eglamkowski's Journal: individual income tax

Looking at the historical tables in the 2008 budget http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy08/browse.html

If you take the outlays from 2000 and subtract that from the estimated outlays for 2007, the difference is $995,051.

The 2000 budget had a surplus (*cough*) of $236,241.

$995,051 + $236,241 = $1,231,292

The individual income tax in 2007 is estimated to bring in $1,168,846.

If the feds were to cut back spending to 2000 levels (which were entirely too much for my tastes to begin with, but it'd be a helluva lot better than current spending), we could ENTIRELY ELIMINATE the individual income tax, and still have a small surplus to boot.

*rolls eyes*

Bush a conservative? Only if you misuse the word to mean completely the opposite of what it is supposed to mean... Unless you are referring to his commitment to conserve big government spending...

Forget the Fair Tax and a revenue neutral replacement for the income tax, just return to 2000 spending levels and kill the income tax completely, replacing it with nothing at all!

Dear eglamkowski,

[RailGunner]

Please run for Congress.
Sincerely,
RailGunner

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Are you sure? The biggest difference in spending between the 2000 budget and the REAL expenditures for 2007 is the Iraqi Occupation.....

Re:

[eglamkowski]

Not at all. In absolute dollars, the increase in National Defense spending was 277,475 vs. a total budget increase during that time of 995,051. That means 28% of the increase in the spending can attributed to national defense expenditures.

It's the social spending that is the real culprit - in the "human resources" bucket of the budget (including social security, medicare, education, etc) the increase was $643,397, which is 65% of the increase.

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But don't two of those have their OWN tax sources, separate from the general income tax?

Re:

[eglamkowski]

I'm in John Linder's district - Linder is the author of H.R. 25 (The Fair Tax). Unfortunately, Boortz and Linder have successfully brainwashed the state of Georgia into thinking the Fair Tax is the greatest thing ever dreamed up, so it would be damn tough to win that seat.

if only

[Bill Dog]

Bush a conservative? Only if you misuse the word to mean completely the opposite of what it is supposed to mean... Unless you are referring to his commitment to conserve big government spending...

Bush 43 is a social conservative. And very strongly so. Fiscally, he's somewhat "moderate" -- pro- lowering many kinds of taxes, pro-business/growth, but pro- some increased spending towards social programs. But he warned us all about that, with his "Compassionate Conservative" candidate rhetoric. And don't forget

Re:

[Marxist Hacker 42]

But what we do have is an actual leader. Where leadership is sticking with something you know is important, and right, despite taking much heat for it. Unlike, say Bill Clinton, who preferred to lick his finger and stick it up in the air to see which way the wind was blowing, to decide where to "lead" us. We would've been out of Iraq in the beginnings of the post-Saddam resistance, and it would be an unfettered terrorist breeding queen bee of a country right now. (Which, incidently will happen, under Clinto