Ron Paul Critique

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think your saying that the prebate eliminates the problem of the poor person paying more of their income towards taxes, is that correct? If so, then we agree right? lol?

The income tax was also ruled unconstitutional right after the civil war as well. I don't have the Fairtax book in front of me, but I think the income tax was declared unconstitutional once before, or it might have been just twice.

Yes, the original income tax levied to pay for the civil war was repealed shortly after it ended, which might have been upon threat of a Supreme Court ruling.

The reason in your example it was declared unconstitutional is because a tax on the income of property is a direct tax. And taxing income i.e. earnings is the same thing, so yes it was a tax on earnings, and thus a direct tax and a violation of the constitution.

Well, if the Supreme Court decided it wasn't, it was probably on some technicality like "taxing the employer for paying employees instead of taxing the employee on his income". And either way, it's a hundred-year-old version of the constitution we're talking about. The amendment system is in place specifically to account for changes over time. Acting like what the Framers originally wrote is somehow more important or valid than what was added later is inconsistent with the premise of a constitutional amendment itself. And doing so in all caps doesn't help either.

I don't believe it was a technicality, taxing income/earnings is a direct tax and clearly violated the constitution up until 1916'ish.

Whether or not what the framers wrote is still important today is a matter of opinion I think, and a different debate. (This is only one of the many criticisms of the income tax, there are plenty more.)

If you don't believe what the framers wrote about taxes is more important than what was later added to change what they wrote, I don't think I can come up with an argument for you. I'm not saying the income tax isn't justified, because the 16th amendment obviously did that, but just because it got an amendment doesn't make it better or right. (Well I guess it does make it right if you don't think what the founders wrote is important, and were just accounting for a change over time.) But like I said, thats only one criticism of the income tax and one reason people think the 16th amendment should be repealed.

[archibaldcrane]

The only way Ron Paul stands a chance is if he scares people that either terrorists are fighting to raise taxes or homosexuals are going to corrupt the traditionality of taxes.

Play to your base, you know.

[guartz]

seeing as this is all academic (since ron paul has no chance) i will indulge you a bit. FairTax, destroying the Fed, moving away from fiat currency to some commodity-backed one; all these things are somewhat radical & drastic solutions to our current economic problems (and in his view, fundamental flaws in our system). I don't like being the 'sky is falling' guy but unless a very good transition is put into place, they could destroy the U.S. economy. Our people, our companies, our government is so leveraged that disrupting it now in any of those ways would make our current credit crisis look like fun times by comparison. But in no way is this an acceptable way for us to operate as a nation so we can't let it continue, but the answer is certainly not these proposed extreme solutions.

We need stricter regulations, and untangle what basically amounts to a financial house of cards, where if any one thing fails, our economy is fucked. But at the same time not forgo the advantages of credit which enables growth. We definitely need to fix things to get the best of both worlds.

Sure our constitution describes how the role of government plays into all this, but they didn't forsee the amount of change and growth that would take place, so its interpretation has evolved. I'm happy that it changes with the times, I don't feel a need for us to follow the constitution so strictly. Its just my personal opinion.

Surely you are not suggesting more central planning, even as a transition?

Wasn't USSR a good example of central planning?

[Charla]

I don't believe it was a technicality, taxing income/earnings is a direct tax and clearly violated the constitution up until 1916'ish.

Whether or not what the framers wrote is still important today is a matter of opinion I think, and a different debate. (This is only one of the many criticisms of the income tax, there are plenty more.)

If you don't believe what the framers wrote about taxes is more important than what was later added to change what they wrote, I don't think I can come up with an argument for you. I'm not saying the income tax isn't justified, because the 16th amendment obviously did that, but just because it got an amendment doesn't make it better or right. (Well I guess it does make it right if you don't think what the founders wrote is important, and were just accounting for a change over time.) But like I said, thats only one criticism of the income tax and one reason people think the 16th amendment should be repealed.

I believe that the framers also wrote that all amendments will have the same power, and therefore importance, as the Constitution's original body. They wanted what they wrote to be changed eventually, because they knew that a lot of it would have to change eventually.

