What replaces the Income Tax
This question always comes up, and if it is not vocalized it is still there. The answer provided is that we must reduce the size of government, but with out income do we just quit having a government. I know some who think that would be a great solution, but most of us feel a need for a federal government.
My point being that I do not think that this is covered well in Dr. Paul's speeches. Some say how will the roads be built and maintained, who will pay for boarder security, and we still must have defense. I think that the campaign could take advantage of this by reciting all the taxes other than income tax that the federal government collects.
There is the gas tax, excise tax, gift and estate taxes, there are tariffs and import duties. There are other withholding taxes I do not know how many taxes there are. Perhaps a list of taxes collected by the federal government would be of use.
Corporations pay income taxes, does Ron Paul wish to stop collecting corporate income tax?
For Ron Paul to stop the government from collecting income taxes would the 16th amendment have to be repealed? Before removing the income tax would the funds for entitlements (SSI Medicare etc.) be restored, and would they be protected?
I have many questions, perhaps others do also, and perhaps one or more of you can provide answers.
Income tax only pays the interest on money loaned from Fed
The Income Tax is not used for anything to run the country - roads, schools, bridges, military nothing - it is used to pay off the interest for the money that is loaned to us by the Federal Reserve. No Income Tax, No Federal Reserve, the United States continues on as it always has
some common words are:
no
niet
nilch
nada
nien
bu
it only represents 30% of tax revenue. we need to reduce the federal government by at least that much.
Nothing
I would love to see them replace it with nothing. Make them live within their means like the rest of us. No more 800 dollar hammer's, or bridges to no where. I think we can live without that stuff. I always was more careful with money I earned than money that was given to me.
Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.
Plus Constitutional Tax
Don't forget, the Constitution does allow the Federal Government to collect direct taxes apportioned by state population.
This, I'm OK with. Until they get greedy - which never takes long. Although, Congress has to approve the amount and we would hope our Representatives are careful.
www.libertyrestorationproject.org
"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."
Focus on why we don't need the income tax
Again, we are talking about fear of losing government goodies.
So, we must get people to understand why we have an income tax in the first place. Then show why the income tax isn't necessary. That will satisfy their feelings and pave the way to abolish the income tax and other inflation taxes.
We need a book like the FairTax book explaining all this. The FairTax book was written for the lay man. However, there are plenty of videos explaining the income tax and why it isn't necessary. Still, a focused book/source (that doesn't lead to conspiracies) would do wonders.
replacement for my income tax
Yes - um - I'd like to replace my income tax with the 30% of my check the government has been stealing from me all these years.
Nothing.
We need the income tax now just to pay the interest on our debts. The only way to pay these debts is to radically cut spending.
Ron Paul's idea is to end our current foreign policy--clearly the greatest expenditure of our Federal government. The money saved will pay off this debt. When that's all said and done, the Federal government should have enough revenue from all of its various excise taxes and tariffs to fund its programs.
Clearly, this won't be an easy sell to Congress. They, too, will have to stop wasting the people's money on earmarks and pork projects.
Ron Paul has been very vocal about what the role of government ought to be. The fact is that if people want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave, finance unwinnable wars, and run up huge debts; then the income tax is an absolute necessity. However, if people want to be self-reliant, peaceful, and thrifty; then there is no need whatsoever for an income tax.
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
But with Dr Veto is Office,
But with Dr Veto is Office, we won't need to worry about all those entitlement apropriations bills being passed -- unless they overrule him with 2-thirds majority.
Tracy
Quite True
This would bring about the need for less excise taxes as well.
"Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions." Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798
"Taxes for revenue are obsolete"
So said Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank Beardsley Ruml way back in 1946. Google the quote and see what comes up. Your income taxes are just a way to get FRNs out of circulation to control what they like to call inflation.
There are still a million and one different taxes...
Including state taxes that pay for the roads and police, property taxes that pay for the schools.
The idea that there will be NO TAXES is silly, personally I think that government is a big clumsy monster, but it won't go away in my lifetime.
Nothing
Income taxes make up about 1/2 of all taxes. I guess that the war, and a few federal departments and some other areas of wasteful spending probably make up 1/2 of all spending. So it works out, and more time and energy can be spent of roads and things that really matter.
Nothing.
'nuff said.
Income tax thread from end of October
Have a look at a thread discussing this exact question from late October.
