MTP - Ron Paul: get rid of income tax
Republican candidate Ron Paul is an Internet sensation. He has raised more money in one day on the Internet than any other candidate — Republican or Democrat. He was on Meet the Press two weeks ago. The first question that Tim Russert asked was about his stance on income tax. (Please see video below)
Ron Paul would like to eliminate all income tax. On the surface, cutting taxes always seems like a good thing. We hear over and over again, how our tax dollars are being wasted. Wasted in Iraq. Wasted on a bridge to nowhere. Wasted on planes that the military never even asked for. But there are a lot of things that taxes go for that are necessary — maintaining veterans hospitals, maintaining roads and bridges, multimillion dollar radar invisible planes, energy subsidies to the poor and much, much more.
I guess that Representative Ron Paul would have looked better if he had specifics to his proposal. If you’re going to eliminate $1.1 trillion from the treasury how much would you say if by bringing all American troops home from abroad? Representative Paul did not know the answer. If you going to raise money from excise taxes and import tariffs, how much money could you raise? Would that hurt commerce and if so how much? What are you going to do with a half-million troops that you bring home from abroad? Honorable discharge? Are you planning on shrinking the military by a half-million troops? He had no answers to these very basic questions.
The fact that the United States existed for over 150 years without income tax, is not the issue. The world has changed (expectations for the government have changed. In the early 1900’s Americans mostly lived on farms, now we live in cities. Fire codes weren’t that important on a family farm. Now, we need the government to tell businesses put a fire exit here. Place sprinklers there.) The United States has existed for over 200 years without the Internet. I wouldn’t suggest you get rid of the Internet just because we didn’t have it 100 years ago. I would suggest that eliminating the income tax and transferring a lot of those taxes to the states is not practical. I lived in Texas for a number of years, a state which has no state income tax but does have property tax. Property taxes were ridiculous depending upon where you lived.
In my opinion, Republican candidate Ron Paul is truly a libertarian at heart. He believes in having a very small central government and believes that local governments should take care of local problems. This simple logic seems to make sense on the surface but if you look over the last 50 years at the problems that have divided our nation like civil rights. Local governments are unable to handle these issues. Ron Paul remains an interesting candidate with interesting ideas unfortunately, his ideas have gone the way of the dodo bird. He is fighting a battle that Thomas Jefferson lost to Alexander Hamilton and George Washington over 200 years ago.
Update: Ron Paul says that he wants to get back to a “constitutional size” government. Maybe I missed it but nowhere in the constitution have I been able to find any mention of the size of government. If you can find it please let me know. He uses this argument to cleanse his viewpoint. It is like him saying “See the founding fathers agree with me.” Thoughtful Americans understand that the founding fathers disagreed on almost ever issue. The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence are compromise documents. Just as Thomas Jefferson disagreed with Washington and Hamilton over the size of government and the power of the central government. Hamilton and Washington thought that a strong central government was needed to protect the colonies and pay for our collective debt (accumulated during the Revolutionary War). Jefferson saw a strong central government as the same as the English monarchy that we just fought to get rid of.
I would like your opinion on these documentaries:
America: Freedom to Fascism
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173
ENDGAME
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1070329053600562261
I seriously think that the internet and constitution are two VERY different things..
Keith -
Thanks for the links. I have seen these videos. There is no doubt that some elites want complete control of money and power. Democracy stands in their way.
I’m not sure about your statement that the constitution and the internet are 2 different things. I guess I don’t know what you mean.
thanks for your comments.
Eliminating the income tax and simultaneously balancing the budget could certainly not be accomplished without accompanying cuts in spending. However, I think you overestimate the spending which is necessary for the federal government to function properly. Personal income tax accounts for about a third of the current revenue; eliminating it would reduce the budget to roughly the same level it was in 2000.
Only 2% of the federal budget is used for law enforcement and general government. 23% is used for national defense and foreign affairs. Even still, our “Defense” budget is more than every other country in the world combined. We have 700 bases in over 130 countries. Is all this really necessary for our defense? Cutting spending here would require parting with our failed foreign policies of police actions, nation-building, dominating the planet, etc.
“What are you going to do with a half-million troops that you bring home from abroad? Honorable discharge?”
The military uses 2-6 year contracts; the necessary troop reductions could be accomplished within a single Presidential term simply by reducing our recruitment efforts.
19% goes to social programs, 12% to “physical, human, and community development.” In my opinion, most of these programs don’t belong in our federal budget at all, but even modest reductions would balance the budget (when combined with the defense cuts.)
8% goes to net interest on the debt. In the long term, this could be eliminated by paying off the debt.
The remaining 36% goes to Social Security, Medicare, and other retirement programs–that nobody in there right mind would pay for if they had a choice. However, these are mostly funded by their own taxes (not income tax) so I’ll leave them alone here.
“The fact that the United States existed for over 150 years without income tax, is not the issue.”
Certainly, past precedence alone should not determine our future course, but I think that by way of reason (and math) it’s shown that eliminating the income tax is both feasible and desirable.
“This simple logic seems to make sense on the surface but if you look over the last 50 years at the problems that have divided our nation like civil rights.”
Ron Paul and I advocate reducing the size of the government not it’s power to enforce the law. Protecting the rights of individuals, without regard to the state in which they reside, is the primary responsibility of the federal government. Only 2% of current spending is used for this purpose, so eliminating the income tax would not interfere with the governments ability to attend these important duties.
