Ron Paul - The Un-American income tax
What would you replace the income tax with? Consumption tax? Flat Tax Rate?
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." - Founding Father Thomas Jefferson
Excise tax and non-protectionist tariffs. Additionally, cut spending.
What would you replace the income tax with? Thanks!
Originally Posted by uncharted
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-25-2017 at 02:20 AM.
Fed govt should have no need to fund anything other than what is in Article One Section Eight , all that needs determined is how much that would take. Then it could be determined how it could be paid for. No need to use current models . If you leave social security and medicare as is those are separate taxes specifically for those and should not go into the general fund . States , counties and cities have taxes . Worst taxes are pretty much some that exist now in many places , property tax , sales tax on food and utilities , Federal income tax etc . Nearly all plans for flat tax actually raise tax on many .
Do something Danke
Nearly all tax plans put forth by people suck , because they drastically raise taxes on many . Spending is what needs drastically cut . Then you could easily develop plans to pay for things without huge tax increases .
Pretty sure the op isn't really interested in the discussion. It looks like another hand grenade being dropped similar to the ancap thread that went 20 pages or so. And the same op didn't show back up after dropping that grenade either.
I wouldnt waste the time with this one. It's been discussed a thousand times already.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-24-2017 at 12:33 PM.
I figured he was just getting his homework done for free . Also , in before the crazy land tax people .
Last edited by oyarde; 10-24-2017 at 03:10 PM.
Theye don't give homework assignments about what Ron Paul thinks.
Isn't this like asking which form of theft is best?
Land.
Just like gold and silver are biblical money. Giving produce from your land, a concept around since bible times, is essentially a land tax.
But the powerful never want to go back to either because printing money allows them to steal, and avoiding wealth tax (property tax) allows them to keep it.
By using gold and silver the rich couldn't steal from the poor as easily as they do now.
By taxing property instead of consumption and wages, the poor would acquire wealth faster, which also threatens the rich.
A regressive tax system pushes people to the margins of survival. Easier to manage as a slave class.
Not a big mystery.
Last edited by wizardwatson; 10-24-2017 at 12:35 PM.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
A lot of people like to say "The top 1% pay half the income taxes" or "The poor don't pay anything in taxes."
But what about when looked at in terms of % of wealth/income rather than just a flat number?
This article has some great tables and charts to see the truth more clearly:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
Wealth or income class Mean household income Mean household net worth Top 1 percent $1,679,000 $18,623,400 Top 20 percent $257,200 $2,260,300 60th-80th percentile $76,500 $236,400 40th-60th percentile $46,000 $68,100 Bottom 40 percent $20,300 -$10,800
So, that table shows mean (average) wealth and income.
Now this chart shows real taxes, meaning ALL taxes, payroll, sales, state and local as a PERCENT of income. How "level" is the playing field? Are the poor rich people paying more than their share?
I don't think so. They aren't really paying any more than anyone else as far as pecentage of income.
AND WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT PERHAPS TAXES SHOULD BE BASED ON WEALTH INSTEAD OF WAGES..
...well in that case, if you believe that, like I do, then the very rich pay very little.
One might even say, "well, poor people pay less".
But AS A PERCENTAGE OF INCOME they also pay interest on their debt. If you add the interest at say 10% on the bottom 40%'s debt level, it easily brings them on par with other brackets at around 30% of income going towards tax/debt.
Rich people might have substantial debt as well, here and there, but they also have favorable interest rates.
Last edited by wizardwatson; 10-24-2017 at 01:16 PM.
When a trumpet sounds in a city, do not the people tremble?
When disaster comes to a city, has not the Lord caused it? Amos 3:6
I prefer the Ron Paul Flat Tax:
#TaxationIsTheft
I could probably get behind 0 to 1 percent. With Fed income tax eliminated and spending cuts .I prefer the Ron Paul Flat Tax:
#TaxationIsTheft
Trick question.Which form of taxation is best?
None.
