Ken Krawchuk, the Libertarian candidate for Pennsylvania Governor, wishes his fellow Pennsylvania taxpayers a “Happier Tax Day!” on this April 15th.
“My wish for all Pennsylvania’s taxpayers is to have a Happier Tax Day than the one we’re having today,” Krawchuk said, “and the only way to ensure that happens is to vote for a Libertarian governor this year.
The cost of government in Pennsylvania is already staggering, and it continues to grow by leaps and bounds. In fact, over the course of the last fifty years — two entire generations! — the cost of government has been growing at more than three times the rate of inflation. It doesn’t matter if it’s a Democrat or Republican in office, it doesn’t matter if it’s an era of lower inflation or if it’s the hyperinflation of the Carter years, it doesn’t matter if it’s good times or bad; the direction is always up, up, up; always towards overly expensive government.
“How expensive? In 1964, the average Pennsylvania taxpayer paid only $100 in taxes. Today, that number is over $2,300 and growing. Had taxes tracked with inflation, the average tax would have been below $700. But instead, the government is taking an extra $1,600 from each Pennsylvanian. And in these tough economic times, what taxpayer couldn’t use an extra $1,600 a year? But sadly, the immediate future looks bleak; Governor Corbett’s latest budget doesn’t grow the cost of government at three times the rate of inflation… it’s four times the rate of inflation.
“When I’m governor that trend will end, because a Happier Tax Day is a promise I can deliver — and without the assistance of the legislature or the courts — using a three-step approach. First, I can hold the line on the growth of government: I promise to veto every single tax increase that crosses my desk. Second, I can actually reduce the cost of government: I promise to aggressively use the line item veto to eliminate costly pork barrel spending, eliminate unconstitutional programs, and eliminate politicians’ glad-handing of our tax dollars for their pet special interests. And third, with the savings that generates I promise to introduce a series of budgets over my four-year term that will phase out the personal income tax entirely.
“Let’s hold the line on big government, shrink the budget, and return the savings to the taxpayers. How’s that for a Happier Tax Day?
“So on this April 15th, I wish all Pennsylvanians a Happier Tax Day! And the only way to make that wish come to pass is to vote Libertarian. Because if you keep on voting the way you’ve been voting, you’re going to keep on getting just what you’ve been getting. And haven’t we all had enough?”
Founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the state and the nation, with over 150 elected and appointed officials currently serving in office nationwide, and 40 in Pennsylvania. Like the Founding Fathers, Libertarians believe that you have the inalienable right to conduct your life as you see fit, without interference, so long as you respect the rights and property of others. As a result, Libertarians favor a small, responsible government.
For more information about the Libertarian Party, the public is invited to contact the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania at www.LpPa.org or (800) R-RIGHTS, or the National Libertarian Party at www.Lp.org or (202) 333-0008.
For more information about the Krawchuk campaign, please visit the campaign website at www.KenK.org. The campaign can be contacted at [email protected], or 224-Krawchuk (224-572-9248).
“Starting point for a conversation” =/= exact plan.
“paulie April 23, 2014 at 6:43 am
I asked him about that specifically. He is not for the tax rates being reveue neutral. I agree it is a crappy plan though. And he does specifically say that it is a starting point for a conversation, not the exact plan he wants to pass.”
If it is not the exact plan that he wants to pass, then why in the hell has he spent the last 3 years or so promoting that plan?
I asked him about that specifically. He is not for the tax rates being reveue neutral. I agree it is a crappy plan though. And he does specifically say that it is a starting point for a conversation, not the exact plan he wants to pass.
“paulie April 22, 2014 at 6:42 am
‘I’ve never heard Gary Johnson advocate anything about the Fair Tax beyond what it is, as in he pushes the same Fair Tax plan pushed by John Linder and Neal Boortz and the rest of the Fair Tax gang.’
You haven’t listened carefully enough. He says it is the starting point of a conversation about how to reform the tax system. That means he does not necessarily embrace every detail of the plan, such as the rates.”
The starting point line sounds like bullshit to me. Gary Johnson has sold the Fair Tax plan as it is, and it is a crappy plan.
You haven’t listened carefully enough. He says it is the starting point of a conversation about how to reform the tax system. That means he does not necessarily embrace every detail of the plan, such as the rates.
” paulie April 21, 2014 at 9:17 pm
‘The general outline of the Fair Tax sucks, and it is a lousy place to start the conversation about cutting taxes and government spending, becaue the plan does neither.’
