Ron Paul: Pay flat 10% income tax and opt out of the system entirely

[devil21]

Im sure video will surface soon enough but during his CPAC speech Ron offered a new proposal to young people. This will be a central campaign theme Im sure.

Pay a flat 10% federal tax and then opt out of the system completely. No SS, no medicare, no welfare, etc. You don't pay into it and you don't have any recourse to collect from it later either.

Thoughts?

 

[JamesButabi]

I kind of wish he didn't mention it. This is all the MSM will focus on. Look how kooky his plan is! He wasn't laying this out as a plan. He was saying this to prove a point.

 

[brandon]

Sounds great to me. And since it's only an option, I couldn't see anyone being against it. It's not like you would be forced into it.

Although he would have to lay out the "etc." in some detail.

 

[BrendenR]

Of course people will be against it.

The young people of today are paying the social security of the older generations with taxes on their wages today. If the young can opt out of that, there no way to pay for SS benefits.

I'd imagine that is the argument opponents will use.

*edit* Obviously, there are solutions to this problem, but you'd need to present those in tadem with a proposal like this.

 

[TonySutton]

It will be interesting to hear the details if this in fact something he plans to run on.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Of course people will be against it.

The young people of today are paying the social security of the older generations with taxes on their wages today. If the young can opt out of that, there no way to pay for SS benefits.

I'd imagine that is the argument opponents will use.

*edit* Obviously, there are solutions to this problem, but you'd need to present those in tadem with a proposal like this.

You see how government pits groups of people against each other?^^^

 

[mport1]

Man, that would be a huge improvement.

 

[Fredom101]

I would be okay with going with a 10% tax as long as it is a temporary measure, on our way to 0% taxation. All taxation is extortion and goes against any system of morality.

 

[dbill27]

Im not sure what to make of this plan or the him mentioning this plan. There was clearly some strategy involved in it. He waited till the very end so it was sure to stick, seems like he's trying to maybe be a little more mainstream than just his usual get rid of everything and replace it with nothing. I think this points towards 2012 for sure, would have liked to see him expand on it a little more.

 

[ronaldo23]

I would be okay with going with a 10% tax as long as it is a temporary measure, on our way to 0% taxation. All taxation is extortion and goes against any system of morality.

I would be okay going the rest of my life with a 10% tax. You know how much money you'd save compared to now?

 

[juvanya]

Better solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

 

[low preference guy]

Better solution: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism

i don't think the two are mutually exclusive.

some can chose paying 10%, others can choose agorism.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

I'm against all taxes but if RP ran on this as part of his platform in 2012 I think it might help him get more mainstream attention. It would definitely be a HUGE improvement.

I assume this would get you out of federal but not state income tax?

 

[trey4sports]

It struck me as odd that he mentioned that, and it seems to me this is going to be his 2012 theme. Which will probably be molded a bit, but it at least lets me know that he will actually campaign with a PLAN and not just philosophy.

 

[FATToney]

I wouldn't say all taxation is theft. Most of it is, but some of it is not. IE, patent taxes, copyright taxes, taxes for use of individual government services, etc.

 

[sailingaway]

I kind of wish he didn't mention it. This is all the MSM will focus on. Look how kooky his plan is! He wasn't laying this out as a plan. He was saying this to prove a point.

Me too. In order to make it work without just abruptly ending social security, you HAVE to cut foreign spending, and he didn't even mention how that would be funded for those who already paid in all their lives and are counting on it. He has gone over that before, but didn't here. I sure hope he makes that clear because he CAN'T gain momentum without those voters.

Worse, it is bad timing because they aren't even finding the $100 billion they said they'd cut, and to suggest they'd have to find a whole lot more or people lose social security they paid for really needs to be handled carefully. I honestly think he should have downplayed social security and have gone with Rand's new bill 'fix' to take the pressure off that issue, and describe this plan as a plan for when we get our financial house in order. Not trumpet it as the piece de resistance (sp?). Because some of the older folks in the middle positively looked terrified.

 

[RP4Pres2008]

Mind you, I am Canadian, but my god would I jump at the opportunity for something like this! Yes 0% taxation is what I argue for, but to be able to opt out of the system and only pay 10% is a deal I would gladly take.

 

[Tim724]

He has been talking about letting young people opt of the welfare system forever. It is a great idea and integral to what he stands for. Regarding old people who are reliant on the system, he always talks about a transition that takes care of the dependent and ending the wars to pay for that. Also explaining that if we continue going on as we are, there will be a melt down and no transition.

 

[KramerDSP]

Joe Klein writes about and bashes extensively on this 10% proposal of Paul's in Time, entitled "The Other Red Meat".

Ron Paul's Offer: Paul is, as we know, a fresh voice and an independent thinker. (His son, Rand, gave a substantive exposition of the libertarian dogma the day before.) He opened his speech with an attack on the Patriot Act. He blast the war in Afghanistan. His supporters--a very sizeable chunk of the crowd--cheered these positions, to the dismay of more traditional conservatives in the throng. But make no mistake, Paul's libertarianism is as extreme a form of conservatism as there can be. And in the conclusion of his speech, he proposed the following offer to his youthful supporters, which I believe cuts right to the heart of the difference between liberals and conservatives: "Would you consider a deal where you agree to opt out of the system entirely? You would pay a flat 10% tax for the rest of your lives, but in return you would agree to not ask the government for anything?"

This, of course, seemed a great deal to his young, educated supporters. It would have been a great deal for, say, me. I've had a charmed life, a successful career. I've been healthy, saved my money for retirement. I"ve never been fired or laid off. The Republicans believe that most people are like me. We can do this ourselves. And, who knows, they may be right.

But there were an awful lot of people--even Ivy League graduates like me--for whom the deal would be a nightmare. Say you're an entrepreneur--a hero of the Republican party--and your business collapses, or your spouse has a wasting, chronic disease that the insurance companies in Ron Paul's radical free enterprise system refuse to cover: how do you survive? Or, for less lucky people than Ivy leaguers: what happens if you work hard your whole life and your job gets sent to China? Or your company can't pay the pension you were counting on? Or you work in a non-union job without a pension or health care plan? What happens if free market predators--people Ron Paul would never regulate--create a fraudulent market in mortgages which crashes and destroys the value of your home, which you were hoping to use to pay for your retirement?

Check the link for the entire article, if you wish.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think this is absolutely stupid. This 10% deal has about as much chance of happening if he wins as does eliminating all taxation, regulations, privileges, and monopolies, welfare, standing army, etc. so why would you compromise your position for something that will never happen?