digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

GOP(!) House Members Introduce Bill To Abolition Income and Other Taxes

govtrack.us — TX House Member Ron Paul [R] and FL House Member Jeff Miller [R] proposed on Feb 7th "to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens." Contact your reps and Support This Bill! Our income taxes support the war in Iraq

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • justo, on 10/12/2007, -12/+64oops, make that "abolish"... me not able to speech english!
    • Lixie, on 10/12/2007, -26/+110Funny how they wait until they lose control of congress before pushing these bills forward. Where were these bills two years ago?
    • Murphys, on 10/12/2007, -20/+34I believe you could find the answer to this and other pressing questions at Fairtax.org
      I have been reading thier articles for a while now and am convinced this is the way to go.
    • DisposableRob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+67"Funny how they wait until they lose control of congress before pushing these bills forward. Where were these bills two years ago?"

      If it was anyone but Ron Paul, I'd agree with you that it was an empty political gesture. Being the only libertarian in Congress, he's the only guy who'd introduce a bill like this and mean it. He's one of the few Republican who voted against the Iraq war.
    • SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -22/+7@Lixie

      Even though they have no chance anyway, I think they have a better chance with the Democrats. The Republicans wouldn't turn down a funding source for their wars.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -17/+19"Funny how they wait until they lose control of congress before pushing these bills forward. Where were these bills two years ago?"

      Politics is a sick game, no party puts their false face on until they are facing utter defeat... this is done in both parties. Sad.

      @sammir
      wrong, most republicans (just like Democrats) in government are not for the war in Iraq. They support lower taxes way more than Democrats ever will, that is just a fact.
    • cpuenvy, on 10/12/2007, -24/+20Sammyjr spewed out: “Even though they have no chance anyway, I think they have a better chance with the Democrats. The Republicans wouldn't turn down a funding source for their wars.”

      Are you smoking crack? Republicans are the party of bad ideas, and the Democrats are the party of no ideas. You speak of funding wars, but you forgot one little tidbit that needs to be stated… The Democrats need to fund welfare and their other socialist programs. Hell, how else do you think they get the black vote?
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -18/+23Awesome! We do need to repeal the income tax. National sales tax now, plz.
    • masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Haha, yea I also love when they tack on crazy names just to make it look bad when someone votes it against or for it.
    • mrfoos, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19@skyshock21: "National sales tax now, plz."

      Hey Robin Hood, you can start donating your income to the federal government ANY day. The only thing stopping you is your hypocrisy.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -17/+21Fairtax is even worse!
    • spartan777, on 10/12/2007, -9/+19Lixie,

      You mean where were all the tax breaks several years ago? You may have forgotten that Bush made many large tax breaks, which is why the economy is doing so well now.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9 People seem to not understand..... This shifts the balance.... The only people that are going to take a real hit is big business. The common man only gains from this.
    • distrbnce, on 10/12/2007, -9/+18wtf world are you people living in that it's a surprise that republicans want to cut taxes?
    • segphault, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26@lixie: Ron Paul proposes practically this exact same bill every single term.
    • satanatnmtedu, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9@ spartan777

      Correlation does not equate causation. I would say the economy is doing well despite the huge deficits and debt. Tax cuts are a mistake when you can't pay the debts that you have now. Tax cuts for the people at the top end are a further mistake because you only need so much to live a comfortable life. The rest is unnecessary. The rich would not be rich without the labor of the people at the bottom and middle. So, they SHOULD pay more in taxes.
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -12/+16The improvements in the economy do not favor most people... having the stock market rise means that -businesses- are doing well. The average worker is getting laid off and having their benefits cut while CEOs are constructing golden parachutes for themselves.

      The difference between the wealthy (and I'm talking multimillionaires here) and the rest of America is that the rich only spend a small percentage of their income. Most of their money is invested. The working American spends almost all of their money on food, cars, houses, clothing, cell phones, iPods, etc and manages to save a very small percentage (actually, the savings rate in the Unites States right now is -1%... that is, as a whole, we are spending more than we save... this is not a good economy). At the end of the day, the federal government needs a certain amount of money to function and they'll adjust the federal sales tax until they're getting the amount of money they need to fund them. At the end of the day, it's going to be middle America who picks up the tab...

      I strongly dislike the "fair tax". It would shift the tax burden away from the extremely wealthy and towards the working man. The only aspect that I kind of like is that it would tax things you purchase, which should serve to discourage consumption. Good for the environment, but bad for business. On the surface, the fair tax seems to have a certain appeal... nobody likes paying income taxes, but at the end of the day, I get the feeling that most people will end up paying much more in taxes.

      And bring back the estate tax for christsake...
    • dontspamjay, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7On the taxes... www.fairtax.org

      When you say 'Our income taxes support the war in Iraq' you come off like a complete fool.
      1. Our income taxes support EVERYTHING our government does.
      2. If you think cutting off the money going to Iraq would make things better... you're wrong. Financial support for our troops = life support for our troops. If you cut off the money things will get very bad before anyone comes home. It's ok to dissent from the war, but cutting off money is not a good approach to end the war.
    • jetsetgo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6If "America: Freedom to Fascism" is to be believed this would be a wonderful thing. The movie asserts that the Federal reserve actually isn't part of the federal government but a private bank. Additionally, none of your income taxes even pay for federal programs.

      Ron Paul makes an appearance in the film and has some very interesting things to say.
    • idonthack, on 10/12/2007, -12/+7I think there should be no income tax for anyone that makes under $80,000/year, and people who make more than $500,000/year should have everything above that taken (an effective salary cap). It would keep people from becoming obscenely rich but let people with lower income keep their money.
    • exnoosher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2
      Watch this documentary and find out how you've been 'scammed' by government and the bankers.

      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4312730277175242198&q=freedom+fascism

    • fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10"nancy pelosi wont have her private jet without sufficient tax revenues"

      Thats funny, I don't remember the outcry when hestert was given a plane to fly back and forth between his home and washington. Know why? Because the media said nothing, they didn't give a rats ass. But let pelosi get a plane and they are all up in arms like some kind of righteous mod that wants to stone her to death. What a bunch of hypocrites.
    • spoid_, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3@scotticus

      "The improvements in the economy do not favor most people... having the stock market rise means that -businesses- are doing well."

      And why isn't that good for the average American? Their 401(k)s and pension plans are invested in the stock market. When Exxon makes a huge profit, I get a portion of that as I am a shareholder.

      "The difference between the wealthy (and I'm talking multimillionaires here) and the rest of America is that the rich only spend a small percentage of their income. Most of their money is invested. The working American spends almost all of their money on food, cars, houses, clothing, cell phones, iPods, etc and manages to save a very small percentage (actually, the savings rate in the Unites States right now is -1%... that is, as a whole, we are spending more than we save... this is not a good economy)"

      I don't see how this is the fault of the rich. The average American does not need to be driving around in a $40,000 car, yet that seems to be the norm. People are spending huge sums of money on Lincoln Navigators, Hummers, iPods, cell phones and houses and not saving a dime. If people would learn to save before they buy their luxuries, we wouldn't have a negative savings rate.
    • kjk437, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7@fredrated

      Maybe because Nancy Pelosi's is a military class 757 and Hestert's plane was a small, private jet.
    • neuroticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"Politics is a sick game"

      That's why I am a strong advocate for citizen legislation. The sooner we realize politicians will ALWAYS plays these games until the end of time, the better. Politicians who don't reward their constituents and friends with "pork" do not get elected. That's how it is.
    • skyshock21, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3"Hey Robin Hood, you can start donating your income to the federal government ANY day. The only thing stopping you is your hypocrisy."

      WTF are you smoking? I want NONE of my income to be taxed. Next time read up first before you make yourself look like an idiot again.
    • JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2fredrated
      And Hastert's was for a short period of time after 9/11. Also, if it wasn't in the media, then how'd you know about it? Maybe because people are using it to defend Nancy Pelosi's demand?
    • themonkman, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5What many people don't know is that not a single dime of our income taxes go towards anything other than paying back our debt to the Federal Reserve. What's ironic is that the Federal Reserve is no more "federal" than Federal Express is. It's a private corporation and accounting service that the US has enslaved itself to that loans us money and controls our inflation rates.

      We have hundreds of other taxes that pay for our social programs. Property tax pays for the education system. Fuel tax pays for our interstates. Corporate income tax funds our Defense/military. The list goes on, but you won't see income tax pay for anything other than the interest we owe on the national debt.

      The country did just fine for a very long time without the Federal Income tax, and there are many people and a grand amount of evidence that Federal Income tax is unconstitutional, being that it's not a direct nor indirect tax according to the definitions of such in the Constitution. The 16th Amendment, which the IRS claims gives them the power of taxing income, has been ruled on several occasions by the Supreme Court that it gave no new powers for any additional taxes (Staton vs Baltic Mining, Peck vs Lowe, The Gov't v. Whitey Harrell, Eisener vs Montgomery). Based off of these cases, a handful of people have successfully avoided being convicted of tax evasion.

