Taxes

790 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.


790 responses to “Taxes”

  1. bob318

    overpaid government jobs… yes.

    un-constitutional spending on illegal programs and military actions… yes.

    possibly hundreds of thousands of unproductive people would then find work in the private sector,

    the burden on government monies reduced, lower taxes , the people would then be spending it in the private sector, creating the need to hire more people.

    two things to remember here

    1. the people that used to work in the public sector would now be contributing to pay the tax burden instead of creating it.

    2. even though hundreds of thousands may lose their jobs, it’s better then having a economic collapse from all this printing and borrowing to pay for them.

    if we do have an economic collapse, (which at this point seems almost like a given on our currant course), it could cost millions more jobs, but more importantly could cost millions of lives from the violence that will erupted from the collapse, millions could starve.

    this has happened in others countries. AND could very well happen here too.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  2. bob318

    overpaid government jobs… yes.

    un-constitutional spending on illegal programs and military actions… yes.

    possibly millions of unproductive people would then find work in the private sector,

    the burden on government monies reduced, lower taxes , the people would then be spending it in the private sector, creating the need to hire more people.

    two things to remember here

    1. the people that used to work in the public sector would now be contributing to pay the tax burden instead of creating it.

    2. even though hundreds of thousands may lose their jobs, it’s better then having a economic collapse from all this printing and borrowing to pay for them.

    if we do have an economic collapse, (which at this point seems almost like a given on our currant course), it could cost millions more jobs, but more importantly could cost millions of lives from the violence that will erupted from the disaster a collapse and the resulting starvation as millions can no longer find food on the empty store shelves.this has happened in others countries. AND could very well happen here too, costing millions of lives the exact same way.

    the jobs saved by not doing it will be short lived anyway, as things start to break down.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  3. Primaires républicaines : qui affrontera Barack Obama? | Nouvelles Populaires

    [...] maximum les pouvoirs de l’Etat fédéral, que ce soit sur le plan fiscal - Ron Paul veut ainsi supprimer l’impôt sur le revenu (lien en anglais) -, économique ou social. Contrairement à la majorité des républicains, il a [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. bob318

    expats?

    I’ll assume your talking about Americans living abroad.

    Ron Paul has made no secret of his contempt for unconstitutional government.

    Wishes to put our federal government back into the constitutional bottle where it belongs, giving the stolen powers it currently enjoys back to the states and people respectively.

    I see this as reversing the illegal IRS, and all that comes with the % of slavery income tax.

    that’s is if we can get our people to walk away from the lust of war, and the greed of ” free” programs.

    it is an epic battle for sure.

    »crosslinked«

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  5. RON PAUL 2012! by Odio - Page 52 - TribalWar Forums

    [...] fingers to the world, and start over? Taxes*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee Taxes [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  6. biblicalfreedom

    Most of Paul’s description of what happens with inflation is correct. Ironically the same thing happens with tax cuts – the spending money available increases, but it does so for everyone, thus inflating prices. Yet Paul hates monetary inflation but loves tax cut inflation!!! Neither benefits the economy in the long run. In fact, tax cuts lead to spending cuts which eliminate government jobs and jobs of employees of companies who the govt buys things from (like concrete for roads, phone lines for govt buildings, etc). Almost all govt spending cuts kill jobs.

    Paul’s assertion that wages stay the same during monetary inflation is false, however, as employees demand cost of living increases and employers can afford to pay them due to increased revenues from increased prices.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

    1. bob318

      your premises of not taxing people creates inflation is faults, as it does not expand the money supply, it simply shifts it to hands that did not earn it, possibly, even having it given to them by underhanded dealing with the government, or by way of “programs” to buy votes.

      second.

      while wages may go up some what, you will find few that will not feel more of a pinch as time goes by, as their meager raises aren’t keeping up with TRUE inflation numbers, as they are much higher then government numbers. (is as usually the case in history)

      that’s not too hard to believe, since the government inflation numbers don’t include energy or food costs, making them worthless as a true gage of inflation.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  7. normfromga

    The one of the more disappointing trends in Ron Paul’s campaign is his stand on tariffs. In the 2008 Campaign, he raised eyebrows by saying that he advocated a Flat Tax…with a zero tax rate. He then went on to remind us that before the 16th Amendment, the government ran quite well on tariffs and very few other constitutional taxes and fees.

