Ron Paul supports the elimination of the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). He asserts that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and has called for the repeal of the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on February 3, 1913.
An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes. Its implementation wrongly suggests that the government owns the lives and labor of the citizens it is supposed to represent. Tellingly, “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax” is Plank #2 of the Communist Manifesto, which was written by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and first published in 1848.
To provide funding for the federal government, Ron Paul supports excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs, massive cuts in spending.
Ron Paul discusses the income tax and the “FAIR Tax” in May 2007:
On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:
“I want to abolish the income tax, but I don’t want to replace it with anything. About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent — over half of all revenue — comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.
We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don’t need to “replace” the income tax at all. I see a consumption tax as being a little better than the personal income tax, and I would vote for the Fair-Tax if it came up in the House of Representatives, but it is not my goal. We can do better.”
On May 7, 2001, Ron Paul wrote the following column:
The Case Against the Income Tax
Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck. In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.
Yet don’t we need an income tax to fund the important functions of the federal government? You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Only 10 years ago, the federal budget was roughly one-third less than it is today. Surely we could find ways to cut spending back to 1990 levels, especially when the Treasury has single year tax surpluses for the past several years. So perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all.
The harmful effects of the income tax are obvious. First and foremost, it has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper constitutional limits, regulating virtually every aspect of our lives. It has given government a claim on our lives and work, destroying our privacy in the process. It takes billions of dollars out of the legitimate private economy, with most Americans giving more than a third of everything they make to the federal government. This economic drain destroys jobs and penalizes productive behavior. The ridiculous complexity of the tax laws makes compliance a nightmare for both individuals and businesses. All things considered, our Founders would be dismayed by the income tax mess and the tragic loss of liberty which results.
America without an income tax would be far more prosperous and far more free, but we must be prepared to fight to regain the liberty we have lost incrementally over the past century. I recently introduced “The Liberty Amendment,” legislation which would repeal the 16th Amendment and effectively abolish the income tax. I truly believe that real tax reform, reform that so many frustrated Americans desperately want, requires bold legislation that challenges the Washington mind set. Congress talks about reform, but the current tax debate really involves nothing of substance. Both parties are content to continue tinkering with the edges of the tax code to please various special interests. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.
Is it impossible to end the income tax? I don’t believe so. In fact, I believe a serious groundswell movement of disaffected taxpayers is growing in this country. Millions of Americans are fed up with the current tax system, and they will bring pressure on Congress. Some sidestep Congress completely, bringing legal challenges questioning the validity of the tax code and the 16th Amendment itself. Ultimately, the Liberty Amendment could serve as a flashpoint for these millions of voices.
- Ron Paul: Income Tax = Involuntary Servitude In his latest column, Ron Paul talks about Tax Freedom Day, a hypothetical holiday which...
- Ron Paul Signs “No Climate Tax Pledge” The Texas chapter of the free-market grassroots group Americans for Prosperity (AFP-TX) today applauded U.S....
- Ron Paul the Radical? For more than 30 years Ron Paul has been a lone voice of reason in...
[...] hand, some amendments have run wholly contrary to these principles, including and especially the 16th amendment (which provided for a direct income tax) and the 17th amendment (which destroyed [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What happening in US is that ruling elite, successfully merged into the Government and stipulated most of the Laws and Constitutional rights in THEIR favor. For some time the US citizens were simply unaware of such tragedy and only some individuals were able to digg it up and comprehend. With help of the Internet it all revealed and available to the masses.
So by realizing that our “rulers” decided to compromize freshly growing “tea parties” by intrusion and implantation into modest and healthy movements THEIR agents of influence. So this is why there is a “fare taxation” in talks. And thats why there so many people disregarded to join these parties. Thats the “rulers” plan.
Instead of “open fight” in the Court of Law they simply distroyed our wills in the beginning. So now we have to go and clean our lines from these who been paid “by anonymous sponsors” to lead the croud to a “soft and tangible resolution”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To get a better understanding of the way things are, go here and start watching the videos:
http://www.creditorsincommerce.com
these are free:
http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/videos-watch.php
the rest require a small donation:
http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/videos-download.php
This should help clarify the context in which we now exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
ok. I totally agree with abolishing the IRS. But let’s get our facts straight. The tax laws and the 16th amendment actually don’t make most people liable (legally) for a tax on the fruit of their labor anyway. Let’s just abolish the IRS as a fraudulent extortion racket. To understand the “income tax” takes a bit of study though. The 16th amendment, although deceptively worded, did NOT legalize a direct tax on the “income” of anyone. http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/04/16/greenslade.htm
Also, the income tax, according to the internal revenue code (Title 26 – http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26 ) is an excise tax – not a direct tax. As such, it does NOT apply to most Americans – it is a tax on federal privilege. Go here to learn more: http://www.losthorizons.com/ . You have to wade through a bit of hype at losthorizons, but Pete is 100% correct on on his assessment of the situation. The income tax is bogus but not for the reasons most people think.
