One of the reasons Ron Paul is gaining such enthusiastic support is that he is the only major party candidate calling for significant change. Besides withdrawing from Iraq, instituting a more sensible foreign policy, and reinstating our fundamental Constitutional freedoms, Ron Paul is also calling for substantial reductions in federal spending, enough to eventually end the income tax and abolish the Internal Revenue Service.

But how realistic is that goal? How would the government be able to operate without income taxes? Ron Paul points out that the federal government did just fine for the first 137 years of its existence without the income tax, which wasn't enacted until 1913. But federal spending has gone up a lot since then, so where would the reductions come from?

Ron Paul has not yet published a detailed plan, but has stated several ideas in the debates and other speeches. Withdrawing US forces from Iraq and other countries around the world would save close to $200 billion per year. Closing down the departments of Education ($56B), Energy ($23B), and Homeland Security ($32B), and ending foreign aid ($26B), could save well more than $100 billion annually. In his speech announcing his presidential bid, Ron Paul said that no real fiscal conservative could doubt that federal spending could be reduced by at least 25 percent, so expect further across-the-board budget cuts.

We may have to wait for specific proposals, but a few key facts are worth noting. In Fiscal Year 2007, individual income taxes amounted to $1.17 trillion, just 42% of the total federal outlays of $2.78 trillion. Abolishing the individual income tax would not destroy the federal government, it would only force a reduction in spending levels back to FY1997, hardly the era of small government, when the total federal budget was $1.60 trillion. In other words, we could have ALREADY abolished the income tax, if Congress and the President hadn't increased spending by 74 percent in the past ten years.

Of course, the preceding argument ignores the deficit, projected at $240 billion for FY2007. Without the individual income tax, total federal receipts would have been $1.37 trillion, requiring a reduction in spending back to FY1992 levels to balance the budget, but again, hardly the days of the robber barons and widespread starvation. Americans concerned about Social Security or Medicare payments being adversely affected by the elimination of the income tax needn't worry -- both programs are funded by FICA payroll taxes, not by federal income taxes.

Another objection often raised is the idea that only a portion of the federal budget ($854 billion in FY2007) consists of "discretionary spending," while the rest is "mandatory." These terms and the amounts are not set in stone, however, and are simply the results of existing federal law. Congress can change those laws at any time, and redefine what is "discretionary" and what is "mandatory."

Where does the rest of the federal government's revenue come from? For FY2007, corporate income taxes amounted to $342 billion, payroll (FICA) taxes brought in $873 billion, federal excise taxes totaled $56 billion, and $99 billion was labeled "other" -- consisting of estate and gift taxes ($25B), customs duties and fees ($27B), Federal Reserve deposits ($33B), and miscellaneous ($14B). Even without the individual income tax, the federal government's revenue would still be enormous.

Would Congress go along with Ron Paul's plans to cut spending significantly? If Ron Paul is elected President in 2008, it will be a clear signal that the American people want dramatic changes, including substantial tax and spending cuts. Since the primary objective of most politicians is to stay in office, those who are most adept at judging the public mood shouldn't take too long to figure that out. And the changes don't need to be pushed through in the first 100 days, or even the first year.

Simply by holding the line on spending, President Paul could gradually eliminate the income tax while in office. Federal receipts from sources other than individual income taxes have gone up by 44 percent in the past eight years. A similar increase over two terms of the Paul Administration, coupled with the savings from a non-interventionist foreign policy, could be enough to free Americans from the income tax forever, and secure Ron Paul's place in history.

__________________
www.campaignforliberty.comwww.urbangrower.com
Jessie Ventura 2012 for president.

He definatly could if everything you say is correct. I am enthusiastic about most of his proposed cuts but I still think some of the departments should stay such as education.

I know my first presidential vote will be for ron paul...well primary at least.

Ron Paul doesn't believe the Federal Government should control how we educate our children, I don't either. why the need for more beaurocracy?
cutting the department doesn't mean cutting education, it means more local control of the system.

__________________
www.campaignforliberty.comwww.urbangrower.com
Jessie Ventura 2012 for president.

A good point. Enjoyed your first post too, well done.

