10 Percent To Opt Out Of Federal Government

[roclafamilia]

Yeah it's idealistic but this is exactly what I want, get the fuck away from me I'll pay the 10%. I have no plans to use any of the large spending government programs, things that I use and intend to utilize like roads and schools for kids, add it on but it should itemized like a cell phone bill so I don't figure out later they expensed strippers and champagne with my money.

I would say that keep a certain gas tax (flat rate for 10 year terms), and registration to cover the roads/highways...and keep tolls roads toll roads...That way the only people pay for what they use...unlike with my internet bill I have to pay 60 bucks a month if I use 200mb, or If I use 2000gb...If you have to pay for what you use you're a bit more conservative and aren't wasteful because you actually have a limit.

 

[BeerNuts]

This is a good idea if you're ballin I guess...

But not such a great idea for someone who has a regular job earning between 50k-150k per year.

That example that was thrown at him about the guy who suddenly loses his job and his wife gets a chronic disease... they would truly be left alone and be totally screwed if they had signed up for this 10% thing.

Ron Paul is a nice guy but frankly he takes examples from the 60ties way too often to justify his points. We're in 2011 for god's sake, education and healthcare are fucking expensive and I don't see them getting any cheaper in the future.

He didn't say anything about forcing people to opt-out. If you feel that you are not responsible enough to take care of your self then you can stay on the tit of the government.

 

[bcc423]

All the rich would opt out, and the remaining, lower bracket, taxpayers wouldn't be able to sustain government services with only their taxes. So effectively there won't be any government assistance for anyone.

Once that happens, there will be a revolution. And the poor will turn on the rich under the leadership of some "social justice" figure.

From that point on, there are two possible outcomes.

Either the rich suppress the poor with overwhelming lethal force and turn the US into a highly-industrialized version of a third-world country.

Or the army actually sides with the poor and all rich are executed while wealth is "redistributed." This would turn the US into a former-highly-industrialized version of a third-world country. (The new elite would be formed shortly, but that's another story.)

There are plenty of example of both of those scenarios in the world history.

Like it or not, feeding the poor, the lazy and the less fortunate is what keeps the society stable.

 

[adammcd]

here's the big issue with this set-up: let's say you make it big and decide to opt-out. great - you can provide for yourself without the government's help. now let's say 'shit happens' and all of a sudden you're broke. do you simply make the change and 'opt in' with what little/no cash you're making? that's not fair to not pay for basic services when you do not need them yet use them when you do need them.

if it's a permanent decision, then this problem would be solved but there'd be no way we'd let once-rch folks that are now poor lack basic necessities if they needed them.

if this is addressed in the video, great. i'm too busy to watch it.

 

[SeoReborn]

here's the big issue with this set-up: let's say you make it big and decide to opt-out. great - you can provide for yourself without the government's help. now let's say 'shit happens' and all of a sudden you're broke. do you simply make the change and 'opt in' with what little/no cash you're making? that's not fair to not pay for basic services when you do not need them yet use them when you do need them.

if it's a permanent decision, then this problem would be solved but there'd be no way we'd let once-rch folks that are now poor lack basic necessities if they needed them.

if this is addressed in the video, great. i'm too busy to watch it.

That's why when one decides to opt out, they should have a buffer of money already in case shit happens.

 

[cardine]

The problem is that all of the people who opt-out would be the people who are putting more into the system than they are taking out. The people who don't opt-out are all the people getting more from the system than they are putting in.

Since 99% of taxes are being paid by the top 50% (many of whom will opt out) and 50% of taxes are being paid by the top 1-2% (who will all almost certainly opt out), the amount of money the government will get will only be enough to provide national defense, roads, and a couple other very basic things. It won't be enough to provide all of the benefits that the people who choose not to opt out are currently getting now.

A bill like this (alongside the necessary 50%+ spending cuts) would be awesome but would probably lead to the government shutting down. The people who are not in the top 50% will still pay taxes but will start losing most of their benefits because the government doesn't have enough money to fund them (since the rich people who were subsidizing them are now no longer paying full taxes)... and then half of our country will be rioting.

It's a novel idea, it just mathematically doesn't work out.

 

[SeoReborn]

A bill like this (alongside the necessary 50%+ spending cuts) would be awesome but would probably lead to the government shutting down. The people who are not in the top 50% will still pay taxes but will start losing most of their benefits because the government doesn't have enough money to fund them (since the rich people who were subsidizing them are now no longer paying full taxes)... and then half of our country will be rioting.

Maybe it would help the government downsize

 

[BeerNuts]

The problem is that all of the people who opt-out would be the people who are putting more into the system than they are taking out. The people who don't opt-out are all the people getting more from the system than they are putting in.

Since 99% of taxes are being paid by the top 50% (many of whom will opt out) and 50% of taxes are being paid by the top 1-2% (who will all almost certainly opt out), the amount of money the government will get will only be enough to provide national defense, roads, and a couple other very basic things. It won't be enough to provide all of the benefits that the people who choose not to opt out are currently getting now.

A bill like this (alongside the necessary 50%+ spending cuts) would be awesome but would probably lead to the government shutting down. The people who are not in the top 50% will still pay taxes but will start losing most of their benefits because the government doesn't have enough money to fund them (since the rich people who were subsidizing them are now no longer paying full taxes)... and then half of our country will be rioting.

It's a novel idea, it just mathematically doesn't work out.

