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 introduced legislation to 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 introduced the Liberty Amendment in 1998, 1999, 2003, 2005, 2007 and 2009. It is currently know as H. J. RES. 48 and has 2 cosponsors, Roscoe G. Bartlett (MD-6) and Don Young (AK). Here is the text of the proposed amendment:
Liberty Amendment
Section 1. The Government of the United States shall not engage in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
Section 2. The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
Section 3. The activities of the United States Government which violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a period of three years from the date of the ratification of this amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected shall be sold.
Section 4. Three years after the ratification of this amendment the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts.’.
On April 30, 2009 Ron Paul introduced the Liberty Amendment with the following speech:
Ron Paul: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment, thus paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends the people’s hard-earned money. The Liberty Amendment also explicitly forbids the Federal government from performing any action not explicitly authorized by the United States Constitution.
The 16th Amendment gives the Federal government a direct claim on the lives of American citizens by enabling Congress to levy a direct income tax on individuals. Until the passage of the 16th amendment, the Supreme Court had consistently held that Congress had no power to impose an income tax.
Income taxes are responsible for the transformation of the Federal government from one of limited powers into a vast leviathan whose tentacles reach into almost every aspect of American life. Thanks to the income tax, today the Federal government routinely invades our privacy, and penalizes our every endeavor.
The Founding Fathers realized that “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” which is why they did not give the Federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government.
Income taxes not only diminish liberty, they retard economic growth by discouraging work and production. Our current tax system also forces Americans to waste valuable time and money on compliance with an ever-more complex tax code. The increased interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals, as well as the increasing number of small businesses that question the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “withholding” system provides further proof that America is tired of the labyrinthine tax code. Americans are also increasingly fed up with an IRS that continues to ride roughshod over their civil liberties, despite recent “pro-taxpayer” reforms.
Madam Speaker, America survived and prospered for 140 years without an income tax, and with a Federal government that generally adhered to strictly constitutional functions, operating with modest excise revenues. The income tax opened the door to the era (and errors) of Big Government. I hope my colleagues will help close that door by cosponsoring the Liberty Amendment.
Ok, I got on this site to give Mr. Paul a fair chance. After reading his positions, I have to wonder if he is the least bit serious. Does he have ANY proposals that have even the least chance of succeeding? The republicans won’t support him, big business won’t support him and neither will the democrats. Many of his proposals are like fairy tales (Doctors will provide free health care – like they supposedly did 5 decades ago – just because it’s the “right-thing-to-do”). The rest simply don’t stand any chance in hell of getting any support. While I believe you can compromise too much, I also believe you have to act on some amount of pragmatism. If Mr. Paul was to become President, he would make Mr. Obama’s progress look like a torpedo. I guess if you don’t care about getting ANY WHERE at all, then Mr. Paul might be an option, but real adults would probably prefer to make some progress than to stand on principal and just talk. After reading Mr. Pauls’ proposals I can’t believe anyone would vote for him. I suppose we could listen to him “talk” for 4 years and then elect someone else but what’s the point? I know that many of his followers will be happy to respond in a totally obtuse manner but this is a man who simply is unprepared to make anything happen. No wonder he has ran so many times with only failure to show for it. Perhaps “failure” is the only thing he is used to and has now grown to accept it. Is this the man you want leading the most powerful nation in the world? A man who is happy to spout ridiculous ideas that will fall flat and never go anywhere?
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
spoken like a true sheep, just keep following the herd
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
bob318
January 6, 2012 at 2:38 pm | Permalink | Reply
“why aren’t people occupying the congress or the white house? how is wall street to blame, do they make law, set policies?”
Yes, that is exactly who makes the laws and sets policies through influence pedaling and lobbyists.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
I have been saying what Ron Paul has been saying. The “Flat Tax” proposal is still a tax on incomes of the people. It is another unconstitutional tax.
A form of taxation that I would find most equitable is a National Sales Tax between 7 and 12 percent, with the 12 figure being reduced as our monetary woes heal.