      Check out this quote from Dwight E. Avis, former head of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Dvision of the IRS: "Your income tax is a 100% voluntary tax, and your liquor tax is a 100% enforced tax. The situation is as different as night and day."

      One current case that is of interest to this topic is US vs William J. Benson (US District Court of Northern Illinois case: 1:04-cv-07403). It is basically forcing the government to examine all of the history of the so-called ratification of the 16th Amendment, and the legality of the Federal Income Tax. Since the Gov charged Benson for creating an illegal tax shelter by publishing his book "The Law That Never Was", they now have to investigate all of the surrounding facts in the book and admit that it has subject matter jurisdiction in order for Benson to address the topics and put forth his defense against those charges. The final ruling of this case could turn the tax system as we know it upside down, and release us from the unfair income tax law. Did you know, there is no specific law that says that a normal non-corporate filer is required to pay income tax? Try to find it. It is no where.

    • pensivewombat, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2This is an absolutely horrible idea. We need income taxes, they are the only thing stabilizing this economy. The easiest way to make money is to have a lot of it already, and a progressive income tax is the only thing keeping your income from being sucked away into the pockets of the Gates and Walton families. Sales taxes are regressive by nature and punish those with less income far more than those with excess amounts of money.

      If you don't like what your taxes are being spent on, elect representatives who can write a reasonable budget.
    • scotticus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@spoid:

      You have a fair point -- it's peoples' damn fault for living beyond their means. And I think there's a ideological rift here that is hard to overcome. I think both things need to happen: people need to control their spending, but I also think that CEOs are getting paid WAY too much. And the disparity between what the middle class makes and the wealthy keeps rising exponentially... the best way to curb that is to tax the ***** out of them.

      I feel no shame taking that money away, because it's money that should be going to employees (or to avoid layoffs). If you switch to a "fair tax" you'll find that most of the tax money will come from the middle class on down... the wealthy don't spend most of their income because it's nearly impossible to buy that much *****.

      I'll also concede that the stock market doing well is good for everyone, but if you're not employed, you have no 401k. Or, if you have a hard time finding work, you may take a job you're overqualified for and get paid less. A strong market is good for investment, but the fastest way to make money is through a paycheck. The truth of the matter is that the economy is strongest when income is injected into the lower class... they are heavy consumers and drive the economy. I'm not sure that the middle class has lost money over the past several years because of increased spending, as much as it is that they were used to a certain lifestyle in the 90's that they weren't ready to give up.
    • tiredofit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Tacking (GOP!) onto the front of the headline is a bit misleading.

      RON PAUL is far from your average Republican. Ron Paul represents everything America once stood for before these NeoCons got their foot in the door of the GOP and corrupted the Party beyond belief. Ron Paul is much more than the letters G-O-P can describe.

      Ron Paul for PRESIDENT!!
  • siszam, on 10/12/2007, -85/+118Who would benefit the most from abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes? The wealthy elite. They pay the most income tax. They have more estate taxes and gift taxes. No taxes would shut down programs that help children and the poor. It would put an end to any thought of universal health care. We are already decades behind other civilized countries. This would result in even more absurdly rich elites and more oppression of the poor.

    The GOP never does anything unless it helps the wealthy. Screw them. They've done enough harm in the world. Thanks for letting me know. I'll contact all the Senators and Congressmen to tell them to oppose this.
    • carpespasm, on 10/12/2007, -22/+15seriously, how does this ever help those living in appartments, or on 1/8th acre trailer lots? i bet the mansion on a 150acre ranch sees a real use out of legislation like this passing. don't the taxes you pay on property pay into education?
    • G-RaZoR, on 10/12/2007, -16/+8The problem that we have is, individual income taxes is the largest source of tax revenue for the government. While I personally feel these house members are correct in trying to abolish it because it does seem like competition with the government, I do feel they are necessary to financially support the government.
    • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -49/+40Wow you liberals will find just about anything to cry about. Four years ago it was, "OMG taxes are killing the poor get rid of them." I guess your stance has changed since it was a republican who introduced it. I guess it is idiots like you that keep Congress' disapproval rating at 60% even though you guys have control.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -21/+37"Who would benefit the most from abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes? The wealthy elite. They pay the most income tax." -- many Democrats said that the taxes were actually killing the poor (and mainly payed by the poor), why the flip-flopping? Just because its a Republican introducing the bill? Grow up.

      Many people in the software world are a lower part of the spectrum in this elite. Many of them don't want to give away 30-70k of their income in straightup taxes. Hell, I'd love not to pay taxes (as would most people), even if it means higher costs when it comes to interactions with the government in other means (forming of incorporations, etc.)
    • p_o_b, on 10/12/2007, -34/+77god you idiots.

      @ carpesspasm
      FEDERAL taxes don't pay for education nearly as much as your LOCAL taxes pay for education.

      Yes tax cuts benefit the wealthy. But does the fact legislation benifit the rich mean that it harms median or low income persons? No

      And why the crap is it such a big crime againts humanity to be wealthy? Why do the wealthy not deserve cuts as well as everyone else?
    • phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19@siszam

      You are forgetting that by getting rid of these taxes, the poor also wouldn't have to pay them, thus giving them more disposable income! This would make up for all of the different income redistribution supplements lost.
    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -15/+6Hmm.. maybe the tax could be replaced with a sales tax ala the Fair Tax Bill (HR 25/S 25).

      This way, if Bill Gates Blows $1m on a TV, he's paying more taxes than you or I who might only spend $50 on a TV for a dorm room.
    • thekarmastrike, on 10/12/2007, -8/+43http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul He truly is not your typical republican.. read up, you'll probably find you like him.
    • nayr, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5This is BAD! without taxes, government funding for many things (education, for example) goes away....

      [Edit] Oh wait, this is federal.... education isn't affected. Still, other programs (I know no specifics) will get the ax.... this can only be bad!
    • SammyJr, on 10/12/2007, -13/+10@JimXugle

      Wrong. Bill Gates buys imports the $1m TV straight from China and uses a loophole to pay little to no tax.

      "FairTax" only applies to people without the means to get around it. That's one big reason I'm opposed to it. Good idea in theory, but in practice, the big spenders will weasle out of it. The poor and middle class will shoulder the burden.
    • pedro101, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31Siszam,

      Many of the wealthy in America run many of the small businesses that we work at and enjoy. Just because they were rich doesn't mean they were handed money on a silver platter. Often they work up from the worst of situations. Look at Jimmy John Liautaud, the founder of Jimmy John's Soup and Sandwiches. My dad actually taught him math in highschool and said he was just a normal kid with a stubborn attitude, which paid off after highschool...

      "After founder Jimmy John Liautaud graduated second-to-last in his 1982 Cary-Grove High School class, his options were joining the Army, college, or starting a business. He chose the latter. He started baking bread in his mom's kitchen, bought the most expensive meats from Dominick's and had several family members vote on the top four sandwiches he created.[2] The first Jimmy John's opened in a garage in Charleston, Illinois on January 13, 1983, with used equipment, without a menu or outdoor advertisement, selling the four sandwiches and 25-cent Cokes."

      Yet he worked his way up to form Jimmy John's, which now has 500 stores across America...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_John%27s

      A similar story can be found in the movie, "The Pursuit of Happyness," which I would reccommend to everyone, since it's based on a true story of an African American man working his way out of poverty to provide finances for his family. He ended up becoming a millionaire, not because of priviledge but because of diligence and hard work.
    • omatsei, on 10/12/2007, -9/+17@nayr: Yeah, it'd be a tragedy if funding for projects that benefit the amorphous blob known as "society" got cut. Human civilization would collapse upon itself if the government wasn't here to take our money and spend it on ***** nobody in their right mind would vote for! We have to stop this injustice!

      Pinhead.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11@carpespasm

      you are thinking of local county real estate taxes going to schools and education. this argument is about federal taxes. the tax power has shifted over the last 90 years from local/state to federal. now the fed takes the money and they get to hand it back to you, your town, your schools bla bla bla.
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -13/+18A tax cut like this would increase the gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country, and continue to destroy the American middle class. The poor will get poorer, as they already pay so little in taxes, but benefit the most with social programs, and the rich will get richer.

      It isn't a crime to be wealthy in this country, but the idea is that if you are wealthy, you got where you are because of the favorable conditions in this country, and not on skill alone. The American dream is about upward mobility, that that class you are born into doesn't matter as long as you are driven. The american system will subtly allow for you to use your skill to the fullest... but it isn't a free ride. When you become successful, it is your obligation to pay your dues to the system that allowed you express your skill and become a success. This is, in part, why we have a graduated tax code.

      Take, for example, education, which is key to the American dream. Many of the wealthy have good paying jobs because they got great educations at American universities. These are in a significant part federally funded.

      In my case, I benefitted greatly from grants from the federal government to get me through school, as i was from a lower class background. This is not a free ride... when I use what skills I've learned to get paid, I will pay more in taxes because I've taken advantage of our country's education system.