I agree that the plan sucks. But the talking point that you keep bringing up – the ‘revenue neutral’ part – is not part of what Gary means when he says it should be the start of a conversation. It is possible to support a plan which is similar to the ‘fairtax’ plan which is not revenue neutral. Given that Gary wants dramatic spending cuts it does not follow that he supports a revenue neutral plan.”
I’ve never heard Gary Johnson advocate anything about the Fair Tax beyond what it is, as in he pushes the same Fair Tax plan pushed by John Linder and Neal Boortz and the rest of the Fair Tax gang.
How about passing a resolution at the Libertarian Party National Convention this year that says that the Libertarian Party formally rejects the Fair Tax?
I agree that the plan sucks. But the talking point that you keep bringing up – the “revenue neutral” part – is not part of what Gary means when he says it should be the start of a conversation. It is possible to support a plan which is similar to the “fairtax” plan which is not revenue neutral. Given that Gary wants dramatic spending cuts it does not follow that he supports a revenue neutral plan. The “revenue neutral” rhetoric is something the “fairtaxers” are aiming at *other* people who do NOT want a cut in government “services.” That is not a part of the plan that Gary necessarily supports. I don’t understand why this is taking several rounds of explanation. It’s a very simple point that you should have understood the first time I explained it.
“paulie April 21, 2014 at 7:29 pm
‘Then why doesn’t he come up with his own tax plan? Why does he latch on to the Fair Tax? ‘
He just says the general outline of the plan is a good starting point for a conversation (I disagree, but that is besides the point), not that he supports the tax rates in that plan, which he does not. Gary is not for a revenue neutral plan, he wants to cut both taxes and spending as well as start paying down the debt. ”
The general outline of the Fair Tax sucks, and it is a lousy place to start the conversation about cutting taxes and government spending, becaue the plan does neither.
Gary Johnson latches on to the Fair Tax plan like he is repeating talking points out fo the Fair Tax play book, which he may very well be doing.
He just says the general outline of the plan is a good starting point for a conversation (I disagree, but that is besides the point), not that he supports the tax rates in that plan, which he does not. Gary is not for a revenue neutral plan, he wants to cut both taxes and spending as well as start paying down the debt.
He does not. Again, saying that this plan is a good starting point for a conversation about how to change the tax structure does not mean he agrees with the revenue neutral part, which he does not.
No one is saying it would happen in one fell swoop. Gary feels like he can position himself to get elected, perhaps over several election cycles, if he presents proposals that he believe will be taken seriously.
Dave Champion: Deconstructing the Fair Tax Nonsense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFSc_GSS84w
Part of the mass uprising that it would take to elect a non-ruling establisment candidate to the White House as I described above would be to have vote fraud experts watching every polling place in the country. The ruling establishment is ruthless and will do anything to stay in power, including having a non-ruling establishment backed candidate who looks like they can win assassinated (they may make it look like an “accident”), using the mass media to smear said non-ruling establishment backed candidate, staging a “terrorist attack” (ie-false flag) and using it as an excuse to declare martial law, or to say something like, “See, you better vote for us because we are the ones who will make you safe.” The ruling establishment is not just going to give up their power. They will pull every dirty trick you can think of to maintain their power.
This is why minor party and independent candidate campaigns for President are not very realistic from the stand point of actually winning the election. Sure, they could win IF they were able to spend hundreds of millions (or more) of dollars and mobilize a huge number of activists, including getting people to oversee every polling place in the country to watch out for vote fraud. This is not likely to happen, so I’d say that the primary purpose of minor party and independent candidates for President should be to get a message out and build a movement toward eventual change, which may have to come outside of electoral politics (although the process of running for office can help point people towards things outside of electoral politics which could lead to such change).
” paulie April 20, 2014 at 8:16 am
‘Really, just using the White House as a pulpit to preach Truth in Taxation, alternative currencies, and jury nullification, and also firing government employees, pardoning people for victimless crimes, and ordering American military troops stationed overseas to come back home, would all be things that a President could do WITHOUT having to get anything through Congress.’
First you would have to get elected.”
Nobody running as a minor party or independent candidate, or who is not backed by the ruling establishment, is likely to be elected President regardless of what the details of their platform are. They would have to be able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on their campaign to even be competitive. It would take a lot of money and a mass uprising like this country has not seen in a long time for any non-ruling establishment backed candidate to win the White House.