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/5103
The meaning behind my screen name
The battle of Gonzales, TX. (Oct. 1835)
No new deal!
It's simple, when you work you pay a percentage of your wages to the government. That means you work for the government and are therefore a bonded servant or slave. However if you have liberty then you are free and able to work and keep what you earn. So the next question is should the government provide all services and be a monopoly or should there be competition. If the your answer that the government should provide all services, such as education, transportation systems, health care, then they become a monopoly which is basically what socialism boils down to with no choice. So our choice is do we follow the Constitution which limits the size and authority of government, or do we continue to build a centralized government like they had under the King and like they have in China.
grant
RP has said that if the
RP has said that if the income tax was gone today we would still have the same revenue (w/ all the other taxes) that we had in 2000. I haven't looked at those facts, but I do know that the income tax does actually account for a fraction of the total income.
In any case, taxes won't be gone tomorrow. If you listen to RP he always notes that the political will must change and that this change will need a transition period. As someone mentioned below, the biggest point is reducing our spending. I (personally) think taxes will stay for a while and that the savings from reducing foreign involvement will help us pay off our debt. Most people (other than students I guess) don't realize how seriously screwed we are right now. Its going to take a lot of work just to get into the black again.
But when we are solvent taxes do need to get cut and cut dramatically, otherwise there will be an incentive to continue to grow government. Lowering taxes at the federal level would help strangle the federal government a bit - if the money isn't there, they can't spend it.
End Withholding
I think he could do this by executive order and let everyone keep their own money for a year and 3-1/2 months, and see if he and the American People can convince the congress to not force everyone to write a now very visible check for 1/3 or more of their income on 4/15/10.
If in the first weeks after taking office withholding was ended the IRS, tax system, and the 16th amendment would all be gone within a year.
The Federal Government owns lots of land out west which it could sell (Harry Browne suggested it). It can do import duties and excise taxes. Also fees (you want extra government, then pay for it).
How did we do it before the income tax was passed?
They can also levy the states, but what I would expect to happen is that instead of sending $100 to DC and getting $40 back, the states would raise taxes and handle things locally - they would decide how much of the $40 was needed and handle things. Nevada and Maine have different needs. Some states will have income taxes, other sales taxes, others property taxes. But the state legislatures and governors are nearer to the people, and the people can change states if taxation becomes too oppressive.
High taxes and zero potholes or middle taxes and reasonably good roads with a few shabby places, or low taxes and cowpaths (of course many have SUVs). Or privatization and Toll roads. The OH Turnpike reformed itself - increased the speed limit and lowered tolls for trucks - they even have lounges and showers at the rest stops. Before that, the trucks would use the lesser roads causing problems for everyone. But it wasn't the federal government with one-size-fits-all standards.
Some parts are clear: others not so
First, let's note that, from Paul's writings and legislation, there is no evidence I can find that he agrees with the view that the 16th amendment wasn't ratified. He has proposed its repeal, so that would suggest he believes it is in place. But you don't have to repeal the 16th amendment to stop collecting income taxes: the amendment PERMITTED income taxes: it didn't REQUIRE them. Nonetheless, it would be nice to repeal it and make the possibility of a return more remote.
There were three sources of revenue for the first century of the country:
(1) Excise taxes
(2) Tariffs
(3) Sales of public lands
All three would continue to be available. Excluding the social security tax, which is bound up with the SS system that he separately addresses, these would probably equal around 10% of current revenue. Sounds about right for the constitutional functions of the federal government, including a defense sufficient to protect this country but not to sustain 700 military bases in 130 foreign countries or pay for pet defense projects of favored businesses in the military-industrial complex.
Some have argued that the corporate structure is a special limited liability privilege and not a natural right as a form of organization, so that taxes on corporations would be appropriate (and would include foreign corporations operating in the US). This amounts to 20% of current revenue (again, excluding SS). So we could abolish the individual income tax and have sufficient funds to operate a federal government around 30% of the current size. Far MORE than enough for the constitutional functions of the Federal government. Naturally, some small businesses would opt out of the form, but non-management shareholders would undoubtedly insist on limited liability protection, and be willing to pay a reasonable fee for this privilege for large businesses. And you could still eliminate the IRS, as corporations could be required to pay the income tax on the accounting income they report to shareholders and creditors, which they do NOT want to understate.
