Categories





The Phaserl








TheLibertyMill


‘When I Say Cut Taxes, I Don’t Mean Fiddle With the Code. I Mean Abolish the Income Tax and the IRS, and Replace Them With Nothing’

by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog:

The quote in the headline comes from Ron Paul, and it should be the goal of every conservative lawmaker in the entire country. When professional politicians tell you that they are in favor of reforming the tax code or reducing taxes a little bit, essentially what they are telling you is that they are perfectly fine with the status quo. They may want to tweak things slightly, but in general they are content with big taxes, big spending and big government. I spent an entire year getting a Master of Laws in Taxation at the University of Florida Law School, and in my opinion the best thing that Congress could do to the tax code would be to run it through a shredder and put it in a dumpster. As I noted the other day, the tax code is now more than four million words long and it takes Americans about six billion dollars a year to comply with it. Those that believe that they are offering the American people a “solution” by proposing to tinker with this abominable mess are just fooling themselves.

The only long-term solution that is going to work is to get rid of the entire steaming pile of garbage. Ron Paul understood this, and we would be very wise to take his advice. The following is the full version of the quote from the headline above…

“By the way, when I say cut taxes, I don’t mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the income tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing.”

If I run for Congress, and I am very strongly leaning in that direction, this is what my position on taxes is going to be.

Of course we are going to have to dramatically change the composition of the House and the Senate in order to get this done, so in the short-term we may have to focus on reducing tax rates and the size of the tax code by as much as possible.

But ultimately, the goal will be to abolish the tax code and the IRS altogether.

We have become so accustomed to an income tax that many of us couldn’t possibly imagine a society without one. But today there are seven states that do not have one, and that includes very big states such as Texas and Florida. And from 1872 to 1913, there was no federal income tax. When a federal income tax was finally reinstituted in 1913, the rates were extremely low. The following comes from Politifact

The 1913 law imposed a tax of 1 percent on income up to $20,000, for both individual and joint filers. However, exemptions from the tax — the first $3,000 of income for individuals and the first $4,000 for joint filers — meant “virtually all middle-class Americans” were excused from paying, according to W. Elliot Brownlee’s book, Federal Taxation in America. The law also put in place a graduated surtax on incomes above $20,000; the highest rate paid, 7 percent, applied to Americans making more than $500,000 (about $11.4 million in 2011 dollars).

So how did things go for our country during the four decades when there was no federal income tax?

Well, if you regularly follow my work you already know the answer to that question.

That period of time just happened to be the best period of economic growth in U.S. history.

Oh, but we wouldn’t want to change from the way things work today, would we? After all, the U.S. economy has grown at a blistering average yearly rate of just 1.33 percent over the past decade, and we are actually behind that pace so far in 2017.

If you want a no growth economy and a steadily shrinking middle class, then our current system is perfect for you.

But I believe that we can do so much better.

So how are we going to fund the federal government if we eliminate the income tax?

Well, the truth is that taxing individual incomes accounts for only 46.2 percent of all federal revenue. The federal government has lots of other ways that it raises money, but of course we wouldn’t be able to keep the massively bloated federal bureaucracy that we have today. We would need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government to an appropriate constitutional level, and of course most politicians on the left would resist this greatly.

There are some federal agencies and programs that we could completely eliminate altogether. If it was up to me, the EPA, the Department of Education and the BATFE would be good places to start. Any essential functions that they are currently performing could easily be absorbed by other agencies.

There are very few politicians in our entire country that will still talk like this, because our leaders have taken us so far down the road toward “a social state” that most Americans don’t even know what “limited government” looks like anymore.

Read More @ TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

1 comment to ‘When I Say Cut Taxes, I Don’t Mean Fiddle With the Code. I Mean Abolish the Income Tax and the IRS, and Replace Them With Nothing’

  • Ed_B

    “If you want a no growth economy and a steadily shrinking middle class, then our current system is perfect for you.”

    Indeed so. About 30 years ago, our country came to a sign-post alongside the road on which we were traveling. That sign contained 2 large arrows on it. One arrow pointed to the right and read “Bigger Economy” while the other pointed to the left and read “Bigger Government”. As is so often the case, we chose poorly. We chose the direction that increases free benefits to some while reducing productivity from others. This is an incredibly stupid move to make but it is also one that many politicians see as being in their best interest, if not in the country’s best interest. It is also unsustainable, which can be proved via simple math that any 6th grade student should understand. Less government will allow for a bigger economy, more jobs, more money, and more opportunity for just about everyone. Yet this choice is avoided as if it was the plague. This is bass-ackwards because it is the big government choice that becomes the destroyer of nations via steadily rising government costs and steadily falling incomes to support the ever larger nanny (ninny?) state.

    “We would need to reduce the size and scope of the federal government to an appropriate constitutional level, and of course most politicians on the left would resist this greatly.”

    Of course they would because the only real power that politicians have is spending other people’s money. Reducing that is a direct assault on their power-base… and we simply can’t have that, now, can we? They would rather see the nation collapse into chaos and ruin than to give up ANY of their political power. Such is the nature of the crime of treason, IMO.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>