National Sales Tax, all the way, baby. Encourages reuse which is oh-so-green!

Flat tax and sales tax, NO TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ANYTHING.

I can get on board with that.

Not enough opportunity for graft and corruption.

Taxes? We need to cut spending, not think about taxes. Then we can cut taxes.

According to libertarian Ron Paul, the place to start is our horrendous military-industrial complex.

Ron Paul says, "Many of my colleagues argue that Congress cannot put a price on our sacred national security, and I agree that the strong, unequivocal defense of our country is a top priority. There comes a time, however, when we must take stock of what our blank checks to the military–industrial complex accomplish for us, and where the true threats to American citizens lie.

The smokescreen debate over earmarks demonstrates how we have lost perspective when it comes to military spending. Earmarks constitute about $11 billion of the latest budget. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the $708 billion spent by the Pentagon this year to expand our worldwide military presence. The total expenditures to maintain our world empire is approximately $1 trillion annually, which is roughly what the entire federal budget was in 1990!

We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War. These expenditures in many cases foment resentment that does not make us safer, but instead makes us a target. We referee and arm conflicts the world over, and have troops in some 140 countries with over 700 military bases."

I realize Republicans turn into a bunch of little girls whenever they see a uniform, but Paul has a point. We spend waaaayyyy too much on our military.

OK, who are you and what have you done with the real BOTU? That comment actually made sense!

Revising the tax code has nothing at all to do with reducing government spending. It is an entirely separate problem.

Why do we need to throw out the existing tax code and start over? Because no one - including the most expert professional - can possibly understand the entirety of the current code. Changes on top of exceptions on top special provisions - accumulated over decades, with more changes added every year.

Example: Did you know that there is a special tax provision especially for the Gallo winemaking family?

The current tax code is entirely beyond hope. The only possible "reform" is to replace it in its entirety. Preferably with something simple enough that filing a tax return does not feel like you are playing Russion Roulette.

I am a fan of Ron Paul's but I think his foreign policy is about as naive as most liberals. It would have been practical had we steered clear of WWI and WWII and the rest, but unfortunately - that bell has already been rung. I am sure there is an answer to it, but I don't know of one yet. As we can see with Obama, diplomacy only takes you so far.

"We spend more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and far more than we spent during the Cold War."

That's because we provide military protection and defense for a lot of the world.

My take: speak softly and carry a big effing stick. A well equipped military gives us the freedom not to HAVE to fight wars to begin with (if we choose not to), especially from a loosing position. That is why no one messes with Switzerland (that and the banks and terrain).

A flat tax would be better than the system currently in place.

However, it is far from being fair. Even in this video this guy says if Bill Gates makes 100,000 times more than me he should pay 100,000 times more than me.Does Bill Gates use 100,000 times more government resources? What if he doesn't have any kids? That is anything but fair. It is a counter productive tax for those who work hard.
You are penalized for being productive and earning.
For example: If you are a hard working single career woman, with no kids, making $200,000 a year and pay 17% in taxes you would pay roughly $34,000 in taxes. I on the other hand am an unmotivated guy making $15,000 a year with 5 kids. Cause I am good at making babies. My kids go to school and because of my kids and the poverty level I pay no taxes. How is this fair?

The only real fair tax is The Fair Tax not the flat tax. The book is by Neal Boortz and Congressman John Linder. It blows away the flat tax!

@David M., +10!!!!!

I disagree with a flat tax for the same reason you do - I am opposed to taxing income at all.

The Fair Tax is my favorite, but a national sales tax would be somewhat similar.

This video almost immediately begins to contradict itself.

I can just see childless couples griping about the "family allowances" - so have you really gotten rid of special deductions and loopholes?

And what about rich folks whose entire income is from investments, instead of salary? Are "capital gains" from financial markets taxed, or not?

Lotta questions. Not so simple.

How about a poll tax?

@BOTU - Ron Paul is an idiot. He's also a xenophobe, and isolationist, an anti-semite, possibly a racist and a gold bug.

Every word he says is bullshit, including "and" and "the". The only thing that makes him better than Pat Buchanan is that Ron's not publicly on record defending Hitler yet.

