Over a trillion dollars in "lost revenue"

[Ninja Homer]

Quoted from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx


After listening to Paul list the reasons for abolishing the IRS, Russert asked the Republican presidential hopeful how much money would be lost without the IRS.

Paul replied that it would be "a lot" of lost revenue. Russert told him it would be "over a trillion dollars." Paul did not seem phased and said "the goal is to cut the spending."

"If you brought our troops home, you save hundreds of billions of dollars," Paul said, explaining how he would make up the lost revenue. "You can start saving immediately by changing the foreign policy and not be the policeman of the world."

This concept that "if the IRS was abolished it would result in lost revenue" pisses me off. I think this is a pretty basic concept that Ron Paul, as well as all supporters, could use to get a lot more support for the campaign if it was properly explained.

The government is owned by the people. The 1.1 trillion dollars that would be "lost without the IRS" is essentially money that is stolen from the American people. That money is then divided up by the government. I don't know exactly where all that money goes, but I think the large majority of Americans would agree that it doesn't go back to them. If there wasn't an IRS, and there wasn't a federal income tax, there wouldn't be any money lost, rather the people would get to keep their money!! If anything, most of the 1.1 trillion is lost by giving it to the government.

I'm sure most people understand this already, but after the Meet the Press interview, I think it needed some repeating, especially since this story is being reprinted all over the Internet.

[tomveil]

Yeah, that pisses me off too. Like that money wouldn't exist? Or would WE BE ABLE TO SPEND IT, TIM?!?!?!?

[wfd40]

Quoted from http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/23/532376.aspx



This concept that "if the IRS was abolished it would result in lost revenue" pisses me off. I think this is a pretty basic concept that Ron Paul, as well as all supporters, could use to get a lot more support for the campaign if it was properly explained.

The government is owned by the people. The 1.1 trillion dollars that would be "lost without the IRS" is essentially money that is stolen from the American people. That money is then divided up by the government. I don't know exactly where all that money goes, but I think the large majority of Americans would agree that it doesn't go back to them. If there wasn't an IRS, and there wasn't a federal income tax, there wouldn't be any money lost, rather the people would get to keep their money!! If anything, most of the 1.1 trillion is lost by giving it to the government.

I'm sure most people understand this already, but after the Meet the Press interview, I think it needed some repeating, especially since this story is being reprinted all over the Internet.

well, why didn't Paul say as much when asked?

[nist7]

Ron Paul should've also said: "Well, Tim, that's 1 trillion less for the government but 1 trillion more for the American people."

[wfd40]

Ron Paul should've also said: "Well, Tim, that's 1 trillion less for the government but 1 trillion more for the American people."

That sounds like something Huckabee would say... damnit

::makes a grizzly face::

[PimpBlimp]

This website here lets you see where your tax dollars are being wasted.
http://www.usaspending.gov/

Couple examples

Jimmy's Seafood and Grill / Undisclosed
$506,645,839
http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?&fiscal_year=2006&parent_id=84517&sortby=u&maj_agency_cat=97&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&detail=0

Enron 2006
$1,994,533
http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/fpds.php?reptype=r&detail=-1&sortby=f&datype=T&reptype=r&database=fpds&database=fpds&parent_id=96399&fiscal_year=2006&record_num=f500

[Jobarra]

If I recall, it's not anywhere near $1.1 Trillion from the Personal Income Tax. More like $850 Billion. It's pretty amazing how much money can be saved from quite a few different sources.

Pulling troops back from overseas saves alot of money. However, a good chunk of potential money is also injected back into our economy because most of those soldiers will go back to working jobs and consuming from the local economy instead of consuming from a foreign economy. I'm still surprised that Dr. Paul doesn't speak of this. I wish he would also mention that an end to the federal drug war would result in alot more consumers/workers as well instead of leeches on society. Think how much it costs to care for all of those non-violent drug offenders. Once in society they are productive consumers, not a drain on others. With troops and ex-prisoners, I bet the US economy would jump up at least 3%. No telling how much spending would go down. The actual net benefit to the economy I'm sure would be much higher.

[voisine]

I know RP understands this, so I don't know why he hasn't brought it up, but my reply would have been something like:

It's not that simple tim. Sure if you took the income tax money and tossed it in a furnace, you'd loose a trillion dollars of tax revenues. But that trillion is going to be kept and used by the tax payers. They'll save and invest and spend that money. This will increase the revenues from a lot of other kinds of taxes like tariffs, payroll tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, property tax, gas taxes, use taxes. Now the net loss of revenue will still be huge, which I think is great, because it means we'll need to cut spending. The most politically feasible place to start cutting spending is our overseas military expenditures...

[garrettwombat]

i also wish paul would clarify... when Ron says he wants to get rid of the income tax... he doesnt specify... the federal income tax is completely different from your state income tax...
but when you just say the "income tax" it looks dumb.

i sometimes think paul thinks everyone already knows these things, which they dont.

another thing i wondered, tim said if you get rid of the IRS the federal reserve loses 50% of its revenues... where the heck does the other 50% come from? the only thing i can think of is the inflation tax.

[fuzzybekool]

Ron Paul shouldn't have to justify numbers. I know the fickle minded likes to hear numbers, but the IRS is unconstitutional first of all, and so the money the IRS collects from you and me should be returned to us, and the federal government should be forced to reduce spending to its Constitutionally allowed functions of government.

[Coola]

I hope that someone asks him this question again in the future then Ron can elaborate. But I think anyone with common sense can figure out that the "$1 trillion" dollars in lost revenue for the government, is a "$1 trillion" gain for the American people.

[itsnobody]

Ok, let's say it is $1 trillion

Changing foreign policy would save us about $500 billion
Cutting the departments and government programs would save us about $500 billion

So problem solved, except now that the IRS is gone, this GREATLY grows the economy, more people will be spending, more businesses will be created, more jobs, etc...

So in reality what would happen is we have a healthier economy, stop inflation, and get out the $9.1 trillion dollar deficit we're in A LOT FASTER than with an IRS, this foreign policy, and these departments

The economic experts know this, which is why such a great number of them endorse Ron Paul

The clowns don't know this, because they're clueless, they don't know how things really work

[wfd40]

I know RP understands this, so I don't know why he hasn't brought it up, but my reply would have been something like:

It's not that simple tim. Sure if you took the income tax money and tossed it in a furnace, you'd loose a trillion dollars of tax revenues. But that trillion is going to be kept and used by the tax payers. They'll save and invest and spend that money. This will increase the revenues from a lot of other kinds of taxes like tariffs, payroll tax, sales tax, corporate income tax, property tax, gas taxes, use taxes. Now the net loss of revenue will still be huge, which I think is great, because it means we'll need to cut spending. The most politically feasible place to start cutting spending is our overseas military expenditures...

again, this was what most would deem a "softball".. and yet Dr. Paul struggled with it..

Very confused/exacerbated to say the least. Your answer is 4x better than the one that was given on MTP

:(