Last edited:
Ron Paul is wrong on one major thing...tax rates for the top bracket must be increased.
- Thread starter alongee
- Start date
CaptainAmerica
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,468
what a stupid idea.Taxes are high...we need them nearly abolished at the federal level.
CaptainAmerica
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,468
you can leave our money alone and leave .
Last edited:
Liberty74
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
You are a brainwashed, indoctrinated idiot. You confuse tax rates with tax revenue. They don't go hand in hand. Your classwarfarism is disgusting too.
European countries have far higher tax rates than the U.S. Are they running balanced budgets or surpluses? No!!! They are experiencing massive debt ratios to GDP compared to us. That's why they are on the verge of collapsing. Are higher taxes states like NY, CA, IL etc running surpluses. No!!! They all have huge, massive deficits. People are also leaving those states because of the high tax burden.
It's does NOT cost $3.5 trillion a year in federal spending to build roads. Never has and never will. Combined govt spending was 10% of GDP in 1910. Today it is 45% or about $6 trillion. With all that spending you would think at least one person on the stupid Left would be happy. But the thieves never are.
And it doesn't matter what the tax rates are, the fed govt has always collected about 15-17% of GDP. And just because tax rates were higher back in the day does NOT mean spending as per GDP was higher because spending was much smaller. Again, they don't go hand in hand. Military spending per GDP has decreased two fold over the last 50 years while discrentionary spending like Medicare and SS has gone up three fold.
Again, the OP is an brainwashed idiot. Oh and the federal govt only spends about $70 billion on roads. So according to you we don't need 66% tax rates. That could be accomished with a 1% rate.
European countries have far higher tax rates than the U.S. Are they running balanced budgets or surpluses? No!!! They are experiencing massive debt ratios to GDP compared to us. That's why they are on the verge of collapsing. Are higher taxes states like NY, CA, IL etc running surpluses. No!!! They all have huge, massive deficits. People are also leaving those states because of the high tax burden.
It's does NOT cost $3.5 trillion a year in federal spending to build roads. Never has and never will. Combined govt spending was 10% of GDP in 1910. Today it is 45% or about $6 trillion. With all that spending you would think at least one person on the stupid Left would be happy. But the thieves never are.
And it doesn't matter what the tax rates are, the fed govt has always collected about 15-17% of GDP. And just because tax rates were higher back in the day does NOT mean spending as per GDP was higher because spending was much smaller. Again, they don't go hand in hand. Military spending per GDP has decreased two fold over the last 50 years while discrentionary spending like Medicare and SS has gone up three fold.
Again, the OP is an brainwashed idiot. Oh and the federal govt only spends about $70 billion on roads. So according to you we don't need 66% tax rates. That could be accomished with a 1% rate.
Last edited:
nobody's_hero
Member
- Joined
- Jan 23, 2008
- Messages
- 10,909
alongee said:
Yep, to build on what bluesc said:
The top bracket people will leave the country, and take their wealth with them. Then what happens? Eventually each next-highest tier in the tax bracket 'moves up' (but not really, since they aren't any better off) as the wealthiest leave the country. So again, then what happens? Eventually alongee becomes the highest earner, and it doesn't necessarily mean he/she is actually any wealthier, he/she is just the wealthiest of the remaining poor. And everyone poorer than him/her is saying, "We need to raise taxes on alongee, because she has the most money." F'ing karma, right?
That's why taxing the richest people [more] doesn't work in the long run. Eventually, you become the "richest." Remember that the income tax was supposed to only apply to the top 2%. Now how many people pay income taxes?
But if you only think that Ron Paul is wrong about one thing, then it shouldn't take you too long to come around. Welcome to the forums, just remember to keep your mind open.
Last edited:
Liberty74
Member
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2011
- Messages
- 2,949
How about for every dollar of tax increases you want, we stop bombing brown people and cut back here?
While its true the U.S. spends more dollars than every other country on defense and military, but when you compare those spending numbers to each countries GDP, we technically don't spend all the much more. There are 12 countries, most in Africa, that spend far more more as a percentage of their GDP on the military than us. That is how you compare apples to apples. The chart above is misleading. We spend about 6% give or take on the militay per GDP yet countries like China and many others spend around 4%. There is a world wide map of this online for those that want to do a search. I think wiki has it.
If you include wars and HSD we are probably spending a little more which we could cut back on but it's not the root cause of our deficits, it is discrentionary spending which has gone up 3 fold in the last 50 years while military spending has gone down 2 fold. During WWII fed spending on military was about 50% of the budget. Today it's about 22%.
