PDA

View Full Version : Economic: Taxes: I need to strengthen my argument. Got any good advice?




CFLrutherfordtn
02-29-2012, 11:26 PM
Does anyone have good information thats able to parry this statement?

"Yes, I've read that. I also have a head on my shoulders and can think ahead to what he is offering... i.e. ending the FED and IRS... eliminating jobs.. and putting everyone that is employed by them in the unemployment line... also eliminating income taxes, which is a good percentage of our total income to pay down the debt.... making it MUCH tougher to have a balanced budget... he'll have to find another income stream that will cover what we lose from income and capital gains taxes.

He's offering tax credits... and then in the next statement saying he's going to abolish taxes... which one is it?

Again... these have to pass through a bipartisan congress... most of which are not as "extreme" as Ron Paul is... and therefore will not pass... the same thing that Obama faced with Congress.

Seems like more "hope and change" to me..."

Heres the link to the thread:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=368222539869090&set=a.235149333176412.66544.195077103850302&type=1&theater

Zippyjuan
03-01-2012, 12:18 AM
Ron has always been in favor of lowering taxes with the ultimate goal of getting rid of the income tax but he has also added that you have to balance the budget and get rid of the debt BEFORE you do that- otherwise, yes, you would be making the debt worse. Now let's say your goal was to get rid of the debt (not just the deficit) in 15 years. The current debt is $15 trillion so you have to take in $1 trillion more in taxes than you spend every year for that 15 years. The current budget deficit runs about $1.3 trillion a year so you would have to reduce spending (if you don't change taxes at all) by $2.3 trillion a year- $1.3 trillion to balance the budget and another $1 trillion on top of that to reduce the debt.

Doing that gets even harder if you don't want to cut Social Security and Medicare (which he has said he doesn't want to do- he would like to "honor commitments made to our seniors". That leaves you with $1.3 trillion of "cutable" spending- that is every penny of all departments including the Department of Defense.

For references, you can check out the 2010 budget in rough outline here: http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=4&oq=us+budget+&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGHP_enUS447US448&q=us+budget+2010&gs_upl=0l0l0l3674lllllllllll0&aqi=g4s3

Getting a balanced budget is a very difficult problem. Every department or program has its fans who would like to see them continued and axing any of them would alienate those people in the next election if you tried. That is why hardly anybody besides Ron Paul has even offered any suggestions as to what they would cut to start with- beyond "trimming waste". Trimming waste won't get you $1.3 trillion in spending reductions a year.

Voluntary Man
03-01-2012, 12:27 AM
Does anyone have good information thats able to parry this statement?

"Yes, I've read that. I also have a head on my shoulders and can think ahead to what he is offering... i.e. ending the FED and IRS... eliminating jobs.. and putting everyone that is employed by them in the unemployment line... also eliminating income taxes, which is a good percentage of our total income to pay down the debt.... making it MUCH tougher to have a balanced budget... he'll have to find another income stream that will cover what we lose from income and capital gains taxes.

He's offering tax credits... and then in the next statement saying he's going to abolish taxes... which one is it?

Again... these have to pass through a bipartisan congress... most of which are not as "extreme" as Ron Paul is... and therefore will not pass... the same thing that Obama faced with Congress.

Seems like more "hope and change" to me..."

Heres the link to the thread:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=368222539869090&set=a.235149333176412.66544.195077103850302&type=1&theater

Why waste your time with that clown; for all you know, he works for the IRS, DEA, TSA, or Halliburton...or is on welfare/foodstamps, riding his 2nd year of unemployment "benefits," or receiving crop subsidies.

Don't attempt to persuade dishonest idiots: expose them! There are many more lurkers, on any moderately trafficked site, than there are posters, so write for the lurkers, not for the provocateurs and morons.

Regardless of whatever else your adversary may be, he is -- without question -- a materialist. Materialists believe that the ends justify the means; if they can get you to agree -- or, at least, prevent you from disproving -- that their position will produce a more favorable material outcome (e.g., "better general health," "higher employment," "lower infant mortality," "fewer people living below the [imaginary] poverty line," etc.), then you've lost the argument, from their perspective.

Never, Never, Never allow yourself to be sucked into materialist arguments over moral issues; and, yes, the argument for liberty IS a moral one. Universal slavery could be argued to completely eliminate homelessness and starvation (i.e., "poverty"); but, if I may paraphrase TJ, I'd rather suffer the inconveniences of liberty than the indignities of its absence. Always remember, freedom isn't for sissies...but coercion and its rationalizations are for the debauched.

emazur
03-01-2012, 02:58 AM
Ron Paul frequently uses post WW2 as an example of economic recovery: massive spending cuts led to a boom. If we did well after all the soldiers were no longer employed by the government, we can do well with all the economics and agents who are no longer employed by the Fed and IRS and other govt. agents. I'll have to check to see if taxes were sharply cut post WW2 - I believe they were (someone feel free to chime in).

