A number of readers want me to really dive into Ron Paul's economic policies and explain why I don't like them. Okay, here goes. First up: one of the main areas in which I am supposed to agree with Dr. Paul. That is to say, taxes.
Most of Dr. Paul's supporters like the fact that he wants to cut taxes. I like the fact that he wants to cut taxes. But how he plans to cut taxes is not so good. In fact, it's pretty bad.
His website is full of talk about eliminating the income tax, which is not going to happen. His more realistic plans consist mostly of about eighty zillion tax credits, either to replace existing government spending, or to make a warm gesture towards interest groups Dr. Paul thinks are swell, like senior citizens and people serving in the active duty military.
Item one: there is no good reason to replace spending with tax credits. Economically, they are indistinguishable from spending, except that they add all sorts of ugly behavioral inefficiencies.
Item two: they are regressive. Dr. Paul has several plans to replace spending programs with tax credits, which would represent a massive fiscal redistribution away from people who can't do much with a $15,000 tax credit because they do not have $15,000 worth of taxable income.
Item three: tax credits are economically inefficient, for reasons that I once laid out at great length here.
Item four: tax credits are economically distortionary; they either pay people to do things that they were going to do anyway, or they encourage people to do things that won't pay for themselves.
Item five: tax credits are much beloved of politicians because they sound magically different from spending, which allows them to distribute goodies to their supporters. If nothing else, this should make any libertarian shudder at the thought of tax credits.
And how will he pay for this tax cuttery? Megan's First Fiscal Law: spending is taxation. Economically, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether you finance that spending with taxation or debt; both exert some economic drag, though the mechanisms are different. If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending.
Actually, Dr Paul says he agrees with this. So how come his website and collected "issues" writing reveal no major cuts to any programs except his scheme to eliminate the department of education? I mean, I'm all for getting rid of the School Nannies. But observe, please, this graph which I am shamelessly ripping off of Marginal Revolution:
Note, please the category "everything else" which comprises under 17% of the budget. The Department of Education disappears into there, along with transportation, farm subsidies, and everything that is not entitlement spending, defense, and interest on the national debt.
Perhaps he is planning to slash military spending? But then who is going to perform all this border enforcement? And I don't actually see where he's planning to make the military smaller; he's just planning to keep them home. Iraq is expensive, but it's not expensive enough to pay for the kind of tax cuttery he's proposing. You'd have to cut the defense budget by a third to produce a 5% reduction in the overall budget.
Entitlements are by far the largest part of our budget; if you're serious about cutting spending, you need to get serious about attacking entitlements. But Dr. Paul makes no mention of slashing Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid, and for good reason: the senior lobby would slaughter him. In fact, he's not only going to leave Social Security benefits intact, but also, he's planning to eliminate taxation of Social Security benefits. His plan for dealing with the entitlement problem seems to consist of saying that we should keep the federal government from spending the "trust funds". Okay, Dr.; into what financial assets should the government invest this trust funds, and what taxes will you raise, or spending will you cut, in order to plug the several-hundred-billion-dollar hole this will open in the general fund?
Nor are seniors the only ones he plans to cut taxes on. His ideas include no taxes for active duty military, tax credits for health care, tax credits for paying property taxes . . . apparently, the only people Dr. Paul thinks should pay taxes are, well, me, a young urban worker who doesn't own a home.
He promises to veto new spending. But new discretionary spending is simply not the major driver of our budget. The major driver of our budget is entitlements, which will grow unchecked even if he, and Congress, adjourn to play golf for the next eight years. This is not economically serious, fiscally responsible policy; in fact, it's just another variant on what everyone else is doing, which is ignoring the entitlement programs that are about to turn into the sucking chest wound of the US budget.
Finally, he sells his fiscal policy with completely unnecessary, not to mention factually deceptive, immigrant-and-trade bashing. His brief on the Import-Export Bank, an FDR-era boondoggle of trivial significance to anything, including the US taxpayer, is positioned as a complaint that we are massively subsidizing China. In fact, the subsidy is tiny, and it's not aimed at foreigners. We lend poor credit risks in other countries money to buy US goods; it's an export subsidy, and a particularly stupid one that should be eliminated--without gratuitous fearmongering about China.
Similarly, he attacks the Social Security Administration's plan for a "totalization" agreement with Mexico, claiming that it will result in the American taxpayer, suddenly and for no apparent reason, sending a ton of money to Mexicans who work here for a little while and then go back to Mexico in order to loll around in the sun collecting their Social Security checks.
This sounds ludicrous because it's a gross distortion. Totalization agreements are standard practice between countries with social security systems; they prevent people who are working abroad, but planning to retire in their own country, from having to make contributions to two systems. We have totalization agreements with any number of countries, and the actuaries at the SSA expect that the agreement with Mexico will have little impact either way on the trust funds. Indeed, the agreement with Mexico will cost us much less than our agreement with that nation of mooching scabs, the Canadians.
In short, I do not look at this list of proposals and see a bold iconoclast who finally dares to transcend politics, fearlessly doing what needs to be done and speaking truth to power. I see a politician telling his supporters what they want to hear, which is that they deserve to pay lower taxes, but not to have any program that is important to them slashed. I see him scoring cheap campaign points off of American hostility to foreigners, particularly poor foreigners who compete with them economically. And I see him, like everyone else, dodging the major fiscal challenge of our time: the problem of paying for the health care and pensions of the retiring baby boomers.
If that's what you hear, you are deaf.
Perhaps instead of discussing how tax cuts and spending are economically indistinuishable, how about discuss why taxes violate the right to your life?
I get it. Andrew is in England for the Holidays. So they stuck you in his slot to try and keep the traffic up. bla bla bla
"His website is full of talk about eliminating the income tax, which is not going to happen."
UMMMMM...if you actually did your homework and studied the laws you would find that most private sector workers do not have to pay income taxes ANYWAY. The IRS is a farce.
Proof: http://www.losthorizons.com/
The rest of your article shows how little you understand economics. You do NOT have a right to health care or ANY entitlements from government as government produces NOTHING but steals it from the producers like me.
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
"His website is full of talk about eliminating the income tax, which is not going to happen."
You lost me here at the ninth sentence. I read the rest of your piece with a jaundiced eye afterwards.
With Dr. Paul in the bully pulpit, repealing the tyrannical 16th Amendment would be a distinct possibility as well as getting rid of the parasitical Federal Reserve. The result would be that we keep a majority of the fruits of our labors rather than giving them to the IRS and other bloodsuckers. The hidden tax of inflation (which the Fed ultimately controls no matter what prevarications and hey-prestos! with which they attempt to flim-flam us) would result in money that was an honest measure of worth rather than an instrument of debt that decreases in value with every year.
Not putting Ron Paul in the bully pulpit and sticking an Obama or a Huckabee in his place would result in more of the same and most likely worse.
So go ahead and keep telling yourself that your chains are there for a reason. I don't have time for it myself.
A "conservative" is a draft animal that claims we must wear our yokes more or less as they're placed on us. A "liberal" is a draft animal that claims we have a right to shift the yokes from time to time. An "extremist" is someone that asks, "Why wear a yoke and haul someone else's carriage?" link
Ron Paul acolytes demand substantive critiques. Whenever they get one, they say "do your homework" and accuse people of not knowing the facts, or not knowing economics, or whatever their area of expertise is. Then they go back to demanding substantive critiques.
And what's up with all the pro-Paul posting that starts of "As Dr. Paul has correctly and factually stated" or something to that effect? Does he also have a little red book that you carry around with you?
Baby Boomer Pensions ... give me a break. It's too bad one depends on the votes of so many Baby Boomers who feel the government owes them what they failed to save themselves.
"Perhaps he is planning to slash military spending?"
Now that's gross ignorance on your part. Have you even bothered googling Ron Paul's positions? Know your enemy well before you attack. All your flailing just shows how confused you really are.
"The rest of your article shows how little you understand economics. You do NOT have a right to health care or ANY entitlements from government as government produces NOTHING but steals it from the producers like me."
She never said she had the right to those entitlements. She's noting your beloved Dr. Paul is not going to do ANYTHING about eliminating the entitlements you hate so much.
You say that the income tax will never go away under a Paul administration, but they also say that there will never be a Paul administration. Fact of the matter is that if Ron wins the presidency the congress will be forced to push through some of his reforms, that is if they want to be re-elected two years later.
Paul would slash spending on our foreign policy which would save enough money to save social security and Medicare for those dependent and allow young people to opt out. He wants to get rid of unnecessary departments again cutting federal spending.
The states may raise taxes when/if we return to a constituionally sized government. But that opens up competition between the states. The way it should be.
"Iraq is expensive, but it's not expensive enough to pay for the kind of tax cuttery he's proposing."
You are living in a fantasy land. There are something like 150,000 mercenaries in Iraq being paid by our tax dollar beyond the cost of the US military there. Haliburton charges $96 per load of laundry washed for our troops there who are directed to use this service instead of doing their own laundry. This is only the tip of the iceberg.
Enough I say! Too much stealing from the American taxpayer to finance Haliburton, Exxon, and others making obscene profits off the blood of Iraqis and our brave troops on the ground there.
Megan,
I apologise for the snarky tone of the some of the RP supporters above.
But here's one significant counter to your post: Paul has promised, repeatedly, to push to allow citizens to 'opt out' of social security/ medicare taxes.
I think its pretty safe to say there will be a massive exodus out of the welfare state by younger, more productive citizens. It should be safe to call that a reduction of future liabilities by a few hundred billion?
Moreover, the Laffer curve is still not exhausted at this point. Significant tax cuts (like eliminating the dividend and capital gains taxes) should provide substantial net INCREASES in alternate tax revenues, more than enough to cover their loss of revenue.
What are your thoughts?
- R
"Paul would slash spending on our foreign policy which would save enough money to save social security and Medicare for those dependent and allow young people to opt out. He wants to get rid of unnecessary departments again cutting federal spending."
Uhh...I'd love to see your numbers, you know, to refute Megan's.
Anthony Cantor said: "accuse people of not knowing the facts, or not knowing economics"
It's not an accusation. It's a fact. For instance, most Americans have no idea that Robert L. Owen, one of the major legislative forces behind the creation of the Federal Reserve (he was half of the Owen-Glass Federal Reserve Act of 1913) later realized that he'd been scammed and spent the rest of his life fighting the monster he'd helped to create. He even wrote the foreword to Gertrude Coogan's 1934 book "The Mysterious Moneychangers" reproduced below:
"It gives me special pleasure to have the opportunity to explain the principles and purposes of this book, written by Miss Gertrude M. Coogan of Chicago.
The facts that Miss Coogan was awarded a Master's Degree in Economics and Finance by Northwestern University; was for eight years a Security Analyst for The Northern Trust Company of Chicago; that from the beginning she had a deep desire to understand the fancied enigma of money, have given her great insight into monetary science.
The basic principles of monetary science are simple. Knowledge of the science has been made difficult by those who have converted these simple principles into an enigma. They have done so with ponderous volumes written on prices and on the processes of production, transportation, distribution and allied topics; weaving into the subject matter deceptive terms so that the public has been grossly misled by the use of words which contain accepted false premises.
...
The purpose of this book is to bring before the American people the knowledge that they must have regarding the nature and manipulations of their money system. In my opinion, America faces a crisis which may result in the loss of our Representative Constitutional Government unless every man and woman, rich or poor, young or old; doctor, lawyer, merchant laborer, educator, clergyman, social worker, society leader; will bestir himself or herself toward the problem of bringing the fundamental truths of monetary science to every fireside.
It is time for intelligent Americans to examine their money system .... Those who own insurance policies and savings accounts must bestir themselves to protect those accumulations. ...
... The truths themselves are very simple, but many of the newspapers and publishing companies allow themselves to be used to carry misinformation to the American public, while neglecting to print the truths. Honest money principles are understandable to every one when the money subject is presented in its true light. É
It required the assistance of every loyal American to help win the World War. In my opinion, the American people have more at stake today than they had at the time of the World War.É I believe the future of our nation and the principles for which it has stood, were less in jeopardy then than they are today. ...
The solution of the problem to protect our homes does not rest with a few leaders in a distant city. It is necessary that every man and woman appoint himself and herself a leader. Honest Money Groups must be formed in every block, in every precinct throughout the United States, and in every rural community. The rural community centers and schoolhouses can be most profitably employed this winter in showing the American farmers how simply they can solve all of their own problems. Their grave troubles have been caused not by overproduction, but by money manipulations frequently executed upon foreign advice and to harmonize with foreign "policies." The result has been the extraction of dollars of a distorted purchasing power from the American farmer. Collecting dollars of such unfair purchasing power has deprived many American farmers of their homes, and all farmers of their share in the industrial products which this nation is so well equipped to manufacture and distribute.
The principal reason for endorsing this book is that I feel it is an intelligent vehicle for the dissemination of the truths which must be understood in every home ....
... I am glad to commend it; to give the book my blessings in its principles and purposes ... It contains scientific truths -- not quackery.
...
This writer is informed. The information is sound. ... it is written in an attractive way with an engaging style, and it conveys to the American people truths of the very first magnitude.
When these truths are known, and the American people demand their constitutional right of an honest money system, this country will enter upon an era of material and physical prosperity; of opportunity, and spiritual and cultural advancement that will not only charm and delight its own people but will become a model for the rest of the human race."
Robert L. Owen
New York City
October 29, 1934
---
If one of the accomplices of the Federal Reserve could admit to his mistake, I don't see why we can't either.
Your comments on tax credits vs. spending fail to take into account the morality of tax credits vs. spending. Spending requires stealing money from one taxpayer and giving it to another. A tax credit simply allows the holder of the credit to keep more of his or her money. It doesn't take anything from anyone. This is probably one reason Dr. Paul supports them. Efficiency isn't the only argument one can make. Mussolini made the trains run on time. Dr. Paul is the only candidate who has brings morality into these discussions -- not a religious morality, but a morality based on natural law, i.e, it's wrong to steal from one person and give to another.
Ron Paul is the only politician who brings authenticity, honesty, and integrity into the presidential race. To see a hilarious satire on the president, the mainstream media, and the war on terror see this YouTube music video from the international award-winning zombie musical feature film, "Song of the Dead." It features horror movie veteran, Reggie Bannister (Phantasm, Wishmaster, Bubba Ho-tep) as the President of the U.S. The filmmaker, Chip Gubera, is giving a share of his profits from DVD sales to the Ron Paul campaign. Go to:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qQmkkoxSKYw
Megan has made a valiant attempt to defend income taxes, even though her logic is very weird. It amazes me how complicated people tend to make things.
I have always found that Austrian Economics can simply explain the way things are, but other theories (such as Keynesian economics and Megan's Fiscal Laws) make things appear convoluted. Perhaps those theories are formed with good intentions to defend popular trends, but they always end up resulting in some transient conclusions such as "spending is taxation" and "Tax cuts = Bad."
This article was not even a fair criticism of what Dr. Paul represents. He wants to abolish the IRS and the federal income tax, not just "reduce taxes" as Megan implied.
Nice try, but you cannot persuade me that taxes are the best use of my money. Thanks Ron, for standing for me!
"She never said she had the right to those entitlements. She's noting your beloved Dr. Paul is not going to do ANYTHING about eliminating the entitlements you hate so much."
Oh Really? How does letting people opt out and begin the process of reversing these socialistic, take care of me programs, not qualify as "anything"?
