Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [RonPaulforPresident] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul --- FairTax

Expand Messages
  • steven s.
    no question that FairTax calls for a VISIBLE direct tax of 23% [inclusive] i.e. 30% [exclusive], BUT: 1. There is a hidden tax in everything that you
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 9, 2007
      no question that FairTax calls for a VISIBLE direct tax of  23% [inclusive]  i.e. 30%  [exclusive],  BUT:
      1. There is a hidden tax in everything that you purchase of  over 20%  [think of the employer's  portion of FICA,  the cost of  tax departments in corporations etc.] -- AND THESE GO AWAY
      2. Individual deductions for FICA  are ended -- this is  better than 7 % of gross pay
      3. The income tax itself goes away,  meaning not only the payment  but also the time and effort everyone puts into it
      4. A Prebate of several thousand dollars is paid to all LEGAL residents who  report,  vs IRS rules that can toss you in jail if you do NOT report!

      NOW -- YOU  tell me which is better!    I will be happy to set my envelop up if you do the same  relative to  the current system

      MOST important is that FairTax  is a tax on what you CONSUME or take out of the economy,  whereas the Income Tax is a tax on what you PRODUCE!  This is not only an economic abomination,  it  gives you NO control.   Under FairTax,  I pay a higher tax if I purchase a new Corvette vs a new  Chevy.  If  I purchase a USED car,  I pay NO tax!  Meanwhile if I am a worker producing the cars  or a salesman selling the cars  or a mechanic fixing the cars,  the INCOME TAX  and Social Security tax take about 30% of every dollar I earn!  Is that consistent with freedom?

      About 2 years ago, I had a personal meeting with Ron  for over an hour on the subject of FairTax.  He agreed it was better than what we have now,  and said he would vote for it if it came to a floor vote,  BUT  he preferred cutting federal spending and abolishing the Income tax.   By response was I agree those are BETTER,  but it is NOT an either or case,  and I urged him to join the list of 60 Co-sponsors.   I believe he has NOT signed on as a co-sponsor because principle is more important to him than practical politics.  That is another failing, in my opinion,  given the way the world is today


      Howard LWilson wrote:
      <<Every "Fair Tax " proposal I have come across, inflicts a 20-30+ % per dollar Sales tax on new goods. If such increase in your grocery bill is acceptable, next time you shop, add 30 % to the total, then put that money in an envelope, and take you groceries home, with you, and file the envelope, in a safe location ( away from children & wife), and start watching your net, go down.  
      If your wife does the shopping, grab the receipts, and add to the total, the same 30%, and treat as above.
      In addition, for all other new purchased items, set aside 30%, from each, hide the amount, the count the total at the end of the year. Compare this total, with the loss of funds, from your possible spending funds balance, for comparative purpose.
      Did I pay a 30 % "fair tax", I would need to hold 2-3 forms of employment, rather than the one I have at present ( and note, that I am in arrears to the Town  of Andover, NH  for $1200 in property tax, so far[ 2007 billing]. In addition the IRS is dunning me for $15,000, in due and unpaid from 1984-2007 {so far}).  And you and I must do all our earning & spending with a dollar that has a value of approx. 4.5 cents. In addition, do a cost/price comparison, for a fine Man's suit, for 1875-1925-2005, using value of gold vs dollar cost. For all 3 selected years, such suit cost one ounce of gold, even though dollar cost jumps all over creation, between 1875 & 2005. See Aaron Russo's film, for partial expose' of reasoning. I will file your emails, and send you a 2 part web films, for viewing.
      Also make toll free phone call, to:  866-377-8208  This is a survey, commissioned by IRS, to track problems, and provide input for a friendlier IRS !?! I sent my reply, Saturday.>>
      -----Original Message-----
      From: RonPaulforPresident@yahoogroups.com [mailto:RonPaulforPresident@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Joe Liberty
      Sent: Sunday, April 08, 2007 11:24 AM
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogroups.com
      Cc: RonPaul2008@yahoogroups.com; Ron Paul for President
      Subject: [RonPaulforPresident] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

      I think that President Paul would make a better America than we are now.  He has a pro- free-trade rating from CATO so certainly there is no reason for RLC not to endorse him on that issue.

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: steven s. <crestln@erols. com>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2007 9:32:01 PM
      Subject: Re: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

      It is my opinion that Ron takes the typical IMPRACTICAL  and libertarian philosophical position here,  just as he does in 'HESITATING'  to support FairTax [H.B.25] as a replacement for the income tax.   Certainly it is desirable to  end all restrictions on trade and subsidies for trade, as it is to just end the income tax -- BUT NEITHER is going to happen from our current starting point.  Unions and environmentalist get their stooges in congress to tie down trade agreements until  foreign pay and environmental standards meet U.S. criteria -- meaning of course that unions maintain their stranglehold and the environment is 'protected'  by having less production/consumpt ion. 
      Ron's position on trade and tax reform, coupled with the real world  do NOT make the world better,  but play into the hands of the Neanderthals and even the islamics.