A NST is an excise tax and meets the standard of the Founders. It is equitable. Example: Both Bill Gates and I want to buy a boat. When I buy mine, I will most likely look at a 21′ “Bass Boat,” others may want to buy a canoe, but Bill Gates Idea of a boat may be a 100′ yacht, or sailboat. But we all pay the same tax of 7-12% on an Orange vs Orange purchase. We are all buying a boat.
Also it is a voluntary tax. I don’t have to buy the boat, I CHOOSE to by the boat.
By eliminating the IRS, we will save billions of dollars in the operation of that agency. Over 50% of taxes collected by the IRS pays for its overhead!
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
where do you get “over 50% of collected taxes pay for IRS overhead…thats a lot of overhead or ..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Read More…
[...]…We like this Blog…[...]…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Websites worth visiting…
[...]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Let’s close loopholes for all classes.”
Again, the RWers are clueless, the rich PAY for their loophiles by buyingf off politiicans. Until you get big money out of government, this will NEVER happen.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
“lol, money flowing from the poor to the rich IS the economy!
”
LOL, these RWers truly are nuts.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
“government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, ”
The states get the property tax revenues which they use in general for education, that makes this idea bogus at best.
Like or Dislike:
0 
4
Mike, what are you talking about, I agreed 100% with the lemoade stand
analogy!
I’ve even referred to it.
I think you must have read something I was quoting another on saying.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
http://www.littleredumbrella.com/2012/01/lets-be-clear-ron-paul-fucking-sucks.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
5
Links…
[...]Sites of interest we have a link to[...]……
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Saying a graduated income tax is bad because it’s in the Communist Manifesto is like claiming expressways are bad because Hitler invented them. The theory behind a graduated income tax comes from the idea that the more someone makes the easier it is to contribute back to society.
Secondly, I read in a book written in 1921 that since the major beneficiaries of war were the ultra rich, the ultra rich should pay for the wars on a cash basis. Ogfiously this would also cut down on the number of wars.
HOWEVER, Dr. Paul’s idea cutting the federal government enough to where we need NO Income Tax is the best idea of all.
Highly rated. What do you think?
11 
1
I’m all for eliminating the income tax for everyone that makes less than a certain amount, say
150,000. The rich and corporations have played the system to get their money, so let them pick up the slack.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
your painting with pretty broad brush
a tax on any corporation or business is simply a tax on the people that buy from that entity
competitions forces any given business to compete, so simply keeping the prices high after the tax is removed would make them uncompetitive, forcing them out of the market.
regardless of what Mitt Romney thinks, business aren’t people, but taxing them sure enough taxes them.
if you can’t see this, then may I suggest taxing a business that for the most part caters to the poor, I’m sure you will be able to see it then.
how about reinstating the laws we use o have on corporations, back before the Rockefellers go to them?
why do you feel it’s the government job to penalize the rich for being successful?
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
Why do you feel that the rich should not pay their far share of taxes at the exoense of the poor and middleclass, Many of the rich got that way by getting favorable legislation both for their operations and also for tax loopholes. Money has been flowing from the poor and middle class at record rates the last 2 decades. It’s time to make the rich pay the piper.
Like or Dislike:
3 
7
if simply ‘saving tax money’ could make you rich why aren’t we all rich?
I’m sorry if you think the rich don’t already pay way more in taxes then both other classes combined, but that do, they pay WAY MORE then their “fair share” already
we have a spending problem, and until that is fixed, no amount of taxing on any group will ever be enough.
breaking the backs of the rich that are left in this country will only drive out the rich, leaving us all with an even bigger problem.
we want to attracted investment and free market profits INTO the country, not out.
they do have other choices you know.
did you ever stop to think it wasn’t the rich that was paying to little, but the middle class was paying too much? most in my family are in that 40% tax range, and probably a lot higher when you start counting all of the hidden fees, and taxes placed on the people.
we have a tax on tax deal with this country.
you make a dollar, it’s taxes at say 30%, then you go buy a gallon of gas here in NY, and pay about 25% more on the money you have already been tax on.
this is crippling this country, we are no longer competitive with the rest of the world, but then I hear people demanding higher taxes, and I know they are ignorant of how an economy works.
