PDA

View Full Version : BJ Lawson Would Replace Income Tax with Carbon Tax?




Knightskye
10-31-2008, 09:29 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/


We should also explore a carbon tax on nonrenewable energy as a complete replacement for our federal income tax. We want more jobs, productivity, and income so it doesn't make sense to tax jobs, productivity, and income.

What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

Jeremy
10-31-2008, 09:46 PM
He said that because it's Constitutional and he knows people are going to think he's too radical if he just says abolish the IRS. Of course we should look into all constitutional options to get rid of the IRS ASAP.

Brian4Liberty
11-01-2008, 05:18 PM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/


What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

Non-renewal would have to include natural gas, coal, and even nuclear...

Tax at the gas station would be (is) regressive, and one of the worse options. Just like food is not taxed, everyone needs it, but you only use so much of it. Plus targeted taxes is just more social/economic engineering, and that should not be the role of government. When Ron Paul talks about a tariff, he always specifies that it be small and across the board. No favoritism. No economic engineering.

0zzy
11-01-2008, 05:26 PM
i heard him maybe say fair tax, but not carbon

smithtg
11-01-2008, 05:31 PM
Non-renewal would have to include natural gas, coal, and even nuclear...

Tax at the gas station would be (is) regressive, and one of the worse options. Just like food is not taxed, everyone needs it, but you only use so much of it. Plus targeted taxes is just more social/economic engineering, and that should not be the role of government. When Ron Paul talks about a tariff, he always specifies that it be small and across the board. No favoritism. No economic engineering.

if he said that crap I ought to ask for my donation back

Carbon tax = nonsense

Hey that great steak you are eating is carbon too, you want to tax that? EVERYTHING ORGANIC HAS CARBON IN IT!

Im tired of the MSM using 'CARBON' to mean carbon dioxide. CO2 doesnt cause climate change anyway. The earth does

Brian4Liberty
11-01-2008, 05:42 PM
if he said that crap I ought to ask for my donation back


Well, he did say "as a complete replacement of the Federal Income tax". Can't argue with that part.

But energy tax would still be regressive in nature...

Menthol Patch
11-01-2008, 07:30 PM
There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

Andrew-Austin
11-01-2008, 07:34 PM
There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

Is BJ Lawson a fascist Menthol?

tondog4paul
11-01-2008, 07:56 PM
This is the only answer. Any other discussion is moot. IMO

http://losthorizons.com

ChaosControl
11-01-2008, 08:25 PM
We should replace the income tax with casinos.

matratzac
11-01-2008, 08:59 PM
There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

lol damn a little extreme, dont you think?

BenIsForRon
11-01-2008, 09:55 PM
***Disclaimer: I don't know BJ's official reasons for wanting a carbon tax alternative to income tax, but this is why I think it's a good idea****

Let me start of by saying that oil is not something you "need" like food or shelter. We think we need oil because of it's widespread use in agriculture and transportation. The truth is, if you're willing to be open minded and read the link in my signature, is that we have most likely already passed peak world oil production. That means we need to change the way our economy operates, or many of us will starve. This is why a carbon tax would be a decent alternative to the income tax until we can reduce spending to sustainable levels. I know we still have a lot of coal, but it should also be taxed (under this scenario) as the mining and processing of the stuff is very harmful to the environment.

I'm pretty sure BJ is aware of peak oil as well, I'd have to ask the campaign to know for sure. But this would be a good intermediate step to shrink government and begin changing the fundamental base of our economy as well.

Danke
11-01-2008, 10:06 PM
We should replace the income tax with casinos.

And lotteries.

Knightskye
11-01-2008, 10:45 PM
***Disclaimer: I don't know BJ's official reasons for wanting a carbon tax alternative to income tax, but this is why I think it's a good ideass**

Let me start of by saying that oil is not something you "need" like food or shelter. We think we need oil because of it's widespread use in agriculture and transportation. The truth is, if you're willing to be open minded and read the link in my signature, is that we have most likely already passed peak world oil production. That means we need to change the way our economy operates, or many of us will starve. This is why a carbon tax would be a decent alternative to the income tax until we can reduce spending to sustainable levels. I know we still have a lot of coal, but it should also be taxed (under this scenario) as the mining and processing of the stuff is very harmful to the environment.

I'm pretty sure BJ is aware of peak oil as well, I'd have to ask the campaign to know for sure. But this would be a good intermediate step to shrink government and begin changing the fundamental base of our economy as well.

But you would be taxed if you got natural gas, nuclear power, or coal power. Wouldn't that raise someone's heating bill?

ksuguy
11-01-2008, 10:57 PM
Well damn. I regret giving the son of a bitch money now. First he praises that commie Kucinich in that email he sent out a couple days ago, and now this.

ronpaulhawaii
11-01-2008, 11:38 PM
Well damn. I regret giving the son of a bitch money now. First he praises that commie Kucinich in that email he sent out a couple days ago, and now this.

Lawson ain't no son of a bitch and Kucinich ain't no commie infiltrator.

And while I am just now looking at the particulars of this, I will say that change rarely comes in the blink of an eye. We are going to have to fund our gov't as we downsize. We may someday arrive at anarcho-capitalist dreamland, but till then ...

It actually seems a brilliant way to open the tax debate amongst his constituents and there would be many details to be explored. Benis makes some interesting points.

And some of you guys are rediculous ...

:p

qh4dotcom
11-01-2008, 11:59 PM
There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

What do you have to say about Chuck Baldwin's proposal to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 10% tariff?

The founding fathers did collect tax revenue from tariffs.

Danke
11-02-2008, 12:29 AM
It actually seems a brilliant way to open the tax debate amongst his constituents and there would be many details to be explored. Benis makes some interesting points.


If one studies the income tax, the irony is that that the beneficiaries of government privileges are what they (the people) petitioned for the tax. And rightfully so.

