What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
335 Comments
- rpi22, on 01/24/2008, -20/+188"How will you pay for roads, and schools, and the government?!?!"
Income tax doesnt pay for any of these. Gas tax pays for roads, property tax pays for schools, sales tax payes for government. Unemployment tax pays for unemployment benefits. Social security tax pays for social security. Where does income tax go? FLUSH! - Azzrael, on 01/24/2008, -13/+146This was a point brought up by Ron Paul in an interview (or maybe it was one of the debates). He was asked that since he wanted to eliminate the IRS what he would replace it with. He said 'nothing' because without the income tax the Federal government would still have about the same revenue it had in 2000. While Huckabee wants to replace the income tax with the fair tax (sales tax), Ron Paul just wants to eliminate it completely.
- blindhammer, on 01/24/2008, -7/+124Why do people complain about the income tax? I mean, I'm happy that a fair portion of my income goes to pay for national infrastructure, the EPA and ... oh wait. It just goes to pay off interest on our debt.
#@$&^#*$&^ taxes. - chazizzle, on 01/24/2008, -10/+105but how will you pay Halliburton?
- Jeffmr1, on 01/24/2008, -5/+60Could you imagine life for the near-poor without an income tax? More money for food, education, medicine etc. That's around a 30% pay increase for anyone earning an 'income'.
- rpi22, on 01/24/2008, -6/+44no, corporate income tax pays for that.
- deadmoo, on 01/24/2008, -1/+36With arrest warrants.
- geekchic, on 01/24/2008, -6/+39Now adjust the figures for inflation as well.
- Jeffmr1, on 01/24/2008, -5/+37Are you kidding me? The near poor definitely pay income tax, trust me...i've been near poor for most of my life, and why the quotes around near poor? It's a real term, meaning anyone above the poverty level who still cannot afford basic necessities.
- stoanhart, on 01/24/2008, -2/+30He has brought it up many, many times. It's one of his main points.
Here is something I don't understand, though. I don't live in the States, but I am still a big Ron Paul supporter; I think 90% of his views are spot on. Real freedom, personal responsibility, sound money - I hope that if Paul can bring those things to the US, some of his message will spread up here to Canada too. However, all of those are points you have to "get" - not something the average TV-ad voter really does.
However, if I try to put myself in the shoes of one the "sheeple," as they are so lovingly referred to here on Digg, I can not imagine anything that would excite me more than not paying taxes. That's a ***** load of extra money! I am wondering why that point alone is not enough to get the mainstream population excited about Ron Paul. - Berkana, on 01/24/2008, -3/+26The Grace commission report, carried out during the Regan Administration, had the following finding about the individual income tax:
"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services tax payers expect from government."
( I got that from an interview with Peter Gibbons, starting at 18:38 into the following video:
From Freedom to Fascism: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ... )
Here's the root of the problem: all the money we have in circulation is borrowed. When the government borrows money from the Federal Reserve (by selling the Fed government bonds that accrue interest, which the Fed buys with brand new dollars it just prints up or types into an account as check-book money) and spends it into the economy, it must pay that money back with interest. And of course, the burden of raising all that money on top of what was borrowed falls on us, the tax payers. Ask yourself: why does the government continue to let this ridiculous system continue? Why does it legally permit a private banking cartel, the Federal Reserve, issue our money, where every last dollar has to be paid back with interest, and as to be continually borrowed for there to be money in our economy? We need money that permanently circulates, without eventually going back into the coffers of a bank to be re-borrowed at interest just to be in circulation.
This is an extremely important issue. People need to be aware of the crisis facing our dollar, and the remedy: abolishing fractional reserve banking and take back the power to issue money from the banks and the Federal Reserve, and give that power back to the government. See this for background:
Our Debt Based Monetary System and its Consequences:
http://www.digg.com/business_finance/Our_Debt_base ... - ccheath, on 01/24/2008, -0/+22paul has brought this up more than once, i'm pretty sure
- Richandler, on 01/24/2008, -3/+25We do pay corporate tax, but at least we get something out of it like a useful product. Income tax is just you working for the government, not even yourself.
- deadmoo, on 01/24/2008, -6/+26That difference can be made up by gutting all useless departments that do nothing but prop up government subsidized monopolies and interfere with the market.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -0/+2013th (1865) - Slavery abolished
16th (1913) - Federal taxes on income
You may be talking about U.S. Citizenship, blacks, and the post Civil War time period, I'm not sure. Please clarify! - noahhoward, on 01/24/2008, -1/+19We shouldn't get the loans.
- lvp1138, on 01/24/2008, -2/+20Look, even if we couldn't eliminate the income tax completely, even dropping it by 50% would be a huge boom to the economy...
- thall, on 01/24/2008, -1/+19As the cost of living approaches that income tax exemption limit, the more "near poor" people feel the effects of income tax.
- scrappyvintage, on 01/24/2008, -3/+21No, No, No. Income tax pays off INTEREST people. Interest on loans provided to us by our friends at the federal reserve. It's the price of paper currency.
