Eliminaton of the income tax

[Joey Wahoo]

I'm looking for something that demonstrates that the government can function without an income tax. I recall seeing something that says that we could eliminate the income tax entirely and there would still be enough revenue for the government to fund its budget at the same level as 2000 (or something like that).

Need ammo for Ron Paul doubters who say elimination of the income tax isn't feasible.

thanks

[RonPaulIsGood]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul347.html

[ClampIt]

According to Scientific American, state federal and local taxes have grown from around 1 or 2 percent in 1900 to more than 34% by the year 2000. It is now over 40%.

There's a good article on "The Optimum Level of Government" which says we should reduce the total tax here that says we would have a higher standard of living if the total tax was 21.9%.

http://www.wiki.clampit.us/index.php/Optimal_Size_of_Government


Thus, we could (as Ron Paul has said) do away with the federal income tax and replace it with nothing and be in much better shape.

I would go further and limit all tax, including state and local.

[Matt Collins]

If we eliminated the income tax, that would only put the federal budget back to the year 2000 level.

The US government survived without an income tax for MORE THAN HALF IT'S EXISTANCE

[TurtleBurger]

People talk about the government not being able to function as if that's a bad thing. It's like saying "If we don't pay our protection money, how will the mob be able to operate?"

[Santa Barbarian]

I would like to bump this to the top.

Anyone have any hard sources with numbers regarding the statement that if we went back to 2000/2001 spending levels we could eliminate income tax.

I'm currently debating with a business owner that wants to see sources for this statement.

Thanks in advance.

[kylejack]

I would like to bump this to the top.

Anyone have any hard sources with numbers regarding the statement that if we went back to 2000/2001 spending levels we could eliminate income tax.

I'm currently debating with a business owner that wants to see sources for this statement.

Thanks in advance.

Yes, you can download the CBO spreadsheets at http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.xls

Go to Spreadsheet 3. This shows where the money's collected from in billions. Individual income tax is 43% of the government's income for the 2006 budget. If spending was scaled back to pre-2000 levels and we ran a $338 billion deficit (as we roughly did in 1999), we'd have enough money.

2006 income minus individual income tax = 1363.4 billions (1.3 trillion)
1999 spending (Spreadsheet page 5) = 1702.0 billions (1.702 trillion)

1.3634 trillion + 338 billion deficit = 1.702 trillion

Still collected would be: Corporate income taxes, Social Security/Medicare, Excise Taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and "miscellaneous", wherever its coming from. We'd be rid of the individual income tax, though! These numbers also pre-suppose that the elimination of individual income tax would create no extra economic activity, when in actuality, they would create a huge amount of activity, and a lot more profit for corporations, and thusly, more tax dollars coming in.

So is it possible to roll back spending to the level it was just seven years ago? Of course!

[campaignjunkie]

The original system of taxation written into our Constitution by the Founding Fathers is still in place. The only change is that Congress may now collect taxes on incomes, and may do so without resorting to an enumeration or census.

The original plan went something like this:

(1) Congress could levy revenue tariffs on goods coming into the country.

(2)[B] They could also levy [I]excise[I] taxes on various items (alcohol, for example).

Revenue tariffs were paid directly by the foreigners who brought the goods into the country, and indirectly by the people of the United States in the form of higher prices only if they chose to purchase the products in question.

Excise taxes were paid directly by the producers and indirectly by the consumers.

[B](3) If federal spending exceeded revenues, Congress was allowed to tax the States to collect the revenue necessary to make up the shortfall. This had to be done based on an enumeration or census, so that each State paid a proportionate amount of the tax. How the States collected their revenue was of course up to them.

The genius behind this system was that if the people of a State thought the federal government was spending too much, they could complain directly to their Representatives as well as to their State legislators. Article I of the Constitution stipulates that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, giving the House the power of the purse.

Since the Senate was chosen by the State legislatures, the State governments could pressure the Senate to get a grip on federal spending.

This system is still in force today! We can get along fine without the income tax!

[Daveforliberty]

Nice synopsis, Junkie. Welcome!

[fsk]

How about going one step further?

Who needs an income tax?

Who needs a government at all?

[kylejack]

How about going one step further?

