Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

HarryCaraysGhost (99.62)

What would happen if you paid no income tax?

Recs

11

April 14, 2012 – Comments (51) | RELATED TICKERS: TA , X

http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/

Pesonally I'd be sitting pretty on my meager earnings.

How would that effect the rest of you, and do you think it's a good idea or bad?

Cheers-

Ron Paul 2012.

51 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On April 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

Even though I am an anarchist, I just want to point out that you would have to pay a lot more expenses in the form of road tolls, protection, etc. you would be better off, but you wouldn't be netting 100% of the tax savings. 

Report this comment
#2) On April 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Well this weekend I have been working on my 2011 tax return (damn K-1s), so I am a bit sensitive to the topic ;p

I am neither rich nor filthy rich, but I do well enough not to be suffering like many others.  But Val is correct to the extent that alternative revenue streams would be jacked up  which would hurt the Average Joe even more.

I actually don't mind paying taxes because there are things I do want like fire, garbage, police services, etc.  Of course I hate paying taxes to the extent it goes for waste and corruption.

I also hate the filthy rich.  I want them taxed into oblivion. I consider them as "new royalty" and I hate the whole concept of royalty (people put in a superior and preferential position by virtue of mere birth).

Ok enough ranting, back to doing my taxes.

Report this comment
#3) On April 14, 2012 at 10:51 PM, LouieJunior (22.22) wrote:

I think people should pay for the government services they use. A national sales tax (terrif) would fund national defense, federal courts, food safety, etc. Scrap the income tax. You do not want to tax achievement, but rather consumption.

Report this comment
#4) On April 14, 2012 at 11:45 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

It goes beyond achievement.  People who are born into wealth had nothing to with "achieving."  All, however, need to consume in order to put food on your table, clothes on your back, roof over your head.  The problem is there is a wide disparity in incomes and the less you make the more punitive it can be to pay for the needed consumption.

Report this comment
#5) On April 15, 2012 at 2:43 PM, totallyoblivious (31.07) wrote:

Like others have said, this would be offset by various other taxes that would absolutely crush the lower & middle class.  Anyone who thinks Ron Paul's proposed elimination of income taxes will be good for the economy is delusional.  We need a larger, stronger middle class to have anything resembling a strong economy, and this would achieve the opposite.

I do agree with the concept that those who achieve should be rewarded, but the prolbem is the passing of wealth from generation to generation to the extent that many people who have never achieved anything control vast amounts of wealth.  I favor drastically increasing Estate taxes and imposing very strong restrictions on passing wealth from one individual to another to prevent avoiding it.  I also favor having capitals gains not be considered anything special, just generic income which is taxed accordingly.

Report this comment
#6) On April 15, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.46) wrote:

#5 you're name pretty much covers it.

Ron Paul would not be raising consumption taxes, if anything, he'd lower them.

He would DRASTICALLY cut the size of government so that less taxes would be needed.

You might think it crazy, but he might argue that even roads would be privatize (yes, people might pay to drive on roads instead of paying the government, so you might consider this a tax.)

Nothing wrong with disagreeing with Ron Paul, but claiming he would raise taxes on the middle class is absolute hogwash.  

Report this comment
#7) On April 15, 2012 at 6:52 PM, totallyoblivious (31.07) wrote:

#6, if you're going to take a shot at me over my name, I have to point out your use of "you're" instead of "your".

Yes, he wants to drastically cut the size of government which I'm all for. The problem is, no amount of cuts alone can achieve a sustainable budget; revenues are so far short of where they need to be now that similar, or even higher revenues will still be necessary.  So while most of the cuts he wants are great, eliminating the income tax and replacing it with excise taxes like he proposes will not reduce the tax burden, just shift who will bear it.

Excise taxes tend to shift the burden more towards the lower and middle classes as there's a base level of spending required for necessities, and a larger percentage of their income is already devoted to these necessities. Income taxes, on the other hand, tend to put more of the tax burden on the upper class.

Again per the same link to his own site, he aims for "[no] taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts".  The no estate & gift taxes aspect of this almost exclusively reduce the tax burden on the rich, and further ensures that people who may or may not ever contribute anything to society will reap the benefits of their ancestors' deeds.