Are you saying because he will not leave millions of seniors, who were duped into trusting a treasonous socialistic government, out in the cold at the stroke of a pen that he will not do "anything"? He has got it right. Support the seniors and transition the newer generations off the system.
http://www.ronpaulforpresident2008.com/
With respect to the red book dig, you must understand the passion that a typical Ron Paul supporter has comes from intellectually understanding that, indeed, the Federal income tax is unnecessary, burdensome, and, in most cases, illegally implemented.
Once you have done some research (The Creature From Jekylle Island, copy and paste link below http://www.realityzone.com/creature.html also read this http://www.devvy.com/notax.html) and come to the above mentioned conclusions, it becomes very difficult not to become a red book carrying, red underwear wearing (Mormon reference), Kool Aide drinking sounding Ron Paul supporter. It is very very difficult to get out of your head that the Federal Reserve is illegal and responsible for ALL of the boom bust cycles that have caused trillions of dollars of wealth transference from the low and middle class to the wealthy and is virtually ensuring the elimination of the middle class, it is very difficult to get out of your head that the Federal Reserve is privately held corporation with majority share holders that reside in and make National policy for other countries (Germany), and it is very difficult to get out of your head that you have been lied to for so very many years.
There is not another candidate that articulates so clearly the cures for all of the ills that have been caused by Central Banking and Big Government. There is not another candidate who is not in bed with and bought and paid for by the afore mentioned parasites. So, if you like the status quo at the least and if you want more, and I mean A LOT MORE of the same, vote for anyone else, because you will get it. If you know in your heart and soul that something is wrong and that something is afoul in these great United States, then read a few of the articles that have been posted by some of the Ron Paul supporters on this site....we will save some Kool Aid for you.
"And I see him, like everyone else, dodging the major fiscal challenge of our time: the problem of paying for the health care and pensions of the retiring baby boomers."
Thompson repeatedly brought this up in the Republican debates.
You miss the point entirely. Let me paraphrase something that Ron said once.
Income tax is the most insidious of taxes because it basically assumes that the government owns all that you earn and they allow you to keep a portion of it.
Did you know that the 16th amendment was passed during the Christmas break and was not fully ratified but was passed off as law anyway? The 16th shouldn't have been law anyway let alone income taxes and the IRS. Please tell me that you are making a tax argument based on fact and that you were aware of this already. Honestly I'm not sure if you are a qualified economist or not but I'm wondering exactly who cares about your opinion when faced with fact.
Ron Paul is an accomplished economist and has more than one book on the subject. Additionally he is an distinguished member of the Mises Institute. If you're not familiar, you may want to Google it.
Dive into that a little please.
Additionally Ron Paul has stated that complete abolishment of income taxes would put the US on a budget that we had 10 years ago. 10 YEARS AGO. Not 1913, not 1776,but 1997. I don't see that as revolutionary, I don't see that as unachievable. In 1997 the world didn't come crashing down on our heads.
As things stand today you can clearly see that social security is by far the number one bill that has to be paid. What if we weren't spending 600Bn on the war effort and the 700 bases in 130 countries? Would the Gov't have to "borrow" from social security to begin with? Who knows. But on the subject of bases in other countries, why do we have bases in the Great Britan, Japan, Germany?
I mean come on these people don't need or probably even want our bases, our military men, or our governments big nose in their business anyway. How long ago was WWII? How long ago Was Vietnam? Really? over 30 years for both? Do they really need us there? Do we need to give these countries money for no reason at all? Why are we still there. How does a base in Japan protect me? are we under threat of a Japanese invasion? I haven't heard from Germany for a while. The wall is down over there, they haven't really been involved any wars on America that I know of. Why does my tax dollar go to a base in a peaceful country? Why do we have bases in other countries to begin with. Russia doesn't have a base here, Japan doesnt have a base here, the Brits don't have a base here.
Why is ok to have a base in those countries? How come it's one sided if they are our allies? I mean shouldn't they be allowed to have a base here to help protect us just as we help protect them? Why don't they?
I guess your readers really care about your opinion but since you aren't running the country, and you clearly haven't studied your subject matter, I think your readers will read what you have to say here and decide that you have taken time from them they will never get back. And if they are smart. They won't let you steal from them again.
side note:
If you're getting confused why not do your own research on the man. Here's a start
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul
Unlike the other candidates, he's pretty consistent and transparent, so it's easier to see where he really stands..
You could have saved yourself some time if you just posted "Hi, I don't understand what Ron Paul says" because that's essentially what you've said anyways.
"Oh Really? How does letting people opt out and begin the process of reversing these socialistic, take care of me programs, not qualify as "anything"?"
Maybe because that isn't actually eliminating it? Have you ever considered that the reason Social Security is the 'third rail' of American politics, is because people LIKE getting social security payments? How are you supposed to know how many people will opt out? Not everybody is a Ron Paul supporter who abhors taxes and entitlement programs.
"Are you saying because he will not leave millions of seniors, who were duped into trusting a treasonous socialistic government, out in the cold at the stroke of a pen that he will not do "anything"? He has got it right. Support the seniors and transition the newer generations off the system."
No, I'm not, but I appreciate the strawman and the implied moral disdain. Ron Paul's plan to 'transition' rests on the fallacious idea that we can support the retiring baby boomers even if all the younger people 'opted out' of the Social Security system. There simply is not enough money in the 'trust fund' so that LESS people can pay into the system but MORE people can take money out of it. Even if people WEREN'T opting out, this would still be the case!
Social Security needs MORE money to support those "millions of seniors" who are or will soon be living off of Social Security checks. You will not be able to keep benefits at current levels for MORE people if you REDUCE the amount of money Social Security has by allowing people to opt out. Ron Paul's plan would be lovely if this weren't the case.
Jamie's post should open, the more considerate of us, to the idea that much of what passes for 'History' isn't always the whole story.
I think that's the main reason that many RP supporters are oft heard advising: "Do your own Homework". Truly, it'd be much simpler if we were handed a 5-min YouTube of everything we need to know, but, such is not.
Patrick Henry had it right: "The price of Liberty is eternal Vigilance."
We can either pay that price, or bear the cost of our own enslavement. It has ever been such.
MM, btw, good to see you actually put some effort forth..
why do we have bases in the Great Britan, Japan, Germany?
I said this in the last RP thread, but why no repeat myself?
1) restraining the imperial ambitions of China and Russia, thereby
2) limiting the need for Germany and Japan to re-arm, thereby
3) limiting the need for other countries in those regions to re-arm, thereby
4) preserving the peace of the world.
Maybe that's not a good enough reason for you, but it certainly is a reason.
"Have you ever considered that the reason Social Security is the 'third rail' of American politics, is because people LIKE getting social security payments?"
It's the third rail because people hate to admit, with every fiber of their being, that they've been hoodwinked.
I do all I can to keep my money from ever entering the ponzi scheme in the first place. Social Security is a sucker's game.
"restraining the imperial ambitions of China and Russia"
And those that attempt to restrain America's imperial ambitions are called what again? Terrorists, that's what. Loyalists to the British Empire used to call their adversaries the same thing.
The age of the American Empire is over, We can't afford it anymore.
Megan,
This is a long post so bear with me. Let me first commend you on your efforts to at least discuss economic policy in more detail. You have to understand that there are a lot of editorials and opinion pieces about Paul that are full of distortions with overt and veiled hostilties. Most of this contradictive arguments could be boiled down to "well...he is a crank, there take that".
Now, with that said there is much you should know economically. First off we are facing record dollar lows, record foreclosures, record debt, record deficts, record war expenditures, recent record inflation (i.e. the wholesale rate), record economic disparity (top wealth vs middle and bottom wealth) on a on. Couple this with statements by Greenspan (we are likely entering a recession), the US comptroller (we are heading for a nationl bankruptcy), and a social security liability of 62 trillion with a trust fund with zippo in it and you can see the daunting task.
Economically we need a MAJOR overhaul. A couple of balanced budgets won't do it. Tax credits that you spend much time discussing won't do it. You have to comprehend the precarious position we are in. Another sobering thought is that if this country is brought to it's knees it won't be by suicide bombers or someone waving a nuke in our face, it will be with briefcases. Why do I say that? Two reasons:
1) Foreign entities hold trillions of US dollars. If they were to dump all thier dollars on the market it would be a huge investment loss for them but would send our economy into a radical tailspin. Unlike any depression we have ever seen. That in one way makes up beholden to foreign interests.
2) They are buying up huge quantities of US assets. The Chinese are investing in financial companies, telecommunications, insurance and others. They just bought a chunk of Bear Stearns. The Saudis are buying up even more real estate and they just bought a chunk of Citibank. With our dollar so low it puts everything on sale. There are special funds set up by foreign govts. and investors called Sovereign Trust Funds. These funds have trillions in them. Instead of dumping a weakening dollar they are using those funds to buy US assets, again at record rates.
The truth is that our kids will soon be less likely to own land and other assets in their country than foreigners. Add on top the colossial debt problem and social security issues and we in essence are hanging them out to dry.
The problem here is that many people can't confront this stuff. It is almost surreal like a bad fiction novel. They have an inability to see what is in front of their face and THAT is what will be our downfall. The question is are you going to continue to defend narrow views or can you confront the big picture?
He has proposed more cuts and voted against more spending than all the other candidates combined.
That's specific enough for me.
MEH said: "much of what passes for 'History' isn't always the whole story."
An adage that I adhere to when studying history is:
"Until we know who owes what to whom we know nothing of history."
Good thing about this article is if I ever get laid off of my janitor position it looks like being a pseudo journalist doesn't have many requirements.....apparently.
I'm also amazed that people can be so lazy that they need a second opinion for some really basic policies. Shameful!
Unfortunately, Jamie, even if you're correct and everybody really agrees with you, then Ron Paul's plan to 'transition' while maintaining benefits for seniors is going to be a failure.
Think about it. If you're a baby boomer or even a bit younger and you have retirement coming up in the next decade or so, you don't have much of an incentive to opt out. After all, you've already paid so much into the system, you're not going to get the taxes you've already paid by opting out. You get some of your money back by staying in the system and collecting SS checks.
The people opting out will be the younger ones, who would be contributing the revenue for these retirees. So perhaps Ron Paul's transition will eliminate Social Security. But if it 'works' and the young opt out, then all those seniors he's trying to 'keep out of the cold' are in deep trouble.
"Ron Paul's plan to 'transition' while maintaining benefits for seniors is going to be a failure."
Not if we dismantle the edifice of Empire that sucks the lifeblood from this economy. The only failure is in letting this choo-choo keep rolling down a bad track. The fact of the matter is that's what coming is going to be hard for everyone. The ride's over.
Personally, I'd give my consent to my money going to the old folks that have been good little sheep for their working lives and have paid into a losing scheme. I no longer give my consent to Empire and to those predators that think they run the show.
Jamie, look at the pie graph in the original post. Defense is less than 17% of spending. Elimination of "Empire" (dude, "do your research" on what a real empire looks and acts like) can't affect more than that much of the budget. And we'll still need armed forces even with no "Empire."
Rob, a good rule of thumb for defense spending is to take what the Feds say they're spending and double it.
That's not even taking into account Donald Rumsfeld's admission of 9/10/01 that there were trillions of dollars unaccounted for:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
Getting rid of Empire and making the Federal moneyscam transparent as opposed to opaque would make all of our lives better.
I'm beginning to think that people have more of a problem with Ron Paul the man as opposed to his message.
"Ron Paul acolytes demand substantive critiques. Whenever they get one, they say "do your homework" and accuse people of not knowing the facts, or not knowing economics, or whatever their area of expertise is. Then they go back to demanding substantive critiques"
Ron Paul has displayed quite an impressive amount of knowledge on the subjects of government and economics - knowledge that comes from many years of education and experience.
I think the problem people have with critiques like these is that, usually, they are written by people who have much less knowledge and/or experience than he. We are talking about a 72 year-old, ten-term congressman.
I, for one, put my money on the one with the well-known, indisputable credentials, who also has a long track record of honesty and integrity.
Besides, the system needs fixing and Ron Paul is really the only candidate who talks about fixing it. Everyone else tries to avoid the subject and thus, ultimately ignores it.
Critiques like these don't suggest any other changes, they just state that Ron Paul's would be bad. Does this mean they don't even recognize that there is a need for change? If so, Ron Paul's superior credentials are speaking loud and clear, and I say let's give them a chance!
"dude, "do your research" on what a real empire looks and acts like"
Real Empires are run by gluttonous, wasteful, mindless parasites.
Yep. That's us.
Rob, a good rule of thumb for defense spending is to take what the Feds say they're spending and double it.
Hey, good idea? But why stop there? Why not triple, or quadruple it?
With this innovative scheme, we can simply assume enough money in the budget to pay for anything you like! And that is a process that any academic economist could approve of.
Rob, if you wish to engage in sarcasm rather than actually discussing these topics I suggest you look elsewhere.
BTW, can you tell me the name of the Pentagon's CFO during the period of these missing trillions? He'd be a good place to start.
What's not gonna happen is I'm never voting for a warmongering, deficit spending neocon again. Of course, I'm not going to be voting for any Democrat socialists either.
No taxes - No IRS -- Dr. Paul has my vote and your post is way off base...
G Schmidt
Tax attorney
For Megan,
So, did you just not see ANY of the interviews where he ALWAYS says the biggest program he would cut is to bring the troops home?
How can you write so much and miss this?
And the fact that he gets the most flack from the Republicans for his foreign policy completely blows up your commment on him pandering to supporters.
I don't think Ron Paul said he's going to eliminate cooperate tax and cooperate executive payroll tax, its "income tax". In order to eliminate income tax, we need to change our foreign policy and monetary policy. we can easily compensate income tax with user fees, excise tax, import tax etc. which people will have a choice to pay those taxes rather then mandatory tax like "income tax" any other tax is better then "income tax"
First, Please learn how to resize graphics without making them unreadable.
Second, don't say "please so often, please ?
Third social security and medicare ARE NOT entitlements, they are government insurances. I know that we act like it is an entitlement, but there was this bait and switch done by FDR to get people to accept it. Why would you touch an insurance program ? IF my insurance agent did what the government is doing, he'd be in jail.
Now can we cut 30% I'd think you could get 8 % from everything else, 10% from Welfare and unemployment, 8 % from defense, and 5% from medicaid.
This seems like alot but much could be done by making these things more efficient, and less corrupt. Slashing defense by 1/2 could be done just from foreign operations - check Clintons defense budgets.
Jamie, that wasn't so much sarcastic as it was accurate. You are in fact simply assuming available money based upon how much you think the feds are lying. Now, you could be 100% right. But a prudent voter will not pick his presidential candidate based on rank speculation found in blog comments.
Furthermore, just because the Pentagon can't account for its spending doesn't mean that it has the cash stuffed somewhere, ready for us to give to old people.
Real Empires are run by gluttonous, wasteful, mindless parasites.
No, governments are run by gluttonous, wasteful, mindless parasites, aka human beings. Empires involve the subjugation and systematic exploitation of foreign populations, e.g. USSR in eastern Europe, Belgium in the Congo, Spain in South America, China in Tibet, etc. Basing in Germany doesn't come close.
