Ron Paul is better.

Some pretty good responses lol

doesn't GJ want to abolish the IRS and implement a different tax system? how does this not get an auto vote from everyone in america? More $$$ in everyone's pockets. I understand he has very little / no chance at winning, but can someone explain to me how/why this isn't enough for a vote?

new tax system doesn't automatically = Smaller tax bill

Most "fair" taxes that don't require an IRS will be very unprogressive in the sense the rich will pay proportionally less than they do now and everyone else more. That doesn't even matter to most people though, it's mostly just people are scared of change.

No, Ron Paul is worse.

The Fair Tax is a very specific tax plan, not just "a fair tax".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairTax

Personally, I'm skeptical of the Fair Tax, although I do consider pretty much any form of taxation to be an improvement to income tax, and a sales tax definitely qualifies. It's also entirely possible to make a sales tax progressive, although I think this plan isn't very except for giving everyone a rebate on about $10k of spending.

ahhh I shouldn't post this, but I can't help myself. Why should "rich" people have to pay more than someone who is poor? How is that fair or logical? I do somewhat agree that if you make something over 5M a year you should pay a "little bit more" since that money would mean less to that person. My understanding of the core concept of America is that you can become rich or great from total nothing if you work hard enough. If you were poor and then became rich, you should be penalized because of your hard work? that seems incredibly stupid to me.

I also believe that under the current system, people who are "rich" are more likely to pay less tax than poor/middle class people because of loopholes in the tax laws and their ability to use their money to seek advice from professionals who know how to do this. Does this make any sense even though what I'm saying is somewhat poorly worded?

I also agree that people are VERY VERY scared of change and are unlikely to try something new because it is foreign to them.

The problem with the whole less vs. more thing is that there are different measurements. Someone who pays 10% on 1 million pays tremendously more than someone who pays 15% on 20k. A flat income tax is actually already inherently "progressive".

this seems awesome compared to the current system...

The problem with this site is that they fail to understand the power of reddit.

Gov Johnson doing an AMA will get him back in the news, for good or bad, but these fools that run this site won't have the foresight to piggyback, even after all they have done to promote him.

By "this site" you mean 2+2?

AMA on 4chan would get him on the news IMO

I agree with Alex on something!

Well, that didn't last long.

There's something you disagree with in that? It's a flat out factual statement.

I think it depends how you look at it. The take home pay difference here is 17,000 vs. 900,000. A progressive structure would say that the 900k earner should pay more because of how much they are taking home.

And they are....

If you want to redefine "progressive" as something that negatively effects low income earners far more than high income earners, then yeah, it's "factual".

Progressive is something where people pay disproportionate amounts based on income. A flat income tax qualifies.

Or maybe you should try being roommates with someone who makes a third of what you make and suggest splitting costs based on income?

One of you is using the common usage while the other is using the literal usage. Move along.

It's official.


http://newsok.com/third-party-wont-b...rticle/3709599

Oklahoma is just the home of the brave. The land of the free part is other states.

"Ahhh, **** it all."
- David Mayo, filling out his absentee ballot.

yessssssssssssssssssss

states rights save the state from itself?