FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Ron Paul's economic plan...plus an endorsement

   
Author Topic: Ron Paul's economic plan...plus an endorsement
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
Things are looking up for Ron Paul. The Martin Luther King Money bomb brought in 1.8 million dollars. He is once again ahead of Huckabee in fund raising this quarter. He dwarfed Huckabee last quarter.

Ron Paul has been treated well by Glen Beck on his views on the economy and has reached a few more million people. Don Luskin recently endorsed him. Cramer from Mad Money agrees with him on the economy. He placed a distant second in Nevada and recently got second in the Louisiana caucus.

The economy is becoming more of an issue in the republican presidential campaign and Paul has made economics his life passion.

Ron Paul has recently put out a four point plan to help our economy.

I like what Luskin had to say about it:

quote:
“Ron Paul’s economic plan is the real thing – a plan. It’s not just a band-aid designed to ‘stimulate’ the economy in an election year. It’s a fundamental agenda for real and lasting change, making the US economy more vibrant and competitive, and removing barriers to advancement for all Americans.”
Here is the notable general outline:

  • Tax Reform: Reduce the tax burden and eliminate taxes that punish investment and savings, including job-killing corporate taxes.
  • Spending Reform: Eliminate wasteful spending. Reduce overseas commitments. Freeze all non-defense, non-entitlement spending at current levels.
  • Monetary Policy Reform: Expand openness at the Federal Reserve and require the Fed to televise its meetings. Return value to our money.
  • Regulatory Reform: Repeal Sarbanes/Oxley regulations that push companies to seek capital outside of US markets. Stop restricting community banks from fostering local economic growth.

Dang it. I missed the debate tonight. I will hear it tomorrow on youtube. However here is a link to the Glenn Beck interview.

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
aspectre
Member
Member # 2222

 - posted      Profile for aspectre           Edit/Delete Post 
Deleted cuz MSNBC didn't rewebcast the debate; at least not from the address of the original webcast.

[ January 25, 2008, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: aspectre ]

Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fusiachi
Member
Member # 7376

 - posted      Profile for Fusiachi   Email Fusiachi         Edit/Delete Post 
I've got to wonder why RP included this point under the Tax Reform heading:

quote:
  • Cut Taxes for Working Seniors

Now, I agree with the policy listed below it ("repeal the inclusion of Social Security benefits in gross income"), but I couldn't be more opposed to the justification listed above it.

quote:
Grandmothers and grandfathers working to make ends meet should keep all the fruits of their labor.
What's special about grandparents/geriatrics? That is, excepting their voting tendencies, what's special? Perhaps... everyone working to "make ends meet" should be keeping the "fruits of their labor". I think this point should be eliminated or reframed. Just place it beneath the subsequent bullet, "Eliminate Taxes on Social Security Benefits".

Oh, and this one:

quote:
  • Accelerate Depreciation on Investment

with the one-liner, "We need to help companies grow and create jobs". Sure. We also need to hold companies accountable. And that starts with (surprise!) thier accounting departments. Clever depreciation schemes save companies from the burden of taxes. Ideally, investments depreciate and are accounted for as they lose value. Not before, nor after. Transparency is a good thing. If we're going to tax people and companies, it ought to be fair. Now, SOX could use some (some==much) reworking, but some sort of oversight should probably be in place. Again, I'm fine with the policy being proposed. I'm just not thrilled with the rhetoric and talking points being used.

The gold and silver standard proposals...just don't make any sense to me. What problems does a gold standard solve, assuming our Central Bank is credible and responsible? Then, another important question: what problems might it create? The only way this policy makes sense to me is in the absence of a central bank, which is not listed in this economic plan.

Of course, I might be wrong.

[ January 25, 2008, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Fusiachi ]

Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm voting for Ron Paul.
I saw part of the debate, Dr. Paul seems to be the only one who actually answers the questions.

Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kwea
Member
Member # 2199

 - posted      Profile for Kwea   Email Kwea         Edit/Delete Post 
Riiiight......because before Sarbanes/Oxley, companies were always forthright and honest, and no investors ever lost money or got cheated, because big business is GOOD....


Enron alone cost us how much?

Bullshit.

Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Fusiachi:
The gold and silver standard proposals...just don't make any sense to me. What problems does a gold standard solve, assuming our Central Bank is credible and responsible? Then, another important question: what problems might it create? The only way this policy makes sense to me is in the absence of a central bank, which is not listed in this economic plan.

He can't list getting rid of the Fed, because America isn't ready for that. Yet. That's an end goal.

And he isn't talking about going back to a gold standard, either. He's simply talking about allowing it to compete. It isn't that we're not on a gold standard; it's that it's illegal to produce gold coins for commerce. Why do you think that should be illegal?

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
Speaking of Ron Paul and the debate... I have been a bit busy with my own life, so I hadn't been following politics for a few days, which means I missed that there even was a debate. I did see something on MSNBC this morning, though, that really ticked me off.

They had a poll asking Who won the GOP Debate? (I think in Florida?)

Paul was winning the poll with 42%, against Romney's 40%. I think McCain was third.

The anchors on the program, Morning Joe, didn't legitimize this result in the LEAST, in fact, they said that the Paul-a-holics must be texting like crazy to push up his numbers like that.

Why can't they just treat him like the legitimate candidate that he is? If McCain and Romney were 42% and 40%, don't you think there would have been comments about how they were neck and neck, and no snide remarks about Romney-Ragers or McCain-Militants compromising the vote with furious texting?

Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Katarain: while I agree Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate, it is well documented that most of his incredibly good results on online poll results are the product of a small number of people using automated scripts to repeatedly vote.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Katarain: while I agree Ron Paul is a legitimate candidate, it is well documented that most of his incredibly good results on online poll results are the product of a small number of people using automated scripts to repeatedly vote.
I have not seen that documentation. If that was the case I don't think online money bombs would do so well. He does well in both telephone text polls and internet polls.

I do think his supporters are spamming, I just don't think it is via scripts by a small number of people.

What you get is meet up groups and forums posting where the polls are located and how to vote. His TV debate results are not as honest because it is not just comprised of audience members who watched the debates. There are many Paul supporters who check the forums for poll locations so they can boost their candidate.

I still think that is spamming, but I do think real people are doing the majority of the polls. I just don't' think they are a statistical representation of the audience of any given event.

Note: I have even seen forums advise supporters to not click on the link in the forum to go to a poll because it will show they were directed from the site.

I am happy to note that it appears Paul is getting some real momentum after his NH placing. Huckabee is so limey in trying to steal Paul's ideas and pass them off as his own.

Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Katarain
Member
Member # 6659

 - posted      Profile for Katarain   Email Katarain         Edit/Delete Post 
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/070507ronpaul.htm
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pooka
Member
Member # 5003

 - posted      Profile for pooka   Email pooka         Edit/Delete Post 
I used to like Glenn Beck for some things, but I'm pretty sure he is the source of the impression some of my associates have voiced that a lot of illegal immigrants are drunk drivers and child molesters. I wouldn't count his endorsement for much.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
lem
Member
Member # 6914

 - posted      Profile for lem           Edit/Delete Post 
It's not the person I am concerned about, it is the audience. They are assumabley predominately republican and like Glenn Beck. If the economy turns into a major factor this election (more so then terrorism where Beck disagrees with Paul) and Beck endorses Paul's economic views then Paul will likely get more votes from Beck's audience.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Threads
Member
Member # 10863

 - posted      Profile for Threads   Email Threads         Edit/Delete Post 
Is there any evidence that the "Death tax" is anywhere near as destructive as opponents of it try to make it out to be?

Also, I see he couldn't help but plug for the super rich by wanting to eliminate capital gains tax.

Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
I dunno. But if any guy needs a tax its Death.
Maybe if his taxes are higher, he'll work less, and less people will die.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
and fewer people will die.

Fixed that for you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
Many opponents of the Estate Tax bring up "losing the family farm" as its big evil. In 2004 I'd read that no family farms had ever actually been lost due to the Estate Tax. Unfortunately I don't have a source for that anymore and it's awfully hard to prove a negative.

Iirc, the Estate Tax doesn't even touch the first $5 million of an estate (formerly $2 million). Make of that what you will.

--Enigmatic

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Y'all act as if confiscating money from someone is okay if they have a lot of money. When did this stop being the USA and start being the USSR?