      Without America, maybe I'd not have the training necessary to unlock my potential, and I would still be in the lower class.

      It's naive to think that the rich got there all by themselves.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -5/+14The biggest part of this bill is NOT the removal of income tax, but the non-compete clause. Basically, the intent is to rely on the free market, and/or states, to provide all services not specifically outlined in the Constitution for the Federal Government.

      Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
    • Desslok, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20"Wrong. Bill Gates buys imports the $1m TV straight from China and uses a loophole to pay little to no tax."

      Why are people picking on Bill Gates in this discussion? The guy is going to be committing his life to his philanthropic endeavors, numbering in Billions of dollars, and you guys are nickel and diming him on tax loopholes?

      Honestly, if you knew of a loophole to avoid paying a tax, wouldn't you take it? I know I would, and I'm dirt poor. Mr. Bill can do what he wants, outside of the Microsoft biz he's OK in my book.
    • Razak, on 10/12/2007, -10/+9"Yes tax cuts benefit the wealthy. But does the fact legislation benifit the rich mean that it harms median or low income persons? No"

      You would be incorrect. Cutting taxes of the rich does hurt the poor dramatically. Why do you think the rich complain so much about paying taxes? Cause they pay a higher percentage of taxes than the poor does. Yes the poor actually need that money more than the rich, but the poor gain the most from those taxes than the rich do. This is why the rich don't want to pay. They don't want things like welfare, medicare, medical assistance, food stamps, public schools, public transportation, etc. because they don't use them. They have the money to pay for the best medical care, food, private schools, etc that money can buy. You might help the poor by giving them a few thousand dollars extra a year, but you hurt them a hell of a lot more in the fact that they now need to get a forth job because they need more help paying for food and medication, and you cripple their ability to move up in pay because they are getting worse schooling than they are now. Yes you are correct that local & state pays more for school than national, but national does put funds into public schools too and sorry to say our schools are in a state of crisis because they lack funding, any removal of funding for them will kill the system. Even if it is only the national money.
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Pedro : I applaud people who have made it because of their determination and skill. Upward mobility is the American dream, after all.

      However, it is incredibly romantic to believe that the individual can make it all by himself. In almost every case of individual success, there's the American system working behind the scenes to help him along, and to help him make the most of his skill and hard work.

      This includes being able to start your own business and getting a decent education. America is a favorable environment for upward mobility, but that doesn't mean that it's a free ride. In addition to working hard, if and when you become a success, you must pay dues for using the system. That's what taxes are.
    • betterth, on 10/12/2007, -11/+15@pob
      And why the crap is it such a big crime againts humanity to be wealthy? Why do the wealthy not deserve cuts as well as everyone else?

      Because they don't need them! I get tax cuts because otherwise, I wouldn't be able to live. I go to school for sixteen credit hours and work thirty to fourty hours a week. If I didn't get my educational deductions, I would literally just roll over and die, that, or start taking around 20,000$ in student loans a year to live.

      Why shouldn't the elite pay taxes? So that they're bank account stays above a hundred million? It would be a /damn/ shame if they dropped a couple places on the Forbes top 100 richest, wouldn't it?

      Tax cuts are NOT A LUXURY. Many people rely on deductions and hope for less taxes so we can exist. Don't you get it? There are people out there in the low and middle classes where if you lower the taxes, they might actually be able to help their children get to college. Be able to say, "you don't have to work at age fifteen so you can help support the family".

      The rich, simply, aren't included there.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10dropping/reducing federal income tax would help everyone. look up what percentage of federal income tax is JUST consumed by the IRS itself. that has been a motivation for the flat tax over the years.

      short version of flat tax thinking: you pay some rate, which is way less than what you pay now. because it's so simple to do (whole form is the size of a postcard) there is not the overhead of the IRS workers, and accountants hired to do your taxes. right off the bat the government effectively has the same amount of money coming in from the citizens, but the citizens have a lot more money (to invest in something, or to go spend and help the economy). the theory was also that the flat tax rate could be shaved down as the rest of the federal government became more efficient. good luck with that part. the argument that it will make IRS/CPA worker bees unemployed is silly. they are more than qualified to do something actually productive as opposed to busy work (like TPS reports?).

      support it or not, it's an interesting idea. the rich are happy because they are not in a 49% tax bracket. the basic formula proposed in the USA has been that there is a certain amount of money untaxed (depending on number of dependents etc), and then almost anything above that is taxed at 17%. it eliminates a bunch of current deductions, which people get unpleased about. quick and dirty math tells me i would be paying a LOT less.

      a lot of European countries are using it, and it's working out really well.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
    • jacson1999, on 10/12/2007, -10/+20"The wealthy elite." are you kidding me? I work my butt off every flippin day to give up 1/4 of MY MONEY. I'm sorry but if somebody rich gains from this I DON'T CARE. On another note Lets make social security optional as well that (combined) would give me a $10,000 a year raise and I could save for my own retirement that WILL be there when I retire.
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8So you have a choise of being rich or richer, instead of poor? Why do you hate your neighbour for being richer when you are yourself rich? What does it matter? You know you both will spend the money on the market, everyone does and has to in order to survive so it is all circulated anyway!
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17Uhhh, in case you haven't noticed. The poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer and it is precisely because the way our monetary and tax system is set up. Remember the days when a young couple could save up a few years and buy a house cash? Remember the days when gold was $21 dollars per ounce? Rich people have the luxury of moving around assets and hiring accountants to avoid taxes and inflation. It is the poor who get screwed every time.
    • mckirkus, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Corporate taxes pay for the war. If there was no war we would have a few trillion to spend on programs without taxing anybody. Plus rich people, assholes though they are, would have billions to give to charity. Even bill gates gives billions to fight aids in africa.
    • NinjaYaddaYadda, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@ 1021

      Actually no, the majority of total revenue from income taxes actually comes from the richest percentiles of Americans. Top 1% of earners pay 36% of income taxes. Top 5% of earners pay 57% of total taxes. Top 10% pay 44.35%. Bottom 50% pay 3.3%.

      If you take a greater percentage (higher tax rate) of a greater sum (higher incomes), you're bound to get a difference in tax revenue by percentile.
    • chewyrunt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" is a silly and meaningless statement to anyone who understands the difference between position, velocity, and rate of change (acceleration).

      Think of income as if it was your speed in miles per hour, and your distance driven as total worth. Now assume Driver A makes twice as much as Driver B: Driver A is going at 80 mph, and Driver B at 40mph. With the passage of time, the distance between Driver A and Driver B steadily increases, even though their incomes remain identical - this is akin to "the rich gettting richer and the poor getting poorer".

      Now let's suppose Driver B gets a 20% raise, and Driver A gets a 20% salary cut: Driver A is now going 64mph, and Driver B is now going at 48mph. By all accounts the 'income gap' is closing - even as the distance between Driver A and Driver B continues to increase.

      You would think a 'progressive' might approve of this turn of events - but you will still hear them claim "the rich get richer while the poor getting poor", which is still technically correct - as long as you keep measuring distance and ignore both velocity and rate of change.

      Yet another reason why everyone should learn calculus....
    • SilasTomorrow, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Siszam siszam siszam....

      Everyone, especially poor people, will make out BETTER than rich people with the abolition of income tax, because:

      1. The rich already minimize their tax debt (through shelters and loopholes), so their gain would be less than everyone else.
      2. The rich generally don't pay much income tax anyways, because they get most of their money through investments and profit via their own companies, which is calculated on a different basis than the normal withholding tax we get.

      As for supporting the world: the rest of the world got along without our help for the entire world history, save the last 50 years or so. We can help, but the world isn't going to be a better place on the backs of Americans alone. Donations are great, forced ones (via taxation) is unethical and immoral.
    • Iktomi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4What a ***** idiotic set of comments. Did a capitalist drop you on your head or something? Cutting taxes for any group - and even better, all groups - leaves people with more expendable income enabling more commerce which drives needs for products and services. That drives business expansion, jobs, more money for your hand-out programs. It is absolutely amazing how socialists have managed to survive - probably on the backs of those of us with a brain.
    • Iktomi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1@Siszam I'm sure that your senators and congressmen are just waiting to hear from you. Get a haircut and get a real job.
    • JoCliMe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The bottom 50% of people that have an income pay like 3.4% of the taxes in the U.S. The top 10% pay like 30%, if i recall. (for the top 10% I'm sure about the bottom 50%)
    • JonForTheWin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2"No taxes would shut down programs"

      When the ***** are people going to learn the difference between INCOME tax and ALL tax they are NOT THE SAME ***** THING AND _INCOME_ TAX _DOES NOT_ PAY FOR ANYTHING IT GOES TO THE PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED FEDERAL ***** RESERVE GOD ***** DAMN YOU PEOPLE ARE DRIVING ME CRAZY
    • americaindanger, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Income taxes from you and I only go to pay the interest on all the debt owed by the US government to the Federal Reserve Bank for all the money it owes.