But it has been misinterpreted through time (most notably during and after WWII, national "emergency") that many mistakenly believe it applies to common labor receipts.

Just the opposite of the will of the people that were for it in the first place. Ironic. The elites have pulled a fast one on us. Similar to the creation of the Federal Reserve, if you know that history. Also, look up the supposedly break up of the "Trust." Another scam.

Give Lawson a copy of "Cracking the Code (http://www.losthorizons.com/Cracking_the_Code.htm)" Hopefully he will see that the income tax is not such a bad thing after all.

(edit: "You" as in the general audience, not addressed to Mike, I know he knows this stuff).

BenIsForRon
11-02-2008, 01:07 AM
^---- Ben_is_for_Ron


But you would be taxed if you got natural gas, nuclear power, or coal power. Wouldn't that raise someone's heating bill?

Yes, but they wouldn't be paying income tax. The issues we're going have to deal with in the future are not very simple, and I just pray we can get off of fossil fuels before we have people starving or freezing.

If anybody has more detail on what BJ is talking about, I would like to see it. I think taxing energy at the source (mining, refining) would be better than a sales tax at the individual level. Also, I would tax natural gas and nuclear less than oil and coal, as the latter two are more economically/environmentally harmful. From a practical perspective I don't see a downside to taxing non-renewable energy instead of income.

Brian4Liberty
11-02-2008, 01:18 AM
Let me start of by saying that oil is not something you "need" like food or shelter.

Wow, you opened my eyes. I will stop driving tomorrow. It won't change anything. I'll just ride my bike or use that "public" transit that doesn't exist. :rolleyes:

Does shelter include heat, or shall I turn that off too? (All sarcasm aside, I am as energy efficient as I can possibly be, and rarely use heat. But I do need the car, sorry).

BenIsForRon
11-02-2008, 01:27 AM
You can ride a bike to work and use a wood stove for heat, so yes, technically you don't need oil. Of course, that may not be practical, especially the wood stove part. And I don't doubt you need a car in you current situation, especially if you have a 20+ minute commute. I'm just saying it won't be economically sustainable for much longer.

Pepsi
11-02-2008, 02:25 AM
The way I see it, a carbon tax will make it easier for them to enact a one-child policy in America.

Knightskye
11-02-2008, 04:01 AM
I guess it is a good way to get Democrats on his side. But I'd prefer a sales tax.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-02-2008, 06:48 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/



What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

ha. What a dumb proposal. Improvement to the income tax, but why? Why tax the one thing that already costs so damn much?

worl
11-02-2008, 09:22 AM
What do you have to say about Chuck Baldwin's proposal to eliminate the income tax and replace it with a 10% tariff?

The founding fathers did collect tax revenue from tariffs.

You are exactly right & Baldwin got this from the constitution. Put the burdon on the corp.s that left this country & put people out of work for cheep labor. These people have no alegence & should recieve no favors. Repeal nafta,cafta & all other trade agrements that are unfair.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-02-2008, 09:43 AM
You are exactly right & Baldwin got this from the constitution. Put the burdon on the corp.s that left this country & put people out of work for cheep labor. These people have no alegence & should recieve no favors. Repeal nafta,cafta & all other trade agrements that are unfair.

Corporations? Government created corporate status, Baldwin was just revealing his mercantilistic roots.

MikeStanart
11-02-2008, 11:04 AM
There is only one option to get rid of the IRS and the income tax.

That is to abolish it and replace it with nothing.

Anyone who would replace the income tax with another tax is a fascist.

You really don't understand politics, do you?

You can't do something so radical as removing all taxes without causing trouble. You have to do things gradually. And your attitude is uncalled for.

JosephTheLibertarian
11-02-2008, 11:10 AM
You really don't understand politics, do you?

You can't do something so radical as removing all taxes without causing trouble. You have to do things gradually. And your attitude is uncalled for.

I called for his attitude, so it is is called for. ;)

bbagnall
11-02-2008, 11:11 AM
http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3732181/
What would that tax besides gas at the gas station?

And is that Constitutional?

You brought up a good issue here that I didn't know about. Adding a carbon tax seems very interventionist to me, and the fact that it could be a cash cow for government makes me uneasy.

A better solution would be to redefine property rights as Ron Paul endorses, which would make it illegal to harm others or pollute the property of others. I'm not aware of the details of such a plan, but the gist of it seems to be that state governments of the progressive era started favoring the rights of business over individuals and allowed them to pollute common resources like flowing rivers and air. That needs to be changed.

As Ron says (paraphrasing) if pollution is bad, why would we allow others to do it as long as they pay us money?

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 11:26 AM
You brought up a good issue here that I didn't know about. Adding a carbon tax seems very interventionist to me, and the fact that it could be a cash cow for government makes me uneasy.

A better solution would be to redefine property rights as Ron Paul endorses, which would make it illegal to harm others or pollute the property of others. I'm not aware of the details of such a plan, but the gist of it seems to be that state governments of the progressive era started favoring the rights of business over individuals and allowed them to pollute common resources like flowing rivers and air. That needs to be changed.

As Ron says (paraphrasing) if pollution is bad, why would we allow others to do it as long as they pay us money?

Exploring ways to eliminate the income tax is not "adding a tax" While this is a fine philosophical discussion, one should understand the nature of politics and the exacting language one must use. The key word I see in BJ's statement is "explore"...

And those that would withdraw support, over this theoretical side issue in the cause of Liberty, are ridiculous to me

Shotdown1027
11-02-2008, 11:44 AM
Lawson was simply saying that the Carbon Tax would at least pass constitutional muster,while the income tax doesnt--and that the Carbon Tax COULD be considered as a replacement.

