Would Repealing the Income Tax Really Be a Good Thing?

[helmuth_hubener]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

[phill4paul]

Income tax is theft.

[dannno]

I dunno, it might upset some people.

[Zippyjuan]

Not cutting spending to go along with it would mean more government borrowing or raising some other form of taxes. Ron Paul says you have to take care of spending first.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm


We have to cut spending. You can’t get rid of the income tax if you don’t get rid of some spending.

[dannno]

Not cutting spending to go along with it would mean more government borrowing or raising some other form of taxes. Ron Paul says you have to take care of spending first.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm

........right

But like in the video I posted in the other thread on the topic, Ron Paul would still vote for the tax cuts.


I guess if you just read headlines rather than listening to the content, you would never know that..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63rbPzxQA-g


Summary: Ron Paul says Trump's tax plan won't work without spending cuts (but he would still vote for it)

[Ender]

Income tax is theft.

^^THIS^^

[Danke]

Just enforce it properly as most Americans are not subject to it.

[tommyrp12]

Obliterate the income tax and they will replace it with fifteen new taxes that are going to come from our pocket and still spend more.

[TheTexan]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

Technically it's the spending that builds the roads, not any taxes

As long as the government keeps building roads, military, health departments, NSA's, etc

then im totally cool with it

[oyarde]

Would i vote for it ? Yes .

[Anti Federalist]

Income tax is theft.

ALL taxation is theft.

[Anti Federalist]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

Would do it in a heartbeat.

Government assenholes already spend way beyond their means anyways, what's another couple of trillion a year?

Fuck it all, burn it down.

[tod evans]

Would Repealing the Income Tax Really Be a Good Thing?

Yes.

[Dr.3D]

Not cutting spending to go along with it would mean more government borrowing or raising some other form of taxes. Ron Paul says you have to take care of spending first.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm
I don't care how much they borrow, as long as they (the government) are responsible for paying it back. Maybe they will go bankrupt and go out of business.

Leave those who don't want to support government alone.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't care how much they borrow, as long as they (the government) are responsible for paying it back. Maybe they will go bankrupt and go out of business.

Leave those who don't want to support government alone.

So where will the government get money to pay it back? From taxes. More borrowing means higher interest payments which means higher taxes will be necessary in the future but don't worry- it won't be your problem. You will still get everything for free for now.

And if the government does default, it will cause interest rates to soar meaning higher costs (hidden taxes) for you when they do. Either way, there is no "free ride".

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So practically everyone here gave an answer to the values-laden OP question Would Repealing the Income Tax Really Be a Good Thing? You however, (and per usual), gave your patented non-answer by simply attempting to point out the consequences of liberty and such issues. Do you have any other templates that you use here?

Also, do you ever actually discuss what you believe? Pretty easy to be a naysayer and a contrarian.




Not cutting spending to go along with it would mean more government borrowing or raising some other form of taxes. Ron Paul says you have to take care of spending first.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2012/Ron_Paul_Tax_Reform.htm


So where will the government get money to pay it back? From taxes. More borrowing means higher interest payments which means higher taxes will be necessary in the future but don't worry- it won't be your problem. You will still get everything for free for now.

And if the government does default, it will cause interest rates to soar meaning higher costs (hidden taxes) for you when they do. Either way, there is no "free ride".

[otherone]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

da fuq?

[dannno]

And if the government does default, it will cause interest rates to soar meaning higher costs (hidden taxes) for you when they do. Either way, there is no "free ride".

What is wrong with high interest rates?

[Zippyjuan]

What is wrong with high interest rates?

They raise the costs of things and slow economies. Actually a default would probably crash the economy- not just slow it. Or you could do that with taxes if that is what you like.

[TheTexan]

Would do it in a heartbeat.

Government assenholes already spend way beyond their means anyways, what's another couple of trillion a year?

Fuck it all, burn it down.

Yellen is pretty smart, it's her job to figure that kind of thing out

[Dr.3D]

So where will the government get money to pay it back? From taxes. More borrowing means higher interest payments which means higher taxes will be necessary in the future but don't worry- it won't be your problem. You will still get everything for free for now.

And if the government does default, it will cause interest rates to soar meaning higher costs (hidden taxes) for you when they do. Either way, there is no "free ride".
Is somebody looking for government to give them a ride?

If they can't get by without robbing people, let them go down.

[Danke]

Is somebody looking for government to give them a ride?

If they can't get by without robbing people, let them go down.

So the dollar become useless and states, free market and/or entrepreneurs come up with alternatives, win win.

