Steve Forbes Endorses Rand Paul (Ron Paul's son) for US Senate in Kentucky

Is Paul for that? Or he is for Forbes's "flat tax on wage income, no taxes on all other income"?

His father has said before that he would vote yes on flat tax simply because it would eliminate the income tax, which to him would be SOME kind of progress, but that it isn't good enough for him ultimately because he'd rather spending be cut to a point where neither would be necessary.

I assume Rand holds the same position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't SPECIFICALLY support flat tax other than because of what I mentioned.

Why is Rand being pinned to the flat tax just because someone who endorsed him is the quintesential flat taxer?

I was asking because of the previous poster's comment. I don't know Rand's position, though I imagine it's like that of his father and Forbes.

His father does not have the same position on the flat tax as Forbes. That's what I just said in that last post.

He has specifically said he'd only vote for it because, to paraphrase: it's better than nothing, basically.

Rand's father is not married to it like Forbes is.
 
His father has said before that he would vote yes on flat tax simply because it would eliminate the income tax, which to him would be SOME kind of progress, but that it isn't good enough for him ultimately because he'd rather spending be cut to a point where neither would be necessary.

I assume Rand holds the same position. I'm pretty sure he doesn't SPECIFICALLY support flat tax other than because of what I mentioned.

Why is Rand being pinned to the flat tax just because someone who endorsed him is the quintesential flat taxer?

I was asking because of the previous poster's comment. I don't know Rand's position, though I imagine it's like that of his father and Forbes.

His father does not have the same position on the flat tax as Forbes. That's what I just said in that last post.

He has specifically said he'd only vote for it because, to paraphrase: it's better than nothing, basically.

Rand's father is not married to it like Forbes is.

He's not as a matter of absolute principle, but he is in practice. Politics is bound by the feasible.
 
I was asking because of the previous poster's comment. I don't know Rand's position, though I imagine it's like that of his father and Forbes.

His father does not have the same position on the flat tax as Forbes. That's what I just said in that last post.

He has specifically said he'd only vote for it because, to paraphrase: it's better than nothing, basically.

Rand's father is not married to it like Forbes is.

He's not as a matter of absolute principle, but he is in practice. Politics is bound by the feasible.
That doesn't make it fair to make a statement that he holds the "same" position as Forbes does, though.

Forbes absolutely WANTS it, Paul would merely vote for it, probably while somewhat holding his nose, based on how he describes his reasoning. Those are two different positions. But I see your point. The average idiot will not make that distinction, and the average idiot makes up the majority of the electorate.
 
His father does not have the same position on the flat tax as Forbes. That's what I just said in that last post.

He has specifically said he'd only vote for it because, to paraphrase: it's better than nothing, basically.

Rand's father is not married to it like Forbes is.

He's not as a matter of absolute principle, but he is in practice. Politics is bound by the feasible.
That doesn't make it fair to make a statement that he holds the "same" position as Forbes does, though.

Forbes absolutely WANTS it, Paul would merely vote for it, probably while somewhat holding his nose, based on how he describes his reasoning. Those are two different positions. But I see your point. The average idiot will not make that distinction, and the average idiot makes up the majority of the electorate.

Why should the distinction be made? Sure, there is a philosophical disagreement, but in terms of practical impact on their lives, no difference exists.
 
I guess because Forbes would most likely stop at the flat tax, while Paul would continue pushing for no tax at all. That's where the difference lies. Forbes apparently doesn't hold the position that we can cut spending to a point where neither the income or the flat tax is necessary.

For Forbes, it's a concise victory. For Paul it's just another stop on the road to further tax progress.
 
Personal income tax only. I said all personal income.
Including personal capital gains.

And yes I have had a business and a family.
We could cut govt expenses by billiions with a pure flat tax.
The IRS could reduce it's workforce by 90% or so.

We could end the parasitical HR block, etc that lives off of tax deductions and the tax system.


And what government services do you cut?
None if all people paid a flat tax on ALL income we would have plenty of money at a lower tax rate for most. Of course some woud pay that had not had to before because of deductions.

My comcept is if you make 1,000 you pay X%, you make 1 billiion you pay exactly the same x % on 1 billion.

This is personal income from all sources only. Not businesses.

OK, I pay 6.2% Social Security on all income that I earn. I want to see the same for all. Right up to Bill Gates.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top