Honestly, my ideal situation is to see the Income Tax phased out over 5 years and replaced with nothing. Tarriffs would also be lowered, hopefully to nothing or to a VERY small percentage. A balanced budget amendment would be passed while we cut away at our military spending, all the unconstitutional departments, etc (all over the course of 4-6 years) and this would lead us towards paying off the national debt. We could speed up that process by selling off Federal property (to charities, trusts, etc. For example, Yellowstone might be sold to the State of Wyoming or to the Sierra Club). If we still couldn't make ends meet, the Federal Government would have to ASK the states for revenenue.

ksuguy
11-02-2008, 12:00 PM
Lawson ain't no son of a bitch and Kucinich ain't no commie infiltrator.



Well I can't support anyone that likes the idea of a carbon tax. It's a terrible idea and sure to lead to even more government interference in everybody's lives.

And Kucinich is a communist. He's all about big government. I know some people on the left wing side of this movement like him because he happens to agree with Ron on certain foreign policy issues, but he is 100% wrong on many things, especially the 2nd amendment.

MRoCkEd
11-02-2008, 12:01 PM
his post

I am opposed to net new taxes, and believe that reducing spending as well as eliminating our counterproductive income tax code is the most important goal we should strive for in pursuit of economic growth.

I am also in agreement that we need a serious conversation about the consequences of a debt-based monetary system, and the resulting need to perpetually enslave our nation to higher taxes and less freedom as a result of growing interest payments on perpetually-growing debt.

My question, though, is how do we get from Point A to Point B? It seems that we will need taxation to fund government, and I believe that we should tax things we don’t want, and not tax things that we DO want. That is, don’t tax income — we want more jobs, income and productivity. How about taxing consumption that has negative side effects? My support for a so-called “carbon tax” reflects a desire to get to a method of taxation that is direct, Constitutional, and takes into account “negative externalities” — that is, hidden costs which affect everyone negatively.

I’m less sanguine about the FairTax, because that puts the federal government (directly or indirectly) in a position of control over *every* retail transaction. Even essentials like food. It seems odd that we should have to pay tax to the feds to eat.

The idea of a “consumption tax” targeting consumption that is non-sustainable, non-renewable, and that has negative effects on the environment is more justifiable, however. Regardless of whether one believes that climate change is man-made, there are negative side-effects to consuming nonrenewable resources at accelerating rates. So why not tax nonrewable consumption to reflect the fact that burning stuff dirties our environment?

Bottom line is that I’m absolutely committed to reducing the size, scope, and complexity of government. Cap and trade is a disaster waiting to be gamed by corporate interests, and a simple, well-executed carbon tax targeting negative externalities could be, in my opinion, a great replacement for a disastrous system of income, capital gains, and estate taxation.

Downsize DC has some excellent commentary on the fallacy of cap and trade here:

http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/93

BJ

Knightskye
11-02-2008, 12:04 PM
Wouldn't the carbon tax be less effective over time? People would switch to renewable energy, which would result in less revenue to the government.

A sales tax would keep its effectiveness, because it's transactions, not just things that pollute.


It seems odd that we should have to pay tax to the feds to eat.

How about keeping warm over the winter, or filling up the tank to drive to work?

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 12:20 PM
Well I can't support anyone that likes the idea of a carbon tax. It's a terrible idea and sure to lead to even more government interference in everybody's lives.

And Kucinich is a communist. He's all about big government. I know some people on the left wing side of this movement like him because he happens to agree with Ron on certain foreign policy issues, but he is 100% wrong on many things, especially the 2nd amendment.

Your rhetoric is ridiculous. For one, a person can dislike all taxes and still look for politically expedient ways to reduce the tax burden and eliminate the federal income tax (for starters). Further, to state you wouldn't support a liberty candidate over his willingness to explore alternatives to our broken system is childlish. I would love to know who you supported in your congressional races. It seems to me, with your narrowmindedness, you would have trouble supporting anyone. Unless of course you have a full slate of candidates whose every statement reflects your values exactly. :rolleyes:

About Kucinich, having a poor position on issues like the 2nd amendment does not make one a communist. Having socialist ideas does not even make one a communist. As I stated, your rhetoric is ridiculous

:p

MRoCkEd
11-02-2008, 12:23 PM
Your rhetoric is ridiculous. For one, a person can dislike all taxes and still look for politically expedient ways to reduce the tax burden and eliminate the federal income tax (for starters). Further, to state you wouldn't support a liberty candidate over his willingness to explore alternatives to our broken system is childlish. I would love to know who you supported in your congressional races. It seems to me, with your narrowmindedness, you would have trouble supporting anyone. Unless of course you have a full slate of candidates whose every statement reflects your values exactly. :rolleyes:

About Kucinich, having a poor position on issues like the 2nd amendment does not make one a communist. Having socialist ideas does not even make one a communist. As I stated, your rhetoric is ridiculous

:p

http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/kool-aidman.jpg

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 12:27 PM
Wouldn't the carbon tax be less effective over time? People would switch to renewable energy, which would result in less revenue to the government.

A sales tax would keep its effectiveness, because it's transactions, not just things that pollute.



How about keeping warm over the winter, or filling up the tank to drive to work?

I think people switching to renewables would be a good thing. I, also, think that the reducing revenues would work just fine with a corresponding reduction in gov't overall. I have been too busy to do much exploring of these issues and have no idea of the best way to fund a limited Gov't and the best way to get there. For certain electing people like BJ, who understand the underlying issues and are steadfast in their desire to reduce the size and scope of the federal gov't, is essential to move us towards our overall goals

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 01:00 PM
Does that mean that BJ sold out and has bought into the bogus AGW UN scam and con? :rolleyes:

Knightskye
11-02-2008, 01:34 PM
I think people switching to renewables would be a good thing. I, also, think that the reducing revenues would work just fine with a corresponding reduction in gov't overall. I have been too busy to do much exploring of these issues and have no idea of the best way to fund a limited Gov't and the best way to get there. For certain electing people like BJ, who understand the underlying issues and are steadfast in their desire to reduce the size and scope of the federal gov't, is essential to move us towards our overall goals

Or maybe they'd do like supermarkets do.