Having read some more about it today, I'm no longer strictly opposed to the basic premise of fairtax. If it could be implemented correctly, clearing away the hundred years' worth of complexity that's developed around income taxes would probably do more good than harm. While I don't think it could eliminate tax evasion (that's as hard as eliminating RMT), it probably wouldn't make it much worse. Even so, the essential problem with relying on prebates to create a progressive tax system remains, in that corruption could very easialy create regressive taxation.

More importantly, the political armageddon that would be necessary to push something like this through in the forseeable future just isn't worth it. Maybe in 50 years.

[Kuya]

Coming from someone who knows very little about the way N. American taxes work. What would a change to fairtax mean for the IRS?

[guartz]

Coming from someone who knows very little about the way N. American taxes work. What would a change to fairtax mean for the IRS?

I think it works thusly, they remove income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I don't believe it was a technicality, taxing income/earnings is a direct tax and clearly violated the constitution up until 1916'ish.

Whether or not what the framers wrote is still important today is a matter of opinion I think, and a different debate. (This is only one of the many criticisms of the income tax, there are plenty more.)

If you don't believe what the framers wrote about taxes is more important than what was later added to change what they wrote, I don't think I can come up with an argument for you. I'm not saying the income tax isn't justified, because the 16th amendment obviously did that, but just because it got an amendment doesn't make it better or right. (Well I guess it does make it right if you don't think what the founders wrote is important, and were just accounting for a change over time.) But like I said, thats only one criticism of the income tax and one reason people think the 16th amendment should be repealed.

I believe that the framers also wrote that all amendments will have the same power, and therefore importance, as the Constitution's original body. They wanted what they wrote to be changed eventually, because they knew that a lot of it would have to change eventually.


Having read some more about it today, I'm no longer strictly opposed to the basic premise of fairtax. If it could be implemented correctly, clearing away the hundred years' worth of complexity that's developed around income taxes would probably do more good than harm. While I don't think it could eliminate tax evasion (that's as hard as eliminating RMT), it probably wouldn't make it much worse. Even so, the essential problem with relying on prebates to create a progressive tax system remains, in that corruption could very easialy create regressive taxation.

More importantly, the political armageddon that would be necessary to push something like this through in the forseeable future just isn't worth it. Maybe in 50 years.

I'm not saying the 16th amendment isn't important, it certainly is.

And no matter the tax system there will always be corruption. And no, the Fairtax won't eliminate evasion, but it will certainly decrease a lot. Even drug dealers have to eat, along with other evaders.

And I do think its worth it, for so many reasons.

And the IRS would lose all of its power Kuya, it would still collect taxes I guess, people just wouldn't be afraid of the IRS anymore.

[guartz]

ational Sales Tax




People will buy things less. Say goodbye to malls, lol

[Kuya]

I think it works thusly, they remove income tax and replace it with a national sales tax.

And the IRS would lose all of its power Kuya, it would still collect taxes I guess, people just wouldn't be afraid of the IRS anymore.

[evilbau]

seeing as this is all academic (since ron paul has no chance) i will indulge you a bit. FairTax, destroying the Fed, moving away from fiat currency to some commodity-backed one; all these things are somewhat radical & drastic solutions to our current economic problems (and in his view, fundamental flaws in our system). I don't like being the 'sky is falling' guy but unless a very good transition is put into place, they could destroy the U.S. economy. Our people, our companies, our government is so leveraged that disrupting it now in any of those ways would make our current credit crisis look like fun times by comparison. But in no way is this an acceptable way for us to operate as a nation so we can't let it continue, but the answer is certainly not these proposed extreme solutions.

We need stricter regulations, and untangle what basically amounts to a financial house of cards, where if any one thing fails, our economy is fucked. But at the same time not forgo the advantages of credit which enables growth. We definitely need to fix things to get the best of both worlds.

Sure our constitution describes how the role of government plays into all this, but they didn't forsee the amount of change and growth that would take place, so its interpretation has evolved. I'm happy that it changes with the times, I don't feel a need for us to follow the constitution so strictly. Its just my personal opinion.