“He is fighting a battle that Thomas Jefferson lost to Alexander Hamilton and George Washington over 200 years ago.”
This doesn’t seem accurate. Ron Paul whole-heartedly supports the Constitution. In fact, one might say that this single quality defines him. Alexander Hamilton was one of the most vocal advocates for the same Constitution. He wrote the majority of 85 articles (The Federalist Papers) urging the people of the several states to ratify the Constitution. If Hamilton were alive today, I suppose that he and Ron Paul would be in total agreement on these issues.
“Maybe I missed it but nowhere in the constitution have I been able to find any mention of the size of government.”
True, but neither do I find mention of Social Security, Medicare, community/social development programs, (non-general) welfare, farm subsidies, rail subsidies, corporate bail-outs, DEA, FDA, DOE, undeclared wars, and a host of other federal activities that currently consume our hard-earned wages and increase our debt. The “Constitutional size” of the federal government is the size which is necessary for exercising the powers given to it by the people and specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Despite all the healthy discourse about cutting/eliminating/overhauling taxes, many people fail to realize the importance of cutting spending. Many politicians talk of cutting taxes, but few want to address the underlying problem, which is out-of-control spending. True tax reform is impossible without significantly reducing the size of the government. Fortunately, most of the spending that needs to be cut will never be missed by you and me.
David -
Thanks for your lengthy discussion.
If we start with the simple fact that Ron Paul would like to bring everybody in the military home. This is a great thing. What do we do with the half million men and women when they get here? Are you going to honorably discharge all of them into the work force? What effect is this going to have?
I would disagree with the thought that we can’t have tax reform without reducing the size of government. Of course, we can.
Everyone talks about cutting spending but the only thing that ever gets cut are programs that help the poor. Ron Paul has talked about eliminating the department of education. This is a non-starter for me. I would prefer to cut everything else and improve the department of education. I reject the argument that states should handle their own education. Look at Mississippi and anywhere in the northeast. In Mississippi the rich send their kids to private school and allow everyone else to wallow in stupidity. If this is what you are selling, I ain’t buying it.
Cutting military spending is a great idea but the average joe ain’t buying it either. I have long conversations with doctors and nurses on stealth planes. I have explained that no one in the world has a radar that can detect our first generation stealth planes. So, do we need to spend billions developing a second generation? The answer is always - yes. So, then I mention that not one stealth plane has ever been shot down by radar. Then I ask do we need to develop a third generation of stealth planes? Everyone says yes. I ask why. Here’s the meat of the problem - We can never be too safe. With that kind of mentality you can’t significantly cut defense spending. Without that, you are dead in the water.
Thanks again for your comments.
“There is no doubt that some elites want complete control of money and power. Democracy stands in their way.”
I’d like to remind you that we are not a democracy, but a constitutional republic - and law no longer stands in the way of these people having control - because they are now making the law. And they are creating the money.
Our law is no longer for the protection of the people and their property, which is the reason laws are created in a free society. Our laws are now weapons of plunder to effectively remove our property and our rights. The interest we pay on every loan is essentially a tax. In every way, these people are now in control.
We must abolish every bit of socialist legislation which takes from one person or group and gives to another by force of law, as well as abolish the Fed, the IRS and the income tax. I also think personally, we should send these people to the guillotine for the ruination and despair they have caused this country and the world with their greed and inhumanity.
I suggest reading or listening to Frederic Bastiat’s ‘The Law’, written in 1850 - and amazingly relevant today - http://www.hearliberty.com/thelaw.mp3
and then pass it along.
The department of education was not created to educate children. Do some research on literacy rates 200 years ago vs. now. There weren’t public schools then and the rates of literacy were about 93%. It is now around 74%. The DoE was merely created as an instrument of the industrialists to create workers who do not think for themselves. Rockefeller, JP Morgan and others worked to perfect the factory model school (which we still have today). The model was an import from Prussia - used to train children to become soldiers. You may be under the impression that the DoE is a good thing, however as a homeschooling parent, I am pretty aware of what our schools are - and what they are not. Our schools are a long arm of government - reaching into our personal lives (mandatory vaccines and psych meds, history revisioning, dumbing down kids, the list goes on.)
We don’t need it.
btw. a great book on the subject:
‘The Underground History of American Education’
By John Taylor Gatto
Thanks for posting my comments and responding. I am thoroughly enjoying this discussion!
I must admit that I don’t know for a fact the details of Ron’s plan for the returning troops. I know that securing the borders is one of his priorities, so I suppose that many of them would be employed there. The rest would do the same thing that they do now, when they’re not in combat. (Not sure what that is.)
It seems that you envision 1/2 million troops being “dumped” onto the streets in a short period of time, but I don’t think this is a realistic expectation. Closing down bases, relocating hundreds of thousands of troops, moving their families, and recovering tons of government assets are things that take significant time and effort. As I said before, I think the reductions will be accomplished over several years by normal attrition, through expiring contracts and reduced recruiting. What will they do after being discharged? The same thing they do now: get a job or go to school.
Sorry, I tried using some XHTML tags and it did seem to work out. I’m going to repost without the tags. ecthompson, can you please delete my 1:40 am post? Thanks.