Last edited:
ProIndividual
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,775
Yeah that's what we need...more extortion of our successful neighbors. LOL.
How about we quit advocating extortion of our neighbors and start advocating less spending and less extortion of everyone.
There is a "fair" tax rate..it's 0%.
How about we quit advocating extortion of our neighbors and start advocating less spending and less extortion of everyone.
There is a "fair" tax rate..it's 0%.
flynn
Member
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2012
- Messages
- 374
Those citizens also have property rights. If you don't like how they DON'T like being told how to use their property, you can leave too.
Military spending as a percentage of GDP is meaningless. If the US GDP tripled this year, should we triple defense spending, just to keep it proportional?
teacherone
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2008
- Messages
- 4,128
100% tax FTW.
Just imagine what our politicians could if they just had enough money!
Just imagine what our politicians could if they just had enough money!
I agree with Paul whole-heartedly that income-based taxes should be elimated (This includes payroll taxes, federal income taxes, taxes on businesses, and taxes on capital gains).
I disagree with Paul that the first step in his economic plan is to decrease taxes on capital gains to zero. Taxes can't go away overnight because it will take a few years to balance the budget, so I think the benefit of lower taxes should be spread out more evenly across lower payroll taxes, federal income taxes, business taxes, and capital gains taxes. Here is what I base my logic on:
1. FACT: Everyone has a different tax bill and sources of taxes, so everyone is paying a different tax rate.
2. FACT: Payroll taxes are regressive because they are only taxes on the first $100K (roughly) of earned income. It's not insignificant either since the employee pays 7.65% and the employer pays another 7.65%. That's an automatic 15% tax (Ok, 13% for these past two years) on the lower and middle class starting at the first dollar of income that is practically impossible to find loopholes around. And I don't buy into the socialist argument that this prois an "investment" and provides benefits. This can be taken away at a moment's notice, and deflation of the dollar is making that retirement income worth less and less. I'd gladly give up any benefits over 10 years of paying into the social security system if I could just take all future payroll taxes (mine and my employers)and buy PM's that will actually be worth something.
3. FACT: If you define income taxes as including payroll and capital gains (which myself, and many others do), there are many super rich who are paying a lower overall % of their income as taxes. Warren Buffett said as much, and he's right. He's paying 15% in taxes (mostly capital gains) while his secretary is likely paying 30% (because she makes around $100K, has to pay payroll taxes and federal taxes)
4. FACT: The wealth or our nation (as measured in USD) is increasingly being concentrated in the top 1% of the country. The data on wealth distribution is easy to find on the internet. Sure, this means the rich pay more of the overall tax bill, but a guy who starts out with $1M has a much easier time making another $1M than someone who starts out with $100K and is trying to make another $100K. I believe this is mostly because of the tax imbalance.
I know many of you will disagree on my points. Just based on wealth distribution alone, I don't see any evidence the "trickle down effect" as working. I don't think we should raise taxes on the rich, but I disagree that the path forward to getting rid of taxes involves decreases taxes on the rich before the poor.
I disagree with Paul that the first step in his economic plan is to decrease taxes on capital gains to zero. Taxes can't go away overnight because it will take a few years to balance the budget, so I think the benefit of lower taxes should be spread out more evenly across lower payroll taxes, federal income taxes, business taxes, and capital gains taxes. Here is what I base my logic on:
1. FACT: Everyone has a different tax bill and sources of taxes, so everyone is paying a different tax rate.
2. FACT: Payroll taxes are regressive because they are only taxes on the first $100K (roughly) of earned income. It's not insignificant either since the employee pays 7.65% and the employer pays another 7.65%. That's an automatic 15% tax (Ok, 13% for these past two years) on the lower and middle class starting at the first dollar of income that is practically impossible to find loopholes around. And I don't buy into the socialist argument that this prois an "investment" and provides benefits. This can be taken away at a moment's notice, and deflation of the dollar is making that retirement income worth less and less. I'd gladly give up any benefits over 10 years of paying into the social security system if I could just take all future payroll taxes (mine and my employers)and buy PM's that will actually be worth something.
3. FACT: If you define income taxes as including payroll and capital gains (which myself, and many others do), there are many super rich who are paying a lower overall % of their income as taxes. Warren Buffett said as much, and he's right. He's paying 15% in taxes (mostly capital gains) while his secretary is likely paying 30% (because she makes around $100K, has to pay payroll taxes and federal taxes)
4. FACT: The wealth or our nation (as measured in USD) is increasingly being concentrated in the top 1% of the country. The data on wealth distribution is easy to find on the internet. Sure, this means the rich pay more of the overall tax bill, but a guy who starts out with $1M has a much easier time making another $1M than someone who starts out with $100K and is trying to make another $100K. I believe this is mostly because of the tax imbalance.
