonCoins, and I print up an additional 1,000 ClaytonCoins and send you 1,500 ClaytonCoins back. Win win!

 

[jmdrake]

Romney is right on both points. A large percentage of people don't pay income tax and Social Security and Medicare benefits should be gradually reduced. People didn't fully fund the system so why should they get more than they paid in. The programs are underfunded by multiples of the national debt. I am not for raising taxes on anyone but I do think people would be less inclined to vote for spending if they had skin in the game.

Bullshyt. A large percentage of rich people have "no skin in the game" and they can't have any skin in the game because the game is rigged to keep them from having skin in the game. And taxing younger people at the current rate while reducing their future social security benefits is theft. If you support theft that's on you. Letting younger people opt out of social security altogether or turning social security from a defined benefit to a defined contribution plan would be ethical.

Buffett pays corporate income taxes and capital gains taxes. I don't think it would be crazy to make the capital gains and corporate rate flat with an income tax. I also don't think it would be crazy to eliminate the capital gains tax altogether. Money is already taxed when it is earned. It seems kind of ridiculous to penalize people for saving and investing and rewarding people who spend money right away.

It's more ridiculous to penalize people for actually working! Trust babies didn't save. Their parents and grandparents did. But you want to skin people...excuse me "make sure they have skin in the game." Stealing and skinning people. That's the Romney way. You want everyone to have skin in the game? Get rid of the income tax altogether. Only have tariffs and value added taxes. Tax consumption rather than working. Oh...but then you wouldn't have your slaves anymore to push around.

 

[jmdrake]

I have a better idea. It's a simple three step plan.

1. End inflation by taking back the billions printed and given to Big Pharma for trying to kill us and burn it, causing deflation.

2. Fire everyone who works anywhere between Fredrick, Maryland and Fredericksburg, Virginia.

3. Move everyone over 65 into Mitt Romney's numerous mansions.

The austerity will be over in a week.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to acptulsa again.

 

[jmdrake]

I'll never get tired of pointing out the following historical facts:

When unapportioned Federal income tax was first introduced in the US, it was billed as a way for the very wealthy to "give back" to society in ways that would benefit everybody (including the poor). Initially, Federal income taxes were only collected in meaningful amounts from the very wealthy. The idea was supposed to be that this money would be spent on roads, dams, improved education and other public works measures. In other words, "Collect from the rich, and disburse to everybody". That way, the poor get a free leg-up, and since the taxes collected affect the rich very little, it's a win-win. That was supposed to be the theory. From the rich, to the poor, and the middle class could take care of themselves. Of course, things very quickly changed and tax rates even at the lowest tax bracket began rapidly rising.

If you do the math on today's IRS tax brackets and multiply the tax collection per earner by the number of US earners in those tax-brackets, you will find that the biggest pile of cash -- by far -- is collected from the middle class. It's a sheer numbers game... even if Buffett were to pay a gazillion dollars in taxes, there are just so many more middle-class people that their $5k, $10k, $15k tax bills, when multiplied by the number of people paying them, ends up swamping out the tax liability of the rich. You can whine and cry "Eat the Rich!" all you want, but you will never get around the fact that distributed interests always lose against concentrated interests in the calculus of politics and lobbying. See Ben Powell's excellent explanation of this phenomenon, here:



This is why 99.9% of the hare-brained "solutions" that people type into Tw@tter or whatever, are worse than wrong, they're completely pointless. Go ahead, go to Washington and knock yourself out Mr. Jefferson. You're going to get nothing done, not because of some grand Illuminati conspiracy to control Congress, but because your idea is just plain stupid and could never work in any Universe in which the laws of cause-and-effect hold.

The Founding Fathers specifically intended that the Federal government would not collect any unapportioned direct tax -- in plain language, income tax is a direct tax. When the time is right to have a Constitutional Convention, we need to pass an Amendment to overturn the 16th Amendment and clarify that any income tax is, indeed, a direct tax, as the Founding Fathers clearly wrote in the Constitution. In addition, we need to prohibit the Federal government from issuing anything but gold and silver coin as dollar-denominated currency and leave all private banking to the private banks. Mixing State and Banking has created a century-long nightmare of war and social devastation.

I hope that these things will happen in my lifetime, but I have effectively zero expectation that they will happen. The point is that you cannot treat a snake-bite by putting skin salve on it. You need to get to the root cause and inject an anti-venom. If you don't, the snake's venom is just going do ever-increasing damage resulting in agonizing pain and maybe even death.

Nailed it! The entire thing is a sham and a scam. It was a Trojan Horse and continues to be one. The ruling class put loopholes in it from the beginning to make sure they would never have to pay it. "It's unfair to penalize us for saving and investing! Just penalize the poor and middle class for working hard." Naive liberals fall for "tax the rich" which really means "tax the well to do slaves" and the naive conservatives fall for "tax the poor so they have skin in the game" never realizing that the REALLY poor can just stop working altogether.

 

[jmdrake]

Instead of stealing more money from anyone, why don't they first talk about cutting refundable tax credits?

That form of welfare has gotten so prominent today that now when lower income people say the word "taxes" they mean money the government gives them, rather than money they give the government.

Or better yet....just stop taxing income altogether! No income tax. No income tax "credits." Tax consumption instead through tariffs and a VAT.

 

[oyarde]

[MENTION=6186]Danke[/MENTION] always claimed to be able to legally avoid taxes.

So did Wesley Snipes.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

OK, I'm just going to stop you right there -- do you realize this forum is named Ron Paul Forums, after the famous American statesman, Ron Paul, who has explained in excruciating detail the mechanics of the Federal Reserve scam

Typical... a discussion about taxation veers off into a screed about the Fed when the screeder suddenly realizes he can't defend his idea about eliminating income taxes. This change-the-subject techique is SO predictable.