i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...
State income tax, the states should fix the roads.
And the states that can't afford it can just suck it? They're called INTERstate highways. The country as a whole needs goods to flow 3000 miles efficiently for the economy to function.
I understand sticking to beliefs, but sometimes Ron Paul supporters seem to want to do it despite the obvious negatives that would happen if the policy is carried out.
i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...
State income tax, the states should fix the roads.
...
Doesn't the Federal Government take care of the Interstate system? What happens if Arizona decides to let I-10 go to pot? That's okay? And what about the Federal Aviation Administration? I think there should be one administration covering my cross country flight, instead of the 12 individual states, differing administrations controlling the air space. What about the Army? Or should all states have militias? Why not let the south seceed?
You know, we are a Union. Which means that the Federal Taxes I pay, goes to FEMA... that helps people in Iowa after a flood. I don't mind... because I consider Iowans as my countrymen.
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...
State income tax, the states should fix the roads.
And the states that can't afford it can just suck it? They're called INTERstate highways. The country as a whole needs goods to flow 3000 miles efficiently for the economy to function.
I understand sticking to beliefs, but sometimes Ron Paul supporters seem to want to do it despite the obvious negatives that would happen if the policy is carried out.
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
i suppose road funds and infrastructure and disaster relief and medicare and social security money would just grow on trees, or even better, we can just pull it out of our collective backsides...
State income tax, the states should fix the roads.
Why are states any better at fixing roads that the fed? State governments tend to be lousy as well. Maybe states should've just built their own highways that don't connect with those from other states. (kind of how I-95 works between PA & NJ, actually )
Some say the Confederacy was partially done in by its own stance on states rights. Just thought I'd mention it.
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13; Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22; Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
...
Great points, Vinny.
I'm for a flat tax... no deductions for home mortgages, medical expenses, business expenses, farm subsidies, etc... flat rate on what you earn.
I'm for Gasoline Taxes and Toll Roads to pay for roads... all roads. If part of an Interstate in Montana needs repair, funds from all of the Interstate gasoline taxes and tolls should pay for it, not just the good people of Montana.
We would still need a coordinated National Defense command. And we should focus out military on Defense... not Imperialism.
The thing with the Medicare/Social Security... where the individual needs to be held responsible. If a person opts out of National Healthcare and retirement supplement... then, gets cancer... should that be it, Game Over? I mean, they could use the money they didn't spend in Premiums to pay for treatment. But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
The 47% don't make any money! How is that not clear?
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"
Allen Fieldhouse, home of the 2008 NCAA men's Basketball Champions! Go Jayhawks!
Hail, Hail!!!
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"
not being a smart ass, but do you have any examples of multi-billionaires paying less than a family of four?
Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
That's simply not true. Do you know what kind of math magic it would take to get a 7-figure income down to a taxable income of under $20,000 (which is what it would take for that person to pay less than a family of 4 making $20,000)? Since there are hard dollar limits on what you can deduct from investments, 401K, etc. the person in the top 1% would need to be the most generous person in history and donate an incredible amount of his/her income for the year to charities. In fact, I would bet that a family of 4 (2 parents, 2 kids) probably gets a 100% refund on any income tax withheld and may even be eligible for credits that result in the refund exceeding the withholdings. It's not possible for someone making 7-figures to pay no federal income tax. The ones who try wind up in prison (see Snipes, Wesley).
I wonder what tax rate people calling for higher taxes on the wealthy would consider the wealthy's "fair share" and what they consider their own "fair share." I also wonder how increased taxes would lead to more jobs or better income for "the 99%."
Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
...
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"
Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order
Yep. We raise taxes and those "1%" billionaries with C.P.A.'s and lawyers up the ying-yang will still take advantage of the current tax system. Someone on the low end of the $200K threshold will not enjoy those benefits and will end up paying more.
Create a balanced budget. Create a new tax code that eliminates loopholes. Then they can focus on raping the wallets of private citizens.
I don't know how stealing money from private citizens became the first priority ... especially since it looks like we could be headed for another COSTLY war.
I would like to see a breakdown of the 70% in the chart listed as 'Working People".
I am curious to find out what income level these people are in... are some of these people self-employed? Small business owners? Working (minimum wage/part-time) poor? Uber rich? Paris Hilton?
I'm guessing it isn't Joe Ninetofive. Most reg'lur working Joe's don't have the tax shelters or Schedule A deductions to offset a regular paycheck income. But, I bet there are some of us that can... my guess it is a very small percentage of the 70% who don't pay taxes.
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
Is everyone clear the the 47% is the percentage of people not paying federal income tax? It's not 47% aren't paying any taxes.
not being a smart ass, but do you have any examples of multi-billionaires paying less than a family of four?
Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order
...
Okay... a poorly chosen/loosely worded paraphrase of a Warren Buffett quotation:
Buffett: "Well, we’ve been hearing about shared sacrifice. And believe me the people out there know what they’re talking about on that. I mean there is sacrifice going on all over this country and we’re talking about people making sacrifices about the promises that have been made to them in the future on some entitlements.
So I decided to look around and see if any of my friends were being affected by shared sacrifice and they, like me, are enjoying these extremely low tax rates and then in the very high percentage of these cases the very rich are paying less in the way of taxes than the people that clean their offices.
...
Warren Buffett to Charlie Rose - http://www.cnbc.com/id/44174056
Here are some tax shelters for those who can afford it (namely, those people who make money from money):
For those who can afford a shrewd accountant or attorney, our era is rife with opportunity to avoid, or at least defer, tax bills, according to tax specialists and public records. It's limited only by the boundaries of taste, creativity, and the ability to understand some very complex shelters. The strategies
1.The 'no sale' sale: Cashing in on stocks without triggering capital-gains taxes
2.The skyscraper shuffle: Partnerships that let property owners liquidate without liability
3.The estate tax eliminator: How to leave future stock earnings to the kids and escape the estate tax
4.The trust freeze: "Freezing" the value of an estate so taxes don't eat up its future appreciation
5.The option option: Stock options allow executives to calibrate the taxes on their compensation in a big way
6.The bountiful loss: Using, but not unloading, underwater stock shares to adjust your tax bill
7.The friendly partner: With this deal, an investor can sell property without actually selling -- or incurring taxes
8.The big payback: So-called permanent life insurance policies are loaded with tax-avoiding benefits
9.IRA Monte Carlo: Tax advisers recommend converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs -- soon
10.The venti: Putting a chunk of pay in a deferred compensation plan can mean decades of tax-free growth
11.The exit strategy (not CPA-recommended): Death and taxes? Not for those who shuffled off to the hereafter in 2010
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
...
But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?
This is sort of what I envision with the Ron Paul plan in effect.
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
Is everyone clear the the 47% is the percentage of people not paying federal income tax? It's not 47% aren't paying any taxes.
Since you quoted me - I want to say that I do understand that. That's why I said "income tax" multiple times in my post.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
The 47% don't make any money! How is that not clear?
Really? You REALLY think 47% of the people in this country make NO MONEY?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
47% of the population not paying income taxes is just too high. I don't care what their individual situations are and I'm not blaming them for not paying. The system is screwed up when so many can get away with not paying any income tax. Furthermore, it's unbelievable that people want the higher end of the scale to pay even more when almost half aren't paying ANY.
The 47% don't make any money! How is that not clear?
Really? You REALLY think 47% of the people in this country make NO MONEY?
little facetious dont ya think?
Its implied that those that are not paying income tax are recieving a refund for the total deducted from their check. So the Gov gets to use that withholding throughout the year as a non interest bearing loan.
Yes I wonder how so many can "get away with" making just enough to get by and still pay the other mulitude of state/local taxes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
...
But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?
This is sort of what I envision with the Ron Paul plan in effect.
you envision people suffering and dying as a result of Ron Paul being in office? jesus christ
why would people be suffering and dying?
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
...
Great points, Vinny.
I'm for a flat tax... no deductions for home mortgages, medical expenses, business expenses, farm subsidies, etc... flat rate on what you earn.
I'm for Gasoline Taxes and Toll Roads to pay for roads... all roads. If part of an Interstate in Montana needs repair, funds from all of the Interstate gasoline taxes and tolls should pay for it, not just the good people of Montana.
We would still need a coordinated National Defense command. And we should focus out military on Defense... not Imperialism.
The thing with the Medicare/Social Security... where the individual needs to be held responsible. If a person opts out of National Healthcare and retirement supplement... then, gets cancer... should that be it, Game Over? I mean, they could use the money they didn't spend in Premiums to pay for treatment. But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?
In my opinion, heading down the current path, which includes borrowing and printing money to pay for everyone's health (as well as paying for all other government expenditures) is only causing prices to increase, and is going to cause a currency collapse. At that point, it's game over for everyone. That's hardly a benevolent system in my eyes. It's the same with every other system in which the government was brought in to alleviate a problem of making a particular product or service, believed to be a "right" by some, available to everyone. Take for example, the current college education system-- thanks to the government guaranteeing loans, and allowing banks and lending institutions to practically create money. Sure, EVERYONE can go to college now on loans-- but at what cost? Schools have taken advantage of the influx of cash and have been steadily increasing the price of tuition, just the same way that builders and suppliers did during the housing bubble. So, the opportunity for college has been more available then ever before, but at what cost? The cost of coming out of school hundreds of thousands in debt with no jobs available to re-pay that debt. Years ago, people could work a part time job, go to school, get a degree and pay it off in a few years. This is hardly a reality for anyone anymore, and it's all because of artificially easy credit created in excess by the unholy alliance of banks and government. It's well intentioned, but poorly executed, and ultimately does more harm than good.
