Rand Paul - Don't Raise Taxes, Cut Spending

The notion we should balance the budget without raising taxes was tested on election day. You lost.

 

It's a free country so you can call yourself a Libertarian if you want to but no Libertarian that I have ever met loves big government and the welfare state as much as you do.

Cutting government spending is a bad idea but raising taxes is not?

That's Obama-ism.

 

Rand Paul is absolutely right. He should be our next president, in a sane world.

You literally couldn't raise enough taxes to make a bit of difference in the absurdly huge deficit that Obama has built up without bankrupting the nation. If you think the election changes that reality you are more of a fool than I thought.

 

I would agree with this as well. There are to many people who simply don't pay taxes or actually get more money then they pay in. That needs to stop immediatly. Perhaps, if everyone paid into the system, we would not have to raise taxes at all.

 

1948 11.6
1949 14.3
1950 15.6
1951 14.2
1952 19.4
1953 20.4
1954 18.8
1955 17.3
1956 16.5
1957 17.0
1958 17.9
1959 18.8
1960 17.8
1961 18.4
1962 18.8
1963 18.6
1964 18.5
1965 17.2
1966 17.8
1967 19.4
1968 20.5
1969 19.4
1970 19.3
1971 19.5
1972 19.6
1973 18.7
1974 18.7
1975 21.3
1976 21.4
TQ 20.9
1977 20.7
1978 20.7
1979 20.1
1980 21.7
1981 22.2
1982 23.1
1983 23.5
1984 22.2
1985 22.8
1986 22.5
1987 21.6
1988 21.3
1989 21.2
1990 21.9
1991 22.3
1992 22.1
1993 21.4
1994 21.0
1995 20.6
1996 20.2
1997 19.5
1998 19.1
1999 18.5
2000 18.2
2001 18.2
2002 19.1
2003 19.7
2004 19.6
2005 19.9
2006 20.1
2007 19.7
2008 20.8
2009 25.2
2010 24.1
2011 24.1

Highest since WWII. Just like I said. Try again.

 

Obama is the welfare president.

Of course no lib who posts here admits to being one of the needy Obama zombies following him around for a government handout.

I guess you are all the exceptions to the rule or something.

 

Ironically we'll have all that and more when the bills from Obama's record borrowing and spending binge come due.

You absolutely define someone living in a fool's pardise.

 

Sure there are a plethora of other metrics and indicators, but none deal with the overall picture that GDP does. You really cannot look at the stock market since it is primarily based on institutional investing with complex financial formulas to maximize shareholder wealth. you could look at leading indicators, but they are time specific and only give an educated guess on whats on the horizon. You could look at industry specific indicators, but they deal with a specific industry.

 

Would it be Ironic to say that Rand Paul,My senator in kentucky made perfect sense.
because making perfect sense is exactly what Dimocrats and Obama loathe.
Rand Paul,NOT Once did what every stinkin' Dimocrat Senator does Ad nauseaum.
That being to use code words like " Obstructionist " and " Hostage " and spend the majority
of their time demonizing their opposition.
Paul like many Republicans is focused on solutions not demonization.
It Takes NO smarts or brilliance to bully and demonize one's foe.
That is the Obama demogogue way.

 

We had no competition on the global stage in the 50's and 60's.

He also eliminated the luxury tax and cut the capital gains tax by 28%.

 

No, my problem is that BOTH Democrats and Republicans refuse to address the most unfair tax loophole in our income tax system which is the Capital Gains tax. A person earning minimum wage (under our normal tax laws) contributes 15.3% of every dollar they earn to the federal government in FICA/Payroll taxes. The wealthy investors contribute a maximum of 15% of their net investment income in Capital Gains taxes to the federal government. Ironically the only two programs that have never created a dime of deficits or debt are Social Security and Medicare that are funded by low and middle income level Americans with their FICA/Payroll taxes and those programs not supported by the most wealthy Americans that don't pay any FICA/Payroll taxes because their income is from investments.

Low and middle income individuals contribute 38% of all federal revenues but the very top 1% of income earners that own the majority of wealth in America only contribute 18% of all federal revenues. Yes, the wealthy contribute more in personal income taxes but that is less than 1/2 of all federal revenues and they pay a lower rate on their personal income than the rest of the people pay in FICA/Payroll taxes alone. A small business owner (in creating 70%-80% of all jobs in American) with a one million dollar net income pays almost 50% in taxes based upon earned income and FICA/Payroll taxes they pay but an investor with a one million dollar investment income, that creates no jobs at all, only pays a maximum of 15% in taxes.

I presented this fact on a libertarian forum where we all hate over-taxation and even they had to agree that the Capital Gains tax was an unfair tax and that all income, regardless of source, should be treated identically as income to eliminate the unfair tax treatment of working Americans and business owners in America. There should be no special tax categories for the wealthy to evade paying their fair share in taxes and the Capital Gains tax loophole is exactly that.

 

But that would mean higher tax rates.

 

Yeah, we kicked ass. Even with a 91% top marginal tax rate.

Both were mostly gimmicks in the big picture of tax revenues.

 

That's not the most unfair tax provision since the money the rich do not have to turn over to the government is at least their money.

The unEarned Income Tax Credit gives low income voters more money back than they paid in.

That's a real ripoff of other hardworking taxpayers who have their income redistributed to total strangers.

 

No it wouldn't. I was referring only to spending.

 

If you were old enough then, you would have been saying it.

Selective amnesia?

The spending had nothing to do with the "surplus", aye. Typical.

The basis is that the dollar was stronger under Clinton.

So, you are for returning to the higher taxes, but not the lower spending. I already knew this, but thanks for the confirmation.

This statement shows that you probably shouldn't be taken seriously in any tax/spending discussion.

 

What a shock, Iriemon missed the point. Let me spell it out for you — people weren't able to leave and set up shop elsewhere back then. As the rest of the world caught up to us our tax rates came down in order to stay competitive.

Feel free to elaborate.

 

...when virtually every expendature qualified as a tax deduction and no one actually paid the high tax rates. Buy a car.. or make a purchase as Sears with a Sears Card... and the interest the purchase was deductable. Want to open a dental office? Lease all of the equipment for five years, write off 100% of the payments, and then purchase the equipment for 10% of cost. Nice deductions.

The only person I'm aware of that paid the very high tax rates was Joe Lewis that the IRS drove into poverty so he had to virtually beg for a living in his old age.

 

They were not real Libertarians or else they would have voted to lower the taxes of everyone rather than raise taxes of the most productive members of society.

Besides, you don't want every taxpayer to pay the same tax rate.

You want the rich to pay more.

 

My point was that receipts as a percentage of GDP would go up while deficits decreased.

If the economy grows, while the government spends the same, deficits will decrease as well. A simple rate increase will unlikely result in deficit reduction without growth.

 

Just like you're on the same plane as every other Democrat. Every thing is about making the Government richer and helping it spend more. Because more is never enough.

 

What were the average rates actually paid during those times? Were there any other variables affecting the economy? Was the economy doing well because of the taxes, in spite of the taxes, or did they not have any affect at all?

 

Galveston, Matagorda, Brazoria, Chile, etc.....

 

Military spending went down drastically because of the peace dividend. The rest of the government spending had limited increases with higher tax rates to help with the budget balancing with the economy certainly helping.

 

Let's end the War on Poverty after 40 years of failure and collect the peace dividend on that also.

We can start by downsizing the civilian force in Washington the way we did the military under that old draft dodger.