RP on 2000 budget numbers.....

[JAHOGS]

I am looking for a video or audio clip of RP explain how he expects us to get back to 2000 level budget spending.... I have a guy on another forum asking and he wants to here how RP expects to do this......

Here is what he wrote.....

Ron Paul wants to eliminate the federal income tax. The consequences discussed here:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/?hpid=news-col-blog-viewall

"Without the revenues from individual income tax, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was in the early 1990s, not the year 2000. The discretionary share of the federal budget--the money the government spends on defense, the federal bureaucracy, the environment, education, and health--would dwindle to zero. All remaining federal revenues would be earmarked for mandatory entitlement spending such as social security--which Paul has said he would not touch--and interest on debt."

. . .

"If Paul is going to get rid of the federal income tax, he will have to find $1.2 trillion in savings on today's budget. He says he will not take this money from social security. Instead he will focus on the "costs of empire." But even if he pulled all U.S. troops back home from Iraq and Afghanistan ($152 billion), abolished the entire foreign aid budget, ($22 billion), got rid of the State Department, ($6 billion), and withdrew from the United Nations, ($2 billion), he would only save around $180 billion. If he stopped all federal spending on education and ended agricultural price subsidies, as he has also proposed, he might save another $100 billion.

That's still a long way from $1.2 trillion."

[rich34]

Don't forget that he would also quit aiding foreign countries as well. But I still don't think it would get back to spending levels of 2000. I think it's more accurate to say it would take spending back to the mid to late 90's.

[hasan]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm

The site tells you how much the iraq war costs per day.

http://www.nationalpriorities.org/Cost-of-War/Cost-of-War-3.html

This one tells you iraq war has already cost us 500 billion

[kylejack]

I already crunched the math somewhere here. I should bookmark it since this keeps coming up.

[kylejack]

Here's my post on it:


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!

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=330529&highlight=budget#post330529

[Adamsa]

Someone said it would be closer to 1995, but when you're Ron Paul and you're cutting and saving stuff left and right, it doesn't really matter.

[bmcosti]

Also, don't forget because individuals have that extra 1.2 Trillion to spend, save, and invest that it will increase the tax income of the other tax forms.

Citizens will begin using that money relatively fast, and that money can be turned over many, many times over the course of a year. When you buy groceries the business owner will have to pay their employees, their affiliates, their shareholders, etc. a lot of these different chains will show increased profit and increased paying taxes to the federal government.

Assuming that a cut of 1.2 Trillion dollars of income taxes would not affect the other taxes is very short sighted.... and wrong. Cutting 1.2 Trillion in income taxes does not mean you have to cut the budget by 1.2 Trillion. While I can't calculate the exact amount you would have to cut, it certainly would be less than 1 trillion. Which would be a very good thing.

[JMO]

One other thing to consider.

Right now people in Washington are like kids in the candy store, or better yet a middle class worker who just got a big paycheck and no bills. Those congressmen look for ways to spend the money, if it's not a bridge to nowhere its a woodstock museum. There is plenty of examples but those are 2 of the most popular. Once that money dries up we will save a lot of money on taxpayers not splurging/wasteful spending with our money. I would rather buy that new computer than let congressmen spend it on their pet projects that the average American does not care about.

[jgmaynard]

Rumsfield said right before he left office that the Feds count not account for 2.3 Trillion dollars over the last 5 years that went to Iraq (reported on 55 minutes and Andy Rooney, IIRC). Remember those pictures in Time (?) of the soldiers sitting on like 9 billion dollars in cash that later went missing? That was one "small" part of that money.
That's almost 1/2 a trillion a year right there that isn't being shipped to Iraq and goes woosh!into thin air. So let's throw that into the pot.

JM

[Goldwater Conservative]

Not only would outright eliminating the individual income tax spur great economic activity, but both the government and the people would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year on administrative costs (enforcement, compliance, etc.). Then there's all the inefficient behavior that takes place due to the existing code. You really can't look at it in a vacuum.

[Fyretrohl]

Not only would outright eliminating the individual income tax spur great economic activity, but both the government and the people would save hundreds of billions of dollars per year on administrative costs (enforcement, compliance, etc.). Then there's all the inefficient behavior that takes place due to the existing code. You really can't look at it in a vacuum.


I wonder how much the IRS spends taking people to court who refuse to pay taxes, because the IRS can not provide the law which gives them the power to 'force' us to pay taxes, rather than simply providing them the document that MUST exist. Stop wasting money, show the document, OR, admit it does not exist and quit wasting money to sue.

[Copperhed51]

I wonder how much the IRS spends taking people to court who refuse to pay taxes, because the IRS can not provide the law which gives them the power to 'force' us to pay taxes, rather than simply providing them the document that MUST exist. Stop wasting money, show the document, OR, admit it does not exist and quit wasting money to sue.

Have you looked for the law yourself? Hate to disappoint you but it is there in black and white. I've watched Russo's documentary and did a lot of investigating for myself. That movie is very convincing but if you do a little research, you might find that there's a lack of factual information in it...or at least some facts are taken completely out of context.

[DRV45N05]

What that blog post forgets is that Ron has said many times that if we get rid of the IRS, then we have to have a fundamental change in attitude of what the role of government should be, i.e. we would have to cut a ton of money.

As for the arguments in this thread that cutting taxes would boost revenues in other areas... come on, guys. Please don't fall for the Supply Sider religion b.s.. Sure, it is (well-supported) economic theory that taxes inhibit just about every type of economically productive activity in addition to causing harmful and inefficient substitution effects and distortions. But there is a point at which just generating more growth WON'T produce more revenue, which even the Laffer Curve (i.e., the foundation for the supply-siders) acknowledges.

I am all for eliminating the individual and corporate income taxes, the payroll tax, gift and estate taxes, and a whole slew of others. But we can't do this without cutting spending severely, which is what really needs to be done, as well.

[spivey378]

how much is the war on drugs a year? 500 mill?