Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
It's still a debt laid on their backs. Whether or not they repay the debt through taxes doesn't really matter. They will pay. The future economy is going to carry the burdens of government debt just like the current economy carries the debt of our parents. Ideally, as Jefferson suggested, one generation could simply "write-off" the debt of the previous generation, but it doesn't happen that way. Usually, wars need to be fought and millions of people need to be killed.
"And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat
"It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire
The example of a mugger stealing money from you doesn't work here. Your comparison ignores the simple but essential differences. Taxation is theft, but it operates on a deeper scale than simply being mugged.
And you aren't calling for people to be plundered less. Because this isn't a tax cut. If you have $2 and I give you $5 today but that $5 is only worth nothing tomorrow then you aren't $5 richer. In fact you're poorer because if that $5 is worthless than the value of your original $2 has been degraded. This is what Ron Paul calls the "invisible tax" of currency devaluation. And the less money the state has but more it spends the worse that devaluation is going to happen, the more accelerated of a rate the ruining of the currency will take place. What you're advocating is what triggers hyperinflation. In other words, unless you cut taxes and spending all you are doing si advocating that people be plundered in a less obvious way not that they be plundered any less.
And no it isn't better if the mugger spends your money automatically. That is what we all call a "bubble" and it is always worse when bubbles burst than when they began. What you're advocating is the creation of a huge spending bubble that will eventually pop, crash the economy and destroy the lives of large swaths of the American population who thought they were secure because they didn't understand how taxation, currency devaluation, and borrowing work.
And you're right, currency devaluation, borrowing, and taxes are not all the same thing. But to ignore how they are all interrelated is dangerously naive. Will it take years? Possibly, but even if it does it will come. And it will make everyone poorer for it.
Both sides of the argument are right. Spending is the tax. Cutting taxes without cutting spending does not at all mean that the government is stealing less from us. Cutting taxes without cutting spending can definitely cause problems for the federal government trying to monetize the debt or even bring about a currency crisis.
Whatever. I don't give a $#@! if the federal government can borrow money. If they couldn't, we would all suffer in the short term (currency crisis), but be much better off in the long term (at least until they start borrowing again).
But crashing the system isn't the only way to justify tax cuts without spending cuts. It's not their money. Cut taxes to 0. Both need to be cut, but since the spending cuts will never happen, might as well get part of it out of the way.
I'd appreciate you answering the former part of the question.
Pick the thousands of societies (like in medieval times) that had little government interference yet still high unemployment
So the interference explains 100% of the unemployment? It seems like to you, government is always the boogeyman, with you assigning all bad outcomes to government intervention with arbitrary altitudes.
So basically Somalia?
Universally respected...how? Via government force?
Right. What with slavery and what-not....there was also a $#@!-ton more unemployment back then. And, of course, sticky wages.
You are confusing real wealth with financial wealth. Real financial wealth goes up like you mention; with investment and output increases. But how does the private sector net financial wealth? How does the US Domestic private sector, for example, "make" 60 billion in net financial wealth (in their bank accounts) in a year? The private sector can do this when it runs a surplus with the foreign sector (ROW) and/or a surplus with the government sector (the government has a deficit).
Last edited by Dr.No.; 05-11-2017 at 12:39 AM.
Pfizer Macht Frei!
Openly Straight Man, Danke, Awarded Top Rated Influencer. Community Standards Enforcer.
Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!
Short Income Tax Video
The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes
The Federalist Papers, No. 15:
Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.
He's not giving me a clear enough definition. If the government enforces "property rights"...that is government interference! If the government stops a foreign invasion, maintains a police force, or has a judicial/prison system...that is government interference!
What I dislike is when some poor outcome is blamed on the government, no matter its size or its function. If government has 1% interference in the market, the blame is pinned on that. If any libertarian policy doesn't lead to good outcomes, it is because it wasn't sufficiently libertarian...no different from communists who think that every far-left/communist policy that doesn't work failed because it wasn't big-government enough.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Wasn't Dr. No a James Bond movie? Now would 007 hang out with somebody like Republican Guy? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/member....-Republicanguy)
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Still waiting for that "intelligent" conversation!
You had never seemed to oppose any spending at all, ever, your whole time here on RPF. Scientists have been able to discover zero (0) instances of your persona TheCount calling for budget cuts prior to this thread. You never met gov't spending you didn't like.I didn't know that you wanted to cut anything. You certainly had not ever mentioned that you did before, not that I remember.
And yet, here, in this thread, you have advanced, at least implicitly, for the first time in your career, a very healthy theory: that spending cuts would be a good thing!
I agree wholeheartedly! Spending cuts are a great thing! You would certainly be very pleased at any prospect of federal spending being cut! Right?
.....
Right?
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Well waste in a free market economy would be the lifeblood of the economy. When you have a house made out of $#@! though, it doesn't work too well. One of the side effects is the encouragement malinvestment that does not get liquidated. We need lots of corrections to be made in the economy before we can ever dream about waste being beneficial.
I do not have such dreams. I am using the word "waste" in a very simple, face-value way. When resources are wasted they are put to no good use. Down the drain. I am making a simple logical point.
With waste, you lose on the front end.
With spending on things that actively destroy the country, you lose on the front end and on the back end.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
You claim that was the argument OP was making. The argument, although rather worded should of been should the government just reduce taxes (and regulation) and increase spending(or keep current spending levels) or should we actually have real cuts to government, cut spending the real tax? Then you proceeded to embarrass yourself by making straw man arguments with yourself.
TLDR is the burden the government puts on the economy worse by taxation or spending? Answer: spending is the real tax.
My post to which you replied was addressed to Dr. NO, not the OP.
The argument, although rather worded should of been should the government just reduce taxes (and regulation) and increase spending(or keep current spending levels) or should we actually have real cuts to government, cut spending the real tax?
Sorry, I don't speak Syntactical Gobbledygook, but maybe I should have been should studied it in school.
See your English above.Then you proceeded to embarrass yourself...
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
I tried to simplify it as much as i can. Sorry if you don't understand maybe you should watch the liberty report episode where Ron Paul talks about it.
https://youtu.be/rthogdho6Sc?t=891
If you have time to argue with people on here and not watch Ron Paul then trading taxes for other taxes is not a decrease of taxes. All you are encouraging is replacing our current taxes with an inflation tax.
Disrupt, Deny, Deflate. Read the RPF trolls' playbook here (post #3): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...eptive-members
...oops, wrong thread.
Connect With Us