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.
Processing your request, Please wait....
This Week in Automobile News…
[...]here are some links to places worth visiting[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
computer disposal…
[...]Here you’ll find the links to some pages that we think you will like[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sources…
[...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Blogs ou should be reading…
[...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
it asset disposition…
[...]we like to connect to other sites on the web, even if they aren’t related to us[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
News and Reviews…
[...]sites we recommend to look at[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Gems form the internet…
[...]very few websites that happen to be detailed below, from our point of view are undoubtedly well worth checking out[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
News and Reviews…
[...]places we suggest to visit[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Dreary Day…
It was a dreary day here today, so I just took to messing around online and found…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] we end the income tax (a Marxist tool to control the people), we eliminate the obscenely lengthy tax code and loopholes used by lobbyists [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You should check this out…
[...] Wonderful story, reckoned we could combine a few unrelated data, nevertheless really worth taking a look, whoa did one learn about Mid East has got more problerms as well [...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sites We Like…
[...]just below, are some totally unrelated sites to ours, however, they are definitely worth checking out[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Read was interesting, stay in touch……
[...]please visit the sites we follow, including this one, as it represents our picks from the web[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] government was small enough that DC could have managed without the federal individual income tax. End the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS imagine that. "We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Founding Fathers were adamantly opposed to taxes that were not apportioned among the states. Income taxes are not so apportioned. The Founders recognized how colosssally stupid it would be to allow such taxes that would allow the full power of the federal government to crush the individual. After all, “The power to tax is the power to destroy.”
The founders had fought against such tyranny and were not disposed to institutionalize it. The income tax is a perversion and antithetical to natural rights, individual liberties. It unleashes a government that rules by creating a culture of fear, that manipulates and pre-determimes outcome, and that decides who wins and who loses. It’s an abomination of the extraordinary and singular idea that is America.
The 16th amendment should unquestionably be abolished, the IRS dismantled, their staff forced to seek honest work, and their buildings auctioned off.
No one said it better than Thomas Jefferson:
“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”
I see merit in a consumption tax. That way, person are not punished for earning a living and can freely decide how much they will allow to the Washington, D.C. racket. Then we can add boycotts to elections as powerful political tools to reign in governments, like our present government, determined hell bent to leather to create the nighmarish chimera of a Big Brother police state married to the nanny state.
Liberty! Love it or lose it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ending the income tax would be a colossally stupid thing to do. No matter how many psychotic claims you make about it being “most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes” the fact remains that the income tax is the FAIREST form of taxation there is. All other taxes disproportionately impact the poor. The income tax means that the people least able to pay are the ones who have to pay the least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
8
how is it even REMOTELY fair, you’re paying THEM for doing THEIR work… that makes absolutely no sense… not to mention more than half of the proceeds gathered by income taxes aren’t even used in the benefit of the country
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cal, you couldn’t sound more uneducated on Constitution concerns if you tried. The poor are poor because they choose to be. Fuck your class war and your Commie mentality
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You miss the fact that having an income tax does not actually HELP the poor either. All it does is encourage them to REMAIN poor and dependent on the government. The income tax allows the government to tax productivity to fund institutional poverty. How does this help anybody in the long run?
You also erroneously assume that poor people (and everybody for that matter) will act exactly the same way with or without an income tax. Change the data and the market will respond differently. People will be encouraged to work harder, and those without jobs will be encouraged to find work. More and better jobs will be available because the repeal of the income tax will put more money in the hands of productive business owners who need motivated employees.
How else would things change? Abolishing the income tax would encourage capital accumulation, more capital goods, more technological progress, higher productivity. All this would result in a much greater supply of the things that poor people buy that are subject to sales tax, excise tax, tariffs, etc. The increased supply would lower the prices of consumer goods (if the government didn’t negate the effect by inflating the money supply), and the poor, along with everyone, would benefit. The poorest would actually benefit the most!