      Read The Creature From Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. It's a fascinating book.
    • basicspecifics, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Do you have any facts to back up your statement? The research I've read is absolutely contrary to what you're saying. If I'm not mistaken Americans payed just under 1 Trillion last year in income tax vs. the 262 Billion in Corporate Income Taxes that are actually legal.

      According to Rich Dad Poor Dad it's the employees that pay the most taxes and the Business Owners and Investors that pay the least.

      As far as paying for programs for the Poor and children why is it only the Government that can take responsibility to oversee such programs? Why can't Americans come together for programs to assist the Poor on our own? It's not relative either way because the Grace Commission created by Reagan found that 100% of our income tax goes to interest on our National Debt. If America printed our own money and stuck to a sound monetary policy that dealt with the money we have instead of going so far into debt we wouldn't be giving 30% of our income to this illegal tax. With an extra 30% of income and a sound dollar that is actually worth it's weight in gold you'd have more money to give to the Poor. I would see that as a win win wouldn't you?
  • 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -31/+42Not that a tax on our labor is Constitutionally authorized to begin with, but this still shows that Ron Paul is doing his best with the shackles he wears from our rogue, criminal government.

    The only ones opposed to such a bill are socialists, Marxists and communists. Those are the same people I have a healthy stock of ammo to provide the justice mandated by the same Constitution they wish to suppress.

    So, the Neocons think they are the 'deciders'? I don't think so. Neither do hundreds of thousands of folks such as myself. We have plenty of rope just waiting to fit around their treasonous, Neocon necks!

    If you're not with us...you're with the terrorists. The only terrorists truly wreaking havoc on this country work in Washington DC. The Liberty tree is thirsty.
    • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -31/+1I think you and Ron Paul are both *****.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -15/+5The plural of "*****" is "homines"
    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2I agree with you until your last statement... there are foreign powers that want to kill us all. Never Forget that.

      Sure, a 20 Gage 8 shot with Slugs may protect you (for a little while anyway) against corrupt cops trying to search your house for thoughtcrime items, but it can't protect you from lack of functional infrastructure or radiation. Then again, I don't know what does at this point.

      HR25 S25 FTFW!
      Income Tax GTFO.

    • sp3tt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2In the nominative, that is.
    • david76, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I'm afraid Wikipedia and the Supreme Court disagree with you:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    • retcynm, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12"....If you're not with us...you're with the terrorists."

      Right there, you finally lost all credibility. It's precisely this kind of simple-minded, hyper-dualistic thinking that has gotten us into our current situation.

      Reality is FAR too rich and complex to be effectivly described by black-or-white/yes-or-no/good-or-evil pronouncements. They are mostly usefull as a tool to manipute that portion of the population that seems to have opted to take the "easy-road-out", and just give up on logical thinking processes. Threats of violence are ever so much simpler.

      Lame.

    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ david76

      Do some history home work and find out what that amendment really started as.
    • joebob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Right there, you finally lost all credibility. It's precisely this kind of simple-minded, hyper-dualistic thinking that has gotten us into our current situation"

      Not that I disagree, but it's fairly amusing that "....If you're not with us...you're with the terrorists." basically sums up the general policy of the US govt since 9/11. From foreign wars ranging to wherever they see fit, to domestic spying (even more than the behind closed doors type), government sponsored if not outright administrated torture, repression and coercion of various scientific agencies, etc... Polarization to two sides of anything just creates a conflict atmosphere of blame and distrust. I will cheer the day the two party system is abolished and we can actually work for a common good as individuals.

    • 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"If you're not with us you're with the terrorists" was not MY statement. It was stated by the Neocons and was part of the point I was trying to make. Obviously I need to type slower for some people.
    • 2ndRevolution, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@hilbertspaceboy

      Why? Do we excite you? Do you want to "digg" us?
    • lordmetroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Only labour that is an excise... Ie the oppertunity wouldn't be there if not the state created it. If you work in a corporation with limited liability. That is an oppertunity created by the state and can be rightfully taxed. If you just trade goods with your neighbour, that is not.
  • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+37By the way, this is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution.

    It has zero chance of being enacted.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14sure, but it doesn't mean it isn't important.

      What you said is like saying "damn, might as well stop trying to run folding@home nodes since odds of finding a cure to an important cancer are so slim."
    • nayr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3well, aside from the bad connection, 1021 has a point. This is important—a sign of things to come, even if it doesn't pass.
    • argoff, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3I think it has a pretty good chance. As pointed out here ( http://davidlita.googlepages.com/ronpaul ) the US economy is likely to suffer a major collapse over the next few years. That would create trillions of dollars in pressure to elect Ron Paul and kill the income tax.
    • hilbertspaceboy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4Ron Paul has zero chance of being elected President.
  • mrgreen4242, on 10/12/2007, -15/+13This is just grandstanding so when it fails they can cry that Dems are tax and spend blah blah blah. It's just a stupid attempt to get some press and rile up morons who can't see through the ploy.
    • manifestdata, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17You seem pretty riled up.
    • Iktomi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Are you having trouble seeing through the ploy? Perhaps they will find a cure for CRD and help you.
  • zomgflamer, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1***** em all Chuck Norris for god!!!!
    • paperhat, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Then people will have to get rid of their "God is not a Republican" bumper stickers.
    • gossipninja, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16I agree with you that due to the social welfare state we are in, middle class has all but vanished. My tax money goes to benefit those who don't work, and I am all for helping the poor and injured and so on, but many people i see on welfare/social service, are able bodied people who choose not to work or work a part time mcjob so they can get drunk/high 3-4 nights a week. And What bugs me is if I didn't work, I would probably make about the same when you account for welfare,healthcare, education assistance, food stamps, childcare, free/reduced lunches, and the myriad of other social programs that are exploited.

      I am in favor of a flat tax rate. Steve forbes wrote a book going on about how it minimized govt spending on dealing with taxes, saving millions, possibly billions, of dollars, Some countries have went to a flat tax, and it actually increases govt revenue, and increased personal revenue. It's win win. People having money and spending it in their community brings everyone up. If I had an extra 200 dollars a month I could buy more goods and services, which in turn gives the provider of these good/services more money, and they spend it, and so on.

      Also ZOMG you mention how the govt totally screws retirement up, That is why i am for privatization and congress should agree, cuz you know, their retirement is privatized.
  • fuzzmeister, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10If this happens, where, exactly, will the government get money? Sure, downsizing the government would work, but that has to be a slow, well thought out process, you can't just stop feeding it and expect everything to work out.
    • phil.busch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9And you can't just keep feeding our corrupt system forever and expect it to just work out. This is a step in the right direction to reduce corruption.

      Bridges to nowhere and wars based on lies take money to happen. Without that money, they won't exist.
    • tardmongerster, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Personal income taxes are a small portion of revenue. Most money that comes to the fed gov is from corporate income taxes. All the feds really need money for is to support a military, pay salaries, and support some nationally funded programs. Everything else that is actually useful is provided by state and local governments. Schools are funded by local property taxes, roads are funded by state gasoline taxes, and the rest by state and local sales taxes, various fees, and fines.
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16government needs to go on a diet. right now, it's a fat over-confident pig.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1the old argument is that prior to 1913 and the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution there was no federal income tax, and the country existed. obviously a lot has changed since then and federal government spending is out of control.

      the argument about people losing their jobs is crap. if they are worthless jobs to begin with, we might as well pay them to stay home. that has been a major argument against the flat tax over the years... that the IRS employs a zillion people, as well as all the public accountants etc and we can't just p.u hem out of work. here is no reason those same people and resources could not apply their smarts to something useful.

      if you read the bill, it is incredibly vague and probably just looking for attention, or some "i tried to eliminate taxes and these members of Congress voted it down" setup for the next election cycle commercials.

    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Taxing corporations isn't the answer.

      If a company now has to pay $1m more in taxes and they have the option of either cutting $1m out of profits or raising the price of their goods to meet the $1m, they're going to do the latter.
    • WaterlooWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@tardmongerster...

      actually personal income taxes are the largest source of revenue for the federal government. They bring in over 4x as much as corporate income taxes.
    • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Well that was the liberal solution for our troops in Iraq, so why couldn't we apply it to the government as a whole?
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1@ JimXugle

      Well, see that popped into my mind as well. But then I started to think about more. It would basically create a more competitive market. Cause who is really going to want to pay for more expensive items? no one..... And lets just say we tariff imports and mild exports. Also if we tariff imports, at the current corp tax rate, that would cause foreign company's to compete with business at home. That would create more jobs here cause big business wouldn't get away with shipping jobs else where. It would basically be cheaper to do it at home apposed to out sourcing. Its more of a win for the common American. The only people that would loose in this would be big business. Or better yet only big business's that out source. But they kill the American middle class anyway for *****`em.
  • trer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2So how else are the Feds going to pay for things then...JUST on business taxes? What happens if the Federal Interstate Highway system starts crumbling...who's going to fix them? Are the states just going to point fingers at each other? And does this mean that the salaries of all who work in Washington D.C. will be cut, including massive layoffs?
    • 1021, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Your what if can be handled if it does happen by legislation (which would pass if it were as crucial as an interstate system crumbling). Money should be with the citizens, not the greedy government.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6 You mean they will actually have to face the same reality the rest of us have had to deal with for the entirity of our lives? Must not have that.