“Money has been flowing from the poor and middle class to the rich” ???
how is money flowing from the poor to the rich., lol
I think you have it backwards, the rich pay the majority of the taxes, the poor collect on all the majority of the programs, that make the flow from rich to poor, not the other way around.
if you knew about making money, you’d know, it’s not what you make, it’s what you spend that counts.
translated to government= not that you tax, it’s what you spend. this country can not get, or stay rich by taxing it’s self there…. and being a rich country is not a given, we are in a nation in decline, it’s all around us, if this is not reversed, we will be the impoverished nation we to business with.
if taxing the hell out of the people was the secret to prosperity, we would be doing fine, but it’s not, the higher the tax rate goes, the poorer we all are.
if you don’t have the poor pay their fair share of taxes, you develop an entitlement class that can vote themselves money out of the pockets of others classes, and democracy ceases to work.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
Congratulations, you win the prize for most lies in one post. It’s been reported time and again that the rich actually pay LESS percentage wise than the poor and middle class in taxes. Most of the rich pay little or nothing at all taking advanatage of all the loopholes created for them by their bought-off politicians. IT’s time we close the loop-holes, and make the rich pay their fair share.
Like or Dislike:
8 
7
Pie-in-the-sky. Every politician has their pet projects from their home state. They talk a good game about cutting spending, but it never happens. I would like not to pay taxes too, but until we reach that point, we need to make taxation much more fair by having the rich pay much more than they are paying now in taxes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
I’ll say it again….
until we control spending, taxing and counterfeiting the currency, (a back door tax on everyone with a dollar) it will always mean higher taxes.
you think the poor or middle class are safe as long as we just tax the wealth away from those that have it???
where do you think they will come after they are done exploiting that class?
who will start a company in an atmosphere like that, where if they do succeed, it will only mean losing the $ through a web of taxes?
who will be left with any money too start a company?
would you invest your time and money into a risk that you may lose everything, only to see half the profits at best, if you do succeed at all? people have choices on how they spend THEIR time and efforts you know.
economic prosperity does not come from government, it is a result of it.
to say ‘well, no one wants to pay taxes, but until someone else stops spending money, we just have to go mug the rich to pay for it all’ is backwards thinking, you’re simply demanding more of the same.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I still don’t understand the stupidity of trying to protect a class (the rich) who doesnnot need out protection.. First, many exploit loopholes using high-powered lawyers and accountants to not may ANY taxes. We need to close those loopholes and increase their tax rate. It’s been proven over and over that increasing taxes on the rich does NOT destory any jobs at all, but will help in balancing the budget, along with wise spending cuts,
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
@lucky85 its actually really easy. If u tax the rich you will see a huge slow down in job creation. Which will only hurt the lower and middle class even more. Already the upper class not the super class are already struggling paying half there income in taxes which is currently stopping and slowing job growth largely. If you ask me these are the folks that need the most help since the government is already slowing there progress tremendiouly in creation dealing wi5h the EPA’s rules that dont make sense at all and hefty fines since they are money hungry trying to grow. These are some of the main reasons companies can not move foward in a positive pace, which is no doubt hurting the lower and middle class who need jobs.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
You cannot seem to grasp simplest idea that money flowing from the poor and middle to the rich ruins the economy. It’s exactly the same thing that happened before the great depression. Take an econ course sometime.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
what makes you think that you have the right to tax these hard-working Americans way more than other hard-working Americans simply due to their income? Those lawyers and accountants you talk about attended college and graduate school in order to earn that money. Who are you to say that they need to take their well deserved earnings and give half of them to the government to do with as they please?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
there are those that will always be more successful, and others that if you handed them a million dollars tomorrow, they would spend it all and be broke in -5 years.
it has to do with drive, intelligence, the willingness to fail, a little good luck, and the understanding that greed is good, that it’s is just another word for motivation, one is demonized, one is celebrated. and not spending it all!
lol, money flowing from the poor to the rich IS the economy!
you sure aren’t going to have the rich people buying stuff from the poor people, it’s not like they have store front, or business.
