Huckabee wants to replace it with the Fair Tax... which would be horrible. A 30% tax on everything I buy? No thanks... Ron Paul is the only one who wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing... GO RON PAUL!!!
[QUOTE=jefethegreat;2235521]Huckabee wants to replace it with the Fair Tax... which would be horrible. A 30% tax on everything I buy? No thanks... Ron Paul is the only one who wants to abolish the income tax and replace it with nothing... GO RON PAUL!!![/QUOTE]
23% tax on what you buy. But there's no longer such a thing as gross and net pay. You keep it all.
Look at your pay stubs. That's likely to be a nice chunk of money.
[QUOTE=sourceworx;2235532]23% tax on what you buy. But there's no longer such a thing as gross and net pay. You keep it all.
Look at your pay stubs. That's likely to be a nice chunk of money.[/QUOTE]
I understand that the bill says 23% but the way they word it it is actually more like 32%... Im not an expert but experts have said the 23% is a manipulation.
This is from wikipedia...
[QUOTE]The FairTax (H.R.25/S.1025) is a bill in the United States Congress for changing tax laws to replace the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and all federal income taxes (including Alternative Minimum Tax), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a national retail sales tax, to be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to households of citizens and legal resident aliens (based on family size) as an advance rebate of tax on purchases up to the poverty level. [B]The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation, is 23% of the total register price (23˘ of every $1—calculated the same way as income taxes), which is comparable to a 30% traditional state sales tax (30˘ on top of every $1). Because the U.S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices,[/B] moving to the FairTax would decrease production costs due to the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the FairTax effect on prices.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=cr726;2235536]I am not an economist but what about the U.S. problems with debt, if you abolish the IRS does that mean my property taxes are going to get even higher. Or will every state open up their own IRS?[/QUOTE]
You must cut FEDERAL government spending by a third or implement a different tax.
Not that I'm voting for any of them, but I thought McCain and Huckabee did pretty well.
McCain absolutely destroyed Romney on the torture issue. He was saying unequivocally that torture is evil and we shouldn't do it, while Romney was dodging the question and pretending that there was some sort of confidentiality restraint on presidential candidates preventing him from discussing it. He looked pathetic.
Rudy and Romney also probably helped McCain and Huckabee a lot early on with their nasty, petty and personal swiping over immigration, an issue that neither of them can really count as a strength with the GOP base anyhow. It reminded me of Dean and Gephradt doing the same thing in Iowa in the runup to 2004, which of course was a huge help to Kerry and Edwards at the time.
Huckabee seems more polished, had the best laugh line of the night (Jesus wouldn't run for office), and clearly is a social conservative, as opposed to his opponents. That said, at some point Rudy and Romney are going to go after him, and that will increase his degree of difficulty.
Look at all of us "libtards" discussing cutting taxes. I don't think we are supposed to be doing that. We're supposed to want to raise taxes so we can put more people on welfare. Becoming proponents of tax cuts could unite the country.
Two candidates who I don't care if I hear from again were Thompson and Romney. It is a shame Romney looks the role and Thompson was a good actor.
[QUOTE=PlumberKhan;2235632]Look at all of us "libtards" discussing cutting taxes. I don't think we are supposed to be doing that. We're supposed to want to raise taxes so we can put more people on welfare. Becoming proponents of tax cuts could unite the country.
I agree with everone else about Huckabee winning last night but the guy just doesn't have the money to do it in the big states..Romney was the biggest &ss on the stage last night and thought Guiliani's mean side started to come out for the first time. He's got to get a handle on that If he's gonna win. This isn't NYC although he's still my choice..I would love to see a Rudy Huckabee ticket. You could see Thompson is a sick man and they're hiding the effects of his Cancer treatment. Rudy had Romney good with his workers but keep going after it when he just should have let it go after mentioning it once.
Last edited by 2009fatman; 11-29-2007 at 11:14 AM.
I did not realize that part of Paul's strategy was to bring home and close every military base in the world.[/QUOTE]
That was one thing that struck me last night -- one of his main points was, "They hate us because of our military prescence abroad."
Well, we have bases all over the world, in many different countries. Do all of those countries resent us for that? Is Germany gearing up to bring down the Sears Tower because of our very large, highly active base there?
[QUOTE=JetsCrazey;2235770]Better to be a small-government idealist than a warmongering big spender[/QUOTE]
True, but your premise in invalid. Not everyone who refuses to support Ron Paul is a "warmongering big spender".
And more importantly, a small-government idealist will get absolutely nothing done on his own as President. Nothing. Not one single thing. Which kinda makes his idealism (if it's anyhting more than a facade to start with) somewhat irrelevant, and actually more likely counter-productive.
[QUOTE=jefethegreat;2235856]Dr. Paul talks about what gov should be, where he wants it to be. NOT where it will be when he is done as president. He is talking about the causes of our problems and being realistic.
As a matter of fact, Ron Paul is the most realistic out of any of the candidates because he knows he is running for U.S. presidency, [B]not for king[/B] like the rest of the field.[/QUOTE]
Do you even read what you write?
All I care about is what a President can get done. His idealistic theory means zilch. If he cannot change the country for the better, why elect him?
As I've said about you, and Paul, from the beginning...it must be nice to be idealistic and naive. I wish I could still be myself. But the real world does not allow that, not if you want to get by in this world.
Ron Paul is by far and away the single most UNREALISTIC candidate in the race (well, Kookcinich may be right with him). None of his theory would ever get within a mile of Law, and hsi presence as President would do nothing but gridlock the entire Government.
I'm sure, as a idealistic kid college student (which I can only assume you are) it's easy to not care. But those of us who have to live and work in the real world care, and a locked up Govt. sucking our money, and doing nothign with it, is not a great option.
You want change? GREAT! So do I. I DESPISE The two party system, always have, always will. Search this forum, and you'd see that.
But change does not START with the Presidency, it ends there. Change starts with a legitimate third party, that can win local and state office around the country, can build a base of support, can bring a third (or fourth of fifth) viewpoint to the issues, that can win Congress Seats, Governorships and Senate Seats ALL before it reaches for the Presidency.
Do it the other way round, and it's a failure of horrid preportions waiting to happen. Good intentions or not.