Can someone throw my credibility a flotation device?
If this has been resolved in this forum, I apologize. I’ve searched but haven’t found a solid answer.
This piece from the Washington Post raised a troubling question: When Dr. Paul speaks of eliminating the individual income tax, is he playing fast and loose with the numbers?
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/11/four_pin...
The quote from Jesse Benton was very disappointing. It’s the kind of equivocation I expect from a Giuliani or Huckabee campaign, certainly not from ours. What Mr. Benton says is essentially, “Wonks can go back and forth with their silly numbers, so just ignore them and trust us.” (Edit by SMRP - My apologies to Mr. Benton for my error in punctuation. I thought using the word "essentially" would make it clear that this is the perception that I fear skeptics of RP will have. I should not have used quotation marks as these are not his exact words.) That sounds more like Obamanomics than Texas Straight Talk, and it’s embarrassing.
I looked up a few numbers from the White House budget site and they seem to support writer Dobbs’ argument:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/pdf/hist.pdf
What Dr. Paul has said is that if you start with FY2007 total revenue and subtract FY2007 individual income tax revenue, you’ll get an amount equal to or greater than FY2000 total revenue, correct?
This is pretty simple math. Here it is with the numbers from Page 30 of the above-linked document plugged in (amounts in millions):
(Edit by SMRP - Simple? Obviously not simple enough for me. Those are billions, not millions.)
2,415 - 1,096 = 2,025
Sure enough, that doesn’t compute. Doesn’t even come close. Looks like without the 1,096 in FY2007, you’d be left with 1,319. Still a lot of money, to be sure, but a far cry from the FY2000 total revenue of 2,025.
Can anyone help? I have repeated this claim and now realize that I cannot back it up with facts.
Please don’t start about how much spending President Paul would cut. That is important, but irrelevant to this discussion. The estimate he has made (and I have repeated) concerns only revenue.
Thanks.
I watched Leno again
Dr. Paul's words were: "If you got rid of the income tax you would still have enough revenues that were about equivalent to what we had in the year 2000."
M. Dobbs is distorting in several ways
Dobbs's whole criticism stems from confusing revenues with expenses. Receipts did not rise so much in 7 years, but expenses DID. Paul's claim has always been that expenses rose 75% in 7 years, which they did. The fact that Paul was compelled to speak quickly on Leno and to telescope his observations with the word "revenues" does not warrant Dobbs to respond with accusations of deliberate lying.
Paul radio ad: "If we reduced federal spending to the levels of just a decade ago, we could get rid of the income tax and replace it with nothing." Note that when writing in an authorized ad, he uses the word "spending", not revenue (and, of course, moots the question of 7 versus 10 years); the validity of his point is completely unaffected. Also Wikipedia, citing a former page of ronpaul2008.com, says: "Paul would abolish the individual income tax by scaling back the federal budget to its 2000 spending levels."
Paul's actual quotes on Leno: "If you got rid of the income tax you'd still have enough revenues, that were about equivalent to what we had in the year 2000 .... Before 1913 .... we weren't policing the world, so we weren't wasting a lot of money." In conjunction with his former statements, it is clear that "what we had" in 2000 refers to EXPENSES, not revenues. That is, revenue neutrality is simply achieved by dropping the $1 trillion of income taxes, and simultaneously dropping the $1 trillion 7-year rise in expenses. I recognize the budget would still be unbalanced, of course, which is where the cost-cutting comes in and more than covers the deficit. But aside from that, the good doctor's math is perfectly valid within the margin of error for such off-the-cuff comments.
The actual numbers the report Dobbs cites are: 2000 expenses, $1,789,216 million; 2007 expenses, $2,770,097 million (difference, $1,000,881 million); 2007 individual income taxes, $1,096,366 million (or in 2006, $997,599 million). There is about $95 billion to be made up using this particular baseline, but that is a whole factor of magnitude below the rough numbers Paul has been working with.
Dobbs piles it on with another bald-faced distortion: "Income tax accounted for roughly 45 percent of the total, not 33 percent, as Paul claims on his website." Paul's site actually says: "Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue." Paul did NOT use the level of precision "33%"; on the former page of his site, he actually said "42%", and on the very Leno show quoted by Dobbs, he said, "About 40%"-- not 33%. All three estimates are comparable with a final number of 45%. To change "approximately one-third" to "33 percent" is math abuse of the exact sort Dobbs is castigating Paul for. Projection, anyone? This was noticed by others, as well as Dobbs getting the Leno date wrong and not accounting for how long ago Paul first started making such statements.
Smitty here also has the correct analysis, using slightly different numbers. The additional many economic variables cited by others make charges of deliberate lying to be severely questionable.