By the way, economics is not about ”fairness” or someone’s arbitrary value judgments. It’s about examining the means used to attain ends. Is the income tax effective at improving the material well-being of humanity? No. It discourages production and the creation of wealth. Do you still think abolishing the income tax would be stupid?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@A_W_Wilson
Well said love
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
the US constitution requires all direct taxes to be apportioned to the states. Our income taxes go to the bankers that own the federal reserve, they aren’t used in a way that benefits the tax payers. Ending federal income tax will really only impact the banker elite in a negative way…it will be very positive for the rest of us.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Presidentkandidat Ron Paul vill avskaffa inkomstskatten. Det vore väl något för Sverige också? Folk får ta lite eget ansvar istället för att [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] permanent, and perhaps lower corporate tax rates even further. Some Tea Partiers have spoken out against the income tax completely, saying it’s unconstitutional. This would leave only excise and corporate taxes as [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] and his stance has always been about reducing the tax burden. He would do this, he says, by drastically reducing the size and scope of the government, eliminating or greatly shrinking several federal departments including the Department of Homeland [...]
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
[...] Ron Paul wants to end the IRS, Michelle Bachmann used to work for them but still wants drastic tax cuts although “everyone [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Although I am originally from Argentina, I have studied the matter quite a bit. First off Ron Pauls commenting on the 16th amendment just adds to the confusion, despite that it tried to help us in recognizing that there is a problem. Let me clarify the whole thing about the income tax. The basic problem is twofold: You did not actually read the cases, and in particular the two landmark and unanimous supreme court cases about the income tax, Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916), and Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916) . And you are not clear what an indirect and direct tax is.
Let me also add that Tax Court Cases, Appellate Court cases, lower court cases are irrelevant because they contradict each other. One court states that the subject of the tax is property, the other court somewhere else states that the subject of the tax is the activity, and yet another court states that the income tax is neither a direct tax nor is it an indirect tax, that the 16th Amendment created some new type of tax. It is clear that the income tax cannot be all three. I have given the matter a lot of thought so please bear with me.
Understanding the Income tax is a four step process:
1) THE INCOME TAX IS AN EXCISE TAX (INDIRECT TAX)
There is absolutely no supreme court case, after the 16th Amendment, that states that the income tax is a direct tax. In all post 16th Amendment Supreme court cases the income tax is an excise Tax (indirect tax). The Supreme court actually uses the name indirect taxes for excise taxes. The expression, indirect taxes, does not appear in the constitution but it is an excise tax. So excise tax = indirect tax.
Moreover in addition the conclusion reached in the Pollock Case did not in any degree involve holding that income taxes generically and necessarily came within the class of direct taxes on property, but on the contrary recognized the fact that taxation on income was in its nature an excise entitled to be enforced as such….
Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1, at 16-17 (1916
By the previous ruling [Brushaber Case] it was settled that the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning [of our national government under the Constitution] from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…. Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103, at 112 (1916)
So in the first case it states that taxation on income is in its nature an excise tax (indirect tax). The second case it states that the income tax should not have been taken out of the category of indirect taxation. This is referring to the 1895 Pollock case where the supreme court held that the income tax from the income of renting property was a direct tax. So now the Supreme Court says not to take it out of the category of indirect tax…SO DON’T. Now back to the Stanton case, the supreme court states that the income tax is in its nature an indirect tax. Why does the supreme court uses the expression “in its nature”? The concept of INDIRECT TAX, is an intellectual hurdle. You may not understand it right away but one day it will come and you will be pretty clear as to what it is. Let me try to explain indirect tax and why the supreme court says “in its nature”.
2) INDIRECT TAX DEFINED
What better way to define Indirect tax (excise tax) than to have the supreme court do it for us:
“A tax laid upon the happening of an event, as distinguished from its tangible fruits, is an indirect tax.” Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, at 502 (1930)
The event (activity) that produces the fruits (income) is the thing being taxed. The subject of the of the income tax is the activity that one endures in order to make money. So if you are sweeping floors they are taxing the sweeping of the floor. If you are an EMT worker and you just saved someone life using CPR , they are taxing the saving of someone’s life.
Samples of other indirect taxes are sales taxes, paying a toll to cross a bridge or use a road.
What then does the supreme court mean by “in its nature”. This is a far stronger statement of claiming what the income tax is an indirect than a flat out statement that the income tax is an indirect tax. You see a direct and indirect tax are natural circumstances, they are define mainly to bring about logic into the collection of taxes. The founding fathers merely define them for convenience, they did not invent the circumstance. Therefore the supreme court cannot destroy the two classes anymore than they can destroy the effects of gravity as they are natural events. All that the supreme court could do is to interpret the rules for the logical and equitable collection of these two classes of taxes.