He supports eliminating capital gains taxes, dividend taxes.  Whose tax burden do you think this will reduce?

Privatizing roads? Again, you're looking at a cost that will affect the middle class more than anyone, as the tolls paid for their transportation to & from work would be a greater percentage of their income than the upper class, plus the cost of goods transported via roads (pretty much all necessities) would increase to offset the cost.

There's already a huge gap between the upper and lower/middle classes; his policies will cause this gap to widen further.  He has the right idea on most other issues, which are worthy of supporting.  Unfortunately, most of his supporters don't understand the consequences of his ideas on taxes.

Report this comment
#8) On April 16, 2012 at 12:17 AM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Sorry Franky you miss the whole point.  Paul has very little power to do anything.  So he is trying to repeal the 16th Amendment to make it unconstituional to collect income taxes.  While the chances of this happening is pretty much nil, let's assume he manages to jump through all the hoops and gets it done. Sure he wants to also cut the amount of spending but that is a separate issue that he may not succeed on in Congress.  So where does the revenue shortfall come from should spending cuts fail to occur?  Yup, you guessed it, from the Average Joe.

Any millionaire would love income taxes being repealed because now they get to keep the bulk of their wealth and they can pass  it on to their kids tax free creating just another "New Royalty" class.  Why in the world anyone who is earning under $100,000 would ever support this agenda is beyond me unless they are delusional enough to think they might ever enter that 1%.

I do find it amusing that the author of the link above kind of equates anyone wanting  to tax the rich as being Marxists heheh.  And yeah I finished my returns and wound up owing ;p 

Report this comment
#9) On April 16, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

Awallejr, maybe we should take all babies and stick them in an orphanage.  Also, maybe it is not fair that YOU were not born as a homeless african child, so gimme yo money

Report this comment
#10) On April 16, 2012 at 2:19 AM, jgknot (30.52) wrote:

Well, we need taxing, a lot of things needs to be done for the society together. But don't go overboard is what i say.

By the way, How are you Harry? Remember DOW 12750, thats my call,  i guess iam still in the top.

Later then.. 

Report this comment
#11) On April 16, 2012 at 3:33 AM, aptosjoe (< 20) wrote:

I didn't mind paying taxes when I was working even though it was a big hit. I recognized the need for public services, even those I didn't use. Now I'm retired and live on SS and a small annuity, so my tax bill in fairly small and I use more services than before.

Ron Paul is entitled to his opinion and so are all of you. But I don't think taxes would be the issue they are if everyone paid them. It seems that cheating on your taxes is a national obsession these days. And that is a major factor in the problems with Greece.

Report this comment
#12) On April 16, 2012 at 11:02 AM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Awallejr, maybe we should take all babies and stick them in an orphanage.  Also, maybe it is not fair that YOU were not born as a homeless african child, so gimme yo money

I am quite grateful for having been born in the US.  But we aren't discussing Darwin, we are talking the tax code for the US.  If you don't think incredible wealth yields tremendous power then keep your blinders on.

I am not envious of wealth.  I just despise obscene wealth because it is the creation of one ruling class replacing another (royalty).  What the dollar cut off is is negotiable.

Report this comment
#13) On April 16, 2012 at 11:45 AM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

Just as I am sure most third world countries despire your existence for debating on an internet forum which is based off of "how much money can I make off of all the wealth I have accumulated that I don't need" while the are trying to find their next meal.

Report this comment
#14) On April 16, 2012 at 12:26 PM, leohaas (31.08) wrote:

Isn't it fun to talk about utopian ideas?

Report this comment
#15) On April 16, 2012 at 1:10 PM, CluckChicken (41.35) wrote:

I would love not to pay any taxes if it meant that I have all the services my taxes currently pay for, even the ones that I hope to never have to use.

I think the idea that a number of people running say that they will drastically reduce the size of the federal government is just a bunch of nonsense. For example nearly all of them want to dump the DoE, from what I can tell they just hate that they enforce regulations on big gas. So without the DoE who manages the nuclear weapons? Who helps coordinate the power grid? Does all that research the DoE drives just die, because we know the privite sector doesn't work on it. The answer for where all the work ends up going is always to the States, which means I am paying the Federal government less but the State is now going to take it and today were we have 10 people working on something we will now have 50 and the States rarely work well together. As a bonus business probably go from dealing with one regulating body to 50 and won't that be fun. Sure it will employ more people but also make things far more expensive, far more inefficent and most likely far more corrupt, all of which are the reasons they give to shrink the Federal government.