All taxation is theft.
Proper phrasing:
Which form of tax is least worst?
Property tax is worst.
I think so .
@Natural Citizen, @oyarde
I apologize. I’m not well-versed in these topics that I’ve been asking so I'm trying to learn from the wisdom of others. That said, here is my proposal:
1. Massively reduce government spending (bring an end to the countless expenditures that the government can’t afford such as Social Security, Medicare, Department of Education, etc.), which I reckon that virtually everyone here supports.
2. What to replace the federal income tax (how to collect the taxes) with is where I'm "stuck" because I don't have a conclusive stance on which form is the least destructive form of taxation in said hypothetical situation. For now I lean towards either
A) A consumption tax with food exempt (encourage savings, investments, avoid taxing production).
or
B) A 1% flat rate tax.
*Voluntary donations and fines would also be applicable with either one.
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." - Founding Father Thomas Jefferson
The best ideas are a sales tax/VAT with exclusions for food, clothing, housing, and energy, tariffs and a cash-flow tax on state budgets.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
No need for an apology to me . if a 1 percent tax would pay for what the govt is actually allowed to spend on I could go for it . What people often overlook is other ways to generate revenue .The problem is spending . Spending on things that should not be allowed .
oh fun, I get to play king!!!!!!!!!! my favorite game.
So assuming can't just abolish the US entirely, which would be my preference. So, I'll pretend I'm ruling the US as is with the intention of keeping it intact.
Welll...... let's see.
1. Property tax, but each person or eligible dependent is allocated 25,000 property appraisal exemption which can only be applied to one residence, which must be registered as primary residence. So, if your house is valued at 150,000, and you are married, and have 2 kids... Congrats you can while in that situation deduct 100,000 off the appraised value, and only be "taxed" the portion not covered. At 70+ years of age, no property tax shall be charged on any current active primary residence one has lived in for at least 3 years. Also this deduction would not allow any portion of the household rented be eligible for the exemption, and the 25,000 dollar would be adjusted to approximate the area utilized by dependents/spouse only. Adult children over the age of 25 will not be allowed to be claimed even if dependent unless permanent guardianship has been granted to the owner(s) of the property. All property tax dollars are to be pooled and distributed according to population density of the governed area, and consideration will be given to provide for extra funding to facilitate transport services in rural school districts. Under no circumstance can the 25,000/ person property tax allowance/exemption result in in a negative property tax situation, as in 0 is the lower bound for taxable property tax, if one had 4 children and a spouse living in a 100,000 dollar house that would result in a -50000 property tax assessment obligation, but no refund or credit would be generated.
2. Sales Tax(vast bulk of taxes would be collected this way). Essential basic food items would not be taxed at any level. The goobermint will send annually (or refill current card) to all citizens a sales tax exemption card to be scanned at POS valued at 4000.00. In the case of a married couple or if one has dependents the value would be merged to a single card upon request(married sharing tax exemption) As in 4000.00 dollars worth of taxable purchases can be excluded from taxation / annum, not 4000.00 dollars worth of taxes. And this "exemption" Can not be applied to Gas Tax, gambling tax, etc... only to items not subject to other tax schemes. One will simply scan the exemption card before swiping your debit card or paying with your favorite cryptocurrency.
3. Gas Tax... Essentially a different sales tax calculated based on cost of road maintenance and construction, or tax based on mileage/vehicle type as would be necessary if electric cars take over.
4. Gambling Tax..
5. Drug, alcohol tax.
6. Prostitution tax.
7. Capital Gains tax of 15% on CApital gains over 50,000 in a given year. If a person is over 65 and has held an investment over 5 years up to 100,000 in capital gains / year tax free.
No town, city, state, or any other governing body other than the Federal government may levy taxes on any citizen. All taxes are a function of the god entity known as the federal government. Funds will be distributed by the federal government to local bodies based on a standardized criteria. Large projects such as bridges, and core infrastructure deemed in the "general" interest and benefit of the region can be paid for directly from the federal purse.
