16 votes

Access Denied after posting the truth on Rand Paul 2016 Facebook Page

I've been a big supporter of Rand up until today when he mentioned a
17% flat income tax rate. I posted the following on some status updates by Rand Paul 2016

"Senator Paul may have just lost me for good. 17%? Really? Those making 30k a year would be screwed even more. At 17% they would pay $5,100. In 2012 tax year they paid $4,053.75. This is worse than Hermanator's 9-9-9 plan. You wouldn't be better off in Rand's tax code until you were making over 51k a year. If you file jointly it would be close to 150k total....."

This is quite simply the truth. Those making under 51,000 today pay an average federal income tax rate of les than 17%....this would be horrible for the poor and middle class.

Guess Rand Paul 2016 and whoever runs it is practicing the GOP way of quieting the truth. Don't worry, nothing to see here....




Comment viewing options

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

with all due respect

if you support the tactic of participating in this system and maneuvering it towards liberty.. and this is the reason you stop supporting one of the most liberty minded, currently serving "representative" i would suggest your not looking at the big picture.

Raising taxes isn't reason to

Raising taxes isn't reason to not support someone? Since when? I agree that we need more detail on this, but if his plan is to raise taxes on the middle class I don't see any of you can. I have always supported him until today. I was on twitter for hours one week ago posting #standwithrand comments. And if his plan isn't what it looks to be on the surface I will continue to support him. But I will never support a person who advocates an increase in taxes. That's a principle that I stand on.

i see

point well taken. we'll have to wait and get more info. i worry about being split up into factions of factions though. it's still too early to tell what's what right now.

I agree with you. I have been

I agree with you. I have been fighting tooth and nail with those RP die hards who refuse to give Rand a chance (one being my father). He has stood of for liberty and oversized militarism but in different ways. But today through a curve ball at me with that plan. I'm hoping there's more to it.

loopholes

We would have 0% income tax (really a wage tax) if we closed corporate loopholes (flat tax on their income) and cut Gov spending to 2008 levels.

what is wrong with an added VAT

Why not add a VAT to current consumption/sales tax? Flat tax is "fair" but the lower bracket is barely hanging on as it is. Why not have a high consumption tax on non- perishable items/goods? You want it you have to pay for it and a % of that goes to the state for roads etc. and common defense. Even a hybrid of that might work better than 17%. Say a consumption/sales tax of 15%. Most sales taxes run between 4-8.9%. Add onto that a consumption/sales VAT of 5% on top, and a 5% FLAT tax to income at the federal level and you are done! I bet you can get everyone on-board with that. 5% to the feds, that would shrink them to an adequate size and bump the state sales taxes. The states can agree to share their VAT for such things as defense. 17% is way too high for a federal income tax. All you people that are for state rights and advocate a high Flat rate federal tax should at least agree that the states are much better equipped to distribute your money.

Problems with new sources of tax revenue

There was always the issue with Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan that he would:

1. Need to convince Congress to lower the income tax on everyone to 9%, which would never, ever happen.

2. Need to convince Congress to pass legislation allowing for a national sales tax of 9%, which would never happen.

3. Need to convince Congress to pass a national business tax of 9%, which would never happen.

But most of all...

He would need Congress to repeal the payroll tax, the estate tax, and the capital gains tax simultaneously. This would never, ever happen. The worst possible outcome would prevail and that is...

Only some of the legislation would pass, meaning you might get the "9-9-9" plan on top of the pre-existing income tax, capital gains tax, and estate tax. Plus, eliminating the capital gains tax completely could create windfall profits and instability in the stock market. A 9% "national business tax" would replace the nearly 20-25% corporate tax, and what about 7.9% social security tax, etc?

9-9-9 would never work. How would a VAT on top of all these pre-existing taxes work? An automatic 1% tax on every financial transaction might be the best, but the WTO is against it, so it will never happen.

