Would you ever vote for a "liberty" candidate who voted to raise taxes?

[DylanWaco]

Well?

[Icymudpuppy]

For me it would depend.

On a national level, absolutely not.

On a state level, absolutely not

At the county level, maybe, depends what is being taxed. If a non-essential sales item like soda with revenue going to support the local diabeties prevention campaign, okay... If I don't like it, I could buy my soda at the next county over.

At the city level, sure, but I don't live in the city anyway.

[TruckinMike]

Are they a real liberty candidate? If so yes. the good outweighs the bad as long as it was a one time slip of judgement. Sometimes people reform when given a second chance. But keep ever vigilant and NEVER let them forget!

[nbruno322]

Liberty candidate that raises taxes? Sounds like an oxymoron.

[pcosmar]

:confused:

Why?

voted NO.
We are already overtaxed on every level. What possible reason is there to raise taxes?
Cut Spending, Cut Spending and cut spending,, until the government can run out of a "tip jar".

[sailingaway]

How perfect are they otherwise?

And voting isn't getting excited about something.

But suppose Ron Paul had voted to raise taxes just once in order to get NDAA repealed? I'd consider it worth it (depending on the tax.) So this isn't enough information. It would be a pretty major thing that needed to be explained away, though.

[fisharmor]

If I'm voting for someone, it's someone who is going to represent one of the most affluent areas of Virginia, which is not exactly a poor state.

I was driving home from church through a construction zone yesterday and was musing to my wife, gee, I wonder what the budget on orange cones and pylons is? Because no matter where you are, it seems like the budget is about eighteen times larger than it needs to be. The road gets positively festooned with orange.
The jersey wall they set up on the side of the road even had orange reflective bits installed on it every 30 feet.
I looked to my right as I was passing an exit ramp, and there was a sign halfway down the exit ramp that said "End Construction Zone". No shit, really?

FFS, they could make the DMV employees increase their throughput by 4 people per day and see a bunch of savings. I mean, I know that's increasing their workload 100%, but you gotta do what you gotta do.

There's enough money.

[BAllen]

No.

[thoughtomator]

It depends on the circumstances... if it was 20 years ago and they've had a philosophical conversion since, that's forgivable. If it was this year or last... no, absolutely not.

[Cleaner44]

The problem with this type of situation is that bills in DC these days are so big and cover so much ground of compromise that most ever vote can be framed as bad. For example, Rand Paul could vote for a bill that de-funds the CIA completely and yet has an amendment to raise the tax on tobacco 1%. So the candidate would then be in a pickle and could then be cast as a tax raiser or a CIA lover depending which way they vote.

We need the "One Subject at a Time Act (https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/)" (OSTA).

[fisharmor]

The problem with this type of situation is that bills in DC these days are so big and cover so much ground of compromise that most ever vote can be framed as bad.

But Ron came up with a perfect strategy for those.
Fight to get liberty's enemies to put something in the bill which helps liberty.... then vote against the whole bill.

[wizardwatson]

What exactly is the criteria for being a "liberty" candidate? Seems to me it's just the Ron Paul annointed ones.

[pcosmar]

Liberty candidate that raises taxes? Sounds like an oxymoron.

Was my thought as well.

What do taxes (theft) have to do with Liberty?

[Brian4Liberty]

The problem with this type of situation is that bills in DC these days are so big and cover so much ground of compromise that most ever vote can be framed as bad. For example, Rand Paul could vote for a bill that de-funds the CIA completely and yet has an amendment to raise the tax on tobacco 1%. So the candidate would then be in a pickle and could then be cast as a tax raiser or a CIA lover depending which way they vote.

We need the "One Subject at a Time Act (https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/one-subject/)" (OSTA).

Yep, hardly ever a single subject in a given bill.

[69360]

Depends on what the tax was for. If it was for something I consider useful then probably.

[Brian4Liberty]

I voted "no", but with a big caveat that the media and special interests spin everything.

If there was a bill that was revenue neutral and simplified the tax code, I could support that. But whenever an idea like that comes up, some special interest will squeal like a stuck pig that their taxes are being raised, because some preferential loophole is being eliminated.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Ask this question to all the Kucinich fans at Daily Paul.

[jbauer]

I would if it was part of a balanced budget act. The reason I would is I think the general population if required to pay for what they consume (on a government level) that the population would immediately revolt and we'd get government waste taken care of overnight.

I strongly feel the reason we're so quick to go to war, the reason we're so quick to bailout banks, the reason we do many of the things we do is that we don't pay for hardly any of it. Most of it is printed wealth created out of thin air.

So yes, if we required each dollar spent to be collected in taxes, EVEN if it meant 100% tax I'd be in favor of it. Not because its right or just to do it, but it might be what actually gets some people off their asses and do something about it.

[bolil]

It depends. A vote to raise taxes<a vote to end all foreign involvement(of a military nature, this includes the UN) to me. Of course a vote to raise taxes might also be indicative of culpability for foreign involvement. Still, given everything that taxation means and does I guess I still could not. Would't be a 'liberty candidate' Although, I like the ring of 'Democratic part' 'Republic Party' 'Liberty Party'. If they were actual parties, everyone would be at the liberty party.

[Antischism]

If they were as serious as Ron Paul is when it comes to foreign policy and the war on drugs, I would.

[pcosmar]

Depends on what the tax was for. If it was for something I consider useful then probably.

If it was useful it could be funded without tax.

I could even tolerate (perhaps) a minimal tax,, for local services. But would prefer that such be a voluntary donation.

[DylanWaco]

Rather than make a separate thread I want to ask another question here. Would you vote for a liberty candidate who voted to meaningfully increase non-defense spending?

[69360]

If it was useful it could be funded without tax.

I could even tolerate (perhaps) a minimal tax,, for local services. But would prefer that such be a voluntary donation.

Then how would it be funded? Even minimal governments need some funding. Income tax no, gasoline and sales taxes to fund government and roads, yes we need those. If infrastructure needed improvement and a candidate had voted to raise a tax rate for that, I think that could be useful and I could deal with that.

[gwax23]

No

[Christian Liberty]

How perfect are they otherwise?

And voting isn't getting excited about something.

But suppose Ron Paul had voted to raise taxes just once in order to get NDAA repealed? I'd consider it worth it (depending on the tax.) So this isn't enough information. It would be a pretty major thing that needed to be explained away, though.


Yeah, maybe in that type of circumstance. But in general, no (I voted no.)

In a theoretical world, maybe, but we have so obviously too many taxes right now its ridiculous. I don't even care about "Flattening" the tax code unless/until its reduced a lot further.

There are exceptions though. Say there was a bill tomorrow that made every person's income tax bill 10%. Yeah, I wouldn't discount a candidate for voting for that, in fact, I probably would too. But that is, on MOST people, a reduction of tax. There's a difference, to me, between accidentally increasing taxes on a few in an effort to reduce taxes in general, and outright raising taxes.


Ask this question to all the Kucinich fans at Daily Paul.

I respect Kucinich because of his foreign policy, but could never vote for him.

[wizardwatson]

Who cares? What is the meaning of this question?

I would vote for Osama Bin Laden to triple my taxes if the payoff was there.

[Spoa]

Likely no. I don't know why a liberty candidate would want to give more money to the ever-expanding government.

If it is to pay off the debt (and every attempt to cut spending has been made), maybe.

[JustinTime]

I voted "maybe/maybe not".

Id vote for an otherwise good candidate who had voted to raise taxes in the past IF he or she was replacing a arbitrary and unpredicatble tax, say property taxes, with something easily predictable, like a sales tax. And then, only if the total dollar amount went down.