12 votes

Eliminate the Federal Income Tax?

Everyone here knows that Dr. Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax. One can only imagine what a tremendous boost this single action, by the president, can do for this country. I find it puzzling that millions of Americans complain about the economy and taxes (thereby taking money away from their family's security and future) and do not consider this issue paramount. It doesn't make much sense that people don't think they should keep the "fruits of their labor."



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Strange as it may seem

there is no Federal Income Tax because what passes for Federal Income Tax was never made legal. Therefore it is theft by criminals in a conspiracy. So the resolution would be to arrest the criminals and shut down their illegal operation and return the stolen property to their victims. This is not a political issue but a criminal one.

Secede from the Union

that will do it, get the right people in state office and that can happen.

Only people who PAY taxes care about them?

People who don't have to pay income taxes probably don't see it as a huge issue. I don't know what percentage of people even file a tax return, but among those who DO, fully 46% pay no income taxes at all.

Recommended reading: The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose

If you look at government

If you look at government spending in the years before the income tax and the civil war, the government would have to collection about 1 trillion in taxes for similar levels of spending (ignoring social security and medicare, which has a dedicated revenue stream from the payroll tax).

I don't see how 1 trillion could be collected without an income tax.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Where Income Tax Money Really Goes To

Most of money collected by the IRS goes to the Federal Reserve to pay them back for the fake money that they printed for us and to foreign wars. Thus, getting rid of both foreign wars and the Federal Reserve, we don't need income tax. Plus, the government doesn't report on money they get from investments.

UTMB Medical School Class of 2016!

Government spending as percent of GDP from 1900

Government Spending started out at the beginning of the 20th century at 6.9 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Near term government spending in the future is pegging at 40 percent of GDP.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_brief.php

Well, that wasn't really my

Well, that wasn't really my point. But in any case, let us examine your claim.

Current government spending is around 40%. About 65% of that is dedicated SSI, pensions (for the states), and Medicare. These are entitlements; you paid taxes into it and unless you retired before 1985, you will getting shortchanged (notable exceptions are the well-managed pensions programs of some states). In any case, no income tax money is directed to these programs*.

*A caveat being that the medicare services the average American will recieve is starting to eclipse what he paid in taxes. We have to watch for that, but I will set this aside for now.

Perusing the chart, spending jumps in wartime. Which we are in now; defense spending is at about 8% of GDP. If you assign half to the war, "normal" government spending at 10% GDP. About a 43% increase from 1900. Most of that comes from health care welfare and education spending.

I am all for reducing the health care welfare and education spending as well as minimizing defense expenditures.

But taxes seem to appear so much higher today because obvious income taxes are used instead of the passive excise and ad-valorum taxes. In 1900, the federal government alone collected 5.6% of GDP in tax revenue. Today, it collects 8.6% in taxes. Oddly enough, that is a 46% increase, which matches well with the 43% increase in spending.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I made no claim, just stated a couple of facts and gave a link

with the origin of the data.

My apologies if this was to obtuse or subtle to intimate that the issue is profligate spending.

Perhaps examining an answer from the namesake of this board will provide a better explanation.

from an interview Ron Paul gave during his previous campaign for President in 2008:

Q: What are your thoughts on abolishing America’s income tax and switching over to a consumption tax such as the fair tax?

A: I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990′s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all.

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/11/20/ron-paul-answers-your...

Since this answer was from 2008, I did a little checking to see how well the explanation held up - that is, could the trillion dollars revenue from the personal income tax be dispensed with if spending were rolled back a decade (or so).

FY2012 federal spend outlay (estimated) was 3,212.5 billion (in constant FY2005 dollars, from the chart linked below. How far back would we need to look in the chart to account for the $1 trillion?
Only back to FY2002, when spending was 2,201.3 billion.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Doc...

Of course, this doesn't even consider the savings due to the 5 departments that Ron Paul has proposed closing, nor the decrease in military spending that would result from protecting America instead of policing the world.

Actually, it considers no

Actually, it considers no savings. You have to come up with that 1 trillion.

In reality, the plan you propose is a adequate. Looking at the massive government growth that has occured (spending wise-of course the invasiveness of the Patriot Act is not measured in dollars), it comes in four areas: Social Security, Medicare, military, and welfare.

Let us break this down. Spending was 2 trillion in 2002. With just inflationary increases, it should be 2.6 trilllion today, instead of 3.7 trillion.

Where does that extra 1.1 trillion come from?

Social Security costs about 150 billion more than inflation. However, this was an expected and projected increase. Had the government not robbed SSI, there would be more than enough money to cover these extra outlays. In earlier years, Presidents like Clinton and Bush enjoyed the surpluses SSI provided.

Medicare: About 200 billion more than inflation. Only about 90 billion (round to 100) was for natural increase in Medicare (just like Social Security). The other is Medicare part D (100 billion).