Have you ever heard Ron Paul speak or read one article he's written? The first thing he mentions typically is how he'll start cutting government programs. Of course he's going to cut spending and in the meantime, while there are so many people dependent on the handout, he'll give some tax credits to get them through the transition. Can I have your job? I've done the homework and I think I can describe the economy better than you, but I have limited space in this tiny box.
Okay, I see your paragraph now. I knew it had to be there somewhere.
So, cutting defense by 1/3 or 5% of the national budget is not even worth doing, eh?
So, I guess we give up and go ahead and file for bankruptcy then?
Tax credits:
"they either pay people to do things that they were going to do anyway, or they encourage people to do things that won't pay for themselves."
Of course tax credits are better than spending. First, if I am doing it anyway, that's great, I get a tax cut.
Okay, for those keeping score tax credits 1, Spending zero.
If I wasn't going to do it, that's great too. I get to keep my own money and OF COURSE I pay for it myself. I don't appreciate the gov't interference, and of course it makes me bristle, but at least it is something I am doing for myself and isn't going into the general fund.
The only way that you can claim that I don't pay for it myself is that either (A) I don't really own the money I earn or (B) I'm a free rider on other services and getting more than my fair share. Neither are the case.
errata: I believe "everything else" is 10.7% not 17% in the table.
Do you guys get the homework before or after nap time?
Megan,
You got hammered again, I wish some of Paul's supporters would follow Paul's lead and make their points from a humbler place. That said it does get frustrating to see some of his positions twisted over and over and over.
I thought you made some prescient points but they are trivial in the over all picture of what the revolution is about. Like another poster pointed out once you understand and come to believe through continued research (took me a couple of years) the core deceptions that our government, the fed, taxation system and globalists etc. hide under you can't forget. Armed with the truth, it will never again be OK for me to vote status quo or lesser of two evils.
The Constitution is what We the People need to protect, because it is the only thing protecting us from tyrannical government. It is a shame the public schools failed to instill, the importance of defending the Constitution, to me. Ron Paul has given a great gift to this country by challenging people to research how and why the system works. Most Ron Paul supporters have accepted the challenge, done some research and found things were not as they seemed or were presented. So the skepticism towards the media is very understandable. Once bitten twice shy. The media in this country has been given notice, if they choose not to change their ways they will loose money.
Vote in the republican primary and elect Ron Paul
WRITE ZEROS ON THE HARD DRIVE--->REINSTALL THE CONSTITUTION!
Incredible. First you say you're going to 'dive in' to Ron Paul's economic policies. Then in the first paragraph you dismiss a main centerpiece of his plan elimination of the Income Tax- with 'that's not going to happen', and talk no more of it. You then proceed to dissect what amounts to tangential issues at best, like tax credits, as if THEY were the proposals that Ron Paul advocates! Ron Paul believes that the Tax Credits are merely a transitional step on the way to eliminating the income tax. Either you believe the best way to discuss an issue is to dismiss the centerpiece and focus on tangential and transitional aspects, or else you disingenuously never intended to have a REAL discussion in the first place, but merely wrap a hit piece on Ron Paul in a cloak of semi-resepctable faux-journalistic integrity. Great propaganda tactic- lousy journalism.
I would proceed with a point-by-point refutation of your mischarachterization and complete misunderstanding of the rest of Dr. Paul's proposals, but I feel that would fall on deaf ears. Suffice it to say you never even MENTIONED the main piece of the Ron Paul platform to right the ship of the American economy- elimination of the Federal Reserve and returning to a sound monetary policy. And don't hand me the 'Gold Standard won't work' line, as many noted economists, investment bankers and businessmen have (unlike YOU apparently) actually read Dr. Paul's proposals and have pronounced them not only sound and principled, but highly workable! The Federal Reserve is nothing more than a group of Private Bankers who secretly manipulate the U.S. Money Supply (without ANY form of government oversight or disclosure) to their own advantage. The Fed is the singe main reason for most of the economic distress we now face. Runaway REAL inflation of over 10% annually (Which the Fed refuses to even acknowledge), the continual devaluation of the dollar, the financing of the bloating American government through the issuance of massive debt, the mortgaging of our future, our childrens' future and THEIR childrens' future through wholesale defecit spending financed by indebting ourselves to foreign (and many ENEMY) nations, and balance of payments debacle- all the direct result of FED malfeasance.
Of course, you don't even mention this. Probably would only rate an 'It'll never happen'. Gee... isn't that what the people of Germany said about Hitler's rise to power? Never say never- you may not like the ugly surprise.
xtrabiggg
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
575,000 troops overseas right now. I think bringing them home, cutting all the funding of those overseas bases and the transportation of troops and equipment and extra pay and whatnot would cut a lot of those costs as well. I'm more than confident we can cut the IRS and cut spending by 1/3 and get to 2000 spending levels.
In the interest of 'saving time', I quote an earlier post,
Posted by doyourresearchfirst at 6:14 P.M., to wit:
"I guess your readers really care about your opinion but since you aren't running the country, and you clearly haven't studied your subject matter, I think your readers will read what you have to say here and decide that you have taken time from them they will never get back. And if they are smart. They won't let you steal from them again."
Well put -- and sound advice! I think I will take it and advise the end to any further comment here.
A parting thought: just exactly how much is a "zillion," anyway?
"Good night -- and joy be with you all!"
Dear Meghan
I'm not going to go into my normal comment on how dim witted I find your column.
No, I'm going to make a suggestion
that if fulfilled may make you see the light and free us all from having to lead you down the right path.
Interview Ron Paul.
Ask him the questions about your misunderstandings of his message. The world will be a better place.
Who knows maybe you can straighten him out.
"slash military spending? But then who is going to perform all this border enforcement?"
How to slash spending? Bring every troop in every country home and close every base abroad.
Fire Backwater or draft their mercenaries into the Army at $20 000 a year instead of $1000 A DAY.
End all star wars weapons boondoggles.
And Megan my first law is, if a young lady like you wants to cheer lead this endless war, you should go to the local recruiting center and put your pen to good use.
There is only one reason to like this article...it means that the Neo-Cons are getting nervous and the slander has begun. This writer is a tool...in more ways than one.
And why do the Paulites respond to all disagreements with "you don't know the facts" or "you haven't studied the subject matter" (which Megan clearly has). Your insistance that informed people can't reach different conclusions based on the facts, in good faith, is one of the scarier aspects of your "revolution." Another is ignorance of constitutional history, law and interpretation coupled with a claim to "return to" the Constitution. (Paul admonished his fellow candidates to read the oath of office in the Constitution and do more to protect against domestic enemies. Reading the constitution reveals...no mention of enemies, foreign or domestic, in the oath. He's also wrong about how he interprets the references to gold and silver in the constitution.) Another one is your conviction that he will win. (Yes, they said the same thing about person X or Y who did win; they also said it about Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, etc.) I'm getting ready for some "stabbed in the back" mythology to spring up when he loses, rather than acceptance of the validity of the votes. Dangerous stuff, that.
Greg: "draft their mercenaries into the Army at $20 000 a year instead of $1000 A DAY." Pretty sure that libertarians oppose the draft. But anyway, the point wasn't how to slash military spending, the point was who is going to "police the border" once you do so.
I'm 23, and would love nothing more than to opt out of social security. I don't understand the whole idea of the government providing for you after you retire.
It's your responsibility to plan for your future. I know that social security is a joke, that's why I have taken steps to let money I've saved accumulate in retirement funds that the government has absolutely no hands on.
Everyone makes this so complicated, lets cut our empire thus saving trillions of dollars, lets end the Income tax and allow people to save their own money, I know I could throw a lot more money into my future if I wasn't having it stolen by the I.R.S. every paycheck.
Wanna make health care more easily acceptable, how about ending the strangle hold the pharmaceutical and drug companies have over Washington. Now lets combine that with ending the un-constitutional income tax. That alone would allow people a better way of life, where self responsibility is a must not a maybe, and where you are able to keep the money you are owed.
Ending the welfare state may not be easy, but in the long run it will be beneficial to everyone.
why do the Paulites respond to all disagreements with "you don't know the facts"
I've asked this several times in several threads. The answer (with honorable exceptions) is "because you don't know the facts!!!"
Rob,
I respect your comments and agree to some extent.
Please answer this question; Which candidate do you think offer the most truth?
I know the answer from my research is Ron Paul.
Paul T--care to point out the "lies" of Edwards or Obama? or Biden? Dodd?
"You are in fact simply assuming available money based upon how much you think the feds are lying."
Rob, I assume that the Feds lie, especially about money. Only a fool would keep believing proven liars.
"But a prudent voter will not pick his presidential candidate based on rank speculation found in blog comments."
A prudent voter also won't be swayed by the rank opprobrium displayed by the mass media or others towards particular candidates, an opprobrium based on little more than emotion as opposed to reason.
"Empires involve the subjugation and systematic exploitation of foreign populations"
America in Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America...
The people opting out will be the younger ones, who would be contributing the revenue for these retirees. So perhaps Ron Paul's transition will eliminate Social Security. But if it 'works' and the young opt out, then all those seniors he's trying to 'keep out of the cold' are in deep trouble.
Posted by DPT | December 28, 2007 6:40 PM
There is an assumption being made that is not the case, at least in my case. I am 50 years old right now. I do not want for my children to be paying into this bankrupt system. I am for their being able to opt out. They are not the ones responsible for creating this beast.
The other part of this is that I have no problem myself to continue to pay into the SSI program for those dependent on it. Make no mistake, when I retire I will not need SSI. This socialist program must stop. It is nothing more than another form of slavery. Seems to me that 50 would be a good cut off age, don't you think. By the way there are many now drawing SSI that do not need it which can also be culled.
Property rights are a function of government and should therefore be subject to a use fee.
Of course, there is an exception: Subsistence property rights such as home and tools of one's trade. Subsistence property rights exist in the absence of government by virtue of self defense over one's personal territory. So there is a reasonable argument that they should be exempted.
Republican elites don't want this because they are simply greedy. Democratic elites don't want this because they are hypocritically greedy.
FDR's handlers were the most viciously hypocritical of all when it had Huey Long assassinated to prevent a real wealth tax and then passed a so called "Wealth Tax" that was really just the prototype of the modern income tax code which is riddled with complex loopholes that only the wealthy can navigate with their hired sophists.
paul t, if by truth you mean "honest conviction" and "sound governmental philosophy," then the answer is clearly Ron Paul. Futhermore, I liked Ron Paul before Ron Paul was cool, starting in about 2000 when I first heard of him. He's a for-real small government type, and just about the only one out there.
That said, real candidates need real policies, not vague statements like "eliminate the income tax" or "enact universal health care" (the latter being a distinctly non-Paul plan). And that means a consideration of the real budget, and an explanation of how the real dollars necessary to pay for priorities will be found. In the case of massive tax cuts, it means showing where the spending cuts will be made.
I'd be delighted to get rid of the Department of Education, but doing so won't make elimination of the income tax feasible. Nor will closing bases in Germany, which I think is a bad idea for other reasons. As the pie graph shows, we've yoked ourselves to a big welfare state, which either needs to be massively cut or paid for. Given that the biggest chunk of the welfare state is payments to old people, who by the way vote in disproportionate numbers, how are adequate cuts even possible? That makes abolishing the IRS just a slogan.
Also, why does Paul get all these "honesty" points? His libertarianism is inconsistent, his constitutionalism stops where it meets brown people (he wants to repeal the 14th ammendment and deny citizenship to children of illegals born here.) And he believes in conspiracy theories!
The 14th-ammendment point is worth comment on. Paul told Russert that the ammendment gives citizenship to those born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction, and he doesn't think someone who enters illegally to deal drugs is subject to its jurisdiction. Ignoring the smear of immigrants, this is a pretty stupid reading of the ammendment.
First of all, yes, an illegal drug dealer is subject to our jurisdiction. We can arrest him, we tax him; we even apply the estate tax (when we have one) to the worldwide assets of illegal immigrants.
But, that's irrelevant. The ammendment grants citizenship to anyone BORN here and subject to our jurisdiction. Not one word about the parents; whether the supposedly drug-dealing parent is subject to our jurisdiction (which he is) is totally irrelevant, since the ammendment applies to all those born here.
Looks like Mr. Constitution should, you know, read it.
read it: or should I say, "do his homework," "learn the facts," etc., etc.
"Empires involve the subjugation and systematic exploitation of foreign populations"
America in Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America...
Jamie, if you believe that American behavior in those areas in 2007 can compare to the British in India (never mind the Soviets in Czechoslovakia or the Belgians in Africa or the Spanish in Mexico or the Japanese in Manchuria), then your grip on reality and your knowledge of history is rather severely lacking.
You'd do a lot better comparing British/US behavior toward the indigenous populations of the Americas to other imperial states. US out of Jamestown!
"real candidates need real policies"
Rob, so I can assume that you've read the books that Ron Paul has authored in the past 25 years or so in which he details his policies and ideas?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul420.html
Mr. Schuller - If only the rest of the nation shared your convictions. I acknowledge there are people out there like you who will not take benefits Social Security offers. But principled libertarians/Ron Paul supporters/etc are clearly in the minority. For better or for worse, Social Security has incredible political resilience... And unlike, say, the Federal Reserve, it is not because there could be any conspiracy of wealthy corporations and bankers that benefit from it, or any quid pro quo with the media. It is because voters (for whatever reason), and ESPECIALLY middle-aged and retired American workers, tend to support the program and have interest groups (the AARP) that will castigate any politician that even hints at dismantling the system. Even the so-called 'privatizers' in the Bush Administration speak of bolstering Social Security, not dismantling it.
I respect your decision to stand against your short-term self interest by refusing to draw on SSI. But I do not think it is one we can rely on large numbers of Americans to make.
Rob, the American empire and its lackies have killed millions of innocents worldwide in the past 50+ years. If you don't think that isn't subjugation and exploitation, then I'll never convince you.
The American record in Central America alone is a horror story. Yet the mass murderer John Negroponte is still safely ensconced in DC without a peep from the mass media.
The details Dr. Paul has gone into (most of which don't appear to have been represented here in this article) include the elimination of federal departments--more than just the ones mentioned. Even if Paul cuts the government spending, by refining or doing away with these departmental costs, by 1%... that's an accomplishment.
Its far short of his goal and our (supporters) desires, but it will have been a monument to the idea that it can be done--an increasing federal budget and spending has become our reality for years--even a minor reverse of that trend would be notable, though not history in the making.
Though defense budget cuts (keeping in mind just how much is paid to support the current War and contracts) are scary for those who see the total dollar figure as synonymous with our ARMY/NAVY/AIRFORCE/MARINES having numbers, training, and facillities--in reality, the sheer excess in defense spending (easily checkable, its not a big secret what we waste on things merely tangential to the actual military machine) could be casually reduced by five percent with the elimination of bases and foreign military support. Again, not history, but notable.
Given his record, I don't think there's a doubt--even by the author--that he's serious about trying. Trying doesn't mean succeeding, but I don't think we're having a conversation about whether he's sincere... only whether he'll succeed with plans that may not be functional (a far cry from "He's lying" for instance).
Given that I believe he's the only candidate with the background, education, and sincerity when it comes to controlling our budgetary woes with regard to the tax-burden... he has my vote.
Worst case scenario? He fails. He's not re-elected. We get another big-government-spender in the White House and things pick up four years from where it left off.
