Ron Paul Plan To Restore America Press Conference : WATCH LIVE AT THIS LINK

YouTube Live Link

Just released.

Will be playing live from Nevada. Unfortunately, I will not be able to watch, but hopefully you will.

Would like to get back home to some good conversation revolving around this.

Thx

Is he actually going to say something new? Or will be the old end the wars, end the fed, etc.?

reply to post by Rhino5


This is going to be going over his new economic plan I believe.

It has just started to hit the wires in a .pdf format.

I gotta run to class though. Hopefully someone else can fill in the blanks.

Should be starting in less than 1 hour from this post.

His plan will cut 1 trillion from federal budget and balance the budget in three years.

www.politico.com...

After looking over a summary of the "Restore America" Plan I have to say that I disagree with a few of the changes he would make.

The major points that I dislike:

Lowering corporate taxes from 35% to 15% and extending Bush's tax cuts. Does RP think he is Obama?

Giving the option to young workers to opt out of Social Security. I am not in favor of Social Security, but I don't think this is the right path to go. This would make the government give out less for Social Security benefits which would force old people that were living on Social Security to enter the labor force and ultimately increase unemployment.

Also, I am not so sure about privatizing the FAA. I am not sure what effect this would have on the US.

BUMP

just started

reply to post by Rhino5


Historically, lowering the tax rate always increases the overall revenue. It is a great tool. Lower the rate and remove the loopholes. Incentivize actually paying taxes instead of paying to avoid them.

FAA and Commercial air travel should operate unsubsidized. Let the free market set the price and availability of flights.

Smaller govt, less intrusion, true free market, more personal responsibility, all great concepts!

reply to post by Rhino5


Do you know how many companies have left America because of the tax rate and going to countries with tax rates from 12-16%? If you see it from that point of view, you'll know why corporate taxes need to be cut.

Anyone know the location of this press conference?



I really need to know, thanks!

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


Cassanova Room, Venetian resort and casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Rockdisjoint

 

Cassanova Room, Venetian resort and casino, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Oh, thanks dude.



Now, I am sad though, but whatever.

why? are you in vegas? this RP event is going on for the next couple of days I think...

I don't know, can we trust a man that does not have a live feed from the bankers to his teleprompter?
The confidence he always has during questions, Americans don't want confidence they want the media to tell them whats right. I am seeing thousands on the street right now, waiting for the media to tell them what they want.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
reply to post by Rhino5

 

Do you know how many companies have left America because of the tax rate and going to countries with tax rates from 12-16%? If you see it from that point of view, you'll know why corporate taxes need to be cut.

First off, I am in favor of increasing tariffs which would prevent companies from leaving the country to capitalize on cheap labor and cheaper taxes. Over half of US companies don't even pay taxes as it is and even if you lower taxes they would still be able to avoid paying them. Cheap labor is the main reason that companies go overseas and not taxes.

How many countries move to Ireland which has one of the lowest corporate tax rates in the world even lower than China's? They have a high minimum wage (higher than the US) at 8.65 euros an hour.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Rhino5

 

Historically, lowering the tax rate always increases the overall revenue.

Lowering the tax rate has never increased tax revenue. This has been debunked many times and is just a lie that Republican party likes to say without backing it up. According to economists based off the Laffer curve, the government maximizes revenue at 70% tax rate. So yes you would be correct that the government would increase revenue if it decreased the tax rate from 80% to 70%. Show me some evidence to back up your claims that history has shown us decreasing the tax rate increases revenue. Please don't come back with the some politicians claims.

reply to post by Rhino5


The Laffer curve and other theories cannot account for unknown variables like companies hiding and sheltering money, or lack of re-investment, or motivation to find loopholes instead of paying tax.

I hope a Treasury Secretary is a good enough source for you:

The tax cuts of the 1920s

Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts

President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

The Reagan tax cuts

Thanks to "bracket creep," the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

But, in reality, my true source is my brother who has an undergrad degree in theoretical physics and a Masters Degree in Economics, and 15 years in business and corporate world. Combine that with my 20 years in private and corporate business, and my current position in State Government, and the fact that I also consult for non-profit organizations in how to maximize their income, and I think it accounts for some good real world examples of how lower taxes incentivize actually paying tax instead of avoiding it.

History plus personal experience trumps theory.