Ron Paul on taxation?

[bobman0330]

What is Ron Paul's plan for tax reform? Obviously, he try to get rid of the IRS, the income tax, and the 16th Amendment. Once that's done, how will remaining government operations be financed? I've heard some sources say he favors a consumption tax, but I've also heard that denied.

More details from whoever has them please.

[Scary_Tiger]

Only 41% of the Federal Budget comes from the Income Tax. If we cut spending back to year 2000 levels then we could go without an Income Tax. The plan is to get rid of the Income Tax and replace it with nothing.

[Taso]

Correct sir. Once you eliminate all the costly programs in existence in this country, as well as the costly foreign policy of the current administration, the need for more taxes goes down.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Only 41% of the Federal Budget comes from the Income Tax. If we cut spending back to year 2000 levels then we could go without an Income Tax. The plan is to get rid of the Income Tax and replace it with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

source

In 2006,

Individual IT brought in $1,044 B.
Corporate IT brought in $354 B.
Retirement program receipts were $838 B.
All other revenue was $172 B.

Total = $2407 B.

So individual IT brought in 43% of total revenues. But repealing the 16th Amendment and disbanding the IRS will require getting rid of the corporate IT too, which brings us to 58% of total revenue.

Now, what about retirement income? Unless the plan is to replace the IT with a stealth highly regressive payroll tax, SS stuff needs to be counted separately. So IT really accounts for 89% of non-SS receipts.

Even if we generously assume that SS and all payroll-tax-funded programs are canceled or balance out, how could we conceivably run even a limited government on $172 billion, which is about 18% of current DISCRETIONARY funding (excluding SS, Medicare, etc.)?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]

Even if we generously assume that SS and all payroll-tax-funded programs are canceled or balance out, how could we conceivably run even a limited government on $172 billion, which is about 18% of current DISCRETIONARY funding (excluding SS, Medicare, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

By conceivably cutting out a bunch of [censored] the government does poorly or shouldn't be doing in the first place?

[ConstantineX]

There's no way in hell we could reduce the income and corporate tax to zero even within Ron Paul's term. It might not even be prudent to do so. The best that anyone could possibly hope for is that somehow Paul encourages the US to switch to a consumption VAT, on the order of 20-30%. Even that would be a large shock to government revenues, and all hell would break loose if we even attempted to trim SS spending, not even to say spending growth.

Anyway, Ron Paul is not going to win the Presidential election, so the non-wonks here don't have to worry about that. The best that I hope for is that he influences campaign rhetoric and long-term GOP strategy.

[Bump_Bailey]

Closing all of the overseas bases and cutting the defense budget drastically would save a lot of money. Somebody else can do the math if they like.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only 41% of the Federal Budget comes from the Income Tax. If we cut spending back to year 2000 levels then we could go without an Income Tax. The plan is to get rid of the Income Tax and replace it with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

source

In 2006,

Individual IT brought in $1,044 B.
Corporate IT brought in $354 B.
Retirement program receipts were $838 B.
All other revenue was $172 B.

Total = $2407 B.

So individual IT brought in 43% of total revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math is wrong. The 838 Billion is for social security. Although we are now running a surplus, we will be running a deficit soon and will need to find money to pay pay the 2 trillion we borrowed from our retirement fund, i.e. social security.

If social security surpluses had been invested into a S&P index fund from its birth, we would have many times more than just a 2 trillion dollar surplus and there would be no talk of it going broke.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Only 41% of the Federal Budget comes from the Income Tax. If we cut spending back to year 2000 levels then we could go without an Income Tax. The plan is to get rid of the Income Tax and replace it with nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]

source

In 2006,

Individual IT brought in $1,044 B.
Corporate IT brought in $354 B.
Retirement program receipts were $838 B.
All other revenue was $172 B.

Total = $2407 B.

So individual IT brought in 43% of total revenues.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your math is wrong. The 838 Billion is for social security. Although we are now running a surplus, we will be running a deficit soon and will need to find money to pay pay the 2 trillion we borrowed from our retirement fund, i.e. social security.

If social security surpluses had been invested into a S&P index fund from its birth, we would have many times more than just a 2 trillion dollar surplus and there would be no talk of it going broke.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no surplus. Payroll taxes are no different than other taxes; it all goes to the same place: building aircraft carriers and giving money to super old people.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Even if we generously assume that SS and all payroll-tax-funded programs are canceled or balance out, how could we conceivably run even a limited government on $172 billion, which is about 18% of current DISCRETIONARY funding (excluding SS, Medicare, etc.)?

[/ QUOTE ]

By conceivably cutting out a bunch of [censored] the government does poorly or shouldn't be doing in the first place?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure interest payments alone are substantially more than $172 B.