    Now he seems intent in running away from the “Isolationist” label, which is surprising considering some of the other labels his proposed policies have pinned on him, and if the word “tariff” is mentioned in his campaign literature at all, it is preceded with “non-protectionist.”

    I am not sure what a tariff can be, other than protectionist, unless it was targeted against another nation, which would seem to be against his views on trade restrictions.

    If he means a flat tax on ALL imports, regardless of content or country of origin, then I agree 100%. However, he seems to be proud his Free Trade credentials, which I would have hoped he had found to be a failed experiment.

    We need good paying jobs, and the majority of jobs Free Trade has ever produced, in the US, is for illegal farm workers picking produce for export, and for WalMart associates selling us imported goods, neither of which pays a living wage.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2

  8. bozhidar balkas

    ok, kids, let’s not be total dummies! there is no state—there are only people. and if people gather money s’mhow to pay for this and that, what’s wrong with that?

    and there is no big, small, wrong/right govt, either, but there are people. so, what’s wrong in having people in america who shdl run america if the 1% wld allow them to manage it and thus also own business.

    america shld be everybody’s business and not just the business for the one percent or is it actual about 20%. time for paul to stop yakking and drop by and visit america for a change. tnx

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  9. bozhidar balkas

    ok, kids, let’s not be total dummies! there is no state—there are only people. and if people gather money s’mhow to pay for this and that, what’s wrong with that?

    and there is no big, small, wrong/right govt, either, but there are people. so, what’s wrong in having people in america who shdl run america if the 1% wld allow them to manage it and thus also own business.

    america shld be everybody’s business and not just the business for the one percent or is it actual about 20%. time for paul to stop yakking and drop by and visit america for a change. tnx

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. freedlsonfour

      @bozhidar balkas Please don’t try and speak for 99% of PEOPLE ! ( or even 80% ) Just how much more naive and idealistic could one possibly be ? Just who do you think YOU are, anyway ? If you had your way, we would all just join in one big happy Party; ( oops, did I just say that !? ) of course I meant one big happy Family, ( yea, that’s it )

      My business is NOT everybody’s business – why can’t you get that ? I want to be free and so do millions and millions of other people. You and your communist-fascist ideas do NOT represent 99% of the people. However, under a truly pure Libertarian system you and the rest of your power-hungry communist pals would be free to form all the strict socialist organizations you wanted to, as long as membership was not enforced upon a free American.

      Sorry, but if Amerika ever gets to the fork in the road where the choice on the left leads to another totalitarian communist regime like the former USSR; people (sheep) who think like you will be the cause of the wrong turn.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

      1. bob318

        thanks for this great comment!

        the socialist/collectivist occupy movement doesn’t represent me either

        I’m getting sick of hearing the 99%, when it’s no more then 15%

        anyone that thinks I’m wrong on that number, I say, how many in your family has an IRA, 401k, stocks, a bond, or any other things traded down on wall street.

        I find it interesting that we elect politicians to do the peoples business, and to uphold the oaths to the same, but when they give the peoples money to a private interest illegally, we blame the interest, not the people we entrusted with the money, forgetting the oaths they took.

        why aren’t people occupying the congress or the white house?

        how is wall street to blame, do they make law, set policies?

        Did they take oaths to look after the people or their monies?

        occupy wall street, you need to look at the real reasons things are the way they are.

        capitalism is not the problem, it is the answer.

        as we do not have a free market, and haven’t had for a long time now.

        [regulations]…, that takes “Free” out of “free market”

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  10. bozhidar balkas

    i suggest that it is the system of rule which collects taxes. a govt, fbi, ‘educators’, city police, army echelons, judiciary, politicos, administration are parts of it. and all those people must get paid and paid much more than the serfs.

    govts come and go but the system remains unchanged. so, it wld seem that if paul does not want to collect monies in order to run army, cia, fibi, judiciary, congress then let him change the system to a system without cia, fbi, army, judiciary.

    wld that be in accord with his libertarianism? which wdl call for abolition of police and people wld thus be freer than with it.

    we cld add to that also judges! why allow the judges to judge/jail/fine others and thus harm his ideology?

    i think paul is pushing the ultimate serfdom for most americans and a boon for a minute minority! tnx