Considering that doctors are subject to even more schooling than the rest of us, imagine what their student loans look like these days? If doctors are worse off in debt than the rest of us, their patients will pay for it. It's just one example, but the easy credit monster in one sector of the economy has tentacles that reach into the other ones and affects them greatly.
The medical system, much like the education, needs once again to be subject to truer market conditions. Medicine improves with technology. Take a look at the electronics industries that are relatively hands-off with regard to government intervention. Prices are ALWAYS coming down on TVs, cell phones, laptops, video games, I-whatevers, while the products continually get better. Shit, look at music. Thanks to technology, it's practically free these days, and there's more of it than ever before, at your fingertips, INSTANTLY. These industries are forced to operate in a competitive environment. With technology driving medicine, why isn't medical care cost going down? I have already argued that programs like medicare and medicaid drive costs up, but it's not just them. Insurance companies are also to blame. They play by the same rules as banks (with government permission and "regulation"), have incredible amounts of monopoly money to play with and are wreckless with it, only to be bailed out when shit hits the fan. Their services are mandated on state levels, and now are being mandated at the federal level for health care.
Lastly, why does it have to be game over for someone who doesn't have insurance? Is compassion in our society only applicable when the force of government is applied? I would argue that a society that would find it necessary enough to force us to take care of each other and pay for each other's bills would also find ways to take care of each other without the involvement of government. We are as a whole fairly progressive, and do realize the need to take care of each other, so in the absense of some payment system that is liable to crash the whole economy, why wouldn't we still strive take care of each other? Couldn't doctors and hospitals work out payment plans? Don't they do this already? Why couldn't we rely on charitable organizations, families, and friends? There is no such thing as free health care. It's costing somebody something somewhere, and like any other system where there are artificially high injections of cash to be taken advantage of, prices balloon, ultimately costing more and being financed by debt, with interest, which makes it cost even MORE. The most fair system would be to allow the market to operate in both health care and insurance, bringing prices closer to where they should be. States could help out by relaxing some licensure requirements, giving alternatives to modern conventional medicine. Dismantling portions of intellectual property laws protecting name brand drugs from competition by generics would bring prices down in that area. At this point, more people will be able to pay for themselves and their families, or would have bills that wouldn't be completely insurmountable, doctors and hospitals wouldn't be "stuck" with bills nearly as often, and they would have a much easier time fulfiilling the terms of their oath to preserve life at all costs.
you envision people suffering and dying as a result of Ron Paul being in office? jesus christ
why would people be suffering and dying?
After he would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, he thinks charities are going to fill the gap, and that wont happen.
He would not eliminate Medicaid and Medicare instantly. It's not fair and he realizes this. Millions have been forced to pay into these systems, and should be entitled to what they paid into it. In his ideal society, no, these programs would not exist. No president is ever afforded the opportunity to bring the country in line with their 100% ideal anyway, and if they did, it would be a monarchy, not a Republic. What he is likely to do is allow people, young people in particular, to opt out of paying into these systems in exchange for not being able to use them in the future. It would be a concious choice, as he has proposed something similar for people being able to opt out of social secuity-- opt out, not eliminate it all together. These would not disappear tomorrow under a Ron Paul presidency. Phasing them out would allow prices to adjust to where they need to be, and eventually private charities would be able to fill in the gaps.
you envision people suffering and dying as a result of Ron Paul being in office? jesus christ
why would people be suffering and dying?
After he would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, he thinks charities are going to fill the gap, and that wont happen.
He would not eliminate Medicaid and Medicare instantly. It's not fair and he realizes this. Millions have been forced to pay into these systems, and should be entitled to what they paid into it. In his ideal society, no, these programs would not exist. No president is ever afforded the opportunity to bring the country in line with their 100% ideal anyway, and if they did, it would be a monarchy, not a Republic. What he is likely to do is allow people, young people in particular, to opt out of paying into these systems in exchange for not being able to use them in the future. It would be a concious choice, as he has proposed something similar for people being able to opt out of social secuity-- opt out, not eliminate it all together. These would not disappear tomorrow under a Ron Paul presidency. Phasing them out would allow prices to adjust to where they need to be, and eventually private charities would be able to fill in the gaps.
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
don't forget his endorsement of heroin. This guy is all over the map
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
don't forget his endorsement of heroin. This guy is all over the map
After he would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, he thinks charities are going to fill the gap, and that wont happen.
