Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.
Forums
 »
Economics
 »
Political Theory
 »
Ron Paul can't propose a bill for less taxes?

Ron Paul can't propose a bill for less taxes?

rated by 0 users
This post has 10 Replies | 3 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Reply
DanielMuff Posted: Wed, May 26 2010 1:48 PM

 

 
Wait: Why Did Ron Paul Just Introduce An Extension To The Homebuyer Tax Credit?
 
Joe Weisenthal | May 26, 2010, 2:08 PM | 605 |   7
Given Ron Paul's thorough opposition to the government's meddling into the economy, and the government's inclination to blow bubbles (like housing), we're thoroughly perplexed by this. The Congressmen from Texas is pushing for an extension to the homebuyer tax credit.
-------------
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) today introduced legislation to permanently extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit and to make the credit available to people whose homes have been destroyed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane.
 
The legislation also makes a number of changes to existing tax credits in order to enhance their usefulness to victims of natural disasters. Specifically, this bill makes casualty loss deductions available to taxpayers who do not itemize, and makes it available to them for five years after the disaster. This legislation also helps people who have lost their jobs because of a natural disaster by making unemployment payments provided under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act tax free.
 
Renewing the first-time home buyer’s credit will help Americans purchase a first home with their own money, instead of having to rely on government-funded or backed programs. 
 
The other sections of this legislation were inspired by conversations Congressman Paul and his staff had with constituents who had to purchase new homes because Hurricane Ike destroyed their prior homes.  The first-time homebuyer’s tax credit could be of tremendous value to these people, yet the law denies them the credit because they are replacing destroyed homes.
 
“It is hard to think of a more beneficial or compassionate expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit than to make the credit available to those whose homes have been destroyed or damaged by natural disasters,” stated Congressman Paul.  “In addition, the changes to the casualty loss provision will help more taxpayers affected by natural disasters.  Providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers and to those affected by natural disasters should be one of Congress’ top priorities.”
 
 
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wait-why-did-ron-paul-of-all-people-just-introduce-an-extension-to-the-homebuyer-tax-credit-2010-5?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29#ixzz0p3x1joiyWait: Why Did Ron Paul Just Introduce An Extension To The Homebuyer Tax Credit?
  |
A A A
Buzz
Share
 
Joe Weisenthal | May 26, 2010, 2:08 PM | 605 |   7
Given Ron Paul's thorough opposition to the government's meddling into the economy, and the government's inclination to blow bubbles (like housing), we're thoroughly perplexed by this. The Congressmen from Texas is pushing for an extension to the homebuyer tax credit.
-------------
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul (TX-14) today introduced legislation to permanently extend the first-time homebuyer tax credit and to make the credit available to people whose homes have been destroyed by a natural disaster, such as a hurricane.
 
The legislation also makes a number of changes to existing tax credits in order to enhance their usefulness to victims of natural disasters. Specifically, this bill makes casualty loss deductions available to taxpayers who do not itemize, and makes it available to them for five years after the disaster. This legislation also helps people who have lost their jobs because of a natural disaster by making unemployment payments provided under the Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act tax free.
 
Renewing the first-time home buyer’s credit will help Americans purchase a first home with their own money, instead of having to rely on government-funded or backed programs. 
 
The other sections of this legislation were inspired by conversations Congressman Paul and his staff had with constituents who had to purchase new homes because Hurricane Ike destroyed their prior homes.  The first-time homebuyer’s tax credit could be of tremendous value to these people, yet the law denies them the credit because they are replacing destroyed homes.
 
“It is hard to think of a more beneficial or compassionate expansion of the first-time homebuyer tax credit than to make the credit available to those whose homes have been destroyed or damaged by natural disasters,” stated Congressman Paul.  “In addition, the changes to the casualty loss provision will help more taxpayers affected by natural disasters.  Providing tax relief to first-time homebuyers and to those affected by natural disasters should be one of Congress’ top priorities.”
 
 
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/wait-why-did-ron-paul-of-all-people-just-introduce-an-extension-to-the-homebuyer-tax-credit-2010-5?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29#ixzz0p3x1joiy

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,028
Points 51,580
Reply
limitgov replied on Wed, May 26 2010 1:56 PM

are you asking why would ron paul want to work towards making taxes lower?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Reply
DanielMuff replied on Wed, May 26 2010 2:02 PM

No. In response to the article, I am asking, "why is it inconsistent for Ron Paul to propose a bill that would reduce taxes?"

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,129
Points 16,635
Reply
Giant_Joe replied on Wed, May 26 2010 2:05 PM

Given Ron Paul's thorough opposition to the government's meddling into the economy, and the government's inclination to blow bubbles (like housing), we're thoroughly perplexed by this.

From what I gather, the writers don't understand the ABCT, or else they'd understand where bubbles come from. Reducing taxes is in effect, a decrease in government intervention in the economy. Tax cuts don't cause bubbles. Apparently some people think they do.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 1,649
Points 28,420
Reply
E. R. Olovetto replied on Wed, May 26 2010 2:11 PM

You can't steal from a thief.

Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 468
Points 8,085
Reply
Wibee replied on Thu, May 27 2010 7:07 PM

The same reason why he supports earmarks.  He is giving money back to the people.  As long as the specific law doesn't enact tax increases to pay for it.  

That is my theory on why he would support it.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Reply
Esuric replied on Thu, May 27 2010 8:20 PM

Tax cuts aren't always appropriate; in fact, you definitely don't want to lower taxes right now. You need to cut spending, the deficit, and then lower taxes.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
Reply
DanielMuff replied on Thu, May 27 2010 8:31 PM

Why not lower taxes now, then wait for the government to cut spending and the deficit?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Reply
Esuric replied on Thu, May 27 2010 8:34 PM

Why not lower taxes now, then wait for the government to cut spending and the deficit?

Because they won't. Deficits will rise, the government will borrow to cover expenditures, and the crowding-out effect will take hold until the government suppresses it with additional inflation.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 2,966
Points 53,250
Reply
DD5 replied on Thu, May 27 2010 8:38 PM

The whole cut taxes vs. cut spending dichotomy is fallacious.  

It is impossible for the government to spend without taxes.  You can't do one without the other.  You can only fool people into believing you can.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,113
Points 60,515
Reply
Esuric replied on Thu, May 27 2010 8:45 PM

The whole cut taxes vs. cut spending dichotomy is fallacious. 

You're absolutely right. It's just a political ploy by the two parties in power, both of which support massive deficits and inflation.

"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (11 items) | RSS