- Joined
- Apr 3, 2009
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 472
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
What? A politician who actually dislikes the government giving him money? Why has no one heard of this amazing man who is more fiscally responsible than most Democrats and Republicans combined? If only he'd run for POTUS.
Each House office receives between $1.3 million and $1.9 million annually in government funds to pay for office expenses, including salaries. In 2008, some lawmakers returned excess cash to the government, including Rep. Todd Akin, a Missouri Republican (who also gave some bonuses) and Rep. Tim Walz, a Minnesota Democrat. Meredith Salsbery, a spokeswoman for Mr. Walz, said aides are asked to be "thrifty and conscious of taxpayer dollars" and that Mr. Walz "knows the power of setting a good example."
The 435 House offices typically return a total of about $1 million or $2 million a year, or less that 0.5% of the overall budget for office expenses
FWIW, he's not alone in this.
Lawmakers Have Long Rewarded Their Aides With Bonuses - WSJ.com
Given his general message, this is probably a pretty good PR move on his part.
If only he didn't support ruinous economic policies like going back to the gold standard and a regressive "fair tax." I like the guy.
:yawn: How terrible that we would only be taxed by our consent and not through inflation.
If only he didn't support ruinous economic policies like going back to the gold standard and a regressive "fair tax." I like the guy.
Paul (TX14) - Press Releases - Congressman Paul Returns Over $100,000 to Treasury
"
Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul has continued to run his Congressional office in a frugal manner, and was able to return more than $100,000 from his allotted office budget to the Treasury this year, an increase over the $90,000 returned last year.
“Since my first year in Congress representing the 14th district I have managed my office in a frugal manner, instructing staff to provide the greatest possible service to the people of the 14th district at the least possible cost to taxpayers,” said Paul.
"
Just a press release, so if this isn't considered breaking news, then please move it, but reading this gave me at least a little bit of hope. Now if we could only get the rest of congress to act in the same manner we may have a chance!
Don't worry, our corpracongress would never allow the gold standard or any major revision of the IRS or the tax code. Too many businesses rely on the status quo in these areas.
A gold standard switch just wouldn't work. The US government does not possess the amount of gold that would be required to cover the already-existing currency. You'd end up eroding the faith required for our currency to function. All it takes is one contractor to say "I don't want the cash, I want the gold, but you don't actually have it." Work stops. Everyone else follows suit, because hey, why work if you aren't actually getting paid?
"I wouldn't exactly go back on the gold standard but I would legalize the constitution where gold and silver should and could be legal tender, which would restrain the Federal Government from spending and then turning that over to the Federal Reserve and letting the Federal Reserve print the money."
The "fair tax" is an extraordinarily regressive 23% federal sales tax. Good luck, poor people! The price of everything just shot up.
The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.
This concern has already been addressed by the proposed fair tax:
The tax would be levied once at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or 'prebate', of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.
And conservatives are on board with this redistribution of wealth?
a monthly payment to all family households of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate
Deuce thinks it's the govt money.:yawn: How terrible that we would only be taxed by our consent and not through inflation.
Deuce thinks it's the govt money.
Oh no, it's taking tax money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't. It's the classic repub representation of redistributing wealth.It isn't really a redistribution. Read again:
Poor people aren't the only one's getting a rebate. Everyone gets a rebate equaling poverty level expenditures, so that effectively only expenditures beyond that are taxed.
It is essentially a luxury tax.
Oh no, it's taking tax money from people who earned it and giving it to people who didn't. It's the classic repub representation of redistributing wealth.
How do you figure? If nobody has to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend each year, then the law is being applied to everyone.
If poor people didn't have to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend but rich people did, I would be more inclined to agree with you.
The fair tax wouldn't even require that I report all my income, or my financial situation. It would be more respectful of my privacy, and without knowing whether I was rich or poor, how could it discriminate?
On a percentage basis it is completely undiscriminatory. However, the problem some people see is that a far larger percentage of taxes is paid in by the lower, impoverished sect of society as more of what the pay is actually on products that would be taxed. The "fair tax" is exactly that, but its up to the individual as to whether or not its "just."
What does any of this have to do with Ron Paul?How do you figure? If nobody has to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend each year, then the law is being applied to everyone.
If poor people didn't have to pay taxes on the first $30k they spend but rich people did, I would be more inclined to agree with you.
The fair tax wouldn't even require that I report all my income, or my financial situation. It would be more respectful of my privacy, and without knowing whether I was rich or poor, how could it discriminate?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?