I work my tail off not just for myself, but for my child. The government takes an absurdly high cut of what I earn already. Why should they be able to tax what's left?

Nor are you correct, Enigmatic, about that "first $5 million" business. The IRS Website doesn't even make that claim. Instead, it claims that there's a "credit" that makes the tax inapplicable to the first $1 million.

And that includes homes, which means that if you live in an area with increasing property values, you get penalized. I know people around here who bought their homes for on the order of $50K, whose houses are now worth roughly 10 times that. Boy, I can sure see how the government should get a cut of that.

The purpose of rigging a tax like this with a credit is to create a penalty for passing a certain threshhold of wealth. If I invest wisely and work my whole life in order to get good things to pass to my children, the death tax means that they can't have all of it. Even though I paid taxes on every single dollar I spent on it already. It's a socialist concept that sees us all as playing with tokens that are really owned by "society", and which society has the right to reclaim once we're no longer in the game. It's grotesque.

Here's a link about that "credit", btw.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tresopax
Member
Member # 1063

 - posted      Profile for Tresopax           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Why should they be able to tax what's left?
Because they have to tax something in order to pay for everything the government does. I would say it is considerably more fair to tax wealth that you simply inherit than it is to tax wealth that you worked hard to earn.

I would think that out of all taxes on individuals, the inheritance tax is probably the most fair.

Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Fusiachi
Member
Member # 7376

 - posted      Profile for Fusiachi   Email Fusiachi         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Why should they be able to tax what's left?
Because they have to tax something in order to pay for everything the government does. I would say it is considerably more fair to tax wealth that you simply inherit than it is to tax wealth that you worked hard to earn.

I would think that out of all taxes on individuals, the inheritance tax is probably the most fair.

Someone worked to create that wealth. They should have some say as to where it ends. I understand the political appeal of an inheritance tax--the dead can't stand up in opposition. I don't see, however, how it is fair. You're just taking money from one group of people that didn't earn it and giving it to another group of people that didn't earn it. Why does the government get to choose who is more deserving? Or at least that's some of the rhetoric that I've heard.
Posts: 433 | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
Lisa: Is this the kind of thing that you're referring to? I figure that my comment is as colloquial as it gets and less people will disagree as time passes [Wink]
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:
Why should they be able to tax what's left?
Because they have to tax something in order to pay for everything the government does. I would say it is considerably more fair to tax wealth that you simply inherit than it is to tax wealth that you worked hard to earn.

I would think that out of all taxes on individuals, the inheritance tax is probably the most fair.

Evil begets evil. The government takes upon itself to do things it was never meant to do and has no right to do, and then confiscates what we work hard for in order to pay for the "service". And the mafia is criminal exactly... why?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
Lisa: Is this the kind of thing that you're referring to? I figure that my comment is as colloquial as it gets and less people will disagree as time passes [Wink]

Pet peeve. My bank (WaMu) had signs up for a while talking about how they had "less fees". It sounded utterly ignorant. Yours wasn't that bad, but it's still a pet peeve of mine.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
There are two types of people who do not produce in this country. There are the very poor and the very rich.

Here is the interesting thing. Give enough money to the many very poor, or to programs helping the very poor like education, job training, etc, and you can make a large percentage of them into productive members of society. They will produce.

Giving more money to the few very rich and they remain idle.

Hence the Estate Tax tries to transfer money from people who won't work because they don't want to and can afford not to, to those who don't work because they cannot--and get them to the point they can.

There is waste in this transfer. Some people who are poor choose not to work, but live off this system. Why should they be more despised than those who choose not to be productive and live off the system of "momma is rich so I get her money."?

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Avatar300
Member
Member # 5108

 - posted      Profile for Avatar300   Email Avatar300         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
There are two types of people who do not produce in this country. There are the very poor and the very rich.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. When the "very rich" guy spends his money it helps everyone he spends it on. But what do you think happens if he never spends his money? It doesn't just sit there. It gets invested or lent in ways that help the economy (and the poor) better than any government program ever could. Becuase it produces more

quote:
Hence the Estate Tax tries to transfer money from people who won't work because they don't want to and can afford not to...
I think the word you're actually looking for here is "steal," not transfer.
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
Pet peeve.

