Ron Paul takes the lead in Iowa.

[giblets]

Taking the product of a man's wealth is perfectly fair, since that wealth is secured and protected by the government, and governments are established to protect our rights, including property. That's why I'm cool with a land value tax. As far as income taxes, they should be eliminated, and we should generate revenue from consumption taxes. It makes more sense to discourage spending than earning.

Well, it does make more sense if some people earn for purposes other than spending. I'm not really sure what other purposes exist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because the government taking the product of a man's labor or wealth is "unfair" in and of itself. While it is a necessary evil to pay for a functioning society, it is still an "evil" and shouldn't be allowed to outweigh the benefits.

That in itself is a determination on "fairness".

Thanks for playing.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Taking the product of a man's wealth is perfectly fair, since that wealth is secured and protected by the government, and governments are established to protect our rights, including property.

Quite right. And, of course, those who benefit the most from the security and protection of the government are those who tend to make the most wealth. After all, massive investments in infrastructure and education mostly tend to benefit the people that own businesses.

[DinoDoc]

Taxes ... ensure that citizens are provided with services they could never supply themselves.

I believe that I said that in the post you quoted only without the warm and fuzzy feeling you seem to have for the government taking my money.

[DinoDoc]

Thanks for playing.

I don't see the point of discouraging earning.

[Felch]

But surely that would be a terrible idea? How does accumulated wealth aid a countries economy in any way? Consumption is what drives growth.

Well, it does make more sense if some people earn for purposes other than spending. I'm not really sure what other purposes exist.

I seriously hope that both of you are being sarcastic.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

No one actually paid those rates.

Source?

Gentle hint- there are other nations in the world.

And fairness doesn't enter into the equation wrt tax policy IMO. As the goal should be for the government to take the minimum amount of the populace's wealth from it as necessary to carry out its functions

So we should only tax white Christian males earning over $50,000 p/a? How about that?

It's not fair, but that's not a problem, surely?

[kentonio]

I believe that I said that in the post you quoted only without the warm and fuzzy feeling you seem to have for the government taking my money.

Why is paying to receive something you really want and need 'evil'?

[HalfLotus]

And good luck getting Congress not to hand over all that "revenue" directly to defense contractors, to foreign dictators, to foreign central banks, into housing bubbles, into failing 'green' companies, to gangs in Mexico, gun runners in Mexico, drug cartels in Mexico, to the IMF, the World Bank, the crumbling Euro-zone, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

[Boris Godunov]

Back to Ron Paul news, looks like the long knives are definitely out for him:

http://news.yahoo.com/ad-newsletter-ron-paul-forecast-race-war-011503908.html

His name is actually signed to this one, so I don't see how the "I didn't write it and had no idea what was being written" defense is going to cut it.

If he'd just come clean and admit that yeah, these were his whack-a-doo views 20 years ago and since then he's gotten (slightly) less crazy, I might respect that. But he's so obviously lying through his teeth about not knowing anything about these old newsletters. Maverick!

[kentonio]

And good luck getting Congress not to hand over all that "revenue" directly to defense contractors, to foreign dictators, to foreign central banks, into housing bubbles, into failing 'green' companies, to gangs in Mexico, gun runners in Mexico, drug cartels in Mexico, to the IMF, the World Bank, the crumbling Euro-zone, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Yeah, good luck with that one.

That would be the congress that you elect right?

[HalfLotus]

I'd prefer to avoid the whole shady business, keep my own money, and take care of myself and my family. I manage to do it with a government that takes from me and gives to others, and I can certainly do it better without one.

America was supposed to be the free society: maximum individual liberty. But you collectivist fools are at it again, so we'll see your failed dreams of centrally planned utopia take yet another country to the brink. Will be interesting, I bought popcorn.

[giblets]

I seriously hope that both of you are being sarcastic.

Do you earn money so you can rub it all over your body?

Or I guess you prefer the sales tax because you would never pay it when you purchase illegal marijuana?

[Boris Godunov]

Felch, are you seriously suggesting that consumption doesn't drive economic growth? What else would?

For one thing, the whole "business people are job creators" notion is an absurd fantasy talking point. No, businesses don't want to create jobs unless consumers make them via demand. The objective of any competent business owner is to maximize earnings while minimizing costs, and the biggest cost to minimize is work force size. Nobody wants to hire more people than is absolutely necessary. So it takes consumers demanding more product to force businesses to hire more people to meet that demand--that's it. Consumers are in fact the true "job creators."

Eliminating income tax in favor of a consumption tax would be a massive economy-killer. The last thing you want to do in a sluggish economy is reduce the buying power of the middle- and lower-classes. Consumption taxes are also inherently regressive, disproportionately effecting the poor. Raising taxes on those who can least afford to pay them is so obviously backwards to me that I can't fathom why anyone things it's a good idea.

[MrFun]

Back to Ron Paul news, looks like the long knives are definitely out for him:

http://news.yahoo.com/ad-newsletter-ron-paul-forecast-race-war-011503908.html

His name is actually signed to this one, so I don't see how the "I didn't write it and had no idea what was being written" defense is going to cut it.

If he'd just come clean and admit that yeah, these were his whack-a-doo views 20 years ago and since then he's gotten (slightly) less crazy, I might respect that. But he's so obviously lying through his teeth about not knowing anything about these old newsletters. Maverick!

Yeah. If Ron Paul does get nominated and then elected president (not likely) I hope he doesn't instigate a race war against blacks.