” paulie April 20, 2014 at 8:24 am
‘and then put a direct 30% sales tax (which is disingenuously sold as being a 23% tax),’
Once again: he is not wedded to the tax rates or other details of the “fairtax” plan, he just wants to use its rough outline as a starting point in a conversation about a new tax system that he thinks will be less bad than the existing one. And his spending proposals make clear that he does want to shrink government in real terms. Thus, logically, the tax rates will be lower as well.”
Then why doesn’t he come up with his own tax plan? Why does he latch on to the Fair Tax?
His spending proposals make it sound like he wants to shrink government, yet he supports a tax plan that is designed to be revenue nuetral, as in it is designed to bring in just as much money as the current income tax system does. What does he think that the government is going to do with that money?
” paulie April 20, 2014 at 8:22 am
‘Gary Johnson wants to repeal corporate taxes – and note that corporate taxes are actually constitutional’
He believes it will spur a huge wave of job creation. Given that there are a lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed they may want to get a job or have more choices of jobs. Companies may want to locate in countries where they pay less tax, given that many jobs could be located in a choice of countries. I think creating tens of millions of new jobs without new government sppending is a good talking point, even though I don’t have as much of a philosophical problem with a corporate tax as I do with some other taxes.”
Repealing any taxes would help create more private sector jobs. I’m not really opposed to repealing corporate taxes, I was just pointing out that corporate taxes are constitutional and the Fair Tax is not. I was also pointing out that from a marketing perspecitive, repealing taxes on corporations while at the same time enacting a 30% tax which every American will have to pay every time they purchase goods or services makes it sound like Libertarians are for the rich corporations and don’t care about the Average Joe and Average Jane.
Once again: he is not wedded to the tax rates or other details of the “fairtax” plan, he just wants to use its rough outline as a starting point in a conversation about a new tax system that he thinks will be less bad than the existing one. And his spending proposals make clear that he does want to shrink government in real terms. Thus, logically, the tax rates will be lower as well.
He believes it will spur a huge wave of job creation. Given that there are a lot of people who are unemployed or underemployed they may want to get a job or have more choices of jobs. Companies may want to locate in countries where they pay less tax, given that many jobs could be located in a choice of countries. I think creating tens of millions of new jobs without new government sppending is a good talking point, even though I don’t have as much of a philosophical problem with a corporate tax as I do with some other taxes.
First you would have to get elected.
So is Gary. He has a different idea of what is practically possible or sellable, given his experience.
Paul said: “Once again, he is not wedded to the exact ‘fairtax’ plan but considers it a ‘good starting point for a conversation’ for the type of tax plan he wants to move to since he does not believe he could credibly sell replacing most federal taxes with nothing to the general public.”
If you want to talk about selling a plan to the public, Gary Johnson wants to repeal corporate taxes – and note that corporate taxes are actually constitutional – and then put a direct 30% sales tax (which is disingenuously sold as being a 23% tax), which will be paid by average Joe and Jane everytime they purchase goods and services. Now I’m not opposed to abolishing corporate taxes, and it should be pointed out that they get passed on to the consumer anyway in the form of higher prices, but this is HORRIBLE marketing, and once again displays Gary Johnson’s lack of understanding of the Constitution, as well as his philosophical weakness in thinking that the income tax needs to be replaced with something. Corpoate taxes are constitutional, direct taxes on the American people are not constitutional.
Again, I am in favor of abolishing corporate taxes just as I’m in favor of abolishing all taxes, but from a marketing perspective, Gary Johnson’s tax plan says to the Average Joe’s and Jane’s out there, “Hey Average Joe and Average Jane, I don’t think that rich corporations should pay any taxes, but you Average Joe’s and Average Jane’s out there should have to pay a 30% sales tax every time you purchase goods & services,” but of course he goes along with the disengenuous Fair Tax pitch by claiming that it is a 23% tax when it is really a 30% tax.
Really, just using the White House as a pulpit to preach Truth in Taxation, alternative currencies, and jury nullification, and also firing government employees, pardoning people for victimless crimes, and ordering American military troops stationed overseas to come back home, would all be things that a President could do WITHOUT having to get anything through Congress.
Here are a few other things I’d do if elected President:
I’d borrow a suggestion from Harry Browne, and take away the guns from all of the Secret Service bodyguards who guard the members of Congress. I’d tell them that their bodyguards can get their guns back after they officially repeal every gun control law that is on the books.