When produce is heavy, they usually charge less per pound, because the weight will make the cost high enough. And when something is light, they charge a lot more to get the price where they want it.

So with less money coming from the carbon tax, would they raise the rate, to get the same amount of revenue?

RPTXState
11-02-2008, 01:40 PM
First let's replace the pro-income tax, pro-war, pro-Patriot Act David Price with the anti-Income tax, anti-war, anti-Patriot Act BJ Lawson and THEN we can worry about the feasability of a Carbon Tax...

Lawson will listen to his constituents. Price won't. Thats more than enough reason to support him.

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 01:45 PM
Does that mean that BJ sold out and has bought into the bogus AGW UN scam and con? :rolleyes:

No. Don't be ridiculous with the rest...


Or maybe they'd do like supermarkets do.

When produce is heavy, they usually charge less per pound, because the weight will make the cost high enough. And when something is light, they charge a lot more to get the price where they want it.

So with less money coming from the carbon tax, would they raise the rate, to get the same amount of revenue?

A reduction in the size of gov't would result in a reduction of necessary funding. Perhaps a form of sales tax would be better, perhaps something yet to be mentioned. My point is there is nothing wrong with exploring options. The main problem seems to be that people see the word carbon and have a knee jerk reaction, (such as TW's question above)

hopeforamerica
11-02-2008, 02:12 PM
No. Don't be ridiculous with the rest...



A reduction in the size of gov't would result in a reduction of necessary funding. Perhaps a form of sales tax would be better, perhaps something yet to be mentioned. My point is there is nothing wrong with exploring options. The main problem seems to be that people see the word carbon and have a knee jerk reaction, (such as TW's question above)


When I read all of your calm, well reasoned thoughts, and think about all you have done this past year, I wonder when YOU are going to run for something!!!! ronpaulhawaii for ?????

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 02:48 PM
No. Don't be ridiculous with the rest...

I just asked a question. A simple answer of "No.", would have sufficed very nicely. :rolleyes:

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 02:54 PM
When I read all of your calm, well reasoned thoughts, and think about all you have done this past year, I wonder when YOU are going to run for something!!!! ronpaulhawaii for ?????

Dog Catcher !!! :D

Actually, I want to get more experience, and connections, before taking the plunge...

Thank you for your support :)


I just asked a question. A simple answer of "No.", would have sufficed very nicely. :rolleyes:

Dang,:o I had just left a one word reply and wondered if it would be "curt"

...ya win some, ya lose some, ya just keep going

:)

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 02:59 PM
Dang,:o I had just left a one word reply and wondered if it would be "curt"

...ya win some, ya lose some, ya just keep going :) I'm :cool: with curt. At times, I've been know to do it myself. ;) :D

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 03:03 PM
He said that because it's Constitutional and he knows people are going to think he's too radical if he just says abolish the IRS. Of course we should look into all constitutional options to get rid of the IRS ASAP.

Once again, we're compromising principles here. A carbon tax is every bit as immoral as an income tax. If this truly is BJ's stance, a vote for him is no different than a vote for Bob Barr.

If BJ is compromising principles to appease whoever, let's drop him as a liberty candidate like a hot potato.

NEPA_Revolution
11-02-2008, 03:06 PM
Once again, we're compromising principles here. A carbon tax is every bit as immoral as an income tax. If this truly is BJ's stance, a vote for him is no different than a vote for Bob Barr.

If BJ is compromising principles to appease whoever, let's drop him as a liberty candidate like a hot potato.

So we can have an establishment democrat in congress. Great idea!!

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 03:12 PM
So we can have an establishment democrat in congress. Great idea!!

It doesn't matter. BJ is showing he is willing to compromise principles. Getting him into office wouldn't make one iota of difference to our freedoms. Reagan sounded like a libertarian at times too but what happened? Huge growth of government and the start of runaway deficits.

Government just grows and grows and people here think we can still somehow vote our way to freedom even though this has never worked.

Noncompliance and educating yourself about the principles of nonviolence are how we will change things, not voting for candidates who will only find other ways to threaten us with violence for our money.

UnReconstructed
11-02-2008, 03:17 PM
it used to be constitutional to own people

the constitution can be amended to say anything

lets replace taxes with weed

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 03:23 PM
Once again, we're compromising principles here. A carbon tax is every bit as immoral as an income tax. If this truly is BJ's stance, a vote for him is no different than a vote for Bob Barr.

If BJ is compromising principles to appease whoever, let's drop him as a liberty candidate like a hot potato.



Which taxes do you consider moral? :confused:
Which perfect candidates do you support? :rolleyes:
You can drop anything you want, but your use of the term "let's" sounds collectivist to me. :eek: Individuals have different principles and priorities.

BJ Lawson is one of the most viable liberty candidates we have and his openminded willingness to EXPLORE alternatives to the federal income tax is politically smart.

I wonder how many people just read the thread title...?

tremendoustie
11-02-2008, 03:26 PM
It doesn't matter. BJ is showing he is willing to compromise principles. Getting him into office wouldn't make one iota of difference to our freedoms. Reagan sounded like a libertarian at times too but what happened? Huge growth of government and the start of runaway deficits.

Government just grows and grows and people here think we can still somehow vote our way to freedom even though this has never worked.

Noncompliance and educating yourself about the principles of nonviolence are how we will change things, not voting for candidates who will only find other ways to threaten us with violence for our money.

BJ, I'm quite certain, would not be satisfied with this as a final solution. He just said it would be something worth discussing. One should never let the best be the enemy of the good, and if I were given the option to end the IRS and the income tax, but institute some sort of consumption tax, I'd go for it, even though ultimately I'd rather have perhaps just a flat tariff, or even no involuntary tax at all if it could be worked out.

BJ's terrific, just look through his homepage and you'll realize it. He's definitely 100% pro liberty. I agree with his view on this, that it would be something worth discussion, and would be better than the current system. By contrast, I actually disagree with RP on the earmarks (I would agree with an across the board tax rebate) -- yet I still recognize that RP is one of the best and strongest voices for liberty we have today.