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

    1. CMac

      @bozhidar balkas The ideology you describe is not Libertarianism, it is Anarchy. Libertarians believe in strict adherence to the Constitution of the United States of America, which guarantees individual freedoms, while performing a small number of limited AND enumerated tasks (national defense, contract rights, etc.)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  11. The Republican Party and the credibility gap « The Eclectic Partisan

    [...] walk-on roles. When a crank like Ron Paul compares the Federal Reserve to drug addiction, advocates eliminating the income tax (and replacing it with nothing), and shuttering a roster of basic programs Americans rely upon, the average voter rolls his eyes [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  12. Paulonomics: Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending and Social Security | Articled In

    [...] Paul has pronounced in a past that he’d like to annul personal income taxation rates, though his devise doesn’t advise that. It does introduce obscure a corporate taxation rate [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  13. Robert Shaw

    Arnold is right. there are taxes based on income and consumption. There are federal, state, county, and use taxes… as one would invest in different items to decrease risk, governments decreases their risk of lost revenue (taxes) by spreading them out in different forms.

    I think that the total tax income that can be generated should be based on a percentage of GDP, that a person should pay only to one source (you pay county tax, county pays state, state pays federal and the fed gives back to some communities in block grants). I also think that you should either pay based on income or by consumption (preferred) but not both.

    Since our country has SO much debt with local state and national, I think that they should consolidate all the debt into one debt with the condition that any entity must have a balanced budget amendment in their constitution, if not, no help and run the risk of a state turning back into a territory and being consumed by adjacent states that do manage their budget. Pay the debt as a line item over a fixed period of time so it is clear how much everybody is paying for this crazy debt we ran up. As for federal government, they could balance the budget by assigning a primary , secondary and tertiary levels for expenditures: Primary is a constant paid item that never changes (president’s salary) , secondary is an item that could have a range (landscaping costs for the whitehouse, you have a minimum and if the end of the year there is money, can spend more), tertiary is used at the end of the year if there is any money left and is low priority (study on controlling cattle odor, yes, we paid for a study like this). Also, I think that anything that is paid out that cannot be paid back or used/consumed is considered welfare… lump everything from social security, Medicaid, farm subsities, college grants, etc and make it a fixed percentage of taxes / GDP. that will force all these groups to keep an eye out on each other not to waste money that their group could be getting and keeps spending in line because it keeps the number at a fixed percentage of a real number (%GDP, %total tax).

    Those are some of my ideas… wondering if RP is looking on here, if it makes sense or if there are any better ideas out there. Rob S Severna Park, MD

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

    1. joe bradley

      @Robert Shaw its called excise taxes.. thats all that will be needed

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  14. Change internet forever

    Sources…

    [...]check below, are some totally unrelated websites to ours, however, they are most trustworthy sources that we use[...]……

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  15. Paulonomics: Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending and Social Security | iamtelugu.com

    [...] Paul has said in the past that he’d like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn’t suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  16. Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending | bluhost.koolserve.net

    [...] Paul has said in the past that he’d like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn’t suggest that. It does propose lowering the corporate tax rate to 15 [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  17. Paulonomics: Ron Paul’s plans for taxes, spending and Social Security | ToWonder.com

    [...] Paul has said in the past that he’d like to abolish personal income tax rates, but his plan doesn’t suggest that. It does… read more at article [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  18. EvanChristopherPozder

    I’m a proud supporter of a Fair Tax idea or a 0-?-0 plan, though I don’t know how height it needs to be. A big complaint about illegal immigrants is the lack of tax paying but if you change it to sales even the illegals would then have to pay their fair share.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. bob318

      I like a sales tax over property and income taxes, both are bad, one assumes you are the property of the state,

      the other assumes you’re property for the state, charging you rent on it. and, of course, with force.

      a sales tax is not force, you can choice not to buy, and it promotes working, and saving, both in desperate need in this country.

      the trick is getting them to dump all the other taxes, and that IRS,… BEFORE they start with the sales tax.

      or it will be like the income tax all over again, having just one more tax piled on to the rest.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. madcow

      @EvanChristopherPozder

      The ideas of substituting a sales tax, property tax, or flat tax for our progressive tax system, have been shown to be unworkable. That is because all of them, even a flat tax, is actually a REGRESSIVE tax. You have to remember the underlying idea behind our progressive tax system: $5 to a rich person is nothing, but that $5 can feed a baby for a day for a poor person.