Report this comment
#16) On April 16, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

As a bonus business probably go from dealing with one regulating body to 50 and won't that be fun. Sure it will employ more people but also make things far more expensive, far more inefficent and most likely far more corrupt, all of which are the reasons they give to shrink the Federal government.

I am not trying to be argumentatitve, just showing the otherside of the coin:

1) When have you ever dealt with a government agency that was more efficient than a private company...seriously? 2) There would not be 50 more departments to deal with, that would be a drag on profits, something private industry actually cares about.  Any time I have to get involved in legal issues, I have to call 800 different departments, I cant imagine that escalating to 4000.

Report this comment
#17) On April 16, 2012 at 1:51 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Sorry Val but your arguments are now off point and quite frankly idiotic.  But since you are anonymous feel free to continue, but I won't.

Report this comment
#18) On April 16, 2012 at 1:55 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

I'd save thousands if I had no income tax to pay.


On the other hand, I'd lose far more than that; I'd have to pay for so many services that the government currently provides, and we'd lose all economies of scale if we were relying on many competing providers (see: health care costs), and the wealthy would no longer be paying more in to the pool which means the costs borne by the middle class to cover those services on an individual basis would be much higher, effectively locking in a class structure.

So, I suppose, I wouldn't save anything, because I would quickly leave such a devolving nation.

Report this comment
#19) On April 16, 2012 at 1:59 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Yeah, Verizon customer service is just a bundle of joy to deal with.

Any large bureauacracy (I feel like I butchered the spelling on that) is going to have efficiency losses. If you don't like that, fair enough - find a smaller country.

The argument you're going to send back is "well small local governments will get those efficiency gains," and the answer is yes, from a customer service perspective, they will. But the United States also gets other, very large gains from having a cohesive, centralized government, and we would be forfeiting those. Having tens of thousands of wildly disparate regulations on commerce would cripple the economy, for example.

Report this comment
#20) On April 16, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

How is it idiotic? Compared to almost all of the world, you are living like a king.  And yet you complain about those greedy ultra rich lucky sperm club members?  You're one of them.  You are living on fantasy island, get over yourself.

Report this comment
#21) On April 16, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

If you have wifi, college degree, smartphone, air conditioner, and a car, don't even try to put yourself in the commoner seat.

Report this comment
#22) On April 16, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

True. We have no economies of scale in phones, laptops, houses, food, furniture, jewelry, clothing or cars, because there is no government industry for those things. Damn, it really sucks that we have 5000 car companies to choose from that I literally have to stop at 80 car dealers before I even know my options.

It also sucks that you already answered my question for me, now I am forced to say what you think I was going to say, rather than the fact that we would just have huge corporations instead of a million government agencies.

Report this comment
#23) On April 16, 2012 at 4:35 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

^^ No no, I agree with you Val - we would have huge corporations rather than a million government agencies.

The only thing we disagree on is whether that would be a good thing.

A government has a certain degree of public accountability enshrined in law and the Constitution. Corporations have only as much accountability as people can be convinced they need - and in a capitalist society, the great bulk of people are too busy surviving to pay attention to Monsanto's excesses, for example.

Me, I like my governing agencies accountable to the Constitution.

Report this comment
#24) On April 16, 2012 at 4:48 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Also:

The federal government bailed out the car companies, we have a federal department of agriculture guiding cohesive national food policies, we have a department of housing and urban development setting cohesive national housing policies, and we have a department of commerce setting minimum trade regulations and standards across the board for each sector. We also have a cohesive national trade policy for imports and duties, making it easier for other nations to trade with us. We also have federal financial regulations ensuring that banking operates under similar requirements in every state and every town, making it easy for capital to flow from one part of the nation to another. We also have a federal department of labour ensuring that labour regulations are generally standardized, ensuring that workers retain some flexibility in relocation in the face of the labour market. We also have a central bank setting national monetary policy, we have federal regulations insuring publicly traded companies have to conform to certain standards across the board (standards high enough - and uniform enough - that American investments are considered some of the safest in the world), and we have it all connected by federally funded and maintained infrastructure.