Defense: Including the DOHS, a shocking 400 billion increase over inflation from 2002. No explanation needed.

Welfare: Another 300 billion over inflation. This is almost exclusively due to the recession. About 80 billion (round up to 100) is due to paid-for unemployment.

So that is about 1,050 billion there; just shy of 1 trillion. If you look at the other programs, it is almost dead-even with inflation. Now what can you cut from that?

The 150 billion from SSI, 100 billion from Medicare, and 100 billion from unemployment that has already been paid for cannot be removed. So there is 350 billion you are saddled with. In addition, I don't think Veterans payments can be cut; they are only going up in the future. There is another 50 billion there.

So in reality, there is about 650 billion to be cut. This would involve massive cuts to unemployment and medicaid, defense, and homeland security. Cutting energy, education, H&D, commerce, and interior would get another 130 billion. So that is about 800 billion. Just 2-300 billion left to cut to get back to 2002 numbers.

However, one more screw-ball: tax revenue is only at 2.5 trillion. So if you desire no tax increases, you have to raise cut another 100 billion. So now the number is 3-400 billion left to cut.

At this point it becomes very tough. Medicaid is really the only thing left to hack at.

Ron Paul accomplished part of this by eliminating the 250 billion in Obama tax cuts. I don't know if I would go that route.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

I haven't proposed a plan, just stated Ron Paul's explanation of

why the personal income tax can be eliminated. You can disagree with his answer if you wish, but the fact remains that the revenue collected by the personal income tax is completely consumed by the increase in annual federal spending over the last decade. Perhaps you did not notice the chart was based on constant FY2005 dollars, otherwise the inflation canard would not be put forth.
It was true when Ron Paul stated it in 2008, and is still true today.

Just because it is true on

Just because it is true on the face, does not mean it is true in principal. It isn't easy to return spending to 2002 levels, because the spending increases have not been uniform. That was a point of my post, to show how they've come from a lot of things. A lot of them you can't touch (SS, Medicare, veterans care).

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Well, that wasn't really my

Well, that wasn't really my point. But in any case, let us examine your claim.

Current government spending is around 40%. About 65% of that is dedicated SSI, pensions (for the states), and Medicare. These are entitlements; you paid taxes into it and unless you retired before 1985, you will getting shortchanged (notable exceptions are the well-managed pensions programs of some states). In any case, no income tax money is directed to these programs*.

*A caveat being that the medicare services the average American will recieve is starting to eclipse what he paid in taxes. We have to watch for that, but I will set this aside for now.

Perusing the chart, spending jumps in wartime. Which we are in now; defense spending is at about 8% of GDP. If you assign half to the war, "normal" government spending at 10% GDP. About a 43% increase from 1900. Most of that comes from health care welfare and education spending.

I am all for reducing the health care welfare and education spending as well as minimizing defense expenditures.

But taxes seem to appear so much higher today because obvious income taxes are used instead of the passive excise and ad-valorum taxes. In 1900, the federal government alone collected 5.6% of GDP in tax revenue. Today, it collects 8.6% in taxes. Oddly enough, that is a 46% increase, which matches well with the 43% increase in spending.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

.

America: Freedom to Fascism explained it all pretty well I thought. None of that money goes to schools or roads and bridges like people think it does.

I forget who said it, but some expert said that if we eliminated the income tax we would see the biggest influx of repatriation, and new business and job growth in history.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

What's wrong with Americans?

Maybe Ron Paul isn't explaining it in simple enough terms. Elect Ron Paul, and you'll get to keep what you normaly send in for Fed Taxes. You'd have to be stupid not to vote for Ron Paul, in my humble opinion.

alan laney

This book is highly recommended

Buy it on Amazon through the daily paul and support the site!
http://www.amazon.com/Income-Tax-The-Root-Evil/dp/B000WMS7CO

Please subscribe to smaulgld.com

To put it simply,

the people have been duped.

They have been indoctrinated for their entire lives to believe that income tax is a necessary thing.
The Democrat Party has made a century-long career out of pushing the income tax and centrally planned economy, and look how many dupes they have supporting them.
The Republican Party gave up any pretense of sanity, and is now basically the Democrat Party in an elephant costume.

Americans today actually think that if they weren't chained to the income tax treadmill, that society couldn't function. That's how far gone they are.
It's no wonder that they look at us like we're crazy. They can't even imagine life without being a slave to the system.

Milton Friedman

He explains the four ways to spend money.

Google - milton friedman four ways to spend money

or click here

http://youtu.be/5RDMdc5r5z8

When Fascism goes to sleep, it checks under the bed for Ron Paul!

Agreed-I can't decide if eliminating the federal income tax or

...changing our foreign policy is the bigger issue for me when discussing why I support Ron Paul.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

true

couldn't agree more

a poll on this (income tax repeal) might be helpful

lbtbruce