Taxes

775 Responses




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.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

775 responses to “Taxes”

  1. roderick anderson

    if you want to cut taxes you have to cut spending. start with the 500 billion dollar a year pentagon budget. we hardly need to spend that kind of money to take on two bit dictators who arent a threat to the world what so ever and are a joke by todays standards of warfare.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  2. james

    Can anyone tell me how voting for tax credits for oil companies is not corporate welfare (through subsidization)?

    I heard Ron Paul talk about this issue and how he votes for all tax cuts but I still can't fully understand why voting for a tax break that affects only a few corporations is not considered government intervention in the economy (as it benefits only a few corporations over others).

    Thanks for the help!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    1. Dave

      Taxes are government intervention; not the other way around. So far as I know, Ron Paul votes for tax breaks across the board. If you were given a tax break, would you consider it subsidization? A subsidy is when the government gives you money, a tax break lets you keep your own money.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  3. WE THE PEOPLE

    "Could somebody explain to me Dr. Paul’s interest in Ayn Rand? (Is his son named for her?!) I know she was a less than mediocre novelist from having tried and failed to read Atlas Shrugged, and, although I haven’t read her philosophy, I have not heard good things about it, and I’m not willing, at this point, to make the commitment to read her just because I’m interested in Paul’s politics. Although I do think free market competition among, for instance, small farmers seems like a better idea than government subsidized industrial-agriculture, I don’t think laissez-faire economics always encourages the fittest or the best to survive. Often it’s simply the biggest that end up surviving, in nature and in the economy. Could Dr. Paul really be that naive to think that, if left alone by the state, society will self-organize in the best possible way? Some intervention is surely necessary sometimes. To break up monopolies, for instance. To take some money from Peter — when he is earn 85 million dollars per year — and give to (the proverbial) Paul when he is earning $16,000 per year. The rich naturally tend to get richer; the poor get poorer. This is called the “Matthew Effect” and its very real and powerful influence as a factor in the economy tends to be ignored by those touting capitalism as the Darwinian cure-all. Did Ayn Rand really reject the idea of altruism? And does Dr. Paul think that state and/or local governments — if not the federal — have a responsibility to care for the elderly and the disabled? And to help the disadvantaged through education?"

    I wonder about Ron Paul's thoughts on Ayn Rand too.
    Ayn Rand was a lousy novelist and a hypocrite who died on the public dole. She was a "Welfare Queen."

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. Jim

      Who says he has an interest at all, and what difference would it make?

      Why don't you ask a question like, blackberry or ipod? Totally irrelevant.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. WE THE PEOPLE

        Not totally irrelevant.
        Actually if the rumors that he named his son Rand after a sociopathic hypocrite that makes a huge difference!
        What difference would it make?A lot if he buys into her crappy ideology.
        That's somebody I absolutely won't vote for!

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. WE THE PEOPLE

    If Obama is re-elected we won’t have a country in 2016…

    If we elect another Bush to the White House this country won't last a year.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  5. Eyerish

    Clearly there are many people on here that don't understand economics. Let go of the fear people.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. A.R. Sammakieh

      We have to start making the market favorable for production here at home again. This will increase revenue to right way.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0

  6. Brett

    I hope all you red-blooded Jamestown wannabes are ready to see your sales tax quadrupled. Call it a consumption tax if you like, but whether a quarter of your income or a quarter of your grocery bill goes to the government, you're still out a quarter of your income. And how is a mandatory consumption tax NOT an example of the government engaging in or terfering with commerce?

    You're all living a pipe dream.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 20

    1. Jill

      I like where you're going with this... Can you posit a general solution?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  7. Jim

    Abolishing the Income tax is a great long term goal, but I feel that in the short term it would have disastrous effects. Imagine if the income tax just ceased to exist, many Americans would essentially be getting about a 25% salary increase. Wouldn't this result in mass inflation? The answer is yes. Americans would have more money and would spend it, this would make demand go up and would devalue those dollars.

    A phasing in of the income tax abolition would not only liberate the Americans from this oppressive and unconstitutional burden, but could also solve some problems in the short term. What if we announced the end date of the income tax, but at the same time gave a definite end date to medicare, social security and welfare. Welfare could be thrown out the door immediately, but medicare and social security are unfortunately so ingrained in our society that destroying them overnight would have serious consequences for our seniors.

