At first I didn't like Ron's 10% idea mentioned in his CPA speech, but...

[ihrs]

Because it's still 10% theft. BUT I think if he makes this one of his big campaign platforms its going to be huge. I casually brought it up to some friends who are usually :rolleyes: annoyed by my Ron Paul posts on fb and such and they all perked up immediately and asked for more information.

Its a huge step but not the full leap to limited government that we want but it gets them on board. I hope he goes with it full force.

[dbill27]

I think its a pretty great idea, its grown on me as well. I can't believe that not one interview that i saw after cpac with ron mentioned it.

[CUnknown]

It's an awesome idea. I mean, think about how much we're paying right now? 30-50% or so, if you include medicare tax, social security tax, income tax.. 10% would be like a dream come true. It would be like an immediate 25% raise or something. And guess what? With that we could save for our retirements ourselves!

[Tinnuhana]

Didn't Forbes have a 10% flat tax in his platform when he ran in 2000 (I think)? But I don't know if that included an opt-out clause for SS and all.

[Zippyjuan]

A nice goal for sure. As he says, you have to control spending first before you can really do much on taxes. Otherwise if you want to replace income taxes with a sales tax it would have to be around 35% to cover current spending levels.

[doodle]

It is very hard for me to not like any idea Ron proposes.

This is not right lol

[eduardo89]

It is very hard for me to not like any idea Ron proposes.

This is not right lol

I have the same problem. I can't remember of any time he's proposed something and I thought to myself "I do not agree with him"

[MelissaCato]

It's an awesome idea. I mean, think about how much we're paying right now? 30-50% or so, if you include medicare tax, social security tax, income tax.. 10% would be like a dream come true. It would be like an immediate 25% raise or something. And guess what? With that we could save for our retirements ourselves!

At first when I heard him say it I'm like, what ?? But, I'm really quick with numbers so it would be a whole lot nicer with 10% instead of what we pay now. I stood and clapped. LOL

[sailingaway]

He has always said he will push for what is right and vote for what is BETTER.

However, I think it is a real mistake in timing and will scare more people on social security who know that this is and has for a while been funded from the next generation. Their position will be that they paid for the prior generation themselves, so.... if he is going to continue this he needs to say where the money will come from for those who already paid into social security every time he brings it up. WE know what he is getting at, overseas spending. But in a time when Congress can't even find $100 billion in cuts, this is going to seem like a pipe dream to many. I honestly think it will upset a lot more than it will energize. I was hoping he would stick to more short term goals in his platform, while explaining where he would like to get to eventually.

However, that is a strategic decision, and his to make.

[ItsTime]

Id take this crap over the % I am paying now. So would A LOT of neo-cons.

[sailingaway]

I think its a pretty great idea, its grown on me as well. I can't believe that not one interview that i saw after cpac with ron mentioned it.

You're kidding. You didn't see the Forbes article claiming Ron was offering kids 'economic crack'?

[sailingaway]

Id take this crap over the % I am paying now. So would A LOT of neo-cons.

A flat tax is a fairly mainstream issue, actually. It has been discussed for years, at least since Steve Forbes ran for president on that platform. How he is tying social security into that is the part that is new. And it really reduces IRS staff and power because it eliminates loop holes, be aware of that.

[ItsTime]

You're kidding. You didn't see the Forbes article claiming Ron was offering kids 'economic crack'?

lol I didn't see that one have a link handy?

[sailingaway]

lol I didn't see that one have a link handy?

I honestly don't want to put it here and raise its profile. You can search RP and 'economic crack' though and see what comes up.

[Slutter McGee]

I have the same problem. I can't remember of any time he's proposed something and I thought to myself "I do not agree with him"

Well it is not an end all answer. We know that Ron hates the income tax. But we also know he would do anything to reduce the burden if he can not eliminate it.

A decrease in taxes like this would be absolutely huge, and brings in a lot more interest and discussion than just saying "eliminate it"

For some reason saying "eliminate it" seems fringe to many, saying "dramatically reduce the income tax burden down to 10% accross the board" is still extreme among todays politicians, does not sound as fringe.

Its a good idea, both in concept and as a campaign issue.

