Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

I dont endorse this guy's analysis but do feel Paul should be more detailed about where he'd specifically like to start making cuts outside military spending.

if i have time tomorrow id like to do some fact checking of my own and see what's feasible and suits Dr. Paul's ideas.

Anyways, share your thoughts...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-....html#comments

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Paul has mentioned he would support a VAT like the Fair Tax to help transition. He just doesn't want either, and especially doesn't want both. But a VAT would be an improvement to a federal income tax.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

I'm lazy, so I'd be interested in someone doing some fact checking on the claims about the portion of taxes that come from income tax and the spending cuts.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Considering the only military spending cuts the "fact checker" included were Iraq/Afghan ops, I think somebody needs to fact check the fact checker. Not to mention he just assumed that Paul would advocate no spending decreases in other areas (including the billions in Congressional pork every year). His whole analysis was a weak attempt to smear Paul with that same tired tactic of "if [x] doesn't have every possible answer, then [x] has no answers". As if the status quo is somehow the only option despite its glaring failures unless another option emerges which fixes every failure *immediately*. Yeah, things will really change with that attitude.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Kaj,

I noticed that myself. I'm pretty sure the cost of the Iraq war is $100 billions more than the fact checker stated.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

How exactly did the individual income tax collected jump $162 BILLION in one year?

I think every member of congress should have the graphs from this wiki page branded on them.

budget wiki

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

How can Ron Paul claim that the US did "just fine" without a federal income tax the 126 first years of the nations history when there was an federal individual income tax in place from 1862-1872?

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
How can Ron Paul claim that the US did "just fine" without a federal income tax the 126 first years of the nations history when there was an federal individual income tax in place from 1862-1872?

[/ QUOTE ]

??? Nit much? Did this tax somehow matter to the government in 1787-1862 or 1872-1913? Is 116 years less evidence than 126 years? That income tax was also 3% for incomes under 10,000 (the vast majority) and 5% for larger incomes. Hardly the situation we're in today.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

It actually increased to 10% for income above 5000$ in 1864.

How am I being a nit for pointing out that Pauls assumption about the country doing fine without the federal income tax the first 126 years when it is an invalid statement?

So its ok for politicians to lie or be ignorant about the history of one of their most important topics as long as you support that politician? Im sure its ok if a democrat say that the rich in this country only pays 25% in income tax when it is really 35%, because 10% doesnt really matter much?

Truth is that when America was at war congress found it neccessary to introduce an income tax, and Ron Paul is cleary wrong when he states that the nation did well without it. But sure, pointing out a politican´s lies or lack of knowledge about one of his primary issues makes me a huge nit.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
How am I being a nit for pointing out that Pauls assumption about the country doing fine without the federal income tax the first 126 years when it is an invalid statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because it was true for 116 years. A nit is a small, usually unimportant imperfection in something.

[ QUOTE ]
So its ok for politicians to lie or be ignorant about the history of one of their most important topics as long as you support that politician? Im sure its ok if a democrat say that the rich in this country only pays 25% in income tax when it is really 35%, because 10% doesnt really matter much?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul was basically saying the country paid 0% income tax 1787-1913, when really, giving a generous 10% flat income tax for all ten years 1862-1872, it paid .794% income tax. I'm sure someone like you might rip into whoever if someone was off by <1%, but it really doesn't matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Truth is that when America was at war congress found it neccessary to introduce an income tax, and Ron Paul is cleary wrong when he states that the nation did well without it. But sure, pointing out a politican´s lies or lack of knowledge about one of his primary issues makes me a huge nit.

[/ QUOTE ]

So we need an income tax to wage war... the income tax is therefore good? Hurray war. I think America did just fine not warring.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
So we need an income tax to wage war... the income tax is therefore good? Hurray war. I think America did just fine not warring.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, me pointing out that Ron Paul is making false statements about the history of the income tax in the US = me saying that income tax is good?

AndI disagree that the fact that there was an income tax for ten years is unimportant, because it shows that during the worst crisis in the US during those years that Paul is referring to the government actually did introduce income tax.

