Getting Rid of the Income Tax

[activeaero]

I also have a plan to deal with Social Security that basically reduces the amount of benefits received in proportion to the rate of reduced taxes and how long you you have paid into the system.

BTW these numbers are just for example to show how the plan would work. The plan would have a specific start date.

Everyone that's 60+ years old at the start date of the first year of the plan would receive 100% of their Social Security benefits since they've paid into the system their entire life and would only have between 0-5 years to benefit from the our new reduced income tax before being eligible for SS.

Now with everyone else in the country below 60 years of age they will receive a reduced benefit percentage based on their age.

For instance if you're 59 years old you'll only receive 99.75% of the original benefits. If you're 58 you'll receive 99.50%, 57 receives 99.25%, etc all the way down the line.


HOWEVER, at this same time for everyone below 60 years of age will get a yearly cut in the amount of social security that is drawn from their paycheck equal to a percentage that's less than the reduced amount of benefits they will see upon retirement. Let's just say for the sake of this example that every year everyone's social security taxes are reduced by .25%.

So every year the social security benefits for individuals would go down .5% while at the same time Social Security revenues are dropping .25% which means Social Security would actually be GAINING .25% in revenues every year (compared to it's pay out) while at the same time everyone's Social Security taxes would be going DOWN.

Of course people would whine about reduced benefits but that's why I set the age for the program at 60 (5 years before people get SS). You are getting reduced benefits yes but you are also being taxed LESS and can put that money into a far better earning retirement count.

This means the people furthest from retirement would have the lowest percentage of benefits but they would also have the most reduced amount of social security taxes which they could use to prepare themselves with.

After a while social security would be eliminated without going bankrupt and it was done at a very gradual and non-shocking pace.

 

[Dr.3D]

Looks like a very well thought out plan.

 

[Black Dude]

Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing is simply not feasible.

Getting rid of the income tax it getting rid of $1.1 trillion from the Treasury.

How could we cut spending to account for such a loss of revenue? I want to see numbers please, even if they are rough.

My thinking was that you can't get rid of all the department of defense. I am not seeing where we get this $1.1 trillion cut in spending from.

Ron Paul signing in the FairTax is how he will get rid of the income tax. After he is done cutting spending, the sales tax will be down below 20%. Corporate income taxes and payroll taxes will be gone, the cost of goods will drop, jobs will come back to the US because businesses here will be able to compete on price. Life will be good.

 

[danish]

Ron Paul signing in the FairTax is how he will get rid of the income tax. After he is done cutting spending, the sales tax will be down below 20%. Corporate income taxes and payroll taxes will be gone, the cost of goods will drop, jobs will come back to the US because businesses here will be able to compete on price. Life will be good.

What the heck are you talking about? That's not exactly how these things work. I wish it were the case but it isn't. Furthermore Ron isn't for the "fair tax". He's for no tax at all. The fair tax isn't what people claim it is. It doesn't eliminate spending. That's why you see goons like huckabee in love with it.

 

[Fudwamper]

Activeaevo

That is also how you would work to phase out the Income Tax it's self, just in a reverse order with government spending.

For arguments sake lets say we dropped our military spending by say 123 billion dollars. That puts us at the same as the rest of the world combined.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm

Now with that we can take use part of that on our debt say half. That leaves us with 61.5 billion dollars. Take that 61.5 out of the Income Tax at the lowest level.

Now take the Dept of Education. Its budget is 67.2 Billion. (Obviously The American people are not getting their monies worth.) 57.5b on discretionary spending and 9.7b on mandatory. You never take any of the States money to this and you gut the whole bureaucracy spending for operating and maintaining. Again use the same principle Take half the money we are saving on operating fees and pay to the debt. Never take the other half from the people now paying in the new lowest bracket and now they have their taxes lowered or not paying any.

http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/index.html

As the lower economic classes get to keep more of their money there is less of a strain on welfare and less money is need in that appropriations. Again rinse and repeat.

Now this said it all depends on staying with a balanced budget.

 

[Truth Warrior]

Is there an opportunity here for the free market? Let all of those who want "whatever" just all join together and pay for it all themselves. Everyone else can just choose to opt out. The Dems can have their welfare state and the Reps can have their warfare state. This all seems pretty self-regulating to me.

I'm definitely "pro-choice" on both taxes and spending.

 

[losinglife]

Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing is simply not feasible.

Getting rid of the income tax it getting rid of $1.1 trillion from the Treasury.

How could we cut spending to account for such a loss of revenue? I want to see numbers please, even if they are rough.

My thinking was that you can't get rid of all the department of defense. I am not seeing where we get this $1.1 trillion cut in spending from.

go away fag

 

[TonySutton]

Okay, but what's wrong with protecting our borders against intrusion?

Absolutely nothing, I was adding to your suggestion not taking away from it.

 

[Lafayette]

go away fag

Come now losinglife, this isnt the DF OT forums






Originally Posted by raheelp
"Getting rid of the income tax and replacing it with nothing is simply not feasible.

Getting rid of the income tax it getting rid of $1.1 trillion from the Treasury.

How could we cut spending to account for such a loss of revenue? I want to see numbers please, even if they are rough.

My thinking was that you can't get rid of all the department of defense. I am not seeing where we get this $1.1 trillion cut in spending from."


We're not talking about just bringing the troops home from around the world (though thats a start) We're tlaking about ending aid to all these ungreatful nations aswell.

That still not enough for you?
Ok then lets cut domestic spending. Department of Education ? What the hell do they do anyway? Department of gimmie your toothpaste! (Homeland Security?) FEMA ?

While we are at it, those Senators and Congressmen could use a budget cut (Paul returned 75k of his budget this year) while we are at it, they all need a pay cut too.

Illegal alien walfare?


Special interest pork and subsidizes?




Its mind bogling how we ever got along without the Income tax before 1913

 

[WRellim]

This makes sense if you can back it up but...

Having troops abroad doesn't come anywhere near 1.1 TRILLION dollars (or 800 billion) a year. That $1.2T is 44% of the fed. budget. Defense spending is only 18%. And that includes ALL defense spending (not counting supplemental bills, which would tack on a FEW percent.) The actual costs of keeping troops abroad in germany/japan/korea is only a small fraction of that 18%.

Actually defense spending is significantly higher than that.

The problem is that you are accepting the Gummint's figures at face value, and they are essentially fraudulent.

Virtually all of the "supplemental" war-spending bills for Afghanistan and Iraq are "off-book" and are NOT INCLUDED in the "budget" calculations that show the percentages and totals there.

Plus, a lot of the expenditures for maintaining foreign military presence in Europe, etc are categorized as "non-defense" spending.

And do you have ANY idea how many US
In addition, there are the large (and largely hidden) foreign government subsidies (often constructed as "loans" related to weapons purchases, like the recent $20B deal for Saudi Arabia) which do not show up under defense spending, or if they do, often show up (erroneously) as CREDITS.

The government's bookkeeping is so far off from reality that it is a literally unfathomable *mess* -- any PRIVATE company that kept its accounts like that would have its officers living in Leavenworth in very short order.

Think ENRON, only 100 times worse.

 

[IrishUp]

Reader's Digest report suggests that there is at least $1 trillion in waste and fraud alone:
http://www.rd.com/national-interest...ment-is-wasting-your-tax-dollars/article.html

GOP Senator estimates the war in Iraq costs $15 million an hour.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/26/AR2007122601542_pf.html
15 million x 24 hours = 360 million x 365 days = 131,400,000,000 a year

Including hidden costs, war could cost $1.6 trillion by 2009:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/hidden.war.costs/index.html

There you go.