But other than that, yeah, totally, no government intervention in any of those markets you talked about.

Report this comment
#25) On April 16, 2012 at 8:11 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

No, there is government intervention...and they are the problem.

They bailed out the bad car companies, discouraging accountability for bad business.

They encourage evil food corporations who use chemicals to treat their food and get the safety stamp because people dont understand what low fat or organic means, and they  have monopolies on certain breeds of corn, and are subsidized so heavily that we make a lot of things out of grains which are very dangerous to health

HUD and fannie/freddie basically ruined our economy

we have a trade policy that discourages allocating efficiencies amongst industry by creating "fair laws"

We have an FDIC that lets banks use fractional reserve and are still insured so they have insane leverage

we have a department of labor keeping unemployment high because there is very high drawbacks to getting cheap labor.

we have a central bank picking market winners and losers and creating inflation.

I missed your point I guess

Report this comment
#26) On April 16, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Frankydontfailme (27.46) wrote:

This is by far and away the funniest thing I ever read.... seriously, he meant it ironically, right? right?

"A government has a certain degree of public accountability enshrined in law and the Constitution." -a really funny comedian.

Report this comment
#27) On April 16, 2012 at 8:19 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

I'll give it one more try.  We are talking about a class structure which is MAN made (unless you honestly believe in Divine Right), unlike what you keep throwing out about the "luck of the draw" as to what nationality one may be born into, which is NATURE made.  Apparently you are too obtuse to see the difference. 

But to argue "hey look billions have it worse than you so be happy" is simply an idiotic argument, one I suspect the wealthy are loving hearing you even make.  Under that reasoning the civil rights movement or women's suffrage movement had some nerve happening. 

The "class" disparity issue really is easy to deal with, once the majority starts to look out for themselves and use their collective vote to boot the incumbent politicians out of office and replace them with those that would push a more appeasing agenda.

Report this comment
#28) On April 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

I am confused...wasn't your whole premise that it is unfair that certain people are born richer than others?  Then when I used the same logic to apply it to you vs poorer people you said I was being an idiot?

That has nothing to do with civil rights or womens suffrage.  Being an anarchist I am PRO liberty...YOU are the one who wants certain people to be stripped of their rights, not me.

Wake me up when a politician gets voted into office who does what they say theyre gonna do.

Report this comment
#29) On April 16, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

I am confused...wasn't your whole premise that it is unfair that certain people are born richer than others?  Then when I used the same logic to apply it to you vs poorer people you said I was being an idiot?

That has nothing to do with civil rights or womens suffrage.  Being an anarchist I am PRO liberty...YOU are the one who wants certain people to be stripped of their rights, not me.

Wake me up when a politician gets voted into office who does what they say theyre gonna do.

Report this comment
#30) On April 16, 2012 at 10:27 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

"A government has a certain degree of public accountability enshrined in law and the Constitution." -a really funny comedian.

Well personally I agree with him.  I like the rule of law over the rule of force.

 

Report this comment
#31) On April 16, 2012 at 10:34 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

No Val my point is that it is dangerous to allow a small minority to control the vast majority of wealth.  And as per Ron Paul that would continue to happen since they would never be taxed.  Here's a good link  Review the chart's in the orignal post.

http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/no-matter-how-conservative-you/655558

Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.  And never think extreme wealth isn't power. Now  keep deluding yourself and root for a group of people who don't give a rat's ass about you.

Report this comment
#32) On April 16, 2012 at 10:51 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

So absolute power corrupts absolutely, and therefore we should support statist centralization and oppose politicial decentralization led by Ron Paul?

Makes sense to this college dropout! Hey, who are we bombing next? USA! USA! USA!

 David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#33) On April 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM, duuude1 (< 20) wrote:

http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/From-the-elite-a-call-for-higher-taxes-3483921.php

Man up and pay what you owe, duuudes!  We should be competing to see who pays the most taxes - the wusses who pay itty bitty little tax bills and whine about it are obviously not successful in business and life.

Report this comment
#34) On April 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Ah  whereaminow was wondering when you would join the fray. No absolute power corrupts absolutely, and extreme wealth is absolute power and Ron Paul wants the absolute rich to keep all their money. And you are rooting to bomb USA? 