- jlhoben, on 01/24/2008, -9/+26Get rid of the Fed. Unfortunately, this crisis will lead to a push for a common north american currency which will solve nothing but will only undermine the nation states which protect our rights and our (albeit declining) economic interests.
- solistus, on 01/24/2008, -1/+18FairTax is not just a "simplified tax code." It's essentially a massive sales tax to replace all other forms of taxation. Sales tax is about the most regressive and bad-for-growth tax out there.
- jeffiek, on 01/24/2008, -1/+17That would create a big problem. The White House would be vacant.
Wait... let me rethink that. OK, not a problem. - inactive, on 01/24/2008, -7/+22here is a hint about where the income tax money goes.
If you add up all the income taxes paid anually by everyone earning below 250k a year in the US, you get the amount that we now pay to CONTRACTORS in iraq. Not our own homegrown military service folks, but the contractors that get better armor, better weapons and better training.
I can point out everything that is wrong with that, but I am sure everyone hear is intelligent enough to understand the waste.
before income tax, which is unconstitutional, the only legal taxes levied on businesses was, and is still the exact amount that is given to fund the military. It is that way because it is legal and constitutional. You will notice that income taxes manage to go around the military to do things like fund contractors. - sigg14, on 01/24/2008, -1/+16roughly 100% of federal income tax from individual citizens goes directly to the federal reserve to pay the interest on the money they print for us. money that according to our constitution our government is allowed to and supposed to print ourselves without having to pay interest. the federal income tax was created in 1913 the same year the federal reserve was created. all of this money goes to bankers, it is extortion not tax
- apc3161, on 01/24/2008, -6/+20Ok, I'm as big of a Ron Paul fan as anybody out there, but this is just wrong. How do I know that? Because I did the analysis this past weekend for a friend of mine who is running for congress. I'll copy my email to him right here, but I'm going to start with the conclusion:
---Conclusion---
Adjusted for inflation, to get rid of just the individual income tax, we would have to revert to 1977 spending levels. To get rid of both the individual and corporate income tax, we would have to revert to 1972 spending levels. This of course will be difficult, but as you said, the United States SHOULD be a tax haven, both for companies and for individuals, now we have some data and we know where to start.
---end of conclusion---
I thought I would do some income tax calculations for you cause I'm sure you're busy and the other night you said you wanted to know this in your speech. I am consulting these two references.
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/data/historical.pdf (government budget data)
http://www.westegg.com/inflation (inflation calculator)
Most up to date data is from 2006.
2006 revenues = $2.4 trillion
2006 revenues from individual income tax = $1 trillion
2006 revenues from corporate income tax = $ 350 billion
2006 revenues - 2006 individual income tax = 2.4 - 1 = $1.4 trillion
This is the amount of money our government would have to work worth with, with no individual income tax. With no regard to inflation, $1.4 trillion was how much the federal government spent in 1993. However, obviously inflation changes things up a bit because 1993 dollars aren't equal to 2006 dollars. Based on the assumption that the federal budget has only increased in the past few decades, with inflation accounted for, 1977 is the first year that 1.4 trillion 2006 dollars will fund all government expenditures.
1.4 trillion 2006 dollars is equal to 409 billion 1977 dollars. 409 billion 1977 dollars was the federal budget in 1977. Thus, inflation accounted for, if we were to eliminate the individual income tax tomorrow, the government would have to shrink to its 1977 level, when adjusted for inflation. Again, disregarding inflation it would have to revert to its 1993 level, but it is very deceptive to say that.
If we were to eliminate both federal and corporate taxes tomorrow, the government would be left with $1.1 trillion. Via the same procedure as before, adjusted for inflation, we would have to revert the government to its size in 1972. In 1972 the government spent 230 billion 1972 dollars. 230 billion 1972 dollars is equal to 1.1 trillion 2006 dollars.
p.s - income tax includes capital gains and dividend taxes as well. So they too are gone in this analysis.
----
end of email. I personally have no problem going back to 1972 spending levels. I think it would be great for this country for so many reasons, but that is a discussion for another day. - dsmx, on 01/24/2008, -7/+21Income tax is used to pay off the interest from the loans the government has taken out. This makes it illegal under the constitution and you don't have to pay it. They will claim the 13th amendment made it legal, but it didn't. Look into it yourself you could save yourself a fourtune by not paying it.
- mikeyeah, on 01/24/2008, -3/+17The Federal Income Tax = Biggest scam in US history
- FTLJohnson, on 01/24/2008, -2/+15The poor are FAR more likely to pay taxes... How may poor people do you know that run their own business, or do independent contracting? Exactly... McDonald's and walmart take out the income tax and social security tax out of every paycheck... also.. the poorer you are - you are FAR less likely to live over 65 to collect social security. The Government system is designed to rape America. Most people are FAR too stupid to figure that out... I'm sure they'll start replying to me any moment now...
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16In the end though, we pay for corporate income taxes. They get passed along in the price of the product, just like all the other costs of doing business (like labor and raw materials).
- lvp1138, on 01/24/2008, -0/+13No. The HUGE federal government we have today is 1/3 income tax. The other 2/3s are corporate income tax, tariffs, import tariffs, oil taxes, etc.