There is no easy way out. Income tax rates for the top 1% need to go back up to at least 45-50%. They were regressive when Kennedy was president, and that is why lowering them worked up until the 80's. During the Eisenhower administration, taxes for this group were still lingering around 85% from WW2. The US currently has a near 100:1 or 100% of GDP debt ratio. This is the red line, no matter how many times egomaniac Paul Krugman says its not. The US holds the world reserve currency, and it is creating a debt crisis for most of Europe, who also share a similar debt to GDP ratio. However, for them, their consumption still matches production in most key sectors. In the United States, the trade deficit is a national security risk. This explains why Obama has not signed one single new FTA since taking office. Mostly, these are closed/managed trade agreements and not free trade agreements.

Psychologically, the fact that Bush refused to bail out the auto-industry unless Obama signed a FTA with Columbia may also be a reason Obama is completely against signing new FTA's. Bush was that incompetent that he was simply lost in oblivion by that point.

50% currently don't pay income tax

if we have 17% flat tax that will be taxing at a higher rate then we currently do for low income families. that 50% that don't pay will go up to 70%. The only way you will be able to raise revenue at all is through a VAT on consumption. ALl in all if we go 17% I won't oppose it because the IRS behemoth will be tiny in comparison to what it is now, but forget about a net increase in revenue from taxation, that will not happen.

How can you support an

How can you support an increase in taxes? It isn't just increasing taxes for those who don't pay. It increases them for the MAJORITY.

oh boy

I don't thats the point! You rather pay more for an item or get ripped of by the feds? one is forced the other is non compulsory. I rather pay zero on income and opt out of ss. Seems we have more here that support the fed collecting taxes than the states. If i had to choose an evil I rather the states collect a VAT over the feds having that power since we know that the feds are not very good with our money to begin with. What is so hard to understand here?

what's wrong with a vat? it's

what's wrong with a vat?

it's a NEW stream of revenue. they then use the numbers to perpetuate the two-party nonsense. one guy wants to raise it. the other wants to raise it a little more. the government winds up with a lucrative new way to steal and people get screwed in the process.

they have stolen most of the peoples wealth as it is. there isn't a whole lot left (see how much gold can a single dollar buy). giving them another venue to rob you would be like offering to escort a mugger to YOUR bank so they can scoop up what would otherwise be a 3-5% penalty for using a competing banks ATM.

I don't understand it either

VAT makes sense to me because we can lower a Flat tax to say 5% (if possible). I am always for Non-compulsory taxation, at least give people a choice. Don't force it. If you really want that item, car, boat, jean jacket, you pay for it, and now you just pay for it at a higher rate with a VAT on top of sales. With a free market and the global market you can always find deals, no matter what. What will happen is that items will probably be market down to off-set cost of a VAT. The states get their additional revenue but the FEDs don't get their 17%. The FEDs would have to negotiate with the states for a piece of the pie in exchange for services instead of the FEDS forcing theft on everyone. Why punish everyone with an absurd income tax. Add the tax to spending/consumption to raise revenue, lower the income tax to 5%

VAT lowering income tax

I think they would pass VAT but never institute a flat tax. Purchasing power and savings will fall further but they will never decrease the tax rate to 5%. Also, the guy who said 50% of the population don't pay taxes: this is from deductions in the tax code. Most people on payroll tax are subject to withholding.

progressive to regressive

Sales/consumption tax is a Regressive tax. Hurts the young and poor. Elderly consume less and make more. Conversely young people starting out in life spend more and earn less.
Plus, once national sales tax is implemented another income tax could return. Then we would have both!

I don't understand how it hurts.