The fact is this: The IRS and the Federal Reserve are unnecessary and in fact very destructive of freedom and a healthy economy.
They can both be easily jettisoned if only we had the collective balls to do it. But, beware: The people behind these institutions can and will bring other armies against us if we do this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just get rid of all govt. It is evil anyway, we are like Rome, stealing 2/3 of the worlds property, oil and other things. Then we have to PAY for it! What a rip! Funding an army that murders civilians abroad under ‘terror’ which is a lie too. But I see barbarian tribes entering America/Rome. History repeats itself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Ron Paul [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So how do we get this ball rolling full steam?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] is the only tax method being pushed that would allow such a thing to happen (except for a plan by Ron Paul that abolishes the 16th Amendment and also stops the government from collecting income taxes) even [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I went to a tea party last night and was unhappy to see a lot of “fair tax” signs in the crowd. They don’t even have the guts to call it what it is, a federal sales tax, so they call it a “fair tax”. To me, that’s not what the tea parties are about, replacing one bloated federal tax with another. It’s about putting an end to the federal government over stepping its constitutional bounds. A big part of that over stepping is brought about by the money the federal government takes from us as citizens. Money is power. The more money they have, the more power they have. The more power they have, the easier it is to side step the constitution and do whatever they want to do. Let’s call a constitutional convention and drive a stake through the heart of the problem and repeal the 16th amendment.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Additionally, it supports the granny state by “giving” each person a “prebate” monthly. What a dream for a politician….”I got money from the government again this month! What a great bunch of guys.” Makes the April refund of money the government confiscates and uses all year tax-free seem like a minor gift from granny.
Not withstanding that it is also unfair because those who had their bills for Social Security and other payroll taxes marked “paid in full” when they retired will have to start paying those bills all over again. All payroll taxes (including equivalent taxes for those who have no paycheck) will be rolled into the Un”Fair Tax”. Breaking promises at will is something only government can do with impunity. That sure seems fair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I went to a tea party on April 15, too, and became aware of the 861 Evidence, which makes it very clear that there are no laws to uphold that the average US citizen is required to pay any income tax, unless the income has derived from foreign corporations or entities. If this is the case, can Ron Paul and others in Congress get behind what is already the case. It would seem no new laws need to be passed or old ones repealed. The law as it already is doesn’t require taxes to be paid on domestic income. I believe you can find more information at http://www.861.info. The problem seems to be that the IRS and the courts will not address or defend any position on this when the 861 Evidence is raised by an individual, corporation, lawyer or CPA. According to the material I have read and watched on video, the response has been only to accelerate penalties for raising the issue, impose high fees, and threaten elimination of the source’s right to practice law, accounting, or whatever professional role. The lawyers, CPAs, and former IRS auditors commenting state that rational response and explanation from the IRS has been lacking because the 861 Evidence is the truth, and the IRS, courts, and the government at large choose to use force rather than to respond with supportable evidence to the contrary, because there is no law that supports the practice of collecting income tax on domestic income.
Does anyone know if Ron Paul or anyone in Congress is working to bring the 861 Evidence to the fore and establish legal precedent?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have in my possession 2 volumes published in 1984.
The Law That Never Was – Volume 1 and
The Law That Never Was – Volume 2
Volume 1 contains evidence that the 16th Amendment was fraudulently passed into law. In actuality only 4 states passed it, some 17 or so Constitutional Amendment documents didn’t even have the governor’s signature to ratify the document. And some 20+ documents had minor changes in language and punctuation which would nullify said documents’ legitimacy as a Constitutional Amendment.
After going to all 48 states archives, the authors went to Washington D.C. archives and discovered signatures on the 17 documents (which were forged – they compared signatures of the governors at that time (1913) with the signatures on the documents in Washington D.C.’s archives and they are without a doubt – forgeries).
Volume 2 contains civil court cases as of 1984 of citizens who sued the Federal Government regarding taxation and won – thousands of cases are listed in Volume 2!