That's about it.
NOT funny.
Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Robert Heinlein
Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler
Groucho Marx
I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.
Linus, from the Peanuts comic
You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith
Alexis de Torqueville
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it
A Zero Hedge comment
Okay. First things first.
Ron Paul, correctly, and consistent with the framework of our Republic and its supporting documents, supports an Excise Tax and non-protectionist tariffs. And this is the correct interpretation.
First thing is learn the fundamental reason why Taxes are limited for liberty. There are some free resources out there so I'll share one with you with regard to the topic. Let's go...
Taxes--Limited to Safeguard Liberty
"He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance." (Declaration of Independence)
The Principle
1. The traditional American philosophy teaches that tyranny through taxation is one of the most dangerous and oppressive aspects of Government-over-Man and must be guarded against and opposed accordingly, for the protection of Man's God-given, unalienable rights.
The Precedent of 1776
2. Tyrannous abuse of the taxing power was a principal provocation of the American Revolution in 1776 and, according to this philosophy, will always be considered and treated as just cause for prompt, effective, remedial action by every generation of Americans worthy of the American heritage of Individual Liberty--the heritage of Free Man determined to preserve his Freedom from Government-over-Man. This can be done mainly through preserving inviolate the supporting system of constitutionally limited government, designed to restrict government's activities and therefore its cost and taxes.
Limited Taxing Power
3. The traditional American philosophy of constitutionally limited government--Limited for Liberty--is hostile to any concept which would permit any unlimited power of taxation to exist to the peril of Man's unalienable rights. Potential danger, not merely present danger, is the crux of the matter and the reason for constitutional safeguards, which are designed to provide protection in the worst imaginable situations. This philosophy prescribes various limitations upon the taxing power of the Federal government, as expressed in the Constitution. For example, Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution authorizes Congress to make only specified levies--within the bounds of certain specific limits as to uses of tax monies: "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." It also authorizes taxes only to raise revenue to pay for the government's authorized activities, within the bounds of its limited powers and limited duties under the Constitution, as amended--for use directly and openly to accomplish the objects committed to its care and the trusts for which it is made responsible by the people under this basic law. This is according to the controlling intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution in 1787-1788, and likewise as to each amendment.
Examples of What Is Not Authorized
4. A few examples of what is not authorized by the Constitution in this regard, therefore as impliedly prohibited, will be clarifying. In general, the power of taxation may not be used by the Federal government as a means of bringing about indirectly and subtly any governmental change, or any social or other type of reform, or to achieve indirectly in effect Federal control of anything or anybody, or to accomplish any other result whatever, which the people have not authorized by the Constitution to be accomplished directly and openly. Nor may the power of taxation be used in furtherance of any abuse of the limited powers granted to the Federal government, or in furtherance of activities due to usurpation of any power withheld from it, or denied or prohibited to it, expressly or impliedly, by the people through the Constitution, as amended.
It is especially noteworthy that Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, in urging for the first time in 1791 that the Taxing Clause granted to the Federal government a separate and substantive power for the application of money, "within the limits of what would serve the general welfare," conceded that such power would "not carry a power to do any other thing not authorized in the Constitution, either expressly or by fair implication."
Some specific examples are as follows. The power of taxation may not be used so as to prevent criticism of the Federal government by the Press; which would be exercising power over a field of activity withheld from this government by the original Constitution and expressly prohibited by the First Amendment. Nor may taxes be used to obtain funds to subsidize, and in effect to control, any field of activity denied to this government (excluded from its enumerated powers) and reserved to the States by the Constitution--so as in effect to "buy" submission to Federal usurpers: such as agriculture. Hamilton made it expressly clear, in The Federalist number 17, that this is a field of activity over which the Federal government had been given no power--a field over which it could never properly be given any power to control. Also, taxes may not be used to stifle, undermine, or destroy any part of the traditional American system's economic aspect of Liberty such as Individual Enterprise (individual, private, competitive, enterprise).
