by Ron Paul

The characteristic mark of a tyrannical regime is that it eventually finds it necessary to erect walls to keep people from leaving. This is why we should be troubled by the “Ex-PATRIOT Act,” an egregiously offensive bill recently introduced in the Senate. Following a long line of recent legislation and regulations attempting to expropriate more and more wealth from hard-working Americans, this new bill spits in the face of overburdened taxpayers and tramples on the Constitution.

Current law already dictates that Americans with a net worth of over $2 million who expatriate must be assumed to have sold all their assets and must pay a corresponding punitive exit tax on those assumed sales. The Ex-PATRIOT Act goes even further than current law by assessing a 30% capital gains tax on all future earnings of expatriates. Not content just with this additional tax, the bill also grants the IRS the sole authority to determine whether individuals have expatriated for tax purposes and allows the IRS to bar those individuals from ever re-entering the United States. Finally, the bill blatantly violates the ex post facto provisions of the U.S. Constitution by extending all of these provisions to anyone who has given up their U.S. citizenship within the past decade.

This bill, and other similar legislation, casts a chilling effect on saving, investment, and entrepreneurial activity. The bill was introduced in response to news reports about one of the founders of Facebook who might save millions of dollars of taxes by renouncing his U.S. citizenship. But in their blind envy towards successful entrepreneurs, the bill’s sponsors ignore the fact that they will ensnare many ordinary middle-class Americans who work hard, save and invest wisely, and benefit from rising home values. These Americans may easily find themselves pushing past the $2 million mark by the time they retire, especially as inflation continues to seriously accelerate. If they wish to escape the Federal Reserve’s inflation by emigrating to lower-cost countries so their dollars will go farther, as many Baby Boomers are starting to do, the federal government will penalize them, and continue to penalize them for the rest of their lives as long as they hold any money in the United States.

Unfortunately, the mere consideration of such legislation, even before it has passed, has made American banking customers a potential future headache for banks around the world. They don’t want to deal with the IRS any more than Americans do, and if American account holders become a Trojan horse for the IRS to insinuate themselves into their affairs, there may be more cost than benefit to extending banking services to Americans.

We live under a federal government that has eviscerated our Fourth Amendment rights, that can detain U.S. citizens indefinitely based solely on the President’s word, that assaults toddlers and grandmothers at airports in the name of security, and regulates virtually every aspect of our economic lives. No wonder increasing numbers of Americans feel this government is engaged in outright warfare against its own citizens. Every day the noose grows tighter, yet anyone who sees the writing on the wall and seeks to leave must pay exorbitant taxes just for the privilege of leaving, and increasingly the possibility looms of never fully breaking away from the government’s tentacles no matter where they go. Ultimately, the Ex-PATRIOT Act proposes to control people by controlling their capital, and it has no place in a free society.

Enjoy Ron Paul’s classic Tax Day Speech from April 15, 2010.

Transcript

Ron Paul: Hey, thank you. End the Fed, hey! Along with the IRS. Let’s repeal 1913 and we’d all be better off. Now, it’s great to be here. You know, sometimes I give speeches on the House floor and there’s nobody there. I like to leave the House floor and I like to go to America. I like to go to Texas and other states because people actually cheer what I say, and I like that.

You know, I’m sure everybody here has talked a lot about taxes and this is tax day. But taxes, in many ways, are nothing more than a symptom. The taxes that we pay are a symptom of runaway government. And that is the problem. It is the fact that we have allowed our government to be so big and out of control – the Congress doesn’t control it, the executive branch has more control than they deserve and the courts have more control than they deserve. What wee need is a strong Congress to rein in the executive branch and the courts to get back to a constitutional government.

I have a belief about taxes and I believe that taxes, indeed, are theft; stealing from the people. You may have seen this on the Internet, I have a bumper sticker on my desk that everybody that comes to my offices sees, that says, “Don’t steal, the government hates competition”. But the government taxes us in many ways. I think of spending as the culprit, because think of spending as being the tax. And then it’s paid for in many different ways; they do tax us and it’s way too high. But they never tax enough to pay the bills. So what do they do? They endlessly borrow, and they borrow so much and then interest rates go up and that doesn’t work. So then what do they do? They resort to the printing press, and the Federal Reserve is the culprit that finances big government.

And that’s exactly right. Eventually, if we’re going to have a republic, we’re going to have sound money. The Constitution is very clear: only gold and silver can be legal tender, not paper money.