[Danke]

What is wrong with high interest rates?

If they get out of hand, the market will find alternatives if unrestrained from Federal Government.

[Suzanimal]

Would Repealing the Income Tax Really Be a Good Thing?

Yes


....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

Yes


I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

Yes


That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

No

[Ender]

Yes



Yes



Yes



No

YES

[Dr.3D]

So the dollar become useless and states, free market and/or entrepreneurs come up with alternatives, win win.
That's what happens when "The Dollar" becomes a paper token. As Ron Paul has said over and over again, fiat currencies, backed by nothing, become worthless over time and always fail.

[Zippyjuan]

That's what happens when "The Dollar" becomes a paper token. As Ron Paul has said over and over again, fiat currencies, backed by nothing, become worthless over time and always fail.

How successful have gold backed currencies been? How many survive today?

[Dr.3D]

How successful have gold backed currencies been? How many survive today?
They would probably do pretty well if government wouldn't intervene. It's government fiat and greed that causes gold and silver to stop being used as money.

[Origanalist]

How successful have gold backed currencies been? How many survive today?

Ask Moammar Gadhafi.

[Zippyjuan]

Ask Moammar Gadhafi.

Libyan money isn't backed by gold.

[Danke]

Arguing against gold on Ron Paul forums, priceless.

[Origanalist]

Libyan money isn't backed by gold.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml

[nikcers]

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml
Wrong Libya's currency is slaves.

[Origanalist]

Wrong Libya's currency is slaves.

Now.

[oyarde]

Arguing against gold on Ron Paul forums, priceless.

I will never argue against gold . Of course I am a wise Sachem .

[Danke]

I will never argue against gold . Of course I am a wise Sachem .

Ok, sure, whatever the hell that is.

[Dr.3D]

Ok, sure, whatever the hell that is.
The internet is your friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachem

[Danke]

The internet is your friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachem


:rolleyes:

[Dr.3D]

:rolleyes:
:D

[Occam's Banana]

How successful have gold backed currencies been?

Fantastically successful.

They've been used for thousands of years, throughout almost all of human history.

How many fiat currencies can say the same?


How many survive today?

How many were deliberately undermined and killed by governements in favor of fiat, rather than being fairly outcompeted by fiat on their merits?

[surf]

YESyes

[jmdrake]

How successful have gold backed currencies been? How many survive today?


Ask Moammar Gadhafi.


Libyan money isn't backed by gold.


http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/World_News_3/article_7886.shtml


Wrong Libya's currency is slaves.


Now.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Origanalist again.

Interesting and telling exchange. Zippy asked for examples of economies backed by gold that "survive today." The only reason Libya didn't survive is because when Ghaddafi went to the gold standard the New World Order murdered him. And Origanalist is right. Slavery was not rampant in Libya until after the murder of Ghaddafi. It's interesting that because of Ghaddafi's murder by our first black president, slave markets were reintroduced in Libya and black Africans living in Libya were ethnically cleansed.

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-16051349

Saddam Hussein was going to get of the petrodollar and that's why he became public enemy #1.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,998512,00.html
https://www.thenewamerican.com/economy/markets/item/4630-gadhafi-s-gold-money-plan-would-have-devastated-dollar

Really it's all about the petrodollar. That's the unholy alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia where we act as their henchmen (Onward Christian Soldiers), and they and other OPEC nations only sell their oil in dollars, thus keeping the U.S. dollar as the world reserve currency. Right now fiat currency and treasury bills are our main export. (That and state sponsored violence.) Even what is going on in Syria comes down to the petrodollar. In 2009, Qatar wanted to run a pipeline through Syria to Europe. But Assad decided to go with Shiite dominated Iran and Iraq. (Iraq is only Shiite dominated because of the U.S. toppling of Saddam in 2003).

See: http://armedforcesjournal.com/pipeline-politics-in-syria/

So in response, in 2011 "spontaneously" the so called "Arab spring" erupted with Assad being one of the targets.

So...can a gold backed economy survive? In theory yes. In practice it will be declared a "rogue state", overthrown and its leader murdered. Don't forget, one of the first things Al Qaeda did when it took over Libya was set up a central bank.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/42308613
Libyan rebels in Benghazi say they have formed their own central bank.

The rebel group known as the Transitional National Council released a statement last week announcing that they have designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya, and that they have appointed a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi, according to Bloomberg.

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

So I guess even MSM outlets like CNBC can give into so called "conspiracy theories." Chew on that for a bit.

