Ron Paul's rhetorical question

J

JudgeU

Veteran XV
This isn't a Ron Paul thread per se, more on something he said. Ron Paul posed a rhetorical question in one of his latest speeches and I wanted to see what most people would do.

The question was:

If you had a choice, would you choose to opt out of most taxes and only pay 10% of your income, but as a consequence you'd never receive government "help" again, or you could choose to keep doing as you are.

I.E. your 10% of your income would go towards roads/safety (police/military)/education. Or for the sake of argument lets pretend your 10% went to whatever you wished it would. But you'd never receive social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, subsidies, student loans, whatever it is, you would be barred from receiving any.

What would you do?

I'd be keeping 90% of whatever I made for the rest of my life.
 
JudgeU said:
This isn't a Ron Paul thread per se, more on something he said. Ron Paul posed a rhetorical question in one of his latest speeches and I wanted to see what most people would do.

The question was:

If you had a choice, would you choose to opt out of most taxes and only pay 10% of your income, but as a consequence you'd never receive government "help" again, or you could choose to keep doing as you are.

I.E. your 10% of your income would go towards roads/safety (police/military)/education. Or for the sake of argument lets pretend your 10% went to whatever you wished it would. But you'd never receive social security, Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, subsidies, student loans, whatever it is, you would be barred from receiving any.

What would you do?

I'd be keeping 90% of whatever I made for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...

give me 90%
 
I'd choose the lower taxes, but thats because I work for a living and don't depend on social programs.
 
The problem is that your average citizen is functionally retarded when it comes to money management, so this would more than likely never work.
 
I thought at least one person would choose the current method by now...

When John Stossel asked his audience it was about 50/50.
 
Is it fair to say that ~2/3 of the taxes I pay go directly to the costs of social programs (ie unemployment, medicare, medicaid, etc.) and not of infrastructure/defense/etc?

What about things like the FDA, CSC, NASA, etc?
 
Last edited:
hard question to answer. i wouldn't be able to go to college without financial aid and don't have too many career options without a degree. however, i would gladly give up the right to ss, medicaid/medicare, welfare, and everything else to only pay 10% taxes for the rest of my life.
 
Roads, military, police, education costs a lot more than 10% so if I could get all that for 10% that's a great fucking deal. WHen I say that I mean for anyone making less than 100k, of course that also depends on your means of transportation and whether or not you'll have kids that need education.
 
short-sighted me says 10% tax - easy answer.

long-sighted me says keep it as it is.

long-sighted me isn't worried he might need the support of social programs mind you. he is worried that without social programs the people the programs support will become a larger drain on society than they already are. short-sighted me isn't sure if this is a legitimate worry, but being related to long-sighted me, he wanted to cover his ass just in case.
 
SPNirology said:
Roads, military, police, education costs a lot more than 10% so if I could get all that for 10% that's a great fucking deal. WHen I say that I mean for anyone making less than 100k, of course that also depends on your means of transportation and whether or not you'll have kids that need education.
Click to expand...

He said we would have enough for these things, but the military would have to be cut back. Basically he said we'd have enough for protection, but not enough for occupation of other countries (no bases around the world).
 
Skipperlipicus said:
short-sighted me says 10% tax - easy answer.

long-sighted me says keep it as it is.

long-sighted me isn't worried he might need the support of social programs mind you. he is worried that without social programs the people the programs support will become a larger drain on society than they already are.
Click to expand...

Is water for life or life because of water?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top