Join for Just $16 A Year
- Discounts on travel and everyday savings
- Subscription to AARP The Magazine
- Free membership for your spouse or partner
Welcome to the AARP Discussion Board. Here you can talk with peers about current events ranging from Social Security to caring for your parents to the latest on health care reform. It is also the perfect place to exchange healthy eating recipes and job hunting tips.
These forums are for you to engage and have fun meeting new people. Just remember the community code: Be nice!
RON PAUL'S PLAN
posted at December 15, 2011 10:13 AM EST
First: December 1, 2011
Last: May 25, 2013
It is very simple.
No income tax at all! No IRS!
is it possibe? yes, it is!
income tax makes only one-third of governments money
Ronn Paul proposes to cut more than one third of government wasteful spending (like keeping up 700+ military bases, all over the world- which pumps taxpayer's money abroad )
is it good for middle class and poor pople? yes, it is - of course not having to pay income tax is great-more money to spend, small businesses will also have more money to create jos!
And rich people hirE now lawyers just to find loopholes -and actually they don't pay their fair share anyway
Re: RON PAUL'S PLAN
posted at December 22, 2011 12:23 PM EST
First: December 19, 2011
Last: August 17, 2012
In Response to RON PAUL'S PLAN:
It is very simple. No income tax at all! No IRS! is it possibe? yes, it is! income tax makes only one-third of governments money Ronn Paul proposes to cut more than one third of government wasteful spending (like keeping up 700+ military bases, all over the world- which pumps taxpayer's money abroad ) is it good for middle class and poor pople? yes, it is - of course not having to pay income tax is great-more money to spend, small businesses will also have more money to create jos! And rich people hirE now lawyers just to find loopholes -and actually they don't pay their fair share anyway
Posted by Astra2012
Why unemployment still high? ONE WORD: REPUBLICANS---------------------------------
Are the Bush Tax Cuts the Root of Our Fiscal Problem?
By BRUCE BARTLETT
Bruce Bartlett held senior policy roles in the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul.
Whether revenue should play any role in deficit reduction is at the root of the fiscal impasse between Congressional Republicans and President Obama.
One factor underlying the hard-line Republican position that taxes must not be increased by even $1 is their assertion that the Bush tax cuts played no role in creating our deficit problem.
In a previous post, I noted that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product were at their lowest level in generations.
The Congressional Budget Office expects revenue to be just 14.8 percent of G.D.P. this year; the last year it was lower was 1950, when revenue amounted to 14.4 percent of G.D.P.
But revenue has been below 15 percent of G.D.P. since 2009, and the last time we had three years in a row when revenue as a share of G.D.P. was that low was 1941 to 1943.
Revenue has averaged 18 percent of G.D.P. since 1970 and a little more than that in the postwar era.
At a similar stage in previous business cycles, two years past the trough, revenue was considerably higher: 18 percent of G.D.P. in 1977 after the 1973-75 recession; 17.3 percent of G.D.P. in 1984 after the 1981-82 recession, and 17.5 percent of G.D.P. in 1993 after the 1990-91 recession.
Revenue was markedly lower, however, at this point after the 2001 recession and was just 16.2 percent of G.D.P. in 2003.
The reason, of course, is that
taxes were cut in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2006.
It would have been one thing if the Bush tax cuts had at least bought the country
a higher rate of economic growth, even temporarily.
They did not.
Real G.D.P. growth peaked at just 3.6 percent in 2004 before fading rapidly.
Even before the crisis hit, real G.D.P. was growing less than 2 percent a year.
By contrast, after the 1982 and 1993 tax increases, growth was much more robust.
Real G.D.P. rose 7.2 percent in 1984 and continued to rise at more than 3 percent a year for the balance of the 1980s.
Real G.D.P. growth was 4.1 percent in 1994 despite widespread predictions by opponents of the 1993 tax increase that it would bring on another recession.
Real growth averaged 4 percent for the balance of the 1990s.
By contrast, real G.D.P. growth in the nonrecession years of the 2000s averaged just 2.7 percent a year — barely above the postwar average.
---so, even leading pub thinker says pub politicians dead wrong---
-----so, job creators created more jobs after Clinton's small tax increase
than they have in the almost 10 years since bush tax cuts started-----
THESE ARE FACTS FROM A PUB, DO YOU GET IT?
Re: Who creates jobs and where
posted at December 22, 2011 2:10 PM EST
First: November 27, 2011
Last: May 18, 2013
I think you need to look further into your analysis or from your expert's analysis - I don't think he went far enough.
The tax base popultion was much larger in our history. Now we seem to have far more folks NOT paying anything at all in income tax for a number of reasons.
Also, I think you and your expert are only counting job creation in the U.S. - we have been expanding job creation world wide (and STILL are) since we now have a global economy.
Our tax system is very messed up, no doubt. The President's own BI-PARTISAN Deficit Commission made some great recommendations about closing some tax loophole and reducing rate for added revenues to our Treasury - I don't understand why there is such adverse reaction to this from the current Administration and his party.
We need a new tax system - government needs to stop using the system that we have now to make us do things that they want us to do by giving tax incentives.