But, like many, I'm willing to risk things like SS, global upheaval from the vaccum of our leaving it alone, the pains from people getting off a welfare system that starts shrinking, even the political chaos from stand-offs about budget cuts and Congressional veto-overrides...
...I'll risk it for four years. Because I, like many, can see the forest for the trees. We cannot, not for a bit, not even "similarly", continue economically and fiscally how we have. America can't afford itself.
God help us all, but like a surgeon and a cancer--we may have to trust that the doctor will have to cut and risk and save our life, even in the face of possible failure.
Because we won't survive otherwise.
Jesus H. Christ... I could give a damn, altogether, about whether or not gays get married--as horrible as that sounds. Or immigrants having jobs. Or terrorists half-a-world away with no army or navy worth thinking about. Or the genocide in Africa. Or supporting Pakistan, Israel, or any other nation. Tomorrow, the sun will rise and those problems won't have a thing to do with me putting food on the table or providing for my family.
But every day the dollar sinks, gas rises, credit institutions get more restrictive, prices outpace wages, and taxes grow more and more demanding.
And, one day, as passively as it sounds, I'll wake up and I really won't be able to afford what I could afford yesterday. My bills will come due, like always, and my dollar will not cover them.
My take-home pay will vastly underpace my obligations, and I will watch the welfare line catch up to me--rather than me falling behind to it.
Maybe I'm just young, not thirty yet. Maybe I'm pessimistic. But, soon I won't be able to afford America. Like many. And that's a goddamn shame.
Thanks for the article. You made a number of very good and strong points. I might have to reconsider some of my beliefs about the guy.
Ron Paul hates Medicare though, and makes no secret of this fact. But he also doesn't emphasize it in his issues page. Personally, it's money I don't qualify for and it drives up the cost of healthcare for me because it exists. Paul figures we need to get rid of it, but he knows people depend on it and wants to ease them off it. Simply eliminating the plan just isn't an option.
Personally, I think healthcare is so screwed up in our country that while I like Dr Paul, I don't know that he or any other politician has a shot at fixing it.
AC,
Never said they lied did I? We're all entitled to our opinion about positions. Examples; moving towards a less litigious society kind of rules out Edwards. Obama's hypocrisy is where his money is coming from for example if one wanted to reduce military grants and aid to Israel why would he accept so much money from the Israeli lobby.
I won’t say something I don’t know so will reserve comment on Dodd and Biden However I’m a supporter of Kucinich whom I believe is willing like Paul to tell the truth where others are complicit in protecting government / corporate power over the people.
Perhaps it is mostly by omission that, to use your words, I feel the others are lying. I realize that is how we have been willing to elect politicians in the past however there seems to be a change in the weather. Nothing the government is doing is sustainable so why aren’t the politicians you’re talking about raising that very important point. On the other hand, is it your premise we should borrow ourselves into bankruptcy?
I have already changed my affiliation from independent to repub so no matter I will not be able to vote for Kucinich.
I support Ron Paul
sorry, you said Ron Paul offered "the most truth." I guess the others offer "less truth." I took that as lying. We disagree about Edwards and Obama. Let's save that for another thread.
"The best of all worlds would be to have Bank and State separated the way Church and State are."
-Ron Paul, 1982
So, I read your link to your discussion of substitution effects. I don't think it works exactly like that, but okay.
But you seem to be saying that that the distortions of tax credits are the same or worse than the distortions of government spending.
That is, unless you are saying that every dollar I save from a tax credit gets funneled directly, 100% to a retiree on social security who spends it freely. This would seem to subsidize early retirement.
I'll still take the invisible hand over the iron fist.
It would seem the stirring up paranoia and resentment by advocating conspiracy theories, though, should detract from RP's truth quotient.
An old saying; "All men are freemen or slaves!" If the government can, by force if necessary, take any of the money you earn which of the two do you think you are. Anyone that says they are free and pays a federal income tax is a foolish slave, a 30% slave is still a slave. Had they stuck to the rules and just increased sales taxes at the state level and such we would have revolted a long time ago! Time to put the Feds on a tight budget!
"I might have to reconsider some of my beliefs about the guy"
An in-depth analysis of a particular candidate has value, that is if a comparative analysis of the alternatives is kept in perspective. I can't wait to see Ms. Mcardle's economic analysis of the other candidates.
I get the idea from reading the comments above that all these 'years of research' the RP supporters claim to have done somehow can't be summarized to refute this blog post. Interesting... I guess none of the commenters want to send Megan the galleys of their upcoming (self-published, I'm sure) books for review?
Jeff, there is slavery going on in the world. Comparing it to us paying a tax is pretty disgusting. Especially since taxes are what people have paid to be a part of society since leaving the "state of nature." You guys don't want "socialised medicine" or the government "providing" for retirees. (I guess if they have to go back to eating cat food, tough for them--and don't give me personal responsibility, no amount of personal planning could've warded off the effects of the depression.) And yet you have no problems with "socialised defense," "socialised police," "socialised roads." You see, that's what taxes do; they provide for the things we need as a society that you can't get without a coordinating authority.
DPT,
You don't seem to get it. America is going bankrupt. I hope you can understand that the depression that occurred in the 30’s is nothing compared to what is coming. Would you rather a total collapse than taking bold steps. What do you propose for taking care of people with when the dollar virtually becomes worthless. It will not be said by my children or future generations that I did nothing. I do not, will not accept the status quo.
"no amount of personal planning could've warded off the effects of the depression"
The Depression was a direct result of the creation of the Federal Reserve.
That's the larger point that many of those that advocate irresponsible coincidence theories seem to miss.
Mr. Carter,
Eliminating the income tax... "never going to happen" ... Remember.... Ron Paul has no chance. He will not win. He is fringe, quacky, quirky. So what does it matter. The chances of repealing the income tax are only slightly less than Dr. Paul being elected. Why even address the small tax credit plans he has? Why Indeed? Heck.... he might even make a run at it. Go Ron Paul!!!! Oh and by the way.........First, "Item one: there is no good reason to replace spending with tax credits. Economically, they are indistinguishable from spending..." WRONG --Even Keynesian economists would disagree with you on your economics-- Government spending is not as efficient as private sector spending. I would go further, but it is unnecessary. Any educated individual that reads this article will read right through it.
My federal tax bill last year was $750,000 and I don't believe I'm getting my money's worth. If I could keep that money to do with it what I wanted I might save it or give it away; either way it will be put to good use. I would love to drop $300K on my church and with the rest I might consider a scholarship for college-bound freshmen that can write excellent essays on the intent of the founders related to taxes, sound money and non-interventionism.
We will soon not be able to afford our Government.
Things Are Very Dire.
Ron Paul is the only candidate talking any reform or change. The man is honest and has integrity. He is the only candidate that I would trust my money and my family's safety with.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
Please when you write an article at least get the facts right.
The US Spends 623 Billion dollars this year on Defense
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm
Note 6 - The FY2008 budget requests $481.4 billion in discretionary authority for the Department of Defense base budget, an 11.3 percent increase over the projected enacted level for fiscal 2007, for real growth of 8.6 percent; and $141.7 billion to continue the fight in the Global War on Terror (GWOT)
The fiscal year (FY) 2004 Department of Defense (DoD) budget request was $379.9 billion in discretionary budget authority -- $15.3 billion above FY 2003. The fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act, passed by Congress 07 November 2003, authorizes DoD to spend $401.3 billion. The fiscal 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, which actually provides the money, became law 30 September 2003.
On April 16, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2003 $79 billion wartime supplemental to cover the needs directly arising from Operation Iraqi Freedom and the reconstruction of Iraq. The Defense Department received $62.6 billion as a result of the emergency supplemental bill.
On Nov. 6, 2003 President Bush signed the FY2004 $87.5 billion supplemental appropriations bill for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill provides $64.7 billion for military operations in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, including about $51 billion is for Operation Iraqi Freedom, and $10 billion for Operation Enduring Freedom. The remaining $22.8 billion in non-DOD monies will cover costs with Operation Noble Eagle and support for allies in the war on terror.
End Source:
So yes cutting the military will bring a HUGE burden off our country. As the link says the US spends 477 Billion dollars more on defense THEN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED.
I feel torn. On the one hand I think it's great that you're doing these substantive critiques on Paul. On the other hand I think it might be a waste of time that simply attracts more attention to his movement.
The fact of the matter is most Paulistas who come here already have their mind made up. They're not interested in really debating the matter or thinking about any drawbacks. Paul is their white-knight and the most brilliant man alive. I mean he's a Doctor honey, a doctor! He's also lectured at XYZ Libertarian institute and had what I'd agree is apparently a spotless personal life. I think they trust him and theory more than anything. If reality showed their Austrian theories or Paul ideas are flawed then this just means reality is flawed. (Even "morally wrong" according to one) They don't need or want examples or evidence about how any of this stuff works in the real world. It is their faith, their devotion. It's like arguing against a member of the Society of St. Pius X or a devotee of Ayn Rand.
Thomas, that's really the most sensible comment I've read all day. You're absolutely right. I'm done.
"his movement."
It's not his. It's ours. Yours too, whether you know it or not.
Here's some of Dr. Paul's pie-in-the-sky thinking:
"Congressman Charlie Rangel recently unveiled a tax plan that Republicans estimate would raise taxes by $3.5 trillion over 10 years. Democrats questioned the math.
Now, the Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee have released a report on the total costs of the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, including "hidden costs" such as interest on the money we're borrowing, and long-term healthcare for vets. The bill comes to $3.5 trillion. Republicans are, of course, questioning the math on this item.
One thing taxpayers know is taxing and spending is expensive, and government cost estimates tend to be on the conservative side relative to the actual bills. However extracted and spent, $3.5 trillion is an unimaginable extra burden on our economy..."
The True Cost of Taxing and Spending
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul425.html
Interesting.
You were influenced by a number of readers
to write why you don't like Paul's economic
policies? Well now you can see an even
bigger number of people wanting someone to
write why Paul's (and ours as they say)
economic policies are MUCH BETTER than
what we have now.
So go, turn around, find someone who agrees
with Ron Paul's economic policies, and have
him write an article. Quick!
It's hilarious how the "anti-Paulistas" can only make comments about how us Paul supporters aren't interested in debating issues.
What is it they think we are doing?
It is clearly the "anti-Paulistas" who are the least reasonable when they make comments like
"You guys don't want "socialised medicine" or the government "providing" for retirees. (I guess if they have to go back to eating cat food, tough for them"
And to them, taxes magically bring us out of a "state of nature." Taxes, are apparently an end in themselves. Heck, why pay for anything other than taxes!
And here I thought individual productivity yielded progress AND funded the government.
"Debate," I do not think it means what they think it means.
woman, seriously, go back to journalism school, or whatever community college PR class that's still funded by money left over from Goebbels, and puhleeze, puhleeezeeeeeze, spare us with your dimestore economic babble. no, seriously.
you're the most pathetically worthless PR mouthpiece, well perhaps next to the so called "paper of record," NYT's Vigina Heffernan.
really, woman, why don't you find out what the federal reserve is. they're not Amtrack; it's not some privately run administrative enterprise set up by govt to run a civil project. it's private, you idiot, private as the Federal Express.
Second what the hell was stuck in your ears when the Doctor said that if you rid the income tax, we'd still have revenue levels from 1997. Are you listening? hell, you don't have to believe me or RP. all you gotta do is, well actually practice some realism; it takes more than aggregating google search, dear. any moron can google. seriously, you want to sound journalistic, do some historical research and pattern recognition, to get a larger sense of the world. connects the dot dummy.
We're all sick and tired of telling real dummies, telling the rest of the world that they're not stupid. no, dear, we're referring to you. yes you, and the propagandist de jour, Herffernan of NYT. You people sicken us more than FauxNews.
Serious, save us all the trouble and stay home and read My Pet Goat, you know our other dummy delusional friend, the world's most famous village idiot. you certainly seem like you fell off the same tree.
Matt,
You are right on.
I'd be interested to know who those "readers" were.
This particular reader has been asking the author to defend her past statements.
Maybe I am missing something here?
When you say:
-----------------------------
Item two: they are regressive. Dr. Paul has several plans to replace spending programs with tax credits, which would represent a massive fiscal redistribution away from people who can't do much with a $15,000 tax credit because they do not have $15,000 worth of taxable income.
------------------------------
it sounds more like you are talking about tax DEDUCTIONS rather than tax CREDITS. A non-refundable tax credit of $15,000 would require you to have TAXES, not just income, of $15,000+ to make use of it. A REFUNDABLE tax credit (such as EITC) would help you REGARDLESS of your tax burden - and is TRULY indistinguishable from spending.
"Item one: there is no good reason to replace spending with tax credits. Economically, they are indistinguishable from spending, except that they add all sorts of ugly behavioral inefficiencies."---Please explain "ugly behavioral inefficiencies."
"You don't seem to get it. America is going bankrupt. I hope you can understand that the depression that occurred in the 30’s is nothing compared to what is coming. Would you rather a total collapse than taking bold steps. What do you propose for taking care of people with when the dollar virtually becomes worthless. It will not be said by my children or future generations that I did nothing. I do not, will not accept the status quo."
If you want to get rid of SSI to save the nation, fine. But Ron Paul's plan will not preserve SSI benefits for retirees. Pretending it will is 'duping' those seniors again. Advocate what steps you will to prevent a total collapse. But they will hurt some people, like retirees, and Ron Paul's supporters should acknowledge that rather than pretend that those who receive SSI can rely on the program as its base of funding opts out.
I'd rather not be scolded for denying America's bankruptcy or its impending "total collapse", as I have made statements affirming or denying the truth of either. I'm only talking about whether or not the SSI phase out will do what some say it will, regardless of whether or not phasing it out should be done.
Megan,
From one libertarian to another, let me ask you something very simple because this is how I look at this how matter:
If you are critical of Ron Paul, what must you be thinking of everyone else then??
My God, if you can weave such winded and sweeping critiques out of a few morsels of info from Ron Paul, what must you think of the others?
Seriously, who do you like better than Paul and WHY???
The answers will be quite telling.
I stopped reading this article at this line, "Megan's First Fiscal Law: spending is taxation. Economically, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether you finance that spending with taxation or debt." I have no idea whether she made any more sense afterwards, but I doubt it.
I urge Megan to let the Atlantic know of her fiscal responsibility to the magazine, have them stop paying her wages for writing these absurd articles, & she can go ahead & just pay her mortgage & her kids' school & feeding & clothing everyone & her granite countertops with a credit card. If she's not getting any credit card offers in the mail, I'll be happy to send her a couple dozen a week from my mailbox.
After all, Megan, "Economically, it doesn't seem to make much difference whether you finance your spending with income or debt." Right?
Sad.
You still don't really get it at all. You need to start thinking about what Ron Paul is trying to accomplish here and what he is up against before criticizing him. We're not talking about tax credits ROFL!!!!!
Try reading a few articles written by people who truly understand what Ron is up to. Every time I read one of your posts I just feel like either leaving outrageously extensive comments or hitting myself in the head with a baseball bat. Maybe I'll just give you a link instead.
Check out THE MOGAMBO GURU Richard Daughty:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Daughty/dec242007.html
He frames the economic big picture in very understandable and humorous terms. Enjoy...
His plan is to abolish the IRS and replace it with NOTHING. Where did you get the information about tax credits? I have followed Dr. Paul for over twelve years and I have never heard that.
We did not have an income tax before 1913 and this nation flourished unlike today.