If anyone wants to talk about putting in a federal consumption tax, repeal the 16th amendment first. Otherwise, there's no point.

Brian-

Ron Paul may be all of those things---but he still makes excellent points.

The world is not a dangerous place, compared to when the Soviet Union kept two million men in uniform, had a blue-water navy, a supersonic airforce, KGB etc etc ICBMs stc stc.

That was danger.

Now? A few ragheads? That is what shrivels your stick? Shrinkage from some punk terrorists?

About the only change I would make is to regionally set the poverty level that is the taxable amount.

If I'm making $30K in Wisconsin -- it is going a hell of a lot farther than $30K in New York City or L.A.

So if the poverty level for a family of 4 in NYC is $30K I would be taxed on the amount above $30K. But if the poverty level in Wisconsin is $15K -- then I would only be taxed on the amount above $15K whether I make $15K or $200k.

I was a lot more comfortable with the Russians having the bomb than the idea of terrorists jpossibly getting hold of it. Think about it. The Russians didn't appear to be suicidal enough to bomb us, thank goodness.

On the other hand, the terrorists strap bombs to themselves or fly planes that they're inside of into buildings.

I don't like government waste, even in military, but if we have to waste money somewhere, I want it to be in an area that will either deter the bad guys from attacking or will at least crush them when they do.

And what is this about sitting out of WWII? Ummm, remember Pearl Harbor? The US was attacked. Besides which, the Jews were being brutally murdered. What kind of people would we be if we allowed this?

Flat tax tries to simplify the tax system, which is a good start. Unfortunately, it doesn't address the underlying problem... knowing how much we are paying for the services we consume.

I would like to see a detailed tax bill, showing my charges for the various services rendered. This would not be very complicated and would give taxpayers a better understanding of where all that money is going.

This could be done for this year based on the money we've paid. Each item would have a checkbox, asking if we want to continue getting (and paying for) the item.

If not enough people want to support the item, it would be defunded and turned over to the private sector.

"And what is this about sitting out of WWII? Ummm, remember Pearl Harbor? The US was attacked. Besides which, the Jews were being brutally murdered. What kind of people would we be if we allowed this?"

Did I say that? Did I say we should have sat out?

What I said was that *if* we had stayed out Ron Paul's views on foreign policy would not be so naive. I wasn't passing judgement on whether we should or should not have gone to war...only that since these wars we became our brothers keeper.

We provide protection for others. It is other weaker nations expectations of the US. That carries a heavy burden (again, no judgement that it should not be so - just stating the facts.) I don't believe we can remove our protection and our standing as the worlds protector without some terrible fallout as the result. It was the consequence for better or for worse.

I never at anytime, nor would I ever suggest that US involvement in WWII was not justified - only that Ron Paul is not dealing with reality if he thinks America can go back to adopting an isolationist policy. Very, very naive.

It is unfortunate that other nations do not or will not or are unable to protect themselves and we have been placed in a position of doing it for them - and for that we seem to get the bad guy wrap. Especially with those ungrateful Euro-nations with short term memory.

Hope I explained it better.

*****This could be done for this year based on the money we've paid. Each item would have a checkbox, asking if we want to continue getting (and paying for) the item.

If not enough people want to support the item, it would be defunded and turned over to the private sector.*****

This, I like.

And maybe it's time we just stopped protecting the world. I'd be behind making Europe (and everyone else) form their own armies and protect their own land. Seems fair.

"And maybe it's time we just stopped protecting the world. I'd be behind making Europe (and everyone else) form their own armies and protect their own land. Seems fair."

Can't. See NATO.

Oh and I am for Fair/Flat tax. :D

Feebie, I could make a case that most of the NATO members abrogated the treaty when they failed to come to the U.S.'s aid after 9/11. As far as I'm concerned, there are about 8 remaining members, including the USA, the UK, Germany, Poland, Denmark, and a couple of others.

On the original topic: The national sales tax (completely replacing the income tax) would be my preference. But either it or the flat tax would be a vast improvement over the existing system.

The reason we kept troops in Europe and formed NATO was because we didn't want European nations having large independent military forces.

Because we didn't want to get sucked in to resolve yet another European war.