Why the IRS?

[jfer45]

Why does Ron Paul want to abolish the IRS? Don't they just collect taxes and enforce tax law?

[ButchHowdy]

Ron Paul wants to abolish the IRS and replace it with NOTHING!

His argument is that they contribute less than a third to the gov't coffers and by curbing spending, we could even reduce that.

That is, simultaneously nixing the federal reserve as well.

[jfer45]

Where does the other 2/3 come from?

[DrStrabismus]

I think he also feels it's unconstitutional. That's usually his reason, ultimately.

[Melchior]

Why does Ron Paul want to abolish the IRS? Don't they just collect taxes and enforce tax law?

Have you watched AFTF? The IRS is literally a criminal organization. They are capable of more and do more than just "collect taxes."

[jfer45]

AFTF? No I have not... Where can I watch it?

[TheConstitutionLives]

AFTF? No I have not... Where can I watch it?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1656880303867390173&q=freedom+to+fascism&total=832&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

[Misesian]

Why does Ron Paul want to abolish the IRS? Don't they just collect taxes and enforce tax law?

Not at all. There actually is no law.

1.) There is not Act of Congress that has established the IRS post 16th amendment. It is not legally a federal government agency.

2.) There is no law that defines income tax as being wages. There are court rulings that also set this as precedence and define what income is as allowed under the 16th amendment.

Also it's worth mentioning that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. They didn't have enough states that certified the amendment that the federal government sent to them, but then Secretary of State Knox illegally stamped the amendment as certified.

This is all moot unless we can get a majority of Supreme Court justices that would think of all these points and rule as Constitutionalists. Then they would overturn much more than the Income Tax.

The only realistic way we're going to eliminate the Income Tax and the IRS is from the FairTax plan which is gaining a LOT of grassroots steam as well as in Congress as well. It is not perfect by any stretch of the means but the first part of the grassroots plan is to eliminate the Income Tax Law, and the IRS, which it does. The 2nd part of the plan is to repeal the 16th amendment, which only allows income taxation but does not require it.

The FairTax IS flawed in the sense that the FairTax.org organization chose to remain non-partisan so the plan is revenue neutral, and it also protects the poor (though does it in a way that still treats everybody equally). I support this just because it's the only real way we have a chance (I will say by 2012 it will pass) to eliminate the biggest portion of socialism in our government anytime soon without bloodshed. Ron Paul is a supporter just not a cosponsor of the bill.

www.FairTax.org

[mikelovesgod]

Because collecting taxes on income is un-Constitutional. That's the easy answer. Taxing someone's income has no basis in the Constitutional design of the country. If we were socialist you might be right.

Also, Paul is in favor of a fair tax (I believe) which taxes good and services so you cannot avoid taxes to what is fair to true supported gov't departments that can be sanctioned by the Constitution.

[angrydragon]

Besides individual income taxes, the government's revenue also comes from corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts.

http://www.mises.org/story/2552

[jd603]

Also, we're paying interest on money we borrow from "central banks". we don't need to be paying that interest, it is the american people paying it. Watch "The Money Masters" , it explains how the federal reserve and the IRS operates. Or, "Freedom to Fascism" for a more shocking in-your-face look.

Keep in mind Ron doesn't condone not paying your taxes, but he is aware that the tax laws need to be reformed, he is the only candidate that dares to question the system. JFK was just about to do just that before they assassinated him, possibly a coincidence but probably not.

I wouldn't even be paying attention to politics right now if it wasn't for Ron Paul, I just hope he's able to catch on and there's enough people that understand what he stands for...

[CJLauderdale4]

Just an FYI..

The IRS collects ONLY income taxes. It does not manage the collection of other forms of revenue. The Treasury Dept. handles the rest.

No income taxes - no IRS.

If Ron doesn't staff all of the Cabinet Departments he claims he will like to see removed, that's a big savings... 2/3, I'm not sure...

[Harald]

Because collecting taxes on income is un-Constitutional. That's the easy answer. Taxing someone's income has no basis in the Constitutional design of the country.