      Everyone here, including R. Paul, is looking for a handful of nice, neat solutions to our economic problems, focusing on such nonsense as eliminating income taxes, getting rid of the Federal Reserve System, or even going back to the gold standard. All of those are VERY BAD ideas.

      Keep in mind folks, none of those are adequately addressing the REAL problems. Sure, we have a nasty fiscal deficit problem. But our real problem is that we have lost 20 million jobs over the past 30 years overseas. That is because we implemented “free trade” policies without encouraging or enforcing “fair trade” policies, which meant that our competitors took advantage of us.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. EvanChristopherPozder

        @madcow How has it been shown to be unworkable when we have never tried on the needed scale? aka kill the Federal Reserve and IRS first. The gold standard thing is a bet stupid I’ll admit but the other two would help greatly. The Federal Reserve has be come corrupt as hell by these big banks and there is no point to just get rid of the crap for it well come back. There is no longer a point to the Federal Reserve and getting rid of the income tax well help some of those jobs come back. Without the Federal Tax means that people keep what they actually earn, there by making it easier for the companys to pay less for workers. I agree that isn’t enough to get those companys back but we don’t have a way to get them back with out creating unlawful mandated stupidity that is against our nature. We need to leave it to the free market and hope people well choose American over the other, creating a obligation for the companys to switch back. That is the only way I can see us getting our jobs back.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. bob318

          why do you think the gold standard is “bet stupid”

          gold, like anything else can, and is valued at whatever the free market says it is, so the idea that ‘there won’t be enough’ is faults.

          We would not be going back to the 1933 value of gold, as the dollar has already been inflated, you can’t undo that without knocking a 0 off the currency.

          giving us back convertibility to gold however removes future inflation, the sneaky backdoor tax the fed uses to steal money from people that save, rich and poor alike, whether it’s actually in “savings” or not.

          Have a checking account?, how about stocks, 401k? anything paid back in deflating dollars.

          Politicians like to buy votes with counterfeit money,… stolen money, take it away from them.

          This is why you only have one politician pushing for the end of the federal reserve, and going back to constitutional gold and silver, the rest are corrupt.

          ask yourself; why did they put gold and silver in the constitution as the only legal currency?

          you think maybe they suffered under governments undercutting their currency before they wrote it?

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. EvanChristopherPozder

          @bob318 It just seems dealing with gold is a bet of a pain in the ass, the carrying it around and what not. Plus how would we make that transfer from dollars to gold? The government obviously cant afford to give us gold for the value of dollars we have they would just flop and go bankrupt or something. The first problem with the dealing with can simple be fixed by the gold being in a bank and you doing some plastic with its value on it, but the secant I cant see away around and I haven’t herd Paul’s plans on it.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. EmberRayneHulett

          @bob318 He keeps saying “bet” because he’s typing on a cell. Auto-correct. Ignore it. Point of what he’s saying is that “who wants to carry around a bag of gold.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        4. EmberRayneHulett

          @EvanChristopherPozder@bob318

          He keeps saying “bet” because he’s typing on a cell. Auto-correct. Ignore it. Point of what he’s saying is that “who wants to carry around a bag of gold.

          The thing is, that we wouldn’t be ACTUALLY carrying around bags of gold. We’d simply be pegging our dollar not to the Yen, or to the Euro, or to some insane formula about who owes how much to which country or pork futures or whatever… we’ll be saying, This dollar represents THIS amount of gold. Stuff will seem expensive for a bit, because we’re used to buying with monopoly money. But things will settle out when people begin to understand that they’re actually spending MONEY, not just paper… Imho the credit system needs to kick rocks too. Cash for everything. No bank fees. Pay upfront.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        5. EmberRayneHulett

          @EvanChristopherPozder@bob318

          He keeps saying “bet” because he’s typing on a cell. Auto-correct. Ignore it. Point of what he’s saying is that “who wants to carry around a bag of gold.”

          The thing is, that we wouldn’t be ACTUALLY carrying around bags of gold. We’d simply be pegging our dollar not to the Yen, or to the Euro, or to some insane formula about who owes how much to which country or pork futures or whatever… we’ll be saying, This dollar represents THIS amount of gold. Stuff will seem expensive for a bit, because we’re used to buying with monopoly money. But things will settle out when people begin to understand that they’re actually spending MONEY, not just paper… Imho the credit system needs to kick rocks too. Cash for everything. No bank fees. Pay upfront.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        6. bob318

          Agreed.