I’d send the US military to the United Nations and I’d evict them from the USA. I’d have a public ceremony where the anti-gun rights statue at the UN building is melted down and made into bullets I’d give away in a raffle contest.
I’d also raid the NSA, CIA, FBI, and Department of Homeland Security. I would confiscate all of their files and release them to the public.
I would encourage people in states where there are offices for the NSA, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the IRS, the DEA, the SSA, Federal Reserve System branches, etc…, to cut off their electricity and water.
I’d invite Walter Burien ( http://www.CAFR1.com ) to the White House, and I’d have a conference where the subject of government Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports would be exposed. It would be very interesting to find out how the American public would react if they knew how much wealth was being hoarded by government entities such as government employee pension funds, state universities and community colleges, water districts, toll authorities, port authorities, school districts, etc…, and how a large chunk of corporate America is owned by these government entities.
I would encourage people to get involved in fully informed jury activism, and I would announce that this type of activism is legal in front of all court houses in the USA, and anyone who tries to prevent this type of activism from taking place will be arrested under Title 18 of US code (Deprevation of Rights Under Color of Law).
Paul said: “Gary disagrees. He’s been elected to an executive position. You haven’t.”
I don’t give a rat’s ass to which positions Gary Johnson or anyone else has been elected. I’m not impressed by titles. I’m interested in shrinking government as much as possible, and if possible, making it die. I don’t want somebody to go to Washington DC to make it “more efficient” or to make a few cuts here and there, I want somebody who will go to Washington DC with a chainsaw and start going Leatherface (Texas Chainsaw Massacre reference).
Paul said: “‘Gary Johnson, on the other hand, actively stumps for the Fair Tax.’
Once again, he is not wedded to the exact “fairtax” plan but considers it a “good starting point for a conversation” for the type of tax plan he wants to move to since he does not believe he could credibly sell replacing most federal taxes with nothing to the general public.”
The Fair Tax is a horrible starting point for the conversation about cutting taxes and government spending, because it does neither.
If Gary Johnson had a better understanding of the Constitution, he’d know that the Constitution prohibits direct taxes on the American people, and that direct taxes must be apportioned among the states. The Fair Tax is a direct tax on the American people, and therefore would be in conflict with the clauses of the Constitution which prohibit direct taxes on the American people from the federal (or national) government. This is one of the reasons why the income tax is a sham. The current income tax as it is written does not apply to most Americans, even if you go by the concept that government laws and the Constitution actually apply to anybody (which as Marc Stevens ( http://www.MarcStevens.net ) points out, there is no actual evidence that the Constition or any government laws apply to anybody, but this is another issue). There are several Supreme Court decisions from shortly after the 16th amendment was allegedly passed (I say allegedly, since there is evidence that it was never legally ratified by enough states for it to have actually passed) that say that the income tax as properly applied, is a tax on income earned by FOREIGNERS, as well as Americans with foreign income, as well as on corporate profits. The government has decieved people into thinking that they owe a tax on personal income for working within the 50 states, and that they must have and use a Social Security Number – even though the laws AS WRITTEN do not require American citizens to have or use Social Security Numbers unless they want to take part in government welfare programs – and that they must file 1040 confession forms where they forfeit their 5th amendment right to not testify against themselves.
Ron Paul knows that the federal income tax is a sham as it is currently applied from a legalland basis. Ron Paul has appeared in forums and interviews on this subject with the likes of former IRS agent Joe Banister and Bob Schulz (founder of We The People Foundation – http://www.givemeliberty.org ).
If I were elected President, or a candidate for President, my platform would be to end the income tax and replace it with nothing. If somebody said, “Well how would you get that through Congress.” My reply would be that I would not need to get it through Congress. During my first day in office, I’d announce a Truth in Taxation conference to be held at the White House. Speakers at the conference would include former IRS agents Joe Banister and Sherry Peal Jackson, Bob Schulz, Irwin Schiff (whom I would grant a pardon to so he’d be released from federal prison), Dave Champion, Peymon Mottahedeh, and perhaps a few others, such as Larken Rose who I’d like to give the closing address at the conference. I’d invite members of the IRS, the Federal Reserve System, the Social Security Administration, and the US Congress to come to the conference to debate my panel of speakers, but I seriously doubt that they’d have the balls to show up because they would not want their scam to be exposed. The income tax/Social Security System/Federal Reserve System scam getting exposed at a White House conference would be sure to get massive publicity and there would not be much that the establishment could do to put a lid on something this big.