As I say, don't let the best be the enemy of the good.

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 03:36 PM
BJ, I'm quite certain, would not be satisfied with this as a final solution. He just said it would be something worth discussing. One should never let the best be the enemy of the good, and if I were given the option to end the IRS and the income tax, but institute some sort of consumption tax, I'd go for it, even though ultimately I'd rather have perhaps just a flat tariff, or even no involuntary tax at all if it could be worked out.

BJ's terrific, just look through his homepage and you'll realize it. He's definitely 100% pro liberty. I agree with his view on this, that it would be something worth discussion, and would be better than the current system. By contrast, I actually disagree with RP on the earmarks (I would agree with an across the board tax rebate) -- yet I still recognize that RP is one of the best and strongest voices for liberty we have today.

As I say, don't let the best be the enemy of the good.

It's not a matter of best vs good it's a matter of principled vs unprincipled.

BJ Lawson is on record as being open to a carbon tax. Therefore he is not 100% pro-liberty.

Trying to throwout the bad guys and replace them with good guys has never helped us gain even a tiny bit more freedom. It will not start working by supporting BJ Lawson. We have to realize that the very institution of government is evil and cannot be turned into something good.

MRoCkEd
11-02-2008, 03:39 PM
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, but said he would probably vote for the fairtax as a step in the right direction. Same as BJ, who has considered the fairtax or the carbon tax as a possible stepping stone.

tremendoustie
11-02-2008, 03:51 PM
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, but said he would probably vote for the fairtax as a step in the right direction. Same as BJ, who has considered the fairtax or the carbon tax as a possible stepping stone.

Exactly. We cannot achieve the ideal government overnight. Paul even supports maintaining Medicare and SS for those who have become dependent on the system, but eventually phasing them out.


It's not a matter of best vs good it's a matter of principled vs unprincipled.

BJ Lawson is on record as being open to a carbon tax. Therefore he is not 100% pro-liberty.

Trying to throwout the bad guys and replace them with good guys has never helped us gain even a tiny bit more freedom. It will not start working by supporting BJ Lawson. We have to realize that the very institution of government is evil and cannot be turned into something good.

It sounds like you think working through government won't be effective at all. I respect that view, and agree that it is vital to organize people to be independent of the system. These are complementary efforts, not at odds at all. I hope you are successful in making government irrelevant, just as you would be wise to hope that we are successful in bringing it under control.

BenIsForRon
11-02-2008, 04:14 PM
It's not a matter of best vs good it's a matter of principled vs unprincipled.

BJ Lawson is on record as being open to a carbon tax. Therefore he is not 100% pro-liberty.

Trying to throwout the bad guys and replace them with good guys has never helped us gain even a tiny bit more freedom. It will not start working by supporting BJ Lawson. We have to realize that the very institution of government is evil and cannot be turned into something good.

Ok, I respect your opinion, but you have to understand that right now a good portion of our population is totally dependent on government aid. We can't just eliminate all taxes tomorrow without putting millions of lives in jeopardy. It has to be a gradual phaseout to maintain stability.

Keep in mind guys, we are in IRAQ because of OIL. Replacing income tax with carbon tax would make middle eastern interventionism a less "profitable" venture. Anything we can do at this point to check the power of our runaway military industrial complex would be a good thing.

matratzac
11-02-2008, 04:28 PM
It's not a matter of best vs good it's a matter of principled vs unprincipled.

BJ Lawson is on record as being open to a carbon tax. Therefore he is not 100% pro-liberty.

Trying to throwout the bad guys and replace them with good guys has never helped us gain even a tiny bit more freedom. It will not start working by supporting BJ Lawson. We have to realize that the very institution of government is evil and cannot be turned into something good.

lol you can't be serious! you people are never satisifed! this reminds me of katt williams and his joke about how stupid women are who throw out the men that are "98% good" because they expect there is a "100% man" out there somewhere. YOU ARE CRAZY IF YOU DO NOT SEE LAWSON AS A GOOD GUY TO SUPPORT.

joke i am talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFCTJXHrbQg

so someone that doesnt agree with you 100% (like anyone does for god sakes) is against liberty and evil! give me a break! no wonder they thought most paul supporters are crazy, the .5% that are are loud enough to make it seem like 90% of us are. jeezus christ

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 04:29 PM
Ron Paul wants to eliminate the income tax and replace it with nothing, but said he would probably vote for the fairtax as a step in the right direction. Same as BJ, who has considered the fairtax or the carbon tax as a possible stepping stone.

The "fair tax" is a joke, I disagree with RP on this.

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 04:32 PM
lol you can't be serious! you people are never satisifed! this reminds me of katt williams and his joke about how stupid women are who throw out the men that are "98% good" because they expect there is a "100% man" out there somewhere. YOU ARE CRAZY IF YOU DO NOT SEE LAWSON AS A GOOD GUY TO SUPPORT.

joke i am talking about
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFCTJXHrbQg

so someone that doesnt agree with you 100% (like anyone does for god sakes) is against liberty and evil! give me a break! no wonder they thought most paul supporters are crazy, the .5% that are are loud enough to make it seem like 90% of us are. jeezus christ

Think dude. Government is inherently evil. BJ Lawson or even Ron Paul cannot steer the ship to make it a virtuous organization. RP is the most principled person within this evil organization, but when you start compromising like Lawson seems to be doing is when the message gets watered down and there is no point in playing politics to achieve liberty.

matratzac
11-02-2008, 04:35 PM
The "fair tax" is a joke, I disagree with RP on this.

OMG then ron paul is not a liberty candidate! omg hes horrible!!!! i can't believe you even thought about voting for him!

jeez u have a huge ego

RevolutionSD
11-02-2008, 04:37 PM
OMG then ron paul is not a liberty candidate! omg hes horrible!!!! i can't believe you even thought about voting for him!

jeez u have a huge ego

You can trash me all you want, but you're not dealing with the issue at hand here, and that's the violent coercive system we have called government.

