Total withholdings on $280 per week $7 per hour wage earner.
Federal Tax $27.17
FICA $17.36
Medicare $4.06
Source;http://www.pensoft.com/taxcalc.asp
That leaves this worker only $231.14 take home pay and if this worker works like most then he is going to put in at least 50 weeks in a year for an annual take home pay for this worker of $11,557.00 If this worker votes for Ron Paul for President and then had the nanny state off his back and could keep his little contribution what would it mean to him. It would mean an extra $2,443.00 that this worker could have held onto and perhaps saved for a down payment on a car or other items. This money likely would go into the local economy. There are lots of wage earners in this nation and they can all vote by the way.
In an area with say 500,000 wage earners residences which is pretty typical of the medium US city, and the median annual household income is let's say $35,000, and if Ron Paul was elected President that would mean that each household would have an extra $4,939.92 that would likely go into their local economy or saved in their local bank. That would mean that this medium US city of 500,000 wage earner households would have an added $2,469,960,000 injected into their local economy annually. That is a big number.
That gives you an idea of the power of Ron Paul's ideas. If we can opt out of this wasteful centralized federal payroll taxation system it would inject billions of dollars every year pumped into the local economy in every city of every state in the nation. Every little city of 1-2 million people would have an added annual income in the billions of dollars.
What could it do to your little city if it had an extra 2 or 3 billion dollars to spend on your own city and your own people every year? How many new businesses would it create? Perhaps your city could repair its own roads and bridges. Perhaps it could build a new airport to deal with all the new business created by all this extra local money.
That is the power of Ron Paul's ideas as applied to this nation. Billions of extra dollars annually for every little to medium town and city and more like extra 10's of billions of local dollars for every major city in the nation.
The Ron Paul Revolution is said by the campaign to be a bottom up type of operation. The entire nation is really a bottom to top system, all the money from the bottom is shoved to the top and the ones at the top decide how it will trickle back down. The Ron Paul Revolution is a revolution of deciders. With the people deciding that we have had enough of top down heavy handed tactics in our lives. We want our civil liberties restored, and we want a repeal of the police state. We the people the little wage earners have had enough and that is why we want Ron Paul elected President. It will mean extra billions of dollars injected annually into every city, our little city, in every state, our state and throughout the entire nation. That is the reason that Ron Paul will be elected as our next President, because you can't argue with the numbers and that is pretty clear. Ron Paul as President will mean greater abundance locally in a time of our greatest need.
America can get to work setting right all what decades of paying into a wasteful central planning system has allowed to happen. We will have the funds at our local level to start to reconstruct from the damage wrought from decades of federal screw-ups and boondoggles. The waste is hard to measure when the money pool is in the trillions of dollars so thieves can hide their tracks. When this money is distributed and spent at the local level it is a lot harder for thieves to pilfer through because the numbers are smaller and it is harder to hide fraud within those smaller numbers.
It will also mean the return to real value money that can be saved without losing its value. It will mean that if our sons and daughters are ask to fight for their country it will be this sovereign nation that they are fighting for and not in some nation that has fat oil reserves that some big US corporation wants to exploit.
There are many reasons to elect Ron Paul as President and I'm only covering a few but they are ones that we can measure, and we can all agree with in large enough numbers that he can certainly win. With the power of Ron Paul's ideas applied as I have laid out in this article it is clear that the main reason to elect Ron Paul is because we cannot afford not to. Do the math. Dr. Paul is the cure for a lot of ills, like being broke for instance, both personally and as a nation.
©2007 Michael McDonnough, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Saturday, November 24, 2007
Last modified: Saturday, November 24, 2007
The views expressed in this article are those of Michael McDonnough only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Michael McDonnough is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Michael McDonnough of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Michael McDonnough |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: big mike
Date: 2007-11-24 12:13:46
Is this the moron you are sputing about? Where does all this fall into your "best choice" opinion?
Voted NO on increasing minimum wage to $7.25. (Jan 2007)
Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001)
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox. (May 1999)
Rated 30% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record. (Dec 2003)
Voted NO on promoting work and marriage among TANF recipients. (Feb 2003)
10/10/2007 National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007 N
09/25/2007 State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization N
Hates farmers, hate seniors, hates poor people... yeah he is only aiming to make the rich even richers... NOT the best choice of any office.