After exposing the income tax for the scam that it is from the White House, I’d address the nation, and I’d say something like, “OK America, now you know the truth. So what are you going to do about it? Those of you who want to keep feeding the beast, go ahead and do so if you really want to continue on this destructive course, but for those of you who’d prefer to keep your earnings, so you can spend it, save it, or give it away as YOU see fit, rather than sending it to this cesspool of corruption on the Potomic, you should now be informed of the fact that not only do you have an ethical right to do this, you also have a legal right to do this. So I encourage you to stop filing taxes, and burn your Social Security cards. Come to WhiteHouse.gov and you can download an affidavit that you can give to an employer or an independent contracting party that says that you are declining to provide a Social Security Number ( http://web.nossn.com/specvest/nossn.nsf/b896852a62036d1e852568f0001d68fc/9f79b70902d3681c85256914006b2c19/$FILE/p-1.pdf ). If the IRS goes after anyone listening to this for keeping their own money, call the White House hotline and I will grant you a pardon. I also encourage you to stop using Federal Reserve funny money and to start trading in gold or silver or digital currencies like Bitcoin or Litecoin.”
Passing the Fair Tax won’t do a damn thing to bring us closer to freedom. Passing the Liberty Amendment would, and implementing the plan that I mentioned damn sure would.
It tells me that he is more interested in the long term than the short term, since he clearly stated he believes (incorrectly IMO) that it woudl be a step in the right direction.
Once again, he is not wedded to the exact “fairtax” plan but considers it a “good starting point for a conversation” for the type of tax plan he wants to move to since he does not believe he could credibly sell replacing most federal taxes with nothing to the general public.
We are just repeating ourselves now. Do you have anything new to add?
“He does not have to sign on as a co-sponsor. He said he would have voted for it if it came up for a vote and never disavowed that in all the years it has been on the ‘fairtax’ website.”
The fact that Ron Paul never signed on as a co-sponser of the Fair Tax bill while he was in Congress, and NEVER promoted the Fair Tax during one of his campaigns should tell you something.
Gary Johnson, on the other hand, actively stumps for the Fair Tax.
Johnson is also for replacing it with nothing, however he campaigns on what he believes he can achieve politically within a term or two in office. Both Paul and Johnson believe the “fairtax” is better than what we have now (I disagree with them). Both believe replacing all those taxes with nothing would be even better. The difference is only rhetorical, IE what each chooses to emphasize. Johnson is more focused on the short term and Paul more on the long term. It may have to do with the difference between legislators and executives in government. Legislators can focus more on ideas that push the envelope, which do not have the support of other legislators and are just flights of fancy and wishful thinking. Executives have to actually govern. Thus, since Johnson was a Governor and Paul was a Congressman, it is not surprising that Johnson has more of a short term/practical focus than Paul does.
He does not have to sign on as a co-sponsor. He said he would have voted for it if it came up for a vote and never disavowed that in all the years it has been on the “fairtax” website.
No candidate is ideal.
Their rhetoric was more radically libertarian. In some other ways Johnson is better: he has mainsream credentials as a former Governor which make some people take him more seriously. He got to debate some of the leading contenders a couple of times before switching parties. He has a lot of other interesting parts of his biography, such as the mountain climbing and building his one man business into the state’s largest construction company, that make good media hooks. He places a strong amount of emphasis on issues that liberal and libertarians have in common, which I think is exactly what we have not done nearly enough of. So in some ways he is better than those other candidates were, in other ways worse.
See the last section of my response. And Bergland was a terrible public speaker and refused to try to improve. Good writer, though.
Ed Clark was villified by Rothbard, but I read his 1980 campaign book (many years later) and found it to be excellent. I think his campaign had many of the same strengths and same weaknesses as Johnson’s, relative to other LP presidential candidates before and after, although Clark had never been a Governor and Johnson did not have a billionaire running mate.
I don’t know very much about MacBride. I know he cast the electoral vote for Hospers, and went back to the Republicans after running LP.
I don’t know whether Hospers was as bad ideologically as an LP candidate as he was later in life, but it hardly matters – he was on the ballot in two states and had no money or media to speak of.
