Ron Paul raises $3.5 million in 1 day

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
No you didn't. Neither X nor Y belong to the set of positive real numbers. You insist that your system is practical, but won't even bother to provide a rough sketch of it.

|
|
|
|
|
V

Originally posted by Darius871
it's not like I have access to an army of analysts able to spend six months determining the exact brackets and percentages needed to match the actual budget. The basic idea is very simple:

[Ramo]

"1" doesn't have a unit of any kind of currency.

[Berzerker]

I'm against the war, but for an interventionist foriegn policy...like most Americans.

Thats like saying you're for the death penalty except when we screw up

Now there's a bold stance, sure to distinguish him from his opponent...as long as he runs against Stalin.

Actually it is a bold stance because Paul means it, his opponents dont and the majority of the GOP doesn't either. Look at Paul on the drug war and ask Repubs if they support or oppose it, its amazing he can win a congressional district much less a primary.

So for taxes, just against taxes on income? Yawn. Unless the "alternate funding mechansm" is selling Texas back to Mexico...in which case, he's got my attention.

Well, we gotta subsidize your foreign policy so I can see why you're a fan of taxes.

Ooo, another bold stance, since all other candidates, in both parties, are falling all over themselves to champion out-of-control spending.

And we all know how frugal Congress is under those other candidates It is a bold stance, every time Paul runs for re-election he's faced with a Repub and a Democrat version of Santa Claus with promises of goodies for the stockings hanging over the fireplace. Its called vote buying and it usually works...

Man, the choice between him and Stalin has never been clearer.

And yet you can still fog it up... Limited government refers to the limits provided for by the Constitution. As we can clearly see, the feds dont pay much attention to those limits so its a choice between Paul and his opponents who will pick and choose what they like from the Constitution and ignore the rest.

Which is what I will do for the rest of your post, you seemingly cant agree with Paul without being nasty.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
"1" doesn't have a unit of any kind of currency.

What difference does it make if I set exact brackets? What would your argument be if I made 1 = $10,000? How would that change affect the underlying logic in any way whatsoever?

The point is that whatever share of the total tax burden a given income percentile contributes now, that income percentile's EITC would be adjusted in such a way as to make its burden under a VAT remain the same. In other words the progressive curve of the EITC gradation structure would be "tied" to the progressive curve of the income tax gradation structure. That proposal does not require exact figures for you to refute it.

[Ramo]

Because I'm making a practical argument. Dealing with dollars and budgets and the income distribution so forth. Absent a rough sketch (I certainly don't want anything exact - I'm trying to make a general point) of the EITC and tax rate (which you haven't provided, BTW), your system is completely immune to this kind of scrutiny.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because I'm making a practical argument. Dealing with dollars and budgets and the income distribution so forth. Absent a rough sketch (I certainly don't want anything exact - I'm trying to make a general point) of the EITC and tax rate (which you haven't provided, BTW), your system is completely immune to this kind of scrutiny.

Oh, shut up, you know this is groundless whining. This system is obviously economically equivalent to an income tax with only a fraction of the overhead. He just gave you a rough sketch.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ramo
No you didn't. Neither X nor Y belong to the set of positive real numbers.

Oh, so "5% EITC for $10,000 annual income" (to pick a random example) might not be ridiculously complex, but "95% EITC for $40,000 annual income" would be? Otherwise you're just *****ing because you can't refute his argument, and want to make yourself feel smart because you've studied some math.

[Kuciwalker]

You're smarter than this, Ramo.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ramo
Because I'm making a practical argument. Dealing with dollars and budgets and the income distribution so forth. Absent a rough sketch (I certainly don't want anything exact - I'm trying to make a general point) of the EITC and tax rate (which you haven't provided, BTW), your system is completely immune to this kind of scrutiny.

If we were to assume for argument's sake that the $11 billion GDP is an adequate measure of annual value added, then to pull the $2.8 billion budget we'd be looking at a ~26% VAT. However, since the highest effective rate is currently ~32%, it'd be better to peg the VAT to that figure and subtract EITC disbursements therefrom.

As for the EITC distribution, again I have neither the time nor access to the voluminous data necessary to set more specific figures than those already provided. The bottom line is that the EITC rates could be calculated based on income percentiles' relative burdens under the current regime, which are readily available from the IRS and CBO. In fact, I'd have no problem making them more progressive just to be on the safe side.

In any case I don't feel obligated to defend the practical efficiency of a VAT when I don't even support it; I only started off asking you why it's inherently regressive, and have yet to hear an answer. As far as I can tell it'd only be as regressive as legislators design it to be, and you refuse to refute even that.

[Deity Dude]

Another solutiuon migiht be to not subsidize the out sourcing of American Jobs by applying a "fair-wage tariff".

Here's a hypothetical example (with numbers)

Mattel makes a doll in the United States and by the time it pays its employees $11/hr plus benefits it costs $20 to make the doll.

