25 votes

Rand Paul's budget

Rand Paul presented his budget on the Glen Beck Radio show.

Income up to $50,000 a year will be exempt from federal taxes. Anything above will be subject to a 17% flat tax.

In ours we go ahead and eliminate some departments. We eliminate the Department of Education, most of the Department of Energy, most of the Department of Commerce.”

His budget also removes the waste from Social Security and Medicare. With S.S. they reduce spending through means testing, gradually raising the age. His plan for Medicare allows every senior citizen to have the same health plan that congress does.

“It saves a trillion dollars over ten years and it also allows us to have a sustainable entitlement program, basically fixes Social Security for 75 years,” Sen Paul explained. “And then if that’s not enough for you, Glenn, we have one more thing. We do a flat income tax of 17% which gives a $600 billion stimulus to the economy and allows for, you know, we estimate somewhere between 8 and 12 million new jobs.”

Rand Paul’s flat tax is 17% with an exemption for the first $50,000. So, it’s graduated in that anyone making under $50k wouldn’t pay an income tax.

http://www.glennbeck.com/2013/03/20/sen-rand-paul-talks-immi...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

it sounds good....

but now he has to make it happen...

Think for yourself......Question authority...

I like the 50k cap but

If you make $50.01k, you'd be better off making $49.99k and not paying 17%.

My Guess Is That,

like the current income tax, the 17% is a MARGINAL rate, applying only to the amount of money earned over $50K. Thus, no "cliff' for going over $50K.

It is a pretty good stab at a budget for Rand, but is still too timid for my taste. He should be trying to end Social Security, not save it. Nevertheless, abolishing four departments is good stuff.

Not perfect...

But it's a fantastic start. Until I realized this exemption for people making $50,000 and under, I was pretty disappointed in what sounded like at least a 10% federal tax increase on everyone. Since around 55% of American households make less than $50,000 a year, this would clearly lift a burden on more than half the country.

Oh yeah, and how about closing some departments! As for Social Security, I can see how unpalatable it would be to try running in 2016 on a platform to end Social Security ASAP. People's minds have to remolded first.

"Of two evils, choose neither." -Charles Spurgeon
Read my columns at Freedom Bunker and Reformed Libertarian.

Thanks. I never understood

Thanks. I never understood what was meant by marginal rate before. That makes a lot of sense.

I believe...

...his budget allows for folks to opt out of SS. That's the next best thing to ending it. In fact, it might effectively end it.

What fantasy do some of you live in?

I think the detractors are forgetting that this plan is not going to be come reality unless either Rand becomes President with majority support in both houses or he becomes the Senate super majority leader and a Republican house follows his lead.

For either one of those scenarios to happen he needs to build the support of congress and the people. You don't build support by rocking peoples worlds. And if he were to build enough support he would at that point have the ability to put some extra mind blowing government shrinking into his proposals and then "compromise" an just eliminating a few things.

I'm sorry to inform you all that the collapse hasn't happened yet, and until it does, there are still political games to be played to gain support before you can do what you really want to do.

Many of you have become more shortsighted than the politicians themselves. Liberals have been proposing outrages growth in government for a century and getting half of what they want from the capitulation of conservatives. Well now it's time for libertarians to start thinking along those lines. Build support first, ask for the world second, and then be happy with half of what you wanted until you get the rest in the next battle.

I have full confidence in Rand, he was trained by the best and learned from his mistakes. Ron didn't have the benefit of a father getting his ass handed to him to learn from and build off of, Rand did, and he is playing smart politics and it is for OUR BENEFIT.

We have two choices, either believe that Rand has the interests of liberty in mind in the decisions he makes in Washington or don't and figure it out ourselves.

Ron delivered countless minds to the cause of liberty

Most of them were young. How appropriate for an OB/GYN.

Rand is opening the eyes of many of the older Republicans, good work for an ophthalmologist.

They might have different styles and different specialties, but these two Duke Medical School alumni are cut from the same cloth.

Sellout. If he wants to talk "income" vs. "wages & salaries"

I'll listen.

Until then - he's just trying to justify the perpetuation of THEFT.

There is nothing free market about Socialist Security Senator. It's illegal as hell. End it.

Yay!

Ron was wrong all around!

1) The Govt CAN stimulate the economy
2) The Govt CAN create jobs
3) We don't actually have to default on the debt because it is too great to repay. The repayment will NOT create crushing austerity. And the debt is NOT fraudulent. Again, Ron was totally wrong all around.

Yay! :D

I'm glad Rand is here to save us (from kooks like Ron). And Beck agrees with him. Sound money and peace are just unreasonable and not realistic.

The New Liberty Movement.... Freedom Through Reasonable Empire and Fake Money!