Mike,

What about 16th amendment?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

[Gee]

Erm, the IRS is constitutional, unless you don't believe the stories about how the 16th amendment wasn't ratified properly. But thats really a case for the courts.

In any case, Paul is against it because income taxes are incredibly complicated, and everyone hates filing out all the paper work involved. Wealthier people can hire others to do it for them, and can use the complexity of the system to find loopholes. Really, any simpler system would probably be much, much better. The income tax code is so complicated, I don't think any one person really understands it all.

[Shmuel Spade]

Please read this: The Income Tax: Root of all Evil (http://www.mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp)

Ignore any arguments about the taxes being "legal" or not, ignore any arguments about the IRS being a criminal organization, ignore any arguments about the legitimacy of amendments. The argument is purely a moral one, and is applicable whether or not any "laws" support something.

[jfer45]

Let us assume that the 16th Amendment was properly ratified. Does the IRS have the legal capacity to create and enforce an income tax code?

Wouldn't this be similar to the Environmental Protection Agency in that they have the ability to pass regulations?

[peruvianRP]

Mike,

What about 16th amendment?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

True but the definition of Income in the constitution does not state hta tis wages and labor but profits and gains from business.

Check it out. I will be so happy the day I stop paying fed income taxes. I don't pay full now just 1/2

[wwycher]

Income tax is collected to pay the intrest on the federal deficit. The 16th ammendment was ratifiedthe same year the Federal Reserve was created. Every country that has come under the thumb of a central bank has had to tax the wages of it's people to pay off the intrest on their debt. Transfer of wealth, now you see it and now you don't, except in our country, where you never see it. The Grace Commission said that not one cent of our income taxes went to any of the services we expect from our government.
There is no law that states it's manditory to fill out a 1040. I like the way Mr.Russo put it "If the mob tells you have to pay $2000 to live in their neighboorhood, you better do it." It's no different with the IRS, if you don't pay them what they think you owe them, you go to jail and they take everything you own. Only with the mob you go to the government for protection.
If Dr. Paul has his way this fraud will end. It's sickening the way they have made it out to patriotic to be raped by your government. There is no law, they just do it.

[Texan4Life]

Where does the other 2/3 come from?

Your not the only on jfer45... Where does the other money come from?

[kylejack]

Its more like a little less than half.

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total revenue of the federal government during its most recently completed fiscal year (FY 2006) was $2.406 trillion. Individual income taxes accounted for $1.043 trillion of the government's total take."

[Harald]

The rest is Social Security and Medicare, isn't it?

[aravoth]

The Tax code isn't law, by any stretch of the imagination. If it's not backed up by a constitutional amendment it's worthless. The 16th amendment is what gives the tax code authority. So if the 16th amendment is not valid, then neither is the tax code. It's not even a matter of how it was ratified.

Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240
The 16th Amendment did not change the U.S. Constitution because of the fact that Article 1, section 2, clause 3, and Article 1, section 9, clause 4, were not repealed or altered; the U.S. Constitution cannot conflict with itself.

Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 US, 112
Sixteenth Amendment conferred no new power of taxation. Rather it simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary full power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged. Indirect taxes are limited to imposts, duties, and excises, not on the income of individuals.

Those rulings have never been overturned. So If the constitution did not allow for a direct tax on the wage earnings of americans without apportionment before the 16th amendment, and the supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave no new powers of taxation, how all of the sudden did they miraculously get the ability to impose an unapportioned direct tax? The short answer is that they didn't. But this is really overall part of a larger issue.

Without the Federal Reserve printing our currency anymore; If Our currency was backed up by gold, then it would never inflate, and there would be no interest to pay down, ever. Without Interest, there is no need for the income tax, and thus there is no need for the IRS.