Surely you are not suggesting more central planning, even as a transition?

Wasn't USSR a good example of central planning?

USSR isn't a good example of central planning. And I'm saying there would need to be a very good transition, as much as it may assault your sensibilities, you cannot make fundamental change to our tax system without one. If we just 'took our medicine' it would be pretty messy and potentially disastrous. Please get past the rhetoric.

[Blarg]

I give Paul a pass on the not believing in evolution, like he would even admit he believed in it if he does. The guy is like 70 years old, he grew up in such a different time that I'm sure the idea of creation is ingrained in him. In his case I think that the creation belief has less to do with how much of an idiot he is, but for the other younger guys it is more disappointing. To base your vote on that one fact is pretty stupid itself, your vote is for president not for a high school biology teacher job. You can count it as a strike against them but to put so much emphasis on creation/evolution is pretty silly to me.

You want the guy that leads 300 mil people and makes decisions that effect the entire planet to have a toddlers understanding of what humanity even is, or even the basics of our planet? Its people like that who think we can piss oil and pollution for the next 1000 years and not have an influence on our planet because "god gave it to us". There is a difference between asking our leaders to be biology phds and having them be at least above a high school lvl in understanding of life as we know it.

I havent met a Ron Paul supporter yet that didnt come off as at least partially mentally handicapped or at least completely unaware of anything related to reality.

What candidates have said they don't believe in god? As far as I know, none of them have (you can try to guess which ones really don't but won't admit it but that is a shot in the dark), therefore they would all believe god gave the planet to humans. There is a difference between a young creationist who grew up learning about evolution and rejecting it with their hands to their ears, and a 72 year old going to schools vastly different where the teaching of evolution was less focused or even non existent. The way I see it, a Huckabee is more dangerous than a Paul with the same creation view based on the above.

If you agree with Paul's ideas to get out of Iraq, and to build better relations with other countries, etc why would you let one of his beliefs change your vote. Some 60% of Americans are creationists and you want the president, who is a huge longshot, to alienate a very strong voting group of people, effectively killing his chance of being elected.

[Charla]

Let's put it this way: If this becomes a significant issue eventually (Ron Paul doesn't count until he gets a lot more airtime), and whoever is pushing it seems convinced that they can get it set up and make sure that it stays reasonably honest and mostly progressive, I'll get behind it. I just don't think anyone will have the political power to push it through for the next 50 years or so, on top of the justified fears that it will immediately degenerate into regressive taxation when someone starts skimming off the top.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think if the Fairtax gets implemented it will be something like what happened to the amnesty bill. Congress was going to pass it but people got so ticked off they started flooding their representatives and they didn't pass it. Its not going to be something the politicians voluntarily do on their own. It will have to be because enough people got behind it that the politicians will suffer if they don't implement it.

Also, I don't think Ron Paul supports it, he just supports getting rid of the income tax. It's Huckabee that made it one of his campaign issues. And what do you mean Charla by people skimming off the top? Business's collecting the tax, but not giving all of the tax to the feds?

[Charla]

I think if the Fairtax gets implemented it will be something like what happened to the amnesty bill. Congress was going to pass it but people got so ticked off they started flooding their representatives and they didn't pass it. Its not going to be something the politicians voluntarily do on their own. It will have to be because enough people got behind it that the politicians will suffer if they don't implement it.

Also, I don't think Ron Paul supports it, he just supports getting rid of the income tax. It's Huckabee that made it one of his campaign issues. And what do you mean Charla by people skimming off the top? Business's collecting the tax, but not giving all of the tax to the feds?

Actually I imagine it being the other way around. Congress seriously considers a fairtax bill until the media hears about it, and they get a flood of hate mail from vast numbers of uninformed Americans who don't want to take food out of the mouths of poor people.

By the skimming line, I meant someone in charge of calculating and distributing the monthly rebate underpaying or delaying it and keeping the proceeds for themselves. Also known as corruption. Or maybe whoever's in charge of calculating the poverty line will just leave it where it is for a few years until inflation devalues that rebate to less than a third of what it should be.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Why would Americans think the Fairtax bill takes foods out of the mouths of the poor no matter how misinformed they are?