      John Mitchel, LtCol, USAF (Ret wrote:

      I have to agree with Ron Paul on his opposition to managed trade.  First,  Congress abdicated their responsibility to implement trade treaties by handing over to the executive branch Fast Track Trade Negotiation authority, hence the unconstitutional aspect Mr. Paul alludes to.  Second, a true free trader opposes both barriers to trade and also subsidies, and considering most of Congress never met a subsidy they didn't like, they really can't be considered "Free Traders" in the first place.
      reformcongress. com

      Joe Liberty <joe_liberty@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      I am glad that you are supporting Ron Paul, but I do not see how that is "risky" considering that RLC previously elected him chairman and endorsed his congressional campaigns.  Do you view those as having been risky decisions as well?  If so, what was the downside?  If RLC were going to be tagged as pro-life, protectionist, and/or conspiracy theorists, wouldn't they already have been so given the long association between Ron Paul and RLC?
      From where I sit it seems to me that the risky decision would be not to endorse Ron Paul. 

      ----- Original Message ----
      From: "westmiller@ aol.com" <westmiller@aol. com>
      To: RLC-Action@yahoogro ups.com
      Sent: Friday, April 6, 2007 5:49:19 PM
      Subject: [RLC-Action] Re: Candidate Fact Sheet - Ron Paul

      Posted by: "Joe Liberty" joe_liberty@ yahoo.com
      > Can you explain in more detail what you mean ...
          Thomas Sewell (National RLC Secretary and Board
      Member) gave a comprehensive response, with which
      I agree. However, let m! e be more specific on issues:

          1. Ron is adamantly "pro-life". Nothing wrong with that,
      but the RLC is neutral on that issue (see our Statement).
      Since it may be a major plank in his campaign, granting
      him an endorsement might imply that we also endorsed
      his position. We don't (and Ron regularly mentions that
      many libertarians disagree with his stand).

          2. Ron has opposed every "Free Trade Agreement"
      on the grounds that they are unconstitutional, actually
      impose "managed trade", and are a threat to sovereignty.
      The RLC respectfully disagrees and has official taken
      a position in favor of them:
      http://www.republic anliberty. org/news/ release/rlc- cafta.doc
          This is one of the issues where our "Liberty Index"
      faults Ron, even though he still ranks at the top because
      of the other 38 votes considered:
      http://www.republic anliberty. org/libdex/ li2005_over. htm

          3. Ron has associated himself with many groups that
      promote conspiracy theories or false anti-tax gimmicks.
      While he may not endorse those ideas (he has told me
      that a lot of them are "silly"), a large portion of those
      who support him believe that he agrees with their view.
      Although "guilt by association" is wrong, we have to
      recognize that we will be "tagged" as another element
      of that group, which we are not.

          Having said all that, and recognizing the risks, I'm
      supporting Ron and hope that the RLC Boards agree
      to make an endorsement. As my initial post indicated,
      each Director will make their own decision (or none),
      based on the issues, viability, and credibility.

      Bill Westmiller
      RLC National Chairman
      ============ ========= ========= ========
       Re: Candidate Fact Sheet
          Posted by: "Thomas Sewell" sharper@booksunderr eview.com sharper_
          Date: Thu Apr 5, 2007 1:26 pm ((PDT))

      In general, a candidate may be a perfect ideological match for the RLC, but
      will also be considered for viability and credibility.

      Viability: If a candidate isn't a "serious" contender for a nomination, it
      just hurts the RLC to be associated with them. For example, if a candidate
      plans to file for a primary race, but not actually spend time/money/etc. ..
      campaigning and has no chance of coming remotely close to placing well in
      the primary, they would definitely fail the viability test for me.

      Credibility: Personal attributes that a candidate has may make it so that
      the RLC might agree with them on issues, but still doesn't want to be
      associated with them. For example, a candidate that thinks the best way to
      campaign is in a clown suit, or who is a convicted murderer, or whatever
      personal attributes you can think of that would cause a candidate to not
      have a lot of credibility.

      Now, most of those above are more extreme examples in order to make the
      point obvious, but while issues stances are very important, they aren't the
      only consideration we have to take to decide if the RLC should endorse a
      candidate in a specific race.

      The other issue that Bill raises is that if we endorse a candidate that
      agrees with us 90% of the time, but is running his campaign as primarily
      being about an issue that is opposite our stance, or even something we are
      neutral on, we should also weigh how much we think the public will take our
      endorsement as also endorsing that primary campaign issue. For example, if
      we endorsed the leader of the Minuteman border group for an office, it would
      be foolish not to take into account that most people would also see that as
      an RLC endorsement of his immigration stance, since that's likely to be the
      main thrust of his campaign.



      2008 Election

      For President

      Who are the


      Yahoo! News

      Kevin Sites

      Get coverage of

      world crises.

      Yahoo! TV

      Staying in tonight?

      Check listings to

      see what is on.


    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.