Note
Let me clear a bit of confusion. Generally and in the Pollock case the supreme court stated that an indirect tax is one that can be shifted. This means that if you are not paying the tax directly then it is an indirect tax. Someone else is paying the tax for you as in a sales tax. In a sales tax you pay the vendor and the vendor will in turn pay the tax to the state.
Poor definition:
Indirect Tax definition: The passing on of a tax or duty by the person who first pays it, through subsequent transactions.
But this clearly is not a good definition as there are taxes that we pay directly to government and are still classified as an indirect tax. For example, when you pay license tags, or utility taxes such as water or sewer. These are indirect taxes paid directly to your government. Remember there are only two classes of taxes.
Note II
There is also an argument that the subject of an indirect tax is the income (fruits). They reason that if you work on some activity, it is only a taxable activity if you produce an income. There is a logical problem here. When you pay a toll to cross a bridge, this is clearly an indirect tax. But if you claim that the paying of the tax is the subject, then what they are claiming is that you are paying a tax on paying a tax?
3) INDIRECT TAXES ARE ONLY ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES AND PRIVILEGES
This means that the income tax is constitutionally legal but that it is on certain activities only.
The 16th Amendment actually limits the government, because only certain activities (privileges) are taxable. There are a multitude of activities that the government cannot tax because to do so will inhibit life itself Can you think of one?
Once should not dwell on this too much, because it is up to the government to prove its point. If the government ever comes up with a law that states that are income producing activities are taxable, then we can dwell on the constitutional legality of taxing certain activities.
Note
Breaking down of the 16th Amendment using the supreme court as a guide. The Supreme Court stated: “…the Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation…” That means that it did not give congress any new taxing authority. What, then, did the 16th Amendment do? The supreme court states: [it] “simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged…. “ So what this is saying is that the Supreme court corrected the 1895 Pollock decision that the particular income tax was a direct tax. The wording of the 16th Amendment appear clear to anyone that is not familiar with that a direct or indirect tax is.
Most people uneducated in the matter will believe that the 16th Amendment reversed the Pollock decision, that the income tax is now legal because it does not need to be apportioned. Here is the trick: the income tax does not need to be apportioned because it is an indirect tax. As soon as you claim that the income tax is not apportioned you are essentially stating it is an indirect tax. The 16th Amendment did not destroy article 1 Section 8 as all income taxes are uniform:
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
And it must certainly did not destroy the apportionment rule in the constitution because they income tax does not need to follow the direct tax rule for income tax which is apportionment:
Article I, Section 2, Clause 3:
“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States….”
And
“No Capitation, or other direct Tax, shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration….”
16th Amendment
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
If the 16th Amendment created a new type of tax, where is the direction on how to collect it? Note the original constitution. It tell explicitly how to collect it, either by uniformity or apportionment. Some will illogically assume that the direct unapportioned tax will automatically be uniform. This is an error because the laws concerning the collection of taxes need to be clear and not a guess.
What does “whatever source derived”? This clearly means that despite the fact that the income tax may be from property (as in the Pollock case), it is still an indirect tax. Whatever the source the tax will still be indirect.
4) GOVERNMENT MUST PRODUCE THE LAW THAT CLARIFIES YOUR TYPE OF WORK, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AS A REVENUE TAXABLE EVENT. The government cannot generally state “whatever source derived” misusing the 16th Amendment. It must be clear. The 6th Amendment of the constitution states that the accused must be informed of the nature and cause of the crime. Have you ever seen an IRS indictment that shows the activity as a taxable event and make reference to a law?
Let me clarify. Suppose that in the state of New York you were indicted for grand larceny. Well in the state of NY grand larceny is define as stealing property with a value of, or more than 1000 dollars. What is the indictment never mentions what you allegedly stole? What if the prosecutor cites that the item was worth 1000 dollars but never mentions what that item was. This is the same as if the IRS uses income to ruse one into believing that your liable, because income is not the subject of the tax.
A final note as to where the income tax go. Here is a curious report:
“100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt … all
individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services
taxpayers expect from government.”
