Rand Paul's tax plan.

Turd.Ferguson

Turd.Ferguson

Active member
Basically Rand Paul stated he would abolish tax codes and make a flat 14% tax rate. How the fuck is that possible. I know the neighbors up north all pay around 15%, but they also only have to guard one border, they have an exponentially smaller military, and their Universal Healthcare does not cover any prescriptions etc. I'm just curious as to how he would do this (considering he has no power to do so) and wondering if any of you knew more about it than I did.
 
Doesn't matter. Rand Paul isn't winning.

But I would have to think that his idea is that $$ wouldn't just come from taxes. Plus I don't think Paul supports universal healthcare..
 
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Meaning he believes in free market, low taxes, personal responsibility. 14% flat tax rate is pretty stupid. Any person with two braincells to rub together knows a progressive tax rate is a much better option. But the question then is how much should the rich pay as tax?
 
topic:Turd.Ferguson said:
Basically Rand Paul stated he would abolish tax codes and make a flat 14% tax rate. How the fuck is that possible. I know the neighbors up north all pay around 15%, but they also only have to guard one border, they have an exponentially smaller military, and their Universal Healthcare does not cover any prescriptions etc. I'm just curious as to how he would do this (considering he has no power to do so) and wondering if any of you knew more about it than I did.
Click to expand...

13509940:S.J.W said:
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Meaning he believes in free market, low taxes, personal responsibility. 14% flat tax rate is pretty stupid. Any person with two braincells to rub together knows a progressive tax rate is a much better option. But the question then is how much should the rich pay as tax?
Click to expand...

A member posted this a while back


If you know who Robert Reich is then you understand how valuable his words are. The last time the country ran a surpluss was under his watch.
 
13509940:S.J.W said:
Rand Paul is a libertarian. Meaning he believes in free market, low taxes, personal responsibility. 14% flat tax rate is pretty stupid. Any person with two braincells to rub together knows a progressive tax rate is a much better option. But the question then is how much should the rich pay as tax?
Click to expand...

Rand=/=Ron

Rand is not an actual Libertarian.
 
Libertarians are far too idealistic. I mean, do you really believe that the average citizen will want to repair deteriorating infrastructure just because of a 14% flat tax? No! People always need incentives to do that kind of work, which is why a portion of our taxes are allocated to that sector. If you abolish progressive tax, you idealize the people, which is a dangerous game.

/end cynical rant
 
13510141:ck0belski said:
Libertarians are far too idealistic. I mean, do you really believe that the average citizen will want to repair deteriorating infrastructure just because of a 14% flat tax? No! People always need incentives to do that kind of work, which is why a portion of our taxes are allocated to that sector. If you abolish progressive tax, you idealize the people, which is a dangerous game.

/end cynical rant
Click to expand...

People will pay the tax if they need to use the roads. The major flaw in the current system is you can be thrown in jail for not paying your taxes. Our tax dollars go to fighting foreign wars for example. If you no longer want to support murder overseas by not paying that portion of the tax, your freedom will be taken away from you.
 
13509943:_Fluffy_ said:
A member posted this a while back


If you know who Robert Reich is then you understand how valuable his words are. The last time the country ran a surpluss was under his watch.
Click to expand...

That was actually a really interesting video. If you only watch the opening arguments (first 10 or so minutes) you can tell which side has their shit together. (hint: Reich's)
 
13509943:_Fluffy_ said:
A member posted this a while back


If you know who Robert Reich is then you understand how valuable his words are. The last time the country ran a surpluss was under his watch.
Click to expand...

Robert Reich, the same guy who has a degree in law, not economics, and got his secretary of labor job from the clintons because he was in bill and hillarys classes. You do know that the clinton surplus was a leading cause of the fannie mae freddie mac debt boom that caused the economic collapse of the bush years?
 
You do know that the clinton surplus was a leading cause of the fannie mae freddie mac debt boom that caused the economic collapse of the bush years?[/quote]

wtf are you talking about? the housing bubble of 2008 was Reichs fault?

I've never heard anyone every claim what you are trying to claim.

Please enlighten me....
 
13517179:_Fluffy_ said:
Robert Reich was not mentioned in that article...

Ask for $15, get $10. That's how compromising (politics) works
Click to expand...

That was in response to your "under his watch" quote.
 