Report this comment
#35) On April 17, 2012 at 7:45 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

So that's why the extremely wealthy are pouring money into his campaign and ignoring Ronmbama. You got us smart guy!

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#36) On April 17, 2012 at 9:59 AM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

^^^ The extremely wealthy are ignoring Romney in favour of... Ron Paul? That's not at all what donor records show. Sheldon Adelson donated millions to Gingrich and just donated 5 million more to a Republican House superPAC. Mitt Romney himself is extremely wealthy and has been living off of donations largely from wealthy individuals - so many of them that he is outspending his opponents by millions: http://www.republicreport.org/2012/graph-romneys-unlimited-wall-street-money-pushed-santorum-out-of-the-race/

 

 

Report this comment
#37) On April 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Nah Dave, while the wealthy may like his platform they are smart enough to know he is unelectable in a general election. I suppose the kids would like him because he is anti war and pro drugs and the rich because he is anti income and estate tax, but just not enough of the rest of the voters to ever land him in the White House.

Report this comment
#38) On April 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Lmao this is awesome. So now the extremely wealthy have absolute power but not enough power to get Ron Paul elected.

You debate politics at the level of a 12 yr old.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#39) On April 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM, caltex1nomad (< 20) wrote:

We would wind up paying one way or the other but, a Tax on consumption rather than income would be nice. VAT, Flat or otherwise would be great so we don't lose several hours of precious time every year doing our taxes.

Report this comment
#40) On April 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

David, the wealthy have spent decades systematically privatizing government functions and decimating government power. Regulatory capture and ALEC have ensured that government does business's bidding all too often, rather than the other way around.

Putting Ron Paul in the Presidency would suit the wealthy well enough, but putting Mitt Romney - one of their own - in there would be much better for them. Not because Romney would be more useful - both Ron Paul and Romney are good for the rich, tax-wise - but because Romney has no core convictions to cause them any trouble when they need something done.

Paul, on the other hand, for all his faults and archaic beliefs, really believes these things - and is more than willing to go to the mat to fight for them. That's admirable if you're somebody who believes in representative democracy and the marketplace of ideas, but if you're just trying to coopt the system and do some quality rent-seeking like most of these wealthy folks, then that's a huge pain in the ass and a huge liability. Hence his lack of support. I don't have the figures here, but I bet Ron Paul is the only candidate whose small-donation figures rival (or even surpass) Obama's. Ron Paul also is the only candidate to draw better than Obama from military donors, which unfortunately has caused no apparent slowdown of our imperialist policies.

Report this comment
#41) On April 17, 2012 at 1:07 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

After your first paragraph you sound somewhat intelligent, but if you think government power has shrunk in the last 50 years, you have never worked for or with the government.

Open your eyes dude. Dead brown children disagree with your assertion.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#42) On April 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

Of course this is sidetracking us from the simple fact that the mega wealthy all support Romney AND Obama, and give almost zero material support to Ron Paul.

But never let facts get in the way of religious fanaticism, which is how politics pretty much exists among partisan wackos.

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#43) On April 17, 2012 at 3:03 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

I never claimed that the mega wealthy support Paul and in fact directly contradicted that point. Just so we're clear. There are some mega wealthy donors to Paul (Peter Schiff comes to mind) but Republican wealth tends to go toward Romney this cycle and wealthy Democrats are united behind Obama.

I believe I spoke unclearly - although the government retains as much or more power than ever before, much less of it is actually in the hands of the people and more of it is in the hands of extremely wealthy citizens and businesses. Government responds to wealth because that is the incentive structure we have instituted. As Eisenhower pointed out, there is a "military-industrial complex" to deal with, and for those people, war is profitable. We have privatized the dealing of death and put a profit margin on it, so there is every incentive to begin wars and maintain a budget-busting "defense" force. We have privatized jailing and made incarcaration a profit-seeking enterprise rather than a publicly mandated punishment, and it should come as no surprise that we have seen a correlated increase in incarcaration rates and sentencing ("judge" is frequently an elected position, with all the financial campaigning incentives that entails).