    In the interim, say forty years, the government can collect the income tax. 50% of the collected funds would adequately compensate those who require the assistance of social security and medicare. The other 50% could be returned to the taxpayer in an account similar to an IRA. This money can be made untouchable to the taxpayer until he reaches an agreed upon retirement age. The taxpayer will then use this money to invest in stocks, bonds, or whatever he or she wants in order to create a thriving retirement fund for when they decide to retire. That would mean that a person with an average salary of $50,000 a year would retire with more than $2,000,000! The taxpayers wealth will far exceed the need for the medicare and social security programs and would decrease the effects of inflation, because every year a new group of 65 year olds will retire with the money they saved from not paying income taxes instead of everyone feeling the benefits overnight. Slow and steady wins the race.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 9

    1. mark971

      This is a good theory as with no public control we would be right back to the situation we are in now with the economy. Investing in stocks are bad just take your money to Las Vegas as you could get better odds on your investment. We need to go back and start producing things in this country that is how we change this economy. Because the people in your theory have way to much control over everyone else's money, and this is were greed and corruption come in to mess everything up. Yet alone i have paid 20 years worth of social security and what about my money? My generation needs to wake up and remember the 70's, remember the fight of our parents to create a better country, learn from their mistakes and go on with change. Our change not the governments predicted change, as with the Obamacare how is this possible with no one working to pay $300 a month for healthcare most won't use. I will be one of the first to be in trouble for this because i can't afford it, thanks Obama for looking out for the little man like you promised!!!!!!!

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

    2. michaelsa

      just read your first few sentences you are wrong it would not cause inflation. if anything, would keep inflation in check. consumer would spend more but government would be forced to spend less, which would balance things out. increased consumer spending and buying will lead to a more prosperous economy, more individuals now with capital to start small businesses, and therefore more competition which decreases prices.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  8. Tori Alexander

    Could somebody explain to me Dr. Paul's interest in Ayn Rand? (Is his son named for her?!) I know she was a less than mediocre novelist from having tried and failed to read Atlas Shrugged, and, although I haven't read her philosophy, I have not heard good things about it, and I'm not willing, at this point, to make the commitment to read her just because I'm interested in Paul's politics. Although I do think free market competition among, for instance, small farmers seems like a better idea than government subsidized industrial-agriculture, I don't think laissez-faire economics always encourages the fittest or the best to survive. Often it's simply the biggest that end up surviving, in nature and in the economy. Could Dr. Paul really be that naive to think that, if left alone by the state, society will self-organize in the best possible way? Some intervention is surely necessary sometimes. To break up monopolies, for instance. To take some money from Peter -- when he is earn 85 million dollars per year -- and give to (the proverbial) Paul when he is earning $16,000 per year. The rich naturally tend to get richer; the poor get poorer. This is called the "Matthew Effect" and its very real and powerful influence as a factor in the economy tends to be ignored by those touting capitalism as the Darwinian cure-all. Did Ayn Rand really reject the idea of altruism? And does Dr. Paul think that state and/or local governments -- if not the federal -- have a responsibility to care for the elderly and the disabled? And to help the disadvantaged through education?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

    1. Eyerish

      Atlas Shrugged was a good read. I think it should be mandatory reading for all high school students.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

      1. WE THE PEOPLE

        "Atlas Shrugged" is a pile of crap written by an author that lived on the public dole that she "opposed". A hypocrite and substandard writer.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  9. tj

    Lower government regulations.

    Lower government spending.

    Lower taxes.

    Ron Paul 2012...You are either for FREEDOM or against it.

    OK, now some specifics. To the fool who discussed the top rate at 90 per cent for those making a million dollars in the 1950s: OK, lol, maybe I might trade you...you see that was before medicare, medicaid, food stamps, welfare, the Great Society, the Department of Energy, the DEpartment of Education, etc, etc.

    If we gave you or Obama or any other very smart intellectual liberal free reign to devise the income tax rates of your choice, you could not generate enough income to pay for all of your spending...please look up or GOOGL The Laffer Curve to understand this...When Reagan CUT taxes, revenues soared....likewise, I dare you, raise your rate to 90 per cent....see your revenues drop...

    but, here is a warning for us conservatives...the SUPPER smart liberals already know this...the only chance they can raise enough revenue s through RETROACTIVE taxes...such a tax is called the PROPERTY tax...and believe me, those in this administration are drooling at the thought of getting their hands on our 401k's ...but, don't worry, they will call it something nice like the 401K Protection Guarantee Act of 2013

    so vote for Obama if you want your 401K "protected"...vote for Ron Paul if you want FREEDOM...and let RUSH know your opinion of Ron Paul by calling him at 1 800 282 2882...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 6

    1. WE THE PEOPLE

      "Let Rush know"? You mean that blowhard elitist? Who cares what he thinks? He's totally irrelevant to any factual conversation about politics.
      And as far as revenue and debt statistics go, ponder this...
      Clinton left a surplus. Where is that surplus again?
      Iraq? Afghanistan? Wall Street? Wonder where it went. It was there before Dubya took office.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. tim

      the 90% income tax sounds atrocious but it was only applicable to the top tier of wage earners. i believe the top 2% were the only ones who had to pay it originally. so the rich elite who made millions dollars in UNPRODUCTIVE INCOME (i.e. rent, interest, etc. because that was and is the only way to make that much money) had to give it to the public in the form of taxes. the rich elite who made millions of dollars in UNPRODUCTIVE INCOME would go from making 30 million to 3 million keeping a well exceeding livable wage, and making sure these 'trickle down' dollars that were supposed to go to the people ACTUALLY went to the people through the trust of the government.

      And thats the real problem. we no longer trust our government with our tax dollars so why should we want to pay taxes at all? therefore if we can stop useless spending be it via militarism or what have you and reinvest these tax dollars in what the public wants and or needs then perhaps taxes wouldn't be such a touchy subject (as it rightfully is presently) and we wouldnt mind as much paying them, maybe even increasing them if it was OBVIOUS they were going to good use.

      So now to address Ron Paul's point on no income tax: this seems a little foolish (and i LOVE most of Ron Paul's positions). The rhetoric is driven on reducing income taxes on the poorest of citizens and the middle class because they need more money in their pockets (and they do) however getting rid of the income tax would not help the lower and middle classes because it also would allow the wealthiest including those how still make UNPRODUCTIVE INCOME to frolic unrestrained (which history has shown increases the gap between rich and poor). So abolishing the income tax altogether seems unwise but that's what tax brackets are for (if you make x amount of dollars then your rate is y accordingly). Make the common people pay 0% percent and then adjust the rate for the wealthier who make excessive salaries and earn UNPRODUCTIVE INCOME.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  10. Black Order

    Theft is taking property against/without the permission of the owner.

    Theft is fundamentally and universally wrong, unethical.

    Taxation is theft, thus unethical.

    When is one type of theft acceptable, but the other fundamentally wrong?

    Theft is theft is theft.

    Getting rid of the income tax is a good start, but meaningless without recognition of the other types of theft the people are being subjected to.

    If you were robbed on the street, and the thug informed you that he is only going to take SOME of your money, would you appreciate his generosity and ethical standards?

    Would you hail him the same as you do your glorious champion of pseudo-liberty?

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1

    1. Kristan

      The difference - I voted for this "thief" knowing full-well that they would take my money and put it to use building schools, roads, and defense. HUGE difference. You are a very angry individual with extremely flawed logic. I agree that the government takes too much of our money and does too little with it, but the government does need some money to function, and we do need to be governed, so we can't really say that all taxation is unethical can we?

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 12

      1. Black Order

        Can you opt out?

        Can you say "No thanks, I don't want to pay taxes, nor will I use your public services"?

        No. Like it or not, you WILL pay or else be punished.

        This is called "Coercion". Coercing you to relinquish your property is called theft as is it not voluntary. It is without your consent.

        If someone stuck a gun to your head and demanded that you breathe, are they not threatening you because you like to breathe?

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1

      2. Jpalm

        "we do need to be governed"

        YOU may need to be governed, but I do not. I am an adult, fully capable of making my own way in life without the assistance of a nanny state overseeing my every move. I have no problem with sponges like you, but I do have a problem with you using the government to confiscate MY money to waste on projects that YOU deem worthy of the theft. If you are going to be a sponge, be one to people who are willing to support you out of choice, not coercion by gunpoint.

        “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!”

        - Samuel Adams

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1

        1. tim

          she meant that we (collectively) need to be governed ( have a government ) in order to be a society. otherwise this is anarchy and i hope thats not what you are supporting. so assuming you are not an anarchist then government (in some shape or form) needs to exist and thus needs money to function (like any organization public or private).

          Now how much they need and what they use it on is a different story and i agree the government uses money on things they deem 'necessary' that are not. So this is what really needs to be changed and then perhaps taxes will be a little more tolerable for everyone [see my post above].

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      3. Eyerish

        I believe there are many "gov't services" that need to go bye-bye. People no longer think or do for themselves. The entitlement age is growing out of control and the ones taking aren't the one contributing. There are WAY too many taxes on too many things. Every move you make is taxed to death. The reason for this is because they keep implementing more and more entitlement programs. Stop. Eliminate ALL entitlement programs. If people didn't get unemployment they would get their a$$es off of the couch and get a job. Employers wouldn't have to pay outrageous unemployment taxes hence more money to actually pay someone to do work. Small business owners pay double into social security. Do you think we get that all back in the end?? NO. We only see half. The other half is to pay into it just like a tax. All you people who work 9-5 jobs and complain you aren't handed enough need to get checked. Try making your own living by being self employed. You think it's easy. If it's so easy then do it.

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3

        1. tim

          you seem to be under the impression that people are just to lazy to get jobs when in fact its because they simply do not exist and that is why the media keeps focusing on how many jobs are created so that those unemployed and have to receive these tax-based entitlements in order to survive can get a job, helping themselves and relieving the tax payer.

          Now there are bad seeds that ARE too lazy and mooch of the government but this is a marginal bunch and their immorality should not be bundled with hard working americans that want to work but cant't because the jobs don't exist.

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

          1. Doc

            The nanny state has increased the handout to 99 weeks. I personally know individuals (I know them, but don't respect them) that are voluntarily unemployed because their goober'mint benes total more than their worth in the marketplace. If we remove this handout, or at least drastically curtail it, they will get hungry, and they will find something to do that somebody will pay them to do. That's called survival. When we reward the prolific breeders with goober'mint handouts, we remove the incentive to live responsibly and be personally accountable. This is a large percentage of the upcoming generation. My bet is that the unemployed, able-bodied population WILL do the work the illegals say that we WON'T do if we remove the incentives not to work.

            Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

            Report this comment

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. Ron Paul Engaging on Domestic Issues, Loses on Foreign Policy (ContributorNetwork) | JobsTag.com

    [...] legal tender with which people can buy goods and services and store their wealth. Paul would also abolish the income tax, and hence the IRS, but unlike other politicians would not replace it with anything like a flat tax [...]

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  12. Ron Paul Engaging on Domestic Issues, Loses on Foreign Policy (ContributorNetwork) | GhanaZ.com

    [...] their wealth. Paul would also abolish the income tax, and hence the IRS, but unlike [...]

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Sam

    The definition of Tolerance is the negative permission of Evil. We tolerate the income tax b/c it is evil.
    If you do not pay your taxes, the looters in government will deprive you of liberty and property. If you resist you will be deprived of life.
    My ancestors understood this, most people today do not.
    Abolish the income tax and the boom of economy and liberty which follows shall be greater than any the world has ever known.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

  14. fight4freedom

    Let talk tax.

    We give the government money to hopefully protect us. We must give up some right to allow for the Fed to control what goes on. That protection comes in many forms, but has now become a life acceptance to many. The FDA is not looking out for your health. The IRS is not helping you understand how to file. (just some examples) We founded this country when there was no tax code. No deadline to report what your income was. We grew, we defended ourselves, and we prospered the entire way. The government is a business, and it is in the RED. Would you want the government doing your companies books? I think we should have some tax, don’t understate what I’m saying. Lets for a minute look at the Tobacco tax. That industry has been hard hit and will continue until cigarettes are illegal. But your probably saying well that’s fine tobacco’s bad for you. And I agree with that, but killing a free choice market is not what we founded this great nation on. As we give the rights to tax and we go to the poles and agree to tax increase on certain products, we are sending a message to our leaders this is fine with us. Remember the more government the less control, which creates less freedom. A free market will always strive a life of great accomplishments.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  15. Andrew Bathgate

    Abolishing income tax basically rules you out as a serious presidential contender.

    Even if all discretionary spending was eliminated you could not pay the governments bills.

    Customs, tariffs and excise would be a drop in the ocean and if you raise them then you get a black market in smuggled goods (like their exists for heavily taxed items like cigarettes).

    Not good.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 16

    1. Brian

      Andrew, supporting income tax rules you out as a person with any common sense of understanding of freedom. First of all, compensation for labor (wage) is not income. It is a private financial transaction between to entities - a trade of labor for currency. There is a finite amount of currency, so nothing has been gained. With the elimination of the gold standard, wages are effectively an IOU with no intrinsic value. To tax that is even more despicable. Taxing wages is no different than the gov't throwing a person into jail for 5 months of the year. This country was founded expressly to escape this type of theft.

      Income tax was initially intended for farmers, who were actually generating wealth by growing crops. It wasn't until the tyrant FDR came into power and pushed for withholding, that the average citizen actually began paying income tax.

      Income tax is the direct theft from one productive citizen for the benefit of one unproductive citizen. There is nothing fair or equitable about that. It is morally contempt and incompatible with freedom.

      I agree with Dr Paul that a consumption tax is marginally better, but there is no reason for it. Most of the Federal budget is unconstitutional - SS, Medicare, Education. Period. Replacing income tax with some other tax doesn't address the real issue of spending. Even now, there is not - nor will there ever be - enough income to tax in this country that will allow us to pay our current debt. It will never happen. What is going to happen is that we will default on our debts, as we have done several times in the past. We may get away with it or we may not.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1

    2. Matt

      Andrew,

      What part of the country do you live in where there is actually a black market for cigarettes. I see cigarettes being sold at a rapid rate everywhere I go shopping.

      Next, the key to not having an income tax does not mean you have to replace lost revenue dollar for dollar. It means people have substantially more robust spending ability and the free market expands exponentially. This creates good jobs and the government payroll is cut.
      There must also be a real gut check in this counrty and serious cuts to social programs must occur. The days of lifelong government assistance must stop. The fact that single women can have a child on my dime infuriates me as a small business owner who pays over $1000/ month for my family. It is time for the people who do things the right way to regain control of this country and to sweep the leeches of society away or hand out some tough love.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  16. Isaac Ignacio

    I do not support the (un)Fair Tax, Consumer Tax or National Sales Tax concepts and here is why:

    1. A Delayed Consumer Sales Tax (Fair Tax)would only be paid by the end consumer and not paid by corporations or business. This is unfair, unequal and un-American.

    2. A Delayed Consumer Sales Tax (Fair Tax)would cause tax payers to pay more through inflation. Money that consumers would accumulate in savings would have less future purchasing power and this would mean spending more for future consumer items than when the income was originally earned. This means that the tax payer's cash would have had more potential value if the taxes had been paid up front and not delayed. Think about this for awhile and you will see the costs that a Delayed Consumer Sales Tax will create.

    Ron Paul should instead embrace the Equal Income Tax concept. An Equal Income Tax of 10% across the board for all tax payers with No Deductions! and No Write Offs! The Equal Tax would be fair, but most of all Equal. It is important that our government reward and burden it's citizens on an equal basis. Ten percent Equal Income Tax would equally simplify the tax code and even a Fifth Grader will be able to calculate a tax return.

    The Equal Tax concept is much more popular with a majority of Americans compaired to the flawed lopsided un-Fair National Consumer Tax. It is time for Ron Paul to embrace this popular Equal Tax concept and put it to work for the prosperity of the American people. Isaac Ignacio

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Hotly debated. What do you think? Thumb up 2 Thumb down 21

    1. Charlie

      Isaac, Most people think that corporations pay taxes. Corporations get money from people, they dont print it. What most people are offended about with the Fairtax is the rate of the tax. But that rate is what WE PAY. It is hidden in the cost of goods. The Fairtax would UNTAX the poor and manufacturing. The Fairtax would tax CONSUMPTION. Activities that are presently "deductions" would become taxable. Those award shows that mesmerize viewers are "deductible" events. From the limos to the hairstyles, it is a business expense. The Fairtax would make it a taxed event. A single mother feeding two kids pays taxes on the meager meals she places on their table. The Fairtax makes their supper taxfree. Please reconsider the broader effects of the Fairtax and support it for the future of this nation.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

      1. Isaac Ignacio

        Charlie,

        You make the claim that the so called Fair Tax would only tax CONSUMPTION, well I would like to point out to you that Corporations through lobbying, will only seek to characterize the activity as PRODUCTION and therefore exempt themselves from paying the so called Fair Tax and thus leave it up to you and I the CONSUMERS. Isaac

        Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

        1. Isaac Ignacio

          I personally think that the so called Fair Tax should be called the un-Fair Tax. Who in their right mind would think that exempting Corporations from paying taxes and then putting that burden exclusively on the consumer would be called fair? The America that I envision is one of EQUAL opportunity for ALL of it's citizens. This can only be achieved if the government taxes everyone EQUALLY at the same tax rate, not just consumers but corporations too. Corporations want you and I to believe that their tax rate is 35%, when in fact the effective corporate tax rate is 0% after deductions and loop holes are applied. I think that we should bring the corporate tax UP and bring the middle class tax rate DOWN with an EQUAL INCOME TAX of 10% with NO deductions. The EQUAL INCOME TAX is much more FAIR than the so called Fair Tax or as I like to call it the un-Fair Tax. Isaac

          Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  17. Where your income tax money really goes « valleyofthespun

    [...] http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/taxes/ [...]

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. Tricia Johnson

    The reason we have income tax is to pay the Federal Reserve bank cartel. They have been given the power to print the worthless money we have now, by the congress who is supposed to have that power. But they gave it to the banking cartel. Our dollar is worth about $.04 cents not $1.00. This is why things keep going up, it is a hidden tax where our money is (without our knowledge) transfered to the banking carte. The 2008 money that Obama said we had to give to the banks that are too big to fail, was to pay off their banking debts. If we end the Fed we can end the IRS as well. Please, please read "The Creature from Jeckyll Island" as see how this all started. It will change how you see lots of things that our goverment is doing.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2

  19. Charles

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 12 Thumb down 44

  20. BlackSunshine84

    If Obama is re-elected we won't have a country in 2016...

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 34 Thumb down 9

  21. Tell the Truth

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Poorly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 7 Thumb down 57

    1. bball

      Really? You've acknowledged that Ron Paul would be a better president than Obama but you're going to vote for him again simply because he's black? YOur idea that he deserves a second term because the previous two presidents won re-election is ridiculous.

      Obama has already done a lot of damage in his first two years. If he has another four year term we will never recover.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 43 Thumb down 6

    2. Doryan

      To: Tell the Truth

      I’m about to tell YOU the truth. I believe what you just said is true and pure racism. You will vote twice for a man solely because of his skin color all while acknowledging that the other candidate (that does not possess the skin color you desire) would be better for our country. That is by definition RACISM. I think Americans need to stand up to all forms of racism. You need to realize that two wrongs do not make a right.

      I will vote for Ron Paul not because of his skin color but because I believe he can save our country.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2

    3. cannot believe it

      wow, for the good of the country I would vote for the best canditate, not what colour he is...times haven't changed much unfortunately for some people:( and live in their own little rassist world;)

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1

  22. porn

    manyak bi siteymis cok saol

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16

  23. RLS Treatment

    I'm all for eliminating income taxes and ready for the fair tax. Get rid of the IRS and allow us Americans to keep our money and spend it on what we choose. We also need to get rid of Social Security. Let me decide how I invest my money.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 37 Thumb down 2

  24. John T. Robinson

    Yes the Fair tax is the way to save our liberty and finance the Federal Gov.. the incometax is a violation of our liberties and it doesnt" pay the bills.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Highly rated. What do you think? Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3

    1. Steve P.

      Instead of creating "the fair tax", congress should use article I section 9 of the constitution. It is still in effect and should be used.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  25. rokettube

    super websiteniz var saolun

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11

  26. dustin quinn

    I agree with Ron on this issue, if we are to ever have a smaller government we will need to get rid of the income tax.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2

    1. freedomfighter

      Aren't you the guy ,on the other issue blogs, that says we should have free higher education and free healthcare? I don't think you have any clue what your talking about.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  27. Woopa

    To learn the truth about the income tax visit losthorizons.com

    This is much more than a ideological denunciation of income taxes. You will learn what the tax is, what it isn’t and how it can be misapplied. If you learn that the tax is being misapplied to YOU (and that is probably what is happening) then you will learn how to correct this and secure your private earnings (really).

    Don’t sit around and be uneducated while the government wastes your money!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Ralph John Seidemann

      THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
      My eyes are finally opened ! Now I see the scheme of it all. The Federales never had the power to Tax private earnings, its all about our misunderstanding of the laws and WHO they apply to. Thank you for directing me to "Cracking the Code". I got everything back, all of it and got rid of those Nasty Federal Levies. Hah!!! Trade or Business= The Performance of the Functions of a Public Office. A conspiracy of ignorance. THANK YOU WOOPA!!!! The blinders Are off my eyes.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3

  28. sexfilmiseyret

    yes true website ;)

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  29. Steve

    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"

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  30. miley cyrus no clothes

    oh,guy,it'i realy great!

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. I Woke Up

    I DO NOT want property tax, "fair tax", or "income tax". Get it?

    What I want is term limits for all, bills limited to 12 pages max, and no earmarks.

    I have more...but the space is too limited.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2

  32. Jack I.

    "You may be surprised to know that the income tax accounts for only approximately one-third of federal revenue." For those of you referring to "Americans today give more than a third of their income to the Federal government", please compare the two statements.

    Paul was not saying that each INDIVIDUAL gives one-third of his or her income to the federal gov't...he was saying that AS A WHOLE we give that much to the feds.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  33. C J

    It needs to be explained how we can cut US income almost $3trillion and not replace it with anything. I am sure the first response is to cut Government spending, but that requires cutting thousands of jobs. Where do these people go? There are 10 million people out of work today. How can anyone confidently state that business can absorb all these jobs.

    At first blush, sure who wouldn't like to have the extra money, but at what cost down the road. Making a comparison to the first 126 years is apples and oranges.

    More information, please.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 5

    1. Steve P.

      Let's say the 16th amendment is repealed.
      Article I, section 9, 4th clause would still exist which states "No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken." so a mechanism is already in place for raising revenue.

      The mechanism requires that the union states collect their portion of the direct tax as they see fit (sales tax, state excise tax and so on). Washington politicians don't like this approach to collect tax, because of the transparency it creates, the additional length of time to pass the revenue bill and the up front accountability it creates. Historically, it has been used to pay off war and/or unforeseen large debts.

      In other words, the federal government has had the means to directly from the people, collect necessary taxes since 1787. To learn more http://losthorizons.com/CtCforFree.pdf.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

    2. bba;;

      When people are laid off they are forced to find something else. Some of those people will find jobs similar to the ones they lost. However, many of those people will take the opportunity to try something new and will start their own businesses. Some will fail and some will succeed. The successful ones will grow the economy and provide jobs for more people.

      It won't happen overnight, so there will be a period of unemployment for many, but in the long run it has to be done.

      Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  34. jon

    I like the proposal here on taxes, but I'm also completely against the property tax. It's hard for me to say elderly retirees should be forced to pay the government to keep what they've had all their lives even though they're no longer able to work and make a decent wage to actually pay the tax. That seems wrong. If I had to choose between an income tax (even though it'd be much smaller) and a property tax, then I'd have to go with the income tax.

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3

  35. Woopa

    Have you ever wanted to say something that's so obvious you couldn't find the words?

    “You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” — Adrian Rogers

    You do not have to pay income tax unless your "income" comes from privileged activities associated with the federal government and you can get back any money that you've improperly paid to the IRS.

    www.losthorizons.com

    Likes(0)Dislikes(0)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

Leave a Reply