Now, constitutionality of the income tax aside. If you can Slice one-third of the budget off, you could eliminate it anyway. Which you can do, if you stop the war in Iraq, and begin troop withdrawls from nations where they simply are not needed. We don't need to be in Germany. The "Mighty" European Union can handle that. Doing that alone would end billions upon billions of dollars in corporate contracts. Also, if we stopped giving dictators weapons and subsidies all the time that would help. Then eliminate the Dept. Of Homeland Security, becuase we don't need it. We've never needed it before, and we sure as hell don't need it now. We've already got the CIA, ATF, FBI, NSA, NRO, And Military Intel. DHS is a waste of money and resources.

And a side note, I don't belive Dr. Paul is for the fair tax. He's stated before

"By the way when I say cut taxes, I don't mean fiddle with the code. I mean abolish the Income Tax and the IRS, and replace them with nothing"

Doesn't get any more simple than that. Why would you replace an unconstitutional tax that you don't even need, with something else that isn't needed?

[austin356]

^^And Corporate income taxes, which are constitutional.

Of course there are others, but those are the big three.



I say eliminate the IRS and income tax, and spending to such levels, then replace those regressive SS MC taxes with a sales tax such as the fairtax. It would come out to be around 13% or so.

I really would advocate eliminating all federal taxes, but I want to be realistic here, there are people whose very existence depends on these transfer payments, many of whom have been abandoned by their children b/c the kids thought the gov. was going to take care of them.

[xcalybur]

The other 2/3's of the congressional budget comes from the Federal Reserve making up the money. Here is an example:
These are just examples, not real numbers for the amount spent.

$100 Billion for 2007 Congressional Budget
$33 Billion from Income Taxes
67 Billion is printed/created by the Federal Reserve and circulated through the banking system, which Congress borrows money from to pay the rest of the budget.

This hurts us in many many ways. First being the 33 Billion which is unconstitutional in the first place. Second, the 67 Billion that is created out of thin air decreases how much the US dollar is worth.

There was no such thing as inflation before 1913 when the Federal Reserve was created. It is a giant pyramid scheme to take money from the middle class and transfer it to the wealthy.

[angrydragon]

Your not the only on jfer45... Where does the other money come from?


Besides individual income taxes, the government's revenue also comes from corporate income taxes, social insurance taxes, excise taxes, estate and gift taxes, customs duties, and miscellaneous receipts.

http://www.mises.org/story/2552

[kylejack]

I downloaded the spreadsheet from CBO:

2006:

Individual Income Tax 1,043.9
Corporate Income Tax 353.9
Social Insurance Taxes 837.8
Excise Taxes 74.0
Estate and Gift Taxes 27.9
Customs Duties 24.8
Miscellaneous 45.0

Total: 2,407.3

With all that, we still ran a $434.5 billion dollar deficit.

So let's do this: Subtract Individual Income Tax and we get a figure of $1363.4 billion in income remaining. We'll be generous and guess that we're going to run a $400 billion dollar deficit still as it takes time to stop a moving train, especially when Congress has a say in the matter. That means spending would need to be reduced to $1763.4 billion.

When was spending at that level? According to the spreadsheet, in 2000 spending was $1789.2 billion. Thus, it seems to be correct. If we could reduce spending to 2000-levels, we could eliminate the Individual Income Tax and still be solvent. Who thinks we can do that?

[aravoth]

I downloaded the spreadsheet from CBO:

2006:
Individual Income Tax 1,043.9
Corporate Income Tax 353.9
Social Insurance Taxes 837.8
Excise Taxes 74.0
Estate and Gift Taxes 27.9
Customs Duties 24.8
Miscellaneous 44.962

Total: 2,407.3

With all that, we still ran a $434.5 billion dollar deficit.

So let's do this: Subtract Individual Income Tax and we get a figure of $1363.4 billion in income remaining. We'll be generous and guess that we're going to run a $400 billion dollar deficit still as it takes time to stop a moving train, especially when Congress has a say in the matter. That means spending would need to be reduced to $1763.4 billion.

When was spending at that level? According to the spreadsheet, in 2000 spending was $1789.2 billion. Thus, it seems to be correct. If we could reduce spending to 2000-levels, we could eliminate the Individual Income Tax and still be solvent. Who thinks we can do that?