Equally repugnant and prohibited are taxes designed to put into effect the anti-private-property idea, or plan, of "leveling" of ownership of property (money or any other type) by attempting to make all people more "equal" as to property, or as to income, by taking from some to give to others--as a means of achieving social reform or any other purpose not directly and openly authorized by the people in the Constitution. For example, in 1768 a Resolution of the Massachusetts House of Representatives (drafted by James Otis, Samuel Adams et al) denounced such leveling as being "despotic and . . . unconstitutional." Two decades later The Federalist (number 10, by Madison) condemned it as "improper" and "wicked." Jefferson decried leveling as being unjust and violative of "the first principle of association"--meaning a people's associating for purposes of self-government.
The Examples Continued
5. Congress is not authorized to tax and spend as it pleases, for any and every purpose which it may choose to say, or actually thinks, will serve the "general welfare." Those who framed and ratified the Constitution in 1787-1788 intended the Taxing Clause's words: "general Welfare of the United States," to serve as a limitation on the taxing power. These words were designed to restrict taxing and spending to constitutionally authorized objectives, meaning in part only those which would serve the welfare of the United States as a whole and not merely of a locality, not of individual citizens. Congress does not possess unlimited, sovereign power to tax the people. It does not even possess "general legislative authority, as Hamilton stated in The Federalist number 83.
Congress has, of course, been granted no power to exceed its constitutional authority or responsibilities by being benevolent, by making donations, of money or property at home or abroad at the expense of the American people's income, or other money or property. According to the controlling intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution, the only words in the Taxing Clause which could possibly be said to sanction any donation to any foreign government, or people, are the words "national defense"--meaning direct and actual military defense of the American homeland. Any and all foreign donations by the Federal government are, therefore, clearly prohibited by inescapable implication unless, and except to the limited extent that any such donation in actuality helps directly and substantially, on a realistic military basis, to "provide for the common Defence . . . of the United States"--of the States composing the Union.
These few illustrations exemplify prohibited misuse of the limited taxing power as granted by the people to the Federal government under the Constitution, as amended.
Peril to Liberty--Multiplied
6. The traditional American philosophy recognizes that an unlimited power to tax involves the power to destroy--a truth long known. This becomes all the more evilly significant if, when and to the extent that the Federal government becomes guilty of wholesale usurpation of power to expand its activities, at home and abroad, in defiance of the limits on its power imposed by the sovereign people through the Constitution. The evil significance involved is greatly augmented when--in furtherance of such wholesale usurpation--any such official culprits: Federal usurpers, employ oppressive taxation so as in effect to finance their political schemes to keep themselves in power, in control of the government, by using vast sums of public monies to subsidize--in truth to bribe, corrupt and seduce--immense segments of the electorate through distribution of individual money "benefits", to win their votes. This aim and process are furthered by building up a vast governmental bureaucracy which helps to serve this objective but has no sensible relation to sound governmental operations serving constitutionally authorized purposes. Then, indeed, are Individual Liberty and sound self-government in America--also the integrity and safety of the Republic itself--placed in effect on the auction block. This potentially disastrous condition, of danger compounded, becomes almost unlimited in degree of peril for Free Man in America, for American Posterity, when this combination of usurpation and tax tyranny is employed--by such usurpers and their collaborators in all walks of life--to supplant the traditional American system of Man-over-Government with the system of Government-over-Man. The foregoing precepts reflect some aspects of The Founders' thinking in this connection. (Note especially the Jefferson quotation on page xx, ante, about taxing--spending--electing.)
Any accomplishment of the prohibited objectives by gradual and deceptive steps--rather than directly and openly--highlights the importance of keeping ever in mind a maxim of which the sense was well-known to them and is expressable in verse form as follows:
Great Oaks and Great Tyrannies
Just as surely as "great oaks from little acorns grow,"
So do greatest tyrannies have smallest beginnings;
Yet the mind, uninstructed by knowledge or reason,
Cannot sense either oak or tyranny in the seed.