      Silly puppy.
  • thekarmastrike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+28Ron Paul isn't exactly your typical republican, lol. Hes actually probably the most honest man in washington, imo. Hes also running for president, and will likely get my vote!
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I'm thinking of changing my party affiliation back to Republican so I can better support his candidacy. I don't know if I can do it, though. It would be hard to be associated with so many far-right religious wackos and spur-rattling jingos.
    • thekarmastrike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@Neiby

      I hear you. The republican party is hard for anyone with critical thinking skills to side with! I truly hope that we can see a new republican (pro gun, pro closed border, pro individual, anti police state/big gov't) party emerge from the ashes of the visibly defunct "Neo conservative" republican party of today.

      Unfortunately, the party leadership is so corrupt it'll make your head spin, and its going to be an uphill battle.

      I will not, though, under any circumstance, endorse the democrats when they are lead by harpies like Hillary and Pelosi.
    • Iktomi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0@thekarmastrike & neiby
      I think you're getting Republicans confused with RINOs. Bush and Bush and their batch of RINOs hijacked the Republican party a few years back - turned it into RINOs or Demopublicans. With only a few exceptions the leadership is operating brain-free. That puts them on a par with Nazi Pelosi and her fellow socialists. The conservatives that haven't left the Republican party for the Libertarian party are now the minority.
  • Leomarth, on 10/12/2007, -3/+19He does this every few years. He realizes that taxes are theft, so he puts up a bill to support abolishing them.
  • thekarmastrike, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21Oh yeah. The income tax doesnt actually fund government programs. It pays off the debt we owe to the private federal reserve. Its also unconstitutional and legally questionable! Research this and the people involved before claiming its another republican tax break for the wealthy scheme, please.
  • johnpaul191, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6that one bit is odd..... "prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens"

    `Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.

    what does that actually mean? i hope this isn't like the thing where Acuweather tried to get NOAA to stop giving away free weather info because it was screwing with their business model.
    • dwxpub, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Well, something like that. Take government flood insurance for example - directly competes with insurance companies. They cannot compete with rates, so choose not to do business. The insurer of last resort becomes the primary insurer.

      The TVA is another example - that no politician with realistic presidential hopes will ever try to get privatized.
  • NymphoChik, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8@siszam:

    "Who would benefit the most from abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes? The wealthy elite."

    Why do liberals always say phrases like, "The Rich" or "The Wealthy Elite"?

    Please define these terms.

    This proposal (which I agree has no chance) is aimed at focusing attention on the toilet that a substantial portion of our tax money goes into.

    Answer this please:
    How can you support Democrats that say, "Increase taxes so that we can pay for programs for the poor." But then use that increased tax revenue to rubber stamp a STUPID F#%KING war that costs the poor, middle class and the rich about 1 Billion dollars every 4 days?
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -9/+22Liberals like to use class warfare to justify their socialist agenda. They can't win based on sound economics and common sense, so they use class warfare to get the masses up in arms. It gets the vote out, that's for sure. Too bad that sort of mentality is going to drive this country into the ground.

      And just for the record, neither the Republicans nor the Democrats care much for this country. They care about power. Both sides pander for votes. Neither can be trusted.
    • jav1231, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Exactly. It's also interesting that Democrats are a huge part of this. Why would they advocate taxing themselves? Because more important than money is power. With power, they can get the money and effect their agenda. Abolishing the personal income tax is sorely needed. We need to go to a Fair Tax where you're taxed on consumption. It's a much more fair system. The rich still pay more because they spend more and what they spend money on costs more. The poor will still get breaks, depending on the system in place. Most importantly to me is that the government is forced to be more trim in harder times. How many times do we see Congress want to raise taxes in a recession (something that just doesn't work, btw)? When times are hard on the citizens, why should they get a raise? This will never pass but having the dialog helps! As for the "pays for war" comment. Its truly sad that some people can't go through a day without pining over the Bush administration. Live a little.
    • akinder, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Me personally, I don't think I should have to pay $15,000-$20,000 in taxes every year, so that Joe Schmo can lay on welfare and drink beer. Taxing the rich, or those in a higher income bracket more just sucks, period. Yeah, it's nice to all the no-skill entry level kids on Digg, since they're benefiting from it, but once they hit a senior bracket, or jump into the $75,000+ tax bracket, they'll be singing a different tune.
  • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12The key to making something like this succeed is to have reduce the size of government at the same time so that it doesn't require so much money to fund in the first place. The Federal government has grown to many, many times the size it should be if it were obeying Constitutional restraints. It needs to be dramatically smaller. Once that is done, it won't be nearly as hard to fund and we can find ways to do it that don't involve income taxes, which were originally outlawed by the Constitution. The Founders knew income taxes were wrong. We need to get back to that way of thinking.

    If you have financial problems, it is NOT my responsibility to fix them and you should not be able to get money from me at gunpoint and use the Feds as your enforcer. Your problems, your responsibility. My problems, my responsibility. See how that works?
  • bcardarella, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3This sounds like a great way to bankrupt the country and get the GOP base all riled up about having to "pay dem taxes!"

    2 birds, 1 stone
  • bluelightnin90, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Keeping more money in citizens hands instead of the government is a very smart idea. The government is extremely inefficient when it comes to spending money, if not other things too. The reason being is that the government doesn't have to make money like the rest of us as well as private companies. They just know how to spend it, and they are really good at that.
    • litt8899, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Then the government needs better oversight by the people who elected it. The reason that the current government has gotten so bad is simply because it is human nature to grab as much power as possible and when you combine that with a public that cares less and less about their oversight responsibility and more and more about which color Escalade or Ipod they should get you start having problems with misuse and waste of public power and money. To think that giving all the money back to private individuals and companies, then relying on private industry and donation to take care of public responsibilities is a retarded idea to say the least, you think there are free loaders now that take advantage of the system wait until the road that goes down your dead end street needs repairing or the local school on the outskirts of a major city starts falling apart, how about the irrigation ditch that supplies your neighborhood with water is overrun with algae. Who is going to pay for all of that stuff to be fixed, a company in the city, the neighborhood, you? Some people might pay but there will be many others that will benefit from the repairs or improvements who never paid a dime, are they not free loading in the way you currently view poor people who drink beer instead of working 80 hour weeks do? (i'm speaking in general terms to the various posts on this page) How long will it be with a privately supported country that all the small towns dry up and wither away? Everybody will have to move to the cities because there won't be any money for the smaller areas to fix the basic problems of the citizenship, why should private industry care about 500 ppl in a small town in Illinoise when there are half a million potential customers just outside of Chicago, or a Million in Chicago. My point if it isn't obvious is when was the last time you gave 2 cents to something that didn't directly effect you?
  • steve_s, on 10/12/2007, -18/+6So while all the other countries in the world are moving forward, the gop plans to abolish many of the important taxes and move us back 20 years. Thank god the democrats control the senate these days. and even a lot of the republicans will think this stupid.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Important taxes? Are you serious?
    • grunion, on 10/12/2007, -5/+25Important taxes!?! Taxation is little more than the taking of property by use of the threat of bodily harm. If *I* were to do the same to your property, I'd rightfully be jailed, why should the government's same actions be considered 'important'?
    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Having a government that can function (within it's constitutional boundaries) requires at least some taxation. An income tax is a very inefficient way to collect money, as it requires thousands of dollars in paperwork, manpower, and computing power for each person's taxes to be collected. Corporate taxation doesn't work either because the end consumer just ends up paying the tax, however it's just hidden in the price of the goods. A flat-rate sales tax would be much more efficient.

      Fair Tax Anyone? HR 25, S 25.
    • Iktomi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Important taxes - now there's an oxymoron. Notic how the last part of that word - oxymoron - accurately describes people who think we need taxes. If the Federal government stuck to its constitutional responsibilities and stopped usurping states' rights then it wouldn't need income taxes. Before you enter a debate on taxation go read the constitution, the bill of rights, and a few civics text books (the kind written before the politcally correct 1980s) and come back with some knowledge.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Having a government that can function (within it's constitutional boundaries) requires at least some taxation."

      You're probably correct.

      Now, if I said "my plans require a certain amount of murder and theft", what would be your response? "OK, that's fine, but just try to keep it from getting out of hand", or "change your plans, then"?

      If "having a government that can function" requires some theft, then the only sane response is "don't have one, then!"
  • grunion, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This certainly isn't the first time this bill has been introduced, but this IS the first time it's gotten anywhere NEAR the current level of support. Maybe someone in DC looked away from their polling data and realized that there was a NYT bestselling book on the issue. It's nice that this session, Democratic Representatives are permitted to sign on to the plan too.

