Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut

[Brian4Liberty]

His father was better.

Ron Paul:

REP. PAUL: We have to cut spending. You can't get rid of the income tax if you don't get rid of some spending. But, you know, if you got rid of the income tax today you'd have about as much revenue as, as we had 10 years ago, and the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago. So there're sources of revenues other than the income tax. You know, you have, you have tariff, excise taxes, user fees, highway fees. So, so there's still a lot of money. But the real problem is spending. But, you know, we lived a long time in this country without an income tax. Up until 1913 we didn't have it.
...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/22342301/p...playmode/1098/

Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!"[42] He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts.[20] He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment.[43] Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.
...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poli...ns_of_Ron_Paul

Harry Browne did a good job too.

[Anti Federalist]

You didn't get a tax cut. Rising tariffs are taxes on everyone.

I chose not to make any large purchases subject to tariffs.

The rest I bought 'Merican.

Thus, paid no extra tax.

[Anti Federalist]

If you paid net zero taxes you are not a tax payer and shouldn't be counted in the denominator of tax payers.

I paid significantly less income taxes in 2018 compared to 2017 despite a higher income and going to the standard deduction from itemized.

That's where my savings came from, the increase in the standard deduction.

[Anti Federalist]

You even bolded it for me.

I have no issue with that at all, all for it.

25 percent import duty across the board, from any country for any product or raw material.

[Anti Federalist]

His father was better.

All for it.

Been voting, very hard, for it.

But it isn't happening...why???

[Schifference]

All for it.

Been voting, very hard, for it.

But it isn't happening...why???

Because it is not a liberal idea.

[Zippyjuan]

All for it.

Been voting, very hard, for it.

But it isn't happening...why???

If you keep spending where it is, you need a 30% national sales tax.

[Swordsmyth]

You even bolded it for me.

That is ideal and I agree with Ron in regard to countries that are not waging trade wars against us.

[Swordsmyth]

If you keep spending where it is, you need a 30% national sales tax.

You should cut spending and you should tax state budgets and let them handle domestic taxation of the citizens.

[Zippyjuan]

You should cut spending and you should tax state budgets and let them handle domestic taxation of the citizens.

That is the slogan. What about reality? How much would you cut from this? And keep in mind that a national sales tax that high would significantly reduce sales of everything with prices 30% higher so the actual needed tax rate would be even higher. Excluding things like food would also mean a higher rate.

[Swordsmyth]

How much would you cut from this?

I'm not going to have the same conversation with you over and over.
Ask the last zippy what I told him before.

[Zippyjuan]

I'm not going to have the same conversation with you over and over.
Ask the last zippy what I told him before.

Oh, yeah. You avoided it last time too. Except for a couple billion here and there.

[Swordsmyth]

Oh, yeah. You avoided it last time too. Except for a couple billion here and there.

No I didn't.

[pcosmar]

If you keep spending where it is,

If you do, it is because you plugged your ears and missed half the message.

[Zippyjuan]

If you do, it is because you plugged your ears and missed half the message.

Don't have the link now but Ron would say that getting rid of taxes was his GOAL but said we had to deal with the debt/ deficits first.

[pcosmar]

Don't have the link now but Ron would say that getting rid of taxes was his GOAL but said we had to deal with the debt/ deficits first.

Cut Spending,,
Repeated over and over again.. Cut Programs,,Cut Agencies,, End them and replace them with nothing..

The stop Spending and cut government were Central to his message.

[nobody's_hero]

That's where my savings came from, the increase in the standard deduction.

"Savings?" What is this blasphemy?! Don't you know your only purpose in life is to spend your paycheck before you get it? I sense you are not a true believer.

Repeat after me *begins hypnotic voice*: TaRIfFs hUrT. Tariffs hurt. Tariffs hurt. Buy my cheap sh1t.

Seriously though, this:

I chose not to make any large purchases subject to tariffs.

The rest I bought 'Merican.

Thus, paid no extra tax.

Tariffs are much easier to avoid than income tax. Government gets first dibs on your paychecks. Everyone else is freaking out how this will affect their ability to rack up credit card purchases. Meanwhile, I'm trying to find a credit union with the best CoD savings share rates.

[Superfluous Man]

I chose not to make any large purchases subject to tariffs.

The rest I bought 'Merican.

Thus, paid no extra tax.

But you paid higher prices for those American made items then you would have had to pay if the prices of imported alternatives to them weren't artificially raised by tariffs.

[Superfluous Man]

Don't have the link now but Ron would say that getting rid of taxes was his GOAL but said we had to deal with the debt/ deficits first.

I doubt that he said that.

He might have said spending, but not exclusively debt/deficits.

And I also doubt that he put it in a way that implied that cutting spending was a prerequisite to cutting taxes.

[specsaregood]

But you paid higher prices for those American made items then you would have had to pay if the prices of imported alternatives to them weren't artificially raised by tariffs.

Would have had to pay LESS for non-American alternative products you mean. However, there is a real possibility that he ended up paying LESS for the American made non-alternative that he actually wanted if not for the tariffs. And he very well might have pay in less in future taxes/debt with his fellow americans being employed rather than on the dole.

[Superfluous Man]

Would have had to pay LESS for non-American alternative products you mean. However, there is a real possibility that he ended up paying LESS for the American made non-alternative that he actually wanted if not for the tariffs. And he very well might have pay in less in future taxes/debt with his fellow americans being employed rather than on the dole.

I don't follow your reasoning. If the tariffs resulted in the prices for imported alternatives to those American products going up, then they also resulted in the prices for those American products going up, in comparison to what the prices would be for those same products in the absence of the tariffs.

