Ron Paul on Income Tax
April 12th, 2006 | by Paul Merda |Currently 1/3 of Federal revenue comes from the Income Tax while the other 2/3 is generated from tariffs, excise taxes and property taxes. Before 1913, there was no such thing as an income tax which means that for the first 126 years of the Republic, we got along just fine. People talk about tax reform such as a Flat Tax and a National Sales Tax to generate Leviathan’s revenue but who really wants a 40% Flat Tax or a 50% Sales Tax? No, you can not talk about tax reform without first talking about spending reform. Ron says it best:
Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion– a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th.
Indeed!
13 Responses to “Ron Paul on Income Tax”
By pjordansr on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
I’m gonna have to disagree with Ron Paul on this one. Things are quite different today than they were in 2000, forget who’s fault, just consider the needs. Fuel oil to heat the poor is significantly higher, troops are overseas, Homeland Security issues abound, National Disasters have taxed federal coffers.
No, if we stand any chance on this proposal, a multitude of plicy changes must me addressed and implimented long before waving any magic tax wands.
Again, consider my wording, “forget who’s fault, just consider the needs.” A shame, I know, but we are where we are until we move.
By LiberPaul on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
His main point is that we need to reduce spending if we want to reduce the taxes. I am all for this. Yes, it would require us to bring the boys back home, it would require us to gut some of the social programs too. But, many of the social programs are useless, we all know it, let’s find the one’s that have little value and cut them…..
By tos on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
I live in a county where 25% of our property taxes goes to welfare on top of the federal taxes already taken for it.
By pjordansr on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
Tos, I am confused. I thought Welfare was a federal program, hence, why the county reference?
By tos on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
That’s what makes me mad. We have alot of people on welfare in my county so they feel they need to take more. It’s not a reference, it’s a fact. It is a federal program so we are sort of getting double billed.
By pjordansr on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
It would make sense actually that you are getting double relieved. The Federal assistance they are getting is from the entire US, and focused in on your county as you say, it is costing you absolutely no more, or no less, than if they lived anywhere in the Nation. You are not a strikingly dumb individual, surely you understand the math here. So what exactly are you whining in reference to your “cunty” about?
By pjordansr on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
that actually was a typo, sorry…..”county”
By tos on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
Oh sorry I am happy to pay no matter where it comes from. What I am whining about is that where I used to live(which is why I moved) a crackhead lady with 8 foster kids went to my neighbor with a 100.00 worth of food stamps and aked her if she wanted to buy them for 20.00. It was 2 in the morning and she must have needed a quick fix.
By steve on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
(Types with brace off)
The way I see it… who doesn’t spend more than they have? You mortgage a house, you lease or buy a car by making payments, you have credit cards, and equity lines for things you could not afford on your income.
(Puts brace back on because it hurts so bad)
But then if you decide not have that car or buy that house you save money so you may not be encouraged to generate revenue, which can cause some issues. A district boss in my company loves to hear when someone is having a kid or buying some expensive toy because that person will want to enjoy that child or toy. Those things are not burdens. What should the government be looking at in trims er uh, terms of spending? The toys versus necessities. We have a lot of “feel good” programs in government. Things like space research and yes, the EPA, welfare and social security, the Department of Motor Vehicles… all kinds of stuff. You think all these agencies are run as effciently as possibly. We are always quick to point out the “shortcomings” of unpopular issues in the forefront. Mainly because we don’t like the person running them. We let our political feelings get the best of us.
By Jet on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
Defense is a huge nut here. Until we can look objectively at defense costs, the rest can’t happen.
By LiberPaul on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
Jet,
I agree. We spend too damn much on our military. The effect that has, is we are more likely to use it too. We could cut the Pentagon’s budget by 1/3 and still be able to defend our “Homeland”, not other people’s homeland, but our homeland no less….
Steve,
Do ya think the Pentagon is run efficiently?? Let’s cut them of the pork off too…
By tos on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
I would rather money go to the military and not people who live a life of substance abuse(unless they want to get help cleaning themselves up). As long as other countries have militaries then we need one too. A strong one.
I know alot people here are pro welfare and I don’t deny some people need assistance but what it has turned out to be was not was the original intentions set up for it were meant to be used.
By pjordansr on Apr 12, 2006 | Reply
I have to go back to what I first posted, “things are quite different to day than they were in 2oo0″, in respect to Ron Paul’s statement.
Jet, you got it head on girl, but we are where we are now, suck as it may. The damage has been done, the door was opened, and the troops are therefore in absolute need of high quality financial backing.