Indeed. And we could do a hell of a lot better than that if you ask me. People seem to think that if you kill the income tax, your dog will hate you, and old ladies will fall off into snowbanks and die. This is simply not the case. No one would be left out in the cold. Dr. Paul has already said that the entitlement programs would be phased out, not killed. Medicare and social security arn't even part of the income tax. Sometimes I wonder what the hell they are teaching people at universities.

[kylejack]

Oh: I forgot to mention. IRS budget is 10.9 billion, so that should be subtracted as well for an accurate picture. Also, keep in mind that this only accounts for eliminating individual income tax. Corporate income tax and Medicare/Social Security taxes would still be in place with those numbers.

[Craig_R]

"2.) There is no law that defines income tax as being wages. There are court rulings that also set this as precedence and define what income is as allowed under the 16th amendment."

Wrong, Income and wages have the exact same meaning under the law as does salary, Profit from excersizing federal privilege, the income itself is not taxed, just used to measure of the amount of privilege excersized.


"Also it's worth mentioning that the 16th amendment was never legally ratified. They didn't have enough states that certified the amendment that the federal government sent to them, but then Secretary of State Knox illegally stamped the amendment as certified."

doesnt matter the sole purpose of the Sixteenth Amendment was to remove the apportionment requirement for whichever incomes were otherwise taxable. It added no new powers of taxation.

"The only realistic way we're going to eliminate the Income Tax and the IRS is from the FairTax plan which is gaining a LOT of grassroots steam as well as in Congress as well. It is not perfect by any stretch of the means but the first part of the grassroots plan is to eliminate the Income Tax Law, and the IRS, which it does. The 2nd part of the plan is to repeal the 16th amendment, which only allows income taxation but does not require it. "

we'd end up with both taxes , you dont have to pay the income tax now unless you excersize federal privilege so why would you want MORE taxation?

"The FairTax IS flawed in the sense that the FairTax.org organization chose to remain non-partisan so the plan is revenue neutral, and it also protects the poor (though does it in a way that still treats everybody equally). I support this just because it's the only real way we have a chance (I will say by 2012 it will pass) to eliminate the biggest portion of socialism in our government anytime soon without bloodshed. Ron Paul is a supporter just not a cosponsor of the bill."

Ron only mentioned the fair tax one time, and he said he'd vote for it if he knew that we wouldnt end up with both taxes, and he'd only vote for it because it would be slightly better then the theft the government is perpetrating now. hardly support.

If he knew what was really going on he'd just tell the people that you dont need to pay taxes on private earnings and leave it at that I'm sure.

theres no sense in being a tax tinkerer, know the law.

www.Losthorizons.com will explain it all to ya, so far thousands of people getting back every red cent including soc sec and medicare. be sure to look around the site its huge and very informative.

[Craig_R]

deleted

[Craig_R]

deleted

[Craig_R]

deleted

[kylejack]

www.losthorizons.com

Hey, could you stop spamming this thread by responding to every post with a URL? I think we got it the last couple times.

[Craig_R]

Hey, could you stop spamming this thread by responding to every post with a URL? I think we got it the last couple times.

just making sure, I really hate to see it when folks dont know the law and go ahead and assume they have an "income"

BTW its great getting back three years worth of taxes and knowing you'll get back all of them in the future ;)

[kylejack]

just making sure, I really hate to see it when folks dont know the law and go ahead and assume they have an "income"

BTW its great getting back three years worth of taxes and knowing you'll get back all of them in the future ;)

Be careful with that stuff. I'm aware of the legal arguments, but I'd hate to see you end up like Irwin Schiff or the Browns.

[Craig_R]

Be careful with that stuff. I'm aware of the legal arguments, but I'd hate to see you end up like Irwin Schiff or the Browns.

totally different argument, actually the RIGHT argument.

[jfer45]

Does anyone know if the IRS is a legal entity? It seems strait forward. Either congress and the president approved a law estabilishing the IRS and its code as a legal angecy or they didn't. Let us assume the 16th Amendment to the Constitution wa ratified.

[mikelovesgod]

Mike,

What about 16th amendment?