          I would only add that people don’t understand that very few would be “carrying around a bag of gold”, well, that is unless they are a millionaire.

          most transactions are/would be in silver, nickel and copper rounds respectively.

          Paper to me seems to have been used as stepping stone to where we are today, and not something I would want our country to repeat, I’m wary of it now. we have given up much freedoms, rights, and money, in the name of convenience.

          I would recommend people just carry the coins, they would have way more value then today’s ‘sandwich coins” and would not require “bags” of anything.

          I like paying for things up front, I don’t make my private business public by using things like credit cards or checks.

          no need for my bank, credit card company, (or anyone they may sell, or hand over that info to),

          on me.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        7. lucky85

          “Without the Federal Tax means that people keep what they actually earn, there by making it easier for the companys to pay less for workers”.

          In other words, gettng rid of the income tax would not help the AMerican worker at all..

          In any case gettung rid of the income tax will never happen, it would put countless tax lawyers, accountants, and other job classes out of work. Congress is full of layers, so it could never pass.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. bob318

        wrong

        a sales tax sent to the county, then to the state, then to the fed is a good idea, it puts the power of the money back to the people, not hoping to get back a little of what was stolen from us, but having the money working it’s way up instead of down.

        saying it has never “been shown to be unworkable” is clearly a lie, as it is exactly what we had up until ww1.

        as rich people spend a hell of a lot more then poor people, so they will pay a lot more taxes, a progressive thief like you should like that..

        what’s unworkable is having 20% pay the other 80% bills

        lol,…. demonizing the rich, while in the end, the taxes you charge them work their way back to the poor anyway.

        big government= is big burden on the people, rich and poor alike.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. joe bradley

      @EvanChristopherPozder why support a fair tax when we already have excise taxes.. remember .. after huge spending comes to a hault, taxes of any would not be needed,, strickly excise taxes only.. the more buying power you have the more things you can buy the more excise taxes the government gets

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. joe bradley

      @EvanChristopherPozder a fair tax system will give them the power to legally tax us.. all we need is taxes on things we buy, EXCISE TAXES artical 1 sec 8

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  19. Reagan on Ron Paul's Foreign Policy - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

    [...] I don't like Ron Paul's answers in the debates. Here is just one issue he's an idiot on TAXES Taxes [ You can go thru other issues. like legalizing drugs, etc., yet he doesn't balance the budget. I [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  20. bernardwoodworking

    Property Taxes and Income need to be eliminated for the same reason; intimidation. There are far less cohersive ways of collecting a tax and supporting government which, cost far less as well. A sales tax – regardless of it’s name, is simply the least expensive and least intrusive. No one is threatened with prison or loss of their homes in the collection of a sales tax.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  21. JoeThePharmacist

    Madcow. You know nothing.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. top 10 pre workout supplements

    Blogs ou should be reading…

    [...]Here is a Great Blog You Might Find Interesting that we Encourage You[...]……

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  23. froglipps

    Are you kidding me? The government would be downsized, we do not need such a big government. The bigger the more corruption, look at how much saved. We would pay for government with excise, tariff taxes ect like from utilities, gasoline and the like. If you downsize and cut all this overspending, lobbying cheats and corruption these taxes will sure enough pay for the government. And eliminate the federal reserves who the heck do they answer to….precisely my point no one. The true value is not in paper currency anyway; it’s in gold, silver or metals of the sort which has appreciating value unlike paper.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  24. Briana Discenza

    putin bay ohio…

    [...]maybe you have find several ways by which [...]…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. trista

    Either abolish the income tax, or drastically lower the middle to lower class taxes, so we have more dispensible income. It’s pretty simple to me, the largest population of people in the USA are the middle and lower class. If you really want to make a change you have to put more money back into their wallets on a monthly basis, and it must be a significant amount in order to see the economy change.

    Quite frankly I’m disgusted with our selection of presidents, in the fact that no one, has mentioned lower taxes for the middle to lower class. It’s all about raising taxes on the rich, that still doesn’t create independence for the middle to lower class and it doesn’t put any money back into the middle lower class pockets. All it does is make the middle/lower class more dependent on the federal government and lazy.