Tell me, when was the last time people voted and government shrank?

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 04:44 PM
Think dude. Government is inherently evil. BJ Lawson or even Ron Paul cannot steer the ship to make it a virtuous organization. RP is the most principled person within this evil organization, but when you start compromising like Lawson seems to be doing is when the message gets watered down and there is no point in playing politics to achieve liberty.

I notice you failed to answer my earlier questions. I, also, notice you seem to have sacrificed your principles by supporting RP even though he would vote for the fairtax as a step in the right direction.

Now, I would like to know which of BJ's principles you think BJ has compromised?

matratzac
11-02-2008, 04:45 PM
You can trash me all you want, but you're not dealing with the issue at hand here, and that's the violent coercive system we have called government.

Tell me, when was the last time people voted and government shrank?

bro, it doesn't matter.

u have 2 choices.

Price = 20% good
Lawson = 98% good

Which one is it going to be? don't be one of those people that has to be right on everything. just because someone doesn't agree with everything that you think does not make that person inherently bad or "against liberty."

we know hes against the IRS. he can be for a carbon tax, so the fuk what, its a step in the right direction. Paul said the quickest way to make other energy come about is to make oil more expensive. Well, this is a way to do it. So stfu and vote for a good candidate instead of just complaining and whining like a little bitch because they don't agree with every single one of your stances on every single little issue. hes one of the good guys.

you don't vote for him, you get price. whoopdie doo thats SOOOO much better, right? ~sarcasm~

matratzac
11-02-2008, 04:54 PM
reading this entire thread ive come to the conclusion that revolutionSD HAS to be a joke/troll/just trying to be annoying. no wonder people hated paul supporters. i mean, seriously

matratzac
11-02-2008, 05:56 PM
bump this ridiculous thread

InterestedParticipant
11-02-2008, 06:10 PM
if he said that crap I ought to ask for my donation back

Carbon tax = nonsense

This is a MAJOR red flag. Carbon tax is nothing more than a breathing tax, which allows government to control population growth and national economies through energy usage. It's evil, and if really said, would indicate that either Lawson doesn't understand the significance of the issue, or he is quietly shilling for global elites interests. Either way, one should re-evaluate their support of Lawson until he clarifies this position and why he is taking it.

tremendoustie
11-02-2008, 06:51 PM
This is a MAJOR red flag. Carbon tax is nothing more than a breathing tax, which allows government to control population growth and national economies through energy usage. It's evil, and if really said, would indicate that either Lawson doesn't understand the significance of the issue, or he is quietly shilling for global elites interests. Either way, one should re-evaluate their support of Lawson until he clarifies this position and why he is taking it.

I think he's just saying he'd prefer a consumption tax vs. the income tax, if he had to choose one.

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 06:52 PM
This is a MAJOR red flag. ... he is quietly shilling for global elites interests. ...

http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/bb19/mkauai/2217337.gif

Give me a friggin break. Some people scare me with their kneejerk reactions. I imagine you didn't read the thread, as his position has been clarified...

The idea of a carbon tax is debatable, trying to weaken his support over this is laughable, or worse...

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 06:58 PM
Perhaps BJ's decision to back and support a carbon tax is merely a knee-jerk reaction, on his part. ;) :D Maybe he just found a new solution to his campaign money woes. :eek:

BenIsForRon
11-02-2008, 07:07 PM
It might be better if we let this thread die. On subjects like this, no matter how hard we try to have civilized discussions, loudmouthed ideologues always come on and hijack the thread. Seriously, RevolutionSD isn't even talking about the carbon tax half the time, just that "I'm not even voting, government is evil". Like I said, I understand your point, IT JUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC!

I think most rational people see that a simple tax on nonrenewable energy production would be a better intermediate alternative to the income tax.

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 07:18 PM
It might be better if we let this thread die. On subjects like this, no matter how hard we try to have civilized discussions, loudmouthed ideologues always come on and hijack the thread. Seriously, RevolutionSD isn't even talking about the carbon tax half the time, just that "I'm not even voting, government is evil". Like I said, I understand your point, IT JUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC!

I think most rational people see that a simple tax on nonrenewable energy production would be a better intermediate alternative to the income tax. I think that you are incorrect. Carbon tax = AGW = UN = NWO. :p :rolleyes:

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 07:57 PM
Perhaps BJ's decision to back and support a carbon tax is merely a knee-jerk reaction, on his part. ;) :D Maybe he just found a new solution to his campaign money woes. :eek:

TW- your poison is usually much more subtle. Please show where BJ has stated be "backs and supports a carbon tax"? If you cannot I expect a true warrior would be man enough to admit he is wrong and offer an apology for insinuating that I am a tool. Also, please show where you get this "campaign money woes" poison. I find you to be a fool, and I expect you are a tool. :p:rolleyes:;)




It might be better if we let this thread die. On subjects like this, no matter how hard we try to have civilized discussions, loudmouthed ideologues always come on and hijack the thread. Seriously, RevolutionSD isn't even talking about the carbon tax half the time, just that "I'm not even voting, government is evil". Like I said, I understand your point, IT JUST HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC!

I think most rational people see that a simple tax on nonrenewable energy production would be a better intermediate alternative to the income tax.

Yes, it would be nice to see this thread die, but free speech is a wonderful thing and threads like this give me a greater insight into the rationality and mindsets of our membership.


I think that you are incorrect. Carbon tax = AGW = UN = NWO. :p :rolleyes:

I know you are incorrect. Just because the NWO creeps have hijacked and corrupted the environmental movement is no reason to judge it all as part of a huge conspiracy. For certain the statement BJ made is being spun here. He mentioned exploring a non-renewable resource tax as a replacement for the income tax and you try to make it a great conspiracy :rolleyes:

:p

matratzac
11-02-2008, 08:14 PM
BJ lawson for the win!!!!!!

