Washington Post Fact Checker Questions Paul's plans.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks that seems like a reasonable number. If and when the gains came, increased government revenues would follow.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

And AGAIN you are playing fast and loose. Tax revenues do not cover spending *right now*. Where does the extra money come from *right now*? Why do you insist on comparing the spending level to *only* tax receipts when that isn't a relevent comparison?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's flawed IF you're trying to compare what you got then for what you can get now. But since he's not doing that, and just talking about the 199x number as an arbitrary target, there's no reason to require adjustment.

[ConstantineX]

Grunching a little bit,

I agree with bobman here mostly. It's pretty shameful that with this much money and support and attention Ron Paul is getting he doesn't have a cogent or readily available plan on his policy proposals yet. I don't think it would be all that hard to do either, how many wonks and academics from the Chicago School or Cato Institute would love to have a few of their ideas implemented on the national stage. And Ron Paul should be willing to compromise on his rhetoric a little more, which I don't think by any means compromising on his ideology. He should more willing to state he supports cut backs in the IRS, rather than whole-sale elimination of the agency, which DOES audit and collect corporate taxes, you know. I feel like Ron Paul's political mentality might be a little compromised from all the years he has spent as essentially a fringe representative with very narrow pockets of support. Drafting some realistic, pragmatic policy proposals and toning down the inflammatory rhetoric (and the associated psychological impact of suggesting the elimination of old institutions) would help immeasurably to building a larger base, IMO.

[Borodog]

[ 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 ]

Inflation is irrelevent.

Let's say that in 1999 I spent $100 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $100 on hookers and blow, for a total of $200 in 1999.

Now, 8 years later, due to inflation, I am spending $200 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $200 on hookers and blow, for a total of $400 in 2007.

Then I decide I don't need to spend on hookers and blow anymore, and can cave $200, leaving a total of $200 in 2007.

Hence I can return to 1999 spending levels by cutting current spending despite inflation.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
And AGAIN you are playing fast and loose. Tax revenues do not cover spending *right now*. Where does the extra money come from *right now*? Why do you insist on comparing the spending level to *only* tax receipts when that isn't a relevent comparison?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course it's a relevant comparison. The amount of money the government takes in vs. how much it needs to spend isn't relevant to what kind and amount of taxes should be collected? Come on. It's the comparison to the current state of affairs that is fallacious. Ron Paul is planning a revolutionary change (it's on the T-shirts!). He then goes around and justifies it, not on absolute numbers, but on a pay-as-you-go projection, like you would for a 3% cut in the income-tax rates?

And do you really think the government could finance a quarter-trillion a year (minimum) on an income base of a trillion dollars, most of which is earmarked for social-insurance programs that are themselves projected to head into deficit soon?

[ConstantineX]

[ 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 ]

Inflation is irrelevent.

Let's say that in 1999 I spent $100 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $100 on hookers and blow, for a total of $200 in 1999.

Now, 8 years later, due to inflation, I am spending $200 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $200 on hookers and blow, for a total of $400 in 2007.

Then I decide I don't need to spend on hookers and blow anymore, and can cave $200, leaving a total of $200 in 2007.

Hence I can return to 1999 spending levels by cutting current spending despite inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh comeon. You are missing the essential argument that one being subconsciously raised when arguing for "returning to 1999 spending levels". Why the hell would we care about nominal dollars raised? The argument is about raising the same amount of real wealth in 1999 to fund the government.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Grunching a little bit,

I agree with bobman here mostly. It's pretty shameful that with this much money and support and attention Ron Paul is getting he doesn't have a cogent or readily available plan on his policy proposals yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bull [censored] AFAICT. Paul has a far more cogent plan than any other candidate.

Can I please see any other candidate's plan for defunding the unsustainable American military empire that we can no longer afford, while letting young people get out of entitlement welfare state schemes without throwing those who are dependent out on the streets?

Paul has said all along that long term goals like getting rid of the IRS cannot be done overnight and would require radical cuts in spending, so bitching about his plan with these underlying foundation is as best uninformed and misguided, and at worst outright misrepesentative and deceptive.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Inflation is irrelevent.

Let's say that in 1999 I spent $100 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $100 on hookers and blow, for a total of $200 in 1999.

Now, 8 years later, due to inflation, I am spending $200 on food, clothing, and shelter, and another $200 on hookers and blow, for a total of $400 in 2007.

Then I decide I don't need to spend on hookers and blow anymore, and can cave $200, leaving a total of $200 in 2007.

Hence I can return to 1999 spending levels by cutting current spending despite inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh comeon. You are missing the essential argument that one being subconsciously raised when arguing for "returning to 1999 spending levels". Why the hell would we be cared about nominal dollars raised? The argument is about raising the same amount of real wealth in 1999 to fund the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

NO IT ISN'T.

Jumping Jesus Christ, how can so many people miss the frigging point so completely? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

We're talking about cutting a trillion dollars in spending NOW. That leaves us at the same NOMINAL spending level of X years ago when the stuff that we would be cutting NOW was still being bought.

How is this difficult to understand?

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ConstantineX]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Grunching a little bit,

I agree with bobman here mostly. It's pretty shameful that with this much money and support and attention Ron Paul is getting he doesn't have a cogent or readily available plan on his policy proposals yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is bull [censored] AFAICT. Paul has a far more cogent plan than any other candidate.

Can I please see any other candidate's plan for defunding the unsustainable American military empire that we can no longer afford, while letting young people get out of entitlement welfare state schemes without throwing those who are dependent out on the streets?

Paul has said all along that long term goals like getting rid of the IRS cannot be done overnight and would require radical cuts in spending, so bitching about his plan with these underlying foundation is as best uninformed and misguided, and at worst outright misrepesentative and deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does Ron Paul differ substantively from this:
[ QUOTE ]

“Everyday I become more convinced, there is no doubt in my mind, and as many intellectuals have said, that it is necessary to transcend capitalism. But capitalism can’t be transcended from within capitalism itself, but through socialism, true socialism, with equality and justice. But I’m also convinced that it is possible to do it under democracy, but not in the type of democracy being imposed from Washington..."
- Hugo Chavez


[/ QUOTE ]

Chavez too has a broad message and a theoretical plan to implement it. He sketched the large problems he saw with traditional Western government, much like Ron Paul is sketching the problems of American imperialism. He vows to reform certain institutions, much like Ron Paul is doing. Ex ante without empirical evidence from a science like economics there is no justification in favoring one's plan being better than the other. But socialism fails in its implementation, which is the major problem we should have with it, and keeping that in mind we demand to see the method through which Ron Paul implements his ideas. The difference between the outcomes of Shock Therapy in Russia and Celtic Tiger is great evidence that the method of implementation of a market system is as important as the implementation itself. Again, a civil capitalistic society is not akin to Somali-land, it just doesn't arise magically - and expecting willy-nilly cuts in the Federal Government without any hint of economic or political logic behind them is tantamount to asserting that; the market just doesn't "take the place" of the Federal Government.