No Unlimited Income-Tax Power Under the Principle of Limited Government
7. The foregoing holds good even though the traditional American philosophy and system contemplate the Federal government's possessing, by grant of the people under the Constitution, "an unqualified power of taxation in the ordinary modes," as stated in The Federalist (number 31, by Alexander Hamilton)--for instance, a consumption tax on sales of goods. Such a tax cannot become dangerous to the people's liberties because it contains an automatic check on abuse by way of such taxation; if the amount of the tax offends them, they can simply refuse to buy the goods and thereby make the tax a failure, leading to its repeal. Even "an unqualified power of taxation" in some mode which was not ordinary in the days of The Founders and was not provided for by them in the Constitution--for instance, a graduated, "escalating" income tax, especially without expressly specifying a maximum rate or "ceiling"--would nevertheless have been considered by them to be impliedly limited in effect because subject to the following factors. First, the principles proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence--notably that governments are granted only "just powers," meaning limited powers, in order to make and keep secure the people's unalienable rights--forbid the existence in America of any system of government or governmental practices which could, in effect and in the unlimited discretion of public servants, impose tax-slavery upon the people through permitting these public, servants in peacetime to confiscate most, or all, of the income of the people to be spent as these public servants may please. This assuredly would have been considered by The Founders to be the very definition of tax-tyranny, which was one of the chief causes of the Revolution in 1776. Second, the system intended to be created by The Framers and Adopters of the Constitution--with only the few, limited powers enumerated being granted to the Federal government (for example, per The Federalist number 45 by Madison with Hamilton's silent concurrence)--likewise bars tax-tyranny because Congress is authorized to tax and spend only within the scope of its power-limits and its commensurately limited responsibilities; which must always be construed in keeping with that original, controlling intent of The Framers and Adopters, subject only to amendment by the people of the Constitution. Congress may not tax and spend in support of activities in furtherance of abuse of any granted power or in support of usurpation of power not granted.
The Founders would assuredly have stressed these implied limits upon any power to tax incomes of the people--if granted by and constitutional amendment--in the absence of an express, specific and clear mandate from the people to the contrary stated in any such amendment, for instance if it should expressly authorize confiscatory taxes for war needs. Just as they certainly would have condemned any generation of Americans as being unfaithful to the American heritage of Man-over-Government, as being defaulting trustees of Posterity's just heritage, because of any submission to oppressive taxation amounting to tax-tyranny. This applies equally to taxation of accumulated wealth (savings), or property, by way of inheritance, or estate. taxes (death taxes), which are equally subject to the above-mentioned principles and implied limits.
The basic American principles previously discussed: "Limited and Decentralized for Liberty" would therefore, have been declared by The Founders to be respected and protected in effect and impliedly by pertinent, controlling limitations despite any income-tax, or any death-tax, provision in any amendment to the Constitution not expressly fixing a maximum rate or "ceiling." They would have agreed that the above-mentioned implied limits would nevertheless be applicable, though not made express, so as to bar unlimited taxing-power opening the door to tax-tyranny, tax-slavery.
Benjamin Franklin's Example
8. When government takes a part of an Individual's earned income, this is the equivalent of government's commandeering, or confiscating, for its own purposes a corresponding portion of his working time; he is deprived of the benefit, of the fruit, of such work and time. A taxpayer's time is employed in the service, or support, of government to the extent that be must devote it to earning the money required to pay the taxes imposed by government. Benjamin Franklin suggested a specific standard or rule by which to judge the character of taxation, presumably in peacetime (not in a national crisis of war), as to whether or not it is oppressive and beyond which the burden of taxation would, in his opinion, presumably have been considered oppressive, if not tyrannous. It was stated by him in a 1758 writing:
"It would be thought a hard Government that should tax its People one tenth Part of their Time, to be employed in its Service." (Emphasis his.)