Here in Nevada we enjoy no state income tax, the gambling tax offsets the loss, however, if our state was to lose federal funding for our schools, I'm pretty sure there would be a huge state income tax instituted. In Las Vegas alone there are 3500-5000 people a month moving here, we build 8-12 new schools every year, where would the money for that come from, Our property tax would double or tripple, fuck that. We need federal assistance with our schools. I realize that our congressmen do not spend wisely and they are all looking for pork, but the federal income tax is the fairest way to fund the countries programs. A flat tax would only benefit the wealthy. A federal sales tax would also benefit the wealthy. The only fair tax is a step tax with the wealthiest paying the highest portion, like it was before the Bush tax cuts.

__________________
Life is good, the water is sweet. The ground keeps moving beneath my feet.

No he would be assasinated. But damnit we should try anyways. And don't pay your taxes. There's no law that you have to. The Federal income tax is an illegal tax to pay for the illegal inflation tax. It's all a trap that they have us fooled into accepting. Fuck the IRS, I'll never pay again

__________________
"The world is yours and everything in it. It's out there. Get on your grind and get it."- Young Jeezy

Give me a break Med, why do you feel that you are entitled to my tax money becasue your state cannot run itself in proper business fashion, e.g., without a deficit.

You only get more of what you subsidize. Your state has no incentive to solve the problem because the federal government has made it fiscally hard to do so. I guarantee you that citizens in your state would find a solution to your education problem and voice that desire to your local government if the federal government got out of the eduction system like they should.

And besides, it not in the Constitiution that they should be doing it anyway!

for real guy, pay your state and local tax and save on the federal tax. since you elect your local and state officials, youd have to pick someone that wont put you in a deficit or over budget. but thats the states problem and not a federal right or obligation. basically its just a way for them to collect funds and do next to nothing with them besides line their own pockets. its funny how people think the income tax pays for roads, military, education, the street lights, yet it does none of these things. and yes, an income tax is unconstitutional. it is an unapportioned tax which is not distributed equally and therefore unconstitutional. Ron Paul is all about the CONSTITUTION!!! You remember, that long piece of paper written by the guys who created America? Yeah, those first ten amendments are called the Bill of Rights, remember those from elementary school? I bet not many people can think of half of them, let alone all the other amendments and rights and privledges the constitution affords us Americans.
He is brilliant and knows what is going on in this country. He isnt a huffing puffing politician, he just happens to be a politician who would build this country up instead of tear it down. the others are too concerned with Party issues and winning the election, Dr. Ron Paul is concerned with the issues in America, not in Hillary or Obama. He isnt concerned with Mitt or Rudy or Fuckabee, hes concerned with YOU!!! He is concerned with the 50 United States of America. This by the way is the original intent of our forefathers, a weak federal governement and a strong local and state government with most laws being made by the states. sorry if im rambling but the first step peeps is to register republican. i know its hard since you want to say no, im a cool democrat. however, they are all the same in todays government. traditionally however republican is where you want to be. Dr. Paul is by far the most democratic republican out there. Hillary is a damn republican in a not so subtle disguise. shes just a politician. tells you what she thinks you want to hear and smears her competition. and then says sorry after it and blames it on her "people." please. what kind of "leader" cant lead their staff let alone a nation? RON PAUL 2008 dot COM. youtube it, google him, spread the word. if everyone gets five people to vote it would be huge, and then they continue this trend and we, the people, make changes through OUR elected leaders. BTW I will go crazy if Dr. Paul doesnt get elected, and may just move out of the country.

__________________
Ya Digg?

flat tax does nothing either. the income tax doesnt work no matter how it is given, and it is unconstitutional. its meant for those who make profits, such as those who own a company. those who have employees and pay them less than what they make for the company. those who earn a wage arent making profits as their wage is AN EQUAL TRADE of labor for funds. please read the constitution. its all there. wonder why the government run Dept of Education doesnt make that part of our school programs. our basic rights as Americans. that would not be good for them would it? why do we always vote for the richest people who are nothing like us, the people? and they are not accountable for anything they do. its absurd.

__________________
Ya Digg?

Well said Magus. I might have to come with you if Dr. Paul doesn't win.

__________________
"The world is yours and everything in it. It's out there. Get on your grind and get it."- Young Jeezy