    As it's been stated, you can find more information on the plan, it's support, and how it is best for all socioeconomic classes at fairtax.org.
  • jwpowless, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3Privatizing everything? NASA? Local road commissions and state highway departments? All city public works departments? All public hospitals and universities?? Should we go ahead and completely privatize the armed services? What about your local police departments and fire halls? I'm sure your local security guards would do a much better job. Should they all be "for profit" enterprises?

    The first part, about abolishing the income tax, seems sexy enough to vote for, and
    they can have the "U.S." Postal Service, but it seems some entities are better off being owned by the public, and not the private (profit) sectors...

    This proposed amendment sounds about as neo-conservative as it gets. Yuck!
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9@jwpowless: Apparently, you don't know what a neoconservative is. You also have apparently not researched the relative merits of privatizing many of these things. It's about efficiency. The private sector operates far more efficiently than government; therefore, you could conceivably get better and more services such as these from private entities. Wouldn't that be better for everyone? Isn't that what you want?

      Why is it a "good" thing if government provides a certain service, yet it's a bad thing for a private company to provide the same service at a third of the cost?
    • trer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Exactly! Why do people think that privatizing everything will result in magical competition in which lower prices will prevail because all the corporations will play fair? PURE BS. The goal of ANY corporation is MONOPOLY because MONOPOLY = MAXIMIZING PROFIT. If you run everything, you WIN! And isn't the goal of capitalism to WIN? What's the ONLY thing that will keep monopolies (or oligopolies) from happening? GOVERNMENT.
    • lllUKDlll, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@trer - Government is a monopoly. Try to compete with a government "service" and you'll end up in jail.
    • patosan, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@trer "The goal of ANY corporation is MONOPOLY because MONOPOLY = MAXIMIZING PROFIT. If you run everything, you WIN! And isn't the goal of capitalism to WIN? What's the ONLY thing that will keep monopolies (or oligopolies) from happening? GOVERNMENT."

      You ask for protection from monopoly's from the largest monopoly of them all, the government.

      Corporations and their vices come and go, but the evils of government remain and multiply.

      Corporations come and go by the will of the free market. Where is government's direct and immediate accountability? The government does not evaporate if it does a poor as a company does. The government simply gets a different employee or two, but the system of corruption remains and even grows.

      I implore everyone to listen to "The Law" by Frederic Bastiat, for clear and concise thinking on the proper role of government.
      http://www.freeaudio.org/fbastiat/thelaw.html
    • bysin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@jwpowless

      NASA is a private company that is funded by the government.
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2trer: monopoly is a result of government. No such thing as a monopoly is even POSSIBLE under true capitalism. http://www.mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap10a.asp
    • qingshuo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0There are many natural or local monopolies which arise even in initially competitive markets, largely because economies of scale means that having only one provider leads to greatest productive efficiency. I'm only scratching the surface here, but perhaps you should consider opening up an intro-micro textbook..
    • Misesean, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2gingshuo: define "monopoly". If you take a very literal definition: "one seller", then of course "monopolies" arise all the time. But that's not a problem at all - when people say "monopolies are bad" they mean more than that: usually sellers that sell at some price premium due to being the only seller in the market, who can keep competitors out, etc., and /that/ is what cannot arise without coercive intervention (by government, usually; if anyone else tries the same thing it's called "organized crime")
  • Ark7, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Why is there an exclamation point by "GOP" in the title as though the author can't believe that Republicans would be trying to eliminate taxes? Where have you been since... well, forever?
  • uttles, on 10/12/2007, -3/+18Ron Paul is the man, and this is just the first step towards the Fair Tax. All you liberals can stop your crying about "tax breaks for the rich" because the Fair Tax aims to PUT AN END to that. You see, wealthy people shelter their money, so they end up paying far less in taxes than they are "supposed" to because of our convoluted, crooked income tax system. If you create federal sales tax, then EVERYONE pays taxes, and the people who SPEND the most money pay the most in taxes. Pretty simple, eh? So if your family has a ton of acres of land sitting around that you just borrow against to avoid income tax, well guess what? Now you're gonna be paying taxes any time you buy something.

    The removal of income tax and the creation of the Fair Tax will make America what it was supposed to have been: land of the free, where everyone has the same opportunity to succeed. You see, the way we have it now, you can't progress from middle class to upper class, because every step you take forward means the government steals more and more of your money through income taxes. If you want to save your money to put your kids through college, make an investment, whatever, you can only save what you've earned MINUS what the government stole from your paycheck. The way to get wealthy is through education and investment, right? The system in place today serves only to HOLD YOU BACK.
  • Regens, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Any of you geniuses want to tell me how our federal government is gonna pay its annual multi-trillion dollar budget if we abolish our largest source of federal revenue?

    Yes, our taxes may pay for a war you don't agree with, but don't forget it also pays for student loans,the giant ballooning cost of entitlement programs like medicare and social security which are quickly dominating th budget, regular defense, pays our legislators, law enforcement, border control, funds for research, our space program, funds for healthcare, tax breaks, and pretty much everything else under the sun. If you think these programs suck too, well tell me how we're gonna make it better by cutting their funds.

    As much as you may hate taxes and the government and want to keep that money for yourself, don't forget there's a society of a few hundred million people that government serves and protects and is always trying to increase the quality of life for. As much as you hate the iraq war, thats just a piece of the government's budget and abolishing taxes might not only stop the iraq war(which btw will have massive consequences in the future if we just pull out abruptly), but also stop and completely shortchange the funding for like everything else government does.

    So unless you have another plan thats logical and sensible that'll replace that lost source of revenue, I wouldn't be too enthusiastic about a bill that completely eliminates income taxes. Nothing wrong with being idealistic. Idealism just has to meet the real world.

    Also don't forget that it ain't that bad when places like Sweden tax their citizens about 70% of their income. But they also take care of them from the cradle to the grave.
    • JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5Fairtax dude...

      http://www.fairtax.org
    • mshade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2regens,

      The point of this bill (at least in part) is to force many of those programs into non-existence, private hands, or to the states -- which is why I've been a fan of Ron Paul and the abolition of the income tax since I began reading the theories on it.

      Cutting off the funding isn't an oversight, I assure you.
  • u2wedge, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4buried for illiterate title.
  • moracity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Man, you people need to pay attention. Abolishing income tax has been championed by the the GOP for years. My representaive, John Linder - GA has been pushing FairTax for 20 years. Unfortunately, with a Democrat-controlled Congress, we can kiss any chance of this happening. It has really been gaining some traction over the past few years. See FairTax.org for more info. With the Dems pushing entitlements, all that traction will be lost. The GOP really needs to finally put FairTax at the top of its platform and get with the program. All you libertartians out there need to stop wasting time with the big L and starting taking over the GOP.
  • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8 At the risk of being killed here, I used to listen to and watch Rush Limbough. My girlfriend at the time even bought me his books. As I've grown up I can see through his tripe better now, but he did(maybe does? haven't followed him in ages) make a few valid points. One of them is no nation has ever taxed itself into prosperity.

    Few remember but there was a time when government was charged with a very few, well defined roles, and as such worked fairly effeciently. The larger the government, the more it cost to opperate, the more taxes needed to be collected, the more revenue they had the more they need pilot projects to justify the increase in taxes, the more support those pilot projects needed, the larger government become. Repeat as needed.

    Are you going to let you neighbour starve? Ofcourse not, when government stops taking out money and spending it on things they feel are needed(bigger government, wars, business welfare, forign aid, etc) the more of our money we have and can spend it on things that are important to us(immediate community, schools, social needs, etc).
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The irony here is that over the past 6 years, the Bush Administration and Congress have pushed to cut taxes, so they are reducing how much money they take from the American people (positive, yes?) but they spent WAY more money on your list of BAD things : bigger government, wars, business welfare, forign aid, etc.

      Instead, they cut all of what you say is important : immediate community, schools, social needs, etc.
  • terranaut, on 10/12/2007, -6/+2Having not RTFA, I assume that this is like akin to the Libertarians "Fair Tax" proposals, where a person is not taxed on their incoming, but their outgoings.

    However, I see a ploy by the Republicans, propose a popular change in taxation, and tack an extremely unpopular bill onto the last page.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The Democrats do that just as often as the Republicans. Why do you make it sound as if that is a purely Republican ploy?
  • Pottersquash, on 10/12/2007, -10/+2Don't be dumb, its a bad idea, they know its a bad idea, abolishing the Income Tax is just something people say because no one goes "No I like being taxed" but its a bad idea and will never ever ever happen.
  • nickcald, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4Am I upset that my money is spent on housing subsidies, farming subsidies, construction subsidies, rail subsidies, the war on drugs, the war on terror, or a thousand other things. Yes. I'll never see any of that money again. But so what, taxes aren't meant for my personal enjoyment. Tax money isn't a la carte. You don't personally get to choose how its spent, otherwise I'd put it all in interstate highway improvements and cash subsidies JUST FOR ME. We ultimately choose how taxes are spent by voting. And if it's spent on something that doesn't help you directly or at all, then realize it was spent on helping someone else and move on. (One man's trash is another man's treasure as they say). If you are upset that your money was wasted on a war, drugs or terrorism, too bad. Next time vote the other way and try to get a few people to agree with you.
  • cecirdr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5At a fundamental level, I utterly agree. But now that we're in the quagmire of such national debt and running a deficit, how in the world can we get out of it without taxes? I support reducing the size of government and military spending so we can whittle down our debt. I could see that after a generation or so we could move back to a no income tax situation. But until then, taxes seem like the only way to repair our financial boondoggles.