[specsaregood]

I don't follow your reasoning. If the tariffs resulted in the prices for imported alternatives to those American products going up, then they also resulted in the prices for those American products going up, in comparison to what the prices would be for those same products in the absence of the tariffs.

Prove your assertion that the American made goods he purchased went up in price. What actual products did he pay more for?
Economy of scale very well could make the American made products go down in price.

[nobody's_hero]

Would have had to pay LESS for non-American alternative products you mean. However, there is a real possibility that he ended up paying LESS for the American made non-alternative that he actually wanted if not for the tariffs. And he very well might have pay in less in future taxes/debt with his fellow americans being employed rather than on the dole.

more blasphemy! We don't want people being employed. If you are employed, you are self sufficient. If you are self-sufficient, you are independent. If you are independent, you are free. can I interest you in a credit card at 19.99% interest?

[nobody's_hero]

Prove your assertion that the American made goods he purchased went up in price. What actual products did he pay more for?
Economy of scale very well could make the American made products go down in price.

Nope, evidence has shown that as soon as tariffs go into affect, the invisible hand gets sliced off and the market stops trying to meet demand. Market forces don't work domestically, only internationally. Therefore this will be disastrous. I seriously need you to take out this loan!

[specsaregood]

more blasphemy! We don't want people being employed. If you are employed, you are self sufficient. If you are self-sufficient, you are independent. If you are independent, you are free. can I interest you in a credit card at 19.99% interest?

you meet my blasphemy with your own! Why would we need a credit card with interest when we will all get rich mining cryptocurrency using electricity solely from our govt-subsidized Chinese-made solar panels! We will all be rich, for free and no effort!

[Superfluous Man]

Prove your assertion that the American made goods he purchased went up in price. What actual products did he pay more for?
Economy of scale very well could make the American made products go down in price.

I can't prove it for specific purchases that I don't know about. But I can prove the general rule that causes those prices to go up. It's just a matter of substitutability of a good.

Even if economy of scale causes the cost of production for those products to go decrease for American producers while costs of production for their foreign made substitutes go up in response to the same factors, the total demand and total supply would remain the same, and they will still be sold for as high of a price as they can demand in the market.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. In the absence of any given tariff or trade restriction, Americans are getting more stuff at less cost in net. The reason they buy whatever foreign-made goods they buy in that situation is because of comparative advantages that other countries have for some products and that America has for others, and these comparative advantages involve economies of scale as well as countless other factors. Stifling the economic benefits of taking advantage of those comparative advantages is guaranteed to be a net economic loss for all parties. And this loss can't be avoided just by consumers choosing not to buy the goods with tariffs charged to them. In fact, doing that is what causes the economic disadvantage that the international trade is there to alleviate in the first place.

[nobody's_hero]

you meet my blasphemy with your own! Why would we need a credit card with interest when we will all get rich mining cryptocurrency using electricity solely from our govt-subsidized Chinese-made solar panels! We will all be rich, for free and no effort!

But you need to buy stuff, don't you see?! You build strong economies by buying a bunch of crap and trying to figure out where you're going to store it! That's why tariffs hurt you! They HuRT yOuuuuu!

[specsaregood]

I can't prove it for specific purchases that I don't know about. But I can prove the general rule that causes those prices to go up. It's just a matter of substitutability of a good.

--snip more $#@! you can't prove--

So you admit that when you said, definitively:

But you paid higher prices for those American made items then you would have had to pay if the prices of imported alternatives to them weren't artificially raised by tariffs.

you were pulling that statement out of your ass.

[dannno]

Don't have the link now but Ron would say that getting rid of taxes was his GOAL but said we had to deal with the debt/ deficits first.

That is wrong to frame his position that way. Another thing you have been told over and over again. I've posted videos, transcripts, all kinds of $#@! from Ron Paul himself and you never learn.

Ron Paul has always said lowering taxes is a good thing, period.. he has said he will ALWAYS vote for a tax cut whether spending is cut or not.. however he emphasizes that to really solve the problem spending needs to be brought down too..

But the fact is you will never find Ron Paul saying he doesn't support a tax cut because spending wasn't cut with it.. just that spending should be cut with it. Not a requirement to vote for a tax cut.

[Zippyjuan]

That is wrong to frame his position that way. Another thing you have been told over and over again. I've posted videos, transcripts, all kinds of $#@! from Ron Paul himself and you never learn.

Ron Paul has always said lowering taxes is a good thing, period.. he has said he will ALWAYS vote for a tax cut whether spending is cut or not.. however he emphasizes that to really solve the problem spending needs to be brought down too..

But the fact is you will never find Ron Paul saying he doesn't support a tax cut because spending wasn't cut with it.. just that spending should be cut with it. Not a requirement to vote for a tax cut.

Found this:

http://www.campaignforliberty.org/cl...t-reform-taxes

By allowing individuals to keep more of their own money, loopholes promote economic efficiency since, as economist Thomas DiLorenzo put it, “private individuals always spend their own money more efficiently than government bureaucrats do.” Instead of making the tax system more “efficient” by closing loopholes, Congress should increase both economic efficiency and economic liberty by repealing the income tax and replacing it with nothing.

The revenue loss from ending the income tax should be “offset” with spending cuts. All federal spending, whether financed by taxes or by debt, forcibly removes resources from the private sector. Thus, all government spending is in essence a form of taxation. Therefore, cutting income and other taxes without cutting spending merely replaces one type of taxation with another. Instead of directly paying for big government via income taxes, deficit spending means citizens will be hit with an increase in the inflation tax. This tax, imposed on the people with the Federal Reserve's monetization of debt, is the worst form of tax because it is both hidden and regressive.

The quote I heard was from a TV interview which is much harder to track down.