The poor choose their lot in life in many ways, even if they do not realize it.
poor people are workers, and every now and then, a worker decides they want more in life, and start their own thing, that’s the difference.
subsidizing the poor removes that ambition to be more, an important ingredient to move up in society.
I have backed up everything I have laid out here with logic, spelling out the reasons behind my assertions as other here have done for you
you on the other hand have simply been talking out of sympathy, hardly a case to make in telling ME to take a “econ course”
sympathy has nothing to do with economics.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“If u tax the rich you will see a huge slow down in job creation”
This statement pushed by the repugs simply isn’t true. It’s been proven over and over that the rich don’t invest money saved on taxes in creating jobs, but instead they invest in tax shelters to keep that money.
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
@lucky85
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
@lucky85
I understand the thinking that people who can afford to pay more taxes should pay more taxes. However, “corporate taxes” is an oxymoron. If you run a lemonade stand and the cost of producing a cup of lemonade is ¢20, you might sell each cup at ¢25. That’s a 25% profit margin. That’s not bad. So Tiny Tim buys a cup of lemonade for ¢25. However, if the government taxes your business, that in effect cuts into your profits. It affects your profit margin no differently than the price of lemons going up or the price of sugar. You would do what every business does, which is pass that cost on to your customers by increasing the price of the cup of lemonade. Now Tiny Tim has to pay more for the same product. So I ask you this: Who pays “corporate taxes”? The answer is the consumer does. Any increased expenses get passed on to the consumer every time.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Given up on lucky85, that one has no common sense.
I’ve explained the same thing twice before to lucky… with no luck at all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So in your world of make-believe, corporations should pay no taxes all, while the poor and middle class pick up the slack. Yeah, right.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I believe the income tax could at least be made much simpler, but it will never happen Congress is full of lawyers, and accountants and lawyers have a strong lobby. They will do nothing that might put tax lawyers and accountants out of worlk.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Ron Paul is for eliminating the IRS/ illegal income (just to pay for ww1) tax all together.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@bob318I know, it still won’t happen.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Why do we have to eliminate the income tax??? I mean, just because something is stated in a controversial piece of literature like the Communist Manifesto doesn’t make it intrinsically evil. If unions were mentioned in Mein Kampf, should we immediately abolish them??? I am opposed to eliminating income tax, but I am not necessarily against adding a consumption tax if it will be beneficial to the US. I am tired of people calling for lower taxes and small government and crying the Constitution. Ron Paul says that income taxes are unconstitutional. THE CONSTITUTION WAS NOT PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sure, income taxes were considered radical in the 1800s, but DEMOCRACY was considered radical before the Enlightenment. The Constitution is an EVOLVING document that must be interpreted in a flexible manner. One must keep a flexible perspective to allow a nation to adapt to contemporary society (and no our nation needs s STRONG central government), but strict enough to maintain the integrity of the document and its authority. I am not anti-Paul, but more of a skeptic when it comes to Paulonomics (and I don’t care if I am gonna get disliked).
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
President Ron Paul?
http://johnston-sequoia.blogspot.com/2012/01/presi...