More facts:
Trusts the Internet a lot more than the mainstream media. (May 2007)
Voted NO on establishing "network neutrality" (non-tiered Internet). (Jun 2006)
Voted NO on banning Internet gambling by credit card. (Jun 2003)
Time to find a new candidate that won;t screw the american public... like Huckabee or Thompson
Posted By: Daniel
Date: 2007-11-24 12:52:20
I see your point. But if Ron Paul is elected president do you think he really has a chance of getting rid of the Federal Income tax with Congress the way it is? I mean, he can try as he might but will he be able to pass such a thing? I have researched Mike Huckabee's fairtax and it sounds pretty good and doable. There is already a Bill hr something lol. It also has a good grassroots following and people in the senate and the house are starting to support it. What do you think about the Fairtax?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-24 13:01:21
There is one gigantic problem with the "fair tax," which is very poorly named. That problem is that it is fraudulent. It claims to be a 23% tax, but it's actually a 30% tax. This is pretty serious. Do we really want a president like Huckabee who will lie to the American people in order to gain passage of legislation, just as he lies about the so-called "fair tax" (and just as the "fair tax" legislation before Congress also lies)? You might call that good politics, but I call it fraud.
In case you're not sure about the 23% figure vs the 30% figure, ask yourself this. Assume that the state you are currently in has no sales tax of any kind. The "fair tax" passes and takes effect, and the next day you go to your local convenience store and buy a candy bar for $1 plus tax. How much tax will you pay...23 cents or 30 cents? If you answered 23 cents, you need to do some more homework. If you answered 30 cents, you are correct and are now stuck with trying to explain why Huckabee's tax is described in the legislation as a 23% tax.
Posted By: Michael McDonnough
Date: 2007-11-24 13:11:43
Daniel,
If Ron Paul is elected as President then the people have sent a message to congress and yes we can repeal the income tax and many of the other planks of the Paul platform.
Posted By: Matt Young
Date: 2007-11-24 13:26:13
Wow, what brilliance... that was your factual basis for calling hime a moron? Perfect from a guy who calls himself "big mike."
You have to realize that Paul is against most government control of things as he (and people like myself) believe that the government will screw up the whole administration of that law, or use that law to their own selfish purpose and or sneak other laws that have nothing to do with what it says in the title into said law.
No on increasing minimum wage...
so employers will be forced to eventually fire employees, or yank other benefits. Forcing action by corporations is not a solution vs. the easy choice of free market and competition.Voted NO on $167B over 10 years for farm price supports. (Oct 2001) - Fairly easy to see that he does not "hate" farmers as you stated later in your article as his constituency is a total farm district. The free market statement stands for this as well.
The rest of your comments can be answered using this thought process as well...
Yeah- vote for another talking head... 4-8 more years of the same... c'mon do some research and give some thought to the whole situation before spouting off a bunch of huff.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-24 13:26:15
The FairTax is quoted as tax-inclusive, while sales taxes are quoted tax-exclusive. The rates are stated differently, but the amount of tax the government collects in the end is 23% in either case.
Posted By: Randy
Date: 2007-11-24 13:30:34
Hey mike, good job at being totally ignorant of Ron Paul's policies. Also, a vote for Huckabee or Thompson is a vote for business as usual.
Posted By: Cleaner44
Date: 2007-11-24 13:34:35
Ron Paul is winning and a the revolution can not be stopped. I have created a website to help the skeptical understand just how much Ron Paul is dominating this race.
Please visit www.thecaseforronpaul.com and spread the word.
This is the resource for anyone that still believes it when the media tells them that Ron Paul can not win.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-24 13:35:02
Since the 16th Amendment only "allows" for an income tax and does not "require" one, the Federal Income Tax could be eliminated simply by writing an Executive Order. My guess would be that since Ron Paul does not believe in abusing the power of the Executive Order, he will lay out his plan to the American People and Congress and do it the proper way.
Posted By: jenkinsbrigade
Date: 2007-11-24 13:44:03
Big mike, it is obviously you who are the moron, else you would have done your homework before simply perusing the man's voting record. Dr. Paul votes on principle, the chiefest of which is that the US constitution does NOT authorize the fed to do a great many things that are today taken for granted, such as tampering with wages and propping up businesses that would fail in a true market economy. Dr. Paul will not vote in favor of ANY unconstitutional laws; he will not pander to any voting block. You, sir, sound like you are looking for a candidate who will bring about a little socialist paradise on earth. In that case, I respectfully suggest you move to France, where they love that sort of thing. I, however, will take the hope that Dr. Paul offers...a hope that the federal government will be returned back to the constitutional limits so wisely set forth by the founders. I hope all clear-thinking Americans will do likewise.
Posted By: Andy Braums
Date: 2007-11-24 13:52:37
I sincerely believe Dr. Ron Paul will be a great President who can counter the tax-and-spend Congress that is composed of Remocrats and Depublicans.
Posted By: bt
Date: 2007-11-24 14:14:07
Trusts the Internet a lot more than the mainstream media. (May 2007) Thats helping your point big mike?
