Rand Paul Quotes

I don’t have anything against the rich. I just want some of their money to pay for essential services.

Tax cuts for the rich defund the critical public programs on which American families depend.

Large majorities of voters support taxing millionaires and protecting social security.

I'm a capitalist, and I believe that universal basic income is necessary for capitalism to continue.

Every American has a right to food, housing, and health care - and we can afford to provide it if billionaires and big corporations pay their fair share.

Programs aimed strictly at the poorest Americans are always and forever under assault from a Republican Party that still has not dared to cut spending on programs - like Medicare and crop insurance - that also benefit the rich.

Conservatives believe the economy functions better if the rich have more money and everyone else has less. But they're wrong. It's just the opposite.

The main purpose of Social Security is to redistribute wealth, to make an increasingly large number of Americans dependent on government for their basic needs in their retirement years.

If we're not going to tax the rich anymore, we're going to create class warfare.

Obama seems to want to do something to damage rich people.

The Clinton administration cared a lot about the middle class and the poor. But it also cared a lot - too much, in retrospect - about the rich.

Sadly, this is the same old Republican story of Robin Hood in reverse - tax cuts for the rich while programs for average and low income Americans suffer.

The fundamental flaw in Social Security and Medicare is that they violate the 'welfare principle' in economics. The welfare principle forms the fundamental basis of all charitable work in churches and other private organizations: assist those who need help, and equally important, don't assist individuals who can take care of themselves.

You know, 600,000 millionaires get a Social Security check every month. I think there's enough waste and inefficiency.

I don't believe in trickle-down economics. I don't think that people who have the most are inclined to share it, generally.

When you say fiscal responsibility, it seems to me that you really mean rich people keeping their money.

I’m really not concerned about the very poor. They have a safety net.

One way to reduce income inequality is to get rid of the rich. If Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Rupert Murdoch and their billionaire friends could be persuaded to emigrate from the United States, income inequality would decrease overnight.

The great network of social insurance programs established by President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, President Harry Truman’s Fair Deal, President John F. Kennedy’s Great Society, and President Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society and defended by President Bill Clinton, sharply limits the amount of poverty a downturn [in the economy] can cause.

Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders want to raise taxes on the rich, saying it will solve inequality. It won't. All that will do is significantly reduce incentives to work, save, and invest. But I say inequality is not the problem. The problem is a lack of growth.

Those on the downside of rising economic inequality generally do not want government policies that look like handouts. They typically do not want the government to make the tax system more progressive, to impose punishing taxes on the rich, in order to give the money to them. Redistribution feels demeaning. It feels like being labeled a failure.

I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair, I'll fix it.

The most important thing is guaranteed livable income, which will take a while to bring in because it means all the provinces have to participate.

I don't see basic income as a panacea, but we must have a new income distribution system. The old one has broken down irretrievably.

Instead of a universal basic income, we could have a basic income guarantee. Or, as economists prefer to call it, a negative income tax.