Question for Ron Paul fans?
I'm a democrat, but I like Ron Paul. Even Bill Maher likes him. On the war, he tells it straight up. Recently, on a late night show he said he supports a flat tax. He went on to half jokingly say "but I want it to be reaaly flat, like zero". How would he plan on erasing Bush's $9.3 trillion defiicit with no tax income? And don't tell me "deficits don't matter". To all tax abolishionists....what about roads, defense spending, etc?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
I haven't heard anyone say anything about not having any taxation. But the main stay of the tax burden should be on the upper class and the corporations. As far as roads and sewers and such, those are state appropriated funds, and county and city as such. The deficit could still be reversed by bringing home the troops from countries where they are not needed for our own protection. We are spending billions on policing countries that don't need to have our help. They just enjoy the benefits of having us there, but don't give anything in return. Stop the foreign aid to countries that don't need it. Just stop giving our money to everyone for free. If countries want to have trade with the United States of America, then let them bid for it. We don't need to beg them to sell us their junk, especially the countries that exploit children. The list goes on....
- LaurieLv 44 years ago
We are tired of millionaire politicians with only 'global governing' on their minds being pushed as the 'Frontrunner'. Ron Paul is at least someone who will follow the Constitution based on our Founding Fathers. And oddly, who is supporting Perry? The man is 100% for amnesty and banning abortions. Romney? His state is nearly broke with their health care mandates. Odd that you never hear about that in the media. All you hear is the Ron Paul is some crazy loon. Maybe he is just a man who ran for office, because he is interested in what is best for AMERICA (and not China, WalMart, Wall Street, and so on).
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Ron Paul is a libertarian, and libertarians have a different idea of what the role of the federal government should be.
We have 700 military bases in over 130 different countries. We spend close to $1 trillion a year on our overseas empire. We devote a large portion of our defense budget to protect Isreal, Great Britain, Japan, and many other nations capable of providing their own defense.
Income tax isn't the only kind of federal tax. If we got rid of the income tax, we'd still have the same income from taxes as we did in the year 2000. There are gasoline taxes, luxury taxes, inheritance taxes, excise taxes, corporate taxes, etc., etc. If we were to bring the troops home, and stop spending all that money overseas, we could cut our budget to where we could still work off the deficit.
Bush and his cronies also double the size of the Dept. of Education. Reagan used to talk about getting rid of the DoE. It is a big beauracracy that has done nothing to help the education of our children. If anything it's only made our education system worse. Ron Paul wants to get rid of the DoE. The federal government should not be involved in education, that's the state's job.
If you look at our original Constitution, it says nothing about empire-building, nation-building or policing the world. This is where the majority of our budget goes. Stop all that nonsense and get rid of inefficient depts like the DoE, and you could reduce spending back to the level it was in 2000... or even less... and then you could get rid of the income tax... and the Federal Reserve. The Fed is another topic altogether, so I won't get into that.
Roads are paid for by gasoline taxes. Education is paid for by property taxes.
The main point is... our income tax does nothing but go to pay off the interest on our massive deficit. If you reduce our spending to what is really required for DEFENSE of our great nation, you could get rid of the deficit and get rid of the income tax.
Go Ron Paul!
BTW... Ron Paul is NOT a racist. He had his name on some newsletters published way back in the 1970's that had some racists articles in them. He didn't know what all was being written in the articles. He's since condemned the racist remarks and said that he pays a lot more attention to what he puts his name on these days.
Also, he's for ending the drug war. He thinks that's the most racist policy we have today, and I tend to agree with him. He's for INDIVIDUAL rights, the exact opposite of "collectivism", which is what racism is.
- End The Fed!!!Lv 61 decade ago
"HE" wouldn't erase the deficit. The American people engaging in free market capitalism will generate enough revenue to cover the debts. Ron Paul will simply get government out of the damn way and allow this country to PROSPER like it did for the first 150 years. What program gets better when our government gets their hands in it? Welfare? Immigration? Social Security/Retirement? Health system? .... They all get worse. The idea is the government should be local, leaving the people to run the country....you know the way the US was DESIGNED to operate.