    I agree with Ron Paul on abolishing the income tax, that would put even more money back into the people’s pockets and stimulate the growth of our economy, but I’m not a fan of the flat,fair, or consumption tax or at least what has been bounced around so far. I feel the percentage is too high.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  26. madcow

    This idea that we should abolish the federal income tax is one of the most outrageous things to come out of Paul’s mouth. This idea seems to be based on the underlying idea that the federal government can do no right, and this crazy concept appears to be a basic tenet of Libertarians. And yet, it fundamentally goes against all that we have tried to accomplish to make our country great over the centuries. We need a national government to provide a valuable social safety net when our capitalist system goes amuck (as it so recently did with the mortgage meltdown) and provides standards and funding for things when our state and local governments have shown an inability to do it. (e.g.: How can you enact and enforce a clean-water bill when a river flows through multiple states?)

    The value of our government in our lives should be taught in a “civics” course, but you rarely hear about such a course anymore, and this nonsense by Libertarians is the result of that lack of education in this important topic. It is sad. Very sad. And then, when you get wingnuts like Paul who actually elected while lacking this valuable knowledge and sense of values about our country, it becomes more than just sad, it becomes disgraceful and even dangerous.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. bob318

      @madcow

      you have to be kidding, you are right?

      you of course know we didn’t always have a wealth re-distributing income tax,

      that they had to change our constitution to even pass it…., that should say something about it too.

      it was only to pay off ww1, and it was only 2% max, but we know that’s not the case anymore.

      one more lie in a mountain of lies from a government we can no longer trust.

      it has because a great source of power over the people, and it only goes one way, up…. in %, not number, that’s the true threat to the country and it’s people… out of control government.

      Paul does a great job listing the reasons why we should get rid of it, so I won’t go into that here, but what I will say is you don’t go into any real reasons at all, just talking in generalities, and scare tactics.

      the money would still be in circulation, it would just be up to the people to spend their own money, not taken from them to be sent to other countries or on

      illegal wars.

      madcow fits, keep it

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    2. winronpaul

      @madcow The idea is based on the fact that it is unconstitutional for the government to take your earnings.  We would not be in this employment crisis if the majority of people could use half their money that they are having to pay the government to actually continue being productive in this society.  (this would have allowed people to make better decisions not relying on the government)
      Instead of being slowed down, think how progressive this country could be if all those innovator were actually creating more and the ripple effect of that on our nation. We should be the envy of world.

      I like this saying I heard a wise man once say.  If you feed the bears cookies they will want more, until all the cookies are gone and then they will kill you.

      Let’s not act like animals and take the easiest way out. The best response I can give to your comment is this quote from Charles Darwin, “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.”

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      1. madcow

        @winronpaul My point is that we pay taxes to pay for things that we cannot pay for effectively at a local or state level. Sure, it would be nice to have more money in our own pockets, but the things the federal government does are too important to just throw away. We DO need heath and safety laws, national defense, aid for the helpless, disaster relief, basic research grants, etc. These are some of the things that make our country great because they are done at a national level. People struggled in this country since its inception to gain these valuable things. It is based on the idea that we look out for each other and protect each other from misfortune. Without these things, we would just be another Somalia. Surely, you don’t want that.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. bernardwoodworking

          Madcow: I have to agree with winronpaul and others on the tax issue. You have to keep the intent and vision of the Founding Fathers in mind while discussing this and other like issues which deal with the size and scope of the Federal government.

          They fought to free themselves from the tyranny of men who believed they had a divine right to enslave their fellow men by holding them hostage for the tax they could extract from them at the point of a gun. Your supposition that men cannot live without a federal government is flawed because you are not taking into account that at some point, men will have nothing left to give. In addition; as this recession morphs into a depression and society continues to throw away what was the ability of one generation to teach the next in trades that allow us to build, what we are left with is a lazy society of over-educated, underachievers who believe the federal government – and their parents are responsible for their well-being. (con’t)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. bernardwoodworking

          (con’t 1) Madcow: Another unintended consequence of an overbearing Federal Government has been a reduction in Church and individual intervention in the distress of others. At one point, men understood their intrinsic responsibility toward one another. Now we have a society that has been trained to believe it is “someone else’s” responsibility and that is largely seen as the Federal government which, I promise you, cannot do anywhere near as well as individuals and private concerns. And let’s recall, the money, again, is from the very people they purport to “help”.