And your .794% number is neat and all, but for those paying 10% of their income in income tax from 1864-1872 I dont believe that number is worth much.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

I noticed that myself. I'm pretty sure the cost of the Iraq war is $100 billions more than the fact checker stated.

[/ QUOTE ]

The numbers are right basically, spending on the Iraq war is "off budget" spending. I'm too lazy to explain anything else about government spending to you though.

This guy's analysis is badly flawed though IMO and I find it amazing that people can't see how it is flawed but I guess I shouldn't be given the apathy about how the government collects taxes and spends money.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Thanks for posting. As I said in another post, his analysis is badly flawed IMO. I don't think Paul would be successful in dumping income taxes entirely but he'd get us going in the right direction.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is.

As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is.

As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good points and good post. I think it's fair to say that on constitutional grounds Paul probably has problems with the way the IRS operates.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.

It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

What details do you want? There's not many details involved with "close all overseas bases."

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.

It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]

Because it was true for 116 years.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ron Paul was basically saying the country paid 0% income tax 1787-1913

[/ QUOTE ]

1913 - 1787 = 126 btw.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.

It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO IT WOULDN'T!! RON PAUL IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THIS!! (and I guarantee when he says that he's planning to tax 2009 dollars and spend them in 1998)

Look at the numbers. Setting payroll taxes and SS aside, money raised from non-income tax sources wouldn't cover interest payments.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

I'm not attempting to get off topic, however VAT (usually) means Value Added Tax and is in effect a sales tax which is applied when buying items. I just cannot imagine the Federal income tax being replace with a national sales tax, however if it did I would embrace it wholeheartedly.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Article implies that he would keep corporate taxes. Is that right? SS is scheduled to run a shortfall in about 10 years so something would have to change there.

This is great
 

Can any of the paul supporters provide details on precisely what he is and isn't cutting, and the costing of this given the public promises on the services he's keeping? I mean, the man is advocating and PROMISING a radical shakeup of US taxation and government revenues...there must be a detailed plan somewhere, right?

Until that's produced, Dr. Ron Paul is just a quack and no thinking man should support him.

Re: This is great
 

[ QUOTE ]
Can any of the paul supporters provide details on precisely what he is and isn't cutting, and the costing of this given the public promises on the services he's keeping? I mean, the man is advocating and PROMISING a radical shakeup of US taxation and government revenues...there must be a detailed plan somewhere, right?

Until that's produced, Dr. Ron Paul is just a quack and no thinking man should support him.

[/ QUOTE ]

The military spending is the only thing he can promise he will cut as Commander in Chief. He can guarantee that he will veto any unbalanced budget and send it back to congress requesting neccesary changes. He can guarantee that he will veto any tax increase. He cannot guarantee that spending will be reduced to the level required to eliminate the IRS any time soon.

In any trauma situation the first thing you do is stop the bleeding and try to stabalize the patient. Then you worry about which surgery to perform first and how long the rehab and recovery are going to last.

I believe that it would make a huge difference to have a President that would stand up to congress(both parties) and would tell the American people exactly how they are getting [censored].

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Would be nice to see a rough outline from the ron Paul campaign about what the US Federal Budget would look like if it was up to him. It might be too complicated and time-consuming to do, but it would definatly help when trying to understand what his vision is.

As it is now the "get rid of the IRS" seem too radical for most people, but if he provided an out line of a budget where income taxes were abolished and showed where he would cut government spending and how much he envision a VAT/Fair Tax (if thats something he would like to introduce) would bring in for the government. If people were presented with a rough outline of how Ron Pauls governent would look like it would be easier for people to understand where hes coming from and where hes hoping to go.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if Hillary would outline all the budget increases she has envisioned for the country too... but that would be too radical for most people too. And as she put it... "she is not going to deal in hypotheticals"

Is'nt that how most people choose a candidate is by what they will do in various hypothetical situations?

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

True, that would be nice too. But I believe more people feel that Hillarys economic reforms are less radical than Ron Pauls, and therefore are less likely to scare away potential voters thinking that her economic vision is unrealistic.

