Ron Paul wants to repeal income tax. If there was no income tax in the US - instantly almost all of the best business talent and highly skilled people from all over the world would be looking to move to the U.S. to start a business or to offer their highly sort after skills. Each State would need to be competitive by keeping their taxes low. Places like Nevada would continue to have no income tax and those states would attract the top talent. That's what has been happening in Dubai over the last 10 years. They have zero income tax and they've attracted top business talent and highly skilled people. They've had an economic growth rate of 10% per year. People say, 'yeah but what about the oil?... its easy to make money with all that oil'. Oil flows have been in steady decline every year in Dubai as they've moved well past their peak reserves long ago yet economic growth has continued at China levels.
The problem is that without a viable solution such as the fairtax (which RP does not support), repealing the income tax is useless. Furthermore, try getting congress to go for that.
It's very viable, you'd get rid of crap we do not need, and the states could simply take the ball into their own court more than they do now.. Getting people to understand that though however is the problem.
Let me say this. If the will of the people is to do something, like repeal the 16th, then you better believe politicians will go for it, or they will fall on the sword and lose re-election.
I don't believe the 16th amendment will ever be repealed. Congress will not give up their cash cow. As good as it sounds, I don't believe this holds much water either. The 'will of the people' in '06 was to get out of Iraq and we see how well that is going. Unfortunately, the only 'will' that matters is that of those that make the rules the rest of us have to play by.
there isn't a department of education in Australia and somehow this man gets it.. HOW CAN THAT BE?!!!!!
It will never happen. If you look at the history of the United States, there was no tax support for the Federal Government during the Articles Of Confederation. This was not possible and the country was failing, that is why the Constitution was created giving more power and tax revenue authority to the Federal Government. Ron Paul is blowing smoke up people's butt knowing there is no chance of such a thing to happen. Even if it was possible, the state and local taxes would go through the roof like happened when Bush gave his great tax relief refunds.
Yes but it would bring power back to the states, plus when you send money to the feds it trickles into nothingness by the time it gets back to the states. It would take less on the state level IMHO to get things done than letting the feds take the money, then trickle it back down. I'm glad you see that, tax cuts, states had to raise taxes. So many I see rip on the governors atm, like in Wisconsin without realising they had to make up the funds somehow.
State power would be great, but explain how you would support a central government. For example, the military, Congress, federal programs.etc... This can not be handled by the states. This was the problems faced in the first years after the American Revolution. If the changes did not take place, there would not have been a country. The quote "United We Stand Divided We Fall" comes to mind.
I don't think a Democrat majority for the next Congress will be a slam dunk. Some might be willing to walk the road to serfdom quietly and in line, but I will not. What point is there in living if you believe change is futile? It's very sad to see the sense of powerlessness and hopelessness that people have today. What happened to the American spirit of self-determination? Ron Paul said one, very fantastic thing in his speech at the Iowa Straw Poll. "The Founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with." True words.
He has great words but no real solutions. I have great words of what we should change here in the states too. However, saying them and having the solution to change them are two different things.
Have you listened to Ron Paul during the debates? He has plenty of solutions. First off, have you ever heard of the Grace Commission? During the 1980s, while Ronald Reagan was still president, he realized that the U.S. government wastes a lot of money. He put together a team of some of the top executives in the country to find out in what ways the government could cut waste. Guess what the Grace commission discovered? 1. The Grace Commission realized that the government, if it followed their recommendations and avoided wasting money in key areas, could have the money it needed to carry out all its function without having to get rid of social programs or raise taxes. They also showed that the government would continue to go further in debt if they didn't turn things around. Now, Ron Paul's solution, if combined with the recommendations of the Grace Commission, would abolish the need for an income tax. Ron Paul suggest we close all of the 700 bases we have around the world. WTF do we still have bases in Germany and Okinawa for, when World War 2 ended over 60 years ago? Ron Paul has estimated that by closing all our overseas basis, we could save approximately $100 million per year. If the government ends the wars of aggression in the Middle East, there is more trillions they will save. Now, as Hon Daddy Dad said, getting rid of the income tax would bring the best talent to the U.S., and our economy would grow. When all this is combined with all the other taxes we have such as the sales tax, I believe the national debt can be paid off within a reasonable period of time, and this is especially true if social programs such as Welfare are scaled down and only made available to citizens who TRULY need it. If I was running for president ,this would be my solution to our economic problems. Use gold and silver as legal tender, get rid of the fed, get rid of the IRS, close all our bases overseas, follow the recommendations of the Grace Commission, stop wasting money fighting wars in the Middle East, and scale down government programs such as the Department of Education and Welfare. There is absolutely no reason why the national debt shouldn't be paid down in perhaps 25 years if these strategies were followed.
WTH? Constitution bans income tax. See article 1. Unless you are talking about the Constitution of some other country
You do understand that the feds make alot of cash besides the income tax do you not? More than enough for military and other necessities.
Let me ask you this, would you like to have the federal government to take over the auto industry and be sole responsible for producing and delivering cars to market? You'd end up with something like the piece of crap Soviet car called the Lada. Plus the car would be far more expensive if they held a monopoly over the auto market which allowed government workers to be lazy wastrels of tax payer money. That's exactly what happens with all the services that the federal government offers. If you allowed people to keep their money and choose who provides education etc the service would be superior and also cheaper due to the competition. The original purpose of the federal government was for the mutual protection of the states against foreign national invasions. What you now have though in the United States with the federal government is a socialist system. The more centralized a government is, and the larger the population is that it governs, the more inefficient it becomes. All of the other things like Education, Health, Social Security etc should be managed at State level. If States want to tax and provide those services they can. If they would like to privatize them all and allow the market to deliver the superior and cheaper service, they can. States will have to compete with each other for talent by offering incentives. The States that offer the best incentives will get the best talent and the quality of life will rise faster in those states. In the 90's Governor Pete Wilson pushed the income tax to 11% to pay for spending increases. California’s net loss of 1.3 million people, from 1997 through 2006, cost the state billions of dollars in lost tax revenue - because many of the people who fled were high-income earners and because California relies disproportionately on revenue from highly progressive personal income tax rates. The richest 10 per cent pay 75 per cent of the state’s personal income tax revenue. California treats high-income people as cash-dispensing ATM machines . But, California’s loss of its most affluent residents demonstrates “that a state without taxpayers doesn’t collect taxes,â€. Californians pay state income tax at a top rate of 10.3 per cent. When they cross the border to Nevada, they pay zero state income tax. High-income families can theoretically move to Nevada, buy new homes and pay for them in a single year from the money they saved by fleeing California. California’s losses are Nevada’s gains. From 1997 through 2006, California GDP increased 80 per cent; Nevada GDP increased 123 per cent. California personal income increased 74 per cent; Nevada personal income increased 120 per cent. California net domestic in-migration (as a percentage of population) fell 3.5 per cent; Nevada net in-migration grew 20 per cent. All of which helps explain why Las Vegas is the fastest-growing metropolitan region in the United States - and why Arnold Schwarzenegger hasn’t been able to terminate California’s recurring financial crises.
Better yet if government got out all together and legalize free market. Free market solves all problems. It did for pre-socialist America
That's why I followed it up with "If States want to tax and provide those services they can. If they would like to privatize them all and allow the market to deliver the superior and cheaper service, they can."
But they wouldn't, unless there is something in it for them. If they would, they'd have to go find a job. It's like that welfare department in Pennsylvania having trouble distributing foodstamps among the Amish because they have no use for them. They'd rather see farming banned then go out of business. There is no way the government would volunteer to reduce it's market share, these parasites wouldn't have their bread and butter if they allowed private business in the market