Bill proposed for NO MORE INCOME TAX

[Gundampilotspaz]

Congressman Ron Paul, who has tossed his hat into the bid for the republican nominnation for the presidency, proposed a bill that will abolish federal income, gift, and estate taxes, and "prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens."

It's exciting news to have such justice being argued on the floor of the house, hopefully this will push Ron Paul up as the candidate that Republicans who still believe in small government will turn to in order to drive the Neo-cons out of power.

Full details on the bill

repost from: http://tan-staafl.blogspot.com/2007/02/ron...is-my-hero.html

[Belial]

Disgusting.

[FaultyClockwork]

Disgusting.

Drunk post?

[margot]

Disgusting.

[Satan]

Why exactly are you so excited about this GPS?

And why are you so disgusted by it Belial?

I have a few idea, but I'd like to be sure.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Why exactly are you so excited about this GPS?

And why are you so disgusted by it Belial?

I have a few idea, but I'd like to be sure.

I'm a Libertarian and

Belia is an idiot.

That sums it up.

[Satan]

I'm a Libertarian and

Belia is an idiot.

That sums it up.

your ability to avoid ad hominem attacks astounds me.

as does your ability to explain and defend your position

[Gundampilotspaz]

your ability to avoid ad hominem attacks astounds me.

as does your ability to explain and defend your position

You should know why I'm excited by this point.

I am a Libertarian, I don't believe in taxation.

This is a step towards two things; 1) Bringing this debate onto a serious stage by debating it on the floor of the house

and 2) Allowing Ron Paul to show what he believes in and gain more and more support from the classical republicans who still believe in small government.

[Samurai Drifter]

your ability to avoid ad hominem attacks astounds me.

as does your ability to explain and defend your position

Actually, that's more Belial's problem most of the time.

Anyway, there's no way this will succeed.

[TeleportSandwich]

Please, someone explain to me how this would be at all possible. I mean doesn't the government need income tax in order to pay for things like schools and government run programs and the like. I mean, that's what income tax is used for in theory at least, right?

*is an ignorant peon*

[Nega-Brent]

This could pass... if our government was not in debt.

How do you know we're in debt when scholars across the country can't even agree on how much money we have or don't have?

[Nega-Brent]

I assumed that we were because it says so everywhere. The calculations would have to be pretty far off for us not to be in debt.

Whenever there is a subject like national debt that is equally debated to exist or not exist by both sides of our government, don't pick a side.

[Galkar]

Yeah, instead just ignore it until it goes away.

[Nega-Brent]

Yeah, instead just ignore it until it goes away.

Indeed.

[The Lone Magician]

I don't know how to feel about this one.

[Ceraziefish]

Personally, I don't see the problem with income tax. Really, it's pretty much the only fair way to tax people.

I mean, would you rather have taxes that help the rich and hurt the poor? Here in Washington, we have sales tax, which hurts people who buy things (food is exempt, but that's it). Or property tax, which penalizes you for having a place to live...

The simple fact is that as long as we have a federal government (remember, I don't necessarily think this is a good idea), we're going to need to have taxes to pay for it. And income taxes are the most fair method of taxing I've ever heard of.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Personally, I don't see the problem with income tax. Really, it's pretty much the only fair way to tax people.

I mean, would you rather have taxes that help the rich and hurt the poor? Here in Washington, we have sales tax, which hurts people who buy things (food is exempt, but that's it). Or property tax, which penalizes you for having a place to live...

The simple fact is that as long as we have a federal government (remember, I don't necessarily think this is a good idea), we're going to need to have taxes to pay for it. And income taxes are the most fair method of taxing I've ever heard of.

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Which means that the Government can only directly tax us if it's equal and by population.

I.E. They need a billion dollers, and there are ten million people. So each person pays $100 tax.

Income tax is unfair in this respect. The 16th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So in order to get the money they wanted, they decide to screw us out of a percent of what we make, instead of an equal tax for all people.

[James_xeno]

It may not be the worst form of tax out there. But if it could put a stop to the federal government's gluttonous spending, or sending billions in stolen money from the US, around the world. Not to mention financing certain irrelevant and somewhat hostile organizations, which also happen to be dangerously inept in both concept and implementation. I don't really see a problem.