He would not eliminate Medicaid and Medicare instantly. It's not fair and he realizes this. Millions have been forced to pay into these systems, and should be entitled to what they paid into it. In his ideal society, no, these programs would not exist. No president is ever afforded the opportunity to bring the country in line with their 100% ideal anyway, and if they did, it would be a monarchy, not a Republic. What he is likely to do is allow people, young people in particular, to opt out of paying into these systems in exchange for not being able to use them in the future. It would be a concious choice, as he has proposed something similar for people being able to opt out of social secuity-- opt out, not eliminate it all together. These would not disappear tomorrow under a Ron Paul presidency. Phasing them out would allow prices to adjust to where they need to be, and eventually private charities would be able to fill in the gaps.
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
All Libertarian smugness aside, I didn't see anyone mention he wants people to die in the street, but more would suffer and die due to lack of access with his plan. His whole agenda is centered around a fantasy hypothesis that the federal government is the root of all things evil. His healthcare proposals have no reality to back them up. Let's just make up outcomes like "prices would adjust" and "charities would be able to fill in the gaps". Are Medicaid and Medicare driving prices up? Again, the poor areas of our country would be worse off with his plan.
It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that. What about the ones that didn't? Oh wait, the charities will fill in the gaps! It doesn't matter if the plan was implemented gradually or not. On his page, there's no suggestion that it would be gradual, and of course he has to use the robbery analogy when referencing a "compulsory health insurance system".
All Libertarian smugness aside, I didn't see anyone mention he wants people to die in the street, but more would suffer and die due to lack of access with his plan. His whole agenda is centered around a fantasy hypothesis that the federal government is the root of all things evil. His healthcare proposals have no reality to back them up. Let's just make up outcomes like "prices would adjust" and "charities would be able to fill in the gaps". Are Medicaid and Medicare driving prices up? Again, the poor areas of our country would be worse off with his plan.
It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that. What about the ones that didn't? Oh wait, the charities will fill in the gaps! It doesn't matter if the plan was implemented gradually or not. On his page, there's no suggestion that it would be gradual, and of course he has to use the robbery analogy when referencing a "compulsory health insurance system".
His health care proposal includes the reality of him working for $3 an hour in a Catholic-run hospital in which nobody was ever turned away. Does such a scenario exist currently? No. But it's not impossible, and it's not like it never happened. He doesn't think the federal government is evil, your reading of everything he says is off. Substitute "inefficient" for "evil," and you're much closer. The man has a great understanding of economics and has been studying it the past 30 years. He predicted the dot com bubble, as well as the housing crisis, and there is video evidence to prove it, so when he's referencing prices adjusting, it's likely rooted in the same sound economic theory that has made him absolutely correct on very bold predictions he has made while people from a Keynesian viewpoint laughed in his face. Yes, it's speculation. Let me ask you, was there any speculation involved when you made this statement?
"It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that."
Or did you poll everyone in the country? You didn't just make that up did you? And am I reading this correctly, or does your statement, speculative as it may be re-inforce the idea that more than half of us don't want to pay into this system? If so, why should we? Why not keep it around for those who want it, and not ask others who don't want it to have to pay into a system they have agreed not to use? It's about CHOICE. I don't see what's wrong with that.
And I don't know what it says on his website word for word, but if you listen to what he has to say as recently as this morning, neither Medicaid and Medicare, nor any form of healthcare for children are on the chopping block as part of his plan to balance the budget over 3 years, cutting a total of 1 trillion dollars. There is an opt-out of Social Security for people under 25. This is what he will be campaigning on for the presidency. So no, he's not about removing the social safety nets in place:
Say what you want about his beliefs, but he is an honest man, and will attempt to stick to this program the best he can.
...But, he's going to cut the FEDERAL Department of Education. We've had this discussion before, and he probably lost you right there. Despite ending the wars and occupations, end the drug war, saving trillions, and NOT messing with the current health care system, I bet he still would not have your vote. I'd understand if Obama was a true liberal, but since he isn't, I can't see how anyone who is in search of an honest person running for office who holds dear both the classical liberal and conservative ideas maximizing freedom for everyone wouldn't be high on everyone's list. If Paul's presidency would let businesses run rampant, why isn't he KILLING everyone in donations, especially now that corporate donors are totally legit again? His campaign is doing great with donations, from tons of donors, meaning they're all small, and from people-- not companies.
Watch those links and tell me that he doesn't have good ideas, and isn't in many ways more "liberal" than Obama.
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
don't forget his endorsement of heroin. This guy is all over the map
So, what does it say about the Republican Party that Paul only receives about 8% of support while Romney and Cain are at roughly 24% and Perry is at 13%?