.
~wobbles but doesn't fall down~

I will never understand

Why anyone would hang around a website designed around a political campaign, designed itself around building a coalition for liberty, then after that campaign ended in failure to gain the presidency but succeeded in developing a community of like minded liberty lovers, proceed to complain about the politicians that came out of that movement and the success they are having for liberty.

Wake up jerk! No one wants to work with people that complain all the time. There are a lot of people in this world that have no idea what liberty is about and it scares them! Stop being a jerk about it!

In order for liberty to succeed in the political world it has to be slowly introduced so that people can get a taste of it and it can take off from there. When other politicians see the support Rand gets, they will act like him or lose to politicians who will.

You might think that Rand should be bold and introduce a zero income tax budget and elimination of every department, and so would most of us in a perfect world, but it's not perfect and he would be laughed out of Washington. Then where would our movement be?

You might think that our movement has the numbers but guess what, a loud dedicated group is only good at being loud and dedicated, not at winning elections. If we want to get more liberty in government we need to work with the politicians who have an inclination toward liberty without scaring the sh*t out of them. It's they only hope we have of peacefully change things.

I wonder what you would do if you were in the Senate? That's right, your not. So maybe it would be wise to join him in supporting a real reduction of taxes and government spending for once instead of complaining that your utopia isn't instantaneous.

uhh are you that dumb?

First off Rand is not saying the government is stimulating the economy, he is saying that they reductions in government spending, plus the lower tax rates, that is the increase in money in the pockets of citizens will stimulate the economy, and of course that is true. Second, This is the greatest possible outcome would could ever realistically expect to occur, except that the likelihood of Rand's budget passing is 1 in 1,000,000. The likelihood of my ideal budget passing with the elimination of the income tax: 0. But any intelligent libertarian would be ecstatic with Rand's proposal and the hope that maybe it will lead to a serious discussion. The sad thing is that all liberals, all "moderates" and most conservatives will look at Paul's budget and think it is insane and too drastic, while you, one of his potential allies, sits here and gives him crap for not being extreme enough. I am an anarchist and even I think you are an idiot.

You tool

Ron didn't include all of the things he would like to do in his plan either, for one simple reason - it's pointless if you don't get elected. This plan is bold enoeough that Rand will be called a loon from left and right and going even further would just be foolish.

That said if he does become president I would wish he takes it further.

On Politico:

But the truth is that most Republicans elected after the spring of 2009 don’t give a hoot about RNC dictates. “What Rand Paul says matters more to me than what the [Republican National Committee] says,” Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chairs the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration, told POLITICO this week.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/behind-the-curtain-its...

Washington Post's Dana Milbank cautiously endorses Rand Paul, very positive interview. He even points out Rand will end foreign aid, including to Israel without the usual gasps of horror and outrage.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036789/ns/msnbc-morning_joe/vp/51...

Very few pundits are picking Rubio, most are going with Rand Paul as the GOP frontrunner and defacto leader.

Even Binjamin Netanyahu sees the writing on the wall, that's why he's sucking up to Obama.

amazing

I've been astounded by Ron Paul's genius many times. I've been excited about Rand's skills many times. It's only recently that I've realized that he's as much of a genius as his father. The filibuster was a bit of luck but as a good friend of mine likes to say, opportunity is luck meeting preparation.

Remember...

when Ron Paul campaigned on NO INCOME TAX, and boldly proclaimed taxation to be theft?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Yeah, and remember the "Paul Plan"

Ron Paul's plan for his 2012 campaign:

TAXES: Lowers the corporate tax rate to 15%, making
America competitive in the global market. Allows
American companies to repatriate capital without
additional taxation, spurring trillions in new
investment. Extends all Bush tax cuts. Abolishes the
Death Tax. Ends taxes on personal savings, allowing
families to build a nest egg.

http://c3244172.r72.cf0.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/...

It didn't even touch the income tax. So how about quitting this goddamn nonsense? If you're gonna critizise at least do it in an honest way.

Ron Paul talked about ending the Income Tax....

on countless occasions in both his 2008 and 2012 campaigns.

Here's one example: http://dailycaller.com/2012/01/17/paul-federal-income-tax-ra...

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Yeah, so what?

He didn't propose it in his budget, so critizing Rand for not doing so, and insinuate that his father would have is dishonest.

His father talked about it and held it up as a goal...

that is what's important.

I doesn't matter what he proposed in his budget, it matters what he said to the public in his debates, speeches, and interviews.

Libertarian politics is only useful as a tool for education, and Ron Paul understands that.

The rhetoric is what's important, because that is how you educate people.

I didn't insinuate anything, I stated a fact, Ron Paul did in fact campaign on no income tax and did boldly proclaim taxation to be theft.