Ron Paul is very big on state rights and sovereignty. Thinking about it now he said 10% to get the federal government off your back. He said nothing about keeping the state away. Federal income tax 10%, state tax whatever they need.

I doubt anything would change from how it is now. Power would just move from the federal level to the state level.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Ya...bad idea.

 

[eliquid]

much more BS going on at fed level then state though and considering you could move from state to state if you were in one you didnt like, i wouldnt mind it so much. try moving out of the country when you please though, doesnt work too well for a lot of folks.

 

[bizzykehl]

 

[avatar33]

american people are so used to having the government rowing their row boat they forget the citizens of other countries are sailing along on their own just fine

part of the reason why education and healthcare are expensive is because they are heavily government funded

other countries? You mean poor countries? As far as I know, countries that have the best healthcare systems (Canada, France, Northern Europe, etc...) all have gov-funded healthcare.

thats why you pay for health insurance out of your 90%

afterall, it is opt out, opt out if it makes sense, dont opt out if it doesnt.

It can make sense one day, and not make sense the next. Today you're making 1 million a year and healthy so it totally makes sense. Next year you get in an accident (god forbid), can't work and whatever happened to you isn't covered by your insurance... what do you do? :ugone2far:

He didn't say anything about forcing people to opt-out. If you feel that you are not responsible enough to take care of your self then you can stay on the tit of the government.

Life doesn't always go the way you plan it man, unexpected shit can happen anytime. See example above.

 

[BlokBlok]

Wait wait wait...You mean I have to get a job, pay for my own health care, plan for my retirement, plan for my children's college, cant be on section 8, cant be on food stamps? How could anyone survive!??

 

[dreamache]

It can make sense one day, and not make sense the next. Today you're making 1 million a year and healthy so it totally makes sense. Next year you get in an accident (god forbid), can't work and whatever happened to you isn't covered by your insurance... what do you do? :ugone2far:

You deal with the consequences.

Life doesn't always go the way you plan it man, unexpected shit can happen anytime. See example above.

But does that make it right for the government to force you and make that decision on your behalf?

If a person fully understands the risks associated with opting out of health care, they should be allowed to make that decision. It's about freedom.

 

[mGrunin]

other countries? You mean poor countries? As far as I know, countries that have the best healthcare systems (Canada, France, Northern Europe, etc...) all have gov-funded healthcare.



It can make sense one day, and not make sense the next. Today you're making 1 million a year and healthy so it totally makes sense. Next year you get in an accident (god forbid), can't work and whatever happened to you isn't covered by your insurance... what do you do? :ugone2far:



Life doesn't always go the way you plan it man, unexpected shit can happen anytime. See example above.

What do you do? You shouldn't have made the initial decision to opt out if you were only making $1m a year. This idea makes complete sense for someone that's earning $50m/year. If he/she has 500m+ in assets, then it's a smart & safe decision to opt out.

But let's say some idiot making only $250k a year opts out, and couple years down the line, he's poor, and needs government aid badly. Well, the government can let him "opt in" again, but that would waive his right to ever opt out in his life again, plus for the next X years, he would need to pay a higher income tax %.

 

[Hurr-Durr]

i enjoy the benefits of a standing army and interstate highways so i think ill stick with the status quo

Why would they disappear under the "10% rule"?

I'd opt into into 10% rule for sure.

 

[BeerNuts]

It can make sense one day, and not make sense the next. Today you're making 1 million a year and healthy so it totally makes sense. Next year you get in an accident (god forbid), can't work and whatever happened to you isn't covered by your insurance... what do you do? :ugone2far:

Well wtf did you do with the 900k that the government didn't take that year prior? Sell your solid gold car and pay the bills. You would either have catastrophic health insurance and/or a health insurance savings account anyway if you had half a brain. Plus you think that today without this 10% opt-out the government would just pay your bills if you said you were poor but last years return said you made a million dollars? You have a house, cars, and gold bars.

Most all of us on this board are self sufficient if I was hurt tomorrow the health insurance I pay for would cover it. If my business totally was gone I would get a job. If you were responsible with your money they you would have no problems.

If my accident/health problem was really so bad that I couldn't work (even at a computer all day) and can't take care of myself I would go to my family and friends for support like people have done for hundreds of years.

 

[guerilla]

But let's say some idiot making only $250k a year opts out

Oh MG, you so funny.

Some of us remember working for minimum wage ya know...

 

[eliquid]

What do you do? You shouldn't have made the initial decision to opt out if you were only making $1m a year. This idea makes complete sense for someone that's earning $50m/year. If he/she has 500m+ in assets, then it's a smart & safe decision to opt out.

But let's say some idiot making only $250k a year opts out, and couple years down the line, he's poor, and needs government aid badly. Well, the government can let him "opt in" again, but that would waive his right to ever opt out in his life again, plus for the next X years, he would need to pay a higher income tax %.

if they got back on their feet the second time ( several million ) and felt they needed to opt out again, they could always renounce and move to the bahamas

 

[justo_tx]

But let's say some idiot making only $250k a year opts out, and couple years down the line, he's poor, and needs government aid badly. Well, the government can let him "opt in" again, but that would waive his right to ever opt out in his life again, plus for the next X years, he would need to pay a higher income tax %.

Sounds like you'd need a big bureaucratic body in place to track and manage all those variables and make sure people are paying the right amount of tax depending on whether they opt in or out, when they opted in or out last and make sure nobody uses the complexity and loopholes of it all to defraud the government. They would need an accurate name to reflect their function too.. maybe something like the Non-External Revenue Service.