And you put the "to radical too" in the wrong place, because I did not state that Ron Pauls budget would look too radical for most people, I said that for now the idea of completely getting rid of the IRS seem too radical for people, and therefore a budget-outline could make it seem less radical if he could show how it would work.

But the more information the candidates can provide of how they envision their presidency the better.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't get why people aren't more troubled about this. Getting rid of the IRS is one of the centerpieces of his campaign, as well as one of the hugest policy changes in the last 50 years. Many of the arguments he's using to support it are misleading at best, and false in a lot of cases. When I started a thread about this a month ago, a lot of RP supporters believed that the IT could be completely eliminated just by cutting some discretionary funding. Probably better than 90% of RP supporters now still believe that. And we still have no specifics on what "Dr. Paul" would replace the income tax with.

It's really kind of frightening. Just because the guy says he loves the Constitution doesn't mean you should automatically trust him when he makes vague, misleading statements to explain why he should be given an enormous amount of power.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely eliminating the income tax would only cut our spending back to 199X levels. Ron would cut more spending than that. No need to replace it with anything.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO IT WOULDN'T!! RON PAUL IS LYING WHEN HE SAYS THIS!! (and I guarantee when he says that he's planning to tax 2009 dollars and spend them in 1998)

Look at the numbers. Setting payroll taxes and SS aside, money raised from non-income tax sources wouldn't cover interest payments.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are lying.

Including the income tax, money raised from payroll and SS, plus non-IT sources, plus the IT doesn't cover the Federal budget, by a gigantic amount. What is raised in the IT is a fraction of the spending levels. Just because it is a larger fraction of the tax revenue doesn't mean jack. You emphatically could remove the IT, leave everything else the same, and go back to 199X levels of spending.

The individual income tax accounts for about $1.3T out of a total Federal budget of $3T. Removing it would leave you with a budget of $1.7T, the Federal budget of 1999. Your mileage might vary, but not by much.

The only case that you might have is that the IRS administers more than just the individual income tax. However, you'd still be wrong there, since all Paul has said he wants to do is get rid of the income tax and the IRS, he has NOT said that payroll taxes and the excise tax (for example) could not be collected by SOME agency, just not an evil bloated bureaucracy like the IRS. In fact, since he has stated OVER AND OVER AGAIN that he would not touch the major entitlement programs that people are dependent upon (Medicaid, Medicare, SS), but would instead let young people opt out by saving a trillion dollars on empire and pork, it is pretty OBVIOUS that he his platform does not include abolition of payroll taxes.

You should check your [censored] before calling people liars.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

Boro, that's all well and good, but you're overlooking some stuff:
1. RP has said he wants to get rid of the 16th Amendment, which would necessarily involve getting rid of the corporate income tax too. Why are you including corporate IT receipts in your projections?
2. Is your 1999 budget figure inflation-adjusted? If not, why not, other than to mislead people?
3. All this talk about payroll taxes is a big off-topic. Does RP want to use payroll taxes for general government purposes? If not, then payroll taxes don't really matter to the larger picture (except to the extent that the government can't fund any deficits in SS or Medicare without the IT). If he does, then really all he wants to do is replace the income tax with the payroll tax, which is nothing to be lauded for.
4. Whatever other verbal gymnastics you want to go through, the unalterable fact is that less than $200 billion dollars was raised by the government other than through a tax on income. Another unalterable fact is that the US cannot even pay interest on its current debt with that amount, let alone do anything else, except for the payroll-funded stuff like SS.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]


You are lying.

it is pretty OBVIOUS that he his platform does not include abolition of payroll taxes.

You should check your [censored] before calling people liars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in bobmans post says that RPs platform includes abolition of payroll taxes.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

2008 budget: $2.9 trillion
2001 budget: $1.8 trillion

Here's a start:

Stop the wars. Start closing overseas bases. Take 2001 budget and change the 1 to a 9.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


You are lying.

it is pretty OBVIOUS that he his platform does not include abolition of payroll taxes.

You should check your [censored] before calling people liars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in bobmans post says that RPs platform includes abolition of payroll taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is the funniest snipjob I have ever seen.

Bravo.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Boro, that's all well and good, but you're overlooking some stuff:
1. RP has said he wants to get rid of the 16th Amendment, which would necessarily involve getting rid of the corporate income tax too. Why are you including corporate IT receipts in your projections?

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine, include the corporate income tax, it's only like $0.4T, and still leaves the budget at 199X levels.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Is your 1999 budget figure inflation-adjusted? If not, why not, other than to mislead people?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this "misleading people"? The claim was that you could go back to 199X spending levels, not spending levels adjusted for the gigantic amount of money the Federal goverment has printed.

[ QUOTE ]
3. All this talk about payroll taxes is a big off-topic. Does RP want to use payroll taxes for general government purposes? If not, then payroll taxes don't really matter to the larger picture (except to the extent that the government can't fund any deficits in SS or Medicare without the IT). If he does, then really all he wants to do is replace the income tax with the payroll tax, which is nothing to be lauded for.

[/ QUOTE ]

What are you talking about? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Why would payroll taxes have to be used for "general government purposes"? Paul's plan is to save a trillion in *empire and pork*. Cutting the individual IT would pay for that. Period. All else could be left as is.

[ QUOTE ]
4. Whatever other verbal gymnastics you want to go through, the unalterable fact is that less than $200 billion dollars was raised by the government other than through a tax on income. Another unalterable fact is that the US cannot even pay interest on its current debt with that amount, let alone do anything else, except for the payroll-funded stuff like SS.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're just admitting that the plan that you actually have a problem with is not Paul's plan, but the plan that you "think" Pauls's plan SHOULD be, so that it can't work?

Brilliant.

Sometimes I have a lot of respect for you. This is not one of those times. This is pathetic.

Fact: Individual IT is only 40% of the Federal spending, that much could be saved in pork and empire without touching entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and SS, returning the Federal budget to 199X levels, and the IRS could be abolished and the remaining taxes colleced via an overhauled, simplified tax code like some sort of flat or "fair" tax that Paul has said he would support if the IRS were abolished.

There is nothing implausible about Paul's plan. In fact it is the only politically feasible plan I know of to seriously attempt to reduce the size of government without throwing people who have become dependent out on the street.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Is your 1999 budget figure inflation-adjusted? If not, why not, other than to mislead people?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this "misleading people"? The claim was that you could go back to 199X spending levels, not spending levels adjusted for the gigantic amount of money the Federal goverment has printed.


[/ QUOTE ]

You cant make the assumption that the government are able to get the same services they paid 1T for 10 years ago for 1T today, so of course you have to adjust for inflation, no matter what you think of the monetary system.

For some reason people wont sell you stuff for the same price they sold it for 10 years ago...

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
2. Is your 1999 budget figure inflation-adjusted? If not, why not, other than to mislead people?

[/ QUOTE ]

How is this "misleading people"? The claim was that you could go back to 199X spending levels, not spending levels adjusted for the gigantic amount of money the Federal goverment has printed.


[/ QUOTE ]

You cant make the assumption that the government are able to get the same services they paid 1T for 10 years ago for 1T today, so of course you have to adjust for inflation, no matter what you think of the monetary system.

For some reason people wont sell you stuff for the same price they sold it for 10 years ago...

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a rather obvious fallacy glaring you in the face here. Namely that you don't HAVE to get the *same* services as they did ten years ago. You are CUTTING spending. That's THE POINT. *Today's* budget is $3T, $1.3T of which is pork and empire that can be cut, *leaving everything else the same*. There is no need to "adjust for inflation".

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
There is a rather obvious fallacy glaring you in the face here. Namely that you don't HAVE to get the *same* services as they did ten years ago. You are CUTTING spending. That's THE POINT. *Today's* budget is $3T, $1.3T of which is pork and empire that can be cut, *leaving everything else the same*. There is no need to "adjust for inflation".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but we are not talking about the reduced government alone, we were also talking about the year 1999 or 199x, and if we are to compare we still have to adjust for inflation. Talking about 199x and budget and comparing it to today´s budget or any future budget without adjusting for inflation is flawed.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Individual IT is only 40% of the Federal spending, that much could be saved in pork and empire without touching entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and SS

[/ QUOTE ]
Do you have hard numbers for this? Fact: I see a lot of fluff but few actual numbers for WHERE this money will be saved. Which was the whole point of the OP. Not one of the Dr. Paul fanboys (or Dr. Paul himself, or his staff for that matter) have provided any numbers. "Pork and empire" isn't really a quantification.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Fact: Individual IT is only 40% of the Federal spending, that much could be saved in pork and empire without touching entitlement programs like Medicaid, Medicare, and SS, returning the Federal budget to 199X levels...,


[/ QUOTE ]

This statement is only true if you define "pork and empire" as literally everything that the government does, except SS/Medicare and a fraction of interest payments.

Why do you keep dancing around with %ages of spending and %ages of receipts and 199X budget levels? Why don't you cite any actual numbers? Here are some numbers:

$1,009.5 billion: the total amount collected in 2006 from "non-income tax" sources (keeping in mind that the vast majority of this amount was from the payroll tax, which is a regressive income tax)

$1,050 billion: the total amount spent in 2006 on SS, Medicare, and Medicaid. There's also $200 billion in annual interest accruing, which is not included in this amount.

source See page 334 for mandatory spending table and 239 for receipts.

Now question #1 is, how does Ron Paul plan to pay for this quarter-trillion dollar annual shortfall? Question #2 is how he plans to pay for everything else the government does (including paying his own salary)? Question #3 is why the only explanation of his plans has been the [censored] trifecta of "We were fine for years without the IT"; "Cost of empire and pork blah blah blah go back to 199X levels"; and "Maybe we'll have a flat tax or a sales tax or something"? Question #4 is why usually skeptical people of reasonable intelligence are buying into this stuff so eagerly just because he criticizes current foreign policy and talks about the constitution a lot?

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]

The individual income tax accounts for about $1.3T out of a total Federal budget of $3T. Removing it would leave you with a budget of $1.7T, the Federal budget of 1999. Your mileage might vary, but not by much.


[/ QUOTE ]

See here you talk about income (tax-revenue) in 2008, and that the 1999 budget which would be covered by tax-revenue excluding revenue from the income tax. If your 1999 budget is not adjusted for inflation those numbers dont add up, because 1.7T in 1999 might be =2T now.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The individual income tax accounts for about $1.3T out of a total Federal budget of $3T. Removing it would leave you with a budget of $1.7T, the Federal budget of 1999. Your mileage might vary, but not by much.


[/ QUOTE ]

See here you talk about income (tax-revenue) in 2008, and that the 1999 budget which would be covered by tax-revenue excluding revenue from the income tax. If your 1999 budget is not adjusted for inflation those numbers dont add up, because 1.7T in 1999 might be =2T now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how much do you think GDP would increase if personal IT was eliminated? Maybe you don't think GDP would increase, don't know for sure.

Re: Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul\'s plans.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The individual income tax accounts for about $1.3T out of a total Federal budget of $3T. Removing it would leave you with a budget of $1.7T, the Federal budget of 1999. Your mileage might vary, but not by much.


[/ QUOTE ]

See here you talk about income (tax-revenue) in 2008, and that the 1999 budget which would be covered by tax-revenue excluding revenue from the income tax. If your 1999 budget is not adjusted for inflation those numbers dont add up, because 1.7T in 1999 might be =2T now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiosity, how much do you think GDP would increase if personal IT was eliminated? Maybe you don't think GDP would increase, don't know for sure.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw an estimate of the deadweight loss of taxation at $0.24 per dollar raised. That's the amount of lost GDP foregone for every dollar of the income tax raised, so seemingly a fair amount. I don't think the gains would come about immediately though as businessmen figure out funding the things the income tax traditionally has.