50 votes

Gary Johnson wants a 23% national sales tax.

Gary Johnson is pushing for the so called "fair tax" which would institute a 23% national sales tax. This is something Ron has warned against over the years.

I wonder when the Libertarian party became the party of higher taxes?

I have not been a fan of Johnson, but even I was sort of surprised to hear he was pushing for a 23% national sales tax.

EDIT: For those who have requested a link. Straight from Gary's website point number 2. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/economy-and-taxes

EDIT: From Gary's website specifically referencing his support for a 23% national sales tax. http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/presidential-candidate-gary-j...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

There is no rational discussion to be had with people like

yourself.. You're closet neocons. If you were honest, you'd know what Dr.Paul talks about in regards to taxes.. there should be no discussion needed.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

So....

...you're saying the other poster is a faux Paulite because he isn't in favor of eliminating all federal taxes? So then Ron Paul is a faux Paulite too, since he doesn't favor eliminating all federal taxes?

Or, are you just - per the usual - being a douchey troll?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Listen Steve..

Ron Paul is for doing away with income taxes or are you so fucking stupid as to not have known that about him by now?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Do you think income taxes are the only federal taxes?

Ron Paul favors abolishing the income tax, not all federal taxes.

...and why are you calling me Steve?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Did I say "all federal taxes" or are you busy assuming

again?

Because it's fitting.. Steve is a douche criminal that tried his best to wiggle his way into the Liberty movement for scamming money and other nefarious acts.

It just seemed fitting.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Got memory problems?

brent.larsen: "I don't think its reasonable to believe that we are going to eliminate taxation altogether at the federal level."

You: "LOl okay dude.. We're done here. I get so tired of faux Ron Paul supporters."

You're saying he's a faux Paulite because he doesn't favor the elimination of all federal taxes. I point out that, by this definition, Ron Paul himself is not a real Paulite, since he does not favor the elimination of all federal taxes.

Do you get it, or do I need to explain your own statements to you again?

As to this "Steve," does Steve have a last name? Does Steve tell you to do things? Can other people see Steve?

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

No moron, I said that because he's been around long enough

to know Dr.Paul's take on taxes and what types. It's no use discussing something when the other person is being intellectually dishonest.

Yes, please try to explain to me what was in my mind.. That should be a neat trick if you can pull it off. :)

Yes, Steve just told me you were willing to blow Rand in a dark alley, I of course rebutted that you were afraid of the dark so it would have to be a well lit alley.

Looking out forya bro.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That is not a response to what I said...

...and makes no sense whatsoever.

I'll ask again: if brent.larsen is a faux Paulite for not wanting to eliminate all federal taxes, does that not make Ron Paul a faux Paulite too?

Try to focus and give me a real reply.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

It just seems that way to someone such as yourself..

Let me make it easy for you..

I never said ALL.. Those are your words. I was referring to taxes that Dr.Paul speaks about which are income taxes.

Does that help or do I need to speak s l o w e r?

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

One more time

brent.larsen: "I don't think its reasonable to believe that we are going to eliminate taxation altogether at the federal level."

You: "LOl okay dude.. We're done here. I get so tired of faux Ron Paul supporters."

...that is your exchange with brent.larsen, is it not?

YOU (not me) selected that quote of brent's. YOU (not me) then said he was a faux Paulite. Clearly, you are calling him a faux Paulite BECAUSE of what he said in that quote which YOU quoted: i.e. because he said he didn't favor eliminating ALL federal taxes.

I was referring to taxes that Dr.Paul speaks about which are income taxes.

No, you clearly were referring to ALL federal taxes - that's why you quoted brent speaking about ALL federal taxes. It is because brent said he wasn't in favor of eliminating ALL federal taxes that you called him a faux Paulite. Now you're just trying to back out of your earlier claims, since they've been revealed as nonsensical bullcrap.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

wow, I leave for a few hours and...

now I'm way behind on the conversation.

Let me justify my stance that a "better tax" is a step in the right direction, even if it isn't "no" tax.

for the sake of discussion, consider the RP "plan" for social security / medicare, as presented in the primary debates about a year ago. Instead of taking the hard core the Austrian / libertarian answer to those sorts of programs (eliminate them ASAP) he recognized that rather than jump in full steam and say "lets eliminate social security" he said "we can make those programs solvent if we eliminate needless spending".

Is that sort of short term compromise "giving up on restoring the constitution" ... of course it wasn't. It was recognizing that you need to start moving in the right direction, and you HAVE to have the support of the general population before you can make real change. AND the general population isn't ready to end social security and medicare.

Well, they also aren't ready to give up ALL government spending in one big shot. So, picking a tax method that moves the right direction ... seems like a decent next step to me.

There are 100 years of bad ideas to unwind. Its not going to unravel by 2016. Just because I am willing to fight the long fight doesn't mean I don't want the same thing. But I will say, its a lot easier to have hope when you don't have EVERYTHING riding on the next election cycle. I've accepted the fact that it'll take time. That doesn't make me a big government apologist.

Listen assmunch and really focus here okay...

The context of our whole conversation was contextually about the fair tax.. specifically about what he attributed to Dr.Paul's feelings on the subject..

(Here it comes.. I'm going to show you something in the hopes that you may learn how to really pay attention. I'm not sure if you can handle it but I want you to know.. I'm here for you. I want to help you work through this.)