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

The 18th Amendment is much like the 16th Amendment. Both were not according to the original intent, and in it's rawest form of use it was used to raise money for wartime, not to create a system of regularized taxation. It's mostly taxation without representation. I don't get anything from the Fed, which is where the money goes, I don't profit from it.

The 16th Amendment was a wartime tax, it was never meant to be systematized. If they want to tax me tax what I purchase. That's fair. Don't tax me without representation of that money, that's un-Constitutional. To tell me or you to pay into my retirement is insane. I want my own rights of what to do with my money. I don't give it to a faceless person hoping they will get interest and then invest it themselves and make money while I cannot control my own money. Well you see it's not about my security, but their control of my money.

I will never see that money and the reality is it's all about them being able to spend it, not about what's best for me as a citizen. It's all backwards.

[CJLauderdale4]

I downloaded the spreadsheet from CBO:

2006:

Individual Income Tax 1,043.9
Corporate Income Tax 353.9
Social Insurance Taxes 837.8
Excise Taxes 74.0
Estate and Gift Taxes 27.9
Customs Duties 24.8
Miscellaneous 45.0

Total: 2,407.3

With all that, we still ran a $434.5 billion dollar deficit.

So let's do this: Subtract Individual Income Tax and we get a figure of $1363.4 billion in income remaining. We'll be generous and guess that we're going to run a $400 billion dollar deficit still as it takes time to stop a moving train, especially when Congress has a say in the matter. That means spending would need to be reduced to $1763.4 billion.

When was spending at that level? According to the spreadsheet, in 2000 spending was $1789.2 billion. Thus, it seems to be correct. If we could reduce spending to 2000-levels, we could eliminate the Individual Income Tax and still be solvent. Who thinks we can do that?



You are correct. BUT, on the moving train analogy - we MUST remember, Congress AUTHORIZES spending, the President spends it. HE ALONE is the executor ("I'm the decider!").

For example, before the election of 2006, the Congress passed a buill to build a border fence. Money was alotted for this. GW could build it today. But he hasn't. So, where did the money go? Did he spend it on something else? NO...it didn't get spent at all!!

Thus, Ron can do the same thing with all of the frivolous spending authorizations Congress gives him, and the spedning will be cut in no time.

Congress authorizes, the Executive Branch carries out and spends...

[johngr]

One bad thing about an income tax (among several others) is that the gov't agents pretend that your financial affairs and how much money you have/earn the are any of their f***ing business and require you to give up your 5th amendment rights and show them your personal papers.

[Bossobass]

What scares me is that the USA Patriot Act can be used to call your revolts against the IRS and taxes 'terrorism', in which case all of the arguments against the current tax laws go flying out the window.

The same can be said about the drug laws that allow for property search and siezure based on nothing more than an anonymous tip, as well as planted evidence.

With RFID, all that's needed is for the Feds to shut off your chip.

We are no longer innocent until proven guilty. The opposite is true, unless you're an illegal alien, in which case you're innocent despite being guilty.:confused: :mad:

This country's laws are changing so fast it's unwise to plan your future based on anything that is currently the case.

Strong arguments for supporting and voting for Ron Paul, as well as voting out the perpetrators and collusionists in Congress.

Bosso

[RonPaul4President]

Income tax was "created" as a direct result of the Federal Reserve. It was a scam to create wealth from nothing for a few people. Ironically, the wealthiest people on earth. Income tax is used to wage wars and pay on the national debt's interest. WAR is debt. Debt is profit. It's a never-ending cycle that has gone on for centuries with "the people" footing the bill without even knowing it. It is a scam. A lie.

[kylejack]

You are correct. BUT, on the moving train analogy - we MUST remember, Congress AUTHORIZES spending, the President spends it. HE ALONE is the executor ("I'm the decider!").

For example, before the election of 2006, the Congress passed a buill to build a border fence. Money was alotted for this. GW could build it today. But he hasn't. So, where did the money go? Did he spend it on something else? NO...it didn't get spent at all!!

