Ron Paul: The Founders Didn´t Believe In Income Tax!

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by The Old American

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that would work. Lets say we did abolish the IRS and implement the "fairtheft", what would make the federal government change? It would still receive more than enough money to continue its illegal and unconstitutional ways. Or what if they decide 23% isn't enough to cover current expenditures? The sales tax will be increased, who will determine the correct percentage?

Good point, but let's take it the other direction. Let's say we abolish taxes and the IRS altogether. Even the Constitution allows for a central government. It allows for the keeping of a military, providing for the common defense, a national highway system, etc. Where is that money going to come from? At first it came from tariffs, but that wouldn't cover 1/10th of today's expenditures, even if spending were cut 50%.

Neither of us has a perfect solution, but we live in the world that we let be created. Now we want to do something about it (too late some say, but I think we can do it, though it will take a while). If we do it with baby steps we can get this country back on its feet and working as intended. If we can start with making taxes at least equal for all, and then show that it can and will work, maybe then some in Congress will see that people like Ron Paul, as well as us here on ATS, aren't so crazy after all.

/TOA

Originally posted by Janky Red

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by gorgi

 

No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

The rich are not going to stop working or keeping their businesses open because of an income tax. The rich got pissed when FDR raised the taxes on them.

And income tax is different than taxation on other goods such as capital.

Sure they won't stop working, they won't even change their life style, they'll pass costs onto the poor. If you tax the poor, the rich will have to pay them higher wages and charge lower prices, income taxes help no one, but big government.

Interesting, I always thought supply and demand dictated prices, are you saying that in this world, supply and demand represent a false dynamic?

I am sure you will pretend that you did not read it but

If your assertion's are true

Why have prices increased as the the income tax rates have been sheered in favor of the rich???


Anyone care to tell me how eliminating minimum wage will raise the wage floor?

edit on 15-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-5-2011 by Janky Red because: (no reason given)

Yes, you're correct when you say supply and demand dictates prices, but that doesn't mean the rich won't inflate prices to compensate for lost earnings, especially knowing that their consumers can afford it.

You can blame the fed for that.

I never said it would raise wages, but It will help to employ more people, mentally challenged or disadvantaged people, minorities (especially male unskilled laborers) and single mothers. The minimum wage policy is aimed at black men in particular and if you look at the unemployment rates you will find that up to minimum wage policy there was a small gap in unemployment rates between white men and black men and after the policy the gap expanded greatly.

So, IMO the only people that benefit from minimum wage are middle and upper class teenagers and racist employers.

Originally posted by The Old American

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by The Old American

 

I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that would work. Lets say we did abolish the IRS and implement the "fairtheft", what would make the federal government change? It would still receive more than enough money to continue its illegal and unconstitutional ways. Or what if they decide 23% isn't enough to cover current expenditures? The sales tax will be increased, who will determine the correct percentage?

Good point, but let's take it the other direction. Let's say we abolish taxes and the IRS altogether. Even the Constitution allows for a central government. It allows for the keeping of a military, providing for the common defense, a national highway system, etc. Where is that money going to come from? At first it came from tariffs, but that wouldn't cover 1/10th of today's expenditures, even if spending were cut 50%.

Neither of us has a perfect solution, but we live in the world that we let be created. Now we want to do something about it (too late some say, but I think we can do it, though it will take a while). If we do it with baby steps we can get this country back on its feet and working as intended. If we can start with making taxes at least equal for all, and then show that it can and will work, maybe then some in Congress will see that people like Ron Paul, as well as us here on ATS, aren't so crazy after all.

/TOA

Well, the more I think about it, I think chances would be high that, if he were elected President and tried to carry out his agenda, he would be impeached by Congress. So yeah, in a way you're right, we need baby steps and on top of that the "fairtax" will help to expand the black market, which would be great in a way.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
What things are the government needed for?

95% of what the federal government does is unnecessary.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

That communications infrastructure, space program, and standards that make the difference between you sitting in a room typing to yourself and you spreading a message to the world seems like a big one. I do not get a lot of responses from people in Somalia about how great no government is when I ask. I have to think there are reasons for that.

Originally posted by Runaway1977

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
What things are the government needed for?

95% of what the federal government does is unnecessary.

edit on 15-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

That communications infrastructure, space program, and standards that make the difference between you sitting in a room typing to yourself and you spreading a message to the world seems like a big one. I do not get a lot of responses from people in Somalia about how great no government is when I ask. I have to think there are reasons for that.

