Any Economists care to refute this?

[jrmint]

Talking about Paul in another forum about being able to work under the 2000 budget without the income tax:

He is wrong.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z1.xls

In 2000 we had 2 trillion dollars in tax receipts. This year we had 2.5 trillion.

This year the government received 1.1 trillion dollars in personal income taxes.

If we eliminated the personal income tax we would lose nearly half of all tax receipts with nearly all of the remaining receipts going to entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare through payroll taxes.

So if we did what he suggests we would have 500 billion dollars less than we did in 2000. Not to mention that the dollar has lost about 20% of its value in the last 7 years due to inflation. Not to mention we are currently running a 454 Billion dollar deficit whereas in 2000 we were running an 86 billion dollar surplus. Not mention that tax receipts collapsed after the recession and silly Bush tax cuts.

So he picks the high water mark in tax receipts as a comparison and is still wildly off the mark.

[Nate K]

i'm looking for a response too.. idk enough for a rebuttal.. btw i see you're new to the forums, did you spark interest recently because of todays media ?

[American]

Talking about Paul in another forum about being able to work under the 2000 budget without the income tax:

He is wrong.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z1.xls

In 2000 we had 2 trillion dollars in tax receipts. This year we had 2.5 trillion.

This year the government received 1.1 trillion dollars in personal income taxes.

If we eliminated the personal income tax we would lose nearly half of all tax receipts with nearly all of the remaining receipts going to entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare through payroll taxes.

So if we did what he suggests we would have 500 billion dollars less than we did in 2000. Not to mention that the dollar has lost about 20% of its value in the last 7 years due to inflation. Not to mention we are currently running a 454 Billion dollar deficit whereas in 2000 we were running an 86 billion dollar surplus. Not mention that tax receipts collapsed after the recession and silly Bush tax cuts.

So he picks the high water mark in tax receipts as a comparison and is still wildly off the mark.

file not found.

[bbachtung]

What did we spend in 2000? Dr. Paul says that by eliminating the personal income tax we would still have enough revenue to fund the 2000 budget levels. So, the key is not income from the tax between 2000 and 2007, but the difference between the federal budget in 2000 and the federal budget in 2007.

[rpfreedom08]

you have to remember that ron paul would bring the troops home, this would alow for 1 to 2 billion a day to be saved. This is where he is talking about saving money and getting rid of the income tax. I'm also not mentioning everything else he wants to elimonate and cut. The government is wayyyyyyyyyy to big and by cutting the fat we could really save money!

[kylejack]

What did we spend in 2000? Dr. Paul says that by eliminating the personal income tax we would still have enough revenue to fund the 2000 budget levels. So, the key is not income from the tax between 2000 and 2007, but the difference between the federal budget in 2000 and the federal budget in 2007.

Right, assume the following things:

1. 300 billion or so deficit
2. 2006 budget, personal income tax was 46% of government's income
3. Cut spending back to pre-2000 levels.

[terlinguatx]

...

[Joey Wahoo]

I looked at this once to confirm it. The numbers are all available on the treasury's website. If I recall correctly, the percentage of federal revenue derived from the individual income tax is about 40%. If you simply reduce the 2007 budget by 40%, the resulting number is approximately the same as the total federal budget in 2000. Ergo, if we reduce federal spending to the level of 6-7 years ago, we can eliminate the individual income tax entirely.

[dircha]

Talking about Paul in another forum about being able to work under the 2000 budget without the income tax:

He is wrong.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy...s/hist01z1.xls

In 2000 we had 2 trillion dollars in tax receipts. This year we had 2.5 trillion.

This year the government received 1.1 trillion dollars in personal income taxes.

If we eliminated the personal income tax we would lose nearly half of all tax receipts with nearly all of the remaining receipts going to entitlement programs such as SS and Medicare through payroll taxes.

So if we did what he suggests we would have 500 billion dollars less than we did in 2000. Not to mention that the dollar has lost about 20% of its value in the last 7 years due to inflation. Not to mention we are currently running a 454 Billion dollar deficit whereas in 2000 we were running an 86 billion dollar surplus. Not mention that tax receipts collapsed after the recession and silly Bush tax cuts.

So he picks the high water mark in tax receipts as a comparison and is still wildly off the mark.

Let's see. The federal government took in $2,025,457,000,000 in 2000. It is projected that it took in $2,415,852,000,000 in 2007, of which it is projected $1,096,000,000,000 was from individual income taxes. Without individual income taxes, we'd come up $705,605,000,000 (~$706 billion) short of year 2000 income. So it looks your friend's calculation is correct, even a bit short.

The important thing to remember here is that Ron Paul is not running on a platform to eliminate the IRS and the individual income tax in 2008, or in 2009, or even in 2012. Congressman Paul made that remark off the cuff on a late night talk show based on his general recollection of economic data.

Congressman Paul would one day like to see us once again be a nation where we don't have an income tax, but he is under no illusions about the present political and economic impossibility of this.

Congressman Paul is a vote for a change of course. Long term, a small government with low taxes is his vision, and that is the direction he wants to move us in, but a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote to take the whole ride; that kind of change won't happen in 4 or even 8 years.