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
[...] Taxes [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] Take a moment and explore a person’s actual stances before you make up your mind by watching CNN, FOX, CBS, MSNBS (sic), ABC or other for-profit news reports. (Always follow the money.) Republicans, did you know Ron Paul believes life begins at conception? Traitors, er, Democrats, did you know you could smoke your dope without worrying about the very profitable “War on Drugs” system snatching you up? Now, this comes with a heavy dose of personal responsibility, lefties, so don’t expect the patriots and hard-workers of this nation to support you while you smoke away … like they do now. [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Dear bob318,
Your right misspelled words should not discredit you, but it is sad that you did not proof read your writings before posting. Especially since the programs used for posting your thoughts, and or comments have spell check. Maybe in the future you will find use of this wonderful thing we have that is spell check.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
dear guest…
if a few misspelled words are all you can fault me or my ideas on, then I guess I’m doing just fine.
spelling does not give you credibility, but ridiculing a person for it says you have nothing better in your mental tool box to mount a credible argument against what I have put out here.
thanks for being so small.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Bad idea until you pay off our bills first. If a married couple has a large debt, do they decide that one of them should quit their job before paying off the debt? No. Just make the tax code simple and a one page form. Line #1 Enter your income, Line #2 Mulitply line #1 by 15% and enter amount here and THIS IS THE TAX YOU OWE, Line #3 would be enter amount of tax already paid, Line #4 would be deduct line #3 from line #2 and this is the remaining amount that you owe. If a credit is due, it will be mailed or deposited within 30 days. This way everyone has to pay the same percentage and no one can raise taxes on other people. Fair taxes.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Flat taxes are not fair, but exceedingly unfair, What makes the determination is how much of your “non-discretionary” income is being taxed. For the poor it’s all of it, for the middle class most of it, and for the rich, none of it. Nondiscretionary is the income you must have to live, i.e. put food on the table and a roof over your head.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
@lucky85Taxes wouldn’t be determined on “non-discretionary” income, but instead all of your income. It is fair because everyone would be paying the same precentage and the poor would pay less and the rich would pay more. Simple. What is unfair is a huge amount of the population not paying any taxes at all. They do initially when it’s taken out of their paycheck but then they get refund checks. This encourages people to vote to tax others at a higher rate than they are paying themselves. We need fairness in taxes and fairness in voting.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The tax rate should be much higher for he higher incomes because even a higher rate affects them much less than the low income groups where the tax actually takes away from their ability to pay for food and housing. A “flat ” tax is grossly unfair to the poor and middle class.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
so what your saying is only the rich should pay
and that the poor and to a lesser degree the middle class, shouldn’t have any skin in the game, so voting on big government dole programs would only benefit, and never hurt them.
a dollar is a dollar no matter who is paying it.
saying the poor can’t spare anything, even just the %, that may be very little on a poor man, but even that no good for you, you want some to not pay anything…. and that’s fair in your mind.
That another man should pay it ALL of the burden for another simply because he can?
that’s nothing more then justified theft, class warfare.
everyone should gets the same from government (even though we know that not the case anymore) benefits from, everyone pays the same %… and that’s not fair?
or is it that you see people that have money as an endless well of cash to which you can steal from?
wow
what you are saying is eat the rich.
what happens when your meal is done?
you are left with nothing but poor, and that is a dead end for everyone.
it is shocking how little people know about economics today.
do you understand the word, mine?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
You obviously have no understandng of what “discretionaery” income is, and why the progressive tax was created in the first place.
Even most of the rich say they should be paying a lot more than they are now are in surveys, it’s not about class warfare, it’s about fairness.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
pleeeease tell me where I can find a survey of more then just a few dozen liberals that think they don’t pay enough into the black hole that is our government.
having this supper rich people simply saying it, is nothing more then a political statement, and has no meaning since they can write checks for any amount that they want and send them into the federal government to spend on more wars, and to buy more dependents from more classes, but choose not to.
and I know exactly why we have this ”
progressive tax” I found it in the communist manifesto.
you see, poor people are just way easier to control then people with means.
so the goal, remove the wealth, that’s why we have it.
governments should never have
“discretionaery” income
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
This post makes no sense whatsoever.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
@lucky85
Firstly, I disagree with insulting your intelligence based on your economic opinions, although we seem to fundamentally disagree on some points.