Now why is it that even the Federal Reserve is involved in taxation? When they print money, they devalue your currency. Anytime you complain about a high price, you’re paying a tax. So it is a tax, and the big sin, of course, is the big spending. Politicians, up until just recently, were always rewarded by spending money and telling their constituents back home, “I’m going to get you whatever you want”. Well, those days are over, and you’ve helped end those days.

Now, the Federal Reserve serves two special interests in Congress. There are two types of spending that we have to be concerned about. One is the liberal spending; we know all about that. They like to take over your lives because they consider you too stupid to take care of your lives yourself. So they have to take care of you from cradle to grave, so they justify that.

But then we do have some conservatives – at least they call themselves conservatives, a lot of times they’re nothing more than neoconservatives. And they believe that we have to endlessly spend overseas, and it’s time we quit this. We quit the foreign aid, we quite being the policeman of the world, we don’t need to occupy over 700 bases overseas in 135 countries because that’s how republics are destroyed. That is how empires end: for economic reasons, by stretching themselves too far overseas. So if we want to get back to a normal budget and balance our budget, I think one of the best ways to start is, why don’t we just quit spending all the money overseas? Why don’t we spend the money here at home?

Now, what could we do to save some money? I think it’s time we should ask the question, “How long do we have to stay in Korea? We’ve been there for 60 years.” I would say it’s time to come home from Korea. And we’ve been in Europe, we’ve been in Japan, and we’re looking for a new fight every single day. So it’s really time that we have a foreign policy that was demonstrated and preached to us by our founders; that is to get along with people, be friends with people, trade with people, but mind our own business, stay out of the internal affairs of other nations and have a strong national defense. That’s what we need.

And we don’t need to endorse this system where the president decides when to go to war. War, under the Constitution, should only be taken upon ourselves when the war is declared by the Congress, not the president.

But good things are happening in this country. The budget is horrible, the Congress is horrible, they’re spending, they don’t hesitate for one minute. But there are good things happening in the country and you’re part of it. People have finally awakened. They have finally found out that if they speak out, maybe they will have some influence. Washington has not responded to the people because the people basically have been quiet. And the ones who made noise were the lobbyist. They came with their hands out, they wanted stuff. Well, it’s all ending, because even those who are supposed to be receive this stuff at your expense, are realizing that it’s not going to last very much longer. We’re bankrupting this country and therefore we do need a sea change.

But what we have to do is ask the proper question. The first question is: what should the role of government be? Everybody would say, “Well, do this and that and that and take care of medical care.” I say it’s a much simpler than that. The role of government is to protect our liberties.

And if we protect our liberties, then the free people can take care of themselves. Get rid of all these taxes and all these regulations and all these government controls and needless wars. The purpose of liberty is to allow a free people to be creative, to release the creative energy that we need, and also to strive for excellence and virtue; that’s what life is all about. But when government takes over this role of saying, “We’re going to make you a better person and tell you have to live and run your personal life, or we’re going to take over your economic powers and we’re going to tell you how you spend your money,” then the government does that at the expense of liberty.

And, of course, what suffers is the prosperity of this country. And this country is indeed bankrupt. The standard of living for middle class America has been going down for 10 years. And it’s not going to go up soon until we realize that we have to get control of our budget, control of our government, and give us sound money. And in the meantime, we will end the Fed. Hey!

Date: 06/07/2011

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Can you help us out and proofread the transcript while you watch the video? Go to our writeboard (password: endirs). Then click the “Edit this page” button to make changes. We check all writeboards daily and will update this post with your proofread transcript ASAP. Thanks!

Judge Napolitano: Here now Texas Republican Congressman and Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. Congressman Paul, it’s always a pleasure, welcome back to Freedom Watch.

Ron Paul: Thank you Judge.

Date: 03/02/2011

Paying for Tax Cuts: Whose Money is it?

by Ron Paul

George Orwell warned us about the use of meaningless words in politics — words that are endlessly repeated by sloganeering politicians until they have no meaning at all. Meaningless words certainly were on display last week during congressional debate over the latest tax bill. Over and over again we heard trite, empty phrases like “tax cuts for the wealthiest 2%”, “tax giveaways”, “tax earmarks”, and “borrowing money to give to millionaires.” Time and time again the same falsehoods were presented as fact and reported as such by our credulous media.

But all of these cliches about taxes are based on the presumption that government has a right to all your income, so government gives you something when it allows you to keep a portion of that income. To this mindset, tax cuts represent a cost to government. It’s argued that money that really ought to go to the most noble of purposes — wealth redistribution via taxation — is being kept by greedy people and corporations who just don’t want to pay their fair share.