As for Social Security and Medicare, since Dr. Paul has indicated he would allow younger persons to opt out (so that Federal payroll taxes would then be voluntary for those wishing to receive benefits), he would have to deal with the shortage in the non-existent trust fund. He has never addressed this, but has implied other revenue sources could compensate. With the corporate income tax in place and collection of payroll taxes from older workers not wanting to forfeit their participation, he might be able to replenish the trust fund over time and then, eventually, get rid of the corporate tax. Alternatively, since Dr. Paul wrote the foreword to Harry Browne's LIBERTY A-Z, has frequently praised Browne, and once ran on the LP platform, he might follow the LP proposal championed by Browne of selling off the enormous amount of government land (forgive me for speaking off the top of my head, but I believe the government owns nearly a THIRD of the total land in this country, not to mention some overseas property not needed after base removal) to raise the funds necessary to retire the unfunded liability or, better yet, buy annuities for current and about-to-start recipients and actually end people's reliance on the system very quickly (if insufficient, the corporate income tax should take care of the remainder over a reasonable period of time).
Paul could certainly keep his promise to abolish the IRS in his first week: it is an executive branch function, and he could simply decide government priorities belonged elsewhere. But I suspect that Congress will be able to get together 2/3 majorities in both houses to keep spending at a higher level than President Paul wishes, though massively lower than at present, and that he sees the limited role of the president including faithfully executing the laws, including bills passed by Congress over his veto, so I think the end of the income tax is more likely to come by the end of his term than the beginning, because Paul's election is not the same as a complete success for libertarian ideals.
And this is why more people need to plan to run for office, championing these causes, and not expecting a 72-year-old man to do all the work of governing. The aforementioned LIBERTY A-Z is a darn good starting book for someone wanting to learn the art of political soundbites (and a book Dr. Paul praised highly on its back cover, HEALING OUR WORLD by Dr. Mary Ruwart, is a good comprehensive source on libertarian ideas overall, with some small disagreements with Dr. Paul that obviously didn't keep him from agreeing to have his praise on the book).
Outstanding!
This is the clearest, most complete explanation I have read on this subject yet.
I wish RP would take a little more time in his interviews to flesh this out like you have. People have been conditioned to think that the personal income tax is the only source of revenue for the Federal government and so when he talks about eliminating it, people don't understand. RP has been living with these ideas for 30 years and he tends to assume more understanding in the audience than is actually there.
Antboy, YOU should prepare a slim jim of your own design on this issue. Or make a video for youtube. Something to get the message out. I think this issue is the one MOST likely to cause the average person to think RP is not making sense.
Thanks.
People more likely to watch Ron Paul Girl than me
Thanks. I've campaigned for office and written for other candidates in the past (all Libertarian Party). Unfortunately, I have more money than time these days, nor any YouTube skills. Anyone who wishes may adapt these ideas to a brief video
Better yet, submit a script to Liv (Ron Paul Girl), which could be filled with double entendres as she removed a percentage of her clothing representing the tax savings from eliminating various taxes, noting there is still enough left for a G-rated, well, PG-rated, government. Social security and medicare taxes, as a safety net, would certainly be fishnets, shed as Paul's privatization scheme fully capitalized the system with the sources I mentioned. I leave it to others to decide what would be labeled tariffs, land sales, and excise taxes, remaining in place to cover the essentials.
To add...
From what I understand the 16th amendment was never properly ratified, and regardless of whether it was or wasn't the Supreme Court has ruled several times that a direct unapportioned tax (tax on wages) is unconstitutional. I think Paul just wants to remove any ambiquity. Furthermore, the IRS is not a legal government entity, but is actually a "trust" located in Puerto Rico.
Hopefully nothing
The bigger problem than the income tax is the spending. Until the spending is curtailed cutting this tax or that tax won't matter one iota. The books have to be balanced somehow.
Think about your own finances. If you spend more money than you collect, what do you do? If you could just print money out of thin air, wouldn't you do it? If you could borrow liberally from just about any source, wouldn't you do it? What would eventually happen?
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." - Ayn Rand
David Burns
Simi Valley, CA
replacing the income tax
FYI. The gas tax IS an excise tax.