I understand you're pet peeve. I'm sure that if our positions were reversed, it would have a similar affect on me.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:
There are two types of people who do not produce in this country. There are the very poor and the very rich.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. When the "very rich" guy spends his money it helps everyone he spends it on.
Even when he puts it in a money market account, it's going into the economy, where it can be lent to those poor folks.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
I understand your pet peeve.

Fixed that for you.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
What is the problem their?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_raven
Member
Member # 3383

 - posted      Profile for Dan_raven   Email Dan_raven         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. When the "very rich" guy spends his money it helps everyone he spends it on. But what do you think happens if he never spends his money? It doesn't just sit there. It gets invested or lent in ways that help the economy (and the poor) better than any government program ever could. Becuase it produces more
And when the poor people spend their welfare money I suppose it just up and disappears? No it goes into the economy spurring sales and growth.

Whad do you think happens if they never spend their money? Oh wait. They always spend their money because they need to buy the esentials to live.

Of course, its not stealing money from the rich, since stealing, by its very definition is the illegal taking of property, and since this has been made legal, it is not stealing.

Now when that poor family, or that Job Training program, or that Medical Clinic gets that money from the federal government, and spends it, that spending usually goes to American stores. Now perhaps the majority of it may end up in China since foreign goods are less expensive, but it goes through a lot of US middlemen first.

When Paris Hilton or some other ultr-rich non-worker uses their money, it goes into a couple different things. 1) It goes to expenive luxury goods, many of those foreign made, with few if any US middlemen. 2) It gets invested.

Investment, I am told by all Conservatives, is the cure for what ever ails the economy. It spurs new jobs and new growth.

Yet with all the investment hype we've lived with in the past 30 years, the average middle class income has either stayed the same, or gone down. So I don't quite understand how this "investment" rush is really helping any economy under the $150,000/year income.

What I do know is a lot of this wonderful Investment income went into buying A-rated investment schemes chuck full of Sub-Prime mortgages.

I still find it odd that claims of Government Regulation and Taxation are killing the economy, and only unfettered, untaxed, investment income can save it, while the greatest hits our economy has taken in the past 10 years has come from, 9/11, Enron and the other investment scandals, and the Sub-Prime Mortgage Debacle. 2 out of 3--Unfettered Investment and Corporate Money games run amok. The 3rd requires more tax money and more governmental interference to stop.

Finally, while the Super Rich/Idle Rich spends only a tiny fraction of their wealth the rest works to help the economy, it is argued.

That may be true, but they are still idle, doing nothing themselves to support the economy.

It is a question of morality. Do we as a country believe in the work ethic -- that Money should go to those who earn it, or do we believe that money is more important than people, and if you are lucky enough to have wealthy parents, you are free from any need to be a constructive member of society.

Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Enigmatic
Member
Member # 7785

 - posted      Profile for Enigmatic   Email Enigmatic         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Nor are you correct, Enigmatic, about that "first $5 million" business. The IRS Website doesn't even make that claim. Instead, it claims that there's a "credit" that makes the tax inapplicable to the first $1 million.

Interesting. I was basing that comment on tax legislation that was being debated in 2004 to raise the amount that wasn't taxed to $5 million. I had thought it passed, but maybe that part was changed in the final version.

Anyway, from your second link: "Beginning in 2006, 2007, 2008, the amount you can pass tax free to your heirs increases $2 million and then to $3.5 million in 2009." (I really did think it was $2 mill prior to 2006 though, but the example I'm thinking of was a married couple so maybe they had it set up to be two separate estates.)
For your example of the $50k house that's now worth 10 times that, unless that person also has at least $1.5 million in other assets, the government isn't getting a cut of that. Even then, they're only getting a cut of whatever is over and above the $2 million, not the whole thing.

According to the IRS page you linked, this tax only affects the wealthiest 2% of all Americans. I'm fine with that. I'm aware that you and many other Libertarians are against it because you're against pretty much all federal taxes, though, so I'm neither trying nor expecting to change your mind here. Thanks for the links.