Mattel makes the same doll in China and it costs $6 to makes it because of the lower wages.

Put a $14 tarriff on dolls entering the US so it costs $20 still and reduce income taxes $14.

Now if Matel wants to make dolls in China at a cost of $6 and sell them to the Chinese thats fine. And if they still want to import them into the US and pay the tarrif thats fine. At least Americans get a tax break.

I would imagine if a you applied a "fair-wage" tarriff to all products imported into the US you could do away with the income tax real quick and have the same amount of money (if not more because the entire wage difference would go to replace the taxable portion of the wage) to run the Federal Government.

BTW all numbers above are made up for illustrative purposes only. And I am not saying that this is Ron Paul's position. I just used it as an example to rid the country of an income tax without crippling the budget or finding another domestic tax on the poor.

[Ramo]

Kuci, stop being a dick and think about the numbers involved. It's pretty easy to do. It's almost impossible to get a progressive tax distribution because rich people generally spend a much lower percentage of their income.

First of all, the VAT is bounded by what the poor can reasonably pay (before getting the exemption back). Let's say it's 100%. That sets an upper limit on the tax rate of the very rich, the proportion of their income that they spend. It's typically fairly low. Hence, why Bill Gates is sitting on that huge pile of money. Unless you want to tax the poor by by a huge factor of their income, you're going to have hedge fund managers and the like with a negligibly low tax rate. I would guess that you need to get down to $1 million/year (probably lower) to get anything close to a ~1/3 spending rate (roughly the same rate as the highest income tax bracket) so it'd have to be regressive past that point. It's really, really easy to see how this system would not be progressive..

As for the alleged simplicity, are you insane? Can you imagine the nightmare of nearly everyone collecting their receipts for the EITC, tallying it up, the government checking for fraud, etc., etc.? That'd be horrible. And that's not even considering the collection of the VAT.

Most people fill out a pretty straight-forward 1040A/EZ. People ***** and moan, but it's not that complicated. On the gov't end, employers have automatic witholding (similar to the mechanisms of a VAT). Hell, they already have to do that for SS and Medicare...

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Ramo
Stop being a dick and think about the numbers involved. It's pretty easy to do. It's almost impossible to get a progressive tax distribution because rich people generally spend a much lower percentage of their income.

First of all, the VAT is bounded by what the poor can reasonably pay (before getting the exemption back). Let's say it's 100%. That sets an upper limit on the tax rate of the very rich, the proportion of their income that they spend. It's typically fairly low. Hence, why Bill Gates is sitting on that huge pile of money. Unless you want to tax the poor by by a huge factor of their income, you're going to have hedge fund managers and the like with a negligibly low tax rate. I would guess that you need to get down to $1 million/year (probably lower) to get anything close to a ~1/3 spending rate (roughly the same rate as the highest income tax bracket) so it'd have to be regressive past that point. It's really, really easy to see how this system would not be progressive..

As for the alleged simplicity, are you insane? Can you imagine the nightmare of nearly everyone collecting their receipts for the EITC, tallying it up, the government checking for fraud, etc., etc.? That'd be horrible. And that's not even considering the collection of the VAT. Most people fill out a pretty straight-forward 1040A/EZ. People ***** and moan, but it's not that complicated.

Ramo I am intrested in your thoughts about a fair-wage tarriff replacing the income tax. There certainly wouldn't be any paperwork for citizens.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm not sure Paul would be happy with protectionist tariff measures either . Frankly, neither would I.

However, on the whole VAT vs. income tax thing. VAT would probably have a greater effect on decreasing consumption than income taxes, even if the only reason is psychological (the amount charged is higher and that's what the consumer sees, rather than realizing his paycheck may be larger than otherwise). This may not be a bad thing, however, as less consumption would lead to greater savings, which is something the US has been lacking in (due to large amounts of foreign investment it hasn't been much of an issue recently).

Oh, and I agree with Ramo that income tax filing would probably be much easier than all the fun involved in calculating VAT.

[Ramo]

What's a fair-wage tariff (sounds like a terrible idea)?

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I'm not sure Paul would be happy with protectionist tariff measures either . Frankly, neither would I.

However, on the whole VAT vs. income tax thing. VAT would probably have a greater effect on decreasing consumption than income taxes, even if the only reason is psychological (the amount charged is higher and that's what the consumer sees, rather than realizing his paycheck may be larger than otherwise). This may not be a bad thing, however, as less consumption would lead to greater savings, which is something the US has been lacking in (due to large amounts of foreign investment it hasn't been much of an issue recently).

I'm not talking pure protectionist. I'm talking about wages only. If some other productive benefit can occur thats fine. I would only apply the difference in the slave labor non-benfit wages to the prevailing American wage for the same product or service.

But, even if u want to call it protectionism, whats wrong with America "protecting" American jobs and the American standard of living.