[jmdrake]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

Repeal the income tax?

http://worldofdtcmarketing.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/1349431952_einstein-duh.jpg

As for doing it without a proposal to cut spending? I haven't heard of anyone proposing spending cuts. All I've heard is "How can we make this revenue neutral?" In other words HOW CAN WE CUT TAXES AND KEEP RAKING IN THE SAME AMOUNT OF TAXES? Nobody I've heard on the news (and with my current car temporarily having XM radio I've been listening to a lot of news lately...depressing), has given a proposal for paying for the tax cut by doing the obvious right thing and cutting spending. The only debate has been between "Will the economic growth alone cover the difference?" and "Can we raise enough taxes elsewhere by doing things like eliminating deductions."

Actually, there is good data to show that a value added tax does a better job at fleecing the sheeple raising revenue than does an income tax and even liberals are talking about that now.

See: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/03/522440141/author-looks-to-other-countries-to-rethink-americas-complicated-tax-code

With state sales tax, you only pay the sales tax as an end consumer. With VAT, everyone in the supply chain is charged a tax. The farmer sells the milk to cheese factory? The factory pays a tax. The factory sells the cheese to the food wholesaler? The food wholesaler pays a tax. The food wholesaler sells the cheese to the grocery store? The grocery store pays a tax. You buy it? You pay a tax. Actually you pay all the tax because it's been passed along to you in the form of higher prices all the way up the supply chain. All you know is "Now my cheese costs $3.00 per block when it used to cost $2.00. What gives?" With the sales tax you know how much you're being taxed. It's on the receipt. A VAT is a "stealth tax."

That said, I'd prefer a VAT tax over an income tax. The average person would instantly be free from having to worry about IRS tyranny. Nobody ever gets threatening government letters and wage garnishments over failing to pay their sales tax. Businesses can get in trouble for failing to collect sales tax but that's another story. Technically when you buy online you're supports to pay your state it's "sales tax" for....well I'm not sure what for exactly, but no state has ever enforced that (at least not to my knowledge) for fear of a backlash from online consumers who live in their state. (If you are a business and you are avoiding state sales tax by buying online and you do enough volume, you might get in trouble.)

I prefer a tax system proposed here at RPF a long time ago (like 2008) when we had lots of nervous energy and were coming up with weird, crazy, and often wonderful ideas like "sign bombs" (remember those?) and campaign blimps (bring it back!). The idea was not really a tax but a great way to fund what people really want. Instead of taxes, have "chip ins". Chipin.com was the original crowdfunding website back before Kickstarter, Indegogo and Gofundme. The idea is that people could online "chip in" a few bucks here or there that would add up to do something. We did moneybombs to make news, but "chip ins" got things done. A volunteer wanted to go work in Iowa but didn't have the funds for bus fare? Chip in! (Chipin.com was down for awhile. It's back up but from what I can tell it is no longer a crowd funding website but now its a gadget review site? :confused: It does have a review of blockchain (Bitcoin) enabled crowd funding websites. Looks interesting!)

Anyway, instead of taking federal funds to fix a bridge, for example, put up a 'chipin" (or Kickstarter or whatever). Let the people who care about and want to do something about X, Y or Z voluntarily chip in the money to do it. Crazy idea right? But why not? In the wake of various natural disasters Americans have pledged and given millions in a day. Of course some projects would never get funded like Sarah Palin's "bridge to nowhere."

http://www.factcheck.org/2008/09/bridge-to-nowhere/

Looking back at how Palin and McCain fumbled over themselves trying to defend the indefensible, McCain having criticized a project that Palin was for before she was against, is instructive as to why a voluntary approach to funding such projects would be better. Here's McCain:

September 2006: Palin, campaigning for governor, tells the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce that she supports the bridge and would use the money from Congress for the Gravina Access Project. The bridge would connect Ketchikan to Gravina Island, replacing a ferry and improving access to the Ketchikan airport.
Palin, Sept. 2006: The money that’s been appropriated for the project, it should remain available for a link, an access process as we continue to evaluate the scope and just how best to just get this done. This link is a commitment to help Ketchikan expand its access, to help this community prosper.

Palin reiterates her support to other groups and news sources during her campaign. For instance, an Anchorage Daily News poll asks candidates whether they would continue state funding for the bridge. Palin answers in Oct. 2006: "Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now – while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

August 2007: McCain says money wasted on the Gravina Access Project could have been used to prevent the Minnesota bridge collapse. "Maybe if we had done it right, maybe some of that money would have gone to inspect those bridges and other bridges around the country," McCain said. "Maybe the 200,000 people who cross that bridge every day would have been safer than spending $233 million of your tax dollars on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it."

