Ron Paul raises $3.5 million in 1 day

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Whoha
In any event Ron Paul's opposition to trade lies with the way the bills were crafted, not that they were trade bills.

That I know. Paul is more of a open the border to trade type of guy ("we don't need no stinkin' [treaties]" type of person).

[Ramo]

People invested wholly in specific industries could benefit initially, yes, as no two different tax schemes are economically identical, but the market would quickly even things out. The benefitted stocks would just rise in value.

Again, the point is that, as a consequence, you have a huge class of capital gains that get taxed at far below the standard VAT rate. Then we're effectively back to a sales tax that gets collected in stages. So the problem of ensuring the progressivity of the system is still there.

You would have the previous year's rebate, or a sort of rolling rebate in the same vein as withholdings on paychecks (just in reverse).

As for the first case, again, what if you're making a big purchase.that you didn't make in previous years? As for the second, didn't you say that you wanted to simplify administration of the tax code?

What? Why would be keeping receipts for anything?

To determine your tax rebate. Dunno how you're going to do it otherwsie... Darius' idea was to have the rebate as a function of the VAT you pay. Are you advocating a different system?

You'd have to change the structure of the income tax for that, to eliminate the distinction for capital gains, etc.

You're talking about changing the tax code wholesale here. Obviously, institutional inertia isn't part of the argument.

And income taxes don't evenly effect the economy as a VAT does.

Not evenly. There are differences in the VAT's effect in the capital/labor intensity disparity as well as the demand elasticity disparity throughout the economy.

A VAT's is better than a sales tax, but that's no saying much...

Government adds some money to your paycheck instead of taking it. This is corrected (in either direction) at the end of the year the same way it works now. And no, I don't see this as open to much more abuse than the current system.

If the gov't, by default, gives extra money instead of takes extra money, you're going to have a reduction in revenues absent any other considerations.

[OzzyKP]

Ron Paul

[Kuciwalker]

Again, the point is that, as a consequence, you have a huge class of capital gains that get taxed at far below the standard VAT rate.

Except the capital gains are less because the money has already been extracted.

Then we're effectively back to a sales tax that gets collected in stages. So the problem of ensuring the progressivity of the system is still there.

Duh. That's why we have the EITC.

To determine your tax rebate. Dunno how you're going to do it otherwsie... Darius' idea was to have the rebate as a function of the VAT you pay. Are you advocating a different system?

Have you been misunderstanding us the whole time? You get a rebate based on you total income. What do you think earned income tax credit means?

If the gov't, by default, gives extra money instead of takes extra money, you're going to have a reduction in revenues absent any other considerations.

Yes, absent considerations like the fact that we added a huge new tax.

[Kuciwalker]

Since Ramo seems to not actually understand what EITC means:

Say you have just two brackets, 20% and 0%, split at 40k. All income up to 40k (all earned income, which excludes Social Security and some others) nets you 20% extra from the government. So if I make exactly 40k I then get 8k from the government. So does everyone who makes more than 40k. This exactly compensates for the effect of the VAT for everyone with incomes under 40k.

[Saygame]

Whether Ron Paul has the qualities of polished statesmanship to fill the role of President is indeed debateable. But what he has that strikes a resonant cord in many Americans is how our government has become arrogantly insolant and disconnected from its citizenry and indeed from its constitution.

Consider these, if you will:

1. A Congress that exempts itself from all the laws it passes.

2. A Congress that grants itself permanent pensions without contribution.

3. A stubbornly theocratic Presidency convinced in its his own self righteousness.

4. A bevy of Presidential "wanna-be's" more intent on how their sound bite image plays in Peoria than on creation of new, imaginative and substantive government.

5. An invasive government that feels it has a right to garnish and inspect (with totally invasive, detailed views into a person's spending life) the already mentioned 42% of American income on average. I wonder what the founding fathers would say regarding today's outright US governmental confiscation of worker salaries. And no, I don't care to compare our tax confiscation percentage to some of Europe's more draconian rates. We left there for a reason back in the 1700's over taxes, remember?

6. Congress still can't agree to limit their own spending habits (ie-"saying no"), Instead they use legalistic, parlimentary tactics such as philibuster, poisoned amendment attachments and trading of parochial alignment votes (ie Wisconsin dairy for North Carolina tobacco interests) to preclude (or ensure) passage.

7. A government that ignores that their ever increasing taxes (that fuel growth of governmental departmental bureaucracy) is pushing business increasingly offshore. Offshore economies are feasting on plenty of previously secure US jobs. First it was the smokestack industries in the mid West. Now its the techno businesses. Next time you call Microsoft, ask them which section of New Delhi they live in.

And whether you like the rich or not, our US corporations are moving to sunnier climes with more accomodative tax structures filled with eager to learn, plentiful, low cost employee population options. Corporations are taking their copious, taxable financial bases with them, leaving non mobile Americans to carry an ever increasing tax burden.