Who needs an income tax?

Who needs a government at all?

An-cap is not politically viable at this time. Shift the dialogue toward Ron Paul and libertarianism in general and we can pick at that down the road.

[weatherbill]

according to 1982 ronald reagan grace commission report, not one penny form 1040 forms goes to government services. It all goes to pay interest on the national deby....in other words, into the pockets of intl bankers......it is a pure scam on us!

there are over 300 other taxes to pay for government,,,, gas tax, import, export tax, book tax, corporate activity tax...... some of these taxes, like the gas tax, raises hundreds of billinos of dollars a year.....well enough to run a limited constitutional government if we just stop the spending freeks.

[fsk]

Why is "an-cap not politically viable"? Do you mean "not welcome on this forum" or "not welcome in corrupt mainstream media"?

If you're a libertarian and take your philosophy to its natural conclusion, an-cap or agorism is the only possible conclusion.

Why is it considered "inappropriate" to push debate in the direction of the truth?

Do you have the right to steal from me? I assume your answer is "no". Then how can you, by voting, authorize a government to steal from me on your behalf? This simple argument blows away all pretense of legitimacy to all forms of taxation.

[F3d]

....

[fsk]

You have it backwards. Large corporations dominate industry because they receive massive government subsidies. Without government regulating and taxing competition, building a mega-corporation becomes impractical.

There are only two valid forms of law: common law and contract law. All other laws are nonsense. Common law would be enforced by private police forces; market competition would ensure none of them get out of hand. Contract law would be enforced according to the terms of the contract.

[F3d]

....

[Ncturnal]

Aside from what has already been posted regarding the Grace Commission report that shows not one dime of income tax revenues goes to pay for government services, you might also point to the White House's Expect More (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/) website that shows 28% of government funded programs are not performing (I personally think that's an extremely conservative estimate).

28% of the programs are Not Performing
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/notperform.html

Of that 28%, 24% are Results Not Demonstrated
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/rnd.html

and 4% are Ineffective
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/ineffective.html

So by simply eliminating programs the government has already identified at Not Performing you can knock out a huge chuck of the approximate 40% revenue received from personal income taxes (as if we really needed more proof).

[fsk]

How is common law any different than senators shooting out bills for the President to enforce?

Under common law, the senators can only pass laws that affect me if I injure someone else. If I decide to grow industrial hemp and sell it, that's none of their business.

[F3d]

....

[johngr]

It was a well-settled matter of common law in the 19th century that in order to have standing in court, there had to be a corpus delecti or body of the crime which included alleging a right deprived or an injury. They seem to ignore that matter of jurisprudence with the drug cases. Here's some state cases having similar holdings:

[New York] "To adjudicate upon, and protect the rights and interests of individual citizens, and to that end to construe and apply the laws, is the peculiar province of the judicial department...The judicial power "is the power to hear and determine those matters which affect the life, liberty, or property of the citizens of the state." (City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okl. 22, 223 P. 640, 644, 35 A.L.R. 872, 878.)" Nash v. Brooks, 297 N.Y.S. 853, 855-856.

[Delaware] "Though questioned by Wigmore, the prevailing American rule is that proof of the corpus delecti requires (1) proof of the injury, death or loss, according to the nature of the crime, and (2) proof of criminal means as the cause. 7 Wigmore on Evidence, [section] 2072. This is the rule in Delaware." Nelson v. State, 123 A.2d 859, 861.

[Connecticut] ““Corpus delecti” consists of occurrence of specific kind of loss or injury embraced in crime charged, rather than commission of crime charged by someone.” State v. Vuilleumer, 210 A.2d 673, 674, 3 Conn.Cir. 223.

[Pennsylvania] "It has long been fundamental to the criminal jurisprudence of thie Commonwealth that a necessary predicate to any conviction is proof of the corpus delecti, i.e., the occurrence of any injury or loss and someone's criminality as the source of this injury or loss. See Commonwealth v. Burns, 490 Pa. 619, 627, 187 A.2d 552, 556-557 (1963); Commonwealth v. Turza, 340 Pa. 128, 133, 16 A.2d 401, 404 (1940)." Commonwealth v. Maybee, 239 A.2d 332, 333.