A revenue neutral replacement could be accomplished by any number of means. However, nobody that supports Ron Paul believes in a revenue neutral replacement system. But at least trying to "ease the pain" of digression in the maintenance of the welfare/warfare state in the absence of the income tax via constitutional measures, the country could enact a small revenue tariff [across-the-board, without favoritism over one industry or another, as espoused by Frederic Bastiat], along with any number of other measues which would foster devolution, such as sales of federal assets.
In the absence of the 16th amendment, the federal government could still enforce a direct tax. However, it would be governed by the rule of apportionment as it always had been before 1913. That means that if there were to be a critical shortcoming in federal revenue, the states would each be resposible for a portion of it, the amount which depended on it's population. The bill would specify the amount owed, it's purpose, and the time it was due. In short, the feds would have to come to the voter to raise taxes. Every time. What a deal. Eh?
jr
jr
Its the foreign policy...
If he brings back the troops from all over the world, that will save almost a trillion dollars in expenditures. Couple that with the source of taxes (corporate profit is the legal definition of "income" according to the Supreme Court), the government will have all the tax revenue it needs. No more stealing from your paycheck!
Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Until the Election is Won!
Chaplain Steve
Ron Paul - Lion of the Constitution
pre-1913 revenue generation
The country did just fine with tariffs and excise taxes before the implementation of the FED/IRS. Also our money was backed by gold/silver up until 1965 so Ron clearly states that the first step is to eliminate the FED/IRS, restore a precious metal backed currency and vastly reduce the wasteful spending of the military-industrial-education complex. This would free up astronomical amounts of money for social programs and infrastructure just for starters.
CAFRs
Also there is the subject of governmental composite revenue which is on public record in all Federal, State and Local CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports)
The Grace Commission
The short answer is: nothing. If we get rid of the Federal Reserve (which isn't Federal, nor are there any reserves) and the fiat currency it forces us to use as legal tender to the exclusion of real money (gold and silver), there will be no need for the mechanism that removes the excess currency from the economy that inevitably results, which is the income tax.
A longer answer would be the Grace Commission ordered by Ronald Reagan. Here's probably the best excerpt one can draw from it:
"With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government." {emphasis added}
If you haven't already seen it, you definitely need to watch Aaron Russo's documentary America: Freedom to Fascism (which our Dr. Paul is in, btw) to really "get it". You can watch it free on the internet either at the web site www.freedomtofascism.com or at Google video here http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173.
umm..
so much wrong with the Income Tax
watch 2hrs., but well worth it
Freedom to Fascism
http://digitaldiesel.net/index.php?topic=34.0
or
3 1/2 hrs.
Money Masters
http://digitaldiesel.net/index.php?topic=36.0
more info than you probally want though;)
____ _____ _____ _____ ______ ______ _____ ___
"The time is near at hand which we must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves."
George Washington
First President of the USA.
≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈ ≈
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make
violent revolution inevitable."
John F. Kennedy
The income tax brings in
The income tax brings in from about 40-49% of the total revenue. Without it the gov would need to operate on the amount of money it was receiving in about 1995 -2000 depending on who is talking. Corporate income tax would not be prohibited since the constitution does not prohibit it. Corporate income tax pays for the national defense. The primary saving would be realized by a major change in our foreign policy and the resulting reduction in national defense costs. This alone as RP states would save about 1 trillion dollars each year at present rates. So that's it in a nutshell. The 16th amendment would be repealed. (the supreme court has ruled the 16th confers no new taxing powers). The individual income tax on wages and labor is unconstitutional since it is an apportioned tax on everyone. Watch Russo's film to lean more about this subject.
I agree RP could use some of that money he's received lately to make this more clear. Our roads and bridges are paid by local taxes and the federal gasoline tax. Our education is paid for by local property taxes. Our income tax goes into the pockets of the hidden federal reserve operation out of which we gain our paper money. So then if we stop feeding the fed we can have our country back.
_______________________________
..Without the truth we have nothing
Repealing the 16th Amendment...why bother?
Quoting DP: "(the supreme court has ruled the 16th confers no new taxing powers)"
Knowing what I know about all this, I wondered early on why Dr. Paul says we need to repeal the 16th since, as you mentioned above, the Supreme Court ruled very clearly that it conferred no new power of taxation. There was no authority allowing an income tax before, so there was no authority after. The thing is, you have to think a bit in terms of how the average American perceives the "need" for the income tax. In this way, I can see why it might be necessary to repeal the 16th in order to repeal it in the American mind.