As I would say to my uber-conservative stepfather: what the fuck is wrong with your party?
All Libertarian smugness aside, I didn't see anyone mention he wants people to die in the street, but more would suffer and die due to lack of access with his plan. His whole agenda is centered around a fantasy hypothesis that the federal government is the root of all things evil. His healthcare proposals have no reality to back them up. Let's just make up outcomes like "prices would adjust" and "charities would be able to fill in the gaps". Are Medicaid and Medicare driving prices up? Again, the poor areas of our country would be worse off with his plan.
It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that. What about the ones that didn't? Oh wait, the charities will fill in the gaps! It doesn't matter if the plan was implemented gradually or not. On his page, there's no suggestion that it would be gradual, and of course he has to use the robbery analogy when referencing a "compulsory health insurance system".
His health care proposal includes the reality of him working for $3 an hour in a Catholic-run hospital in which nobody was ever turned away. Does such a scenario exist currently? No. But it's not impossible, and it's not like it never happened. He doesn't think the federal government is evil, your reading of everything he says is off. Substitute "inefficient" for "evil," and you're much closer. The man has a great understanding of economics and has been studying it the past 30 years. He predicted the dot com bubble, as well as the housing crisis, and there is video evidence to prove it, so when he's referencing prices adjusting, it's likely rooted in the same sound economic theory that has made him absolutely correct on very bold predictions he has made while people from a Keynesian viewpoint laughed in his face. Yes, it's speculation. Let me ask you, was there any speculation involved when you made this statement?
"It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that."
Or did you poll everyone in the country? You didn't just make that up did you? And am I reading this correctly, or does your statement, speculative as it may be re-inforce the idea that more than half of us don't want to pay into this system? If so, why should we? Why not keep it around for those who want it, and not ask others who don't want it to have to pay into a system they have agreed not to use? It's about CHOICE. I don't see what's wrong with that.
And I don't know what it says on his website word for word, but if you listen to what he has to say as recently as this morning, neither Medicaid and Medicare, nor any form of healthcare for children are on the chopping block as part of his plan to balance the budget over 3 years, cutting a total of 1 trillion dollars. There is an opt-out of Social Security for people under 25. This is what he will be campaigning on for the presidency. So no, he's not about removing the social safety nets in place:
Say what you want about his beliefs, but he is an honest man, and will attempt to stick to this program the best he can.
...But, he's going to cut the FEDERAL Department of Education. We've had this discussion before, and he probably lost you right there. Despite ending the wars and occupations, end the drug war, saving trillions, and NOT messing with the current health care system, I bet he still would not have your vote. I'd understand if Obama was a true liberal, but since he isn't, I can't see how anyone who is in search of an honest person running for office who holds dear both the classical liberal and conservative ideas maximizing freedom for everyone wouldn't be high on everyone's list. If Paul's presidency would let businesses run rampant, why isn't he KILLING everyone in donations, especially now that corporate donors are totally legit again? His campaign is doing great with donations, from tons of donors, meaning they're all small, and from people-- not companies.
Watch those links and tell me that he doesn't have good ideas, and isn't in many ways more "liberal" than Obama.
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.
Comments
And the states that can't afford it can just suck it? They're called INTERstate highways. The country as a whole needs goods to flow 3000 miles efficiently for the economy to function.
I understand sticking to beliefs, but sometimes Ron Paul supporters seem to want to do it despite the obvious negatives that would happen if the policy is carried out.
Doesn't the Federal Government take care of the Interstate system? What happens if Arizona decides to let I-10 go to pot? That's okay? And what about the Federal Aviation Administration? I think there should be one administration covering my cross country flight, instead of the 12 individual states, differing administrations controlling the air space. What about the Army? Or should all states have militias? Why not let the south seceed?
You know, we are a Union. Which means that the Federal Taxes I pay, goes to FEMA... that helps people in Iowa after a flood. I don't mind... because I consider Iowans as my countrymen.
Hail, Hail!!!
I see interstate highways being paid for by the gas tax and tolls, as those are true user fees-- not the income tax. Medicare and Social Security should be opt-in programs, not mandatory, and paid for by the people who want to be a part of these programs. Disaster relief should be paid for out of national defense budgets and should be administered by the National Guard, who should be sitting on their asses most of the time instead of being deployed all around the globe in dozens of countries where our presence is not needed. If this doesn't pay for everything after some seriously needed cuts are made, a flat tax or national sales tax should replace the income tax entirely.
Why are states any better at fixing roads that the fed? State governments tend to be lousy as well. Maybe states should've just built their own highways that don't connect with those from other states. (kind of how I-95 works between PA & NJ, actually
Some say the Confederacy was partially done in by its own stance on states rights. Just thought I'd mention it.