Rand never even comes close to talking about the unconstitutionality of the income tax, whether it should be abolished, or even coming close to stating the truth that taxation is theft.

He just coasts down the middle, using rhetoric he knows is sure not to offend the delicate sensibilities of run of the mill republicans.

If Rand talked about no income tax as an ultimate goal, I wouldn't be criticizing him.

What's wrong with holding him to the same standards we held his father to?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Oh wait

Rand has also said he would like to abolish the income tax:

http://www.kentucky.com/2010/10/12/1476633/rand-paul-would-r...

You're trying to compare Rand's plan to Ron's words, and on top of that you think rhetoric is more imporant than actual policy? Than actual progress? Jesus.

No I'm talking about Rand's rhetoric....

And replacing the income tax with another heinous tax is not the same as ending it and replacing it with nothing, as his father said he wanted to do.

I have no objection to Rand's tax plans, so long as it reduces revenues and taxes, and does not give the Federal Government any more power to tax, or bring them more revenue.

On taxation, I am criticizing him for not going as far as his father.

Rhetoric is important, because that's how you educate.

"Taking the concept of radical vs. conservative in our new sense, let us analyze the now famous "abolitionism" vs. "gradualism" debate. The latter jab comes in the August issue of Reason (a magazine every fiber of whose being exudes "conservatism"), in which editor Bob Poole asks Milton Friedman where he stands on this debate. Freidman takes the opportunity of denouncing the "intellectual cowardice" of failing to set forth "feasible" methods of getting "from here to there." Poole and Friedman have between them managed to obfuscate the true issues. There is not a single abolitionist who would not grab a feasible method, or a gradual gain, if it came his way. The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear. The abolitionist is a "button pusher" who would blister his thumb pushing a button that would abolish the State immediately, if such a button existed. But the abolitionist also knows that alas, such a button does not exist, and that he will take a bit of the loaf if necessary – while always preferring the whole loaf if he can achieve it." - Murray Rothbard

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Quit trying to weasel your way out of this

Your first post is right below, it was a response to Rand's plan, not to his rhetoric, you we're clearly trying to make it appear as if this plan shows a contrast between Rand and Ron, and that Ron would have gone as far as abolishing the income tax. The ironic thing is that Rand goes further than Ron when it comes to the income tax.

Im not trying to weasel out of anything.

I made it very clear I was talking about rhetoric, I've said it several times.

My original comment was about what his father campaigned on, what he said.

If I believe libertarianism's only use for politics is educational, why would I be talking about anything other than rhetoric?

Here's where I'm coming from: "The difference is that the abolitionist always holds high the banner of his ultimate goal, never hides his basic principles, and wishes to get to his goal as fast as humanly possible. Hence, while the abolitionist will accept a gradual step in the right direction if that is all that he can achieve, he always accepts it grudgingly, as merely a first step toward a goal which he always keeps blazingly clear." - Murray Rothbard

"The ironic thing is that Rand goes further than Ron when it comes to the income tax."

How is replacing the income tax with another tax, more radical than ending it and replacing it with nothing?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

OMG

BECAUSE RON'S PLAN DOESN'T DO SQUAT WITH THE INCOME TAX!!!!

Is that big letters enough for you? Do you need me to write it one more time?

And stop contradciting yourself, how on earth would your first comment be on Rand's rhetoric when the topic is his plan? Yes i know you mentioned retoric later on, but that's just you trying to weasel your way out.

I'm not talking about Ron's plan or Rand's plan.

My original comment never even mentioned Rand's plan, it said:

Remember when when Ron Paul campaigned on NO INCOME TAX, and boldly proclaimed taxation to be theft?

It's about what Ron Paul campaigned on, what he said in debates, interviews, and speeches.

My objection is to Rand's lack or radicalism in his rhetoric (and just as likely in his views), his father pushed the envelope much farther, and Rand doesn't even attempt to match it

You can keep insisting that you know better what my criticism of Rand is than I do, but that won't make it so.

I've made it pretty clear what it is I object to.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Yeye

Learn to identify the topic before you comment then you tool.

Oh, I see...

This about having the last word.

Go ahead then, you can have it if that makes you happy.

P.S. Not once did I insult you or call you a name, I wish you would've been so civil.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Yes! Incrementalism is the

Yes!

Incrementalism is the enemy of Revolution.

i agree

Once the waste is cut through elimination of those departments I believe that it can happen gradually. It's probably the only way we can achieve middle ground. Otherwise the left won't even go near it. They'll find ways to attack it and say it's "extreme". If he makes the rounds on national TV shows and radio shows he will begin to build a large momentum. I really believe that's the case.

Homeland security statement: patriotism is now considered terrorism.
I love www.isidewith.com shared it with everyone I know. If anything they realize its not just a red and blue idiot running for reelection.