As far as roads...there's a usage fee in place. Our state's aren't even allowed access to the tax money unless they abide by govt. regulations like DUI checkpoints, drinking age of 21; things like that. BTW...if you think the government is going to take care of our roads...... HAHA...LMAO.... that's funny. You think the feds are the ones that keep our roads maintained? If anything they slow down process and retard the abilities of each state to handle their own.
Defense spending and War spending are 2 different things....until you realize that, it's not worth addressing that part of the question.
Do you realize how many taxes are out there? If we eliminated the income tax, like Ron Paul wants, the revenue levels would be the same as the end of the Clinton era. I think we can manage. Besides, this economic stimulus plan is "such a great idea" and is designed to get the people to spend a one time $600 check to "boost our economy."
Let me ask you this, if there is no income tax and people were taking home an extra 20% of their pay, wouldn't THAT leave more money to spend to "boost the economy"????Source(s): ADD: TEH CRITTER: Are you so easily swayed by what's known as "scare tactics"? It's a fallacy to say that Ron Paul is a racist, or made racist remarks. He is the closest thing to an honest politician we'll see. Why? Because he adheres to the Constitution 100%. It's sad to see people be bought out by fallacies. Do your homework.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- martinx07Lv 61 decade ago
DAR, beesting, Billy and Carry S, Tyler, and Carpe Diem have the best answers here.
Simply, having low taxes as possible, is too cut spending by bringing our troops home, eliminate unnecessary government agenices such as Dept. of Education, Dept. of Homeland Security, FEMA, repeal Nafta, Cafta, Nato, UN, and these unnecessary big spending organizations. These are ALL unConstitutional. These are getting us bankrupt, and if we abandoned these things, we'll be able to lower our deficit and debt, of $9trillion. He is right, and his fiscal message is very correct for us to able to have low taxes. Btw, abolishing the Fed and IRS will be an extreme change, yet, a good change in order for us to spend on how we want to live, and how we should never get our money taken away like those unconstitutional thieves. Good question.
- DARLv 71 decade ago
You really want to know?
We need a strong military for DEFENSE and Ron Paul would maintain that.
Did you know that without the income tax the US government from other sources of revenue would have the same level of income it had in the year 2000? Cutting out the empire except where literally needed for national defense would go a long way towards making that up and cutting out nonenumerated (Constitutional) powers of the federal government would cut more than enough to both cut out the income tax and secure existing commitments for Social Security allowing the kids to put their money into a new program that will actually be there for them.
The 'catch' if you want to call it that, is that if, say the states need money that they got from the fed govt for schools, they would need to raise the income in the states. Since the taxes would be returned to the people, that could happen.
Federalism under the Constitution is based on the idea that the individual American can most easily impact policy and hold government accountable at the most local level. No matter what, this plan would eliminate the 'transfer' and 'departmental' costs, as well as duplicative testing costs as under the no child left behind act. States would adopt their own policies. The Department of Education (federal) wasn't put into place until well into the 70s, and I don't know about where you are, but where I am schools have gotten considerably worse since then and a lot of the money spent on the act is procedural.
Deficits matter. We need to get rid of them. NO ONE is more serious about this than Ron Paul. That is why we trust him to actually take the heat to fight for it.
On the economy more specifically, there is this (ignore the melodramatic music, the facts are real.)
and tehgretter Ron Paul does not have a racist past. Some volunteer years ago wrote some racist material in a volunteer run newsletter of his while he was out of Congress, and he takes moral responsibility but you will not find one whisper anywhere of him being racist himself. In fact an NAACP district chief who happens to have been a close friend of his for more than 20 years calls Ron Paul the least racist person he knows.
Look into it. Don't let someone trying to marginalize him make you assume that where there is smoke there is fire. He has some very unpopular ideas with some people.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
He only wanted to abolish income tax, not tax and tariffs in general. Just to clarify, income tax is the tax that are extracted from your salary, revenues earned by corporations, etc. (I'm honestly unsure whether capital gains and investment gains would be under that, I would assume so.)
Anyhow, government has plenty other taxes from which they can make a profit. For example, sales tax, import/export tax, toll tax, etc. Moreover, revenue is not generated merely from taxes. You pay the government when you or as a business register for government licenses.