(Maximum income-tax rate was only seven per cent under [the] 1913 law--the first under the Sixteenth Amendment.)
Under the American philosophy and system of constitutionally limited government, there is and always must be some limit, express or implied, as a standard beyond which the people may properly, indeed should, consider peacetime taxation to amount to impermissible confiscation and therefore oppression and tax-tyranny. Otherwise a mockery is made of the fundamental American principle of limited government. One general test which is unchallengeable, under a system of constitutionally limited government, is this: any and every aspect of taxation which is designed to provide financial support for any governmental activity which involves abuse of granted power, or usurpation of ungranted power, merits condemnation as tax-tyranny.
The Conclusion
9. It is a cardinal principle of the traditional American philosophy that taxes must be limited to safeguard Individual Liberty--to make and keep secure Man's unalienable rights and Posterity's just heritage of Liberty: Freedom from Government-over-Man.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-25-2017 at 02:21 AM.
1. Property taxes--state tax, only upon commercial properties that are financially productive.
2. Vice taxes--federal or state tax, limited taxes upon gambling, tobacco, alcohol, drugs, etc.
3. Sales taxes--state tax, at POS only.
4. Tariffs--federal tax, capped and limited use only, a strictly implemented tax.
5. Excises--federal or state, taxes on luxuries, capped and limited use only, a strictly implemented tax.
6. Income taxes--federal or state, taxes reach only true wealth that is derived from financial and professional business minded engagements--i.e., not mere livelihoods.
7. Direct taxes--federal or state, taxes upon persons, property, activities and livelihoods, imposed only during bona fide exigent circumstances and in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
Guidelines and further maxims:
The imposition of all such taxes are only to acquire projected budgetary requirements only, not to inhibit or encourage certain behaviors or activities.
Exceptions or relaxation of taxation rules, e.g., excessive or prolonged taxation, shall only be legally permissible during times of realized invasion or Congressionally enacted times of war.
States shall not be permitted to doubly tax beyond an established threshold of an activity or object of taxation that falls under federal supremacy and is or shall be taxed nationally.
All interest accrued upon revenue acquired from withholding through 'stoppage at the source', shall be annually credited against the taxes due for all subjects of the taxation.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding one’s self in the ranks of the insane.” — Marcus Aurelius
“They’re not buying it. CNN, you dumb bastards!” — President Trump 2020
Consilio et Animis de Oppresso Liber
I absolutely hate capital gains taxation. This money was previously taxed.
No, what's taxed is the appreciation. If you buy stock for $100 with after-tax dollars and later sell it for $500, only the $400 gain is taxed.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Penalized for making good investments.
All tariffs are protectionist. They protect domestic producers from foreign competition. They are a hidden tax- hidden inside the prices we pay for goods and services.
Last edited by Zippyjuan; 10-25-2017 at 12:55 PM.
You would say the same thing about a tax on wages ("penalized for working too hard"), alimony ("penalized for marrying a rich spouse"), lottery winnings ("penalized for being lucky"), interest ("penalized for saving"). Why not just come out and say you're against all income taxes?
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
Indeed, because tariffs are added to the price of items and are passed on to the consumer. It was the view that consumption taxes like tariffs burdened the poor much more than the rich that was the impetus for the 1894 income tax.
We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold
Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous
The federal government should be funded by the states. Individuals should have no intercourse with Washington. Especially anal, as it stands now.
All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
-Albert Camus
Pray tell, was this ‘view’ popular? Universal? Pimped and promoted by committees and editorials? Incorrect?
Protectionist policies are foolish, yes. Being promised that income for the majority would not be taxed and the tax would not exceed a marginal percentage in any case, and the monstrosity it is today... why, it would almost seem silly to compare some 20% being taken before you see it and the added cost of select industrial products or services as a result of tariffs.
“The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.” --George Orwell
Who else in public life has called for a pre-emptive strike on North Korea?--Donald Trump
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Connect With Us