Dr Paul Tax Policy

[Braddogg]

Do you really care or are you just trying to harass the Dr Paul supporters?

What do you mean by harass?  That sounds like an incredibly overblown word for what I'm doing.  If someone showed me that this wasn't an issue, but I continued to bring it up, then that would be harassment.  I think this is just being persistent in following the issue.  A lot of responses were issued to this thread, but none answered the question I asked.  As a liberty-minded guy, people are always telling me to vote for Ron Paul, and I've got questions about him.  I think voting in general is useless, so I'd like to know whether voting for him is really going to work, if I'm going to set aside my objections in general to voting.

[Dreepa]

well my guess is that Dr Paul would slowly phase things out and have the 'savings' each year go to pay off the debt.  Of course that is my guess I have no idea exactly what he would do...

[jsorens]

well my guess is that Dr Paul would slowly phase things out and have the 'savings' each year go to pay off the debt.  Of course that is my guess I have no idea exactly what he would do...

"

Reform is a long-term process.

[Braddogg]

well my guess is that Dr Paul would slowly phase things out and have the 'savings' each year go to pay off the debt.  Of course that is my guess I have no idea exactly what he would do...

So maybe he'd collect taxes at the present rates for a few years but cut a bunch of programs immediately, use the extra cash to pay down the debt, then start cutting taxes?  Because it can't work the other way, because, as I mentioned, the US has to pay a lot of money in servicing the debt, more money than currently collected by tariffs and excise taxes. 

[Aside: Of course, my guess is that eliminating things like welfare and Dept of Ed will have horrific, negative implications for the economy in the short-term (welfare recipients will riot, and teachers will strike, meaning that families using public ed as babysitting will not be able to go to work or will have to leave their children unattended), so tax receipts will drop dramatically, not to mention a general increase in human misery in the US.  The only way to avoid that would be to do a verrrrrry slow phase-out, certainly over a longer-term period than a 4-year (or even 8-year) Paul presidency.  So people will either say, "Remember when we elected that libertarian and all hell broke loose?  Let's not ever do that again."  Or, "Remember when we elected that libertarian and he didn't keep any of his promises?  Let's not ever do that again."  I don't think that's a terribly unreasonable scenario, but I certainly could be wrong; it's a prediction, so no one knows for sure, but I think it's a safe prediction based on history.]

[Dreepa]

maybe he will sit in the oval office and think about it for 8 years.

[Braddogg]

maybe he will sit in the oval office and think about it for 8 years.

An hour's thought on that might be nice from Dr Paul -- or his supporters . . . .  But who cares if Dr Paul causes mass riots and destroys the libertarian movement -- at least he's doing SOMETHING, right?

[Dreepa]

Has he caused mass riots?
Has he destroyed the movement?  Far from it... he is promoting liberty.

You were Jesus freak not too far back right?  And now you don't believe in God...
Why can't you see that some people can also change.

Maybe there are some GOPers who can be converted to libertarians?
Maybe there are some Libertarians who can be converted to anarchists?

Things are a process.

I am sure he has give more than an hour's thought.  I personally don't worry about it right now.  I can think about it next November.

[Braddogg]

Has he caused mass riots?
Has he destroyed the movement?  Far from it... he is promoting liberty.

I was making a prediction for if he was to take office and actually try and enact the things he's promising.  The campaign may be educational and may prompt people to look into libertarianism, but his victory would be a disaster.

[Dreepa]

but his victory would be a disaster.

Yeah we really need another neocon or a socialist.

[Braddogg]

but his victory would be a disaster.

Yeah we really need another neocon or a socialist.

I find responses like that pretty irritating, because they don't actually answer my question or address my point.

[Dreepa]

oh because you predicted it will be a disaster it must be a disaster.

[Braddogg]

It was a prediction, advertised as such, and I sought comment on the prediction.

[Braddogg]

I really don't think what I'm saying warrants this much hostility, Dreepa.  What do you think?

[KBCraig]

It was a prediction, advertised as such, and I sought comment on the prediction.

And then you took offense at the comment.

I really don't think what I'm saying warrants this much hostility, Dreepa.  What do you think?

I'm not Dreepa, but I think Ron Paul doesn't deserve the kind of hostility you're displaying.

Your avatar seems at odds with the opinions you've expressed lately.

[dalebert]

He's got valid questions. I'll tell you what I've heard Dr. Paul say because he's been asked this question and he answered it.

He would end the Iraq war for one thing. That's hundreds of billions. He also said that we spend a trillion a year just maintaining overseas bases in other countries. The IRS takes hundreds of billions just to run (somewhere around $300-400 billion I believe). Apparently just closing the IRS and closing military bases in other countries would remove all the spending that the IRS takes in currently which would make it unnecessary. I don't think much of that is actually the salaries of service men and women. I think it's more about maintaining the actual real estate and contracts overseas. They could be put to work at home, where it's cheaper to keep them up and where they could actually be defending the country against aggressors. Most of them are on 4 year contracts and we could just lower recruiting drives and phase some of them out.

Now apparently there is a misconception that most of the federal money comes from income taxes. There are lots of other Federal taxes. What I just described is a big chunk o change, but it's still only a portion of what the Federal government takes in. I don't completely understand the federal budget. It's a bit overwhelming, but Dr. Paul seems to understand it. He's been on the frontlines now for many years in Congress.

People who are deeply invested in defense companies will lose money but I won't cry for them. It's karma. I pulled all my money out of such businesses primarily for moral reasons. There will be some pain, no doubt, from the readjusting necessary, but it's a lot less pain than if we continue on this course. And to call the increase in personal income around the country a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down-- that's an understatement! There will soon be a massive sucking sound created by new jobs desperately needing to be filled in the massively expanded private economy. We may have to loosen our imigration requirements in order to meet demand. Any recently dismissed federal employees remaining unemployed at that point need to be strapped into an industrial wedgy-master 3000 machine so we can give them something to really whine about!

Hmm... New business idea- the wedgy-master 3000.