Far too many Americans truly believe that tax cuts represent a government giveaway, indistinguishable from an outright subsidy or entitlement payment. To combat this mindset we need to be clear with our language. A subsidy, properly understood, occurs when government takes tax dollars and gives them to favored individuals, companies or industry. A tax cut by contrast simply means government takes less from an individual, company or industry. When government takes less from you, it has not given you anything. It merely has harmed you less. This is the critical distinction that has been lost in the endless tired debate about tax policy.

Of course, the bill passed last week did contain some actual spending, mostly in the form of an extension of unemployment benefits for another 13 months. The total spending in the bill amounted to about $60 billion, but the tax savings in the bill, meaning the amount of money that will remain in the hands of the taxpayers rather than being sent to Washington is approximately $850 billion. So while a clean tax bill would have certainly been preferable, the tax relief it contains is significant. It means $850 billion will be spent, saved or invested by American citizens rather than being sent into the black hole known as the federal treasury.

The media however dutifully reported that opposition to the bill came from concerned members of Congress who felt the $850 billion “cost” of the bill was too high and would add too much to the deficit. As always, they could not distinguish between government giving and government taking away. The American people already pay plenty in federal taxes. The deficit is the result of a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Had the bill not passed, millions of Americans would have seen their paychecks shrink in January due to the increased tax withholding. That is the plain and simple truth, and that is why I voted for the bill.

by Ron Paul

I recently voted again in favor of HR 4853, the Middle Class Tax Relief Act, legislation which ensures the continuation of the Bush-era tax cuts, fixes the AMT patch, and significantly reduces the burden of the estate tax in 2011. If no action had been taken by this Congress, all Americans would have had to pay higher income, dividend, estate, and capital gains taxes beginning on January 1, 2011. I will always vote to lower taxes at all levels, and I will never vote for tax increases.

Many opponents of this bill labor under the mistaken impression that it contains huge amounts of pork, earmarks, and other spending. What they are referring to is hundreds of billions of dollars worth of tax credits. Tax credits are not spending, they are not earmarks, they are not pork: they merely allow people to keep more of their own money. While the Administration’s desire in extending these particular credits may be to placate certain constituencies or to spur consumption or investment into certain sectors of the economy, the morally correct position is to allow people to keep their hard-earned money. That money belongs to the people and businesses who earned it, not to the government. If one wants to make it more equitable, then the amount of tax credits should be increased to include everyone.

Characterizing the tax cuts as fiscally irresponsible, as other opponents of the bill have done, is equally misguided. Those who wish to see this deal defeated because it “adds nearly $900 billion to the National Debt” are punishing taxpayers for the profligacy of the government. The National Debt is nearly $14 trillion because of excessive spending, not because of tax cuts. Every dollar added to the National Debt is due to the government’s inability to rein in spending, not because American taxpayers are paying too little of their salaries to the federal government. This is why I vote against all appropriations bills. Allowing taxes to rise and provide more money to the federal government would only serve to further feed the beast that is devouring this country.

This bill also reduces the burden of the estate tax, which according to law is set to return in 2011. This unconscionable tax is an insidious form of double taxation and comes into effect in 2011 with a 55% tax rate. Americans should not be penalized for accumulating savings during their lifetimes. The estate tax especially harms small and family-owned businesses, which often must be sold to pay the tax bill. HR 4853 reduces this death tax rate from 55% to 35%, and raises the exemption from $1 million to $5 million. While I would prefer to see this tax eliminated completely, this significant tax cut will help thousands of families.

Many people have urged that this tax bill be rejected and that Republicans come back in January to vote on a clean bill. Waiting until the next Congress would also mean that taxpayers would have much more of their salary withheld until any tax cuts could be made. While it is certainly possible to wait until January, we still have a Democratic Senate, and a Democratic president who would likely veto a clean tax bill. I too would prefer to see a completely clean bill, but that is not what we have been given. A vote against the bill before us today would be a vote to raise taxes on all Americans.

Much of the debate about this bill only serves to distract people from discussing substantive change and lead to argument about picayune minutiae. I believe we should abolish the income tax and eliminate the IRS altogether. Congress funded the government using excise taxes for more than 120 years without an income tax, and the federal government not surprisingly adhered much more closely to the constitutionally-defined limits of its powers during that time. Real tax reform can only happen when we insist on reducing the size of the federal government and reducing the pork in its bloated budget.

Date: 12/16/2010

Date: 12/16/2010

Date: 12/14/2010