    If you pay people a living wage (each state and even locality is different), and unburden them with taxes, there's no excuse to not succeed in this world. Everyone working would be able to pay their way and they would be a drain on no one. But in today's globalized economy, business claims they'd have to move overseas if we pay a living wage. We're subsidizing ultra low wages with all of our tax and spend "rescue" programs. How do we get off of this hamster wheel when we're held hostage by threats from business to go to China, Brazil, or India?

    All of these measures to subsidize, keep the minimum wage low etc appear to me to be artificial ways to make inflation appear to be lower than it really is. When the buffering capacity for the charade is finally breeched, inflation will skyrocket. The sad thing is, (IMO) inflation is predominantly caused by the wealthy who never seem to have enough. If you suggest they tie the salary of the upper execs to the lowest paid employee, they blanch. They appear think that the only measure of success is to increase their wealth The argue that if more salary is offered to the lowest paid workers then they *have* to raise the cost of products, rent etc. WTF?? No they don't. If they do, they have a poor business model and their profit margins are already too low. At that point they need to question whether they grew the company too fast or whether the natural life span of the company and the product they're offering is near it's limit and it's time to move on to another business and let the old one die. Companies who are scrounging profits from their rank and file workers by not paying a living wage and who rely on subsidies from federal programs to compensate for low wages are ultimately just postponing the inevitable.

    So...until the issues of paying a living wage, paying off the national debt, and how to handle the impending inflation boom that'll be experienced if we move to a true market economy, is addressed, we're likely to have to keep paying taxes.
    • Waiting2awake, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3If the corperations left(They wouldn't, it is a ruse, but just to be safe) mom and pop shops would once again fill the viod. The free market wasn't invented by the corperations it ws hijacked by them. Call their bluff and if they stay you own them(in a manner of speaking) and if they leave you get your life, community and country back.

      Tell me again where the problem is?

    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5We've already solved the living wage problem. It's called getting a better job. If you can't live on what you make, then you change your situation. If the only jobs you qualify for are minimum wage jobs then you need to educate yourself and become someone who employers what to hire into better paying positions.

      That's what most people would do, anyway.
    • LaughingMan11, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2" If the only jobs you qualify for are minimum wage jobs then you need to educate yourself and become someone who employers what to hire into better paying positions."

      That makes sense to me, but why then is the cost of a decent education going up, but the help from government grants going down?

      We're becoming a high tech economy where decent jobs nowadays almost require a college education... yet the trend has been less and less help from government grants, and more emphasis on loans.

      I myself came from a lower-middle class background, my parents could NOT pay for my education in full, the government gave me little, so i have several 10s of thousands of debt...

      It's preposterous to say that the living wage issue is fixed, and then to claim that the solution is education if our education system is becoming more like you have to be rich to go to college.
    • syndey1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Neiby,

      Education is now a money extraction scheme. There are tons of smart people out there who could move to a new line of work as an apprentice (but once again, an apprenticeship should pay a living wage if even just barely), but instead they have to go back to college and not only try to subsist for years on a sub-living wage, they also likely go into debt. If someone already has a college degree, particularly in a difficult subject, then to require another piece of parchment is bogus.

      I also have to say that morally it's repugnant to pay someone less than the local cost of living. If someone gives you a solid days work (even if it is just cleaning toilets) and people think it's ok to pay them less than it costs to be able to buy food, shelter, and clothing, then something is wrong with this world. There is no justification for paying anyone who works less than it costs to survive and then tell them to go into debt for an "education". Not everyone is college material and society *needs* a certain amount of "unskilled" labor, yet we persist in telling these people to waste their time groveling at a federal teat and/or go get a college degree.

      Wouldn't it be nice to live in a world where fast food restaurants were cleaner and friendlier, gas station bathrooms were clean, trash, gum and dog poop was cleaned up off the sidewalks? What's wrong with paying people a living wage to do jobs like that? We'd all benefit. Those who don't want to get into a competitive rat race because they're satisfied with a minimal lifestyle, could actually hold their heads up that they're providing a service to society. They wouldn't be seen as leeches or losers.
    • gotamd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sydney1, I somewhat agree with what you're saying, but probably not with the way in which you would implement it. The problem is that the idea of a "living wage" is constantly in flux. People have different priorities about how they spend their money. There are also people who work in low paying jobs who already have money, but just want a little extra. For example, there are a lot of teenagers who live with their parents and don't have to pay many of their living expenses. There should be nothing saying that they can't choose to work for $4/hour (many already do...illegally). There are also senior citizens who choose to work in order to stay active and/or to supplement their retirement income. They don't need to be paid enough money to live on (as if they had no other income or wealth). It really isn't in a company's interest to pay its workers so little that they'll die off. They won't have anyone left to hire. People will also refuse to work for less than they think they're worth. Imposing a minimum wage screws with this system and puts people who at the very bottom of the income brackets out of work.
    • syndey1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1gotamd, I see your point when you say

      "People have different priorities about how they spend their money. There are also people who work in low paying jobs who already have money, but just want a little extra. For example, there are a lot of teenagers who live with their parents and don't have to pay many of their living expenses."

      But........
      We've created an underbelly of the job market that seems to assume that no one working in unskilled labor *needs* the money, they just want some spare change. But that's just not the truth. There are tons of people trying to find a way to survive on these jobs. The salaries we're paying just aren't cutting it so we're subsidizing these people with federal programs and belittling them to boot. In my mind, so what if a college kid or grandma ends up making $8.00 per hour because that's what their locality deems in a living wage in their area? If grandma is going to lose retirement or social security because the wage will be too high, then she might consider not taking the job and it'll be left for someone who needs the money to survive. If grandma *needs* the money to live then we should consider whether our social security maximum income requirements are also artificially creating an impoverished elderly class by denying them a living wage. Many elderly paid into social security at a low level because they had poor wages during their working lives. They simply *have* to supplement their checks with part-time jobs. Denying them a decent salary because the government caps the wages they can earn before they're denied social security is essentially the same thing as paying a minimum wage below a survivable level.

      If a locality determines a minimum wage for their area that allows people to buy food, shelter and clothing that should be the minimum standard for poverty. I refuse to accept that poverty has to be wondering if you can eat today, not having heat, or being homeless (yup...many homeless are actually working minimum wage, service sector, part-time jobs). We've defined poverty at too low a standard. Now, if people are paid a wage sufficient to survive and they squander it buying trinkets or drugs....too bad. But if a person does an honest days work and is responsible, I think it's morally unjust to kick them in the teeth by telling them that they mean so little that we don't care if they can eat today.
    • beotch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@gotmad Read "The Jungle" by Lewis Sinclair, and that is your minimum-wage free society. It outlines the meatpacking industry in America in the early 1900s.
  • clubmasta2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7It's not like it matters, most millionaries find ways to not pay taxes regardless. I'm simply fed up though, after seeing that daily show where the government litterally lost 8.8 billion dollars in cash I don't feel like I should have to pay for this kind of *****. This would take all the money away from the war and make me feel great about buying stuff from inside my own state. The federal government doesn't need my money for the national debt and the war, my local state needs the money for the roads and state run programs. I'm sick of the federal government not being help liable for what they do. I gave then ***** $2,000 dollars last year and you know what they ***** did with it? Flew it to iraq and lost it.
    • strohsm, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1its a sad situation when people get their "news" from the daily show....
  • FAT_PIGGY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Income Tax just pays off government debt to the federal reserve private bank.
  • xasx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Who is going to pay for Bush's great expeditions if we don't have taxes??
    • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2He doesn't care. He'll be out of office when the bill comes due.
  • jwpowless, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3If every government body is privatized, then nobody has to listen to you when they screw up. And, private companies don't have any obligation to serve, yes serve, areas that are not profitable. Think fire protection, think police service, think road service, and any other area of infrastructure where it is a huge benefit to have government on YOUR side.
    I'll admit, it has become pretty hard to hold national government leaders responsible, but at least where I live, local politicians and government agencies are highly available and interested in doing good in the communities they represent. To see this system abolished for a system where companies only respond to a profit motive is frightening! Why does radical privatization have to be tied to fair tax reform?
    • lllUKDlll, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why do you think things like a fire service, security protection, and roads wouldn't be profitable?

      I think people want these services, and would be willing to pay for them. Why wouldn't a private company provide them?
  • NinjaYaddaYadda, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2Idiotic and irresponsible.

