No Corporate Tax: How to fund Defense?

[Black Dog]

OK hopefully this question has not already been posed.

In the documentary film Freedom to Fascism, I believe it is estimated that the summation of all corporate tax revenue is roughly equal to the amount in military spending.

I also believe that most Ron Paul and most of his supporters advocate a minarchist government who, as one of it's few functions, provides for the defense of the nation.

My question is how does a nation raise enough funds through a voluntary process (i.e. not through the robberies and theft known as the [corporate] tax) to construct a powerful military force for defense?

[virgil47]

OK hopefully this question has not already been posed.

In the documentary film Freedom to Fascism, I believe it is estimated that the summation of all corporate tax revenue is roughly equal to the amount in military spending.

I also believe that most Ron Paul and most of his supporters advocate a minarchist government who, as one of it's few functions, provides for the defense of the nation.

My question is how does a nation raise enough funds through a voluntary process (i.e. not through the robberies and theft known as the [corporate] tax) to construct a powerful military force for defense?

In the same way the founders proposed ... by using tariffs on foreign goods. The tariffs would not have to be very large and would have the added advantage of encouraging U.S. businesses to bring their manufacturing bases back to the U.S. where the lack of corporate tax coupled with the tariff on goods entering the U.S. would increase their profits and increase the manufacturing base at home. Before anyone cries "protectionism" please realize that in order to maintain our standard of living and maintain a strong national defense it is imperative that our manufacturing base be rebuilt.

[Zippyjuan]

Corporate taxes alone would cover about half- not all- of the US Department of Defense. In 2009 (the latest figures I could find on US corporate tax collections), the government took in $339 billion from that source and the budget for the DOD that year (including funds for the "War on Terror" but not supplemental spending for the two wars going on) was $660 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

US imports for 2010 (including energy like oil) were $2.7 trilllion. http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html If you were to fund the Department of Defense alone via a tarrif on all imports that would be a 24% tax on everything. A $100 barrel of oil would then cost $124. If you wanted to fund the entire government at its current levels via tarrifs and balance the budget (around $3.5 trillion) you would have to set tariffs at 130%. That would make a barrel of oil which was $100 rise to $230 ($100 plus the $130 tariff).

Manufacturing accounts for only 13% of our total GDP. http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/...dp-by-country/

The manufacturing share of the USA economy dropped from 21% in 1980 to 18% in 1990, 16% in 2000 and 13% in 2008. Still as previous posts show the USA manufacturing output has grown substantially: over 300% since 1980, and 175% since 1990. The proportion of manufacturing output by the USA (for the top 14 manufacturers) has declined from 31% in 1980, 28% in 1990, 32% in 2000 to 24% in 2008. The proportion of USA manufacturing has declined from 33% in 1980, 29% in 1990, 36% in 2000 to 30% in 2008. While manufacturing output has grown in the USA it has done so more slowly than the economy overall.

[Len Larson]

The question really is: What is a constitutional defense force?
Many would argue that the force structure we have now is primarily offensive, so using current budgets is misleading.
Figure out what a defensive force looks like, then you will see how you can pay for it.

[pcosmar]

to construct a powerful military force for defense?

you write in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
And then don't allow any to infringe upon it.

[virgil47]

Corporate taxes alone would cover about half- not all- of the US Department of Defense. In 2009 (the latest figures I could find on US corporate tax collections), the government took in $339 billion from that source and the budget for the DOD that year (including funds for the "War on Terror" but not supplemental spending for the two wars going on) was $660 billion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_Un...federal_budget

US imports for 2010 (including energy like oil) were $2.7 trilllion. http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html If you were to fund the Department of Defense alone via a tarrif on all imports that would be a 24% tax on everything. A $100 barrel of oil would then cost $124. If you wanted to fund the entire government at its current levels via tarrifs and balance the budget (around $3.5 trillion) you would have to set tariffs at 130%. That would make a barrel of oil which was $100 rise to $230 ($100 plus the $130 tariff).

Manufacturing accounts for only 13% of our total GDP. http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/...dp-by-country/

Why would any rational person want to fund the government at its current levels. We are talking about how to balance the budget and do away with taxes at the same time. The fact that the price of oil would rise dramatically would be a large motivation to produce and use our own reserves which would greatly reduce the cost of oil and therefore all other goods.

