Numbers from "Stop Dreaming"

[inibo]

OK, by now we've all seen this quote:


"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?" ~Ron Paul, 2006

It is a powerful argument if true.

I have been trying to find some hard numbers to back this up. Knowing next to nothing about how to begin I've managed to throw together a similar analysis of the 2004 budget (the latest complete numbers I could find). This is what I came up with:

2004: Budget $2,229,425 million
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/fct.html

2004: Income tax revenue $808,959 million
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Difference: $1,420,466 million

The last time the Federal budget could have been covered by that amount was 1993.

1993: Outlays 1,409,414 million
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/hist.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/sheets/hist01z1.xls

Obviously I'm pulling together disparate sources and I just threw this together quickly. Googleing stuff like "FY 2000 Budget" produces all sorts of contradictory numbers from any number of biased sources. I beginning to realize why the federal government makes it difficult to accurately account for the money they steal from us: they don't really want us to know what they are doing.

When I try to sell the idea of "End the IRS" to people they all think it's great, but totally impossible. Where does one go to find what I would call consensus numbers for this sort of thing, a reasonably widely recognized non-partisan source? I want to show that it can be done.

And has anyone else tried to nail this down?

[BLS]

You have to look into Defense spending. Ending the war in Iraq will save about 1 Trillion annually. Plus add in the savings of pulling troops out of other nations where we are not necessarily needed, would save countless dollars as well.

[inibo]

In retrospect this should probably be in "Issues for America."

Oh, Great BBS Gods: feel free to move it.

[inibo]

You have to look into Defense spending. Ending the war in Iraq will save about 1 Trillion annually. Plus add in the savings of pulling troops out of other nations where we are not necessarily needed, would save countless dollars as well.

You and I understand that, but I'm looking for reliable numbers that I can reference. Just saying it doesn't make it true.

[Slugg]

When I try to sell the idea of "End the IRS" to people they all think it's great, but totally impossible.

I tackled this one awhile back. I found a poster that shows where every cent of the federal budget went, and where it came from. I don't remember where, but it's a POSTER. Just keep looking, you'll find it.

BUT, here's my advice on the situation of getting people to bite off on it.

Use logic. Ask them what government service they believe their income tax dollars are spent on. Odds are, that service is paid by another tax. Here's a partial list of taxes people pay for average services: http://www.afrr.us/taxes-list.html

Here is FY2008 budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2008/


Here is all of them going back to 1996:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html


Sorting through this mess is complicated...good luck....

The thing is, no one is going to want to sort through numbers to figure out they don't 'need' to pay an income tax. It's one of those things we've lived with for so long that people are just plain used to it. The best course of action (and more accurate) is to talk about moving in the DIRECTION of getting rid of the income tax. Lowering spending, followed by lowering taxes...then (like shampoo)...rinse and repeat.....

Usually, when explained in that fashion, people are more willing to swallow the "no irs" thing....if you tell them it will take YEARS before it can go away.

[jj111]

I would go back and review that Ron Paul in one of the debates (I think the first) says that we can only get rid of the income tax IF we change our view of the role of government. If we think the government is supposed to have our miltary stationed all over the world, and take care of us from cradle to grave, then we can't get rid of the income tax.

When Ron Paul in the debate was asked about ending the IRS, and he said "immediately", the question was when would you *begin phasing out* the IRS.

So I am not sure that Ron Paul has promised to *end* the IRS on his first day of office. He talks repeatedly about the need for transitional programs in changing the government.

So I would qualify Ron Paul's stance to end the IRS, especially to people who do not believe that beginning and ending the entire dismantalling of the IRS on the first day of office would be a prudent thing to do.

[jj111]

The reason the IRS exists and draconian high taxes exist is because the government is going broke by overspending. The income tax is not enough to cover the government's debts. Not only do they tax us to death, they also have to borrow money (taxing future generations), and also print money out of thin air )(the hidden inflation tax).

So really the big problem is government spending, and to get rid of the massive amounts of taxes, we will first have to reduce government spending. I believe that that is what Ron Paul tries to hammer home: that if we want to reduce taxes, we have to address spending and reduce it (drastically).

[fletcher]

I have also wondered about the numbers. If the income tax is only a thrid of the US revenue, where does the other 2/3rds come from? If it comes from other taxes and fees, wouldn't we need the IRS to collect them? Does Paul want to get rid of the corporate income tax? I would love if someone could answer those questions as well.

[Slugg]

I have also wondered about the numbers. If the income tax is only a thrid of the US revenue, where does the other 2/3rds come from? If it comes from other taxes and fees, wouldn't we need the IRS to collect them? Does Paul want to get rid of the corporate income tax? I would love if someone could answer those questions as well.

No, he does not want to get rid of the Corporate tax. There will still be plenty of taxes in America...more than enough to have a prosperous and dangerous country... We will still have plenty of guns.