Americans are blind to this. Our politicians and media help them out there by hyping the "usual suspects" of presidential candidates and keeping the spotlight on the sound bytes. I, for one, had hardly noticed the manner in which debates throw the spotlight on frontrunners while marginalizing non frontrunners. Thanks for that insight.

Label Paul a whacko if you will, but he represents a radical and in my opinion, feasible change from the status quo. And today, with American economic hegemony breaking up and declining, the dollar falling woefully below the Euro and the Canadian $, economics dictate radical change. Paul represents the ideas for such change even if his image and package are not as refined as other media darlings.

I shoulda voted for Perot when we had a chance to breakout of this two party tyranny with its "media ala mode". Today's two party system with its year round funding and inherent organizational advantages and fundings have realistically limited me to only their two candidates for a rational chance of election AND to fund candiates who agree to follow their party lines for their lifeblood, campaign financing. Inherently, the two parties BUY their candidates' acquiesence.

The parties are too powerful, the government too irresponsible and the media too irrepressible. Gimme Ron Paul.

We now return your previous UN treadjack back to its original channel.

[C0ckney]

Now its the techno businesses.

while it's true that many top djs have moved to berlin, i don't think it has much to do with taxes.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Saygame]We left there for a reason back in the 1700's over taxes, remember?[/q]

I seem to recall a "without representation" clause to this statement .

A government that ignores that their ever increasing taxes (that fuel growth of governmental departmental bureaucracy) is pushing business increasingly offshore.

You really think it's taxes that are cause outsourcing... or rather worker compensation? Because you know, if they are headquartered in the US, they still have to pay those taxes.

[Ramo]

Except the capital gains are less because the money has already been extracted.

Only to the extent that they can't pass the VAT on down the line, i.e. depending on the demand elasticity. There are large parts of the market where the VAT does not reduce capital gains very much, and thus acts very regressively.

Since Ramo seems to not actually understand what EITC means:

Say you have just two brackets, 20% and 0%, split at 40k. All income up to 40k (all earned income, which excludes Social Security and some others) nets you 20% extra from the government. So if I make exactly 40k I then get 8k from the government. So does everyone who makes more than 40k. This exactly compensates for the effect of the VAT for everyone with incomes under 40k.

I know what the EITC is, thanks. I've been filling that form out for my mom for years...

There's a reason why I keep using the term "tax rebate" instead of EITC, specifically. Darius suggested that tax rebate be a function of the VAT contribution. That's what we were discussing, though to be fair he did say the average VAT contribution for a specific income group - I didn't notice that earlier.

Yes, absent considerations like the fact that we added a huge new tax.

The point, again, is the bias for more tax revenues would be turned into a bias for fewer tax revenues.

[Kuciwalker]

Only to the extent that they can't pass the VAT on down the line, i.e. depending on the demand elasticity. There are large parts of the market where the VAT does not reduce capital gains very much, and thus acts very regressively.

The introduction of the VAT has a one-time change in the value of stocks. So you have a one-time benefit to the people who own the stocks that aren't affected as much. Afterwards, it works evenly.

There's a reason why I keep using the term "tax rebate" instead of EITC, specifically. Darius suggested that tax rebate be a function of the VAT contribution. That's what we were discussing, though to be fair he did say the average VAT contribution for a specific income group - I didn't notice that earlier.

The entire time we've been talking about solely a function of income. You're the only person here who thought we were talking about redeeming receipts and such.

[Ramo]

The introduction of the VAT has a one-time change in the value of stocks. So you have a one-time benefit to the people who own the stocks that aren't affected as much. Afterwards, it works evenly.

The stock price increase would be a consequence of stocholders not losing very much in capital gains. That doesn't change in the future.

The entire time we've been talking about solely a function of income.

Ah, misread his most. My miskake...

[Saygame]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[q=Saygame]We left there for a reason back in the 1700's over taxes, remember?[/q]

I seem to recall a "without representation" clause to this statement .

A government that ignores that their ever increasing taxes (that fuel growth of governmental departmental bureaucracy) is pushing business increasingly offshore.

You really think it's taxes that are cause outsourcing... or rather worker compensation? Because you know, if they are headquartered in the US, they still have to pay those taxes.

My thoughts:

1. Our representive form of government doesn't seem to be making much difference these days in what we are paying in all forms of silly taxes. My thoughts are leaning in the direction of electing radical tax revisionists at the top. Since proposition 5 in California in the late 1980s (a radical reactionary tax piece of legislation championed by one citizen who was mad as hell), no political process I am aware of has again threatened our existing acceptance of politicians always finding new ways to tax and spend tax money beyond what is collected.

At least Boston Harbor must have smelled like tea for weeks.

2. Carnival Lines, as many shipping firms, flags its ships offshore in Panama....I believe for tax and legislative reasons....it doesn't seem to be a stretch to forecast other companies learning the value of moving their HQs to tax havens offshore too. My belief is Carnival's choice has more to do with taxes than labor which they can source anywhere they choose regardless of HQ location. While the global economy is gaining from foreign outsourcing (not a bad thing), America's citizenry, to me, seems asleep at the wheel.