None of this would be a problem if Congress and the Executive Branches of government would have done their job, specifically, only passing a “balanced budget” > but it appears to be a deliberate effort over time to put us all in debt > and therefore “involuntary servitude” to a government that considers only its best interest, which best interest is making all of the citizens of this country > involuntary servants!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So, what do we do about the injustice? I can’t say that I alone am willing to take the IRS to court. On Glenn Beck’s show on May 1, Judge Napolitano noted that if the States brought individual state bills/mandates to the Federal government, under the 10th amendment, to abolish the income tax and IRS that would get the ball rolling. Otherwise, we just share a noble sentiment and right thinking….leaving us only to point to a few brave citizens who were sufficiently well funded and brave to sue the IRS. We need a sweeping change of policy; the one-offs don’t serve “We the people.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I had heard of Larken Rose but not 861. But yes, basically the truth is that the DOJ, the courts, congress and basically the entire system is completely corrupt. But the truth behind all this is a little more than most can comprehend. Basically, we are all ruled by international bankers. Can’t even begin to explain it but if you start digging, it won’t be long until you come to the same conclusion. JFK was killed for trying to end the fed. I suspect there are powers behind the facade of US govt that the average person knows very little about.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I agree with you to a point…let’s abolish the 16th amendment and politicians and start over!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If an individual steals money from another person, it’s called theft. If a politician steals money, it’s called taxation. If an individual prints paper money, it’s called counterfeiting. If the Federal Reserve prints paper money, it’s called “expanding the money supply”. If an individual destroys the freedom of another person, it’s called tyranny. If a politician destroys personal freedom, it’s called “the rule of law”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Source: The Supreme Court & the Constitution – Page 38,
What is a Constitution? It is the form of government, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, in which certain first principles of fundamental laws are established. The Constitution is certain and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked or altered only by the authority that made it. The life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must proceed from the same hand.
What are legislatures? Creatures of the Constitution; they owe their existence to the Constitution: they derive their powers from the Constitution. It is their commission; and, therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, or else they will be void. The Constitution is the work or will of the people themselves, in their original, sovereign, and unlimited capacity. Law is the work or will of the legislature in their derivative and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of the Creator, and the other of the creature.
The Constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative authority and prescribes the orbit within which it must move. In short, the Constitution is the sun of the political system, around which all legislative, executive and judicial bodies must revolve. Whatever may be the case in other countries, yet in this there can be no doubt, that every act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is absolutely void.
Wouldn’t that make any act of the Federal Legislature contrary to the Constititon, including an act proposing an amendment, of no effect, null and void?
In the second article of the Declaration of Rights, which was made part of the late Constitution of Pennsylvania, it is declared, “That all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understanding; and that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent; nor can any man who acknowledges the being of a God be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be, vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall, in any case, interfere with, or in any manner control, the right of conscience in the free exercise of religious worship.” (Dec. of Rights, Art. 2.)
In the thirty-second section of the same Constitution it is ordained: “that all elections, whether by the people or in general assembly, shall be by ballot, free and voluntary.” (Const. Perm., Sect. 32.)
Could the legislature have annulled these articles, respecting religion, the rights of conscience, and elections by ballot? Surely no. As to these points there was no devolution of power; the authority was purposely withheld, and reserved by the people to themselves. If the legislature had passed an act declaring that, in future, there should be no trial by jury, would it have been obligatory? No: It would have been void for want of jurisdiction, or constitutional extent of power. The right of trial by jury is a fundamental law, made sacred by the Constitution, and cannot be legislated away. The Constitution of a State is stable and permanent, not to be worked upon by the temper of the times, nor to rise and fall with the tide of events: notwithstanding the competition of opposing interests, and the violence of contending parties, it remains firm and immovable, as a mountain amidst the strife of storms, or a rock in the ocean amidst the raging of the waves. I take it to be a clear position that if a legislative act oppugns a constitutional principle the former must give way, and be rejected on the score of repugnance. I hold it to be a position equally clear and sound that, in such case, it will be the duty of the court to adhere to the Constitution, and to declare the act null and void. The Constitution is the basis of legislative authority; it lies at the foundation of all law, and is a rule and commission by which both legislators and judges are to proceed. It is an important principle, which, in the discussion of questions of the present kind, ought never to be lost sight of, that the judiciary in this country is not a subordinate, but co-ordinate branch of the government.
My understanding is that all laws that are passed by Congress must be made pursuant to the Constitution. Since it is the will of the people, & was clear in making sure that Direct taxes (upon the state) be apportioned according to its population, making non-apportioned taxes specifically withheld and retained by the people.
(A tax upon income would not technically be a Direct Tax, since the object of the Federal Government are the people of the several states in their collective capacity, which it was constituted to govern and defend them from invasion. A tax on an individuals income, unless the federal government was constituted to govern labor, would be outside their Jurisdictional limitations.)
It seems unfair that a corporation is given a tax break on the money it makes above and beyond the expenses, while a person, being in the business of survival, is taxed by the work he does & burdened greater than corporations as if they are engaged in involuntary servitude. People paying 25% of their labors to government in taxes equates to government seizing property for public use without just compensation. The perception of what a Constitution is, isn’t what it was.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0