Government tends to be inefficient (as does any large bureauacracy). Unregulated profit seeking tends to be all too efficient, at the expense of society at large.

Report this comment
#44) On April 17, 2012 at 3:08 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Also, you may wish to can the clumsy ad hominems. When you say "after your first paragraph you sound somewhat intelligent," what you mean is "after your first paragraph you agree with me."

Intelligent people can come to different conclusions intelligently and rationally. I don't really give a crap if you think I'm intelligent or not, but I do think you're doing yourself and your ideology a disservice by misusing the language in such a manner. It tips your hand that you're less interested in free exchange of ideas and more interested in sounding off on your soapbox.

And I'm certain I've embraced this tactic myself in the past so feel free to call me out on it if it happens, and that way we can both improve.

Report this comment
#45) On April 17, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Valyooo (99.39) wrote:

 We have privatized the dealing of death and put a profit margin on it, so there is every incentive to begin wars and maintain a budget-busting "defense" force. We have privatized jailing and made incarcaration

Uhh...WHAT?

The army is not privatized.  The courts are not privatized.  I think you are confusing "privatized" and "not even close to privatized".

 

And yes David, I agree with everything you say, and you are very intelligent, but DJDynamicNC is right that if you just call people stupid and use sarcasm they will be less likely to be open minded to what you have to say. Don't stoop to the tactics of statists.

Report this comment
#46) On April 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM, DJDynamicNC (< 20) wrote:

Ah, you'll note I never said that the army was privatized. I said that the dealing of death has been privatized, as Blackwater - I mean Xe - I mean Acadami - can tell you, or as defense contracters can tell you, or as well over half a trillion dollars annual can tell you.

Army soldiers remain government employees, but logistics get privatized, equipment manufacture gets privatized, security support gets privatized, and so on. This isn't automatically a bad thing, mind you - I don't think the government is going to make guns more effectively or efficiently than Smith and Wesson, for example - but it's ripe for abuse, and that's what has happened.

Report this comment
#47) On April 17, 2012 at 5:10 PM, whereaminow (< 20) wrote:

I've been doing this dance for four years. I can't help it. Same old same old nonsense. 

And I really don't care if DJ or awellejr or any sympathetic reader joins "the cause."

And DJ that has to be the lamest defense of the government murder machine I have ever seen. Have you spent any time in the Middle East? 

David in Liberty 

Report this comment
#48) On April 17, 2012 at 6:56 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

whereaminow  I swear you have the reading comprehension of a 3 year old.  Only you can interpret my supposition that rich people might like Paul because of his anti income and death tax as me saying that the extremely wealthy want Ron Paul as President.  I am pretty sure Warren Buffett doesn't nor probably Bill Gates.  Two of the richest people on the planet and two that I tip my hat off to because they are giving most of their wealth away. 

And DJ trust me, I've been down this road with David before.  He will misquote, digress and insult away.  Once in a while we actually have a good discussion, but it is rare.

Now David keep rooting for a man who would let puppies with bows on them burn to death in a building on fire.  I'd post the link if I could but I am sure someone else might be able to.

Report this comment
#49) On April 17, 2012 at 9:01 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.62) wrote:

Holy Cow!!! Thanks for all the comments, I've been reading along and figured I should post a comment, since I started the conversation and all.

Personally I'm in favor of a flat or fair tax, just seems criminal that we all don't pay the same rate, and I'm taxed the highest percentage even though I would be considered middle class. Ron Paul said he would vote for this. His point was more that we could do better and repeal the unconstitional 16th ammendment.

Obviously this would not happen with the wave of a magic wand.Too much corruption to muddle through. But with time and neccessary cuts I believe it could happen.

But if you're all cool with the way things are going,

Just keep on mindlessly voting in the typical RepubliDem, choice between a Douche and a T*rd.

Cheers.

Report this comment
#50) On April 17, 2012 at 9:14 PM, awallejr (79.54) wrote:

Just keep on mindlessly voting in the typical RepubliDem

The problem with a 2 party system.  I really wish we had at least a 3 party system so people would be forced to compromise instead of remain in stubborn gridlock.

Report this comment
#51) On May 05, 2012 at 9:14 PM, HarryCaraysGhost (99.62) wrote:

^ Why can't we have a 3 party system?

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement