Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul's plans.

[ZeroPointMachine]

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

[Bedreviter]

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?

[Scary_Tiger]

[ 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.

[Bedreviter]

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.

[Scary_Tiger]

[ 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.

[Bedreviter]

[ 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.

[AlexM]

[ 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.