Lowering the capital gains taxes has historically led to more revenue going the government. He does make a valid point on Paul's income tax plan: I know he wants to eliminate the income tax but we all know that's gonna happen overnight, so what specific income tax is Paul's plan B? He's not planning on shuttering the Fed in a day but offers a plan B in the way of competing currencies and an audit (which I'm hoping will lead to a freezing of any Fed action after they are exposed), so what's the income tax plan B?

As for the "hope and change", Paul will veto the hell out of anything that increases the size, scope, and cost of government (like Gary Johnson did). Paul will also bring home the troops. Those 2 things right there would be a significant change from the Bush and Obama years

Zippyjuan
03-01-2012, 12:49 PM
The big boom following WWII was due to several factors. One is that much of the world had lost much of their infrastructure and the US was one of the few countries which could produce things needed for reconstructino and even everyday goods. There was also the end of severe rationing and consumers in this country were finally able to buy goods- inluding staples like sugar and coffee- which were very limited during the war.

Taxes and WWII:
http://www.policyalmanac.org/economic/archive/tax_history.shtml

Even before the United States entered the Second World War, increasing defense spending and the need for monies to support the opponents of Axis aggression led to the passage in 1940 of two tax laws that increased individual and corporate taxes, which were followed by another tax hike in 1941. By the end of the war the nature of the income tax had been fundamentally altered. Reductions in exemption levels meant that taxpayers with taxable incomes of only $500 faced a bottom tax rate of 23 percent, while taxpayers with incomes over $1 million faced a top rate of 94 percent. These tax changes increased federal receipts from $8.7 billion in 1941 to $45.2 billion in 1945. Even with an economy stimulated by war-time production, federal taxes as a share of GDP grew from 7.6 percent in 1941 to 20.4 percent in 1945. Beyond the rates and revenues, however, another aspect about the income tax that changed was the increase in the number of income taxpayers from 4 million in 1939 to 43 million in 1945.

Another important feature of the income tax that changed was the return to income tax withholding as had been done during the Civil War. This greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future.



Tax cuts following the war reduced the Federal tax burden as a share of GDP from its wartime high of 20.9 percent in 1944 to 14.4 percent in 1950. However, the Korean War created a need for additional revenues which, combined with the extension of Social Security coverage to self-employed persons, meant that by 1952 the tax burden had returned to 19.0 percent of GDP.

TheFreeEconomy
03-02-2012, 10:11 PM
Raising taxes can actually decrease the tax revenue federal government takes in. When you, for example, raise the capital gains tax, investors will either move their investments overseas or just stop investing altogether. Lowering the capital gains tax actually spurs more investment, thus increasing tax revenue. The same thing applies with raising the income tax, especially when taxing the rich. The rich will just move their money overseas or invest in tax free securities.

rpwi
03-03-2012, 09:17 AM
Use an analogy. Ask him if there was a Bureau of Mud that did nothing but produce mud pies (that weren't consumable)...should we keep this bureau running? You could rhetorically argue that the mud industry hires a lot of people and generates a lot of derivative jobs (like hauling mud, mining mud). Now these 'mudders' pay rent, mortgages, taxes and all that jazz...so they if they say...of course we should get rid of mud pies...ask him what will happen to all these jobs?

The ultimate lesson is that we as an economy can't live a lie. Rectifying lies can't hurt the economy...as only truth works in a capitalist system.

Voluntary Man
03-03-2012, 09:57 AM
Does anyone have good information thats able to parry this statement?
"Yes, I've read that. I also have a head on my shoulders ...

[ It's useful to also have a brain inside one's head. He should look into that]

and can think ahead to what
he is offering... i.e. ending the FED and IRS... eliminating jobs.. and putting everyone
that is employed by them in the unemployment line

[According that idiot's "reasoning, the US gov should hire EVERYONE, thereby eliminating unemployment. "it's magic!"]

... also eliminating income taxes,
which is a good percentage of our total income to pay down the debt...

[when that tool refers to taxes as "our income," is he referring to his welfare check? Taxation is theft; it is only the rightful income of those from whom it's taken. Anyone else receiving or sharing in it is in receipt of stolen goods. The fact that others may "benefit" from my stolen property does NOT justify the theft. Tell that loser to stop mooching off of his neighbors]


.... making it
MUCH tougher to have a balanced budget...

[what makes balanced budgets impossible it's that that idiot keeps voting for big government spendaholics]

....he'll have to find another income stream
that will cover what we lose from income and capital gains taxes....

[or, we'll just have to stop spending money we don't have -- which it's Ron's plan]

...He's offering tax credits...

[ask him for a reference on that one. I'd be shocked if he can provide one]

...and then in the next statement saying he's going to abolish
taxes... which one is it?

[it's clear that this tax profiteer it's never going to loosen his grip on your wallet. he's scared to death that Ron will end the income taxes. That guy views your taxes as his income]

Again... these have to pass through a bipartisan congress... most of which are not as
"extreme" as Ron Paul is... and therefore will not pass...

[not even true. President Paul, as chief executive, can simply halt most any spending he doesn't like, and can simply order the IRS to stand down. And can fire federal employees, en mass]

the same thing that Obama
faced with Congress.
Seems like more "hope and change" to me..."

[That clown can vote for Obama, again, if he wants. But if Ron isn't elected, America will have little of either left]