He says Dr.Paul was pretty much for the Fair tax..

I refuted that idea with an article from mises.org.

He then said that he liked Rothbard's analysis better.

I then picked out a line about taxes which did use the term "altogether"..

and pretty much left the conversation with an opinion of him...

and his use of that line I quoted in defense of fair tax..

See sport.. You really have to slow down and focus on context.. There's a whole nother layer of meaning you're missing.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

That still makes no sense

Either you don't understand English well enough to know the meaning of what you yourself wrote, or you're being dishonest and trying to back out of what you said. Either way, I'm done.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

LOL.. I'm telling you in easy details

as to what went on and what was meant but you keep arguing about something totally different.

I guess some people have comprehension problems. Don't worry about it dude.. I'm sure you have other redeeming qualities.

You have to right? Yeah.. nobody could be THAT fucked.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

From an economical

From an economical standpoint, this is a bad idea.

It has been shown that VAT or sales taxes are really bad in one way: they are most easily passed on to the customer. Since the customer is "punished" more for consuming, he will consume less. Since he consumes less, the producers will lay off workers because they desire to produce less supply. It is a bad cycle that ends up with the economy in worse-off shape.

On the other hands, taxation of profits and income have less of a deletrious effect. Taxation of income happens wether money is spent or not, so consumption is only primarly affected by the level of taxation. Taxation of profits is shared by the customer, the producer, the worker, and the investor. For economical examples, we've seen that the Bush tax cuts passed almost nothing along to the customer (investors took everything), while profit taxes in Europe have been almost completely absored by investors.

It is perhaps less principled, but it is more pragmatic.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Actually

I think you miss on causality.

Also lots of arguments against sales tax came out from Rothbard (who had zero influence at the time) while he was fighting against M. Friedman (who was listened to by politicians.)

The problem with sales tax is that people are in control. And if people save more, government wont get predictable revenue. So the government will do something about it. If there were a constitutional amendment with fixed sales tax and 0% income tax, that would be an awesome way to suffocate big government.

Savings though do not just

Savings though do not just contribute to government coffers. It also contributes heavily to economic activity.

We no longer (as if we ever had it) have a 100% backed currency...investors have a much larger pool of money to take from- not just savings. Moreover, it should be obvious that while one form of money transfer is from lender to lendee, another form is from buyer to the seller.

The idea that savings are needed in order to provide capital for investment is outdated. If investors/capitalists sense that there is enough spending to justify increased production, then they will invest in the production, including hiring more people.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I posted this in another thread - this is critical:

COHESION. We MUST let the tptb know that we will not disperse, now or in the future. That is what this movement is about at this point and time. We MUST unite and show them that our numbers have grown, and that next election we can not and will not be ignored.

Whether you believe write-ins will be counted or not, or publicly announced or not, the corrupt behind the scenes know EXACTLY where the votes will be cast. Our numbers have grown since 2008, and we must prove that.

Please reconsider. This is crucual, now and for 2016. Many of us are writing in Ron Paul, just as Ron Paul has stayed consistent for decades - to prove that we have COHESION and will not waver.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

We know.

We know.

This is my main beef with

This is my main beef with Gary Johnson.Even though he probably would never get it passed,this is the only conflict for me on whether I should vote for him or not.I don't think it is Libertarian to have taxes.Maybe some user fees,that's about it.

No national sales tax.

If big government is the answer what's next a sales tax for the United Nations?

grant

On the bright side

Many people don't look at how much is taken from their paycheck and just see the bottom line. Maybe if it was an "in your face" tax like this people would realize just how much this bloated government costs and might actually start to bitch instead of being so apathetic.

Add your state and local sale taxes and many people will be looking at 30% and more when all is said and done.

Californias sales tax

will be there shortly either way.

Black market

A 23% sales tax would create a HUGE black market.

In my business, we export a product in the $3000 to $12000 USD range to the Europeans. ALL of them ask us to send duplicate invoices for thousands of dollars less, so they can beat the VAT (value added tax).

Of course an expanding black market will cause an expanding police state to keep collecting money for the state.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty" TJ

There you have it

..Goode is good enough

donvino

Can of Coke Analogy

The can of coke analogy made me take this seriously. The claim is that we have a hidden 23 pct tax on a can of coke. 1.00 coke has 23 cents in payroll and corporate and income taxes hidden in it.

. Wipe out the other taxes and put an explicit 23 pct tax on the coke. I think is is at least logical to talk about this.

. I do see it devolving into a VAT easily however.

if you could eliminate the income tax

you replace it with nothing.

Exactly

You should argue in such a way to an elderly woman soliciting her vote. Especially after her lifelong savings had been wiped out by inflation.

This Is A Bad Idea

A national sales tax (assuming income tax is abolished) would devestate low income families who are already living on the margins. They pay little to no income tax now, so the sales tax would hit them hardest. Add state sales taxes and some people would be paying a 33% sales tax for basic necessities. An environment like that would be an incentive for a huge black market for almost everything. The natural government "cure" would be a cashless system, requiring all transaction be electronic and monitored.

Apparently

you haven't heard of that prebate that makes everything up to the poverty line tax free.

Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our Liberty. -Thomas Jefferson