Ron Paul on Abolishing Income Tax Revenuewashingtonpost.com
Made popular 2547 days ago in Politics
blog.washingtonpost.com — It took us about five minutes to find a questionable statement from the good doctor. We began with last week's Leno interview, which can be found on You Tube here. Expounding on his proposal for abolishing the income tax, Paul claims this would still leave the U.S. Treasury with roughly the revenues it had in 2000, in the final year of the Clinton administration. A post on the Paul campaign website explains that individual income taxes account for "approximately one third of federal revenue."

Unfortunately for the tax slashers, the one-time Libertarian candidate for president is wrong on both counts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, individual income taxes represent between 45 and 49 percent of federal tax revenues, depending on the year. For financial year 2007, total receipts from individual income tax were in the region of $1.1 trillion dollars. If you eliminated all that revenue, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was around 1995.

In attempt to figure out where the $1.1 trillion in annual savings is going to come from in a Paul administration, I talked yesterday afternoon to the candidate's policy director, Joseph Becker. He pointed out that Paul has promised to bring troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, eliminate the foreign AID bill, eliminate agriculture subsidies, and get rid of the U.S. Education Department. A President Paul would, however, leave a residual miitary in place, to defend the homeland.

Posted by JBeal
732 Votes
3 Comments
ShareThis
In your Opinion can America exist without a Personal Income Tax, as Presidential Candidate Ron Paul suggests?
Yes, with fiscal discipline
73%
No, to many commitments no way
27%
This is not a scientific survey, click here to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding and voting descrepencies.
User Comments
Posted 2548 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
Fat chance, no matter what we do we are a nation of spenders and that includes our Government. I think Ron Paul is off on this one.
Posted 2548 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
ANYTHING is possible when you have discipline to make it happen. To dismiss Ron Paul's claim because "we're a nation of spenders" is foolish. Massive spending cuts (easily doable) combined with fiscal discipline (enforced by a balanced budget amendment) would make the abolishment of the income tax comopletey feasible.

I don't understand why so many people feel it is "impossible" for the government to spend within it's budget. Does it SEEM impossible given the habits of the current system, sure, but it's not impossible. And if you think it is, that's just a signal that you need to get out and make a change in our government. Ron Paul would just be the start of the movement that will do just that.
Posted 2548 days ago
0 up votes, 0 down votes
think about how much money we would save without the federal reserve. our illegal, unconstitutional income tax wouldn't be needed to pay the interest imposed on our goverment by the fed. also, we didn't have an income tax until 1913, and accomplished an immeasurable amount of amazing things without it. and as a 'nation of spenders' we would have more money to fuel our economy. personal responsibility and discipline have to come into play. this can and will work. who wants to pay an income tax anyway?
You will have 2 minutes to edit your comment.

Add your comments