Posted By: Ian
Date: 2007-11-24 14:29:21
Hey Big Mike,
It's good that you did some research but I think you failed to look into what the votes actually mean. Because he voted no on something the constitution clearly outlines should be left up to the states does not mean he hates old/poor/young people. Did it ever occur to you that sometimes a good titled or sounding piece of legislation may actually be a bureaucratic nightmare?
For instance: The No vote on 'network neutrality' you act as though that is a bad vote. If you did any research into that you would find out just how evil network neutrality truely is. Basically if network neutrality were to pass the internet would be more like television is today. With no opportunity for websites like this to exist because it would simply be too expensive for anyone to operate unless they had "network television" money.
Posted By: paul lemieux
Date: 2007-11-24 16:26:10
Right on brother I've thought that myself....Ron Paul got it all!!!!
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-24 16:33:17
Stephen wrote:
"The FairTax is quoted as tax-inclusive, while sales taxes are quoted tax-exclusive. The rates are stated differently, but the amount of tax the government collects in the end is 23% in either case."
Yes, that's correct, Stephen, but I'll bet you anything that 99 out of 100 people (among those few who actually read the bill), won't understand what that concept means. In fact, there's a good chance you don't either. Here's a little test to find out. Can you provide the equation for using the 23% "tax-inclusive" rate to come up with the correct tax amount of $0.30 on a $1 purchase?
I'll bet you can't.
Posted By: Brian
Date: 2007-11-24 19:45:04
Dr. Paul has a consistent record of voting "no" to anything not specifically permitted by the constitution. Every congressman takes an oath to uphold it. (They seem to forget that) It is the supreme law of the land. It is the law that governs the lawmakers. We live by rule of law in the United States, not by rule of man.
Remember what Benjamin Franklin said when asked "Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?" "A republic if you can keep it" responded Franklin. We have not done a very good job of keeping it. Now it is our job to win it back.
Everyone will benefit with Ron Paul as President.
If you want to know why Ron Paul thinks and votes the way he does check out his writings at ronpaullibrary.org (highlight, copy and paste the address into your browser’s address bar, rather than clicking on the link, this web page adds junk to the address and you will get a message that the page can not be found)
ronpaul2008.com
Posted By: KCIndy
Date: 2007-11-24 20:38:18
Walt, for those of us who aren't as familiar with the "Fair Tax" as you are, why not spell it out for us so we aren't hanging here in suspense.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-25 02:49:17
Let's not turn this into a WPA Project.Tax-Inclusive:
You earn 1.00 and you pay a 23% Federal Income Tax, leaving you with .77 cents.
Tax-Exclusive:
Now take the same 77 cents you would have left over after the Federal Income Tax and go purchase something. At the cash register, you will pay a 30% National Sales Tax on your 77 cent purchase.
77 cents x 30% Sales Tax = 1.00
In either case, you earned 1 dollar. In either case, you payed a 23 cent tax on that dollar.
With a tax-inclusive tax like the Federal Income Tax, the government got 23 cents of your dollar earning, leaving you with 77 cents to make your purchase.
With a tax-exclusive tax like the National Sales Tax, you purchase a 77 cent item [the equivalent of what you could buy with money left over after the Fedeal Income Tax] and pay a 30% National Sales Tax at the cash register. You have spent the same $1 you originally earned [before the Federal Income Tax].
There is no difference.
It's still the same $1. It's still the same 23 cents.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-25 03:04:25
To put it another way.
Under a Federal Income Tax rate of 23 percent, you have to earn $1.30 if you want to spend $1.00. [130 cents x .23 = 100 cents.]
Now go spend the same 1 dollar, but instead, apply the National Sales Tax at a rate of 30%. [100 cents x 1.30 = 130 cents.]
Either way, it cost you 130 cents to buy the equivalent of a $1 item.
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-25 05:05:03
Stephen: Yes, you very clearly showed, by your explanation, just how fraudulent the "fair tax" is.
First of all, it is not a "Federal Income Tax". It's a sales tax, and of all the sales taxes in America today, the only one that talks about being "tax inclusive" rather than "tax exclusive" is the "fair tax."
Second (and more importantly), how and where is the poor, befuddled American citizen who actually reads the bill before it passes supposed to get the idea that it's a 30% sales tax? The bill never mentions 30%. Not once! However, the 23% figure runs rampant throughout the bill. So how is the average American supposed to understand from reading the bill that he'll be paying 30 cents on every $1 he spends???
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-25 05:13:40
Oh, and by the way Stephen...you avoided my challenge by side-stepping it. You didn't derive the 30% tax from the 23% tax. You merely compared them. My challenge to you was to derive the 30% figure, because since the bill doesn't mention 30% anywhere, you have to use math to figure out that it's actually 30%. Since most Americans are math challenged at that level of mathematical understanding, I doubt that 1 out of 100 could derive the proper equation, and you apparently cannot derive that equation either.