You are not qualified to publish articles like this. What are your credintials other than a war mongering neocon?
Megan,
Did you do any research on Ron Paul's positions on spending for this piece (other than browsing his candidate website for a few minutes)?
I am a casual Ron Paul fan, and it seems I have read more about his fiscal policy than you have. I am appalled by the lack of research a so called econ journalist has done for a piece of a major presidential candidate.
"So how come his website and collected "issues" writing reveal no major cuts to any programs except his scheme to eliminate the department of education?"
He has numerous writings at www.ronpaullibary.com about every single spending bill he fought against and will work to repeal. One for example:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=502
(Oh yea, this speech also discredits your whole line of reasoning that he isn't calling for entightlement cuts)
"His more realistic plans consist mostly of about eighty zillion tax credits"
Source? Citation? Most of what says & writes is about reduced spending & taxes. He has authored a few tax credits over the years, but its not a major policy point in his speechs (like changing our view of what the role of government should be, and restraining the federal government to constitutional sizes)
If you are going to write a Ron Paul critique, please do your homework.
Ha ha ha, Okay first you have to do more than look at Ron Paul's website if you are going to dive deep into what he will do. First, Ron Paul did NOT say he would cut the income tax - what he said was "you can only phase out the Income Tax if you change the way our ideas of what the role of the federal government out to be, if you think the government should take care of us from cradle to grave and if you think our government should police the world and spend hundreds of billions of dollars on a foreign policy that we cannot manage - you can't get rid of the IRS"
So - he is just not going to go in there and end the income tax - he is going to try and change the way we think our government should be run first
I will vote for Paul, I think he only has a small chance of winning, and even less chance of getting any major pieces of his agenda through congress. I do think he adds a lot to the debate, and I think his vote tally can push the republican party in a better direction, and the republicans need to be "punished" for Iraq and their uncontrolled spending.
That said, I think most of the Paul supporters on this site need to work on their persuasion skills.
You people make everything so hard. All of these cuts have all ready been proposed by the esteemed Marvin Gross.
http://www.amazon.com/Government-Racket-2000-Washington-Waste/dp/0380787849
Of course there is more to be done.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/30-day-plan.html
Dear Miss McArdle,
Despite the fact that I am an ardent Ron Paul supporter I liked your article. As opposed to the previous article of yours that I read, you have now given me concrete examples of possible flaws in Dr. Paul's stated goals. That's a good thing. How else can we know what needs to be repaired when we don't see it for ourselves? I am grateful.
I am woefully ignorant regarding economics, though I am taking what steps I can to remedy that. Your article has given me a broader view of the problems at hand. Personally, my problem is that I want very, very little from my government. For the things I do want I am more than willing to compensate the state.
To me, it seems beyond absurd that I should have to hire an accountant and a lawyer to protect me from my government. I am no writer, but can I say it any clearer or louder. I have to hire people to protect me from my government. If that is not wrong, what is?
Clearly, you do not think that the status quo is agreeable. But can you blame us for siding with a man who finds it as unacceptable as we do?
My problem is that I have the conviction of the newly converted. It is, seriously, like a disease or a really good drug. I can't get enough. But forgive me if I lust after a non-invasive government whose sole purpose is to ensure my freedoms.
The monetary polices of Dr. Paul I hope to be able to debate with you soon. Until then, thank you for making me think.
Sincerely,
A slow, dumb, white guy from snowy CO
Okay, so there are some obn oxious RP supporters. But this is no different than the other candidates.
Like I said before, there is value in in-depth analysis of a candidate. It's a shame there won't be time or interest in doing this for (to?) the other candidates.
It would not be necessary to "invest" in assets to not spend the Social Security revenue. We could pay down debt. This would also impact the tiny little "interest on the debt" piece o' pie that amounts to 8%.
Since the categories are pretty evenly matched in our little budget pizza, maybe we could just cut off the crust from every slice.
Paul's monetary policy is irrefutable because it's based on SOUND MONEY. Paul's limited government policy is irrefutable because it is based on the U.S. Constitution. Sorry babe, you lose.
Ok you Paulites might need a reality check here. I think the author of this article might have a point. Paul's philosophies are theoretically sound and i agree with most of them but if you really look carefully at the nature of our government and of the average American who loooves his entitlements these things are not going to happen in the next four years. However I what the anti Paulites fail to provide is an alternative. I agree that criticism is productive and I certainly accept the validity of some of the points made here. But i think you should follow it up with your glorious solution for America. Which candidate currently in the field can reverse the trends we currently see in our governments....hard to find since none of them are even talking about these issues. Ask yourself when was the last time that these issues about our economic policy, foreign policy, domestic spending came up in a presidential campaign. Electing Ron Paul is not because all his supporters are convinced that he will magically reverse the situation it took us decades to get into in the first year of his presidency. But i do know that he can stop the bleeding and keep it from getting worse with his veto pen. All the other candidates present us with very bleak options.
I am not going to throw stones. I would just like to make a few points that I haven't seen touched upon in the previous comments.
When government gets out of the health care business medicade/medicare costs will come down.
I am sure you have heard of Daniel J. Mitchell of the Cato Institute. Read what he has to say on the subject of Ron Paul's tax plan http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/11/09/defending-ron-pauls-tax-plan/
When you tell me you look at what RP's issues/solutions are and see a pandering politician I have to scratch my head. Do you believe the tripe you write or are you trying to drum up traffic? I hope it is the latter.
Ron Paul has clearly stated that his first step is to withdraw our military from overseas and cut off financial aid to foreign governments. That would pay for large cuts.
"4) preserving the peace of the world.
Maybe that's not a good enough reason for you, but it certainly is a reason."
Here's one for you. Help people meet their needs. Wars happen for a few reasons, usually because the people of one country are so lacking in something that they allow themselves to become convinced that the best way to get it is to go take it from someone else. Therefore they allow people to come into power who promise to do just that.
It's a lot more protective and peaceful to spend money helping people meet their needs. The wrong way to do things is to arm other countries and point weapons at each other. Ron Paul understands that. The entire history of the world is filled with war and one race oppressing another. Here we are in the 21st century with the technology and philosophical understanding to truly feed everyone and provide a decent standard of living for the planet, but instead of doing that we allow the power to remain centralized in the hands of a few who pull the levers that control society.
To say that we need to have bases in other countries to preserve the peace of the world is a big fat load of crap. Granted it's the only load of crap that most people have ever known so I don't really blame them for not being able to smell the stench.
I prefer "Paulogists"
Paul is pretty clear about what he can do unilaterally and what he would need Congress' support on (which noone is really claiming will be granted) and what he would need the American people to have a change of heart on.
I think it's pretty unfair to criticize him because he couldn't accomplish something that he has made clear the he doesn't expect to.
Megan,
Hey, don't worry about ripping off the Marginal Revolution. They are linking you left and right so the cross-pollination is mutual. Except over their, Lyman's line of attack is that Paul doesn't listen to anyone else's opinion, whereas yours is that he's pandering to his supporters.
I guess it could be worse, he could be pandering to his opponents.
As to the subject of the article, taxes, Social Security and the rest. Let me ask you this simple question... what is a better investment, $5000 a year into a 401k like program that generates 10% returns, or $5000 a year into a program that then gets gutted by the government to finance wars overseas? Simplistic? Yes. Pretty close to the truth? Yes.
You fail to note a major difference between a tax credit and a tax, which is that a tax credit lets someone keep their money. A tax is the government forcing (by gun point, ultimately) an individual to give her money to the government.
You're analysis gets a 2 on a scale of 1 to 10.
The entire history of the world is filled with war and one race oppressing another.
Yep. And apparently you believe that Ron Paul can change all that. Good luck with that. For my part, I'm inclined to doubt that a resurgent Russia or China will be held in check (or that their neighbors can be satisfied that they will be held in check) by "providing a decent standard of living."
On the question of eliminating the income tax, I'd like to suggest that our gracious hostess would have done well to include a pie chart showing sources of government revenue so that the foolishness of eliminating the income tax without substantially raising other taxes could be more clearly seen. Here's the best pie chart I could come up with; it's for 1995.
As you can see, individual income taxes accounted for 43% of revenue, with corporate taxes bringing in another 12%. Eliminate the IRS, and 55% of government revenue goes *poof*. So...we either need cuts rather larger than we can obtain by closing down Ramstein, or we need some other form of tax.
Ron Paul would work to phase out the IRS immediately, he would lay longer term plans to phase out both social security and medicare/medicaid aswell as the federal reserve, as he thinks that all of these things are unconstitutional. Which is what he bases his views on.
When you analyze his economical policies you sound you know what you are talking about, and you probably have a different view than him.
What you have heard of him is based of what you hear from the media asking him very shallow and flat out insulting questions, which is a bad way to base your opinion of anyone, so to get some more info you went to his website;
This is what separates the Paulites from the rest, (I guess I am one aswell) we didn't find much usefull info there, except for some links to youtube. And thats where you either quit because of boredom/ignorance or you catch the wildfire known as the Ron Paul phenomenon.
Sure there are alot of Paulist videos of him getting worshipped to death, and his gospel is preached to the masses, but ignore those, they are like air blowing on a campfire, they dont really have anything to do with the actual fire but it flares up briefly. What is burning is his message of liberty - which he has stated several times. And thats what is causing this frenzy towards everyone that isn't supporting him, and also why most people are ignorant towards his views.
You state:
"If you want to cut taxes, you have to cut spending.
Actually, Dr Paul says he agrees with this. So how come his website and collected "issues" writing reveal no major cuts to any programs except his scheme to eliminate the department of education?"
And yet you hastily, instead of researching this curiosity; you continue on with things that noone has ever asked Ron Paul about specifically or just barely scratched the surface of. This is what makes Paulites to go on a rampage, and this is what you failed to realize with your first article and the responses to it.
What has happened to every journalist that has interviewed him or even mentioned him? Either they have joined his movement, or they have made a fool out of themselves on national tv. Some have even done both, like Beck who wanted to kiss him.
Everytime someone interviews Ron Paul we all wish for the reporter to ask him something that will make us dislike him, instead of just reaffirming our beliefs that he is a genuine good guy!
So far so good, it has all been shallow attempts at character assasination, instead of going after his political opinions in an objective way, something that ultimately is alot more important.
Since this is a blog people tend to think that you should write like journalist instead of a person without personal beliefs. What is funny though, is that it seems to be by instinct, not by concious thought, and that when you lack the objectivity that we seek we automatically assume that you are hiding something because you are distorting things or avoiding things.
Specifically by saying "That's not gonna happen" brushing of one of his biggest subjects away with an attitude statement in the start was as close to journalistic suicide as i've ever seen. Just a tip, but on of the most hated clips out there in Ron Paul land is a guy saying "That's not gonna happen" to Ron Paul about him being president, if you had seen atleast some of the videos out there, you should have known this.
My warning flags are already up, and when you continue on with words like zillion your already questioned integrity is below 0. Not by any rational thought, but by a general feeling of betrayal by a journalist who was supposed to inform me of something, objectively.
The lack of objectivity in some areas makes people think that you are not trying to speak the truth but distort it. And since most people read what you say but lack the specific knowledge to actually refute it, they either ignore you, smear you or argue against you with faulty arguments. Which gets us exactly nowhere.
Once you realize this, you see that even though, Ron Paul supporters get smeared for being prostitutes, white supremacists and 911 consipiracy theorists, the majority of his followers are normal people that just want some of that good old feeling of freedom back.
To be more general, this is the Ron Paul rEVOLution, we check all the facts and we make sure that all parties are heard, and we judge it objectively, based on the meaning behind the words and not on the specific wording which leave alot of people confused.
Basically we do what the press should be doing, and the press is wondering whats going on with the world, have they all gone crazy? And yes, we obviously have, expecting a blog to be on the same level as a news article.
Megan, are you drunk? If you're not, I must be.
"Empires involve the subjugation and systematic exploitation of foreign populations, e.g. USSR in eastern Europe, Belgium in the Congo, Spain in South America, China in Tibet, etc. Basing in Germany doesn't come close."
The modern empire has discovered it is no longer necessary to subjugate or exploit foreign populations directly. It's much cheaper and more politically palatable domestically to arm and fund foreign puppets to do it for them. See the Contras in Nicaragua, the Mujahideen in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein ("The CIA knows Saddam had WMD -- they've still got the receipts"), ad infinitum.
"It's not his. It's ours. Yours too, whether you know it or not."
If it's about his campaign than it is in a sense "his" political movement. Although admittedly it might make more sense to see it as a political/social movement that's not really about Ron Paul's being elected to anything. Sort of like the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, the Objectivists, the LaRouche Movement, or what have you. If this is what it is for you, rather than merely support for a Presidential candidate, than that's fine in its way and probably more reasonable.
As such a movement you "Paulogists", if that's what you prefer, would come out better than the Objectivists or the LaRouche members. You're not egotistical or paranoid like them.
However even then I'd be happy if you list me as not remotely in your movement. I've actually read your literature and I'm not interested. Your movement is not my movement. I'm neither a Libertarian nor a non-interventionist. I believe in the US having treaties with other nations, belonging to international organizations, aiding allies miliarily, and giving foreign aid. I think I've been quite clear on all this. If it'll make it even clearer I consider Thomas Jefferson to be viciously racist and anti-clerical not to mention vastly overrated as a President. I don't believe the Constitution is the infallible word of God. If this isn't enough for it not to be "mine too" I'd be open to be told what's necessary to get me out of it.
Yes, entitlements would get cut. No, he's not going to come out and say it. But it's consistent with his philosophy. He'd probably try to staunch the bleeding for the most dependent, but a great many people would find that they had to make it on their own now.
And this is a bad thing, in light of reality, how?
I'm interested to see Megans web traffic numbers since the RP smear articles started rolling out.
Megan's major flaw is that she commits the same error that most of us do: She sees the presidential candidates as "doing" all these tremendously complex and course-changing things. Of course they all promise they will do these things.
What they all know, and we should know is that as president they can only advocate for change.
Dr. Paul will advocate for smaller government. Does Meagan think we should have larger government? Does she not see the tremendous ripping off of the american taxpayer engendered by big government used as a conduit for special interest (big money corporate interest) to siphon off billions of tax dollars? (Like the "war" in Iraq?) Why not try to rein in spending? Dr. Paul clearly states that we cannot get rid of the income tax unless we lower spending. If we can clean up the massive corruption in washington, this is certainly doable. Dr. Paul is no more reckless than any other of
Her detailed analyses of why Dr. Paul's proposals won't work are simply belaboring the details while missing the strategic issues.
Money spent before it gets to washington is vastly more efficient than money spent after washington pilfers it.
Of course this all presumes Megan advocates for Congress determining spending instead of the White House, and that she advocates for systems of government that promote honesty and transparency as opposed to the corruption we currently have.
The current system is so corrupt, so precisely what Eisenhower waned us about, and so consistent with the corruption that brought down other great powers in history, that I am very willing to go with honest advocacy for change as Dr. Paul proposes. The arithmetic is easy to manage if the principles are honest. And I suspect the power elite will do all they can to prevent the success fo these ideas. I also suspect Megan has been unwittingly molded into an advocate for them.
Kind of hard for Congress to spend money on troops in Europe or anyplace else, if the commander and cheif orders them home.
Clearly Ron Paul will do that saving hundred's of billions to either cut taxes, pay down the defecit, or make other programs solvent.