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 08:42 PM
TW- your poison is usually much more subtle. Please show where BJ has stated be "backs and supports a carbon tax"? If you cannot I expect a true warrior would be man enough to admit he is wrong and offer an apology for insinuating that I am a tool. Also, please show where you get this "campaign money woes" poison. I find you to be a fool, and I expect you are a tool. < emoticons removed per RPF limitations >

Is this thread bogus? Has he not suggested replacing the Income Tax with a Carbon Tax?

Perhaps you're only a dupe, not really quite up to tool caliber ranking. :D Ah the old personal insinuation bogus ploy again, eh?

I don't really take an idiot's findings any too seriously. :rolleyes:

Then again, maybe I really am an LRC tool. :D Hmmm?

Oh, maybe it's just ALL of the RPF threads continually BEGGING for more campaign contributions for BJ, with dire warnings of the consequences if he doesn't get them. :eek: Do a RPF thread search.

If I am incorrect, I do apologize. May I expect an apology from you, if I'm right?


I know you are incorrect. Just because the NWO creeps have hijacked and corrupted the environmental movement is no reason to judge it all as part of a huge conspiracy. For certain the statement BJ made is being spun here. He mentioned exploring a non-renewable resource tax as a replacement for the income tax and you try to make it a great conspiracy :rolleyes:

Have you finally found a way to prove a negative? Be the first. ;)

What's your enlightened opinion of the UN's IPCC?

The first Earth Day was on Lenin's 100th birthday. Hint, hint. If it obviously weren't, I wouldn't. But it is. :(

What were Rachel Carson's politics?

:p

:p :rolleyes:

Curt was better.<IMHO>

fj45lvr
11-02-2008, 08:50 PM
if true then BJ lawson is an IDIOT.

ronpaulhawaii
11-02-2008, 08:59 PM
:p :rolleyes:

He suggested exploring a non-renewable resource tax. That is a far cry from your "backs and supports"insinuation. Try again.

Perhaps.

:rolleyes:

or worse...

Do your own homework. I look forward to seeing you produce these "begging" threads with "dire consequences". Otherwise you remain a loudmouth

http://www.iandale.net/artwork/old/and_yet_another_fool.jpg

But, of course

No, thanks

I trust nothing from the UN

Don't care...

:p

Mesogen
11-02-2008, 09:02 PM
I haven't read all 8 pages yet, but in case no one mentioned this yet:

Replacing the income tax and/or the payroll tax with a carbon tax is a policy proposal coming from none other than Al Gore.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/9/18/154846/236

For the last fourteen years, I have advocated the elimination of all payroll taxes -- including those for social security and unemployment compensation -- and the replacement of that revenue in the form of pollution taxes -- principally on CO2. The overall level of taxation would remain exactly the same. It would be, in other words, a revenue neutral tax swap. But, instead of discouraging businesses from hiring more employees, it would discourage business from producing more pollution.

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 09:03 PM
If you want less of something, tax it. If you want more of something, don’t tax it. When you consider that simple rule, the foolishness of our federal income tax system is immediately apparent. If we want more income, jobs, and productivity, why do we tax income? Did you know that our country grew for over 120 years after its founding without a federal income tax?

Our income tax system is a disaster. Over 67,000 pages of IRS regulations are pure friction in our economy, and are the greatest threat to job creation and real economic growth. But before we can discuss eliminating the income tax, we must deal with government spending and entitlements that are spiraling out of control.

Wouldn't it be a lot easier to start a business, hire people, and create jobs if you didn't need to worry about taxation and withholding? As your Congressman, I will work to return the federal government to its Constitutional scope so we can eliminate the income tax.

So how small must our government be to eliminate the income tax? Let's try for a government that's small enough to fit inside the Constitution. In that case, we can eliminate the IRS and fund government's needs with excise and consumption taxes. In other words, tax consumption instead of income.

I've studied several consumption tax proposals, including a progressive consumption tax like the FairTax (http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer). One concern I have about the FairTax, however, is that we are facing unprecedented financial pressures today with stagnant wages and rising food and energy prices. How can we justify a national consumption tax that will provide a tax hike with every inflationary increase in your gas and grocery bill? Furthermore, is it wise to give the federal government taxing jurisdiction over every retail transaction? What about farmers bringing their crops to the local farmers' market? Taxing income is incredibly invasive. So, too, is taxing every retail transaction.

Another alternative I'm exploring that also addresses concerns for environmental and energy policy is a Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/). A simple Carbon Tax is preferable to the complicated game of "cap and trade" for carbon credits, and a Carbon Tax is justifiable regardless of your position on man-made global warming. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our reliance on nonrenewable energy. While this is a discussion we're just beginning, it's important to look at all of these potential options.

Ultimately, though, I recognize that there is no substitute for reducing the size and expense of our federal government. Borrow and spend is no better than tax and spend. I will work to eliminate unconstitutional spending so we can transition to system of taxation that provides a more sustainable future.

http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/taxation/

HOLLYWOOD
11-02-2008, 09:04 PM
if true then BJ lawson is an IDIOT.

BJ is smart... if these politicians don;t do the demographics they lose.

What's in the district? UNC, NC State, DUKE, Wake Forest. You have 'Carpet Baggers in Apex, Cary, Fuquay Varina. You have a ton of EX-Silicon valley workers now at the east coast branches... Cisco Systems, INM, NetApp, EMC, yotta yotta.

It's all doing the DEMOGRAPHICS...

90% of this job is beating the incubent. David Price is the OLD SOUTH, GOOD OLE BOY crap. et in the door, then you can be a pillar of good.

Just do the opposite of what Dubya Bush did in 2000.

DRV45N05
11-02-2008, 09:19 PM
Well, he did say "as a complete replacement of the Federal Income tax". Can't argue with that part.

