Can America exist without a Personal Income Tax, as Presidential Candidate Ron Paul suggests?

[PollM]

In your Opinion can America exist without a Personal Income Tax, as Presidential Candidate Ron Paul suggests?

-----> http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=917

.

[Selatius]

1. Sure it can, it simply won't exist as it currently does; that's the kicker

Social programs act as a form of investment. By eliminating them, you go back to the 1890s as far as government programs go, and state governments would be forced to co-opt what once were federal projects, such as the interstate highway system. Poorer states would not do as well as maintaining this infrastructure as wealthier states would, and a lot of programs that provide opportunities to poor people to get ahead would likely not exist, which would only contribute to a growing gap between the rich and the poor and lead to pools of persistent poverty in parts of country, an underclass.

[Rabo Karabekian]

2. America Could Exist, But Why Eliminate the Tax?

Of course, it can exist. But the foundations of the income tax are that it was intended to tax the rich more than anyone else. With all the tax shelters, capital gains, and all the chicanery the rich do to avoid taxes it has become a shell of what it once was. The easiest reform IMHO is to simply close loopholes. There are other more significant reforms that could take place (or we could even go to a net assets tax which is exactly what it sounds like, a tax on total assets), but eliminating this tax would take the country backwards.

[PollM]

7. Tax

Why more money to spend from your end,
Corporate America makes more money they pay tax.

[Rabo Karabekian]

10. Re:

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure I understand your point fully.

[sinkingfeeling]

3. Only if we declare the entire country bankrupt. We're already $10 trillion in the hole.

Do you think the corporations are going to kick in and pay that off?

[SteppingRazor]

4. Maybe, if we did all the other things Paul suggests...

like ending the Dept. of Education, foreign aid, most of the armed forces, and so on.


Of course, a lot of his ideas to save money are extraordinarily bad ideas, so I think a personal income tax should definitely remain in place, but it should be made as progressive as possible.

[MADem]

9. Don't forget drilling for oil and gas in Yellowstone, the Grand Canyon....

Eliminating Social Security--yeah, that's the ticket!!!

People have no fucking clue what that asshole supports. He hates children, the elderly, pretty much anyone who isn't already RICH. Those guys should get a tax break, that's his attitude.

I can't believe how much traction that guy gets here, because he has a few soundbites that sound clever...

[seasat]

5. His system would create further income disparity

Every study I've ever seen by anyone reasonably objective about it indicates that the national sales tax would be a massive tax cut for the wealthy and would raise taxes on the middle income folks. While the country could still exist, income disparity would be even worse than it is now.

[DangerDave921]

13. Fair Tax

I gotta admit, I like the idea of the Fair Tax. Please shoot me a link to whatever studies you're referring to because I do like this idea.

[FormerDittoHead]

17. It'd be helpful if you understood why we have an income tax, but here's a link to FairTax critique.

http://allanburns.com/more/index.cfm?Fuseaction=The_SoCalled_Fa§ion=more_12804
lots of good anti-FairTax stuff above and more elsewhere if you let your fingers do the googling...

[seasat]

18. Here's an article that summarizes some of the studies by Bruce Bartlett of all people.

He's the former assistant Treasury Secretary under Bush I and wrote this in the Wall Street Journal. He points out that the assumption that the rate would be 23% is based on some dodgey statistics. The real rate they are proposing is actually 30%. They also require government has to pay the tax on the items it purchases and then counts that as revenue. The real rate to make a true national sales tax with a credit for lower income folks would be just below 60% if it was made revenue neutral.

William Gale at the Brookings Institute has researched the "Fair" tax quite a bit. You can spend hours looking over his research at the Brookings site. The original authors that proposed this national sales tax even note in their book that it will represent a tax increase on the middle class. One of the most telling things about this proposal is that it's primary supporters are the Church of Scientology, the American Enterprise Institute, Neil Boortz, and Rand-Droids.

[elehhhhna]

6. Yes, if it's replaced by Gore's carbon tax plan. Ron Paul = Nut Ball

[Rageneau]

8. We existed without one for nearly 150 years and did okay.

But we can't do it again today, because we're a superpower. IOW we need all the extra money to spend on items designed to kill maim blind and destroy the lives of people who get in the way of our multinational companies making a nice profit.

[Rabo Karabekian]

11. Re:

A lot of the money in the early years was generated by tariffs. With all the free trade orthodoxy that's seeped into our national economic policy I don't think too much money is raised by tariffs these days.

[Hawkowl]

12. If we had a defensive military

We could if we had a military that wasn't grotesquely bloated and sucking the life out of us. A defensive rather than offensive military. One designed for striking and defense rather than global occupation.

[FormerDittoHead]

16. Okay? Is that what you call it? Not really.

There was slavery, indentured servitude, then the civil war. Then came the days of the robber barons, child labor, company towns - VIRTUAL slavery. THOSE were the "good old" days?

[Turbineguy]

14. I'm reading a book

the story takes place in the 12th century England. A republican paradise then.

[OHdem10]

15. Sure--Ron Paul and his GOP Followers including some on

the Hill simply have a different world view. That rugged individualism
personal responsibilty for yourself and your family. When they speak
of small government they mean minimal government. It is their heartfel
conviction that the government has no "social role". Programs like
SS, Medicare, Whatever is left of Welfare, all those depts like Labor
HHS Dept of ED. These do not belong at National Level.

You would have in Washington, The President, Congress, State Dept(much
smaller than Present) Defense Dept.

Each State would be responsible for its own citizens. Grover Norquist
holds similar views. He wants a government that is small enough to be
flushed down the bathtub.

Yes, Ron Paul's ideas are possible. Thankfully more people disagree
than agree with him at the present.