Like life, the bus you rode to school is just too short.
I don't have the time or will to even begin to tackle the incredible congregation of ignorance in your article, Megan. You have to be mentally deficient or willfully ignorant.
At first I thought you were just feigning misunderstanding so you could have target practice with the straw man. I am really starting to believe you are mentally infirmed in some way.
Dr. Paul's foreign policy is correct.
From Parade magazine interview the reporter asks Bhutto, "What would you like to tell President Bush?" I ask this
riddle of a woman.
She would tell him, she replies, that propping up Musharraf’s government, which is infested with radical Islamists, is
only hastening disaster. “I would say, ‘Your policy of supporting dictatorship is breaking up my country.’ I now think
al-Qaeda can be marching on Islamabad in two to four years.”
Dr. Paul's foregin policy is the only one that makes sense.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, believes that Dr. Paul's foreign policy is the only
one that makes sense in this dangerous world. Those who disagree like faux news, Bill O Reallydumb or other
"journalists" disagree, then perhaps they know more about geopolitics and terrorism than the former head of the CIA's
Osama bin Laden unit does.
Finally, a post worth ripping apart!
I will point out that this issue is raised by: C'mon, jens fiederer, Andrew, xtrabiggg, and John Smith.
"Item one: there is no good reason to replace spending with tax credits." -MM
Wrong! There is one good reason, which will dispence of your next five items (well that's all of them really!), I have less chance of getting my fair share of money through government programs than through tax credits.
I don't disagree that they are not ideal and they cause distortions but better a relatively small distortion of a tax credit than a politician-enabling massive distortion of a tax; unless you assume that government officials are better at spending my money than I am at complying with the tax code, which they are not. Also, I think you might be confusing deductions and credits. I know there are two types of credits, but you are assuming that there is not, while I am assuming that there is.
The point you are ignoring (and you would ignore it) is that Paul is willing to take on the beast known as the Federal Reserve Bank. You love paper money, because you are a DEBTOR. You pretend to be unbiased, but I wouldn't be suprised to learn that you are in debt - mortgage debt, credit debt, retail debt. And you probably have a decent credit rating. You are probably subsidized by the banking mechanism that steals from all to bestow upon the rich and few. You probably carry Federally guaranteed loans through FHA or Direct Loans/Student Loans.
Tax credits, Bahh! You would rather have a big spender in office that doesn't understand the Federal Reserve; who doesn't understand the monetary system. Everyone who is in favor of money fascism and against a dissolution of the Federal Reserve is the same. They are ignorant or are in bed with the beast; and you try to discredit the one politician who recognizes the evil since Andrew Jackson!
Don't hide. You already claimed your malice toward the 'barbaric relic' of gold. You already espoused your love of debt over assets. After that lie is bought, no politician can ever be seen to bring honesty to office. With debt as money, all words can be twisted because no politician can escape the speed of the bullet. But, Paul sees the gun. Paul sees the danger, and he will fight to dismantle it. You do understand my post. You are afraid of honest, market driven money. You are afraid of pure economic reality. You are a coward.
Those in favor of paper money will never tell you, when the money is printed, why isn't the interest to pay for it printed at the same time? If every dollar created has interest attached, yet the interest isn't printed, how will the debt ever be paid off? It won't. Our money is a system of perpetual debt. Debtors and government love it; those who work for a living pay for it through inflation.
MM would probably argue, what is wrong with debt? But, I would ask what is wrong with being debt free? Why is it preferable to be in debt? Why is it better for the government to control the price of housing, education, interest, and the stock market through the creation of debt, than for the people to determine it through our desire to pay? MM has no answer for that. She will remain a pro-big-government shill forever. She is bought and paid for by the inflationary banking system.
The modern empire has discovered it is no longer necessary to subjugate or exploit foreign populations directly. It's much cheaper and more politically palatable domestically to arm and fund foreign puppets to do it for them.
In other words, the modern "empire" isn't an empire. It's just old-fashioned proxy warfare, like France shipping gunpowder to the rebelling American colonists, or England quietly winking at domestic support for Bolivar. Or, for that matter, Saudi Arabia funding terror attacks worldwide.
Really, there is a distinction between propping up an foreign SOB and sending colonists over to run the whole damn country.
He'd probably try to staunch the bleeding for the most dependent, but a great many people would find that they had to make it on their own now.
And this is a bad thing, in light of reality, how?
Well, for one thing, socialism tends to be pretty popular amongst the body politic when a large portion of it is poor and destitute. I wouldn't count on a Ron Paul-style small government to put down a roiling underclass, either, because you've probably cut a great deal of government spending that funds the local police.
And another thing: If I were poor, hungry, unable to find a job, and without access to charity, do you think I would lie quietly in the street and die for your convenience? No. I would find you, rob you, kill you, appropriate your property, and for good measure, eat the choicest cuts of your corpse and keep your remains in tupperware a la Hannibal Lecter in "Hannibal."
Do you season well?
Thank you Megan for your seminal work on Ron Paul. If not for mudslingers like you, supporters of the only honest candidate in the election couldn't be enraged into action.
"However even then I'd be happy if you list me as not remotely in your movement. I've actually read your literature and I'm not interested. Your movement is not my movement. I'm neither a Libertarian nor a non-interventionist. I believe in the US having treaties with other nations, belonging to international organizations, aiding allies miliarily, and giving foreign aid. I think I've been quite clear on all this. If it'll make it even clearer I consider Thomas Jefferson to be viciously racist and anti-clerical not to mention vastly overrated as a President. I don't believe the Constitution is the infallible word of God. If this isn't enough for it not to be "mine too" I'd be open to be told what's necessary to get me out of it." -Posted by Thomas R
Go to a State where everone agrees with you and secede from the Union - oh wait.....
Go to a State where everone agrees with you and secede from the Union - oh wait.....
He doesn't have to go anywhere, because the vast majority of Americans in every state are stubbornly resistant to the policy prescriptions of your Great Doctor. Your "movement," such as it is, consists largely of cranky libertarians and other assorted kooks and sundry who, unfortunately for the rest of us, know how to spam the blog comments. You've created your own charming little echo chamber and managed to raise a decent bit of money, but it goes no further than that. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Is it true that it's impossible to convince a Paul supporter that even one of his positions, on any given issue, is unsound?
Many of the anti-Paul people make this complaint, and I think they're right. Paul supporters are generally pig-headed and they just won't listen to anything! I think I can concisely explain the reason why.
At some point in time, every Paul supporter has come to accept the fact that the single most important issue facing the U.S. today, is the sorry state of their economy - that if the current system does not change directions right now, a catastrophic collapse is inevitable, one that will probably be worse than the Great Depression. If this happens, all the other issues will become irrelevant.
Ron Paul's platform is focused entirely on addressing this issue, first and foremost, right across the board.
His views on the constitution, the federal reserve, the IRS, currency, foreign policy, the war on terror, the war on drugs, the FBI, the CIA, medicare, education, all lead back to this issue. And this issue is all about 1% of the population using big government to control 90% of the nations wealth.
He has stuck his neck out by truthfully identifying the root causes of this issue at the risk of alienating the majority of his party members, and pissing off a lot of powerful people who are benefiting from this system. And for whom do you think he is doing this?
Those Americans that understand what he is trying to do for them, don't want to let him down. That is why Paul supporters are the way they are.
"You've created your own charming little echo chamber and managed to raise a decent bit of money, but it goes no further than that. Enjoy it while it lasts." -Posted by Immoralist
Touché
Thomas R: "I believe in the US having treaties with other nations, belonging to international organizations, aiding allies miliarily, and giving foreign aid."
Treaties are fine with me. The rest of your globalist agenda has proven to be a disaster.
"I consider Thomas Jefferson to be viciously racist and anti-clerical not to mention vastly overrated as a President."
Darn that ol' Declaration of Independence anyway. It's too bad the globalists of Jefferson's day had him excise the part about King George III's role in the slave trade.
"I'd be open to be told what's necessary to get me out of it."
Just do nothing and allow another Neocon in sheep's clothing to bray like an ass for another four years on Fox News and CNN.
Have you not been following the campaign at all? Have you not watched the debates?
Ron Paul has identified hundreds of billions of dollars in spending cuts:
No more overseas troop deployments (probably $200 billion, conservatively)
No more departments of Education, Energy, or Homeland Security (around $100 billion combined)
No more foreign aid (another $50 billion)
That's certainly not enough to get rid of the IRS right away, but it's about $350 billion more than anyone else has identified, and enough to balance the budget right away. I'm sure he could carve out another 2 or 3 hundred billion with a little more study after winning the nomination.
Even the other Republican candidates like Giuliani and Romney and Thompson who talk about cutting domestic spending would more than offset the gain by adding to the military budget.
So if you don't like Ron Paul, who is better? Who is even anywhere close to as good on fiscal issues? How many hundreds of billions in spending cuts have they identified? Will they actually work toward reducing spending each year, with a goal of eliminating the IRS, or will they be happy to grow spending by 5% per year instead of the 8% Bush stuck us with?
Every time I've seen Dr. Paul asked about cutting taxes, or eliminating the IRS, the first thing he says is that we don't get there without cutting spending. In fact, he specifies whole programs he would cut.
From this you conclude he's a politician promising supporters "they deserve to pay lower taxes, but not to have any program that is important to them slashed."
You article is an elaborate construction of a straw man. You assume that Dr. Paul can't achieve what his actual proposals are, tell us your version of what is possible and then ascribe your vision to him. I agree, the policies you made up are not acceptable. They have of course nothing to do with Pauls platform.
I wont be voting for your straw man, but Dr. Paul has my vote.
This writer is a joke..another hit piece..he is not American!!! Go Ron Paul. The income tax is unethical and we are not going to stand for it!!
This whole comment thread has been one non-stop laugh fest. Keep it up, guys! I haven't laughed so hard in weeks.
And I said there weren't enough drugs to cure my depression. Thank you, Paulistas!
It's just occurred to me that Ron Paul is the Republican Dennis Kucinich. That would explain a lot. In fact, almost everything.
Spending and tax cuts are economically indistinguishable? Then why not allow for tax cuts if there's no economic difference? Doing so would at least allot more individual choice (constituting a difference in choice, with more for individual citizens), even if they are indistinguishable, as you claim. Your assertions are nothing more than mere justification for your "entitlement" ideology. You hate the idea of individuals (instead of bureaucrats who are the inefficient slaves of the inept and who are paid by taxes from the hard-working) making choices for themselves, and because you look at Paul's policies with this idea in mind, you can never objectively examine his policies without using some contrived objection like "spending and tax cuts are economically indistinguishable."
Yes, credits are at most a temporary solution and can get complicated. Reporting exemptions are better.
However, Paul is for getting rid of the federal income tax. He will work with Congress to lower taxes and simplify taxes, but getting rid of the income tax is the main goal. So attacking credits does not address any issues.
There are many things wrong with the income tax besides just the money it takes. It is an invasion of privacy, it is intrusive, it threatens the freedom of this nation, it hurts democratic processes through political favoritism and hidden spending.
So. The income tax is the issue.
The pie chart above is not a good one to use. That one includes trust funds. Though general funds might have to bail out the social security fund, that should be explicit.
The federal spending (excluding trusts) will be about like this for 2008:
Now just the personal income tax will be about $1,200 B. I'll ignore the other taxes for now.
Suppose the goal is to bring the spending down that much. I don't know what President Paul and Congress will do, but let's try this:
With that reduction, and the elimination of the personal income tax, there is still $600 B to help bail out the social security and handle some transitions for people, reduce the debt and lower some other taxes.
That is for next year. It might take a few years under the Paul administration for this to take hold, and there might be some gradual changes as people get used to this. So that $ 600 B cushion might not be there at first.
Note that under a proper spending level that half will go toward interest. Most of that is interest on recent wars, but is also interest on promises some greedy politicians made. So, though, half of the spending will be in interest, it was the several previous presidents who did it to us.
But even if Paul accomplished only half of what he wants. That is still much better than spending increasing, which is what others will do.
Paul does not want to replace the cuts. You guys never, ever, get it. He wants to cut the taxes, and get this, SPEND LESS!!!!
There is no replacement for the tax cuts, that is the beauty of his program, and I can't figure out why people won't address that possibility.
Some things to remember:
1. Argumentum ad antiquitatem- simply because the Constitution in its purest, least amended form worked for 1777, doesn't mean it will work for 2007.
2. The congress holds the power of the purse. Therefore, let us assume that Ron Paul not only receives the nomination but also wins the election. The most that the Constitution allows him to do is suggest a budget to congress, they must approve it. Furthermore, don't forget the congressional ability to override the presidents veto with a supermajority (2/3).
3. Finally remember that it is basic electoral planning to go to the base as much as possible in the primaries, and then move towards the center in the general--this allows for the most number of votes to be gained in each respective area. Therefore, if Paul wins the primaries he will move away from his reactionary position on the standard right to left diagram, and move towards the left. Of course, the degree of this movement is variable.
--
"simply because the Constitution in its purest, least amended form worked for 1777"
Not to be a stickler, but there was no Constitution in 1777.
History matters.
Here is what some of the world thinks about his monetary policy
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/12/prweb593502.htm
I, too, realize the importance of history. However, it is equally important to remember the present. (typos not-with-standing.)
"Treaties are fine with me. The rest of your globalist agenda has proven to be a disaster." Jamie
It's certainly had failures and I believe in reforming international groupings. However one thing you may not be aware of is that most of the world is a great deal freer, more prosperous, and even more peaceful than it was before such organizations. I mean do you think a post-WWII world with a non-interventionist America would've defeated Communism? I know Communism was a screwy system, but to think it'd collapse the same if we'd gone Robert Taft's way (no NATO or ground troops in Korea) is just foolish.
I can understand feeling better about doing nothing, but inaction also has consequences. If Paul or you honestly think inaction has no "blowback" possibilities of its own you're either foolish or deluded or both.
"that if the current system does not change directions right now, a catastrophic collapse is inevitable, one that will probably be worse than the Great Depression." Brian
This kind of desperation could explain the reaction, but why would this kind of desperation be warranted? Unemployment is low by historic standards, there is no Depression looming in Europe, global trade is showing no signs of collapse, etc. In addition to that why would returning to things abandoned 90 years ago be a solution? Maybe you're not aware that they did have depressions in the era when we had no income tax and still used the gold standard. The nineteenth century had several "Panics" some of which nearly amounted to Depressions. A noted example being the Panic of 1893, which is sometimes referred to in relation to "The Wizard of Oz." However there were other panics which added up to virtual Depressions in the US economy.
"A number of readers want me to really dive into Ron Paul's economic policies and explain why I don't like them."
Ok, I'm waiting. I haven't seen anything from you yet. If taxes was the only thing that I was voting for Ron Paul for then he still has my vote, after reading your blabber. Your little image pie chart with spending shows exactly why his policy of cutting and eventually eliminating taxes will work. Are you blind? Because you pointed out that a large portion of government spending goes towards "everything else" but failed to mention that the second largest and bigger spending than everything else "defense" can be cut back to nearly nothing by pulling our troops out of countries that they shouldn't be in (which just so happens to be every country in the world other than the United States). And he would have the power to do so seeing as one of the main duties of president is Commander in Chief.