-Grace Commission report submitted to President Ronald Reagan – January 15, 1984
Some will argue that the report have been misread, that in fact we are paying far less on maintaining the debt. But that does not matter. Why? Because the National Debt is a scam. Here is what Thomas Edison stated:
“If the Nation can issue a dollar bond it can issue a dollar bill. The element that makes the bond good makes the bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets the
money broker collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20%. Whereas the currency, the honest sort provided by the Constitution pays nobody but those who contribute in some useful way. It is absurd to say our Country can issue bonds and cannot issue currency. Both are promises
to pay, but one fattens the usurer and the other helps the People.”
Abraham Lincoln fought the Civil War with debt free money. China is allegedly using debt free money. Borrowing does not prohibit inflation. One curious thing is that the private banks, commercial and investment banking can create money out of thin air by using the Fractional Reserve Scheme and Shorting stocks. So we are paying on an artificiality. Since the government can produce all the debt free money it needs, why submit treasury bonds? I believe that income taxes pull money out of circulation so that, that while the bank are creating money out of thin air taxes, to some degree prevents hyper inflation, even though the government is using the money to pay for things.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
[...] he wants, and for obvious reasons, a fair tax will not work. We'll go to the source himself! End the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The income tax is the most nonproductive system we could have. I have had people tell me I can’t make anymore money this year or I will pay it all in income taxes. It takes me over 100 man hours to keep up with my expenses/deduction and compile them for filing. That is 100 man hours I could be working,playing with my kids, or doing charity work. My accountant then charges me $1000 to file my taxes. The IRS spends a thousand dollars to collect a hundred. I believe Ron Paul has the
right ideas. The IRS should be shut down and buildings,equipment and cars auctioned off to highest bidder and the money from sale paid on the national debt.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
Shut the IRS down…then what? Who administers the tax laws and collects the tax revenue? Do you think an “honor system” will work and everyone will pony up the tax money?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is time to stop talking about abolishing the IRS and start taking action and shut the IRS down and the states who charge not only state taxes, but also property taxes. When something is bought, like a home, it makes no sense to pay for extra taxes, not to mention paying at the end of the year taxes to the federal and state government.
This is just a ploy to keep the people poor and in debt. The passage of 1913 to make it mandatory for all to pay federal taxes is in the same year the Bolsheviks took over Russia with their communist agendas and the wealthy bankers establishing their banking system to eventually create a nation where people will be continually in debt while the wealthy bankers continually print money and charge us for interest. The two are very well connected in that their basic ideology is to bring nations down by making themselves richer.
It’s time for both the communists and the wealthy bankers to go and their tools such as the IRS, state taxes, and property taxes to be forever eliminated.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Im sure the military, police, fire and all of the government bodies would be willing to work for free. I mean, I’m sure your willing to work for no compensation in any form, everyone else should do the same right? Its because of short sighted ideas like yours and R.P.’s that I dont give him any consideration. He is like a bull in a china shop…damn the consequences.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Income tax is a peculiar institution. Income tax is a disgrace to humanity. Income tax must be abolished, the sooner the better.
Politicians of the Republican Party and the Republican Party in our capital (Washington, D.C.) who pay lip service to abolishing income tax while continuing to add more loopholes to the income tax code are traitors, pure and simple.
Pardon my French, but I have far more respect for IRS agents than I have for politicians in the Republican Party and Democratic Party; the IRS agents are merely following orders.
All politicians who insist on maintaining the federal income tax should move to Berlin, get on their knees, and kiss Adolf Hitler’s Jewish “donkey”. Perhaps income tax will be abolished sooner rather than later.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
The 16th Amendment was fraudulently passed in 1913. The push for this Amendment was formulated by the international bankers with their meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1911. After the passing of the 16th Amendment in 1913, I find it curious that WWI started the following year, and we’ve had nothing but wars and rumors of wars ever since.
Look at today. We’re spread all over the world, we’re fighting 2 wars and now we’re helping Libyan civilians fight oppression.
My point is that our beloved and very rich country has had our monies diverted (income tax) to making war hardware, materials and supplies for the profit of the very elite.
Our Constitution stipulates that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes. Who made the separate provision to create a branch of the Treasury Department to do Congress’ collecting?
Additionally, the Federal Government’s issuance of SS# to each American is a violation of the sovereignty of citizens belonging to every state, republic and commonwealth which comprises the united States of America. The forceable issuance of SS#s makes us all Federal Subjects, and that’s a violation of the Constitution as well.