I liked Harry Browne’s “The Great Libertarian Offer,” as in, would you be willing to give up your favorite federal government program if it meant that you never had to pay federal income taxes ever again?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMet2BV0dWA
Here’s a video of the person who SHOULD HAVE been elected President back in 1996, and then re-elected President in 2000:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LcHv6tRRyU
I’ve been following Ron Paul since 1996, and his position of ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing has remained consistent. This was always his campaign platform, and his record in Congress. The Fair Tax bill was in Congress while Ron Paul was there, and he never signed on as a co-sponsor of the bill.
Ron Paul did sponsor The Liberty Amendment, which, among other things, would have ended the income tax. The Liberty Amendment also would have cut government spending. This is a MUCH BETTER plan than that Fair Tax nonsense.
http://www.libertyamendment.com/
Here is the text of the Liberty Amendment:
“Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purpose of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and/or gifts.”
As for Ron Paul saying that Gary Johnson is “wonderful,” and reportedly voting for him, sure, he is wonderful compared to the other candidates who were in the race, but keep in mind that the other candidates really sucked. Gary Johnson looking good compared to the other candidates for President in 2012 does not make him the ideal Libertarian Party candidate. Harry Browne was better. I think that Michael Badnarik was better as well, and the same goes for Ron Paul. I’m not as familiar with the other Libertarian Party candidates for President, but from what I know, Andre Marrou and David Bergland were likely better on the issues. I’m not sure about Ed Clark and Roger MacBride. Gary Johnson may be better than John Hospers given that Hospers went neo-con later in life. Gary Johnson was better than Bob Barr, but this does not say much.
“David April 16, 2014 at 1:47 am
At least Ken gave us his solutions, if he were to be elected governor rather then just talk about ending the state income tax. How would Harry Browne’s proposal work in todays climate, to end the income tax and replace it with nothing? I know he said there is nothing more insecure then a political promise.”
Harry Browne proposed shutting down all government agencies that are not specifically authorized by the Constitution, and selling off their assets, and then using the proceeds to liquidate Social Security for everyone who is currently dependent on it, as well as for those who have already paid into the system for years. He proposed purchasing private retirement accounts to replace Social Security for all current recipients as well as those who had already paid into the system for years and were getting close to retirement age. This would have freed younger people from having to pay Social Security taxes and also given them the opportunity to have a private retirement account which would be much better than Social Security, while at the same time still taking care of all of the people who were relying on Social Security, and this would have been done while shrinking government.
At least Ken gave us his solutions, if he were to be elected governor rather then just talk about ending the state income tax. How would Harry Browne’s proposal work in todays climate, to end the income tax and replace it with nothing? I know he said there is nothing more insecure then a political promise.
A 43% reduction in spending in the short term means what to you?
Johnson does not necessarily advocate the exact plan that the “fairtax” people propose. What he actually says is that he wants to move to a consumption tax as a replacement for most existing taxes with the “fairtax” being the “start of the conversation” on how exactly to do that. This does not mean he wants it to be revenue neutral, even though the “fairtax” group proposes a plan that will be revenue neutral. He wants a large reduction in spending, so that means the tax could be lower as well.
I agree, and will continue to discuss this issue with Gary.
However, the fact remains that this is the same plan Ron Paul has said he would vote for, and that Gary does not necessarily advocate for the exact “fair” tax plan, only to use it as a start for a conversation on how to move to a consumption tax as a replacement for most existing taxes, and that he would also replace all these taxes with nothing if he could but does not believe he can.
My position is different from his, but you are making his position to be worse than it is and Ron Paul’s to be better than it actually is.
Difference in rhetorical style, not policy. Both Ron and Gary say they would consider the so-called “fair” tax to be better than what we have now (I disagree, but that is besides the point) and both say they would replace most existing taxes with nothing if they could. Ron just places more rhetorical emphasis on the latter part. I don’t think either of them believes they would actually be able to replace most existing taxes with nothing in one fell swoop. As far as I can see their actual policy position on taxes is identical.
I doubt it. He or staff would have informed the “fairtax” website, which lists him as a supporter. I’m sure people have asked him about this at least a few times in recent years. While you may “not be surprised” I would like to see some actual evidence if he has. Perhaps you could contact his staff.
The positions are not different unless I see some evidence to the contrary. The rhetoric is different.
The “fair” tax purports to replace a lot more than only the income tax.
Gary disagrees. He’s been elected to an executive position. You haven’t. And even Ron Paul, while he has been elected to many legislative terms, has never been elected to an executive position either. So, what you think may not necessarily be correct.