"I see him scoring cheap campaign points off of American hostility to foreigners, particularly poor foreigners who compete with them economically"
I want to ask you something; have you ever been to Mexico? Or talked with one of your poor foreigners who deserve as much chance as any of us to come into America work a job illegally and send the money they earn to a foreign country? I hate to burst your bubble but most of them aren't the sweet kind Mexican down the street who mows your yard, washes your dishes, or stocks your shelves at the local Target out of goodness of their heart. I've had the pleasure of going to Mexico and it doesn't take long talking to any Mexican that they hate you just for being an American, that they hate your country just because it has been prosperous. I've had the pleasure of working with both Chinese and Mexicans at a couple of different jobs I worked. Most of them were working here illegally, most hated America (even though they were here working), and almost all of them were sending our money out of our country which BTW if you've not checked recently is 100x worse than any inflation problems at devaluating our money. I do say most to be fair to the few who come here to stay and live and are just trying to get by on what they have.
"And I see him, like everyone else, dodging the major fiscal challenge of our time: the problem of paying for the health care and pensions of the retiring baby boomers."
I have one thing to say: Where's the opt-out form for SSA? Social Security is... well let me put it lightly, bull-shit. You know what most people like about Ron Paul? He's not a big supporter of the government babysitting everyone. He gives the power back to the people, you screw over your financial situation it's your own damn fault. You have no more right to blame the government because the government wasn't your mommy and daddy your whole life.
"Similarly, he attacks the Social Security Administration's plan for a "totalization" agreement with Mexico, claiming that it will result in the American taxpayer, suddenly and for no apparent reason, sending a ton of money to Mexicans who work here for a little while and then go back to Mexico in order to loll around in the sun collecting their Social Security checks.
This sounds ludicrous because it's a gross distortion. Totalization agreements are standard practice between countries with social security systems; they prevent people who are working abroad, but planning to retire in their own country, from having to make contributions to two systems. We have totalization agreements with any number of countries, and the actuaries at the SSA expect that the agreement with Mexico will have little impact either way on the trust funds. Indeed, the agreement with Mexico will cost us much less than our agreement with that nation of mooching scabs, the Canadians."
I almost left this alone... but I couldn't. You're retarded aren't you? I mean seriously, not trying to be cruel or politically incorrect, I'm not trying to make fun of your disability or anything, but are you? Because that would explain your entire article. You do realize that there are a few distinct reasons why we have open borders with Canada and don't with Mexico right? You do understand that the American dollar is still more powerful than the Peso, but is dwindling even now to becoming less powerful than the Canadian dollar right? You do understand that the Canadians have a much more stable economy than our own, and that Mexico is ten thousand times more of a mooching scab than the Canadians could ever be if that was their life goal right? But oh right, the Mexicans are already stealing our money, they come here to America and we give them health care and welfare benefits that we say our own citizens can't qualify for even though they don't put any taxes or money back into our system. So lets now voluntarily send even more money to their country because they can't afford to support their system as is. You do understand that Mexico is like a company that's bankrupt, only they have a neighboring company that's still got some money in reserve (America) that they can come over to and take money from, that's the only reason why Mexico hasn't disappeared yet. Another thing, don't ever bring up an argument and site the person who wants the plans to go through as the expert on the matter. That would be like saying that the new AMD Phenom processors are amazing and the cache bug with them isn't really affecting performance much because of the patch on them... oh and BTW you know this because AMD says so. Guess what, I love AMD they're a great company, but their cache bug, even with the BIOS patch is still a huge problem, why do you think they're selling them for under $250, when the competition has theirs for nearly $1,000? Saying that it's not as bad as everyone thinks it is because the SSA (who wants the deal to go through for some God awful reason) says it's not as bad as everyone thinks it will be.
Another thing I noticed about the comments on your article is that all the Ron Paul supporters are educated and site sources and everything... all those who are against Ron Paul do the same thing that you did and just say "oh his policies will stop my welfare check I can't have that" and then sign off.
So, the baby-boomers will get less money, and yes, in effect they were duped. It is better than the alternative.
Which would you rather have... no money or no country? So the boomers might have to make baskets or flip burgers when they get old. Maybe they can't retire and live in Florida. So what. They are boomers... they can manage.
There is nothing wrong with telling them, "Sorry, the idiots that preceded me made a huge error. I can't pay you what they promissed. Sh#t happens."
Humans must go to themselves first, push themselves to the limit, then if they fail, tap the resources of the following (in order): Spouse, Family, Friends, Community, Charity, Town, City, County, State, Country, World. The way many people think, they go to YOU first via your COUNTRY. That is backwards.
Thank you Jordan for pointing that out to me. The last paragraph of mine "site" should be "cite" I know this, just didn't even see it. I've been doing website design too long :-P the "site" is burned into my fingers as muscle memory.
First Dr. Paul wants to do away with the income tax because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Which part of unconstitutional do you not understand, un or constitutional. Get a grip. Either we will elect Dr. Paul or as the Daily Telegraph put it just last week, we are as little as two months away from a financial collaps that will make 1929 look like a walk in the park, (there words not mine), which will for all intents and purposes do away with the income tax. So you have a vote, have it your way as Burger King says. Anyone that does not vote for Dr. Paul is a masicist and deserves what they get. Also I agree with Thomas Jefferson who said he despised a man who could only spell a word one way------------so there.
Blessings in the life you choose.
Bill
PS I can't believe that we are trying so had to save the Rebublic for the likes of you.
Bill McCaskill
get a VAT already and ditch at least half of your silly taxes!
Inflation will take retirement income.
Vote for sound monetary policy.
If you accept the argument that tax credits are indistinguishable from spending, and I do, then one could argue that state, local and federal governments spend scores of billions to underwrite organized religion, the multi billion dollar teleministries, lecture circuits and book deals of the so-called Christian right and, of course, the mother of all real estate holders in the U. S., Holy Mother the Church of Rome. Since Documents of Vatican II and the 501(c)(3)and other non profit tax exemption laws, the doctrines of all these churches have become indistinguishable, saying, essentially, damn the sinners, praise the lord and pass the ammunition to the neo con war mongers. The Ford and Rockefeller foundations aren't religions, per se, but their "charity" selects only those causes that are hostile to my personal, non aligned Protestant belief.
Your argument provides grounds to file a 1st Amendment suit in federal court seeking to strike legislation that establishes a national religion. Propose it and the river of email you'll get from the Christian wrong will make Ron Paul email seem like a little stream. Pope might even excommunicate yuh. If that seems off the wall, note the flack (enemy, anti air craft artillery)caught be Dr. Paul for recalling the heresy of Sinclair Lewis's prophesy that fascism will come to American wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.
We need a revolution to dump this whole burlesque tax system and we have one. It's called the Ron Paul Revolution. I hope and labor that he wins the election but the revolution will not go away under any circumstance. Termination of the IRS seems as unlikely at this time as parting of the Red Sea. But you know- things happen.
"I mean do you think a post-WWII world with a non-interventionist America would've defeated Communism?"
China is still Communist China. The Communist Party still runs China. When did we "defeat" Communism? The last time I checked, Communist China owns most of the US debt and the Bush family and much of the American political/business elite is doing business with them.
The Cold War was little more than the international interventionism of both the US and the Soviet Union. Internationalism leads to us backing corrupt, brutal regimes worldwide. I don't see this freer world of which you speak.
Your argument is akin to saying that if I go meddling in other people's lives and let myself go bankrupt in the process, it will make us all free and prosperous. Pshaw.
"inaction also has consequences."
Fixing one's own house isn't inaction. Letting it rot while trying to fix a neighbor's house is just plain stupid.
Where has it been shown where ANY of the collected (stolen) revenues of the IRS have been utilized for th benefit of the operation of this great nation? According to the publication authorized by the late President Regan, written by Peter Grace (Grace commission), it was revealed, not 1 cent went to the operation of this country, but instead the "equally apportioned excise tax is what is used.Recently during the debates Sen Byden remarked that the IRS costs 260B? to operate, with nothing left.If we have been listening, the current solicitors of your support state "NO ONE understands the IRS code, there isn't ANYONE who can understand it!".This comes from those who wish to lead?Tell me reader,of the NO ONE or ANY ONE, who is excluded?Further, how can it be where folks lose their homes, jobs,lives in some cases as they face arrest and incarceration for a code? which NO one ANY one understands?
Increase the "take home" of the American worker, you'll INCREASE the tax base (excise)as they will consume more, invest more, increase the job market through a free market absent of a market which penalizes for success. The corporate tax ( which again our campaigners admit do not pay, but instead pass the tax on to you),could conceivably "reduce" the cost of products, making them more competitive with the foreign markets.As for the fair tax,The best law to have on the books is a law people demand. Therefore the Gov can always go back and say, "You asked us for it!". First the fair tax is not constitutional. The Fed has no jurisdictional standing to tax the people of the states.Ron Paul gets it. eliminate the tax, replace it with nothing, allow the constitutional provisions to do what they were designed to do. When all else fails..Follow the directions.
Listen to you bud. You must have something to live for or something cause the bottom line is the gov. is going to do what the people want or they can be shot. This isn't some new radical way of gov. Ron's way of gov is what kept everything going for over 200 yrs. so why shouldn't we go back to the right way of gov. I'm an American and I have kids and if I can better their lives by giving mine up and fighting my gov... So be it I'm not afraid of death because I'm free. Watch V for vendetta and you will see why you are scared, Your not free and you are a coward. Come on America let these rich 1% elite that's running this country into the ground know that enough is enough if you don't stop this craziness we will end it for you with the guns our four fathers gave us to protect our freedoms against people like you!!! Stand up and fight america or you can take it on your knees!!!!!!!!!
Megan, here is how Ron Paul answers your questions:
(Interviewer) Dr. Paul, how would you pay the debt? (referring to Social Security)
(RP) Well first I would pass social security back to the states as well as the bond debt in exchange for turning most all federal assets over to the states including newly issued fees on the federal reserve system.
(Interviewer) Dr. Paul, I though you wanted to do away with the Federal Reserve?
(RP) Well, I would disconnect it from the federal government except to back the existing federal reserve notes with the amount of gold at Fort Knox and charge a small federal banking fee on every corporate transaction. At present there is around 1 quadtrillion dollars in transactions per year, the vast majority of them banking, foreign currency trading, interest rate swaps and other derivatives, plus institutional stock, bond and corporate real estate deals, so a fee of around one tenth of one percent on corporate transactions should be enough to cover the bond and social security debt plus the states can fill in any short falls.
(Interviewer) Dr. Paul, FX transaction cost is much lower than 0.1% on the vast majority of trades so won't the fee reduce most of that trading?
(RP) I suppose so, so corporate transactions are reduced by as much as 90% (which is not likely) down to 100 trillion a year then you could increase the fee to 1% which is still pretty low or you might take a note from the supply siders by keeping the fee lower than 1% to boost transactions and bring in more revenue to cover the federal debt.
Megan,
I fully agree with you that the social security and medicaid had to be paid by SOMEONE. Now the think is that Paul wants to do at least something to reduce this system, others want mostly to expand it. It is unrealistic to expect that these systems continue working for the elderly and the young won't pay it. But what other option you have? All other options are WORSE. Or are you trying to argue otherwise?
Second: your arguments about tax deductions are simply wrong. You can compare 3 things: tax cut, deduction and spending - in this order.
You are wrong that deduction is the same as spending. Tax cut would be preferable but deduction is still better then outright spending.
1) Frederic Bastiat + Milton Friedman (people don't care about other peeople's money).
2) this one you have probably right
3) GDP growth IS NOT efficiency. If the taxes make you work more, it does not mean they are efficient. It means that you have forgotten to include leisure time in the income of the consumers. All those 'income' and 'substitution' effects are only ways to obscure this omissoin.
4) so are taxes, which is the alternative. The deductions DO NOT encourage people buy things that won't pay themselves. The deductions may be better then tax cuts if they are directed to diminish some particularly ineffective part of government expenditures.
5) it depends what you compare it to. If you compare it to tax cut of the same amount of money, you are probably right. If you compare it to no tax cut, you are wrong
Tax deduction make some spending cheaper ('less-taxed') then the alternatives. However, e.g. in case of schools and health care this may be preferable given the distortion made by government in these sectors.
Paul said that he would like finally to cut taxes. The deductions are just one way to get there.
It seems to me that you are using the nirvana fallacy - you can talk about making something better here and there - but, who do you propose to vote for?
"Ron Paul's plan to 'transition' while maintaining benefits for seniors is going to be a failure."
Social Security and medicaid ARE a failure. The question is if it is going to be total failure (do nothing or expand) or huge failure (try to abolish it). Nirvana fallacy...?
"First Dr. Paul wants to do away with the income tax because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL." Bill
The Sixteenth Amendment, look it up.
When did we "defeat" Communism?" Jamie
"Defeat" does not mean "totally obliterate and end everywhere." Eastern Europe is no longer Communist and the same can be said of most of the former Soviet Union. Even China effectively stopped exporting Maoism to Africa and runs on a more Capitalist system. Communism as a threat to the free world was effectively defeated. Name me a nation that's become a totalitarian Communist state in the last seventeen years.
"Fixing one's own house isn't inaction." Jamie
Focusing on cleaning your house while your town becomes infested with crack-dealers and gangsters would be though.
"Letting it rot while trying to fix a neighbor's house is just plain stupid."
There is no logical reason to think the US is rotten. The US has less long-term unemployment and more innovation than almost any nation on Earth. It remains the world's largest economy.
Thomas, the 16th amendment was 'ratified' by very weird circumstances. It *may* be the case that it should be invalid by itself. However, even if it is constitutional, that is not an argument not to get rid of it :)
There is no logical reason to think the US is rotten. The US has less long-term unemployment and more innovation than almost any nation on Earth. It remains the world's largest economy.
Google something about subprime mortgages, read some articles from e.g. Peter Schiff (and many others), and ask yourself a question why is Fed pumping epic amounts of money into economy and why Bush is taking steps to fix this mortgage markets - when everything is OK and there is supposedly no problem....
"The Sixteenth Amendment, look it up. "
The Eighteenth Amendment was eventually found to be an undue use of government force also. It was rammed down our throats at about the same time.
I'll never understand why people actually defend the government using force and fraud to take money and property away from us. I can only assume that they have jobs that depend on state-sponsored theft or are just plain ignorant.
"Name me a nation that's become a totalitarian Communist state in the last seventeen years."
America's getting there. It's currently being run by a bunch of Neoconservatives who are little more than reupholstered Trotskyites.
"Focusing on cleaning your house while your town becomes infested with crack-dealers and gangsters would be though."
To extend the metaphor to the breaking point, if one is fixing one's house while subsidizing those crack dealers and gangsters (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, etc), one is really stupid AND corrupt.
Recall that Saddam Hussein would not have gotten to power without US help in the first place.
"There is no logical reason to think the US is rotten."
Taking a look at the plunging value of the dollar say otherwise.
"The Eighteenth Amendment was eventually found to be an undue use of government force also. It was rammed down our throats at about the same time."
The point is, Paulites claim that income tax is unconstitutional. When its constitutionality is pointed out, you say, well, we don't like it. OK, but that's moving the goalposts. No one ever said the 18th ammendment was unconstitutional because, by definition, it was constitutional. Wanting to repeal an amendment is different than harping about how what it authorises is unconstitutional, which is what Paulites do.