The fact that manufacturing only accounts for approx. 13% of our GDP is a national disgrace. Allowing other nations to undercut our manufacturing through "free trade" until our base goes bankrupt or overseas is a direct effect of buying into the one world crap!

[Zippyjuan]

Why would any rational person want to fund the government at its current levels. We are talking about how to balance the budget and do away with taxes at the same time. The fact that the price of oil would rise dramatically would be a large motivation to produce and use our own reserves which would greatly reduce the cost of oil and therefore all other goods.

The fact that manufacturing only accounts for approx. 13% of our GDP is a national disgrace. Allowing other nations to undercut our manufacturing through "free trade" until our base goes bankrupt or overseas is a direct effect of buying into the one world crap!

How would you get rid of taxes (tariffs are taxes which would be hidden the the prices of goods) and balance your budget? How would you balance today's budget without changing any taxes? If you were to go by Ron Paul's pledges, you can't cut medicare or Social Security.

That means you need to cut $1.3 trillion or so from this portion of the budget:

Discretionary spending: $1.378 trillion (+13.8%)
$663.7 billion (+12.7%) – Department of Defense (including Overseas Contingency Operations)
$78.7 billion (−1.7%) – Department of Health and Human Services
$72.5 billion (+2.8%) – Department of Transportation
$52.5 billion (+10.3%) – Department of Veterans Affairs
$51.7 billion (+40.9%) – Department of State and Other International Programs
$47.5 billion (+18.5%) – Department of Housing and Urban Development
$46.7 billion (+12.8%) – Department of Education
$42.7 billion (+1.2%) – Department of Homeland Security
$26.3 billion (−0.4%) – Department of Energy
$26.0 billion (+8.8%) – Department of Agriculture
$23.9 billion (−6.3%) – Department of Justice
$18.7 billion (+5.1%) – National Aeronautics and Space Administration
$13.8 billion (+48.4%) – Department of Commerce
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of Labor
$13.3 billion (+4.7%) – Department of the Treasury
$12.0 billion (+6.2%) – Department of the Interior
$10.5 billion (+34.6%) – Environmental Protection Agency
$9.7 billion (+10.2%) – Social Security Administration
$7.0 billion (+1.4%) – National Science Foundation
$5.1 billion (−3.8%) – Corps of Engineers
$5.0 billion (+100%-NA) – National Infrastructure Bank
$1.1 billion (+22.2%) – Corporation for National and Community Service
$0.7 billion (0.0%) – Small Business Administration
$0.6 billion (−14.3%) – General Services Administration
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP)
$0 billion (−100%-NA) – Financial stabilization efforts
$11 billion (+275%-NA) – Potential disaster costs
$19.8 billion (+3.7%) – Other Agencies
$105 billion – Other

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

[Seraphim]

Occum's Razor at it's finest.

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

There's your Foreign Policy, BITChEZZZZ. The 2nd Amendment IS foreign policy in many ways.

you write in the 2nd amendment to the Constitution.
And then don't allow any to infringe upon it.

[virgil47]

How would you get rid of taxes (tariffs are taxes which would be hidden the the prices of goods) and balance your budget? How would you balance today's budget without changing any taxes? If you were to go by Ron Paul's pledges, you can't cut medicare or Social Security.

That means you need to cut $1.3 trillion or so from this portion of the budget:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Un...federal_budget

Tariffs are taxes on foreign entities. While they would temporarily raise the cost of goods in the U.S. they would also foster the reemergence of local manufacturing which would of course be tariff free. As local manufacturing reemerges the price of goods would drop. By simply bringing the military back home our government could save billions. Bringing the military back home would save billions more by cutting the manufacturers of war material out of the economy. The removal of 5 or more federal agencies would put us on the road to a balanced budget in short order. Under the scenario I have lain out Medicare and Social Security would not have to be cut although they would indeed need to be phased out in a controlled manner over a period of years.

[otherone]

There's your Foreign Policy, BITChEZZZZ. The 2nd Amendment IS foreign policy in many ways.

yup x 1 JILLION.

Let the frakkin' states fund the military (as well as everything else). Let Washington go begging for cash instead of unilaterally printing more.