Posted By: Tristat
Date: 2007-11-25 06:50:31
Mike touched on the fact that Ron Paul voted no on a increase of minimun wage. Yes it sounds bad when someone first reads into it. Once you stop for a second and think about the issue it should become clear why it is not good for all americans. When you force a company to pay workers more you are increasing the amount at which it takes to do business. Thus prices need to come up to cover this required expenditure lost to the new wages, as companies are out to make money and rightfully so. So as prices go up the new minimun wage gets covered by a higher price of goods and services. But an overlooked consequence of this new minimun wage is what it does to all other working americans who earn more than the minimun wage. They are forced to pay higher prices for goods and services without the added income.
Posted By: Fazsha
Date: 2007-11-25 11:33:57
Ignore the "Big Mikes" of the world. You'll never convince them, because ultimately they think that whether you were born poor or whether you gambled all your money away on real estate, the govt should take more money from the rich citizens to bail your a** out. Why not trust rich people to distribute their wealth out of the goodness of their heart? Why - because Big Mike has no faith in people helping their fellow man.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-25 12:54:08
Walt, I'm not avoiding the challenge. You're the one who stated that most people would not understand the concept behind the FairTax. Between the two of us, it would appear I am the only one trying to help them understand. Instead of whining and complaining, why don't you try to help the people you claim are so helpless and ignorant understand the concept of the FairTax?Is it than you can't... or simply won't?
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-25 20:31:26
If you aren't avoiding the challenge, Stephen, then answer it directly. Derive the formula. If you can't, then it's not about trying to help people understand. Rather, it's about trying to deceive people. And when a politician tries to deceive people in order to gain public office, that's fraud.
Posted By: Stephen
Date: 2007-11-25 22:41:14
Walt, have you actually read the bill? The bill states [albeit indirectly] where the 30% NST comes from. But for your edification, I'll take a moment to educate you.For 2007, the NST = 23%For years after 2007, the NST is the sum of the General Revenue, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid rates, which is... surprise... 30%No secrets, no voodoo, no formulas, no real arithmetic involved... other than simple addition.
Posted By: Evelyn Prentice
Date: 2007-11-26 07:07:25
Voting to raise the minimum wage may have an effect of taking away a lot of jobs on the market.
Anyone who thinks Ron Paul is out to make the rich even richer is ignorant. Mainstream media has a biased view of this candidate because of his anti media-conglomerate position and they're scared to even talk about him because they'd lose billions.
Of course the internet, which is moved by the PEOPLE is more trustworthy than mainstream media which has a lot of political machinery going on behind the scenes.
Ron Paul 2008!
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2007-11-26 07:41:41
But that's the whole point, Stephen, the bill only says the rate "indirectly," meaning you have to know how to convert the 23% to the real figure (which apparently you don't...someone had to tell you the answer...you couldn't figure it out for yourself). And yes, I have read the bill. The really and truly sad part is that this whole controversy could be avoided if they simply skipped all that baloney about a "tax inclusive" rate and simply stated that it was and is a 30% sales tax. It would be refreshingly honest and forthright. But honesty and forthrightness are not the intention of the bill's framers. Their intention is to deceive, to make people think that 30% is really 23%. It's disgusting, and it's so typical of the way bills are written so often today.
You shouldn't have to have a math degree in order to understand what a bill says...particularly when there's no need to be deceptive.
I can't help but notice that you continue to evade the question I posed. I really don't think you know how to do the math to derive the equation for figuring out that it's actually a 30% rate, but you can't bring yourself to admit it.
As for the bill saying that the rate reaches 30% in 2007....that's just unnecessary voodoo double-talk. Why not abandon all this highly confusing talk about "tax-inclusive" and simply state what the real rate is? The reason, of course, is that the bill's promoters are afraid that no one will support if they're honest and forthright about the real rate. And they're probably right to be afraid, because it's a bad idea.
The whole thing is disgusting, and I don't think anyone should support such deceptive tactics. I cried "fraud," and I still cry "fraud."
Posted By: Jeremiah Ellison
Date: 2007-11-26 12:15:50
The tax challenge: $1.00 / (1 - rate(0.23)) = $1.30 (1.298701...) there's the formula for your 23% tax-inclusive 30% sales tax.
Posted By: Legal Alien
Date: 2007-11-27 03:11:58
or 1.00 (tax inclusive total) - .23 (tax inclusive rate) = .77 (tax exclusive total)
.23 (tax exlusive rate) / .77 (tax exclusive total) = .298701 (tax exclusive rate)
I live in Australia, which has a tax inclusive sales tax. The prices on the shelf are the total including sales tax, which is terrible, because it makes people forget they are paying taxes (just like the income tax withholding). I reckon if people had to cut a check to the government for their entire tax bills there would be a lot more libertarians in the world.