Slutter McGee
Glad he is learning from his last campaign

[specsaregood]

But in a time when Congress can't even find $100 billion in cuts, this is going to seem like a pipe dream to many.
It is not that they can't find $100billion in cuts. It is that they don't have to. It's like the alcoholic or drug user that doesn't seek help until they hit rock bottom. If the credit card was cut-off, they'd find $1.5trillion in cuts.


You're kidding. You didn't see the Forbes article claiming Ron was offering kids 'economic crack'?
But that was the only one, and it wasn't a real forbes article but a forbes blog post. and that guy was a full on socialist.

[fisharmor]

The more I think about it, the more I'm not a fan - especially if that 10% isn't coming out of a well defined set of "income".
The reason so many are pissed about income taxes (myself included) is the overhead involved in paying them.
I work all year for my money, and then every March I have to spend 20-30 hours more work, and it's not only not paid work - it's just to fork over the money that I worked for.
If 10% gets withheld and I don't have to put the extra work into doing taxes, I'm already better off.
That would assume that they compel financial companies to do withholdings on mutual funds, IRAs, bank interest, &tc though - so there would still be a hidden cost in compliance.
They can't really declare those not to be income, because it would immediately form another bubble, so I'm torn on the auto withholding thing.
But the only other option would be for me to sit my ass down and do my taxes every year - which is my primary complaint.

[sailingaway]

It is not that they can't find $100billion in cuts. It is that they don't have to. It's like the alcoholic or drug user that doesn't seek help until they hit rock bottom. If the credit card was cut-off, they'd find $1.5trillion in cuts.


But that was the only one, and it wasn't a real forbes article but a forbes blog post. and that guy was a full on socialist.

I agree with you, but what I meant was when they don't have the guts to MAKE $100 billion in cuts, it will seem like a pipe dream....

But I'm glad you clarified the Forbes thing. I read it, but there was a ton of stuff right after CPAC, and I was reading quickly. I would think Steve at least would like the flat tax and not have a knee jerk reaction without finding out what Ron had in mind.

[Mini-Me]

He has always said he will push for what is right and vote for what is BETTER.

However, I think it is a real mistake in timing and will scare more people on social security who know that this is and has for a while been funded from the next generation. Their position will be that they paid for the prior generation themselves, so.... if he is going to continue this he needs to say where the money will come from for those who already paid into social security every time he brings it up. WE know what he is getting at, overseas spending. But in a time when Congress can't even find $100 billion in cuts, this is going to seem like a pipe dream to many. I honestly think it will upset a lot more than it will energize. I was hoping he would stick to more short term goals in his platform, while explaining where he would like to get to eventually.

However, that is a strategic decision, and his to make.

The problem with Social Security though is that it's only going to get worse. The older generation of today paid the way of the previous generation, but the generation after is paying much more dearly for the current generation, and so on. It's a downward spiral, and the complaints and misfortunes of the elderly will only get more dire the longer we wait. I guess everyone here knows that though, so there's no point harping on it. :p


As far as the 10% idea itself, I'll support any forward-moving compromise that doesn't limit our future ability to go farther. I don't like one step forward, two steps back compromises (or even vice versa), because that's the kind of crap that's gotten us where we are today...but I can fully support the kind of temporary compromise that moves entirely in the right direction. Move steadily forward, and cede no ground gained. "Hold the line!" :D

[specsaregood]

But I'm glad you clarified the Forbes thing. I read it, but there was a ton of stuff right after CPAC, and I was reading quickly. I would think Steve at least would like the flat tax and not have a knee jerk reaction without finding out what Ron had in mind.
Yeah, I'd figure he likes most all of Dr. Paul's proposals on fiscal issues. IIRC he has endorsed Dr. Paul in every single congressional campaign in my lifetime.

[Chester Copperpot]

at first I didnt like it either but then I figured its way better than what we pay now... and on top of it.. my neocon friends who dont believe getting rid of the income tax is a real possibility all think this is a great idea..

its kinda like they cant beleive that we can function without an income tax so they dismiss ron paul.. but hey 10% of your income.. yeah im down with that.. and they start perking up.

Sounds like Ron is taking a page from Rand.. either way.. the march towards liberty continues.