The flat tax sounds fair until you put more thought into it. You make a valid point with your mention of taxing nondiscretionary income. I would prefer an across-the-board tax of 12% on all income over $50,000 per individual and $100,000 per household. However in a perfect scenario, I would want to see the income tax abolished and then and only then, a national sales tax imposed ONLY ON NON-ESSENTIAL PRODUCTS. No tax on groceries, drugs, or utilities for example.
The rich are not the enemy here. They are no more to blame than the poor. There are a fraction of wealthy citizens who dodge taxation. There is also a fraction of poor citizens committing social security fraud in the form of able-bodied people drawing disability checks. I won’t speculate on who is costing us more. Class warfare is counterproductive and dumb. Let’s not blame classes. Let’s close loopholes for all classes.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
a “tax loop hole” as you call them is a legitimate legal tax right off, it’s money that was spent to make money, and was not kept. so this idea that somehow they kept the money tax free is just faults.
you need to read the Communist Manifesto, after all, you are knowingly, or unknowingly defending this evil plan to take down the US with illegal/unconstitutional taxing and inflation schemes from within.
I believe the words were ‘grinding their wealth from them by placing them between the grind stones of inflation and a progressive taxation plan’
you see, some governments in the past didn’t like people having too much, and set up a system of ways to slowly wear it away from them.
why do you think that is?
oh, and please at least read the link provided in the article on the Communist Manifesto before bothering telling me how wrong I am again.
you‘ll see many parallels to the problems we have today, and you’ll see they have accomplished many of the goals they set out for themselves.
remember, this were the plans to take down our democracy, and the freedoms that came with.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
overpaid government jobs… yes.
un-constitutional spending on illegal programs and military actions… yes.
possibly hundreds of thousands of unproductive people would then find work in the private sector,
the burden on government monies reduced, lower taxes , the people would then be spending it in the private sector, creating the need to hire more people.
two things to remember here
1. the people that used to work in the public sector would now be contributing to pay the tax burden instead of creating it.
2. even though hundreds of thousands may lose their jobs, it’s better then having a economic collapse from all this printing and borrowing to pay for them.
if we do have an economic collapse, (which at this point seems almost like a given on our currant course), it could cost millions more jobs, but more importantly could cost millions of lives from the violence that will erupted from the collapse, millions could starve.
this has happened in others countries. AND could very well happen here too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
overpaid government jobs… yes.
un-constitutional spending on illegal programs and military actions… yes.
possibly millions of unproductive people would then find work in the private sector,
the burden on government monies reduced, lower taxes , the people would then be spending it in the private sector, creating the need to hire more people.
two things to remember here
1. the people that used to work in the public sector would now be contributing to pay the tax burden instead of creating it.
2. even though hundreds of thousands may lose their jobs, it’s better then having a economic collapse from all this printing and borrowing to pay for them.
if we do have an economic collapse, (which at this point seems almost like a given on our currant course), it could cost millions more jobs, but more importantly could cost millions of lives from the violence that will erupted from the disaster a collapse and the resulting starvation as millions can no longer find food on the empty store shelves.this has happened in others countries. AND could very well happen here too, costing millions of lives the exact same way.
the jobs saved by not doing it will be short lived anyway, as things start to break down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] maximum les pouvoirs de l’Etat fédéral, que ce soit sur le plan fiscal - Ron Paul veut ainsi supprimer l’impôt sur le revenu (lien en anglais) -, économique ou social. Contrairement à la majorité des républicains, il a [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
expats?
I’ll assume your talking about Americans living abroad.
Ron Paul has made no secret of his contempt for unconstitutional government.
Wishes to put our federal government back into the constitutional bottle where it belongs, giving the stolen powers it currently enjoys back to the states and people respectively.
I see this as reversing the illegal IRS, and all that comes with the % of slavery income tax.
that’s is if we can get our people to walk away from the lust of war, and the greed of ” free” programs.
it is an epic battle for sure.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
[...] fingers to the world, and start over? Taxes*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee Taxes [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Most of Paul’s description of what happens with inflation is correct. Ironically the same thing happens with tax cuts – the spending money available increases, but it does so for everyone, thus inflating prices. Yet Paul hates monetary inflation but loves tax cut inflation!!! Neither benefits the economy in the long run. In fact, tax cuts lead to spending cuts which eliminate government jobs and jobs of employees of companies who the govt buys things from (like concrete for roads, phone lines for govt buildings, etc). Almost all govt spending cuts kill jobs.
Paul’s assertion that wages stay the same during monetary inflation is false, however, as employees demand cost of living increases and employers can afford to pay them due to increased revenues from increased prices.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
your premises of not taxing people creates inflation is faults, as it does not expand the money supply, it simply shifts it to hands that did not earn it, possibly, even having it given to them by underhanded dealing with the government, or by way of “programs” to buy votes.
second.
while wages may go up some what, you will find few that will not feel more of a pinch as time goes by, as their meager raises aren’t keeping up with TRUE inflation numbers, as they are much higher then government numbers. (is as usually the case in history)
that’s not too hard to believe, since the government inflation numbers don’t include energy or food costs, making them worthless as a true gage of inflation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The one of the more disappointing trends in Ron Paul’s campaign is his stand on tariffs. In the 2008 Campaign, he raised eyebrows by saying that he advocated a Flat Tax…with a zero tax rate. He then went on to remind us that before the 16th Amendment, the government ran quite well on tariffs and very few other constitutional taxes and fees.
Now he seems intent in running away from the “Isolationist” label, which is surprising considering some of the other labels his proposed policies have pinned on him, and if the word “tariff” is mentioned in his campaign literature at all, it is preceded with “non-protectionist.”
I am not sure what a tariff can be, other than protectionist, unless it was targeted against another nation, which would seem to be against his views on trade restrictions.
If he means a flat tax on ALL imports, regardless of content or country of origin, then I agree 100%. However, he seems to be proud his Free Trade credentials, which I would have hoped he had found to be a failed experiment.
We need good paying jobs, and the majority of jobs Free Trade has ever produced, in the US, is for illegal farm workers picking produce for export, and for WalMart associates selling us imported goods, neither of which pays a living wage.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
ok, kids, let’s not be total dummies! there is no state—there are only people. and if people gather money s’mhow to pay for this and that, what’s wrong with that?
and there is no big, small, wrong/right govt, either, but there are people. so, what’s wrong in having people in america who shdl run america if the 1% wld allow them to manage it and thus also own business.
america shld be everybody’s business and not just the business for the one percent or is it actual about 20%. time for paul to stop yakking and drop by and visit america for a change. tnx
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
ok, kids, let’s not be total dummies! there is no state—there are only people. and if people gather money s’mhow to pay for this and that, what’s wrong with that?
and there is no big, small, wrong/right govt, either, but there are people. so, what’s wrong in having people in america who shdl run america if the 1% wld allow them to manage it and thus also own business.
america shld be everybody’s business and not just the business for the one percent or is it actual about 20%. time for paul to stop yakking and drop by and visit america for a change. tnx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bozhidar balkas Please don’t try and speak for 99% of PEOPLE ! ( or even 80% ) Just how much more naive and idealistic could one possibly be ? Just who do you think YOU are, anyway ? If you had your way, we would all just join in one big happy Party; ( oops, did I just say that !? ) of course I meant one big happy Family, ( yea, that’s it )
My business is NOT everybody’s business – why can’t you get that ? I want to be free and so do millions and millions of other people. You and your communist-fascist ideas do NOT represent 99% of the people. However, under a truly pure Libertarian system you and the rest of your power-hungry communist pals would be free to form all the strict socialist organizations you wanted to, as long as membership was not enforced upon a free American.