But that man should play the tyrant over God, and find Him a better man than himself, is astonishing drama indeed!~~D. Sayers
There is no difference between an authoritarian government from the right or the left...F. A.Schaeffer
Jesse's Answer, Ecnomics and Sound Money
Jesse's answer is pretty sufficient. I know that people who spend as much time as this Washington Post guy doing math can come to any conclusion they want. Basically anyone can "Lie with Numbers" by introducing selected evidence. There's no reason to think the US Treasury is any different.
People with Math degrees start to realize that the number of variables in economics equation are obscene --- notice he doesn't correct for inflation as though 2000 dollars are worth the same as 2007 dollars (Google for a chart comparing US Dollar versus Canadians for example). Without a sound basis for economic argument you might gain followers who like your science, but you'll never convince anyone who thinks your premise is invalid.
The sum of what we all pay on income tax = govmnt waste!
I believe this came out this week on Reader's Digest.
A good chunk of our labor is going directly into the waste basket!
JB.
"You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes. -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."
Your flotation device...facts...
The 'On Budget' outlays for 2008 are $2407.3B of which $1043.9B is income tax - leaving $1363.4B as non-income tax receipts.
But - the Fed collects income (taxes) from the public on 'market oriented activities' that are subtracted from gross outlay, as opposed to being shown as income.
'Other' charges (revenue for the Fed) are 'User' (p. 286 for $201.3B) and 'Offsetting' (p. 293 for $280.1B)
So, $201.3B plus $280.1B equals $481.4B
Adding that to non-income tax receipts give us a total non-income tax receipts at $1,844.8B
That covers the budget for the year 2000 and almost covers the year 2001 (it's $39B shy to cover 2001)
**If there is any way I can upload the PDF's from which I got these numbers? They are 3 meg (each) - Perhaps Email them to someone?*
More recent statements ... 1997
It is true that Ron Paul occasionally said on the campaign trail (including on Jay Leno) that a rollback to spending levels of 2000 are sufficient. Within the last week or so he has changed this statement to "rollback spending one decade to 1997" which looks defensible in my estimation.
Ron Paul Looks Excactly Correct Unless You Can Correct Me
I thought that Ron Paul said: "if you role back federal spending to 2000 levels, the difference is the federal income tax."
i.e Look on page 311 and you'll see "total expenditures" of 3852 billion for 2005. Look on page 310 and you'll see "total expenditures" of 2672 billion for 1999.
The difference is about a trillion or, as Ron Paul notes, about the amount of "collected income taxes " since, on page 30, the collected 2005 personal and corporate income taxes were about one trillion dollars.
Thus, Ron Paul smartly concludes that income taxes were only needed to support the expansion of the budget between 2000 and 2005.
I think the "carbon tax" will happen since it will be a broad based, national sales tax which everyone would pay regardless of age, income or job status as long as they consume.
That way, the Roth tax breaks won't matter; Not taxing the capitol gains on your home sales won't matter; etc... It will be covered under the carbon tax.
I looked at the numbers and what is not included is the interest
on the debt, which 1. has more than doubled since 2000 and 2. is where the income tax is earmarked to.
see Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
While the numbers in the explanation are outdated, the process remains the same so therefore the numbers are larger. I have posted on the site you referred to also.
Why an Income Tax is Not Necessary to Fund the U.S. Government
Can this statement possibly be true? In order to answer this question, Americans must first understand what is the source of the money that funds the government and where it goes. Contrary to the sound bites issued by the two mainstream political parties, the reality of how the system actually works will not only open your eyes, but hopefully stimulate the American people to demand that the thievery underway come to an end.
Where do your "income" tax dollars go?
The best place to look for an answer to this question would be a government report, so let's take just one at random:
Read more:
http://www.devvy.com/notax.html
I read somewhere that all the income tax
money collected goes to paying the interest on our national debt.
Not buying what you're selling
That's not what Ron said. Go do some sign waving and get your information accurate. And then report back to your boss.....the Huckster or the bus-master, Romney.
Bob W., Naples, FL
If your looking for facts
Nobody beats the GAO web site.
I thought
Dr. Paul's arguement included kicking in savings from bringing all our troops home and closing all foreign bases.
Could be wrong, but I think he includes this caviot everytime he mentions this specific issue.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
don't think so
see my analysys above. government spending grew by a trillion between 2000 and 2005 and personal and corporate taxes are currently running about a trillion a year so income taxes only covered the costs of expanding government under Bush.
Thanks for clarifying
I realized this was not correct when I started reading new posts.
Thanks.
WAHOR!!
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/48994
Just use 1995
The difference is insignificant, but just use 1995 to be sure. I can't imagine any rational person thinking that the federal government in 1995 was too small.
Peace
These Are "Just" Details
Bringing our troops home from Iraq, and vetoing unconstitutional spending is the first step. Ron Paul is not going to eliminate the income tax on day one. The first step is to stop the spending. The second is to pay down the debt. Money that once went to pay interest on the debt can then be used to eliminate the debt once and for all. THEN we start cutting taxes!