Ron Paul actually displayed some numbers that the expense used in the war in Iraq per year since 2001 is already much higher than the revenue generated by the IRS. That is to say even if we don't have the IRS and we hadn't gone to war, our budget would be unaffected.
- beestingLv 61 decade ago
Many posters have already given Ron Paul's plans, but here's a scenario that Ron Paul
"might" consider if he became President.
The U.S. Treasury says it is safe guarding about 8,130 metric tonnes of American Gold, from back in the 50's.
32,150 ounces in a tonne equals 261,379,500 million ounces of Gold in storage.
Gold is also measured in grams.
31.1034 grams in an ounce.
31.1034 times 261,379,500 equals 8,129,791,140.3 Billion grams.
Now there are currently so many unbacked American dollars on the books that nobody seems to know exactly how many American dollars are in existence.....And the whole financial system is currently flushing itself out.
A Ron Paul Presidency could simply introduce a "New" American dollar that was worth 1/20th of a gram of Gold, & people that would prefer using them instead of Federal Reserve Notes in commerce would be welcome to do so.
I personally would rather use money that had a real value than paper money with no backing.
The original American dollars were 1/20th of an ounce of Gold and stayed that way for over 130 years with little or "NO" rise in prices.
Ron Paul wants to encourage competing currencies.
Just a thought.
- EdwardLv 41 decade ago
He wants to cut spending....and spend like the governments of the 1800s...who had a budget in the millions, not billions
Pretty much everything you said....that spending should be done by the states, not the federal government
By the way, you'll probably like the newest 3D Ron Paul commercial
I am doing my part to spread the message around
- Joe SLv 61 decade ago
I suppose that you could say that I am a Ron Paul fan though I no longer support him (or any candidate) for president. As for erasing the deficit, there really are only two solutions. When you don't have enough income to cover your expenses, you either increase your income or decrease your expenses.
I don't think that Ron Paul or any of his more knowledgeable supporters would tell you that deficits don't matter. His intention is to cut expenses. If he managed to cut them enough, he could also afford to cut government income. He makes the claim that we could still spend at the year 2000 levels without an income tax. I've never seen that claim substantiated, but his point is that there are other revenues (tariffs, use fees, etc.). Basic government functions could still be carried on with minimal income.
Your last question to tax abolitionists applies to me. Here, I depart from Ron Paul. He is not a tax abolitionist even though his call for the elimination of the income tax makes it seem so (he still favors government revenues of other sorts that are in fact taxes). If I had the power to influence everyone to my opinion, there would be no taxes of any kind. I'll pick on the two things that you call out: roads and defense spending.
Roads could be privately owned. The most direct way of funding them would obviously be tolls. However, a toll on every road would clearly be burdensome and expensive to maintain. Alternatively, companies that rely upon major roads to transport their goods would have every incentive to either own them or to pay another entrepreneur to maintain them. They could be incentivized to allow the general public to use them - both in the interest of getting people to their stores and also for advertising rights (just like they currently own stadiums for no other reason but to have them named after their companies). Residential roads could be funded directly by residents through various arrangements (home owners associations, leases to a company that would own the roads and so forth).
Defense is an area in which there would likely be substantially less spending. In reality, the majority of "defense" spending is actually for offensive purposes. Again, major entrepreneurs (think of the 30 companies on the DOW) have every incentive to assure peace and stability. They could fund necessary defense spending out of their own revenues. In addition, insurance companies would generally have a greater role in a tax free society. In the interests of avoiding losses (rather than reimbursing them), they could fund defense along with other protective measures (think fire protection) and pass along the expense in their premiums.
There are many more issues that could be discussed in a tax free society. I have offered potential solutions, but I realize that the real world is not simple (nor is it made simple by current arrangments). The point that I would like you to realize is that people interested in bettering their personal circumstances find ways to cooperate to come up with solutions. The question is whether we want to cooperate or to give agencies the authority to force solutions upon us (with violent consequences if we resist). I think that voluntary cooperation is much more reliable than coercive government solutions have been.
When solutions are needed, we can cooperate to solve them. To protest coercive taxation is not to ignore the activities that it funds.