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24
Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Great points, Vinny.
I'm for a flat tax... no deductions for home mortgages, medical expenses, business expenses, farm subsidies, etc... flat rate on what you earn.
I'm for Gasoline Taxes and Toll Roads to pay for roads... all roads. If part of an Interstate in Montana needs repair, funds from all of the Interstate gasoline taxes and tolls should pay for it, not just the good people of Montana.
We would still need a coordinated National Defense command. And we should focus out military on Defense... not Imperialism.
The thing with the Medicare/Social Security... where the individual needs to be held responsible. If a person opts out of National Healthcare and retirement supplement... then, gets cancer... should that be it, Game Over? I mean, they could use the money they didn't spend in Premiums to pay for treatment. But, really... are we ready to let our own people suffer and die... and still call ourselves a Society?
Hail, Hail!!!
The 47% don't make any money! How is that not clear?
You know... some of the people in the 47% who don't pay taxes ARE in the higher end of the scale. They can write off business expenses, file as corporations and afford off-shore tax shelters that you and I cannot afford. Some of the multi-billionaires pay less that the family of 4 getting by on $20,000.00 a year.
But, I guess... as Jesus says, "Fuck the poor... all Hail the Rich for they createth thy jobs!!!"
Hail, Hail!!!
not being a smart ass, but do you have any examples of multi-billionaires paying less than a family of four?
Your example, true or not, is just another reason that the tax code needs to be simplified and changed. Another reason why the feds should get no more money from anyone until they get their house in order
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I wonder what tax rate people calling for higher taxes on the wealthy would consider the wealthy's "fair share" and what they consider their own "fair share." I also wonder how increased taxes would lead to more jobs or better income for "the 99%."
Create a balanced budget. Create a new tax code that eliminates loopholes. Then they can focus on raping the wallets of private citizens.
I don't know how stealing money from private citizens became the first priority ... especially since it looks like we could be headed for another COSTLY war.
See the pie chart about halfway down:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/signs-of-dissent-what-about-the-47-who-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/246721/
Is everyone clear the the 47% is the percentage of people not paying federal income tax? It's not 47% aren't paying any taxes.
Okay... a poorly chosen/loosely worded paraphrase of a Warren Buffett quotation:
Buffett: "Well, we’ve been hearing about shared sacrifice. And believe me the people out there know what they’re talking about on that. I mean there is sacrifice going on all over this country and we’re talking about people making sacrifices about the promises that have been made to them in the future on some entitlements.
So I decided to look around and see if any of my friends were being affected by shared sacrifice and they, like me, are enjoying these extremely low tax rates and then in the very high percentage of these cases the very rich are paying less in the way of taxes than the people that clean their offices.
...
Warren Buffett to Charlie Rose -
http://www.cnbc.com/id/44174056
Here are some tax shelters for those who can afford it (namely, those people who make money from money):
For those who can afford a shrewd accountant or attorney, our era is rife with opportunity to avoid, or at least defer, tax bills, according to tax specialists and public records. It's limited only by the boundaries of taste, creativity, and the ability to understand some very complex shelters.
The strategies
1.The 'no sale' sale: Cashing in on stocks without triggering capital-gains taxes
2.The skyscraper shuffle: Partnerships that let property owners liquidate without liability
3.The estate tax eliminator: How to leave future stock earnings to the kids and escape the estate tax
4.The trust freeze: "Freezing" the value of an estate so taxes don't eat up its future appreciation
5.The option option: Stock options allow executives to calibrate the taxes on their compensation in a big way
6.The bountiful loss: Using, but not unloading, underwater stock shares to adjust your tax bill
7.The friendly partner: With this deal, an investor can sell property without actually selling -- or incurring taxes
8.The big payback: So-called permanent life insurance policies are loaded with tax-avoiding benefits
9.IRA Monte Carlo: Tax advisers recommend converting traditional IRAs to Roth IRAs -- soon
10.The venti: Putting a chunk of pay in a deferred compensation plan can mean decades of tax-free growth
11.The exit strategy (not CPA-recommended): Death and taxes? Not for those who shuffled off to the hereafter in 2010
ref. http://money.msn.com/taxes/latest.aspx? ... f&ucsort=3
Hail, Hail!!!
This is sort of what I envision with the Ron Paul plan in effect.
Since you quoted me - I want to say that I do understand that. That's why I said "income tax" multiple times in my post.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Really? You REALLY think 47% of the people in this country make NO MONEY?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Its implied that those that are not paying income tax are recieving a refund for the total deducted from their check. So the Gov gets to use that withholding throughout the year as a non interest bearing loan.