Well...if instead of lobbying the federal government for money for the bridge, Governor Palin had taken to the airwaves explaining why this bridge to an island with 50 inhabitants was a good thing (it saves the Alaskan manatee from getting run over by boats?) she could have raised the money. If she did raise the money that way, as long as she didn't mislead anybody, no big deal if the money could have been spent better elsewhere. And if the governor of Minnesota wasn't telegenic enough to raise money online to prevent his/her bridge from collapsing? Well too bad for Minnesota! (Palin actually talks like she's from Minnesota. Maybe they could hire her for their ad spots).

Don't say it can't be done. People donate money to all kinds of causes, worthwhile and otherwise. This guy raised $55,000 on Kickstarter to make a bowl of potato salad!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zackdangerbrown/potato-salad

Seriously, why isn't anybody running with this idea? :confused:

[DamianTV]

....If not bundled with a proposal to cut spending?

I mean, you guys wouldn't support repealing the income tax, would you?

That would be grossly irresponsible. Right?

Only way it could happen is by fully repealing the 16th Amendment, which created the Federal Reserve.

Federal Reserve Bank is used to "print money", so all that money that is printed needs to also be destroyed in equal portions. That is how fiat currency works. If the Income Tax were repealed without getting rid of the source of "money printing", then you would end up with the money not being destroyed, which meets Ron Pauls definition of inflation: "an increase in the money supply", which lowers the value of each individual dollar. What you would end up with is basically a trap in order to keep the entire govt enslaved to a Central Bank, because they cant do one without the other and are not smart enough to think like that. If Income Tax were repealed without getting rid of the Fed, you would have Zimbabwe levels of inflation, or basically Hyperinflation.

For the record, the 16th Amendment created BOTH the Income Tax as well as the Federal Reserve, for reasons stated above. That is what enabled the slow death of this country by the parasitic banking class. Dont get me wrong, either way, Federal Reserve Bank will still kill this country, just as EVERY Central Bank has killed is victim country.

[Danke]

The 16A did not create the Income Tax. It was created under Lincoln.

[Cleaner44]

no... repealing the income tax would be a GREAT thing.

[phill4paul]

I'm for repealing the income tax so that others may enjoy the peace of mind that I know. Everyone else seems to like income tax. They're welcome to it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Repeal the income tax. Replace it with a flat, across the board tariff to finance a minimal government. Competing currencies are also required.

[Weston White]

The only thing wrong with the income tax scheme is that it is applied through fraud and conspiracy, revert it to its original intent and all is well with it. As to national debt, so what if we can exist in $20-trillion so then could we at $40, 60 or 80-trillion--tis the beauty of nonconvertible fiat.


With a single decision, he controls the lever that dominates the entire economy. When you control the money, you control everything– financial markets, consumer prices, risk perceptions, investment habits, savings rates, hiring decisions, pay raises, sovereign debt, housing starts, etc. One man.

This irrational, arrogant system presupposes by design that a central banker is smarter than everyone else; that markets are incapable of determining appropriate risk and value; that he is more effective at allocating our time, capital, and labor than we are.

Future historians will probably also be dumbfounded when they see how long people allowed worthless, unbacked fiat paper to pass as money. It’s extraordinary that most people today happily accept a digital abstraction of paper currency controlled by a single individual as ‘valuable’.

It was more than 5,000 years ago that primitive commodity money was used in Mesopotamia, and it’s been over 3,000 years since metal coins began circulating. For more than 99.2% of human civilization, money actually meant something… right up until 1971 when Richard Nixon ended any remaining link between the dollar and gold.

Ever since, the US government has refused to acknowledge precious metals as money…

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-there-any-currencies-backed-by-gold-2012-3

[Weston White]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

[Weston White]

How many were deliberately undermined and killed by governements in favor of fiat, rather than being fairly outcompeted by fiat on their merits?

Right, the implementation of fiat, centralized banking, devolves nations into ruinous tyranny and corruption in a hasty fashion too.

[helmuth_hubener]

Well, what do you know: it looks like RPF still supports repealing the income tax.

Who would'a thought?

Thanks, guys, for putting a smile on my face and keeping the torch alive. Let's not let the cynics and those with an ulterior agenda get us down. :)

[Ender]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to jmdrake again.

Covered.