The IRS' primary role is to collect INCOME tax. Income from individuals like you and I. Not corporations. So, 2/3 of the revenue would still be collected, just not by the IRS (or, at least not by the IRS as we know it).

[inibo]

The thing is, no one is going to want to sort through numbers to figure out they don't 'need' to pay an income tax.

I know that. What I'm trying to do is use Congressman Paul's quote as a starting point for a very concise one page thing so people don't have to do the work themselves.


In {insert year here} the Federal Government took in {insert dollar amount here} in income taxes and had a budget of {insert dollar amount here}. The income tax was only X% of the budget. The amount left over was {insert dollar amount here}. That was the entire budget in {insert year here}. If the budget were reduced to that amount by cutting {insert dollar amount here} from {insert programs here}, the income tax could be eliminated.

It can be done. Vote Ron Paul for President in 2008.

If I could find reputable sources for the amounts in the brackets it would be a very compelling argument. It would also be very interesting to see how the other candidates would try to respond to it.


Moderator: Senator Clinton, based on figures from {insert source here} if we cut spending to {insert year here} levels we could eliminate the personal income tax. How would a Clinton administration move toward this goal?

Senator Clinton: {insert sound of crickets chirping}

[Slugg]

I know that. What I'm trying to do is use Congressman Paul's quote as a starting point for a very concise one page thing so people don't have to do the work themselves.

I didn't mean to sound like i wanted to talk out of doing it. When I did the same thing and broke it down for several people I work with, I found that once faced with indisputable numbers, they questioned my accounting.
"Oh, so you're an accountant now? Why should I believe you over (insert news organization here)."

So, I quit using that angle. I felt like it was a pointless battle. But, I hope you succeed where I failed. If you get something going, please let me know. There are some guys around here I'd love to show it to. Did you see the links to the budgets I posted?

[fletcher]

No, he does not want to get rid of the Corporate tax. There will still be plenty of taxes in America...more than enough to have a prosperous and dangerous country... We will still have plenty of guns.

The IRS' primary role is to collect INCOME tax. Income from individuals like you and I. Not corporations. So, 2/3 of the revenue would still be collected, just not by the IRS (or, at least not by the IRS as we know it).

Thanks



I have been trying to find some hard numbers to back this up. Knowing next to nothing about how to begin I've managed to throw together a similar analysis of the 2004 budget (the latest complete numbers I could find). This is what I came up with:

2004: Budget $2,229,425 million
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/fct.html

2004: Income tax revenue $808,959 million
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=203

Difference: $1,420,466 million

The last time the Federal budget could have been covered by that amount was 1993.

1993: Outlays 1,409,414 million
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/hist.html
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy00/sheets/hist01z1.xls

Obviously I'm pulling together disparate sources and I just threw this together quickly. Googleing stuff like "FY 2000 Budget" produces all sorts of contradictory numbers from any number of biased sources. I beginning to realize why the federal government makes it difficult to accurately account for the money they steal from us: they don't really want us to know what they are doing.

When I try to sell the idea of "End the IRS" to people they all think it's great, but totally impossible. Where does one go to find what I would call consensus numbers for this sort of thing, a reasonably widely recognized non-partisan source? I want to show that it can be done.

And has anyone else tried to nail this down?

That site looks to have all the information you need.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

Total spending for FY 2000 was $1.789 trillion. The 2007 budget is $2.8 trillion. Revenue from income tax for 2007 is expected to be $1.1 trillion. So it is corrected getting rid of the income tax would leave us at 2000 levels. But it looks like the income tax is about 45% of the revenue, not 33%.

[aravoth]

We actually crunched this on a thread once before. A few months ago.

The 2007 budget has altered since Dr. Paul made the origional qoute. At the time it was just "the proposed budget". I don't think the numbers are in for amount of money recieved from personal income taxes this year.

[noxagol]

I didn't mean to sound like i wanted to talk out of doing it. When I did the same thing and broke it down for several people I work with, I found that once faced with indisputable numbers, they questioned my accounting.
"Oh, so you're an accountant now? Why should I believe you over (insert news organization here)."

So, I quit using that angle. I felt like it was a pointless battle. But, I hope you succeed where I failed. If you get something going, please let me know. There are some guys around here I'd love to show it to. Did you see the links to the budgets I posted?

If you can add and subtract you are an accountant....

A lot of people make things seem a hell of a lot more complicated than they really are, and those people are usually the ones in that profession.

[inibo]

That site looks to have all the information you need.
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/browse.html

Total spending for FY 2000 was $1.789 trillion. The 2007 budget is $2.8 trillion. Revenue from income tax for 2007 is expected to be $1.1 trillion. So it is corrected getting rid of the income tax would leave us at 2000 levels. But it looks like the income tax is about 45% of the revenue, not 33%.

I think you may be right. Jeeze Louise I HATE PDFs. I'll do a little exploring. I think using the government's own numbers would make it more believable to the average person, if not necessarily accurate.