JohnnyCarcinogen wrote:
Whether you like it or not, our capitalist, free-market laissez-faire economic system depends heavily on this kind of taxation, and even if Ron Paul may be a maverick candidate, he's STILL a REPUBLICAN
Um..... we aren't laissez-faire, in fact, saying that we depend on an intervention is a negation of our laissez-faireness. Our economic system depends on productive action and our government depends on taxation, now we can argue that taxation is necessary to fund certain productive actions, but that is a separate argument and does not prove that taxation is good. Ron Paul is really more of a libertarian, he even was a former presidential candidate for the party.
Quote:
We are currently in debt over our heads due to the current "War on Terror", which will reach a peak cost that no one can accurately estimate. At this point, most of the American people know that any of the natural resources we gain are coming at too high a price, and will fall into the hands of the same corporations that "rip us off" every day.
I'd blame tax policy more than the war and just fiscal incompetence in general really. The war has been about $474 billion but the change in the deficit under Bush has been $3.3335 trillion. Which means that the war is only 1/7th of the total change in the debt.
Quote:
Also, what would he do to protect our nation from monopolistic corporations, globalization, outsourcing, and other hazards of a free market? How would we pay for all of our national services (Military, Red Cross, construction of highways, etc.)? How would we be able to fund non-profit research for cures to deadly and painful diseases?
Do we need a lot of protection? I would argue that we don't. Globalization also isn't a problem and outsourcing is merely a variant of trade and frankly, old trade theories haven't become false so really, outsourcing is no different than the computer or some other technology that displaces people. Ron Paul isn't an anarchist, he would remove a lot of services considered unnecessary but likely keep some things and have states do others. Why should we dump another billion dollars towards AIDs specifically anyway? I mean, funding goes to things based upon popularity, not on need.
Quote:
I can understand people who don't like paying taxes, but seriously lighten the f&$k up already. Without taxes, a lot of the things we take for granted would simply vanish, leaving many who gripe about their income tax in a state of shock.
Yes, but no candidate is for abolishing all taxes. Ron Paul will inevitably push towards an alternative tax system because he isn't an anarchist. Yes, changes in taxes will change other things.
Quote:
Reaganomics and what you call loose GOP economic theory have both NEVER fully worked due to the fact that they both subscribe to "trickle down" economics, i.e. the theory that money from the rich will somehow be spent and find its way to the poor, thus revitalizing the economy and reducing poverty.
Problem is, this NEVER EVER WORKS. The rich, with tax cuts and breaks, hold onto their money instead of spending it in/around places that are in need of economic investment. Having fewer taxes seems as if it would put more money in the hands of the many, but if you think about it, this is not technically true.
They tend to subscribe to supply side economics(an idea that Ron Paul, an Austrian does not belong to), the theory that tax cuts will induce greater investment and productive efforts and thus increase economic growth and thus make us all wealthier. The issue with this is that it does not address structural changes in the economy that are responsible for poverty and that the deficit spending tends to cause trade deficits and things of that nature. The rich have no reason to hold on to their money, and they AREN'T supposed to spend it either as the idea is that we increase supply(via investment), not demand, as there are 2 sides to the economics equations. So, it is supposed to increase efforts to increase wealth and to increase investment. Having fewer taxes would put more money in the hands of the market, the issue is how much the market creates wealth as opposed to the government.
Quote:
Most classes buy goods and services not out of impulse or want, but of need and necessity. While the rich do have needs, they tend to spend a lot more on wants than the majority of the country does, due to the fact that they can afford it.
Well, no, actually most people buy stuff out of want. Needs are very limited in some senses, and most things go back to our comfort.
Quote:
Without taxes, this disparity would grow into a larger gap, and the rich would continue to profit off of the lower class's needs. Without other financial resources, ending taxes puts all other classes in a substantial disadvantage.
The issue is whether inequality is absolutely evil. Supply-side economists tend not to care about equality. Well, the entire economy is meant to profit off of needs and wants, which means that the rich and the lower class both make their income off of this. How is that wrong? It is how things are supposed to work.
22 Jan 2008, 12:26 am