All of that can be privatized and run far more efficiently, efficient government services is just a myth. A small constitutional government doesn't equal chaos. Somalia does have a government, though it's worst "governed nation" in Africa.

reply to post by Rockdisjoint


"Can be" sounds great when you are not discussing things that only exist as a result of the government. You are talking about things specifically designed for and by the military and the space program. "Can be" privatized but probably would not have ever come into being. I think most people that think all government is useless only say that from a comfy seat in a place that government got them to now. Government is only useless, now and for future generations. You just really enjoy what it gave you so far, don't you?

reply to post by Runaway1977


So are you denying the fact that, private schools, private healthcare, etc are all higher quality and more efficient compared to the public option? What makes you think that a private space program wouldn't be better too?

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Runaway1977

 

So are you denying the fact that, private schools, private healthcare, etc are all higher quality and more efficient compared to the public option? What makes you think that a private space program wouldn't be better too?

Yes private schools, healthcare are inferior to the public option. There doesnt need to be a profit in it so it can be done cheaper and more efficient. There are no shareholders to answer to wondering why they broke even and why they havent ripped anyone off.

It's sad that most people here don't understand the income tax at all.

The government does not need to tax our wages in order to operate, there are thousands of other taxes for that.

The IRS was created the same year as the Federal Reserve. Why? Because the income taxes pay for the INTEREST on the money loaned from the Federal Reserve to our government, it's a huge scam.

After Andrew Jackson shut down the illegal 2nd Bank of the United States we didn't have an "income tax" for decades and the country experienced it's biggest economic boom.

Originally posted by Diplomat
It's sad that most people here don't understand the income tax at all.

The government does not need to tax our wages in order to operate, there are thousands of other taxes for that.

The IRS was created the same year as the Federal Reserve. Why? Because the income taxes pay for the INTEREST on the money loaned from the Federal Reserve to our government, it's a huge scam.

After Andrew Jackson shut down the illegal 2nd Bank of the United States we didn't have an "income tax" for decades and the country experienced it's biggest economic boom.

Indeed, ATSers love to hate bankers because they steal their money, etc, but in that same breath they champion the government stealing their money and GIVING it to the same exact bankers they love to hate. ~_~

Originally posted by Diplomat
It's sad that most people here don't understand the income tax at all.

The government does not need to tax our wages in order to operate, there are thousands of other taxes for that.

The IRS was created the same year as the Federal Reserve. Why? Because the income taxes pay for the INTEREST on the money loaned from the Federal Reserve to our government, it's a huge scam.

After Andrew Jackson shut down the illegal 2nd Bank of the United States we didn't have an "income tax" for decades and the country experienced it's biggest economic boom.

The income tax is the biggest income for the government. All the other taxes are sin taxes or small amounts. They really dont cover much.

You rally do not know what the Federal Reserve does or is, do you ? The Federal reserve as created in response to the very high number of economic downturns the economy was facing prior to its creation.

The biggest boom for the country ? Andrew Jackson had a recession during his presidency, and many more afterwards.

Originally posted by gorgi
The Federal reserve as created in response to the very high number of economic downturns the economy was facing prior to its creation.

and after the federal reserve was created the great depression happened.

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by gorgi
The Federal reserve as created in response to the very high number of economic downturns the economy was facing prior to its creation.

and after the federal reserve was created the great depression happened.

That was twenty years later and that was the result of many other problems and being on the gold standard didnt help.

reply to post by gorgi


Being off the gold standard certainly has not helped at all. People paid 12-18% for home mortgages after Nixon killed it. Just think, a dollar in 1970 bought 1/35 of an ounce of gold. Today 1/1500 of an ounce (which is about what would stick to a knife blade if you ran it over a gold bar with little to no pressure).

The Federal Reserve is first and foremost a business, a for profit business at that. Currently there is in circulation about $1.9184 Trillion in US Currency total. That is, every 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 and 100,000 Federal Reserve Note on Earth totaled up. Now how we as a nation can owe 7 times that amount is up to you to decide.

Personally, little blue rocks found along a creek bed would have more value as they are finite. Even man-made diamonds would hold more value than printed colored linen paper that wears out in 42 months on average. But I digress.

On average, 23% of all income goes towards paying the interest on the use of that paper before you pay for anything. And what else is there? More taxes to be paid after that. 47 cents on ever gallon of gasoline (or is it more now considering the tax breaks that oil companies receive?), sales tax on groceries (don't forget the farm subsidies to not grow so that prices do not lower during harvests). Buy a new car lately? sales tax, license, tax on the insurance policy, tax on the loan (unless you paid cash). And let's look at auto insurance for a second, here in Ohio insurance policies are only valid if the company is licensed and approved to do business in Ohio. Which means a business license, tax on profits, sales tax on policies, oh and let's not forget the surety bond files with the state that the state can gain interest on...

Yeah, I really don't see where the government needs a tax on earned income, especially when you consider if everyone had a 23% raise (on average) they would use it to buy more things, invest it in the market or save it to create their own businesses.

