How can I convince these people

[ForLibertyFight]

I told these people that RP would eliminate the IRS and they liked the idea however they believe that it would take at least a generation to abolish the income tax. How can I tell them that it would not take a generation and it could be done during RP's presidentcy?

[Larofeticus]

Tell them it's only a third of federal income, and could easily be accomplished by cutting spending back to 2000 levels.

[jonahtrainer]

I told these people that RP would eliminate the IRS and they liked the idea however they believe that it would take at least a generation to abolish the income tax. How can I tell them that RP can abolish it while he is in office?

Federal spending would only need to return to Year 2000 levels and we could eliminate the Personal Income Tax for individuals.

Who thinks we cannot reduce spending that much?

Do we want to keep bombing bridges in Iraq, rebuilding them and then waste our appropriated money here in up keeping our bridges? What about how the Pentagon declared on 9/10/2001 they can't find $2.3 Trillion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaMxaykpi5o)?

[dseisner]

Just have them watch RP. THAT'S ALL. I always say this, if you're concerned about getting people onto the RP side, just have them watch him speak and they will like him, it's that simple. As far as the IRS, they could be right, RP might not be able to abolish it. But as RP always says, we can't get rid of the income tax until we change our philosophy about what govt. is supposed to be doing for us.

As for the logistics of it, the IRS is part of the executive branch so...as long as we brought the troops home, RP could eliminate the IRS. People shouldn't be concerned with "how long" it's going to take but rather the direction we are heading. If it's going to take 20 years, should we say fuck it and keep the IRS?? No, that's not logic. If it's bad, get rid of it. If it takes a while, so be it.

[Oddball]

Tell them it's only a third of federal income, and could easily be accomplished by cutting spending back to 2000 levels.

That's right.

Also, controlling spending takes no constitutional amendment at all.

[quickmike]

I told these people that RP would eliminate the IRS and they liked the idea however they believe that it would take at least a generation to abolish the income tax. How can I tell them that it would not take a generation and it could be done during RP's presidentcy?

Tell them honestly, "well, we better get started now then shouldnt we?"

none of those other monkey asses will even get it going in the right direction.

[Tuck]

Remind them that until 1913 the IRS didn't exist and the US got a long just fine :)

[jonahtrainer]

Tell them honestly, "well, we better get started now then shouldnt we?"

none of those other monkey asses will even get it going in the right direction.

Politicians actually derive political benefit (http://mises.org/story/2670) from bridge collapses. It really is a fairly sick and perverse conflict of interest when you think about it.

From the article:

Governments, on the other hand, operate according to a very different economic calculus. Since the bridge does not bring an income to the state, at least directly, it is much easier for politicians to want to spend on those things that provide fame, glory, and votes. In fact, in a perverse way, the bridge collapse in Minnesota provides a benefit to politicians, since they now have an excuse to confiscate even more taxes from individuals, thus expanding the power of the state. ... As we can see from the New York Times article, raising taxes in the wake of the bridge collapse will provide a political benefit to the governor of Minnesota, since he will be seen as trying to "be responsible."

[sickmint79]

ask them if he only makes it halfway through his goal, are they really going to be disappointed about it?

[Slugg]

I think telling people he will remove the IRS is misleading. He wont, can't. They are partially right insofar as it would take a very long time. But, they think it's because we need 'stuff.' But we need to pay off the national debt, remove the federal reserve, and THEN we can abolish the IRS/16th Ammendment.

Just tell them, "Do you want record breaking tax cuts?" Cause, if Ron Paul was president, that's what we would get. REAL...SOLID. Tax cuts for the middle class/working poor.

[Kregener]

So they should vote for another statist because it would take ten years (it won't) to abolish the IRS?

Do people really think like this?

Any other person they might vote for will only INCREASE the size and scope of the IRS.

This is a no-brainer.

[HammerDR]

Uh...

President Ron Paul is inaugurated on January 20, 2009.

...January 21, 2009...

Ron Paul: "Mr. Secretary [of the Treasury], relieve the IRS and all of the employees of that department of their duties."

No more IRS. Technically, there would still be a law in place to levy voluntary taxes against the people but the IRS wouldn't be there to enforce it. Its like our current immigration laws--there are laws but there isn't any enforcement.

:P

[Tn...Andy]

Or he could simply file suit in federal court....one that couldn't easily be ignored......and ask "Is the income tax a direct or an indirect tax.....since these are the only two types of taxes allowed by the Constitution"

A direct tax, by the Constitution, must be apportioned equally to the States.....that means each State, and person there in, must come up with the exact same amount of tax money. That ALONE would destroy the income tax by forcing it to include ALL the slugs in society that don't pay it now. The commie notion of a "graduated" income tax would be gone ( From those with ability to those with need....Karl Marx ).

The 16th amendment ( assuming you even buy it was legally ratified ) "did not give Congress any NEW taxing authority" ( SC already ruled on this many years ago ).....so it MUST fit in under the "direct" or "indirect" categories. They COULD tax incomes under it....but would have to apportion the taxes.

An indirect tax is one places on goods or services...like a sales tax, an import duty, etc....you could avoid this tax by simply not choosing to buy that good or service.

Shedding light on the true nature of the tax and the IRS cockroaches is all that is needed to make it go away......but I'd be willing to even PAY THE DADGUM THING if it was truly "FAIR".....that is, I don't get penalized more for getting up off my butt and working hard to get ahead, and my neighbor sits around 80% of the time, earning just enough to max out his "earned ( ahahahaaa ) income credit" and get a 10,000 FRN refund every year.....

Even the so called "FAIR TAX" is a crock.....it contains a provision to allow for a rebate of tax money to certain low income levels.....so it's simply a commie version of an indirect tax. Jeez....you'd THINK the Fair Tax folks would have learned SOMETHING from the income tax mess, huh ?

IF govt costs "X" number of FRNs a year to run, then subtract the income from indirect taxes ( which ran the country for 137 years PRIOR to the income tax ), take the leftover needed amount, split it up by the number of adults in this country, and SEND EVERY ONE OF THEM A BILL FOR THE REST.

You want smaller govt ? THAT'S HOW TO DO IT. When folks realize what it REALLY costs to run the thing, they'd get with the program of downsizing it.

[shrugged0106]

Ask them how America would feel if they got an average raise of $6900.00 if Dr. Paul got his way?


(Median household income for the US is $46k in 2006 * 15% tax rate for that income level) Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income)

[dircha]

I told these people that RP would eliminate the IRS and they liked the idea however they believe that it would take at least a generation to abolish the income tax. How can I tell them that it would not take a generation and it could be done during RP's presidentcy?

You can't if you're honest. Really, what is the situation here? Are these people only willing to vote if they think doing so will lead to the income tax being abolished in a generation? That ludicrous. If that is their position, I would recommend you spend your efforts elsewhere.

If not, then it shouldn't take much to convince them, based on Paul's record in Congress and the values he describes in his speeches, that he is the only candidate committed to working toward drastically reducing both military and domestic spending.

But he will also say that it can not be done by flipping a switch. It really will take a generation. Ron Paul has said again and again that his plan will be to phase out entitlement programs, allow people to opt out of the systems to the extent we can afford it, but at the same time not turn people out on the streets who we have over the generations taught to be dependent on these entitlements and promised they can count on them.

That's the difference between Ron Paul and wacky Libertarians who wouldn't stand a chance at even getting 1%.