We don't need an income tax

[ayzo]

All we need is a little spending control:

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/256/


Ron Paul said in December 2007 that if the government stopped collecting income tax, we would have about the same level of funding that we did 10 years ago. “And the size of government wasn't all that bad 10 years ago,” concluded Paul, who advocates limited government.

It made us wonder: Do today’s tax collections, minus the income tax, really equal the tax collections of 10 years ago?

We asked Paul's campaign what numbers he used to arrive at that conclusion, but we didn’t hear back. So we dug into IRS statistics ourselves.

The most recent detailed data available on income tax collected in the United States is for 2005. Besides income tax, the IRS collects corporate taxes, employment taxes, estate and gift taxes, and excise taxes.

After issuing refunds, the IRS collected $880-billion in individual income tax in 2005. Subtract that from total tax collections for 2005 – which equaled close to $2-trillion – and you get $1.12-trillion.

By comparison, total tax collections in 1995 were about $1.27-trillion.

Those are two big numbers that sound close. But take out the calculator: The difference between the two numbers comes to about 12 percent, and when you’re talking about the federal government, that’s a chunk of change – about $150-billion. To put that in perspective, it would pay for almost a year and half of the war in Iraq. Adjust for inflation, and the gap widens to a roughly 30 percent shortfall.

We’ll concede that it’s possible Paul could reduce the budget by that much, based on some of the positions he advocates. Paul has said he’d like to slash the defense budget by pulling back all U.S. troops on foreign soil, zeroing out foreign aid and reducing the size of the active military. He also advocates abolishing other federal functions, like the Department of Education.

Whether he makes up that 12 percent difference or not will have to wait for a Paul presidency. Meanwhile, we find his statement that ending the income tax would roll back revenues 10 years to be Mostly True.

[Slowhand]

I like Dr. Paul and support him, but it's stuff like this that just makes me shake my head.

[Sgt Beavis]

While I don't like the income tax, I would feel a lot better about if if our Government would get some control on their spending.

[Skidmark]

Hell i'd just be happy if people would get jobs and keep their legs closed so I don't have to support them.

[lefty1300]

Hell i'd just be happy if people would get jobs and keep their legs closed so I don't have to support them.
x2

[Trip McNeely]

I like Dr. Paul and support him, but it's stuff like this that just makes me shake my head.
haha what are you talking about? Thats all his campaign is, ridiculous plans that have no ends. They just sound good to people who dont know any better.

[Sean88gt]

Hell i'd just be happy if people would get jobs and keep their legs closed so I don't have to support them.

Yep! They should put absolute time limits on entitlement programs.

[TexasDevilDog]

Repeal the 16th amendment.

[Sean88gt]

Repeal the 16th amendment.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

I don't buy that 36 states said 'OK' to loss of control, especially in 1913. Now I could see the dumbasses saying yes.

[TexasDevilDog]

According to the United States Government Printing Office, the following states ratified the amendment:

Alabama (August 10, 1909)
Kentucky (February 8, 1910)
South Carolina (February 19, 1910)
Illinois (March 1, 1910)
Mississippi (March 7, 1910)
Oklahoma (March 10, 1910)
Maryland (April 8, 1910)
Georgia (August 3, 1910)
Texas (August 16, 1910)
Ohio (January 19, 1911)
Idaho (January 20, 1911)
Oregon (January 23, 1911)
Washington (January 26, 1911)
Montana (January 27, 1911)
Indiana (January 30, 1911)
California (January 31, 1911)
Nevada (January 31, 1911)
South Dakota (February 1, 1911)
Nebraska (February 9, 1911)
North Carolina (February 11, 1911)
Colorado (February 15, 1911)
North Dakota (February 17, 1911)
Michigan (February 23, 1911)
Iowa (February 24, 1911)
Kansas (March 2, 1911)
Missouri (March 16, 1911)
Maine (March 31, 1911)
Tennessee (April 7, 1911)
Arkansas (April 22, 1911, after having previously rejected the amendment)
Wisconsin (May 16, 1911)
New York (July 12, 1911)
Arizona (April 3, 1912)
Minnesota (June 11, 1912)
Louisiana (June 28, 1912)
West Virginia (January 31, 1913)
New Mexico (February 3, 1913)

[Denny]

I don't think we, as a whole, pay too much in taxes. The mismanagement of the money collected is what gets me pissed. On that note... would getting rid of the income tax and raising the national sales tax be a doable thing? If so, how much would it need to be raised? Flat 10% across the board?

I just got this whole, "taxing the same money multiple times" thing reminding me of why a group of people left England to find a new country.

[Amackwantsabeast]

IT does not matter there is NO law that requires us to pay taxes, and House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5th, 1933 no one in America has been ale to lawfully pay a debt, and a child born now is already born with $86,000 of debt.

[TexasDevilDog]

I don't think we, as a whole, pay too much in taxes. The mismanagement of the money collected is what gets me pissed. On that note... would getting rid of the income tax and raising the national sales tax be a doable thing? If so, how much would it need to be raised? Flat 10% across the board?

I just got this whole, "taxing the same money multiple times" thing reminding me of why a group of people left England to find a new country.

I disagree. I think we pay too much money to the federal government. I believe if we held the federal government to its limits under the constitution they would have plenty of money without an income tax. The federal government has been taking power from the states for 100+ years. The federal government has been involved in state and local policy making, when they should not be.

