Ron Paul’s position on the income tax, to get rid of it is a good one but tax revenues have to be generated and must be free from corrupt tax gaming that has plagued taxpayers for decades.
I heard Ron Paul say he would replace ‘it’ meaning tax revenues with nothing and it spoke volumes to the dark smelly place where the man had stuck his mind.
If he had said ‘replace the Income Tax Code with nothing’, then he would make sense. But then he would have to follow with what means of taxation would be used to fund the military, the various branches of federal government such as the courts. Certain things need to be funded and certain things don’t. The problem is the American people can’t connect the dots between taxation and what is funded, and the 16th Amendment income tax can hit them everywhere they breathe, including Obamacare which is now being defended as a tax program held Constitutional under the 16th Amendment.
If Ron Paul had said ‘Repeal the 16th Amendment’, then he would have made even better sense. But that is the problem with Ron Paul, he says a lot of things that hang in the air and sound almost good, but don’t quite add up to much.
The means of generating tax revenues must be transparent and voted on each year.
The FairTax does these things while at the same time ensuring each and every American is never taxed for the necessities of life.
The FairTax also repatriates $20 trillion dollars that have fled America because of its tax insanity.
Every single aspect of the FairTax was researched, analyzed, debated, contrasted against history and positioned to align taxation in America with what the Founders intended. It is the single most brilliant piece of political legislation of the last 100 years. Nothing comes close.
The reason that Ron Paul doesn’t embrace the FairTax is because it was thought of by someone else. It’s not his baby.
Ron Paul likes to make a name for himself by saying and proposing things that no one else of recent history has had a mind to say or propose. He fancies himself as a Founder. But he lays no concrete plans to realize his view of America. That’s why he can’t get traction among the electorate, he sounds good but there’s no there there.
I dunno. Maybe not enough people want massive tax cuts, massive spending cuts, a much much smaller federal government.
That’s what you’d get with Ron Paul. That’s what I want, but maybe not enough people want that. Very possibly nowhere near enough people want much much smaller government.