Yes I wonder how so many can "get away with" making just enough to get by and still pay the other mulitude of state/local taxes.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
you envision people suffering and dying as a result of Ron Paul being in office? jesus christ
why would people be suffering and dying?
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
After he would eliminate Medicaid and Medicare, he thinks charities are going to fill the gap, and that wont happen.
In my opinion, heading down the current path, which includes borrowing and printing money to pay for everyone's health (as well as paying for all other government expenditures) is only causing prices to increase, and is going to cause a currency collapse. At that point, it's game over for everyone. That's hardly a benevolent system in my eyes. It's the same with every other system in which the government was brought in to alleviate a problem of making a particular product or service, believed to be a "right" by some, available to everyone. Take for example, the current college education system-- thanks to the government guaranteeing loans, and allowing banks and lending institutions to practically create money. Sure, EVERYONE can go to college now on loans-- but at what cost? Schools have taken advantage of the influx of cash and have been steadily increasing the price of tuition, just the same way that builders and suppliers did during the housing bubble. So, the opportunity for college has been more available then ever before, but at what cost? The cost of coming out of school hundreds of thousands in debt with no jobs available to re-pay that debt. Years ago, people could work a part time job, go to school, get a degree and pay it off in a few years. This is hardly a reality for anyone anymore, and it's all because of artificially easy credit created in excess by the unholy alliance of banks and government. It's well intentioned, but poorly executed, and ultimately does more harm than good.
Considering that doctors are subject to even more schooling than the rest of us, imagine what their student loans look like these days? If doctors are worse off in debt than the rest of us, their patients will pay for it. It's just one example, but the easy credit monster in one sector of the economy has tentacles that reach into the other ones and affects them greatly.
The medical system, much like the education, needs once again to be subject to truer market conditions. Medicine improves with technology. Take a look at the electronics industries that are relatively hands-off with regard to government intervention. Prices are ALWAYS coming down on TVs, cell phones, laptops, video games, I-whatevers, while the products continually get better. Shit, look at music. Thanks to technology, it's practically free these days, and there's more of it than ever before, at your fingertips, INSTANTLY. These industries are forced to operate in a competitive environment. With technology driving medicine, why isn't medical care cost going down? I have already argued that programs like medicare and medicaid drive costs up, but it's not just them. Insurance companies are also to blame. They play by the same rules as banks (with government permission and "regulation"), have incredible amounts of monopoly money to play with and are wreckless with it, only to be bailed out when shit hits the fan. Their services are mandated on state levels, and now are being mandated at the federal level for health care.
Lastly, why does it have to be game over for someone who doesn't have insurance? Is compassion in our society only applicable when the force of government is applied? I would argue that a society that would find it necessary enough to force us to take care of each other and pay for each other's bills would also find ways to take care of each other without the involvement of government. We are as a whole fairly progressive, and do realize the need to take care of each other, so in the absense of some payment system that is liable to crash the whole economy, why wouldn't we still strive take care of each other? Couldn't doctors and hospitals work out payment plans? Don't they do this already? Why couldn't we rely on charitable organizations, families, and friends? There is no such thing as free health care. It's costing somebody something somewhere, and like any other system where there are artificially high injections of cash to be taken advantage of, prices balloon, ultimately costing more and being financed by debt, with interest, which makes it cost even MORE. The most fair system would be to allow the market to operate in both health care and insurance, bringing prices closer to where they should be. States could help out by relaxing some licensure requirements, giving alternatives to modern conventional medicine. Dismantling portions of intellectual property laws protecting name brand drugs from competition by generics would bring prices down in that area. At this point, more people will be able to pay for themselves and their families, or would have bills that wouldn't be completely insurmountable, doctors and hospitals wouldn't be "stuck" with bills nearly as often, and they would have a much easier time fulfiilling the terms of their oath to preserve life at all costs.
He would not eliminate Medicaid and Medicare instantly. It's not fair and he realizes this. Millions have been forced to pay into these systems, and should be entitled to what they paid into it. In his ideal society, no, these programs would not exist. No president is ever afforded the opportunity to bring the country in line with their 100% ideal anyway, and if they did, it would be a monarchy, not a Republic. What he is likely to do is allow people, young people in particular, to opt out of paying into these systems in exchange for not being able to use them in the future. It would be a concious choice, as he has proposed something similar for people being able to opt out of social secuity-- opt out, not eliminate it all together. These would not disappear tomorrow under a Ron Paul presidency. Phasing them out would allow prices to adjust to where they need to be, and eventually private charities would be able to fill in the gaps.