--Enigmatic

Posts: 2715 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Boris
Member
Member # 6935

 - posted      Profile for Boris   Email Boris         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:
Originally posted by Avatar300:
quote:
There are two types of people who do not produce in this country. There are the very poor and the very rich.
I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. When the "very rich" guy spends his money it helps everyone he spends it on.
Even when he puts it in a money market account, it's going into the economy, where it can be lent to those poor folks.
Yes. Lent to poor folks at a 20% or more interest rate so some really rich guy can have more money to give to his lazy children. The fact of the matter is that an incredibly large percentage of money spent by the super rich never actually trickles down to the lower class, because it gets gobbled up and floats all the way up to the top again. I'm not saying it's bad to want to have money to give to your children. But there's a point when it just becomes obscene. When one executive makes as much money as several thousand of his workers, I can't help but think there is something severely wrong. Particularly since many of those workers may actually work *harder* than the executive. And there are many of those executives that will not hesitate to cut the wages of those below them in order to ensure the continual growth of their own wallet. I don't care what you think, greed is not a good thing.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Launchywiggin
Member
Member # 9116

 - posted      Profile for Launchywiggin   Email Launchywiggin         Edit/Delete Post 
My ethics professor in college called it "Slavery on a much grander scale" or something along those lines. The problem is that we're not making equal pay for equal work (capitalism)--we're in a never-ending pyramid scheme, where all of us are living at the expense of the lower tiers (with billionaires at the top of the pyramids). So while it seems that "I deserve to keep the money I earn and not have it taxed away from me"--I believe the reality is that you've been overpaid, and there are slaves around the world that you've profited off of (unintentionally)--and that "redistributing the wealth" isn't such a bad idea given the the system which allows slavery.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elmer's Glue
Member
Member # 9313

 - posted      Profile for Elmer's Glue   Email Elmer's Glue         Edit/Delete Post 
Commie!
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
seriously though, if I never again see a ron paul supporter's argument that ends up with a SOCIALIST U.S.S.A. crack LOL WE ARE LIKE RUSSIA it will be too soon.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
The president of my small college, where salaries are otherwise capped at $60,000 a year, is provided with a company car (with parking space) and a house literally across the street in addition to his $350,000 salary. His duties include rubber-stamping the recommendations of his advisors and glad-handing potential donors. So far, he has failed to personally generate more than $350,000 in donations each year, which means -- as far as I can tell -- that he is basically a sunk cost we're willing to pay for some reason, as opposed to an actual resource.

The issue of "executive salaries" is one that I find particularly amusing, since it's only on the recommendations of boards filled with other executives that executive pay is determined. It's like expecting Congress to grant themselves a pay cut, or to reduce their outrageously good health benefits.

Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Dan_raven:
Of course, its not stealing money from the rich, since stealing, by its very definition is the illegal taking of property, and since this has been made legal, it is not stealing.

So no Jews were murdered by Nazis during WWII, right? Because after all, murder is the illegal taking of a life, and it had been made legal.

I feel okay calling that murder and calling stealing stealing, regardless of what laws may have been passed to call foul fair.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Are you still willing to condone (what you call) stealing in order to support the bare minimum of gov't activities you consider necessary?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lisa
Member
Member # 8384

 - posted      Profile for Lisa   Email Lisa         Edit/Delete Post 
Depends. A priori, no. Are you asking if I would willingly abolish all involuntary taxation tomorrow? Probably not. I don't believe in that sort of revolution. Major changes, yes. Overnight, no.

That's why while Ron Paul is pushing to get rid of the income tax -- period, I favor the Fair Tax. Let people see how much they're really paying in taxes for a while, and they're liable to be a lot less willing to accept a government that "provides services" at that cost. Furthermore, the Fair Tax is more of a voluntary tax than the income tax is. Instead of penalizing people for being more productive, it only taxes things you buy, new, above the basic necessities of life. The prebate gets rid of the welfarist objection to taxing the very poor, and people don't have to buy ridiculously expensive things if they don't want to pay a lot of tax.

The goal is to have government funded voluntarily. Hell, if everyone who was so intent on having the government "provide services" would pony up a bit, it'd pay for all the necessary services of government with plenty left over. But they don't want to pay for what they think is important. They want everyone to pay for what they think is important. And they don't want to have to waste their time going around convincing people to pay. They'd rather pass a law and make it an imprisonable offense not to.

Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2