          In addition; studies have proven beyond all doubt that a sales tax would produce far more income for the Fed’s than an income tax, collected by the goons at the IRS who devour half of what they collect just to keep themselves fueled with income – and they do that by threatening citizens with prison and financial destruction as tools for collection. (con’t)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. bernardwoodworking

          (con’t 2) Madcow: You are right; Federal government has it’s place. The Constitution was designed to keep them in their place. We erased that line 40 years after the Constitution was ratified as is attested to in letter from Jefferson to Judge Warren. Just because that ius true, however, does not mean it is – or was right to do so and it certainly doesn’t make the income tax any less draconian a method.

          Tell me Madcow; what is it about a sales tax you find so offensive that doesn’t offend you about am income tax? And by the way; don’t retread that old large’ about the poor not being able to feed themselves. They will wind up being as exempted from that tax as they are from every other and will still be collecting food stamps, federal and state assistance et al…

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      2. madcow

        @winronpaul

        And keep in mind that the govt hires private industry when it cannot do things itself or do it efficiently, so it isn’t money just thrown away, in spite of the many examples of fraud committed by some of those private contractors. I only ask that you look carefully at what the federal government does and all the good it does, not just the bad. You don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater as Ron Paul would do. Too many people’s lives would be ruined, and many lives would even be lost.

        This is the danger of Libertarianism. Whatever you might have against either major political party, Libertarianism leads us to disaster. It is better to take a careful look at the problems, and deal with each individually within the framework of our collective moral compass rather than a perverted, narcissistic Ayn Rand view.

        Report this comment

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        1. winronpaul

          @madcow

          I agree with you madcow no one should ever take on a “perverted, narcissistic Ayn Rand view of government.” I personally like to look at every angel and breakdown the problems logically one by one. Another perverted narcissistic Ayn Rand view I’d like to give you is the 3rd law of motion, by Newton ” for every action there is a equal and opposite reaction.” I beg you to take that into consideration with all these positive things you have listed that the government does for our nation. (and yes I know newton was referring to motion but, I do hope we are trying to go somewhere better, perhaps better than we were yesterday)

          All these things the government is subsidizing so people can feel safe has it’s opposite and equal reactions. I do agree with benardwoodworking that we can get plenty of safety and the good things the government can continue doing from sales tax.

          Ask yourself why you are paying triple for dairy milk? Besides the money they are taking from you for taxes they are hitting you from every corner and some people don’t even realize it. This is a small fraction of an example of why the government should leave things alone.

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        2. winronpaul

          @madcow

          The answer is b/c the government is subsidizing a very small percent of fuel with corn and now the feed prices have sky rocketed for something so small as hay. Farmers have been paying way to much to stay in business and they can’t even produce milk or beef with these circumstances. Your money going to pay dairymen to make your milk on the back-end which is being subsidized to keep some of them in business. You may just now be noticing the price of milk going up b/c even the government has been subsidizing the price of milk you have been buying for over a year. Oh yeah, and don’t for get your sales tax that is there, more money gone. This uneducated or thought through transaction has cost many men who have been in this industry generations to lose their jobs and everything they have ever known. Really how much did that gallon of milk cost? Do you think the amount of corn they are growing to subsidize a percent of fuel is worth all this and pencils? Thoughts on getting help more now based on the federal government is bizarre to me. If this isn’t throwing out the baby with the bathwater, I don’t know what is??

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        3. winronpaul

          @madcow

          And if getting this help is going to make people just be ignorant and not strive for great things in this country anymore, I’m not sure if I want the help! Again my favorite quote, ” If you feed the bears cookies they will want more, until all the cookies are gone and then they will kill you .” Good thing we have ALOT of cookies!!! :)

          Report this comment

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    3. Mountaingrunt

      @madcow it seems interesting to me that you can support the income tax due to the amazing things our country has done and then condemn the Libertarians beliefs to a lack of education. Perhaps if the federal gov. had done so many great things with their vast fortunes surely their would be no lack of education to speak of. It is ok to disagree but educated people should not resort to attacking the education of anyone.

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    4. joe bradley

      @madcow we are 15 trillion in the hole lol… i dont think are reps know when we are broke and obviously you dont either.. you ever heard of excise taxes?