Evidently Ron Paul disagrees with you on that point, since he has called Gary Johnson “wonderful” and according to mutual acquaintances he told them that he personally voted for Johnson. I do not know for sure why he has not made that public, but I expect it is probably due to his son’s ambitions for 2016.
Taxes are the number one issue. Taxes are what funds all of the government insanity. Take away taxes and government disappears. So I’d rather have a candidate who wants to ban gay marriage than one who wants to enact a 30% sales taxes. Not that I support banning gay marriage, because I do not, but I’m just saying that supporting a 30% sales tax is far more toxic than banning gay marriage.
Taxation trumps EVERY other issue, well, taxes along with government money creation trump EVERY other issue.
Take away taxes and government money creation and there would not be any wars, there’d be no welfare state, there’d be no war on drugs, no police, no military, and no government.
TAXES AND GOVERNEMNT MONEY CREATION TRUMP EVERYTHING ELSE.
I understand that eliminating all taxes is a radical idea that a lot of people would have a difficult time accepting, but at the very least Libertarians should advocate for less taxes.
Somebody who thinks that it is some kind of big victory for liberty to replace one big tax with another big tax should not be a candidate for the Libertarian Party.
If the rate of the Fair Tax was lower, say 3% or 5% or even 10%, and if you got rid of the pre-bate check and any kind of government tracking connected with the Fair Tax, then it would not be so bad. I would still not be wild about it, but I would not have as big a problem with it. However, the Fair Tax IS a 30% tax that is deceptively pushed as a 23% tax, and it does have a pre-bate check plan which means that everyone gets a check from the government. So given that this is what the plan is, I think that it is a horrible idea and it is NOT an incremental step toward more liberty.
Paul said: “Gary has said he would replace it with nothing if he could but that all the taxes the ‘fair’ tax would replace are 70% of government revenues and he does not see such a plan as sellable to the public or congress. Likewise, Ron Paul has said he would vote for the “fair” tax if it came up for a vote.”
Ron Paul said that one time years ago, and he has NEVER actually promoted the Fair Tax. I would not be a bit surprised if Ron Paul later completely rejected the Fair Tax. Regardless of whether he has or has not done this, the fact remains that he NEVER promoted it in any of his campaigns, and he NEVER signed on as a sponsor of the Fair Tax bill in Congress.
So the positions of Ron Paul and Gary Johnson are not the same on this issue, and I totally disagree that ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing is not sellable to the public. Yes, it may be unsellable to most of Congress, but I believe that a lot of the public is behind this issue, and with some education about how the “sky won’t fall” by ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing, I think that it is a position that a lot more of the public would accept.
Gary Johnson’s position on this issue should disqualify him from being a candidate for the Libertarian Party.
Gary has said he would replace it with nothing if he could but that all the taxes the “fair” tax would replace are 70% of government revenues and he does not see such a plan as sellable to the public or congress. Likewise, Ron Paul has said he would vote for the “fair” tax if it came up for a vote. It sounds like their position is exactly the same, only the rhetorical emphasis is different. Gary is more focused on the short term. That is the only difference. And Gary does not want it to be revenue neutral, he wants to cut spending by 43% in the short term. We have discussed it and he has his reasons for supporting it. I could relay them, but I’d rather not since I am against it.
Notice how Ken Krawchuk’s plan is to phase out the PA state income tax over a 4 year period and NOT replace it with anything? Contrast this with the last LP candidate for President, Gary Johnson, who wants to REPLACE the federal income tax with another tax that is just as bad, if not worse, in the so called Fair Tax.
The Fair Tax is a 30% national sales tax which is deceptively sold as being a 23% tax (which is still too high even if this were true), and it includes a pre-bate that basically puts everyone on the national on welfare. The Fair Tax is designed to be revenue neutral, in that it is meant to bring in just as much revenue (ie-stolen loot) as the current federal income tax does. Why would any libertarian get excited about this plan? Sure, the prospect of not having to fill out income tax forms is appealing, but getting whacked with a 30% tax every time you purchase goods and services is certainly not appealing, plus the providers of goods & services will still have to fill out tax forms so the government can make sure they are acting as Fair Tax collectors. It will be easier for the government to go after the providers of goods & services than it is to go after every American with an income. Why would any libertarian get excited about this plan or think that it is a good idea? I thought that libertarians were supposed to support less government. Switching from the current federal income tax to the Fair Tax is NOT an incremental step toward more liberty, it is at best re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, and it may actually even make the ship sink faster than it already is sinking.