Separate the longterm goals from the short-term metaphors.
I would like to know the facts myself...
I tried to do a quick look on the facts...what a nightmare. How much federal inclome tax is collected per year?? I would like to see the exact facts so I can present them to people. If anybody has the time to give me the ammo I need, I would be deeply thankful.
Just give me the numbers...
2000 Budget
2007 Budget
2007 Taxes collected etc etc
And show me the equation!
What about the interest being paid
to the elite bankers of the Federal Reserve.
The following is why we need Ron Paul as our next president.
http://www.fdrs.org/banking_history.html
Due to our banking history of deception, fraud and counterfeiting, which only benefits the purported elite bankers and their underlings, the borrowed principal itself is being used to make the payments on our debt at interest, thus, it is mathematically impossible to pay off.
We are, therefore, obligated to continue this cycle of borrowing indefinitely, causing complete money slavery for life. The amount owed will expand endlessly, until our monthly payments exceed our income, we are bankrupt, and all we have acquired in this lifetime is pillaged from us. Or, until the privately owned Federal Reserve System is ended and all debts are terminated.
Let's see here....
You said Jesse Benton essentially said this, and then added quote marks. Wrong! Here's what Jesse Benton said:
"Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the personal income tax. Policy wonks can go back and forth arguing over budget specifics. The point Dr. Paul was making, during an interview on an entertainment program, is that we can eliminate the income tax and fund a level of government from the recent past. Whether that year is 1995, 1997 or 2000 is irrelevant. These levels are of course statically scored. Real world dynamic scoring would drive revenues substantially higher. A Paul administration would not be able to end the IRS on January 29th, 2009. President Paul would work with Congress to phase out the income tax and cut budgets to sensible, constitutional levels, focusing foremost on eliminating hundreds of billions of dollars of excessive overseas expenditures."
Also, go to page 22 on the pdf that you referenced. You will find information relevant to your query. The quotes from Ron Paul in the article are talking points that are truthful. If one commits to the entire discussion needed to understand such a simple statement then one will understand the concept. He has a few minutes to say what he wants and explaining this on a talk show or two paragraph article is not feasible. In my opinion Dr.Paul was trying to spark some interest in the subject.
One last thing....Fiscal Year 2007 is still in estimated values. I've not heard Dr.Paul say that if you took FY2007. Regardless, here is a link to what Dr.Paul has to say about taxes and such. Educate yourself and you will retain the information more easily.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=0
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
-George Washington
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism."
-George Washington
I think that Jesse Benton
I think that Jesse Benton didn't understand Ron Paul's comment. I provided my recollection about what Ron Paul actually said above and show that Ron Paul was right.
I say this because Jesse Benten is simply his press secretary and, unlike Ron Paul, he probably doesn't get down into the numbers enough to understand them.
Lipstick on a pig
Doesnt change the pig. Jesse's answer leaves something to be desired. Its better to own up to a mistake than to essentially fluff off a query about a part of your platform
-----------------DO YOU REALLY WANT RON TO WIN------------------
Ron needs more than just money. Send this strategy to mail@ronpaul2008.com and also to press@ronpaul2008.com if these ideas make sense to you
www.dailypaul.com/node/14009
Jesse Was Talking Out His Back Side
I think Jesse Benten was talking about something he didn't know about. see my analysis above and why I think Ron Paul was right and why I think his Press Secretary just wasn't up to speed with understanding the facts.
Have you added in the cost...
To maintain the IRS, prosecute tax offenders, etc, etc... Have you subtracted out the cost of the 730+ military bases in over 120 countries which no longer need to be operated?
As he has said, all of these things are interconnected with our foreign policy.
The Philosophy Of Liberty -
http://www.jonathangullible.com/mmedia/PoL.English.The.Philo...
Did you check the 2000 budget?
If Im not mistaken, we had a budget surplus in 2000. Either way numbers are very flexible. I have no doubt that the core claim, that we can run the federal government without the individual income tax, is valid.
I thought he phrased it like this...
RP claimed that the difference between 07 and 00 in spending was a greater amount than the individual income tax collected in 07. So, if we cut back to 00 spending levels we can eliminate the individual income tax. I think he said the amount was around 1/2 trillion.
h-daddy
right!
I put may analysis above with the numbers and the difference between 2005 and 2000 budget numbers was about one trilion and the personal and capital income tax in 2005 was about a trillion.
So income taxes are only paying for governmental expansion not government itself which is largely funded with loans from the Fed and social security funds which are used to pay ongoing expenses.
From
What I understand, the 2000 fiscal year comparison began before '07 revenues had been collected. So the numbers have changed. Since, I've heard him refer to the level of spending 10 years ago rather than 2000. I might be wrong on this but I think this is the case.
Off to a delegate training workshop :)