Ron Paul: Raising Taxes Doesn’t Necessarily Increase Revenue | FBN | Nov 14
Submitted by eduardo89 on Wed, 11/14/2012 - 19:33Rep. Ron Paul, (R-Texas), on efforts to avoid the fiscal cliff on Fox Business Network's After the Bell.
»
- Login to post comments
What he could have said:
"Yeah .. well, I was buying gold when it was $35.00 an ounce, and people just like you on TV were laughing at me calling me looney for it"
* .. everybody chuckles along .. *
Marxist Obama doesn't care if higher taxes don't bring in more $
He just wants to punish the "millionaires and billionnaires" and grow support for mobocracy where the majority can vote to take from the minority
Obama knows nothing about markets just his Marxist ideology of "fairness" "spread the wealth around" and "I won't allow this or that" arrogance
Ugh Fox is awful. Sorry
Ugh Fox is awful.
Sorry couldn't make it past the intro.
Southern Agrarian
Dollar Depreciation
If someone bought 100 ounces of gold at $35 that would have cost them $3,500 USD. Today that 100 ounces would now be worth around $172,400 USD.
Man the dollar has sunk like a rock!
Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/
The dollar was pegged at that
The dollar was pegged at that until Nixon. It's what got Ron into politics. I'm sure he bought quite a bit when Nixon decoupled the dollar from gold, knowing it would be up exponentially.
lol $35 an ounce. I love
lol $35 an ounce.
I love this man.
Buy and Sell Homes For Bitcoins! (Domain For Sale)
http://homesforbitcoins.com/
Just about where the price of silver is today
$35 an ounce
Actually $32.50 right now
Meh, this is not a point I
Meh, this is not a point I agree with Ron Paul on. History seems to show that when you lower taxes, revenue goes down by a very predictable amount. When you increase taxes, reevnue goes up by a very predictable amount.
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
It probably does increase revenue
but has a negative impact on the economy.
So does our debt. Also, the
So does our debt.
Also, the economical damages are highly exaggerated. Tax revenue vs economic growth has a positive correlation. Heck, I showd in another thread that if you look at state taxes, there is no correlation between tax revenue and unemployment.
Interest rates are much more worrisome.. Non governmental debt is over forty trillion. If effective interest rates went up by just one percent, you increase debt service loads by 400 billion
I believe in lower taxes so that people can keep their earned money. The economics of the argument against taxation are weak.
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
Does
Does it?
http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AH556B_ranso_20...
You simply cannot look at the
You simply cannot look at the top marginal tax bracket alone. Reagan for example exchanged loopholes for a lower marginal tax bracket at a 1:1 ratio (practically).
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
The video here discusses more
The video here discusses more than top marginal tax rate and still makes same argument that gov't revenue will not increase with higher tax rates in other areas:
http://www.learnliberty.org/videos/will-higher-tax-rates-bal...
I think that he and I
I think that he and I disagree on the facts. I haven't seen the data he has collected to judge it's validity.
Simple fact is that since 1796, government at all levels has collected between 18 and 45% of GDP; there is some play in the numbers but that's is generally corrct. Just in the past fifty years there is over a ten point swing.
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
Tax Revenue as % of GDP has
Tax Revenue as % of GDP has stayed pretty constant over the years. It was actually higher on average from 1980-2010 than it was from 1950-1980 despite much higher rates in the earlier period
This tends happen because
This tends happen because payroll taxes and excise/other taxes function largely as a % of GDP since they are flat taxes that are rarely changed. That is more than half of overall federal taxation, which tends to pull the numbers to an average.
Clinton took taxes from 17% to 20%, and Bush took it from 20% back to 17%. Obama took it down to 15% and is likely going to raise it back to 17-18%.
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
Clinton got abnormally high
Clinton got abnormally high tax revenues due to the tech boom. In any case, those revenues were all time highs, despite the fact that income tax rates under Clinton were still well below what they had been even until midway through Reagan's term
For example, on income taxes
For example, on income taxes alone, Clinton took it from 8% of GDP to 12% of GDP. Bush took it to a low of 7%, though it was at 10% by the end of his term due to a massive influx of captail gains revenue thanks to a stock market high.
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
And there wasn't a massive
And there wasn't a massive influx of capital gains revenue thanks to a stock market high under Clinton?