[Denny]

I disagree. I think we pay too much money to the federal government. I believe if we held the federal government to its limits under the constitution they would have plenty of money without an income tax. The federal government has been taking power from the states for 100+ years. The federal government has been involved in state and local policy making, when they should not be.
How much do you think we're overpaying? I seriously think it's just about right (maybe slightly on the high side) but just think of what can be acomplished with proper money management. It's all been clouded by too many people using their elected position to make themselves a dime at any expense. It's not the amount, it's the people at the controls.

[TexasDevilDog]

How much do you think we're overpaying? I seriously think it's just about right (maybe slightly on the high side) but just think of what can be acomplished with proper money management. It's all been clouded by too many people using their elected position to make themselves a dime at any expense. It's not the amount, it's the people at the controls.

The federal government should only be doing what is listed under the enumerated powers of the constitution. Education is a local policy. Welfare is a local policy. The federal government should not be giving out farm subsidies. It is very easy to read Article I of the constitution and see that the federal government public policy is overreaching. If all the federal programs were shut down, the federal government would need very less money as compared today's spending levels.

[Denny]

The federal government should only be doing what is listed under the enumerated powers of the constitution. Education is a local policy. Welfare is a local policy. The federal government should not be giving out farm subsidies. It is very easy to read Article I of the constitution and see that the federal government public policy is overreaching. If all the federal programs were shut down, the federal government would need very less money as compared today's spending levels.
But with states that obviously fail in most of those categories on their own, isn't it the Federal Government's duty to step in? Really read and think about what is in the Constitution and try to apply it 100% to this country in today's world.

Just like those people who think their "privacy" trumps national security, I just don't get it.

[TexasDevilDog]

But with states that obviously fail in most of those categories on their own, isn't it the Federal Government's duty to step in? Really read and think about what is in the Constitution and try to apply it 100% to this country in today's world.

Just like those people who think their "privacy" trumps national security, I just don't get it.

Fail or not it is a state's policy. The constitution does not have a provision for if the states fail. The problem with your view is that the constitution set forth a federalism type of government, with its limits and shared responcibilities to social policy. Why do people need people in DC dictating education in Ohio or S. Carolina class rooms? I am pretty sure that Ohio, S. Carolina and every other state has degreed professionals that are educated in their disciplines. I don't need the federal government to tell me how to operate in my engineering department. I am pretty sure education professional could do their job better with less maindates not only from all levels but from those levels of government that should not be involved.

[buzntxn]

government money management??, need to see a document called Zeigeist Remastered, watch the seconed half of it about the government and its money exchange to the federal reserve and taxes, might make you question a lot of things

[TexasDevilDog]

government money management??, need to see a document called Zeigeist Remastered, watch the seconed half of it about the government and its money exchange to the federal reserve and taxes, might make you question a lot of things

I don't have time to watch a movie. I am doing my calculus2 homework. How about you formulate an opinion of it and explain it to us in a 1,000 words or less?

[Denny]

I don't have time to watch a movie. I am doing my calculus2 homework. How about you formulate an opinion of it and explain it to us in a 1,000 words or less?
HAHAHA!

[Denny]

Fail or not it is a state's policy. The constitution does not have a provision for if the states fail. The problem with your view is that the constitution set forth a federalism type of government, with its limits and shared responcibilities to social policy. Why do people need people in DC dictating education in Ohio or S. Carolina class rooms? I am pretty sure that Ohio, S. Carolina and every other state has degreed professionals that are educated in their disciplines. I don't need the federal government to tell me how to operate in my engineering department. I am pretty sure education professional could do their job better with less maindates not only from all levels but from those levels of government that should not be involved.
Might as well have 50 independant countries, huh?

[ayzo]

But with states that obviously fail in most of those categories on their own, isn't it the Federal Government's duty to step in?

That sounds like liberal talk to me :p . The problem is that we can't make one national plan for every school in 20,000 cities across America because each one is going to have its own problems that need its own solutions. Theres no way the government could do a review over each school and tailor a solution for them. Simply cutting a school's funding because students don't meet test scores makes absolutely no sense.

[TexasDevilDog]

Might as well have 50 independant countries, huh?

I disagree. A federal government is not 50 independant countries. I am pasting part of my US government paper from this semester for expediency. I got a 100% on the paper. :cool:

The federal government structure is of two or more levels, typically a national level and a state and/or local level. The federal government is usually organized by a constitution, that defines roles between the national and local levels. Some roles are only for the national government. In the United States of America, some of the national government roles are ability to coin money, conduct foreign relations, regulate commerce with foreign nations and states, provide for an army and navy, declare and conduct war. Some roles are only for the local level. In the United States of America, some of the states roles are to organize elections, ratify amendments to the federal constitution, provide for the public health, safety and morals, and to regulate commerce within a state. Some powers are allows by both the nationals and local level. In the United States of America the powers are the ability to tax, borrow money, establish courts, make and enforce laws, charter banks and corporations, spend money for the general welfare and the use of eminent domain.

In federalism, the national government shares powers with the local governments, spreading out the power of government to prevent tyranny. The federal government is not as powerful unity government, where the local governments derive their powers from the federal government. Also, the federal government is not as weak as a confederation where the federation government derives its powers from the local governments. The national government laws are considered to be supreme over the local governments when laws or roles overlap but the national government does not enjoy supreme power over all the state and local governments but shares roles with them.