Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Ron Paul On Taxes

By Ron Paul

October 16, 2006

In Washington we hear a lot of talk about tax cuts, but the rhetoric does not always match the reality. For most Americans, taxes remain too complex and too high. After the tumult of the upcoming midterm election, it is imperative that Congress gets back to basics and addresses our terrible tax system.

Lower taxes benefit all Americans by increasing economic growth and encouraging wealth creation. I’m in favor of cutting everybody’s taxes – rich, poor, and otherwise. Whether a tax cut reduces a single mother’s payroll taxes by forty dollars a month, or allows a business owner to save thousands in capital gains and hire more employees, the net effect is beneficial. Both either spend, save, or invest the extra dollars, which helps all of us more than if those dollars were sent to the black hole known as the federal Treasury.

Many conservatives have touted the Fair Tax proposal as an issue in the upcoming election. A pure consumption tax like the Fair Tax would be better than the current system only if we truly did away with the income tax by repealing the 16th amendment. Otherwise, we could end up with both the income tax and a national sales tax. A consumption tax also provides more transparency and less complexity. But the real issue is total spending by government, not tax reform. In other words, why change the tax structure if spending stays the same? Once we accept that the federal government needs $2.7 trillion from us-- and more each year-- the only question left is from whom it will be collected. Until the federal government is held to its proper constitutionally limited functions, tax reform will remain a mirage.

Read more here.


Blogger Bored to be Wild said...

Kook alert.

Christs all through time and after carefully assessing the general lack of welcome that all of these Christs have had, I have concluded that I AM THAT CHRIST, that my journey through time has been as a CHRIST in EACH LIFETIME."


ALIVE TODAY who can successfully refute this INARGUABLE TRUTH because it IS INARGUABLE TRUTH. But watch the children swarm from their sandboxes to to give it the old schoolyard try. SATANIC isn't it?"

Raymond Ronald Karczewski© -- Living Christ

2:45 PM  
Blogger FredMarshall1937 said...

Professor Siegel:

A long time friend of mine WAS a Texas attorney who challenged the federal court's jurisdiction in the Timothy McVeigh case, based upon the provisions of the Constitution for the United States of America which limit federal jurisdiction to the District of Columbia, U.S. Possessions, and properties OWNED by the federal government (portions of the Murrah Building were LEASED to the federal government). When the final ruling against his constitutional challenge declared "the constitution is not admissible evidence of law," he resigned from the bar, because only then had he come to realize the LEGAL REALITY that exists in this country.

Here, briefly, is what he has to say about the income tax debate, followed by my reply to him:

Good to hear from you again.

Thanks for the note and for your continued interest in the matter of the
current "income tax" system.

If we had a government created by the Constitution, then and only then
would we also have a government that is also limited by the
Constitution. Certain doctrines from that document and its history are
firmly planted into the foundation of the place called "this state," but
the "government" of "this state" has as much to do with the Constitution
as it does with the man in the moon.

And, if the "income tax" WERE a "direct tax," then it would not have
been revived after the Pollack case.

"Federal" means "federal." "Federal" does not mean "national," and it
most certainly doesn't mean "constitutional." At the level of a
"state," "federal" means "by compact," or "by treaty. At the level of
the individual, "federal" means "by private obligation." Since Title 26
doesn't apply without some form of agreement, the whole matter is rather

At the end of the day, we are not talking about a "direct tax."
Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court was not even addressing a
"direct tax" question in Pollock. The first two paragraphs of the
Court's opinion broadcasts that fact as clearly today as 100 years ago.

I don't know how many more times you're going to need to hear this, but
at least we're one more time down the road from when we first started.
It's a wicked paradigm shift. We are not in Kansas, anymore, and we
haven't been since this "income tax" thing got started. The "place"
called "this state" is 100% commercial. One of these days, that idea
will finally register with you. We will celebrate that day.
That's more clearly and more succinctly put than you have ever expressed it to me before.

So, to avoid the liability, we must avoid contracting for it. That means we must be warned while in the womb, so we can bite our mom's teat till she understands not to volunteer (contract) us into the social security system, and we must grow up and neither get married by the state (contract) nor use (contract) any Federal Reserve banking facilities. Moreover, we must not agree (contract) to be in any of their privileged (licensed) professions or licensed activities. No being a lawyer, no being a Realtor, a CPA, a building contractor, or getting a license to drive, fly, hunt, fish, etc. In order to acquire any such license we must first APPLY (beg) and have the STATE approve our application, at which time a contract is created.

Then that necessarily means that all our courts, both criminal and civil, are admiralty courts of equity in which opposing parties are always CREDITOR (Federal Reserve) versus DEBTOR (Defendant), and the Defendant is a Trustee for the Beneficiary (Federal Reserve) and has fiduciary duties to it. That would better explain the gold fringed banner to which they mistakenly refer as "the flag." No United States Flag is permitted to have such a fringe and still remain a United States Flag.

Mutilation of the flag can only occur in the District of Columbia, and not elsewhere

Title 4, Section 8
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of
it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure,
design, picture, or drawing of any nature. (Fringe prohibited by law)

Respect for the Flag

A better way might be to be born in Mexico and then move illegally to the U.S. where we would be welcomed without peril, without obligation, and never contract with any government for anything, accept their free medical care and free education for our kids, and take as much as they will give us in welfare and other social programs.


3:50 PM  
Blogger TruePatriot said...

If your last paragraph wasn't so tragically true, it'd be funny...

The treasonous government has almost completely decimated the middle class, by allowing the massive influx of illegal immigration & the export of this country's jobs.

Soon, this administration will have achieved the goal(s) of the globalist puppetmasters, by casting this (once)great nation in to an economic peril not seens since the great depression of the 30`s. Then they'll provide the nefarious solution... The North American Union in unison with the Amero.


11:26 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home