You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Why the GOP Must Nominate Ron Paul
- Thread starter arbprofit2
- Start date
Quote from maxpi:
The "fair tax" is just a redux of the current system. Consumption tax would bring in all the underground economy...
The Fair Tax Act of 2005... is a consumption tax in the form of a national sales tax of 23 percent on new goods and services.
PS It may indeed bring in the underground economy but it would create an enormous underground economy of tax free goods and services instead which the proponents of the proposal choose to overlook. And this unfortunately is the least of the problems the proposal would create.
Quote from dddooo:
The Fair Tax Act of 2005... is a consumption tax in the form of a national sales tax of 23 percent on new goods and services.
PS It may indeed bring in the underground economy but it would create an enormous underground economy of tax free goods and services instead which the proponents of the proposal choose to overlook. And this unfortunately is the least of the problems the proposal would create.
I like the article but I think it is unfair in some of its assessments. It attackes the authors for intentionally manipulating the readers while this article did the same thing. I really wish that someone would do a true critical analysis of the fair tax. The goal isn't to show how bad it is. The goal should be to show where it might be changed for the better. I like the idea of consumption tax, but it obviously can't simply be a universal consumption tax that is automatically built into the price of goods.
Saying that income taxes are better than consumption taxes reveals lack of knowledge in economic matters.
Ron Paul says that a consumption tax system is better than the current one based on income taxes. This is unquestionably true. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of finance and economics knows this.
But Ron Paul also says that imposing consumption taxes is not the best alternative. His ideal scenario is to reduce government spending to eliminate all kind of taxes to the bare minimum.
This, again, is blatantly obvious to anyone who minimally understands how the economy works.
Ron Paul detractors are so desperate they are now stealing Paul's buzzwords and at the same time shamelessly distorting what Ron Paul really says.
Ron Paul says that a consumption tax system is better than the current one based on income taxes. This is unquestionably true. Anyone with a minimum knowledge of finance and economics knows this.
But Ron Paul also says that imposing consumption taxes is not the best alternative. His ideal scenario is to reduce government spending to eliminate all kind of taxes to the bare minimum.
This, again, is blatantly obvious to anyone who minimally understands how the economy works.
Ron Paul detractors are so desperate they are now stealing Paul's buzzwords and at the same time shamelessly distorting what Ron Paul really says.
Actually, www.mises.org is a libertarian website supporting Ron Paul. The Mises Institute's president Lew Rockwell www.lewrockwell.com is Paul's close friend and a true libertarian: anti-government, anti-war, pro-freedom.Quote from dddooo:
The Fair Tax Act of 2005... is a consumption tax in the form of a national sales tax of 23 percent on new goods and services.
PS It may indeed bring in the underground economy but it would create an enormous underground economy of tax free goods and services instead which the proponents of the proposal choose to overlook. And this unfortunately is the least of the problems the proposal would create.
I know, I only used the site and the quote to correct the misconception of the poster who did not realize that the fair tax proposal is based on a consumption tax.Quote from buzzy2:
Actually, www.mises.org is a libertarian website supporting Ron Paul. The Mises Institute's president Lew Rockwell www.lewrockwell.com is Paul's close friend and a true libertarian: anti-government, anti-war, pro-freedom.
My biggest problems with the fair tax proposal are - first of all it's supposed to be revenue-neutral which means the government will still collect the same amount of tax, the burden will simply shift [once again] from the rich to the middle class. Don't make any mistake about it, this is what it's all about.Quote from Cache Landing:
I like the article but I think it is unfair in some of its assessments. It attackes the authors for intentionally manipulating the readers while this article did the same thing. I really wish that someone would do a true critical analysis of the fair tax. The goal isn't to show how bad it is. The goal should be to show where it might be changed for the better. I like the idea of consumption tax, but it obviously can't simply be a universal consumption tax that is automatically built into the price of goods.
Moreover the same people who usually scream at the top of their lungs that income tax stifles hard work, innovation and entrepreneurship suddenly forget that a consumption tax would stifle consumption in a country whose economy is based solely on consumption. The economic effects of this will likely dwarf the great depression. No amount of creativity, hard work and entrepreneurship will help if no one is buying.
It would create a huge underground tax-free economy and as the other poster pointed out would introduce double taxation on those responsible americans who have actually been saving.
PS there is nothing fair about taxing consumption, at least it's not any fairer than taxing income or wealth.
I think there are a lot of problems with a consumption or "fair" tax that the proponents ignore. What about seniors who are living off already taxed savings? Now suddenly they get taxed again but don;t get the benefit of no income tax? The transition issues are daunting. How do we go off the income tax and get on the consumption tax? Do you really think congress will give up the power the income tax, with its myriad complexities, gives them? The worse possible outcome is also the most likely, namely a consumption tax on top of the income tax. Europe already has it in the form of VAT.
As for Ron Paul, I admit to being conflicted. He is basically a cult figure, although an extremely admirable one. He has little in the way of charisma, presence or ability to communicate, important qualities in a president since the vast majority of the country couldn't care less about libertarian issues. But if the republicans must lose to Hillary, I would rather lose standing proudly on principle with Ron Paul, just like we did with Barry Goldwater in 1964, rather than holding our noses and supporting someone like Giuliani or McCain.
As for Ron Paul, I admit to being conflicted. He is basically a cult figure, although an extremely admirable one. He has little in the way of charisma, presence or ability to communicate, important qualities in a president since the vast majority of the country couldn't care less about libertarian issues. But if the republicans must lose to Hillary, I would rather lose standing proudly on principle with Ron Paul, just like we did with Barry Goldwater in 1964, rather than holding our noses and supporting someone like Giuliani or McCain.
Quote from achilles28:
By the way, who are you voting for?
probably whoever wins the Republican nomination. I am of:
the tax/fiscal beliefs of the most Libertarians
(as small as government and low taxes as possible)
the environmental beliefs of most Democrats
(open space, policies that are green as possible without breaking the bank, preservation of biomes and environmentally critical lands/waterways). You need to visit Beijing/China to appreciate how much they have crapped all over their ecological assets (air, water, land, historical heritage)
the social/business beliefs of most Republicans.
(social programs for those that REALLY need it -- not the freeloaders or illegal immigrants, policies that encourage business/wealth expansion)