- noahhoward, on 01/24/2008, -1/+14Because it has been repeatedly hammered into us that libertarian policies would get rid of roads fire departments and everything else. My college level political science professor told us as much point blank. The fog of ***** is thinning for me at least, the "cost of government" goes up year after year as they grow larger and give themselves pay-raises and bonuses. Even 10 years ago thy were taking more than we need. It's time for change.
- Metalmoon, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16"I am wondering why that point alone is not enough to get the mainstream population excited about Ron Paul."
People aren't excited about Paul because the MSM has cut him out and labeled him a fringe candidate. Most voters would rather just vote for the lesser of evils, or vote for who their friends and family are voting. - Snarfy, on 01/24/2008, -3/+16If banks make money out of nothing, and government gives the banks this power through fractional reserve banking laws, why does our government borrow money at interest from banks when it can do exactly the same thing for itself without interest? That's the question we all need to be asking our government right now.
- trumpetmn, on 01/24/2008, -0/+12Read more closely next time..."Adjust for inflation, and the gap widens to a roughly 30 percent shortfall."
- TheSeptimHeir, on 01/24/2008, -0/+12Wrong. The founders DID foresee that Government could one day become overreaching (see: Hamilton-Jefferson debates). They even took steps to protect us from it (see: Article V of the Constitution). Unfortunately, not only are people largely unaware of provisions such as Article V, they also seem disillusioned and unwilling to do what is necessary to right the ship. The "blood" that Americans had back when we revolted against Britain is all but spent - we're all submissive now, and it's killing the country.
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -21/+32The "near poor" would likely not pay any income tax anyway. If you want to help them, eliminate the sales tax. And certainly don't go down the path of a so-called "FairTax."
- lndmn01, on 01/24/2008, -5/+16Just getting rid of the IRS would probably cover the difference...
- inactive, on 01/24/2008, -3/+14Who knew Digg was full of economists?
- ferrariman60, on 01/24/2008, -2/+13"Social security tax pays for social security." Just wanted to point out that it barely covers SS right now, but in the future, it really really won't. I'd say as early as 10 years, social security is ***** like you wouldn't believe. I don't think many people do realize how huge the coming storm is- and that's the only reason something hasn't been done about it. Of course, it doesn't help that when the founders created it they didn't take the increasing life expectancy into account, but that's just one example. There are many fundamental problems, but no one will be happy with what has to happen, workers or old people.
- intangible, on 01/24/2008, -2/+12NO TAX is quite a bit simpler methinks.
- GrubFisher, on 01/24/2008, -0/+9"(Besides guys, Paul isn't going to win. So why not Barack?)"
Because I don't vote based strictly on who the media tells me is "going to win." I vote based on my beliefs and if you don't, well.. Don't complain if it gets worse because you only voted for the "lesser evil." A multitude of lesser evils we barely want someday combines to make the full evil we never want. - inactive, on 01/24/2008, -1/+10If any of you have worked in washington D.C around the federal government for any amount of time than you understand how much waste there is of your tax money. People sleeping at their desks, reading the newspaper all day, taking 2 hour lunches to go jogging, leaving early to catch their car pools, people promoted and hired only because they meet some quota, political appointees that are too dumb to work any place else, etc, etc. The whole town is broken and survives only from the redistribution of wealth from the rest of the country. 700,000 government employees and another 700,000 government contractors. The whole town is a total waste of money and if it was left to survive on it's own it would turn into one big crack den the most dangerous place on earth. No return on your investment or tax dollars. Get rid of the income tax and close down 85% of the federal government. You think for a second the federal government is good at anything go check out any indian reservation, new orleans, any southern border town, a national park, Bahgdad, wait in line while TSA screens you, apply for passport, apply for a visa, go visit the IRS, wait for new drug to get approved, drive on an interstate, etc, etc
- amiches, on 01/24/2008, -7/+16http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/1 ...
Saying things are true doesn't make it so. - rpi22, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8now who's not looking at the right column? Uh, YOU!
- scrappyvintage, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9Exactly. It's the interest we pay for with income taxes, nothing else.
- DesignerDave, on 01/24/2008, -0/+8Terrible logic there kopf1988. If you're going to let the corporate Media tell you who is going to, and who is not going to win, you might as well just let them choose the winner themselves.
Think for yourself buddy. I don't mean this in a negative way (a lot of people are letting the media doing the thinking these days). You don't have to be one of them. Help others think for themselves too. - solistus, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9No, it's the price of idiotic economic policies. Plenty of countries have paper currencies based on a fiat money system and don't have crippling debt. The US is a special case. Hint: it has something to do with spending as much on military as the next 15 biggest spenders combined.
- tdrizzle, on 01/24/2008, -9/+17Sweet, good thing the cost of maintaining the United States infrastructure haven't increased at all.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 01/24/2008, -1/+9And the "Fairy to Nowhere."
- Berkana, on 01/24/2008, -2/+9"100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the federal debt. All individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services tax payers expect from government."
From the Grace Commission report, carried out during the Reagan Administration. See 18:38 into this video, where Peter Gibbons is interviewed on this subject, where he reads from the Grace Commission report: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-165688030 ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 336 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is