    Income taxes make up the majority of our tax revenue. Where total tax revenue is around 18% of GDP, Income taxes account for 8% of GDP - in other words around 44% of total tax revenue. Estate and gift taxes make up around .2% of GDP, or 1% of total tax revenue, so I guess it's not that big a deal. (These figures change yearly but the proportions do not change much. Review the link below.)

    Congressional Budget Office: http://cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf


    So what does this bill do? Well it takes away our (potentially) fairest, most flexible and most progressive tax system. AND they're trying to take away a huge chunk of tax revenue. What this will do is tack on ONE TRILLION dollars onto the deficit, and that means an extra ONE TRILLION dollars per year onto the national debt.

    Spending ain't gonna do anything but increase. The most we can hope for is that is will grow at a slower rate. Falling into a greater deficit will only make things much much worse.

    Why are our politicians such idiots?
  • diggsIt, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5Whenever I hear a term such as, 'Fair Tax'. I know it isn't. The people who craft these carefully coined phrases are evil.
    • Neiby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8In this case, you're wrong. The Fair Tax is the fairest thing out there. This isn't a marketing phrase like "Patriot Act".
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 The only thing that I disagree with about FairTax. What would stop governent from rising the taxation rate?
    • Sevensins, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@brokekneck

      what stops them now?

      The FairTax is not presented to fix the problems of the corrupt government and its poor financial decisions, but to replace how they get the taxes in order to allow the people more control over their *own* money. It is just a replacement of the current system, but with key features. By your statement, I assume you have read up on the FairTax (and read the book) so I am not going into detail.
  • MrLint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"prohibiting the United States Government from engaging in business in competition with its citizens"

    Hey guys, you realize this would make socialized medicine illegal, and possibly NASA and anything else that anyone decides to be in business that the govt funds?
    • rabidgoldfish, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3Is that a bad thing?, the socialized medicine thing, not the NASA thing.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4 Ok, who really compete's with NASA again? And social meds is a bad idea and wouldn't work. Want cheaper meds? Force the FDA to allow med importation.
    • Fritzed, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"And social meds is a bad idea and wouldn't work. Want cheaper meds? Force the FDA to allow med importation."

      HA! You do realize that the reason that drugs are cheaper if you import them is because you are importing from countries with socialized medicine, don't you?
  • XTCinOvaltine, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2This bill will notpass. First it abolishes the 16th amendment, something incredibly hard to do. Secondly, income tax, as well as other taxes, are there to help the government pay for things like roads and medical stuff. I loathe the Bush administration and its unjust war, but I still have to support income tax. This bill changes way too much of our economic structure.
    • somewhatchewy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6When it comes to this, change is good.
    • Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Having the power to tax and exercising it are not the same. Remember, the 18th Amendment (prohibition) took a law (the Volstead Act) to bring it into effect.

      Anyways, libertarians suck at economics, they tend to believe in naive things like the gold standard. Their proposals, when thought through, usually end up burdening the working class even worse than today, and would result in the kind of delightful late 19th century economy from whence sprang Communism, et al.
  • bmatherlyjr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1If Mr. Paul wants to accomplish something realistic perhaps instead of trying to defeat a system that will never go away since too many corrupted public officials benefit from his best course of action would to introduce laws that will actually benefit everyone. Let's start making teens file taxes; if they are old enough to be employed in the United States they are certainly old enough to file a 1040 form with the IRS. Not taxing the teenagers who make up a good population of the nation's work force is a lot like prohibiting 18 - 20 year old soldiers from consuming alcohol at civilian drinking establishments. Hello, old enough to die for your country but not old enough to drink? Same principle here. If your old enough to hold a job, you are old enough to start paying taxes.
  • XTCinOvaltine, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@bmatherlyjr
    I DO pay taxes. Right under my social security reduction on my paycheck is tax taken away. Legal wise, I am a dependent of my parents though, as they pay for my shelter and food and such, so they also pay taxes and get reductions for me. And would you want a bunch of drunk soldiers getting killed because they cant' fire weaponry correctly, or at least keep them sober enough to stay alive.
  • dashiel, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1never going to happen. why? because "lowering taxes" are such a big political win. nothing takes an election like "i'm going to lower taxes, (implied the hell with the long term ramifications).

    it also puts out of business a gigantic bueracratic entity that employees thousands of people, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of CPAs, the makers of software like turbo tax, etc...

    i'm all for a flat rate sales tax, as flawed as they are, they're a damn site better than what we have now. it's just never going to happen.
  • jake13jake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I really am not one for property tax. If property tax were correlated with income, however, I wouldn't so much mind that. That would mean that the wealthier people who are able to pay income tax on large amounts of land still would, and the people who have homes that have been passed down for generations that are on a waterfront but don't have enough money to pay that tax could be more able to pay it.

    Income tax, however, I believe is a better tax than anything else that they could tax. Many economists think it would be better if welfare was paid as a negative income tax (for accounting purposes maybe?).

    For one, the state of New Hampshire would never ratify this because we don't have a sales tax, and that would be the only way my state could collect taxes if this went through. Also, sales tax affects GDP more than an income tax.

    This isn't going to get passed.
  • xfTwitch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3nice arguments here... too bad this will probably go nowhere.

    99+% of all bills that get introduced get shelved either before they reach committee or in committee. This will most likely be one of them.

    You can call all the folks you want. Noting will happen from this unless multiple high profile reps get behind it. WAY behind it.
  • IGotApluscom, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I as a Quebecker from Canada. I completly support the Texas this is the smartest move ever why should the goverment take money from the state or province. There just there to make sure that everything goes well. Not to take our money ! Let it be a mini Europe.
    • WaterlooWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3funny that you say that... considering that huge amount of taxes from Ontario and Alberta go through the federal government and are transferred to Quebec to pay for all your provincial government's programs.
    • brokekneck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 And basicly he is saying he disagrea's with that.
    • archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"funny that you say that... considering that huge amount of taxes from Ontario and Alberta go through the federal government and are transferred to Quebec to pay for all your provincial government's programs."

      That would be something...if it was true. But it ain't.

      Next time, try to learn about the provincial taxation rates, and you'll notice that Quebeckers pay a *lot* more provincial taxes than federal ones. The bulk of provincial services are paid for by provincial taxes. Equalization payments, when adjusted with what Quebeckers pay to the federal govt., pretty much evens out.

      But don't let facts get in the way of your Quebec-bashing...
    • WaterlooWarrior, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sorry, I didn't mean it paid for all the programs (literally). just that Quebec is a net receiver of equalization ($725 per capita).. they have extra social programs but still ask for more equalization funds, while we in Ontario get less than our fair share of transfers from the federal government while having lots of our existing social program funding problems.

      http://www.strongontario.ca/english/default.asp
  • humanseemer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8100% of income tax goes to paying interest on loans made by the "Federal" Reserve to the US government. These bills come along every so often. It's not a liberal or conservative issue at all. Income tax is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated against the citizens of the US, rich or poor, democrat or republican. It's unconstitutional and illegal and people need to learn to stand up to the mafia known as the IRS.

    I fear that once again this is too little, too late. The bankers hold all the power now. This bill won't get passed after the lobbyists start writing checks.
  • michaelb1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I'm all for no taxes....until I want to drive on a highway.

    Find me a source of money to pay for all the services I am used to as an American and i will get behind the no tax thing.
    • scottytoodope, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6this doesn't repeal the excise taxes on gasoline, tolls you pay while driving, nor the revenue generated from the registration of your vehicle, or the licensing of yourself. Thats what goes to fixing the roads.

      simply means that the system will move towards involuntary (avoidable) taxes

      just sayin
    • humanseemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4It's funny how you didn't read my post right above yours. If my income tax was going towards the civil services that my country provides, I would be all for it. Roads? Paid for by gasoline tax. Schools? Paid for by property tax.

      These are apportioned taxes and the money goes right back to helping the citizens. Income tax goes directly into the pockets of rich bankers, it has been since 1913. People just don't seem to get that the government doesn't ever even see a dime of the income tax that we pay.
  • maccampbells, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I haven't seen it posted here specifically. The idea with the "fair tax" is to abolish income taxes, etc. and replace with approximately 26% flat sales tax. About 35% of my gross pay goes to taxes. I would get most of that back. Some goes into retirement funding. In the same time period, I have spent none on what would be a taxable item.

    Replace with approximately 26% sales tax.
  • olik, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Get real, its a political gesture. Besides, to prohibit the reinstitution of the income tax you need a constitutional amendment. Good luck with that you lunatic libertarians.

    Repeat after me: "Death and Taxes"
  • reed311, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Guys, he only did this for the publicity. He knows full well this will never pass and if it did it would absolutely cripple our economy unless some other method of generating an equal amount of revenue was put into place; which, essentially, would be in the form of a tax. The Republicans had 12 years to put this into place and never did. It is also the same reason why they never just ban abortion or ban gay marriage, because they always need something to rally around.
  • olenick, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No taxes? Who's gonna' support Halliburton?
  • galore, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0oops. two months too late :)
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.