So, apparently a few days ago on the Jay Leno show, Ron Paul made the claim that getting rid of the federal personal income tax would only cut federal revenues to the point they were at in the year 2000. The Washington Post, in nitpicking him revealed a rather depressing bit of information (my emphasis):
Expounding on his proposal for abolishing the income tax, Paul claims this would still leave the U.S. Treasury with roughly the revenues it had in 2000, in the final year of the Clinton administration. A post on the Paul campaign website explains that individual income taxes account for “approximately one third of federal revenue.” Unfortunately for the tax slashers, the one-time Libertarian candidate for president is wrong on both counts. According to the Congressional Budget Office, individual income taxes represent between 45 and 49 percent of federal tax revenues, depending on the year. For financial year 2007, total receipts from individual income tax were in the region of $1.1 trillion dollars. If you eliminated all that revenue, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was around 1995.
So, if you eliminated about half of the federal government’s revenue, you would only get it back down to the anarchist utopia of 12 years ago? What that implies about how fast the federal government has grown in the past 12 years is truly depressing. Over those 12 years, the US population grew about 15% from (~261M to ~301M this year), while the federal government grew by over 100%. So, what exactly are we getting now for that extra $1.1 Trillion that we weren’t getting then?
Is it just me, or are they actually making Ron Paul’s case for him?