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

Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/wait-why-did-ron-paul-of-all-people-just-introduce-an-extension-to-the-homebuyer-tax-credit-2010-5

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+(Business+Insider)#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+(Business+Insider)#ixzz0p3x1joiy

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

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

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.

You can’t steal from a thief.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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