Vinny, it is far easier to simply say Paul wants people to die in the street.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I know, Mike... and it sickens me about just how inconsistent he is on top of all that!!! I mean, he's got this other idea about ending unneccessary wars and foreign occupations that would make you think that he doesn't want people to die in the street, or be blown up in the street either. What is it, Ron? Do you want people to die in the street or not? Long live calloused libertarianism!
don't forget his endorsement of heroin. This guy is all over the map
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
All Libertarian smugness aside, I didn't see anyone mention he wants people to die in the street, but more would suffer and die due to lack of access with his plan. His whole agenda is centered around a fantasy hypothesis that the federal government is the root of all things evil. His healthcare proposals have no reality to back them up. Let's just make up outcomes like "prices would adjust" and "charities would be able to fill in the gaps". Are Medicaid and Medicare driving prices up? Again, the poor areas of our country would be worse off with his plan.
It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that. What about the ones that didn't? Oh wait, the charities will fill in the gaps! It doesn't matter if the plan was implemented gradually or not. On his page, there's no suggestion that it would be gradual, and of course he has to use the robbery analogy when referencing a "compulsory health insurance system".
His health care proposal includes the reality of him working for $3 an hour in a Catholic-run hospital in which nobody was ever turned away. Does such a scenario exist currently? No. But it's not impossible, and it's not like it never happened. He doesn't think the federal government is evil, your reading of everything he says is off. Substitute "inefficient" for "evil," and you're much closer. The man has a great understanding of economics and has been studying it the past 30 years. He predicted the dot com bubble, as well as the housing crisis, and there is video evidence to prove it, so when he's referencing prices adjusting, it's likely rooted in the same sound economic theory that has made him absolutely correct on very bold predictions he has made while people from a Keynesian viewpoint laughed in his face. Yes, it's speculation. Let me ask you, was there any speculation involved when you made this statement?
"It can be tough to accept, but if everyone was given the choice to pay into Medicare or not, less than half (being somewhat generous) would do that."
Or did you poll everyone in the country? You didn't just make that up did you? And am I reading this correctly, or does your statement, speculative as it may be re-inforce the idea that more than half of us don't want to pay into this system? If so, why should we? Why not keep it around for those who want it, and not ask others who don't want it to have to pay into a system they have agreed not to use? It's about CHOICE. I don't see what's wrong with that.
And I don't know what it says on his website word for word, but if you listen to what he has to say as recently as this morning, neither Medicaid and Medicare, nor any form of healthcare for children are on the chopping block as part of his plan to balance the budget over 3 years, cutting a total of 1 trillion dollars. There is an opt-out of Social Security for people under 25. This is what he will be campaigning on for the presidency. So no, he's not about removing the social safety nets in place:
Interview this morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKl0YIDT ... r_embedded
Actual press conference:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-2Zs0-N ... r_embedded
Say what you want about his beliefs, but he is an honest man, and will attempt to stick to this program the best he can.
...But, he's going to cut the FEDERAL Department of Education. We've had this discussion before, and he probably lost you right there. Despite ending the wars and occupations, end the drug war, saving trillions, and NOT messing with the current health care system, I bet he still would not have your vote. I'd understand if Obama was a true liberal, but since he isn't, I can't see how anyone who is in search of an honest person running for office who holds dear both the classical liberal and conservative ideas maximizing freedom for everyone wouldn't be high on everyone's list. If Paul's presidency would let businesses run rampant, why isn't he KILLING everyone in donations, especially now that corporate donors are totally legit again? His campaign is doing great with donations, from tons of donors, meaning they're all small, and from people-- not companies.
Watch those links and tell me that he doesn't have good ideas, and isn't in many ways more "liberal" than Obama.
So, what does it say about the Republican Party that Paul only receives about 8% of support while Romney and Cain are at roughly 24% and Perry is at 13%?
As I would say to my uber-conservative stepfather: what the fuck is wrong with your party?
You make a better case for Ron Paul than Ron Paul does.
In a way I made up my less than half would pay into Medicare, but it's based on paying attention to what people do with their money. Only slightly over half of Americans have individual investments in stocks, mutual funds, 401k, or IRA. I suppose there are a few the are exclusively bonds or just put it in a savings account (??). This suggests the rest of the country is spending all the money that comes in, or nothing is coming in. It's highly unlikely that the latter group of people is going to opt out of Medicare and then take the difference in their paycheck and put it into a retirement medical plan that they wont use for forty years. They are going to spend the difference. Other evidence that supports my claim is when you read about tax rebates, federal or state. Most of the money is spent or goes toward debt, and the minority save it. Also, there is a large group of people that aren't even paying attention to their paycheck. Many think they have been paying higher taxes in the last two years, when in fact, the opposite is true. They've been paying less in federal income tax. In conclusion, you would wind up with a huge group of 70 year olds with no insurance, either from not saving or just not having the money in the first place. My vision of that doesn't look pretty.