Young and poor reap the benefits of an infrastructure built by the previous generation. Older people should be able to spend money, thereby employing young people to maintain the system.
grant

playing field

If one guy's family came to the US in 1800. Does he have more rights to the roads than new immigrants? I say no. Lets just pay as we go. If we need a road and have money or short term credit: build it. Don't make our parents or kids pay for something we needed. If there are roads leftover from our parents then cool. If not oh well. Its not like they build roads thinking we would benefit... they were just trying to get to work.
Plus to keep the proper balance in the system. We might need to social engineer a proper demographic layout. I think we should keep Gov simple and cheap.
respectfully,
-Jim

foot in the door

Flat tax will turn 80% of the population into low tax/small government proponents. As the gov shrinks 17% would drop.

That's great. But we'll never

That's great. But we'll never get there by raising taxes on the middle class and lowering it for the wealthy. That's called a plutocracy. Lets lower it for everyone in order to meet that goal. To do so, we need REAL cuts.

Too bad the existing government has no intention of shrinking

.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

This tax bracket?

This tax bracket?

Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
10% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
15% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
25% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
28% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
33% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
35% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350

It looks like you have to make 35k or more to benefit. Now I ask again, 51k???

Don't get me wrong, I think 17% is too high. I think it should be 5 - 10 and social security and medicare should be optional.

People who earn less should pay more.

Better yet.
Tax Bracket Married Filing Jointly Single
35% Bracket $0 – $17,400 $0 – $8,700
33% Bracket $17,400 – $70,700 $8,700 – $35,350
28% Bracket $70,700 – $142,700 $35,350 – $85,650
25% Bracket $142,700 – $217,450 $85,650 – $178,650
15% Bracket $217,450 – $388,350 $178,650 – $388,350
10% Bracket Over $388,350 Over $388,350
Those paying more expect more or fight to get more.
grant

Yeah let's cripple the

Yeah let's cripple the crippled middle class even more! Fantastic idea!!!

Not true.

How would it be crippling for the middle class? On the contrary, it will empower the middle class, pissing them off so much that they will demand that the government give them a fair return of service for their money. The current perception is that wealth people pay more taxes and therefore they have the right to complain. If poor people pay more taxes, they will demand to get services for those taxes or the system will be brought down.
grant

Yeah because demanding the

Yeah because demanding the govt do something always works so well. You can keep your higher taxes. That's garbage. We can't afford more taxes for one day much less permanently. And they would be. I don't think I've heard something that bad of an idea from Obama.

principles over tactics

tactics:
effective taxes are lower.
claiming "standard deductions" drops the %.

principle:
flat tax cuts deductions out of the equation. this keeps lobbyist from bribing law makers for special interest loopholes. Gov gives small loopholes to wage earners. This protects the deduction/loophole system from being voted out of existence. But Big Biz & Big Gov gets billions and laughs about the scam.

TwelveOhOne's picture

Principles?

The 16th amendment was never properly ratified. Inflation is taxation. Income is not exchanging labor for money. Federal Reserve Notes that we're paid in are debt instruments, not money. Did I miss any?

I love you. I'm sorry. Please forgive me. Thank you.
http://fija.org - Fully Informed Jury Association
http://jsjinc.net - Jin Shin Jyutsu (energy healing)

I was using 2013 brackets

I was using 2013 brackets which came to 51k. Lets do the math using 2012 for 49k

8,700*.10=$870.00
26,650*.15=$3,997.50
13,650*.25=$3,412.50
-------------------------------total
49,000 = $8,280

49,000*.17 = $8,330

So for 2013 it's 51k. For 2012 it was 49k.

Inflation is the Tax

Inflation is the Tax

Even with a flat tax the ruling elite would either be exempt.

Same as with Obamacare, gun control, finance laws and all the other laws they pass to control the pions. They are not required to obey our laws.

"A vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote to keep things the same", Buckminster Fuller..
A choice for liberty is always a choice for liberty.

The good thing about a flat tax is...

EVERYONE would be for lower taxes once it's implemented...
But then you tell people "okay.. we can lower it to 10% or 12%, but we gotta come home from EVERYWHERE, and we can't bail out the banks anymore or give all your money to corn farmers and other countries and" .. well you get the idea