Here is some of what a vote for Ron Paul does mean, concretely, in the near term:
- Bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as logistically possible leaving no residual forces.
- Stop the march to war with Iran that will destabilize the region.
- Begin to bring home our peace time troops stationed around the world and end our imperialist presence in foreign nations.
- Redeploy the national guard to secure our ports and borders.
- Push to withdraw from NAFTA and CAFTA and return to bilateral trade.
- Push to reduce or eliminate social security payroll taxes while allowing true privatization for those who are not dependent and wish to opt out.
- Push to make it practical for gold and silver to be used as legal tender as the Constitution requires alongside Federal Reserve Notes.

You can find out more about Ron Paul's practical stances on issues on the official website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/).

[Joey Wahoo]

RP wrote this last April:

"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? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It’s something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."

I think when I checked it, the total % of the budget derived from individual income tax was approximately 40%.

I have the data somewhere, so I'll try to dig it up.

Where did your numbers come from?

[dircha]

I looked at this once to confirm it. The numbers are all available on the treasury's website. If I recall correctly, the percentage of federal revenue derived from the individual income tax is about 40%. If you simply reduce the 2007 budget by 40%, the resulting number is approximately the same as the total federal budget in 2000. Ergo, if we reduce federal spending to the level of 6-7 years ago, we can eliminate the individual income tax entirely.

I would be interested to see the numbers you found that came out correctly. I looked the numbers up independently and as I describe they do not come out very close at all.

While I'd be happy to be proven wrong, I'd reiterate that the remark by Congressman Paul was made off the cuff on a late night talk show based on his general recollection of economic data, and is not a part of his short term platform.

[dircha]

Where did your numbers come from?

I used http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/tables.html and http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy07/pdf/hist.pdf.

The link for the data the original poster gave didn't work for me; file not found, but it seems to more or less match what I found. Like the original poster I was comparing receipts, not spending.

[Joey Wahoo]

We need to take liberal benefit of rounding to make this work, but the federal budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion. 60% of that is 1.68 trillion.

the individual income tax is approximately 40% of the revenue (OK, 44.4%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

So maybe have to take them back to 1999 levels. A little more belt tightening would be a good thing for them.

[dircha]

We need to take liberal benefit of rounding to make this work, but the federal budget for 2007 is 2.8 trillion. 60% of that is 1.68 trillion.

the individual income tax is approximately 40% of the revenue (OK, 44.4%).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget

So maybe have to take them back to 1999 levels. A little more belt tightening would be a good thing for them.

I guess that seems reasonable. So it's closer if we base it on budget and not on receipts.

[Avalon]

I guess that seems reasonable. So it's closer if we base it on budget and not on receipts.

Uhh, yeah. It's based on current (non personal income tax) receipts vs. FY2000 spending. Which is what Ron Paul has always said.

[zumajoe]

Let's see. The federal government took in $2,025,457,000,000 in 2000. It is projected that it took in $2,415,852,000,000 in 2007, of which it is projected $1,096,000,000,000 was from individual income taxes. Without individual income taxes, we'd come up $705,605,000,000 (~$706 billion) short of year 2000 income. So it looks your friend's calculation is correct, even a bit short.

The important thing to remember here is that Ron Paul is not running on a platform to eliminate the IRS and the individual income tax in 2008, or in 2009, or even in 2012. Congressman Paul made that remark off the cuff on a late night talk show based on his general recollection of economic data.

Congressman Paul would one day like to see us once again be a nation where we don't have an income tax, but he is under no illusions about the present political and economic impossibility of this.

Congressman Paul is a vote for a change of course. Long term, a small government with low taxes is his vision, and that is the direction he wants to move us in, but a vote for Ron Paul is not a vote to take the whole ride; that kind of change won't happen in 4 or even 8 years.

Here is some of what a vote for Ron Paul does mean, concretely, in the near term:
- Bring our troops home from Iraq as soon as logistically possible leaving no residual forces.
- Stop the march to war with Iran that will destabilize the region.
- Begin to bring home our peace time troops stationed around the world and end our imperialist presence in foreign nations.
- Redeploy the national guard to secure our ports and borders.
- Push to withdraw from NAFTA and CAFTA and return to bilateral trade.
- Push to reduce or eliminate social security payroll taxes while allowing true privatization for those who are not dependent and wish to opt out.
- Push to make it practical for gold and silver to be used as legal tender as the Constitution requires alongside Federal Reserve Notes.

You can find out more about Ron Paul's practical stances on issues on the official website (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/).


So basically, with that shortcoming of the 706 billion dollars, that deficit would be made up by ending the wars and cutting the useless departments- correct?

[vodalian]

The money lost from abolishing the income tax can easily be replaced by bringing the troops home, cutting down on the amount of pointless agencies and programs and by sheer spending power. More money per paycheck means more goods are being bought, which of course, is taxed. People seem to forget about that part.

[sickmint79]

ask them if they think anybody will really be upset with ron paul if he is unsuccessful eliminating the income tax completely, but still ends up cutting it in half