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  27. JosephSerrano

    Are you insinuating that progressive taxation is inherently Marxist? Tax rates for the top brackets were 90% during the Eisenhower administration. I don’t remember him running under the CPUSA ticket. Following that same logic, Marx and Engels were pro-free trade as Ron Paul is. Does that make Dr. Paul a Marxist too?

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  28. w1945

    If we do not get Paul elected we can all go home. Paul needs to come out tomorrow and inform the American people that if he does not get the GOP nomination then he will run third party. He does not need to wait he needs to do it now. If he does that the Republicans will have no choice to vote for him in the Primary’s because if they do not then they know they will end up with Obama for another four years. Paul will pull to many votes from them to win the general election. It is kind of like take it or leave it. My guess is they can not stand Obama and they will take it. I know I would.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  29. bernardwoodworking

    The argument that the poor will suffer is simply unfounded. Presently thee is a food stamp program and other considerations to cause the poor to not have to pay taxes. Those programs would continue under the Sales Tax system and I believe universal consideration would have to be given for the big three: Food, Shelter and Clothing. And yes; someone would have to make sure people weren’t exploiting that. Primary Residence, Basic clothing, Basic food stuffs. And yes someone or some committee will have to determine what “basic” is but that is how we govern anyway.

    The only legitimate argument against removing the Income Tax and the IRS, is the loss of control over the actions and lives of the people of this nation. If anyone thinks that it is legitimate for free people in a nation that espouses the virtues of personal freedom to be oppressed by an overbearing government over the subject of taxation; you need to review your history. Taxation was one of the big issues before the Declaration of Independence was signed. If anyone dares to suggest we are properly “represented” by anyone when it comes to taxation in this country, today, you have a steep hill to climb…

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. winronpaul

      @bernardwoodworking I Agree!! Ron Paul needs to start spreading the 0-0-0 plan! :)

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. bernardwoodworking

    I agree with the abolishment of the IRS and the Income tax and here is why:

    The income tax carries with it an implied threat that transcends a person’s desire to “play fair” and pay “what they owe”. The fact is, you can be audited at any time and without just cause. Once those bears get into your “china closet” you’re going to lose – one way or the other. The very knowledge that you cannot keep what you earn is what discourages commerce, not the sales tax. The sales tax is further discouragement in a world of income tax.

    If there was only a sales tax, people would feel free to pay it or not pay it by simply controlling their purchasing habits. I don’t believe people would purchase less because of it in a world without an income tax but would be energized to purchase because they knew they were keeping all they earned and could save/spend/live without fear of the Behemoth known as the IRS lurking in the shadows.

    It is truly the only “fair” method of taxation because it removes the fear of government goons dragging you off to prison. (con’t)

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  31. Almost But Maybe | Be Responsible – Be Free!

    [...] here again, Paul is getting back to basics of your Constitution. Here he writes in 2001: Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth America [...]

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  32. winronpaul

    If Ron Paul wants to win, we need him to have a plan for the 22 million people employed by the government.These people are not going to vote against their livelihood no matter how correct Ron Paul may be.

    Also Before people can fight about our current issues in America, I believe we need to sit down and discuss where exactly we want to go first. We need a leadership with direction to actually go somewhere and use the current 22 million over paid government employees to help get there. Let’s stop fighting over this world and have real dreams again.

    Where are the great inventors and creators? Why are we fighting over oil and not inventing a new way all together? Why are we driving 2 ton vehicles and no direction into the future that is growing rapidly? Why are the people in England paying a carbon tax when their very own bodies depend on carbon? Why on the main page of the EPAs website are they spreading global warming when we have lived and adapted to much higher carbon levels present today? Just some thoughts, first decide where you want to go.

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    1. w1945

      If Ron comes out tomorrow and tells the American people that he will run third party if he does not win the GOP nomination then he will absolutely be the next president of the US, because he will walk away with the primary’s. He is the only candidate who has rock solid support and who could pull this off. @winronpaul

      Report this comment

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  33. winronpaul

    d

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  34. Bra Cup Inserts

    Cool sites…

    [...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you want[...]……

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Calories To Lose Weight Fast

    Superb website…

    [...]always a big fan of linking to bloggers that I love but don’t get a lot of link love from[...]……

    Report this comment

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

1 7 8 9 10 11 14

Leave a Reply