Sorry, but if Amerika ever gets to the fork in the road where the choice on the left leads to another totalitarian communist regime like the former USSR; people (sheep) who think like you will be the cause of the wrong turn.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
thanks for this great comment!
the socialist/collectivist occupy movement doesn’t represent me either
I’m getting sick of hearing the 99%, when it’s no more then 15%
anyone that thinks I’m wrong on that number, I say, how many in your family has an IRA, 401k, stocks, a bond, or any other things traded down on wall street.
I find it interesting that we elect politicians to do the peoples business, and to uphold the oaths to the same, but when they give the peoples money to a private interest illegally, we blame the interest, not the people we entrusted with the money, forgetting the oaths they took.
why aren’t people occupying the congress or the white house?
how is wall street to blame, do they make law, set policies?
Did they take oaths to look after the people or their monies?
occupy wall street, you need to look at the real reasons things are the way they are.
capitalism is not the problem, it is the answer.
as we do not have a free market, and haven’t had for a long time now.
[regulations]…, that takes “Free” out of “free market”
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
i suggest that it is the system of rule which collects taxes. a govt, fbi, ‘educators’, city police, army echelons, judiciary, politicos, administration are parts of it. and all those people must get paid and paid much more than the serfs.
govts come and go but the system remains unchanged. so, it wld seem that if paul does not want to collect monies in order to run army, cia, fibi, judiciary, congress then let him change the system to a system without cia, fbi, army, judiciary.
wld that be in accord with his libertarianism? which wdl call for abolition of police and people wld thus be freer than with it.
we cld add to that also judges! why allow the judges to judge/jail/fine others and thus harm his ideology?
i think paul is pushing the ultimate serfdom for most americans and a boon for a minute minority! tnx
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@bozhidar balkas The ideology you describe is not Libertarianism, it is Anarchy. Libertarians believe in strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, which guarantees individual freedoms, while performing a small number of limited AND enumerated tasks (national defense, contract rights, etc.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] walk-on roles. When a crank like Ron Paul compares the Federal Reserve to drug addiction, advocates eliminating the income tax (and replacing it with nothing), and shuttering a roster of basic programs Americans rely upon, the average voter rolls his eyes [...]
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
[...] Paul has pronounced in a past that he’d like to annul personal income taxation rates, though his devise doesn’t advise that. It does introduce obscure a corporate taxation rate [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Arnold is right. there are taxes based on income and consumption. There are federal, state, county, and use taxes… as one would invest in different items to decrease risk, governments decreases their risk of lost revenue (taxes) by spreading them out in different forms.
I think that the total tax income that can be generated should be based on a percentage of GDP, that a person should pay only to one source (you pay county tax, county pays state, state pays federal and the fed gives back to some communities in block grants). I also think that you should either pay based on income or by consumption (preferred) but not both.
Since our country has SO much debt with local state and national, I think that they should consolidate all the debt into one debt with the condition that any entity must have a balanced budget amendment in their constitution, if not, no help and run the risk of a state turning back into a territory and being consumed by adjacent states that do manage their budget. Pay the debt as a line item over a fixed period of time so it is clear how much everybody is paying for this crazy debt we ran up. As for federal government, they could balance the budget by assigning a primary , secondary and tertiary levels for expenditures: Primary is a constant paid item that never changes (president’s salary) , secondary is an item that could have a range (landscaping costs for the whitehouse, you have a minimum and if the end of the year there is money, can spend more), tertiary is used at the end of the year if there is any money left and is low priority (study on controlling cattle odor, yes, we paid for a study like this). Also, I think that anything that is paid out that cannot be paid back or used/consumed is considered welfare… lump everything from social security, Medicaid, farm subsities, college grants, etc and make it a fixed percentage of taxes / GDP. that will force all these groups to keep an eye out on each other not to waste money that their group could be getting and keeps spending in line because it keeps the number at a fixed percentage of a real number (%GDP, %total tax).
Those are some of my ideas… wondering if RP is looking on here, if it makes sense or if there are any better ideas out there. Rob S Severna Park, MD
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Robert Shaw its called excise taxes.. thats all that will be needed
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
[...] Paul has said in the past that he’d like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn’t suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0