[JeremyGEE]

This will never happen.

[Satan]

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Which means that the Government can only directly tax us if it's equal and by population.

I.E. They need a billion dollers, and there are ten million people. So each person pays $100 tax.

Income tax is unfair in this respect. The 16th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So in order to get the money they wanted, they decide to screw us out of a percent of what we make, instead of an equal tax for all people.

this is either bullshit, failure to understand the basics of the tax system, or a poor use of the English language.

Your juxtaposition of the current tax system being described as "screw[ing] us out of a perent of what we make" and a flat tax being described as "an equal tax for all people" would seem to imply that you favor the flat tax.

just doing some crakulations here, if we take the whitehouse 2006 budget, assuming I'm reading this right, the government collected 1043.9 in billions of dollars, or just over 1 trillion, in income tax. Assuming 300 million people in the US, and assuming that all of them have jobs and pay income tax, that's pretty close to 3500 per person.

if you want to attack it as unfair, your best bet is probably to add something about how a progressive tax not only isn't an equal amount of money, its an unequal percentage of money. If you want to bring your libertarianism into it, I'd suggest attacking the complexity of the system.

I personally think our system needs some reform, but scrapping it isn't the way to go.

[Poophy]

Income tax sucks, but you would only really know just how much it sucked after you won a million dollars and only left with $500,000…

But since I have yet to win a million dollars, I don’t really mind income tax…

[Ceraziefish]

"No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

Which means that the Government can only directly tax us if it's equal and by population.

I.E. They need a billion dollers, and there are ten million people. So each person pays $100 tax.

Income tax is unfair in this respect. The 16th amendment says "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So in order to get the money they wanted, they decide to screw us out of a percent of what we make, instead of an equal tax for all people.

I know I said I was leaving SD&D, but I think I'll respond to this.

Your argument is that Income tax doesn't take into account population, right? So the government can tax unfair amounts? (the other part of your argument, that the constitution apparently doesn't allow it, is pretty irrelevant, seeing as the constitution is meant to be changed to benefit the American people).

But the problem with a flat tax is that, yes, it could tax as little as $100. Or, it could tax as much as $5000, (or even more) depending on the amount of money needed. Now, for a rich dude, $5000 is not that big a deal. But for a poor family? $5000 taxes could make them homeless.

Whereas, say we only tax the poor family and the rich dude a certain percentage of their income, to make the difference? I.E. the poor dude pays as much as he can and the rich dude picks up the slack, as is his duty to the society that made him rich.

I don't understand why you would support a tax that so obviously makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. How is that at all related to the dream of capitalism? Shouldn't capitalism be hard on the rich and easy on the poor, to increase that social mobility which is fundamental to the American Dream?

Capitalism aside, shouldn't we keep it like that because it's fair? You know, equal rights and equal protection under the law? Just like a man shouldn't get special treatment because he's white, he shouldn't get special treatment because he's rich.

[Arcane]

Please, someone explain to me how this would be at all possible. I mean doesn't the government need income tax in order to pay for things like schools and government run programs and the like. I mean, that's what income tax is used for in theory at least, right?

*is an ignorant peon*

Most of the income tax is spent on the military, social security, and Medicare (9% of it is spent just to pay interest on the government's debt, lolz). Schools and a lot of the social welfare programs are usually financed by state income tax.

Seeing as how most republicans in Congress are pretty gung ho about the military, and I doubt many democrats will be voting in favor of it, I don't think this has any chance in hell of passing.

[Gundampilotspaz]

Everyone here knows I don't believe in any taxes, or VERY limited taxes. So it would never reach $5000 in my ideal world.

[Ceraziefish]

Everyone here knows I don't believe in any taxes, or VERY limited taxes. So it would never reach $5000 in my ideal world.

You must admit that your ideal world != the real world. I mean, in my ideal world there are no taxes, because there is no money. That doesn't mean that I can't support something rational in this world.

I just don't see how it makes any sense to charge a significant amount of money from some people and an insignificant amount to others. Why not just charge an insignificant amount from both?