But energy tax would still be regressive in nature...

I suggest you explore the idea more. A Carbon Tax is effectively a Pigovian Ta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigovian_tax)x. It may or may not be regressive, as the cost of a negative externality may be effectively a regressive tax.

matratzac
11-02-2008, 09:21 PM
i really, really cannot believe the crazy people in this thread.

i have lost all hope. i love ron paul but people were right - some of his supporters are crazy as shit.

bj, im cheering for you man. just be careful, keep your mouth shut because if you say 1 word that some of these crazies dont agree with they'll jump all over you and send you to hell as part of the NWO bilderburg group thats dead set on taking over the world:rolleyes:

trey4sports
11-02-2008, 09:37 PM
i really, really cannot believe the crazy people in this thread.

i have lost all hope. i love ron paul but people were right - some of his supporters are crazy as shit.

bj, im cheering for you man. just be careful, keep your mouth shut because if you say 1 word that some of these crazies dont agree with they'll jump all over you and send you to hell as part of the NWO bilderburg group thats dead set on taking over the world:rolleyes:


QFT my friend

BenIsForRon
11-02-2008, 09:42 PM
I think y'all should be thinking of this from the economic perspective too. How many sectors of our economy are totally dependent on gas being cheap? What would happen to many jobs if gas went to 10 dollars? Now think of this, in 1900, would $10 a gallon gasoline have such a drastic effect? I think not, because people weren't so reliant on gasoline to get products and employees from A to B.

With the carbon tax alternative to income, we could gradually shrink government while also creating an economy that isn't dependent on an ultimately unreliable commodity (fossil fuels). It was very irresponsible and short sighted of us to build this interstate highway system in the 40's and 50's. You guys can check my the link in my sig to get more perspective on what I'm talking about.

Truth Warrior
11-02-2008, 09:46 PM
He suggested exploring a non-renewable resource tax. That is a far cry from your "backs and supports"insinuation. Try again.

I, Truth Warrior do hereby retract "back and support" from a prior post.


Perhaps BJ's decision to back and support a carbon tax is merely a knee-jerk reaction, on his part. ;) :D Maybe he just found a new solution to his campaign money woes. :eek:

to be replaced by:


Perhaps BJ's decision to explore a carbon tax is merely a knee-jerk reaction, on his part. ;) :D Maybe he just found a new solution to his campaign money woes. :eek:

Another alternative I'm exploring that also addresses concerns for environmental and energy policy is a Carbon Tax (http://www.carbontax.org/). A simple Carbon Tax is preferable to the complicated game of "cap and trade" for carbon credits, and a Carbon Tax is justifiable regardless of your position on man-made global warming. Everyone agrees that we need to reduce our reliance on nonrenewable energy. While this is a discussion we're just beginning, it's important to look at all of these potential options.
http://www.lawsonforcongress.com/issues/taxation/

AGW? UN? Al Gore? NWO? Tree hugger pandering? ???


Perhaps.

:rolleyes:

or worse...

Do your own homework. I look forward to seeing you produce these "begging" threads with "dire consequences". Otherwise you remain a loudmouth

< Goofy picture snipped >

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=2805212 (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/search.php?searchid=2805212)

Gee, ONLY 290 BJ LAWSON, RPF threads. It felt like more.

But, of course

No, thanks

I trust nothing from the UN

Don't care...

Yeah, that's a HUGE part of the problem, world wide,<IMHO> BTW, Ron cares. ;)

:p

"Carbon Tax" is a "Hot Button" issue for me. Can you tell?

Happy? :D

matratzac
11-03-2008, 08:14 AM
bump for bj and all the crybabies here

RevolutionSD
11-03-2008, 11:22 AM
reading this entire thread ive come to the conclusion that revolutionSD HAS to be a joke/troll/just trying to be annoying. no wonder people hated paul supporters. i mean, seriously

this is ridiculous.
can you please show me why i should support a violent, coercive government? this is what you are advocating, even with a bj lawson, and especially with a bj lawson who is compromising principles. pretty soon lawson turns into bob barr and then we're back to a fascist/socialist system within no time.

i'm not in favor of violence, therefore, i will not be voting in this election. if you are in favor of violence, by all means, vote. we need to abolish the SYSTEM, and replace it with NOTHING.

Truth Warrior
11-03-2008, 11:28 AM
this is ridiculous.
can you please show me why i should support a violent, coercive government? this is what you are advocating, even with a bj lawson, and especially with a bj lawson who is compromising principles. pretty soon lawson turns into bob barr and then we're back to a fascist/socialist system within no time.

i'm not in favor of violence, therefore, i will not be voting in this election. if you are in favor of violence, by all means, vote. we need to abolish the SYSTEM, and replace it with NOTHING. I could make the attempt, but not without laughing. :D

BenIsForRon
11-03-2008, 12:50 PM
RevolutionSD, do you believe in violence in the case of self-defense?

matratzac
11-03-2008, 02:36 PM
revolutionsd must be on 02139120391230 medications because hes crazy as hell

.Tom
11-03-2008, 04:22 PM
The income tax is less than half of the federal income. We need to cut federal spending by at least 99%. There is no reason to replace it with anything.

fj45lvr
11-04-2008, 04:09 AM
The income tax is less than half of the federal income. We need to cut federal spending by at least 99%. There is no reason to replace it with anything.


amen. Precisely.


And if BJ really believed the FEDS needed more funding why pick on Carbon?? That's something to steer AWAY from because it is a LOADED issue that carries with it GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.

Let's think in terms of counties and states...and leave the world alone.

Mini-Me
11-05-2008, 02:51 PM
PHEW! Well, I'm sure glad David Price won, because we almost just elected someone who is only 95% perfect but who would replace the income tax with a carbon tax! The horror! Wow, that sure was a close call! Good thing we showed that little carbon tax fascist who's boss, huh? :rolleyes: