Taxes

776 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.


776 responses to “Taxes”

  1. regisjbeakensr

    what i forgot is mathmatically i would make plenty more with windmills than cost to build and that money just keeps coming with electric generators no cost no enviroment issue win win

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. regisjbeakensr

    i’ve pointed out my stand on taxes are 10% on $100000 and up social security tax social.security and medicare paid for life may help education. now 10% on income tax both off the gross no lawyers sneaking in thats for everyone $15 minimum wage it makes sense. thats 3120 dollars minimum a person tax . emloyee thats bad no you get $60 a week taken out and thats it. the rich take ahit here but have been screwing us for years you made the problem by breaking or bending laws pay up time. most making $15 hr now are deducted 20% thats double i saved you $60 a week if your math is bad have your 10 year old explain it to you. this what a bill should look like short and sweet. then our countries problem the laws are easy making people obey is another thing. bring jobs back home penalize anyone who hides their money in another country deport bush to germany freeze his assessts and give to homeless ranch and all. ok just fine him 20% of gross income for next 10 yrs 45trillion for war my as-

    bipolar kicking in i hate both those presidents.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. k scott

    Ron Paul says, “An income tax is the most degrading and totalitarian of all possible taxes.”

    That’s interesting since God creates an income tax for His nation of Israel in the Bible. Does Paul think that God is a degrading totalitarian?

    Do we call God a thief for creating a Tithe for the Poor (which was a national mandatory 10% tax) in His nation of ancient Israel, and for requiring that all landowners leave food behind in their fields and vineyards for the poor? He also required a 10% ministry tax on which the government operated (since this was a theocracy) and a 10% festival tax which was for the enjoyment of the community. God is the creator the income tax that is redistributed amongst the people. That’s where the concept comes from.

    God cares about the well-being of all people more than He does an individual’s right to hoard riches while others suffer.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. MikeinBoston

      That’s about the worst argument I’ve ever read. Nice work.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. k scott

        @MikeinBoston

        Wow, that’s quite a well thought out response, Mike. You’re a real deep thinker!

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. MikeinBoston

          @k scott LOL Thanks! I guess it gets as good as it gives. My point is that its brainless to include an imaginary being in a discussion about reality. Comon. Get real.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. MikeinBoston

          @k scott or (ahem) educated..

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. PaulI.

      Wasn’t there something in the Constitution about the separation of church and state??? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. k scott

        @PaulI.

        Actually there isn’t, but the constitution does forbid a national religion. However, this does not mean we can’t vote based on our beliefs. All people have religious beliefs, even if it’s the belief that there is no God.

        But as long as you admit that Paul’s anti-income tax stance is anti-Christian and is insulting to God, I’m fine with that.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. jpm374

          Seriously, that has to be one of the most retarded things I’ve ever heard in my life. Comparing U.S. tax policy to God’s Tithe is the equivalent of comparing apples to space shuttles – one of them has to do with giving to the poor, while the other has to do with giving the U.S. government gratuitous amounts of money so that they can waste it on unnecessary things that provide absolutely no service to the American people whatsoever (i.e. TSA, the Federal Reserve, etc.) . Plus, if you actually had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that (1) the Tithe only applied to Israelites that inherited the land of Israel and (2) the Tithe ended when the Levitical priesthood ended (Hebrews 7:5,12,18). To put it in simple terms (since I can tell from your posts that you’re a complete moron and probably can’t even read and/or comprehend many of the words I used since they contained more than 3 syllables), your opinion that Ron Paul’s tax policy insults God is absolutely baseless, unfounded, and nonsensical.

          »crosslinked«

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. LoveOfLiberty

          k scott,

          Is there a reason you believe Mosaic law should still be implemented in today’s world, a world (as asserted by most Christians) which has embraced Christ’s teachings and abandoned much/most of Moses’ teachings???

          The problem with your analogy, even if Moses’ law were still in place, is that the Hebrews were commanded to tithe in support of

          themselves and others Hebrews. They were not commanded to forcibly take 10% from those of other faiths in nearby areas. No matter how noble the cause of using funds to care for the needy, or any other noble cause, God has never commanded His people to forcibly take from others, which is what taxes do! Instead, His way has consistently been to allow His people to choose for themselves (granted, sometimes with penalties) to pay or not to pay. You are correct that tithes are a form of taxation. However, you have left out a critical word: “voluntary.” Tithes are voluntary taxation. The question is about choice and force.

          Read about Christ’s life and you’ll find many teachings which hinge on his underlying message of choice. From my own life, it seems most properly-used force exists due to the need to stop others from imposing their will on us. Examples of improper uses of force (such as the one you advocate) are many. Some are murder, rape, slavery, theft, violence, and dishonesty. Believe me, if I choose not to pay taxes, the government will enact violence on me, either through garnished wages, them forcibly taking my belongings, through some tangential law imprison me, or some other violent means. They force 20% of my day (on good days) to be spent working for them. In other times, this was called “serfdom” or “slavery.”

          I’m expecting, somewhat, for you to find some obscure Bible verse to support your claim about Ron Paul being un-Christian, even though I have the entire New Testament to support my arguments. Unless you can substantially refute my message, I hope you can begin to accept it. It is a message of peace, liberty, and choice. Were enough people to embrace it, we would all be able to live in communities we WANT to live in (instead of those our predecessors left to us), our living standards would improve because the productive would be better rewarded and, as multiple studies have shown, productive people are far more charitable than unproductive people (even those who have received great inheritances and are very wealthy). I wish the best for you and if you are interested, please buy a small, older, inexpensive book called “The Love of Liberty” by Leonard E. Read, or download it for free at http://mises.org/books/loveofliberty.pdf

          Have a good one!!!

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. k scott

          @LoveOfLiberty

          My point, LoveofLiberty, is that the Old Testament is proof of how God runs a country. The New Testament, on the other hand, does not address governements and national laws, but only personal behavior. If you want to run a country like God did, look at how He ran Israel.

          Also, you are incorrect in saying that the Hebrews only tithed to their own kind, as the Tithe for the Poor and leaving food behind in fields was for the widow, orphan and “alien”, which means “immigrant.” These mandatory redistributions of wealth were for the nation, not the religion.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. k scott

          @LoveOfLiberty

          Paying taxes is not slavery. The politicians are not pocketing your money (except for their relatively small salaries). They are redistributing your money by paying people to protect us from violence and predatory business practices and by helping those who have litttle. When you take away these protections and safety nets is when people work their lives away in utter poverty like slaves.

          FYI, Slavery is not a sin in the Bible if the slaves are treated as brothers in Christ. The Bible even addresses the issue of slaves not wanting to leave when allowed to go free. Why would a slave want to stay? Because they are treated well. God isn’t concerned with individual liberty; He’s concerned about dignified quality of life for all created in His image, which is all people. He knows it’s better to be controlled by another, but have food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, and general enjoyment of life than it is to be free while starving and freezing, as so many Americans were in the Libertarian late 1800s.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. El__Jefe

      @k scott Ron Paul is against giving our income to the government, not against giving it to God.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. k scott

        @El__Jefe

        God has never taken a penny from a human being. He doesn’t need money. People need money, and God made it the law that the Israelites had to share with the needy and contribute to the common good. The tithes were taxes. It’s that simple

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. jpm374

          @k scott @El__Jefe

          Seriously, that has to be one of the most retarded things I’ve ever heard in my life. Comparing U.S. tax policy to God’s Tithe is the equivalent of comparing apples to space shuttles – one of them has to do with giving to the poor, while the other has to do with giving the U.S. government gratuitous amounts of money so that they can waste it on unnecessary things that provide absolutely no service to the American people whatsoever (i.e. TSA, the Federal Reserve, etc.) . Plus, if you actually had any idea what you were talking about, you’d know that (1) the Tithe only applied to Israelites that inherited the land of Israel and (2) the Tithe ended when the Levitical priesthood ended (Hebrews 7:5,12,18). To put it in simple terms (since I can tell from your posts that you’re a complete moron and probably can’t even read and/or comprehend many of the words I used since they contained more than 3 syllables), your opinion that Ron Paul’s tax policy insults God is absolutely baseless, unfounded, and nonsensical.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. k scott

          @jpm374@El__Jefe

          God’s tithe to the Levites, the ministry tithe, is actually a tithe to support the leadership. Since this was a theocracy, the Levites were also government. This tithe was not for the poor.

          As for the TSA and the Federal Reserve (which is very useful, but that discussion is for another page on this site), a very small percentage of our income tax is spent on them. Like i say to all Tea Party folks, look at the budget breakdown, and tell me what you would cut, before you say we can abolish income tax.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. k scott

          @jpm374@El__Jefe

          Yes, I am fully aware that the tithe was for landowners while the poor didn’t pay, but benefitted. Sound like something we do today? The Levitical priesthood ended with Jesus, but it doesn’t negate the fact that God created income tax.

          As for the name calling (the purest for of judgmentalism), check out the pride and judgmentalism study at http://www.biblicalfreedom.com

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. regisjbeakensr

          @k scott @jpm374@El__Jefe

          sounds like someone knows they’re bible and god did create income tax. 6000 years ago its still good in ways but people died earliar and way of live was different everyone worked 6 and up did chores they didn’t jails which cost a fortune you was stone or lashes. lessons learned if you didn’t fit their was no socialsecurity or medicare or all the fancy things we haverich toys have taken the god most believe in

          and turned them evil fighting games tv sex for anyone to see parents puut code in soap operas comedies 2.5 men imply drunked whoremongers are good.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. McCordRM

      @k scott

      Actually, God didn’t create taxes, or the Tithe. Man did, and then claimed to credit God for it. When the giant hamster comes down off his cosmic wheel and tells me, Himself, to pay up… I’ll gladly oblige. Until then, quit thinking that God- the supposed creator of all things- somehow requires you to speak for Him.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. k scott

        @McCordRM

        You think the Bible is a lie, so you’re are a perfect Ron Paul supporter. Libertarianism is the opposite of Christianity. Now let’s see if Paul is honest about that as he panders to the Christian vote to win the republican nomination

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. McCordRM

          @k scott

          Wow, way to make an ignorant assumption.

          First, many stories from the Bible have been proven to be copies of stories told centuries earlier.

          Secondly, regardless of whether or not any, or all, stories in the Bible actually took place at some point (regardless of the actual names of the characters involved), the fact remains that any Being capable of creating existence itself does not now, nor would ever, require Man to speak or act for Him. You act like we’ve always had money because “God” created it, and then set up rules for how we’re supposed to spend it. Since we know with absolute certainty that money has NOT always existed, it stands to reason that God wouldn’t have had a reason to implement a Tithe upon Man. And that’s not even taking into account the concept of God, yet again, relying on Man to support… well, whatever the hell the money he demanded was supposed to support.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    5. Adam M.

      @k scott Mr. Scott, your zeal for the Bible is noteworthy but severely misguided. The primary flaw in your argument here is that the income “tax” you reference were tithes to God, via the levitical priests. God has the authority to “tax” our income since he owns everything, we are merely stewards. Civil magistrates, however, would not be allowed to directly tax income as they would be taking the place of God as True Owner. The only conclusive references in the Old Testament about civil taxation are negative (e.g. 1 Sam. 8), which speak of heavy taxation that is burdensome. We can conclude therefore that whatever type of rightful tax the civil magistrates collected, it was certainly not exceeding the tithes God demands for the tabernacle. The priests were the ones who redistributed food and money to the poor, not the “elders at the gate,” i.e. civil magistrates. This is right and good, and therefore irrelevant to your critique of Paul. Paul is not against voluntary tithing to the Church. He’s against the heavy taxation of property (including income) that implies the government is the rightful heir to the fruits of our labor. This concept is false and completely unbiblical. We do pay taxes to the government, because men deserve to be paid for their service. But to say that the “tithes” in the O.T. to the levitical priesthood is analogous to the civil-income-tax is erroneous. The burden of proof is on you to show how the priests redistributing food/money is warrant for government redistribution (socialism). I’m confident you have no ground to stand on.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. k scott

        @Adam M.

        These tithes were in the name of God, but were not to Him, as you say, as He needs no money.They were to support the needs of those who had no inheritance in the land – the poor and the Levites, and God required this support. This is a mandatory (not voluntary) redistribution of wealth, and if God commanded it, then it can’t be wrong for our government to emulate it .

        The other approach is to do it Satan’s way. The Satanic Bible tells people to do what they want and look out for themselves. The Satanic church leader said in an interview that charity is fine as long as it’s what you want. That’s Libertarianism in a nutshell. God never advocated the liberty for a nation’s people to hoard money. That’s why He promises wrath in Malachi 3:8-12 for failing to collect tithes.

        There is no need to prove how the priests redistributed from the “storehouses” the Bible mentions regarding tithes. I’m sure they had a system to keep the food moving rather than rotting. Plus, requirements to leave food behind in fields allows the poor to gather for themselves.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. Adam M.

          @k scott

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. Adam M.

          @k scott You completely ignored the foundational point of my post. The income-tithes (money, food, crops, livestock, etc.) went to the priesthood for the Levite’s well-being, for them to function as the liturgists of the tabernacle (analogous to how contemporary liturgists live off tithing). This same tithe was saved up for feasts and festivals and for the poor of the community every third year. So, we’ve established that the income-tithe was a payment to the priesthood (analogous to the Church), not the civil magistrates. You seem to be assuming that since Israel was a theocracy that there was no jurisdictional separation of power. This is a false assumption. The elders at the gates of each community were the judges of the people are distinct from the priests. This is clear from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Numbers 1:49-53 tells us so very blatantly. The Bible is the foundation for the jurisdictional-separation of church and state. All of this proves that your critique against Paul is baseless and uninformed. He is not against God’s income-tithe, he is against the civil income-tax since it implies that the government is God, the true owner of property. The only direct income “tax” we should have are our tithes and offerings to the Church. The Church is the one who should redistribute wealth to the poor and needy, not the state.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. Adam M.

          @k scott You completely ignored the foundational point of my post. The income-tithes (money, food, crops, livestock, etc.) went to the priesthood for the Levite’s well-being, for them to function as the liturgists of the tabernacle (analogous to how contemporary liturgists live off tithing). This same tithe was saved up for feasts and festivals and for the poor of the community every third year. So, we’ve established that the income-tithe was a payment to the priesthood (analogous to the Church), not the civil magistrates. You seem to be assuming that since Israel was a theocracy that there was no jurisdictional separation of power. This is a false assumption. The elders at the gates of each community were the judges of the people and were distinct from the priests. This is clear from Exodus to Deuteronomy. Numbers 1:49-53 tells us so very blatantly. The Bible is the foundation for the jurisdictional-separation of church and state. All of this proves that your critique against Paul is baseless and uninformed. He is not against God’s income-tithe, he is against the civil income-tax since it implies that the government is God, the true owner of property. The only direct income “tax” we should have are our tithes and offerings to the Church. The Church is the one who should redistribute wealth to the poor and needy, not the federal government. That is Paul’s message. If you’ve listened to him speak for more than 12 minutes, or read any of his books, you would understand this.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. k scott

          @Adam M.

          I just did an NIV concordance search on magistrates and was unable to find any in ancient Israel. The only references to them were in Babylon, Rome and Persia (mentioned by Artexerxes whena addressing Ezra). Is there another term that the Bible uses for magistrates in ancient Israel? I can’t seem to find them.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. Adam M.

          @k scott Yes – “elders at the gate”, see Deuteronomy 22:13-21 and 25:5-10 as examples. This is parallel to the “angels at the gate” who guarded the garden with flaming swords after the fall (Genesis 3:22-24). In other words, there is a parallel between earthly rulers and heavenly rulers – as Apostle Paul presumes in Romans 13 by calling civil magistrates “God’s ministers.” Israel was to never have a centralized government (God judged Babel for wanting such a thing) and taxation of property is a judgment against immoral people (“one tenth of your sheep” – see 1 Samuel 8:4-22). Ron Paul’s position on this completely mirrors the biblical model. Free individuals give their money/tithes to the church and other organizations to finance true charity – not charity by threat of an IRS gun in your face.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. k scott

          @Adam M.

          I’m not seeing the Babel reference at all. I think it’s quite a stretch. And the Samuel passage warns people that their incomes will be taxed to increase the leaders’ wealth – the norm throughout history. This is the opposite of God’s redistribution of wealth which forces money downward to those in need. If you go to the “Greed and Oppression of the Poor” study at http://www.biblicalfreedom.com, you can read all of the verses in which God promises wrath upon the nation for failing to protect and meet the needs of the poor and oppressed. So if His wrath was upon the nation, then it stands to reason that the nation was responsible.

          Satan loves the charity-only approach, because he knows it doesn’t work. It especially doesn’t work in America anymore, because conservatives teach that the poor deserve to suffer and are to blame for their poverty. God, however, required an income redistribution system for the entire nation, because He cares about people too much to leave it up to the whims of the wealthy to meet the needs of the needy, which never works thanks to the greed of the greedy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. k scott

          @Adam M.

          I’d also like to add that we do not have a national religion like the Israelites did, so our ministries cannot care for the entire nation, only the governemnt can do that. If we had a national religion, then perhaps the church could collect tithes required of all who have an inheritance and use it to help all in the nation who don’t. But without a national church, only the government can fulfill that role. Otherwise, the needy have no hope. And God cares about people too much to let that happen.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        8. Adam M.

          @k scott I’m sorry I do not have time to read all 56 pages of your essay at this time. I skimmed it but I am not impressed. Please cite for me one command in God’s law for the civil government to regulate the economy (other than just weights and measures) or for the civil governments to redistribute wealth to care for the needy. This means there has to be a penalty attached, or else it isn’t a “crime” that can be regulated. This is how we distinguish between sins and crimes in the Old Testament. If you can supply me one verse that clearly states or implies that it is the role of civil government to redistribute wealth, I will recant. Until then, I am firm in my position that the role of civil government in Israel was to execute justice. The role of redistribution was for the priesthood and individuals (the Church). You have this severely backwards and you must deal with the distinction between elders at the gate and the Levites. You also will not find any positive mentions of civil taxation in the Scripture. They are always negative, and describe redistribution of wealth, expanding wars, and confiscating property. The fruits of your labor is your property and is legitimately included. Your property belongs to God through the Church, not the government. You have failed to deal with this issue in a conclusive, biblical manner.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        9. k scott

          @Adam M.

          So what you’re saying is that a government has no right to emulate God by looking out for the well-being of its people. If a nation has no national religion able to require redistribution of wealth to help all the needy within its borders (as Israel did), the civil government achieves righteousness by doing the opposite of what God required of Israel, leaving the poor to rot. Interesting, but totally missing the purpose of God’s laws which is to ensure that “all” people in need are cared for.

          And let’s not forget my original point, that Ron Paul oppossed God by saying that income tax is the most evil tax. If redistributing a percentage of one’s income is so wrong, then why didn’t God feed the needy and the Levites through a sales or excise tax? These are the anti-biblical methods of taxation, probably because they place an unfair burden on those least able to afford it. Percentage income tax is the only biblical way to tax – and that says volumes.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        10. Adam M.

          @k scott Civil governments must certainly emulate God in protecting the liberties of its citizens by executing justice on criminals. This means civil government is a “protector” not a provider (which you want it so badly to be.) But you have an unbiblical view of government. “Civil” government is just one type of government in this life. Self, family and church governments are more important than civil government, with the church being primary. The triune God is both one and many, which is the basis for human balances of power. If there is no distinction of authority, then there is no limit of power which leads to anarchy (churches commanding physical warfare and policemen regulating church attendance, etc). Do you really think that’s how God has set up societies? No way. The church is the foundation of society, bearing the sword of the spirit and the keys of the kingdom: preaching the gospel, healing the sick, feeding the poor, and administering the Lord’s Supper. Civil governments are to keep the peace so that the Church can function without interference, to bear the sword of wrath against evildoers (Rom 13). You want to blur the lines between church and state without realizing that even Israel’s theocracy had the distinction of civil leaders and church leaders with respective duties. You have no biblical basis for your view, you have emotionalism. All scriptural evidence is against you in this regard.When Paul says the income tax is the most evil tax, he is referencing the “civil-government-income-tax”! You cannot divorce Paul’s statements from context. This is a basic rule of communication. Paul has never once condemned God’s income-tithe, thus your criticism is irrelevant. Your refusal to recognize a distinction between church and state is causing you to judge Paul ignorantly.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        11. k scott

          @Adam M.

          I’m afraid you are missing the point of God’s laws. The reason He required a percentage redistribution of income was to put a system in place that ensured ALL peoples’ needs were met. Had the Levites been unable to do this for whatever reason, I’m sure God would have had the civil governement do it, because He cares more about people than technicalities of governemnt. He would not have let the well-being of these people be left to hap-hazard chance. (For a proper understanding of the purpose of God’s laws, read the Christian Freedom study at http://www.biblicalfreedom.com).

          You’re making the mistake of trying to compare a theocratic govt with a national religion (the opposite of what our constitution allows) to a democracy that forbids national religion. In this situation, the govt has the right to do what’s right, since the church is not a part of the governing process.

          By the way, if Paul is so dedicated to the Bible, will he make trespassing legal, even letting us eat from our neighbors’ gardens? Of course not. Paul only picks the Bible verses He can twist to suit the interests of the wealthy.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        12. Adam M.

          @k scott (1 of 2) I’m very well aware that he put the levitical priesthood in place so that all people’s needs were met. I’m not disputing that. That’s what I’ve been saying this whole time: It’s the Church’s duty! For a Bible scholar you are overstepping your boundaries. To say that you are “sure” you know what God would have done if the Levites hadn’t been faithful has no grounding in Scripture whatsoever. It’s an arbitrary statement based in your own subjective wishes. There is no place in Scripture for you to draw the conclusion that God would have transferred the duties of the priesthood over to the civil authorities. In fact, what we see in history is that when the Church fails, big governments pop up because the PEOPLE look to any source they can for help. When Christians don’t tithe, governments tax higher! This is all a judgment against the Church for not being faithful to its mission. So, yes, God takes care of people through various means providentially.. But to conclude that he therefore approves of the means is erroneous. God’s laws are applicable in every political situation, regardless of what any country’s constitution actually allows. All governments are theocratic. The question is not “whether” a nation follows some god, but “which” god will they follow. Whatever standard they use to determine their laws is their god. The US government may say they are right to provide healthcare, welfare, foreign aid and housing assistance, but that doesn’t make it so. Or else, the State is God. Instead, the Triune God is the real arbiter of true/false governments.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        13. Adam M.

          @k scott (2 of 2) If you think Deut. 23:24-25 is proof of no property boundaries you are highly mistaken. First, if the passerby is hungry, he is morally free to pick from his neighbor’s crops, but even this imposes a limit. He’s not allowed to take as much as he wants or to take advantage of it (think of Jesus picking on the sabbath; or David taking the showbread). Second, the text is saying to the property owner that only God is the absolute land owner. Earthly owners have limits to their sovereignty and should affirm the moral necessity of allowing others to pick their crops, though with limitations. But where is the judicial punishment if the land owner does not allow this? It mentions none. Which indicates to me that this law is a moral-law, not a civil law. It certainly is a sin to ignore it, but a crime? That’s not so black and white. If God dictates civil laws, he must also dictate the civil penalties. When he gives none, we can presume that he is giving us a moral admonition. Again, I see no evidence against Rep. Paul in this matter. He is the closest candidate we have to a Biblical view of government and it’s a shame that Christians such as yourself despise him. His stance on abortion alone should have Christians flocking to him.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        14. k scott

          @Adam M.

          If there is such a distinction between moral and civil law, why is there a death penalty for sorcery and sacrificing to other gods? These are hardly civil issues; they are religious issues. The separation of church and state you propose is both an assumption and a stretch.

          None of the law was optional. It was all required for the nation. Just because the penalty is unstated doesn’t make it optional. The free movement over land is proof that God doesn’t obsess over property rights to the extent that libertarians do.

          You need to be careful not to be led to think that libertarianism and God’s will are the same (and really, what are the chances that the system you believe in is the one that aligns with the Bible, out of all the systems that have ever been?). I used to be a Republican who accepted arguments like yours, but ultimately the Bible kept convicting me until I changed. If you think God’s laws are a bunch of picky, technical rules rather than a system devised for the common good, you’ll miss the beauty of what Christianity is all about.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        15. k scott

          @Adam M.

          In a democracy, we have the right to vote for what’s right, whether it be a moral or civil law. We need not leave righteousness to the church and claim that our democracy is trying to become God by doing what God would do or by doing what is right.

          Our government has two choices: emulate God by making adjustments to the system (our system is corporate capitalism – it’s a system that’s greatest flaw is a disparity of wealth far worse than that of any other system) that assures needs are met, so the poor don’t “cry out to the Lord”, or emulate Satan, by promoting personal liberty to an extereme that hurts the common good (as the Satanic Bible does). Emulate God or emulate Satan – those are the two path’s the governemnt can follow.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        16. Adam M.

          @k scott I’ve been charitable, for the sake of Christian unity (you are a Trinitarian, right?) I’ve tried reasoning with you FROM the Scriptures, refuting your claims and asking you to back yours up with biblical evidence. Instead, all I get is your emotional appeals to what you are “sure” God wants and what God would do in certain situations. This is not a true hermeneutic for the faithful Bible-believer. You have added your own context for what you think God’s law is/means. You are not operating as if the Scripture is your ultimate authority in all things. You say none of the law was optional, and I agree. But you jump to the conclusion that therefore ALL laws had civil penalties. That’s absurd! Is “not coveting your neighbor’s house” optional? No, you must not covet. Is there a civil penalty for covetousness? No! There cannot be since covetousness is a sin of the heart. The police cannot regulate the heart of man, only God can. Rather, the outward, physical act that springs from covetousness, theft, can be punished. This is the biblical distinction of sins and crimes. Not all sins are crimes. Executing justice pertains to acts of aggression against people and animals (including God: sorcery, witchcraft). If we have to look to God to know what should be civil crime, then we have to look to him for the penalty as well. If he gives no penalty, there is no legal crime. Do you really think Deut. 22:6-7 was regulated by a civil government?!?!?! The reward/punishment is built into the act (v. 7). If the Torah was written as a lawcode then why are there civil penalties for some and not others? The Torah is a sermon from YHWH with a mixture of moral, ceremonial and civil laws mixed together. It’s not a categorized “lawcode” as many make it out to be. I urge you to reconsider your position and please let the Bible give its own context. Let it speak for itself.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        17. k scott

          Like the law on covetousness, tihing was also unenforcable. To oversee the harvesting and tithing of every grape, grain, or olive would have taken as many people as the harvesting itself. Don’t assume that what’s unenforceable is optional.

          Now let’s get back to taxes, per Luke 20:19-26. The scribes and pharisees believed, as you do, that the money is God’s and that a government collecting taxes or tithes was acting as God and it’s taxpayers/tithers as worhippers of that God, paying “tribute” to the taxer. They expected Jesus to therefore oppose taxation and then be prosecuted as a revolutionary when He said so. But Jesus proveed their thinking wrong by saying the government who printed the money was authorized to collect it.

          Since taxes are legal, per Jesus, then we must next ask what’s the best way to collect. God’s way of meeting needs is a percenatge of income, not a sales/consumption tax, excise tax or tariff. So we can conclude that percentage of income is the most righteous way to collect. If anything, Christians should oppose these other non-biblical taxes that take a larger percentage from the needy and the lowest percentage from the rich.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        18. Adam M.

          @k scott Yes, tithing was unable to be regulated at any practical level. Lemme ask you, do you really believe the Levites inspected every worshiper’s property, fields, farms and livestock to make sure they got the right amount of tithes? The Bible never once indicates any such collection agency for the priesthood. Do you think the Church today should regulate tithing by demanding to see every member’s check-stubs? What a ridiculous concept. Tithing is not “optional”, neither is loving your enemy or participating in weekly worship. But that doesn’t mean they are regulated by a civil government with civil penalties. You are literally pulling this stuff out of thin air – not submitting to Scripture. You are not seeing the difference between civil laws (regulated by civil govt) and moral laws (regulated by the Holy Spirit). Ecclesiastical government regulates church matters and have the power to discipline members and excommunicate if necessary. That is the penalty for not tithing, not civil sanctions.

          The rest of your response is non-sense. You paraphrase Jesus as saying, “the government who printed the money was authorized to collect it.” You’ve put words into Jesus’ mouth here, for a few different reasons. First, you are assuming he approves of their method, when he doesn’t even mention the method of collecting. Secondly, money is not printable. Do you know that God has principles for sound money? He requires just weights and measures from commodities such as gold and silver. The world currently functions on fiat currency with no backing in gold or silver. We have no “just weights and measures” which is a sin against God. I’ve never disputed a civil government’s right to collect taxes for funding. But the taxes must fund their biblical purpose and never be directly upon one’s property.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        19. k scott

          @Adam M.

          The just weights and measures command is a requirement to give someone the amount of grain, food, etc agreed upon in a busness transaction, so that you don’t pay for a pound and only get 14 oz. because the scales are adjusted to deceive. This has nothing to do with monetary policy. The Israelites didn’t even have money/coins back then.

          I don’t see the differnce between civil and moral laws because there isn’t one. The only enforcement of law God has is the death penalty for a small number of sins. All other laws have no biblical enforcement. Even if a thief must make restitution, there is no command given on how to enforce that if the thief fails to repay. If the Israelites were not allowed to enforce the laws as they chose, society could not have functioned – it would have been chaos. Only death-penalty sins would have had enforcement, and all else left to chance.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        20. Adam M.

          @k scott “The just weights and measures command is a requirement to give someone the amount of grain, food, etc agreed upon in a busness transaction, so that you don’t pay for a pound and only get 14 oz. because the scales are adjusted to deceive.” Yes, and a proper application of this is with monetary policy. What exactly is a ten dollar bill over against a five dollar bill? What is the difference, what is it measured by? This is why your views are screwed up because you don’t understand biblical economics. Whenever someone places a “price” on something, they are placing a value upon it. That value is always comparative (e.g. there is something “less valuable” and “more valuable”). So, when we adopt a monetary policy, the money itself (whatever it may be) must be measured by some thing to determine if it account for the “value/price” of the product. This is one reason why gold or silver has always been the overriding money throughout history. It can be measured, divided up into ounces and denominations, thus “just weights and measures” applies. As it stands, there is no distinction between a ten dollar bill and a hundred dollar bill. They are identical pieces of paper, with different numbers printed on them. Completely arbitrary. There’s no justice in that system. The other stuff you said about no laws being enforced accept the death penalty is so unfounded and contradictory to what you’ve been saying this whole time. I’m at a loss for words. I’d suggest you read my article for a basic introduction to biblical civil principles. It’s been fun, but I cannot guarantee to keep going back and forth. http://www.scribd.com/doc/60926160/Why-Anarcho-Pacifism-Is-Incompatible-With-Christianity-A-Response-to-Josh-Dies-of-Showbread

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        21. k scott

          @Adam M.

          Adam, I agree it’s time to wrap this up. I read your article, and, while I disagree on a couple small points, I thought it was excellent. I particularly liked your take on John 8 regarding the adulterous woman. I’m sure I’ll be borrowing from that one in the future. But I do want to warn you to beware of libertarianism. If the shepherd declares “total liberty for all” for both the sheep (the powerless) and the wolves (the powerful – including corporations) to go where they want and do what they want, we all know what happens to the sheep.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        22. bob318

          @k scott

          To say; ”

          total liberty for all” for both the sheep (the powerless) and the wolves (the powerful – including corporations) to go where they want and do what they want, we all know what happens to the sheep.”

          Is to not understand the principals of libertarianism, which protects the rights of the individual, and honors personal property rights… we have neither of these things today.

          you are either ignorant of libertarianism, or are propagandizing against it, if you do not like this words, you should get educated, or honest on the subject.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    6. bob318

      so what % should we be slaves, 9%? 25%?

      you don’t get it, that’s clear.

      a tax that’s not voluntary like what is collected at a church is a % of slavery, it says;

      ‘WE OWN YOU…and this is what you may keep’…

      that is unless you’re stupid, and can’t make that much money, in that case you can keep more.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Is a Fair Tax a Just Tax? | timothymichaellaw

    [...] 9% on income tax, 9% on sales tax, and 9% on corporate tax. While not exactly a Fair Tax proponent, Ron Paul only just this year at the CPAC conference supported a 10% flat tax rate for all [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  5. WE THE PEOPLE

    Ron Paul’s idea of eliminating the income tax is an intriguing one.
    I would welcome the idea of a tariff to go along with the elimination of the personal income tax. Let the workers of America reclaim outsourced jobs so that we all can keep more of our personal wealth whether it is earned by an hourly laborer or return on investment for ownership. Salaried management would also benefit. I don’t see a downside to this idea.

    The income tax has been part of the political machinery since 1913. There is absolutely nothing that says that it was a good idea or that it shouldn’t be on the table as a solution.

    And if family members have higher employment rates and no income taxes imagine how much more they could help care for the disabled or elderly in their families. There are some upsides to Dr. Paul’s plan. And I’m not a conservative in any way,shape,or form.
    But what we’ve had with Bush and Obama has not helped. Time to support the man that thinks big and doesn’t except the status quo as “set in stone’.
    Ron Paul is the only candidate that isn’t part of the system/problem.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  6. JamesLouis

    The issue isn’t the state of America at the beginning of the 20th century, it’s a matter of comparison to those countries who were taxing versus non taxing. If you look at the GDP of all countries in that time period you’ll find USA at #3. Seems like we were doing well to me. You can’t look back and say “Well look at how little the government was making in GDP in 1820, it was only $1200 per capita.” In 1820, despite only bringing in $1200 GDP per capita the USA was still at #5. The numbers and economic climate mean nothing without comparing them to other countries at that same period in time.

    One could argue that we are still competing despite being taxed to death, but I feel that the taxing of income is punishing the wrong crowd. As illustrated above, taxing the consumption should be the focus. If we have more financially independent people the government doesn’t need to get involved to take care of everyone. If people aren’t willing to man up and do the saving or earning that needs to be done we are just enabling a society full of people waiting for hand outs and help.

    A friend of mine from Nepal pointed out “In America, there is so much money but people live poor. In Nepal the people are poor but live wealthy.” We need to get back to moderation and being fiscally mature. Not having a government taxing us in order to take care of us is the first step.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. WILL

      Personally, I am not opposed to contributing a portion of my income to a GUARANTEED source of retirement funds; i.e: Social Security. In its “ideal” state, SS coffers would NEVER be touched to pay ANY government bills, and ALL who contribute will eventually get to withdraw their share, plus interest.

      Personally I have “manned up and saved” for my future, but as we can see, the open market (stocks, funds, pensions) are subject to drastic swings, and to have my future’s “eggs” in this private sector “basket” is NO guarantee that I will have anything at all in my retirement years. I am self employed and do not have any Pensions or 401ks or anything… and even those have been known to disintigrate into nothing, at the market’s whim.
      If the government can GUARANTEE me some sort of retirement, based on my contributions during my working years, with a little interest, then I am all for it.

      Why does SS get such a stigma? At it’s core, it is simply a guaranteed retirement plan… which seems fair to me.

      Is this what you are referring to by “government taxing us to take care of us?”

      Or Medicaid… when I am 75 and need some expensive surgery and I no longer work to be able to afford it, and my pension dried up with the great Depression of 2011… what about that? to hell with me, right? I should have “saved up”??

      By the way, Nepal has a national Socialist health care system for its people… so your friend’s example is a bit strange.
      In Nepal, I would be treated through the national health plan, no matter my age or financial condition.

      Why is contributing a small portion of my salary to insure a healthy and financially stable retirement equate to “getting a government handout” in your scenario? That seems rather unfair.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  7. Todd | Channelingmyself

    I wish Ron Paul was my grandpa.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  8. Northern Observer

    Southern Realist. I presume from your comments that you wish to abolish pensions and medicare for the elderly. Most federal entitlements benefit people 65 and over. I don’t know if elderly Americans eat “cheetohs”, whatever they might be. Elderly Americans, however, are considerably more white than the overall population.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  9. Rayjon..

    that is the whole point why are we paying income tax to begin with, the standard of living for the working keeps going down. Yet the goverment supported welfare people seem to live better all the time sitting at home… something has to change. It will be hard and there will be colatoral damage but in the end our country will be better off.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

  10. Southern Realist

    Reality Warrior,

    The scenario of having a greater sales tax to offset income tax is beautiful. If people buy less they save more, purchase healthcare, save for college, etc. All of those things that responsible Americans do. If Americans saved more and spent less then our government payroll shrinks tremendously. Less medicare, SSI, welfare, and WIC. People have to be responsible for their individual actions.

    Luckily the system will correct itself. If you save you pay substantially less in taxes. If you spend to buy rims, big screen TVS, junk food, cigarettes, liquor, then you pay more taxes and put your savings in the governments bank account which will be spent to pay for you once you waste all your money.

    Our granfathers and great grand-fathers are rolling in their graves as they watch our personal and governmental financial irresponsibility.

    A simple system means a much smaller IRS and encourages healthy money management. Everyone needs to get on board the Ron train and wake up.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2

  11. Southern Realist

    Northern Observer,

    How on God’s green earth do you associate less taxes with the social and medical ills of the 1900s. I hate to even entertain such a assanine statement because there are currently labor laws, doctors, medicines, and other modern luxuries that will nip all those complaints you made in the bud.

    Our counrty is currently experiencing one of those epidemics you speak of and without proper treatment the entire country will perish. Our taxation and distribution of revenue is so out of control that many Americans such as yourself can not even comprehend the enormity of the situation. Our government was not created so those who earn an honest dollar should have to pay $0.35 of it to the government to proviode housing for those who choose not to work, yet still are able to smoke cigarettes, drink liquor, eat cheetohs, reproduce, and sit on their ass.

    We were once a very proud country and those who went on social assistance were embarrassed and used it only as a bridge to better times. If you and your blind political associates think that everyone can live a life of equality than you are sadly mistaken. Every successful capitalistic society will have a class system and it is based on education, work ethic, and fiscal repsonsibility.

    The beauty of it all is that Americans have a choice to succeed and unfortunately those that work hard are left financing Kool smoking, cheetoh eating, liquor drinking idiots who believe that the size of their TV is more important than the size of their savings account.

    It is time that we take back this country as it is THE ONLY OPTION. If we continue in our ways our system will be broke and unable to help those unfortunate individuals who truly need help.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2

  12. Reality Warrior

    I could see the sense in replacing an income tax with a sales tax, PROVIDED purchases of items people need to live (food, basic clothing, housing, basic transportation, etc.) are EXCLUDED.

    Otherwise, the revenue that comes out of the insufficient incomes of poor people will be offset many times over by the costs of law enforcement, prisons, property destruction, and all the other costs associated with poverty.

    Also, sales taxes are a disincentive to economic activity. Do we really want to DISCOURAGE people from buying things produced by Americans?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

    1. WE THE PEOPLE

      One Fair Tax sales tax proposal would exempt a certain initial amount to cover food and other necessities.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Northern Observer

    So Ron Paul said the U.S. did fine without income tax for the first 126 years of its existence. Ron Paul wants to take the U.S. back to the 19th Century. Is he as history challenged as some of his supporters? He really thinks that 19th Century America was a paradise. Sorry, it wasn’t. There was grinding poverty with three-quarters of the population working long hours to eke out a meagre living. The average life span was twenty years less than it is today and various epidemics were common events. The average industrial worker endured life shortening conditions in his or her place of work. True, there were very few fat people but that was because only the very rich had unlimited access to food. And of course there were very, very rich people – but they were a tiny percentage of the overall population.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3

    1. Mark D. Rodriguez

      Your comments make no sense! Of course he is not advocating going back to the 19th century. Based on your comments, am I to believe that if all those same people you referred to in the 19th century were giving 35% of what little wages they had to the government that some how they would have been better off? Are you really trying to tell us, that thanks to the burdens of the federal income tax that somehow our society has been greatly improved. And yes, I’m quite sure we are all living longer because we’re paying our fair share to the US government!

      Just as I’m sure you find my last few comments to be ridiculous so do I find your comments. Why, because you are comparing apples to oranges. It’s no different then saying:

      “The last time the steelers won the Super Bowl 2 years in a row the economy was really good. Therefore, all we need to do is redistribute the NFL players so that the Steelers can win back to back Super Bowls and then everything will be good again”

      Our Federal government is just like a drug addict and it’s addicted to our hard earned money! The only way to cure a drug addict is to take away its drugs! And like any good drug addict it’s going to lie, cheat, and steal in order to get its fix. Well it’s time for the family intervention. We need to sit them down and tell them the party is over. We are just not willing to keep financing this government with all of its bad choices.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0

  14. MF

    The problem with the “Fair Tax” is few of its supporters have ever been through a sales tax audit and understand the complexity of sales tax.
    Individuals are not currently audited on sales tax because such audits are not a cost effective way to obtain revenue.
    Look up the “Streamlined Sales Tax” initiative to see how complex it is. Not every state is the same.
    Add in a Federal Consumption tax and you have to start asking who is responsible for remitting the tax, the seller or the buyer?
    Generally, materials purchased to be used in manufacturing products for retail are not taxed until the time they are sold to the consumer. In some states, manufacturing equipment is not taxed or is taxed at a reduced rate if it is used in the production process.
    All these questions would have to be answered in the case of a “Fair Tax.”
    Check the existing websites for Department of Revenue for each state to see.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

  15. a rabid sheep

    taxation has been an issue since Moses was a kid,
    we all see what is being done to “us”,,,there are eventually more and more taxes.
    Ron’s ideas represent the true idea of a sustainable tax for all.
    do not inject some mamby-pamby viewpoint…any worthy “agenda” will fit into the constitutional law.. or else it becomes corrupt, as we have seen.
    for each of your questions/statements, please apply the Constitution…
    if you need enlightening,, ask a civil question, this will ensure better understanding and a progressive forum.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. 60srad

    Those who benefit disproportionately from a government that protects their “property rights” owe a disproportionately large percentage of their income to the support of that government. That is why I scoff at conartistives who claim to have a corner on the “patriotism” market. What most of them call “patriotism” I call “nationalism.” Germany had a lot of this faux patriotism during its own era of reich-wing oppression.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  17. Isaac

    Response to :Tyler1784

    Why don’t we just simplify the tax code by embacing the “Equal Tax” concept where 10% will be paid by EVERYONE with NO Tax Brackets and NO Deductions!

    The Equal Tax concept will not exempt producers or consumers but instead would fall in line with our traditional American value of equality.

    Mark my words: Producers or wealthy corporations will exempt themselves from the liability of the UnFair Tax or Consumption Tax.

    Purchases of consumables made by “Producers” will be exempt from the Consumption Tax as those purchaces would have been made in the name of production.

    Tyler1784, You should not margialize my comments as they are valid concerns and not lunacy. Your counter-arguement does not provide us with any hard documentation to show us that producers will in fact share equally the burden of paying taxes.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

    1. Reality Warrior

      What happens when people are paying 10% of income that is already LESS than they need for survival? They mooch or steal the rest, or they die. And all those nasty side-effects COST more than the revenue that’s raised, even if one doesn’t care squat about the people.

      Poverty leads to crime, property destruction, law enforcement and prison expenses, and other costs too numerous to list, all of which add up to a figure many times greater than the money that’s squeezed out of said poor people when they are taxed.

      Living in the Detroit area, I’ve seen what massive poverty and taxing the poor lead to, and it ain’t pretty.

      So I say we need credits to prevent taxation of income below what people need to get by. But we need them indexed to the cost of living, and balanced against taxes, so poor people effectively get less of a refund if the government spends less, giving even people who have a net credit an incentive to support less spending.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. Reality Warrior

        Excuse me for the editing glitch: I meant to say “people get less of a credit if the government spends more, and a greater credit if the government spends less.”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  18. Tyler1784

    Isaac,

    I don’t think you fully understand the fair tax or consumption tax. This tax is not just on who you consider to be the consumer. Corporations or “producers” as you called them also have to purchase raw materials, goods, and supplies and sometimes services such as transportation and the like. All of these things would carry that same tax, so these corporations would also be sharing in this tax. Every new good or service whether it be sold to you or to me or to whatever corporation is a part of the fair tax. This is exactly why it is fair, it does not discriminate those who spend pay taxes. So before you start ranting and raving and screaming like a lunatic why don’t you do a little research on what exactly these taxes are.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

  19. Doug

    I was just on the Ron Paul 2012 website where I read his proposal to eliminate the IRS and income tax altogether. I’m not opposed to it but I need to be educated a little here. Believe me, I welcome the comments because I intend to make my vote count when the primaries come around. With the elimination of the Income Tax how will the vital government functions be funded? Defense, congress, the judicial branch, the executive branch etc…… I find the IRS to be one of the most corrupt organizations on the face of the earth. Their ability to sieze property and assets needs to be eliminated. Would it be restructured to manage the money flowing into the Federal Government? How does Ron Paul feel about cutting the salaries and pensions of current and past members of the Government?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  20. AMN

    @ Isaac

    I agree that corporations might slide into grey areas but most will have to buy raw goods to produce thirty product. However that being said they are likely to move production out of country to avoid taxes to avoid taxes and gist creates a whole new issue with tariffs.

    I do like the 10% (a guess but sounds good) for everyone and every business. You live here you pay. Your company does business here you pay your 10% from the profit transacted here.

    The consumption tax style has the advantage of not being avoidable by tax dodgers or people living here illegally. I understand its only to an extent but still one thing consumption tax has going for it.

    Now with a flat 10% for every American 18-64 years or age at the average income of $45,000 that relates to 900 billion dollars. I understand there are workers under the age of 18 but I don’t count them because that taxation with representation since they can vote. Also left out folks over 64 because I didn’t have time to get solid numbers for them. It’s still a far cry from the annual government spending of atleast 3.5 trillion. I don’t think corporations will make up that difference either and it only gets us close to breaking even annually and doesn’t seem to get us out of debt.

    Maybe a 15%-20% as some other countries have would get us there and have it adjusted down once the debt is cleared. The only thing for certain is the current tax system is not affective or equal and the government needs to cut/control spending. Everyone or every business should share the responsibility equally and the government needs to make more than they spend

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  21. Richard S

    Tax revenues are currently lost in the grey market.
    I would recommend discovery of lost revenues by implementing a “rental deduction” for all people who are renting their homes or apartments. Renters would be allowed to deduct 30% of the amount paid for rent on their tax returns. They would have to file, with their return, a form which has the property owners social security or Federal Tax ID. This would flush the lost revenues not being declared. Very simple and straight forward.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5

  22. david devore

    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Americans need to redicscover the values of the Free Lance. Make your own living by providing a good or service on your own. It works for illegal activities, why not try it on legal ones?

    Investors are more intimidated by instability than any thing else. Cancelling the Income Tax would free people to pursue their own dreams.

    The Governemtn does not have the legal power to administer Health Programs, but if, as I do, believe it should have, let’s have an Amendment to enable it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. david devore

    Jobs, Jobs, Jobs. Americans need to redicscover the values of the Free Lane. Make your own living by providing a good or service on your own. It works for illegal activities, why not try it on legal ones?

    Investors are more intimidated by instability than any thing else. Cancelling the Income Tax would free people to pursue their own dreams.

    The Governemtn does not have the legal power to administer Health Programs, but if, as I do, believe it should have, let’s have an Amendment to enable it.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Isaac

    This is in response to a comment made by: RobbyJ

    RobbyJ, You have stated that: “That’s why I’m for a consumption tax, where everyone would pay”

    You couldn’t be more wrong! Only CONSUMERS would bear the burden of paying a Consumption Tax!

    CORPORATIONS would be EXEMPT as they are PRODUCERS and NOT CONSUMERS!

    This is NOT fair! The Fair Tax is NOT Fair!

    We need the “EQUAL INCOME TAX” where 10% will be paid by EVERYONE with NO Tax Brackets and NO Deductions!

    DON’T BE FOOLED BY THE UNFAIR TAX!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6

    1. Myles Garvey

      Wow, this is an absurd comment. I’ll agree with you on income tax, but even that is such an invasive tax. It is absurd that we have a government that taxes for producing rather than consuming. Last I checked, corporations purchase from other corporations for their basic needs to run their business. Everything from the materials needed to make their product to buying coffee and paper for their offices. These are “consumed” by the corporation “producing” a different product. Technically, the “producers” are also “consumers”. To claim that such an entity cannot be both is ridiculous and naive. Thus, these would fall under a consumption tax if the legislation was worded properly. Exempt corporations for the materials needed to produce their product,for if we didn’t, they would simply pass the tax down in their cost, but for everything else make them pay a consumption tax (office materials, computer systems, etc…). Furthermore, small business makes up for most of our economy. Last I checked, most small businesses purchase their materials BOTH, if not equally,through suppliers/distributors AND retailers. Just get rid of these deductions. So small business would also “consume” certain products in order to “produce” their own. To claim that corporations are only producers and not consumers is an absurd comment.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  25. rhoward

    taxation without representation is income tax if my 16 yr old gets a job he’s required by law to pay income taxes but he can’t vote for another two yrs. If income tax is shut down then IRS agent’s lose there jobs. I’d much rather see them lose there jobs rather than public school teachers. Even though I don’t agree with what the federal gov’t forces the public schools to teach.
    But that part of the federal Gov’t needs eliminated too. Our unemployment rate would probably be about the same as it is right now for a few years because alot of gov’t workers would be out of a job while the private sector started creating more jobs. The end result would be worth it though cause future generations wouldn’t be so dependent on the Gov’t.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2

    1. Tiffani

      I’m aware that this wasn’t your main point, but if you claim your 16-year-old on your taxes he is not required to file, himself. You’ll get a much bigger return claiming him as a dependent than he would claiming the short hours that a minor is allowed to work.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. 60srad

    A more patriotic (I use the term not in its corrupt nationalistic sense that has become widespread in recent decades) perception of progressive taxation, one that I believe goes back centuries, is that those who have benefited far out of proportion to the rest of us from the government’s enforcement of “property rights” have a disproportionate debt to society and it government that has contributed to their success. There are no “self-made” men or women.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. Mark

    For those of you who want a consumption tax – just add 30 to 35 % to the price of anything and then see how fast your money goes….

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 4

    1. RobbyJ

      Where do you get 30 to 35%? The consumption tax in Germany was just raised from 16% to 19%. And if we could stop wasting money on senseless wars, including the failed war on drugs, hopefully it could be even less, maybe much less, maybe zero.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

      1. Mark

        Senseless wars agreed. Lowering any tax rate to zero – ludicrous. 20-25% consumption tax to pay for federal bills, don’t forget to add on state and local tax – they have bills to pay too.

        Don’t forget – no more mortgage deduction (and rates are going to go up).

        I do agree that something needs to be done, but right now the upper class are paying less than their fair share. Lest you think I’m talking about re-distribution of wealth, I think we both know that it’s already being redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 10% as we speak…

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

        1. RobbyJ

          I’m not sure if you’re agreeing with me or disagreeing with me. I also have a problem with fairness in taxation the way it is. That’s why I’m for a consumption tax, where everyone would pay, including the criminals, including those “working under the table,” including the illegal aliens. No more loopholes, no more hiding your money in offshore accounts. No more creative accounting. No more having to pay someone to figure out what your taxes are. I do differ with Dr. Paul on whether we should get rid of the Bush tax cuts. I think we should. But in the context of him wanting to abolish income tax altogether, maybe we don’t differ at all. And I will repeat that it’s not a pipe dream. It’s working well in Germany. Sounds like you want the present income tax system, only get rid of the tax cuts to the wealthy and get rid of all the loopholes. I’m for that. Unfortunately, that, I’m afraid, is what is ludicrous … unless Ron Paul gets elected. With anyone else, it will just be the status quo.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

    2. MikeinBoston

      Start with what Ron Says, roll back government to 1990s levels and end the income tax. Everything he says is common sense and easy. It’s just that the powers that be will do or say anything to preserve their take. Income tax is theft. Health insurance, too. Anything that compels your to buy something or takes your money, without the choice not to, is stealing, period. America started as a free country and now we’re all drafted into a fiefdom. Ron Paul is the revolution we need and I’m a lifelong progressive democrat. We need freedom first.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. RobbyJ

    I’ve been calling for a national sales tax to replace the income tax for years. Germany is doing quite well with it. I’m not sure if Ron Paul is calling for a national sales tax. I’ll look into this more. And I’m for stopping the U.S. from sticking our military nose in other country’s business. Ron Paul could be my guy for President. I’ll keep listening.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  29. BlackSunshine84

    The Balanced Budget Amendment is a trick to give 0bama absolute authority over the budget and taxation :http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/37954

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  30. K Scott

    Ron Paul’s economic approach is to go back to what we practiced in America in the 1800s and early 1900s – no government intervention, no or little income tax, no fiscal or monetary policy, no regulation of banking, and a gold standard. Yet the nation had depressions in 1807, 1815, 1837 (which was the direct result of Jackson abolishing the national bank – the same thing Paul wants to do with the Federal Reserve – 600 banks collapsed in a nation that only had 15 million people), 1857, 1873 (the long depression – 5 years of decline – no recovery until the late 1890s), 1893/96 (double-dip depression), 1907, 1920 and, of course, 1929. And America spent approx 44% of the years from 1787 to 1932 in recession/depression (versus only 14% since 1932).

    Why would Paul or anyone else want to return us to a depression-plagued America? I don’t have the inside scoop on this, but I’d imagine it’s because there are ways for the wealthy to get richer in a depression. The common characteristic of all US depressions has been deflation – declining prices, declining wages, and declining income (due to under-employment and unemployment) for the working class majority, while small business owners have to close up shop.

    But for those who have already amassed great wealth, deflation increases the value of their money. Property values plummet during a deflationary depression, so those with great wealth can buy up properties and rent them or sell them when the economy rebounds (my great-grandmother used to tell me of a distant relative of hers who got richer this way during the Great Depression). Then when the next depression happens 15 years later, they or their wealthy children can repeat the process and further increase the family fortune.

    The Federal Reserve staves off deflation by printing more money and makes schemes like this impossible. So naturally Paul would like to abolish it. He’d also like to reinstate the gold standard, because, it too prevents inflation.

    Whether these are Ron Paul’s secret intentions or not, what I’ve just described is the reality of the depression-plagued America that Paul’s policies will bring about.

    How will Paul get people to vote for a deflation-plagued nation? By getting you to hate government the way street criminals hate police. Those who are up to no good generally do want authority, established by will of the well-behaved majority, out of their lives.

    As for me, I know that in the 2nd half of the 1900’s, the USA was the greatest place in the world to have ever lived, even for the common worker. It’s the policies of that period we need to return to, not those of our nation’s most-troubled years.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 9

    1. Tori Alexander

      The Federal Reserve was created in 1913. As you note there were depression in 1920 and 1929, the last being one of the worst ever. The Fed is not able to correct a depression by printing money, as you suggest. Read Ron Paul’s book End the Fed.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  31. NathanS

    I would very much like to see RP as a top contender in the 2012 election. His presence in the public spotlight could affect American youth in a very positive and forward thinking way. On the issue of tax reform, who doesn’t want lower taxes? As much as the idea of not being taxed on our income may appeal to us, I’m not sure it’s 100% realistic in the America of today, although a hefty tax cut is very realistic. With the national debt as high as it is, we can’t make it any harder on ourselves as a country to pay it off which is what I see happening if we eliminate income taxes all together. If we did eliminate federal income taxes on individuals then I also believe that we would need to completely eliminate farming subsidies and oil subsidies. We as taxpayers don’t need to supplement the income of multi billion dollar oil companies so they can go out and search for oil which when found and extracted reaps no financial benefit to the people who paid to make it possible in the first place. Farming subsidies make no sense either. The government pays people to keep their land empty, eliminating farm worker jobs and contributing to the unemployment rate in this country. People will argue that Americans don’t want to work in a farmers field and that farmers can get cheap labor elsewhere. I don’t see the issue being that Americans don’t want farming jobs, it’s more that the subsidies have been in place for well over 50 years and we’ve gotten used to those jobs being considered lowly and obsolete. Some may also argue that we can’t grow crops in this country and sell them in this country at affordable prices. You’re wrong! Here is a proven fact. The more money people have, the more they spend or invest. If people start buying crops grown by American farmers then the farmers will have more money to invest in laborers (legal labor ;) ) thus creating more jobs at a fair wage. The more productive the farms become, the higher the food surplus. The higher the food surplus, the better chances for food exports. You see this waterfall effect happening? I believe the biggest thing we can do for our country at this point is eliminate wasteful spending by our government. Whether it’s by lowering taxes and forcing the Feds to cut spending that way or by simply eliminating all the ridiculous handouts, it has to happen if we are to survive as a country. We as Americans can’t leave it up to our leadership alone to create jobs and maintain our standard of living in this country. Simply voting isn’t enough, we all have to do our part to support our local, state, and national economies. Buy American made products and create those much needed jobs, help people get off the federal and state handout programs and you will see a much needed and welcome change in our country. RON PAUL 2012!!

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  32. michaelsa

    How can anyone slighty disagree with this? America has to vote Ron Paul in.

    I’ve truly never thought of tax this way. I mean no income tax? Sounds crazy, but it’s far from it. It’s quite the opposite. We’ve all been hardwired to just hope for lower taxes and have been brainwashed accepting taxation as the norm. This article made me think ” how can someone else have a RIGHT to my money which I’ve worked for?”

    It’s crazy. 16th ammendment GET OUT

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 4

    1. David

      As long as you expect ZERO social services from the government, then we can go ahead and eliminate income taxes. Why do we need a government in the first place actually? We should just live in anarchy so I don’t have to pay any taxes!

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4

      1. NathanS

        I’m not sure why you think that the elimination of the federal income tax would lead to anarchy. Could you explain further, or are you just shooting your mouth off without thinking?

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3

  33. Ron Paul – The Only Acceptable Candidate for President

    [...] the Issues: Audit the Federal Reserve, Our Money, Taxes, National Defense, Border Security, Civil Liberties, Health Care, Abortion, Education, War on [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Zach

    Why can’t we simply decrease the income tax? Why is it always get rid of this and replace it? Black and white arguments. Reducing the income tax would be a good start, then the government would be forced to reduce spending.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 8

    1. David

      What we need to do is make more income levels in the tax code and tax any income over say 1 million a year at 70 or so percent. Then the government would end up losing revenue and need to cut spending.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      1. uspatriot25

        Tax those making 1 million at 70%? Are you nuts?

        Sounds like another person who is jealous of what others make. The “rich” aren’t stupid–they’ll put their money where you and the government can’t touch it.

        So pick a more realistic tax rate.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  35. roderick anderson

    a p.s. on taxes and cutting spending

    here is an interesting thought about the current hoopla about the deficit. as i recall exxon didnt pay a dime in taxes in the u.s. in 2009. what are the odds the u.s. taxpayer was subsidizing their operations? that is to say, if an oil well proved to strike oil exxon got rich off of it. if the oil well proved a failure the u.s. taxpayer picked up the bill as a write off for exxon.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

1 3 4 5 6 7 14

Leave a Reply