Originally posted by Ahabstar
reply to post by gorgi

 

Being off the gold standard certainly has not helped at all. People paid 12-18% for home mortgages after Nixon killed it. Just think, a dollar in 1970 bought 1/35 of an ounce of gold. Today 1/1500 of an ounce (which is about what would stick to a knife blade if you ran it over a gold bar with little to no pressure).

The Federal Reserve is first and foremost a business, a for profit business at that. Currently there is in circulation about $1.9184 Trillion in US Currency total. That is, every 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 500, 1000, 5000, 10,000 and 100,000 Federal Reserve Note on Earth totaled up. Now how we as a nation can owe 7 times that amount is up to you to decide.

Personally, little blue rocks found along a creek bed would have more value as they are finite. Even man-made diamonds would hold more value than printed colored linen paper that wears out in 42 months on average. But I digress.

On average, 23% of all income goes towards paying the interest on the use of that paper before you pay for anything. And what else is there? More taxes to be paid after that. 47 cents on ever gallon of gasoline (or is it more now considering the tax breaks that oil companies receive?), sales tax on groceries (don't forget the farm subsidies to not grow so that prices do not lower during harvests). Buy a new car lately? sales tax, license, tax on the insurance policy, tax on the loan (unless you paid cash). And let's look at auto insurance for a second, here in Ohio insurance policies are only valid if the company is licensed and approved to do business in Ohio. Which means a business license, tax on profits, sales tax on policies, oh and let's not forget the surety bond files with the state that the state can gain interest on...

Yeah, I really don't see where the government needs a tax on earned income, especially when you consider if everyone had a 23% raise (on average) they would use it to buy more things, invest it in the market or save it to create their own businesses.

The gold standard was a left over form an era with a less developed economy. The gold standard caused a lot of supply problems, it made expanding the money supply hard, which is used to deal with down turns. The money supply would be determined by the rate of mining new gold. It just doesnt work anymore.

The dollar is backed by the faith of the Us government, which is the largest economy in the world and the worlds only super power.

Sales tax is done by the states, not the federal government. I do not live in a state that charges sales tax, so it really doesnt matter the rates. People from other states come to my state for shopping. And a sales tax is a regressive tax that hurts the poor and middle classes.

As for a gas tax. I am glad there is a gas tax. Our gas taxes are only used on roads and such and not other stuff. Have you tried to drive in other countries?

Originally posted by filosophia
Ron Paul: We should have cooperated with Pakistan on Bin Laden
CNN: Ron Paul says Bin Laden raid was unnecessary.

Spin much?

Ron Paul: What about the moral responsibility to let people keep what they earn?
CNN: Ron Paul says no constitutional authority for FEMA.

Way to just hump the federal government for no reason other than its the federal government here to protect us

Ron Paul: Taxes equal theft
CNN: Ron Paul says taxes equal theft

Hey Hey they got one right! Interesting how they feel they don't need to spin this. CNN is banking on the majority of Americans being proud to pay taxes

This is proof the 'elite' like this prostitute wielding "host" is clearly mistaken about what the American people want.

edit on 15-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)

Actually, in other interviews, Ron Paul HAS said that the Bin Laden raid was unnecessary several times, and has also said that there is no constitutional authority for FEMA.

He's correct on both counts. FEMA is ridiculous. Think about it. The Government sells insurance for disaster relief for things like flooding. When people don't have insurance, they get FEMA to write a "disaster relief" cheque to people that didn't buy insurance and aren't covered.

So basically, they're saying "we'll make insurance available, but if you don't buy it, we'll pay you out anyway". So who in the hell buys flood insurance when they know they'll get a FEMA cheque if disaster happens?

As far as the raid on Bin Laden, it WAS unnecessary. If the USA stayed out of international affairs, as Dr Paul says they should, Bin Laden wouldn't have been a problem, so therefore, taking him out wouldn't have been necessary. Bin Laden was created by the USA who were helping Afghan rebels fight the Russian led invasion in the 1980's. If they'd have stayed out of the way, they wouldn't have created him in the first place.

Get the USA out of international affairs, end all foreign aid, make the countries of the world stand on their own two feet. If their Governments can't keep these countries together, they will be replaced. The more radical the Government, the more international support they need from big countries like the USA. No support = little or no radicalism. You really think the Government of Saudi Arabia would stay in power without the arms sales granted to it by the US Government, or if the Iranians would stay in power without arms sales from the Russians, or if the North Koreans would stay in power without sales from the Chinese? You get the idea.

Quit empire building, close foreign bases, withdraw troops from international policing efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Germany, Korea, Japan, Libya, etc etc etc.