I know many of you will disagree on my points. Just based on wealth distribution alone, I don't see any evidence the "trickle down effect" as working. I don't think we should raise taxes on the rich, but I disagree that the path forward to getting rid of taxes involves decreases taxes on the rich before the poor.
Or a gasoline tax. At least a gasoline tax mostly targets the actual users of roads.
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,925
LOL! As if lack of funds ever stopped them from doing everything they wanted!
Why worry about taxation now, when you can just borrow the money from the purported taxation of your great-great-grandchildren?
We all know taxation is a secondary issue. Spending is number one. I have no real interest in tackling the methods of taxation until we have tackled the problem of spending.
Steven Douglas
Member
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2011
- Messages
- 1,956
Dead on. Talk about the ULTIMATE taxation without representation. Of generations. It's conscription - of future generations who cannot and do not vote - into slavery. Sticking the nameless and faceless who have yet to exist with debts they never had the option to incur themselves, the tiniest portion of which equates to any advantages at all to them. Most of those advantages and benefits are transient, gone by the time they begin paying them off.
It's not even that they'll be enslaved from being forced to pay debts that aren't theirs, or else follow suit and do likewise to the same nasty to their progeny. It's that the debt is impossible to pay in the first place, and one VERY unfortunate generation will be left to suffer when the entire system implodes.
cheapseats
Banned
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2008
- Messages
- 7,502
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,925
Yep. You get it.
The spending is their method of consripting the next couple of generations. How sad is it that our generation (and the ones before us) is so quick to sell our posterity into slavery just so we can go to war with other nations and so we can live off the government's teat.
Another thread I created on the subject: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?372253-Please-Help-Free-My-2-yr-Old-Son-From-Slavery!
No Free Beer
Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2011
- Messages
- 3,317
HAHAHA
where did the OP go?
where did the OP go?
sailingaway
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2010
- Messages
- 72,103
this
ILUVRP
Member
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1,545
exc post--tough problem
in the 50's with 91% top tax it was 91% of earnings over $300,000 ( which would be like > $5 million today ) .
no one likes any kind of tax , but the goverment does need revenue to operate.
my ideas :
1) flat tax , everyone drawing a paycheck gets to deduct $25,000 , then pay 20% on anything over 25k , no deductions for anything. no one can bitch about it as everyone gets the 25k deduction.
2) all companies will pay 20% on the profits they tell the stock holders they made , to many companies tell their stockholders they made ( lets say ) $500 million , but when it comes time to pay taxes they get back hundards of millions of dollars. also no-- handouts--subs to any business.
3) any military actions that cost over $100 million will have a tax increase to fund it.all wars costs
will be on the books . make all defence contracts fixed fee , no more cost plus.
4) as far as goverment spending goes , i do not believe what anyone in washington says about cutting goverment spending , i will believe them when they refuse their pay raises , their staffs pay raises , their staffs bonuses ,cut their travel and junkets, refuse their goverment insurance , pay for all the bennies they get , reduce office staff. then i may believe them.
5) like dr paul says , close at least 90% of all overseas mil bases , get everyone out of the middle east . close energy--com --edu -- pat act -homeland secur--
6) shut down the fed res
in the 50's with 91% top tax it was 91% of earnings over $300,000 ( which would be like > $5 million today ) .
no one likes any kind of tax , but the goverment does need revenue to operate.
my ideas :
1) flat tax , everyone drawing a paycheck gets to deduct $25,000 , then pay 20% on anything over 25k , no deductions for anything. no one can bitch about it as everyone gets the 25k deduction.
2) all companies will pay 20% on the profits they tell the stock holders they made , to many companies tell their stockholders they made ( lets say ) $500 million , but when it comes time to pay taxes they get back hundards of millions of dollars. also no-- handouts--subs to any business.
3) any military actions that cost over $100 million will have a tax increase to fund it.all wars costs
will be on the books . make all defence contracts fixed fee , no more cost plus.
4) as far as goverment spending goes , i do not believe what anyone in washington says about cutting goverment spending , i will believe them when they refuse their pay raises , their staffs pay raises , their staffs bonuses ,cut their travel and junkets, refuse their goverment insurance , pay for all the bennies they get , reduce office staff. then i may believe them.
5) like dr paul says , close at least 90% of all overseas mil bases , get everyone out of the middle east . close energy--com --edu -- pat act -homeland secur--
6) shut down the fed res
Last edited:
Similar threads