That could happen under any tax system I think.

[Neosutra]

I give Paul a pass on the not believing in evolution, like he would even admit he believed in it if he does. The guy is like 70 years old, he grew up in such a different time that I'm sure the idea of creation is ingrained in him. In his case I think that the creation belief has less to do with how much of an idiot he is, but for the other younger guys it is more disappointing. To base your vote on that one fact is pretty stupid itself, your vote is for president not for a high school biology teacher job. You can count it as a strike against them but to put so much emphasis on creation/evolution is pretty silly to me.

You want the guy that leads 300 mil people and makes decisions that effect the entire planet to have a toddlers understanding of what humanity even is, or even the basics of our planet? Its people like that who think we can piss oil and pollution for the next 1000 years and not have an influence on our planet because "god gave it to us". There is a difference between asking our leaders to be biology phds and having them be at least above a high school lvl in understanding of life as we know it.

I havent met a Ron Paul supporter yet that didnt come off as at least partially mentally handicapped or at least completely unaware of anything related to reality.

What candidates have said they don't believe in god? As far as I know, none of them have (you can try to guess which ones really don't but won't admit it but that is a shot in the dark), therefore they would all believe god gave the planet to humans. There is a difference between a young creationist who grew up learning about evolution and rejecting it with their hands to their ears, and a 72 year old going to schools vastly different where the teaching of evolution was less focused or even non existent. The way I see it, a Huckabee is more dangerous than a Paul with the same creation view based on the above.

If you agree with Paul's ideas to get out of Iraq, and to build better relations with other countries, etc why would you let one of his beliefs change your vote. Some 60% of Americans are creationists and you want the president, who is a huge longshot, to alienate a very strong voting group of people, effectively killing his chance of being elected.

1. There is no excuse to not believe in evolution. I wouldnt vote for someone that didnt believe the earth was round, and I am not going to vote for someone who doesnt beleive in evolution.

2. Huckabee is a religious nut bag and will not get my vote either, his entire support base comes from right wing religious nuts whom completely forgot the last 8 years of bush.

3. Taking away Ron Pauls ignorance of basic life, his political/economic ideas are filled with nothing but backwards logic, fail tactics to get votes from less intelligent people, and complete contradictions to what he has actually voted for in the past. Anyone that supports Ron Paul is a fucking moron. Yes I said it. I dont care if your a liberal, conservative, super religious, or atheist, if you beleive Ron Paul's bullshit or think he would do anything but put the nail in the coffin of this country, shoot yourself in the face right now, you will never contribute to society beyond being an annoying food -> shit converter.

[BRP]

1. There is no excuse to not believe in evolution.

Cool, you can hate science and religion at the same time.

[Neosutra]

1. There is no excuse to not believe in evolution.

Cool, you can hate science and religion at the same time.

No, just religion. It is a -fact- that we evolved. It is a theory of how we evolved. There is a difference. There is no question as to wether our species evolved. Wether you want to say "god" made it evolve, is up to you and whatever gets you off at night.

[guartz]

1. There is no excuse to not believe in evolution.

Cool, you can hate science and religion at the same time.

No, just religion. It is a -fact- that we evolved. It is a theory of how we evolved. There is a difference. There is no question as to wether our species evolved. Wether you want to say "god" made it evolve, is up to you and whatever gets you off at night.

you talking about macroevolution? There isn't really that much evidence supporting it.

[Charla]

Why would Americans think the Fairtax bill takes foods out of the mouths of the poor no matter how misinformed they are?

That could happen under any tax system I think.

As someone put it the other day (after I had to explain the whole concept to them a few weeks ago) "well, everyone has to buy food..." I'm assuming they forgot the part where rebates bring everyone up to the poverty line (theoretically; see the last two pages for some arguments about how this could fail), or just didn't think the poverty line was enough for a decent quality of life (probably the former).

@Guartz: this thread is the first time I've heard the term macroevolution, so it's a safe bet they meant the widely accepted view of the term, which doesn't differentiate between the two.