The Federal Gummit has run amok and they’re breaking our economics due to lack of discipline, morals and graft. Most Democrats act like Facists and many Republicans are acting like Socialists. We need to stop this insanity by abolishing the IRS and make the Federal Gummit accountable for every penny they spend.
Highly rated. What do you think?
19 
1
you short sighted dimwit. get rid of the IRS and make government accountable for every penny? If you do away with the entitiy that enforces the tax law and collects the revenue, more revenue will go uncollected and eventually, no money will be collected and the government would collapse. anarchy is next and then where will we be? will you be dancing in the street singing “happy happy joy joy”?
Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. You need to grasp this fact or else those without the respect for law will eventually turn against you and you will be left wondering where the justice is because of the lack of a funded government is there to maintain civility.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The federal income tax is illegal and must be abolish. Government has no legal rights to take money from an individual hard earn income. Corporations and business should be tax not individuals. 16th amendments must be repelled.
I hope all Americans will rise up, and realize this is illegal. The IRS is illegal and must be stop! wake up America And join the movement!!
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
and yet people with actual legal training disagree with you. why is it that everyone with this opinion has no legal training?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
THE IRS SPENDS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TRYING TO COLLECT A FEW HUNDRED. NOT ONE IRS AGENT IN ONE CITY KNOWS WHAT ANOTHER IRS AGENT IN ANOTHER CITY IS SAYING ON THE SAME ALLEGED COLLECTION FILE. THE IRS HAS NOW DECIDED TO DEMAND TAXES THAT ARE NOT OWED!! TAKE THEM DOWN, ELIMINATE THEM. THEY ARE ALL BRAINWASHED TO EXECUTE WITHOUT EMOTION — STEAL — OUR RESOURCES. ELIMINATE THE FEDERAL RESERVE AND THE IRS. ELIMINATE ALL WELFARE PROGRAMS. THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET.
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
[...] lobsters and watch god father, but that was only on the media. Ron Paul's solution to the IRS: End the Income Tax, Abolish the IRS Dennis Kucinich on slave reparations: Slavery Reparations? | FactCheck.org When Cooper asked all [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] the IRS … well, they like your money for free, but we’ll get off that touchy subject until Ron Paul runs for president [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Maybe we ought to tar and feather the tax agents like the colonists did in the days of the revolution. No, I don’t advocate violence against government punks. If I ever saw a lynch mob about to string up a jack-booted thug, I wouldn’t participate, I would merely watch. That way I could get some good entertainment and my hands would be clean! I live here in the frozen tundra of Minnesota. If I ever happen to see an IRS thug stranded on the side of the road when it’s 30 below, I’ll make sure he stays stranded!
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Kind of like Joe Paterno and others at PSU? Clean hands huh?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hey congress listen to Ron Paul make it happen
Like or Dislike:
9 
1
[...] fund a large government in the style to which Americans have become accustomed. As Rep. Ron Paul pointed out while running for president, We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big [...]
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
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.
Highly rated. What do you think?
13 
1
A massive refusal to file income taxes would bring the government to its knees. More people realize that the best way to end the Fed’s criminal activities is by depriving resources that the thieves illegally steal from us.
I read about how the “experts” plan to dig us out from the huge hole we find ourselves in, but the only way to dig out is to eliminate the Fed, and thus the income tax, low interest rates, and faux money that devalues the dollar. Return to the gold standard!
Like or Dislike:
6 
2
Unfortunately, because most individual’s income taxes are are already in the governments hands due to withholding, not filing returns would actually help the government, not bring it to its knees, as it would not have to pay back what was witheld over and above your tax.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
[...] 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
Does anyone know what happened to “The Liberty Amendment”?
Did it get voted on, or just never materialize?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Get the IRS off 3 million tax payers backs they have broken America. Time for a national sales tax or 1 or 2 % . Abolish fed tax leins and the fed income tax and the I>R>S>.. its time has come people are fed up with the thives and i can prove they lie cheat and seal.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
[...] 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:
7 
1
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 
1
[...] Ron Paul [...]
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
So how do we get this ball rolling full steam?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
[...] 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:
3 
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:
1 
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:
1 
1
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 
2
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:
1 
1
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 
1
I agree with you to a point…let’s abolish the 16th amendment and politicians and start over!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
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:
3 
1
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:
4 
1