13517240:S.J.W said:
It's actually up to a fair amount of debate whether Clinton was a key figure in the GFC, there is no generally agreed upon answer. Where as it's generally agreed upon that Bush does deserve a fair amount of the blame for the GFC. As well as Wall Street and the American consumer as well
Click to expand...

Bush attempted to increase oversight on fannie mae freddie mac to keep them from crashing but the democrats stopped him. There should be more blame on the lack of bipartisanism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
 
13517014:JAHpow said:
Robert Reich, the same guy who has a degree in law, not economics, and got his secretary of labor job from the clintons because he was in bill and hillarys classes. You do know that the clinton surplus was a leading cause of the fannie mae freddie mac debt boom that caused the economic collapse of the bush years?
Click to expand...

Yup!
 
13517231:_Fluffy_ said:
He also was in the Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter Administrations.
Click to expand...

Yep and both of those administrations are known for their poor economic policies.
 
13517255:JAHpow said:
Bush attempted to increase oversight on fannie mae freddie mac to keep them from crashing but the democrats stopped him. There should be more blame on the lack of bipartisanism.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/16/whose-policies-led-to-the-credit-crisis/
Click to expand...

" It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now." I was sort of taking the piece half seriously until I got down to the bottom and saw them linking to articles with titles such as "crush liberalism" and "right wing diva". Even fox news is laughing at that sites bias.

And Joe Weisenthal is pretty much the only credible economist to make the claim that Clinton is to hold the majority of the blame over the GFC. Like I said the majority of the economic community agrees upon that Bush deserves the most blame over the GFC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2012/09/05/did-bill-clintons-budgets-really-destroy-the-american-economy/

 
13517292:S.J.W said:
" It was the Bush administration that wanted to rein in the madness in the credit markets, and the Democrats who wanted to extend the Clinton policies that created the crisis we have now." I was sort of taking the piece half seriously until I got down to the bottom and saw them linking to articles with titles such as "crush liberalism" and "right wing diva". Even fox news is laughing at that sites bias.

And Joe Weisenthal is pretty much the only credible economist to make the claim that Clinton is to hold the majority of the blame over the GFC. Like I said the majority of the economic community agrees upon that Bush deserves the most blame over the GFC.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/karlwhelan/2012/09/05/did-bill-clintons-budgets-really-destroy-the-american-economy/
Click to expand...

So you reject an article based on links that are not affiliated with the article? The article is primarily excerpts from the New York Times and Investors Business Daily.

And interesting you say that the majority of the economic community blames bush when in the article you posted states there should be equal blame for each administration with the housing collapse.

"Weisenthal mentions the role of Fannie and Freddie in stoking up the mortgage crisis.  There is little doubt that the federal housing agencies played a role in attempting to extend home ownership rates higher than was perhaps sensible. However, a look at the data shows that the push towards high rates of home ownership that began under Clinton was continued under the Bush administration right up to the eve of the crisis. So you could argue that both administrations deserve equal blame for these developments."

But my second article refutes that it was any intention by bush to continue clintons policies, rather bush wanted stricter regulations but was blocked by democrats.

Yes, I will agree that bush is to blame for much of the gfc. However, the policies that oversaw fannie and freddie during clinton and the regulations that were stopped by democrats under bush played a crucial role in the collapse.
 
13517292:S.J.W said:
And Joe Weisenthal is pretty much the only credible economist to make the claim that Clinton is to hold the majority of the blame over the GFC.

[/url]
Click to expand...

It's quite a stretch to call an editor at Bloomberg an economist, let alone credible.
 
13517309:Paedophile-Pope said:
It's quite a stretch to call an editor at Bloomberg an economist, let alone credible.
Click to expand...

He was an analyst for a money management firm before he became a writer.

A little closer to economics than law....
 
13517315:JAHpow said:
He was an analyst for a money management firm before he became a writer.

A little closer to economics than law....
Click to expand...

It's generally accepted that to be considered an economist one must hold Ph.D..
 
13516973:DragonTalez said:
What about Ben Carsons 10% tax rate plan?
Click to expand...

sorry for the extremely late response but obviously that is pathetically unrealistic unless we decided to cease all government spending and then it would still take probably over 100 years of people paying a 10% tax rate to eliminate our deficit.
 
They were giving out temporary Rand Paul tatoos at the state fair a couple years ago so I got a Rand Paul tramp stamp for a while...thats all I can really contribute to this topic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top