Thus, Ron can do the same thing with all of the frivolous spending authorizations Congress gives him, and the spedning will be cut in no time.

Congress authorizes, the Executive Branch carries out and spends...

Weeeell, not exactly. Congress appropriates direct spending and discretionary spending. The President only has control of discretionary spending.

[CJLauderdale4]

I stand corrected...thanks!!
So, why was the border fence discretionary?? And if not, when is that (never) going to happen??

[dude58677]

With a small Constitutional government, there just isn't a reason to have an IRS.:) :)

[jfer45]

Clause 4. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

With the passage of the 16th Amendment, Congress does have the power to impose direct taxes on income without apportionment. The primary question seems to be whether or not the IRS is an actual, legal agency.

[hambone1982]

Clause 4. No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


16th Amendment:
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

With the passage of the 16th Amendment, Congress does have the power to impose direct taxes on income without apportionment. The primary question seems to be whether or not the IRS is an actual, legal agency.


The supreme court ruled that the 16th amendment gave the federal government "no new taxing powers."

I wonder if the supreme court is as corrupt as the rest of the government today. I wonder if a new IRS case came before the court if they would ignore the facts and rule corruptly. I have a sinking feeling that they are as corrupt as the rest of the lot (after seeing their ruling following the 2000 election (I thought that ruling was wack and I voted for Bush in 2000 - before my eyes were opened ;-).

[mconder]

One bad thing about an income tax (among several others) is that the gov't agents pretend that your financial affairs and how much money you have/earn the are any of their f***ing business and require you to give up your 5th amendment rights and show them your personal papers.

No kidding. It's pretty obvious the right to privacy was written to keep one's financial affairs private from the state. Who can argue this was not the intent?

[Swmorgan77]

Why does Ron Paul want to abolish the IRS? Don't they just collect taxes and enforce tax law?

The IRS is very interesting. If you look at the laws, there is actually no act of congress that authorizes their existence or operation as an arm of the government.

They "claim" to be an arm of the "Treasury" but when you really look into it, they are effectively tied into the Federal Reserve acting as a collection arm under a Federal Reserve "Treasury" department. They are not a department of the actual, United States Department of Treasury. If they were, again there would have to be an act of Congress creating them.

This is all probably too complex to explain to somone in an electioneering "get out the word" situation.

When people raise the issue of "how will the government pay for ____" in response to abolishing the IRS I just point out that all of the Income Tax goes to pay the interest on the national debt, and not to pay for services. The services are run up on a massive, unlimited line of credit (enabled by the FED).

The other good thing is to point out that Ron Paul is not opposed to taxation in general, just unconstitutional ones. The Constitution allows for many of the taxes we have that pay for important things like Roads, etc. It also allows for even more taxation at the state level, since the states have to compete with each other and this keeps taxes low. Minimal taxation (like the Constitution mandates) would necessarily mean minimal government.

Just ask people if they think they are getting a good deal for what they pay to the Federal government. If the investment were so great, the government wouldn't have to FORCE us to pay it. :)

[angrydragon]

Well, I just hope we're all in agreement with Ron in dropping the IRS and the Fed. income tax. It's just a huge burden on us. Once that's done, state income taxes should be easier to fight.

To those in states without both the income tax and sales tax, how does the state and local governments get their money? User fees? other taxes?


If everyone were given the option not to pay taxes for 3 years or whatever, who would pay?

[mikelovesgod]

There won't be no taxes to replace what's currently happening. More than likely Dr. Paul would enforce a flat tax of buying goods and services over the IRS.

It would encourage the free market and really increase revenue so he could continue to cut other taxes and make the country buy and sell their taxes fairly and evenly. You want a big boat and large home? Pay for it and get taxed on it. You cut the deficit, balance the budget, and make the burden for the tax-payer fair.

[Aeschylus]

There won't be no taxes to replace what's currently happening. More than likely Dr. Paul would enforce a flat tax of buying goods and services over the IRS.

There won't be a need for any such thing. Ron Paul has already made it quite clear his position on this. He will eliminate the IRS and replace them with NOTHING.