You completely understate Paul's plans for cutting spending. Like many cursory evaluations, you pick his seemingly outrageous proposal (eliminate income tax) and give short shrift to his main message -- it's the spending stupid. He says we can't eliminate the income tax until we cut down the spending. He doesn't put the cart before the horse, but his critics try to put him in that position.
He does indeed plan to reduce military spending dramatically, and not just in Iraq. He (okay, we) would bring US troops home from all over the world. With the much smaller mission of defending the US borders (something we're not doing now, as 9/11 showed), military spending would drop tremendously.
On the domestic side, he would cut far more than the Education Department. He would also eliminate the Dept. of Commerce (about time - can anyone even say what this dept does?). There's plenty of room to cut spending in many places. All we are saying is Give Paul a Chance. :-)
The point is, Paulites claim that income tax is unconstitutional...No one ever said the 18th ammendment was unconstitutional because, by definition, it was constitutional."
Incorrect. Most people of the day knew and said that the 18th Amendment was unconstitutional when it was being enforced.
A direct and unapportioned tax is an arrogation of power that the Federal government enforces through a fraud backed by threat of force.
Again, why do you defend an unjust and immoral power to take our money and property?
BTW, if you need a label with which to grasp in the dark, call me a Paulogist.
"In addition to that why would returning to things abandoned 90 years ago be a solution? Maybe you're not aware that they did have depressions in the era when we had no income tax and still used the gold standard. The nineteenth century had several "Panics" some of which nearly amounted to Depressions. A noted example being the Panic of 1893, which is sometimes referred to in relation to "The Wizard of Oz." However there were other panics which added up to virtual Depressions in the US economy." Thomas R.
One thing I heard Ron Paul explain is that depressions HAVE always existed because they are a normal part of all economic cycles. These cycles have their high periods and low periods, and that is normal. It is a sound monetary system that will control just how low the low periods will be.
Fixing interest rates by printing more money simply holds off the inevitable low period, temporarily, and causes it to be more devastating when it finally arrives. Why? Because the printing of money out of nowhere, lowers the value of the money in our pockets every time they do it.
It was exactly this type of money policy that caused the Great Depression. They held off the low period long enough, by fixing interest rates, so that when the bubble finally burst (and it always does), it was too much for the economy to handle.
What Paul is saying is that the federal reserve has been doing this for so long now, that the bubble they have created is already beyond what the economy can handle today. From what I have read, he ought to know!
He wants to try and stop all this, for the good of all Americans, and he is the only candidate who is even TALKING about it. That is why arguing over individual policies on individual issues becomes irrelevant.
Megan,
Great critique! I really enjoy well-thought-out critiques against Ron Paul's issues, even though I'm an ardent Paul supporter. While there are some economical "issues" with Paul's platform, many of which you've so-well-addressed, the general theme of his campaign is incredibly small government. And I can dig that.
With respect to entitlements, Ron Paul wants to guarantee benefits to those who've put in dollars and prevent future entitlement debacles by allowing younger workers to opt out. I can really dig this! The big question is: "What spending cuts will allow us to guarantee payouts to existing beneficiaries?"
Ron Paul needs to answer this question very clearly. As his supporters, we deserve to know exactly what he will cut, how much it will save, and how will it help pay for those who've worked their full lives expecting benefits.
With respect to tax credits, I feel that you may not have considered the effect of individuals choosing to whom or what they spend their dollars. This makes a big difference economically, as individual choice in the market place (considering multiple competitors) makes a big difference over government monopolies. For example, the government spending R&D dollars for alternative fuel development in government labs has much different economic consequences than companies getting tax credits for corporate R&D.
Still, I agree that tax credits suck, are prone to government manipulation of the economy, and ultimately encourage more corporate lobbyism. Tax credits should never be part of a major tax overhaul... unless they are part of what falls in the shredder. Ron Paul must address this!
thanks much,
Dr. Steven F. LeBoeuf
Please try to understand:
1. Time preference
2. Nature of class conflicts
3. Subjective valuations
The point is, Paulites claim that income tax is unconstitutional...No one ever said the 18th ammendment was unconstitutional because, by definition, it was constitutional."
"Incorrect. Most people of the day knew and said that the 18th Amendment was unconstitutional when it was being enforced."
OK, do you know what an amendment is? It is something that you ADD to the constitution. So once it is written into the constitution it is, by definition, constitutional. Now you can talk about wanting to repeal an amendment but you can't really call income tax unconstitutional since it was added to the constitution via amendment. People might've known that they didn't *like* the 18th amendment, but you'd have a hard time arguing before the supreme court that something put INTO the constitution is unconstitutional, since their brief is to evaluate laws based on their compatibility with the constitution, amendments and all.
It costs about a trillion dollars to operate the 700 bases overseas. If you close those bases, you save hundreds of billions of dollars. How should we spend that money?
According to Megan,
1) Getting rid of the income tax isn't workable because "it's not going to happen"
2) Cutting taxes through tax credits isn't workable because that would be "inefficient"
3) Slashing military spending isn't workable because then "who is going to pay for all this border enforcement" and "you'd have to cut the defense budget by a third to produce a 5% reduction in the overall budget."
4) Even *talking* about cutting entitlements isn't workable because "the senior lobby would slaughter him"
5) Vetoing new spending isn't workable because "it's not the major driver of our budget"
Well, shucks. Looks like we'll just have to vote for someone who doesn't even talk about cutting anything, then. It's just all so... *impossible* lol
And btw, Megan, please tell us which candidate's economic policies you *do* endorse, so we can evaluate what the correct plan supposedly is, according to you. Your anti-Paul shtick is getting a little stale. Who is McArdle approved, anyway? Or are you just one of those people who takes the cheap-n-easy route of pointing out all the potential difficulties with any idea? Thanks.
Moreover, the Laffer curve is still not exhausted at this point. Significant tax cuts (like eliminating the dividend and capital gains taxes) should provide substantial net INCREASES in alternate tax revenues, more than enough to cover their loss of revenue.
Can we please put this idea to bed - eliminating taxes does not increase tax revenues:
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/10/whos-laffering-.html
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2006/10/still_searching.html
Also interesting:
http://www.thebudgetgraph.com/site/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=1
Pegs current military spend at around $717b for the $1.075t in discretionary spending - or roughly 67%.
I finally spent some time on Ron Paul's website reviewing his stance on issues - I remain feeling the same - got it right on some issues (taxes, reducing military spending) but has, in my opinion, serious flaws in his other arguments (healthcare - tax deductions for healthcare? I thought he wanted a flat tax! Abortion - government should not be in my life - wait a minute - they should in this issue - huh?).
He has, at least on his website, no real discussion of Social Security that I can see aside from "protecting it" from being raided - which makes sense but doesn't address the issues of what to do with it longer term. All my opinion - I expect the Ron Paul people to come out with knives!
"And I see him, like everyone else, dodging the major fiscal challenge of our time: the problem of paying for the health care and pensions of the retiring baby boomers." -MM
Paul is much more sophisticated than you give him credit for. Check out his more in-depth answer to how to fund Social Secuity in an interview with an economist:
The constitution does not authorize the federal government to run a pension program but it has made promises and it has taken money for those promises so the federal government owes a debt although the federal program still must end.
First I would pass social security back to the states as well as the bond debt in exchange for turning most all federal assets over to the states including newly issued fees on the federal reserve system.
I would disconnect the Federal Reserve system from the federal government except to back the existing federal reserve notes with the amount of gold at Fort Knox and charge a small federal banking fee on every corporate transaction. At present there is around 1 quadtrillion dollars in transactions per year, the vast majority of them banking, foreign currency trading, interest rate swaps and other derivatives, plus institutional stock, bond and corporate real estate deals, so a fee of around one tenth of one percent on corporate transactions should be enough to cover the bond and social security debt plus the states can fill in any short falls.
Right now FX transaction costs are much lower than 0.1% on the vast majority of trades so the fee will reduce some of that trading.
But even if FX transactions are reduced as much as 90% (which is not likely) down to 100 trillion a year then you could increase the fee to 1% which is still pretty low or you might take a note from the supply siders by keeping the fee lower than 1% to boost transactions and bring in more revenue to cover the federal debt.
Your article didn't explain the real in-effectiveness of those over-bloated bureaucratic programs.
You also failed to mention Ron Paul's plan for stopping the inflation tax, which has been very hard on retirees and the poor and middle class.
Ron Paul is not promising an easy road without taxes. He's actually promising a very tough road with personal sacrifice as well as responsibility. This is price of true liberty.
An all-encompassing government that over-charges its citizens for poor services is certainly not the answer.
"Now you can talk about wanting to repeal an amendment but you can't really call income tax unconstitutional since it was added to the constitution via amendment." -Anthony Cantor
The income tax is not unConstitutional, but is applied illegally. Income is not any general revenue, income has a specific legal definition, according to the Supreme Court, and is explicated in the Corporation Excise Taxation Act of 1909. Income is the UNADJUSTED discrepancy between revenue and costs - a.k.a. profit. Once UNADJUSTED gross income is calculated, then it can be adjusted by deduction. It is illegal to adjust revenue by deduction without first allowing the subtraction of costs.
First, you take revenue, then you subtract cost, the remainder is supposed to be, according to the Supreme Court, your unadjusted gross income. The current implementation of the tax code does not allow the subtraction of cost, only the subtraction of defined deductions. In effect, the government deems that all costs to generate revenue from wages are $0. So, wage earners are illegally denied the right to calculate unadjusted gross income. In reality, all revenue from wages is treated like income (a blatant violation of Supreme Court ruling); the only income that the government allows wage earners to calculate is adjusted gross income (since it is adjusted by defined deductions not actual costs).
But if you have trouble following - basically, revenue is not income, yet the Federal government illegally mis-categorizes wage revenue as income, which is a flagrant violation of the rulings on the definition of income as handed down by the Supreme Court.
That is why people call it unConstitutional when they mean applied illegally. Your Federal government is stealing from you!
Wow! Pretty graphs...gee. For the sake of journalism, please stop writing!
"So once it is written into the constitution it is, by definition, constitutional."
If it's illegal, it's not constitutional. There's no law, as passed by Congress, that states that you and I required to pay taxes on our income. As there is no law to go along with the so-called amendment, then the government is engaging in mere force and fraud to take our money and property.
It's simple thuggery.
Show me the law, passed by Congress, that states that you and I are required to pay income taxes.
Not the IRS code, mind you. The law.
Anthony, can you answer this question:
Why do you defend an unjust and immoral power to take our money and property?
No, it is not UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Nor is it unconstitutional. Nor, is "Dr. Paul" -- what's with the cultists calling him "Dr"? (*) -- stupid enough to think that it is.
(*) Yes, I know he's an M.D. What does that have to do with his candidacy? Is he running for president of a hospital or president of the U.S.?
The "Corporation Excise Taxation Act of 1909" has nothing to do with anything.
"Wage revenue" is a gibberish phrase. Wages are income. Yes, as defined by the Supreme Court.
David,
Maybe you could point to the law, passed by Congress, stating that Americans are required to pay taxes on their wages.
Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, codified at 26 USC 1.
"Section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code, codified at 26 USC 1."
I asked for the specific law passed by Congress. You're merely citing IRS Code.
The 16th Amendment merely claims a power that didn't exist previous to the amendment.
Where's the attending law?
And kindly refrain from ad hominem.
I love reading economic policy discussions from people with degrees in literature.
Seriously Megan, this article boarders on laughable.
And on a side-note: How much money would the US save if they were to bring home every foreign-based troop?
I cited the law: 26 USC 1.
That is a law passed by Congress.
Are you for real?
Doh,
Got ninja posted by David. Sorry, should have hit "refresh" to check for new comments after reading over 100 of them.
"The Internal Revenue Code is law passed by Congress."
So please cite and quote the particular law that states that we're required to pay taxes on our income.
It should be easy to quote rather than just say "read 26 USC 1".
Jamie... it seems to me that the argument that there is no law regarding income tax doesn't stand. However, there were several doubts regarding the process of amending the constitution with the 16th amendment (it seems that not enough states ratified it).
You may have found that Paul did not say that income tax is unconstitutional in the Russo's film. He said that briefly in some interview, however I would be very cautios if he had your interpretation or the problem with amending in mind.
"it seems to me that the argument that there is no law regarding income tax doesn't stand. "
It does, I'm glad to say. At least one jury has acquitted based on the fact that the prosecution couldn't produce the law. They couldn't produce it because there is no law.
Then there's the recent case of Bobby Kahre:
http://www.lvrj.com/news/9893062.html
Four-month trial ends with no convictions
"A criminal tax case alleging income tax evasion and conspiracy dissolved in federal court this week, when a jury returned zero convictions on 161 charges faced by nine defendants."
26 USC §1(a) says:
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:
§1(b) is for heads of household; §1(c) is for unmarried individuals. §1(d) is for married-filing-separately.
But I've spent enough time with tax protesters to figure out the next moving goalpost. You're going to demand to know what statute defines taxable income. The answer is 26 USC §63:
Taxable income defined:
(a) In General: Except as provided in subsection (b), for purposes of this subtitle, the term “taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter (other than the standard deduction).
And the next hoop to jump through is for you to say, "Oh yeah? What statute defines gross income?" I'll save you the trouble. The answer is 26 USC §61:
Gross income defined
(a) General definition: Except as otherwise provided in this subtitle, gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
And now I'll stop, even though I have enough experience to guess what the next moving goalpost will be. But just to reiterate: all of those are "laws passed by Congress."
It seems like a huge portion of our population has become acclimated to the Marxian notion that our labors are taxable commodities. They're not. We've just gotten use to the idea because it's all most of us have ever known.
The vast majority of front loaded tax credits to the lower and middle class (nearly all of us) would flow directly into our local economies for goods and services. Of course, much of it would eventually bleed away, but only after passing through many local pockets first. Most of us don't have much extra money to purchase too many luxury import items or venture capital to invest in international markets.
A used car every few years, the occasional electronic device and those clothes made in Taiwan that we purchased from Wal-Mart is the closest most of us will ever get to investing in an international market.
Let's give trickle-up economics a try for a change. I believe the closer to home I can keep my money, the better. We don't need to pay a federal bureaucracy to decide how any portion of our already measly paychecks should be spent. I would feel much better paying higher local and/or state sales taxes.
Bringing home most of our overseas troops and re-opening previously shut-down domestic bases would cause an influx of nearly a billion dollars a month into local economies, not to mention a huge boost to the housing market and employment rates.
Because of our comparatively lopsided air and naval superority combined with our ability to rapidly deploy our military to anyplace on the planet, the need for so many pemanent large strategic overseas military bases is long gone. We would be better served by a scattering of much smaller tactical bases
Because of our comparatively lopsided air and naval superority combined with our ability to rapidly deploy our military to anyplace on the planet,
All of that requires overseas bases, to house our airborne refueling tankers, re-provision ships on extended deployments, and position our rapid-reaction forces closer to the action.
And David, thank you for your yeoman's work on the tax protesters.
"It is word soup, put together by someone who has never read a single bit of the tax code or a single court case. The "Corporation Excise Taxation Act of 1909" has nothing to do with anything." -David Nieporent
You misunderstand my argument. I am not claiming that the government dos not follow the tax code, I am claiming that the tax code is not in accordance with the Constitutional interpretation of the term 'income' by the US Supreme Court. If you want to argue with me, you can't turn to the illegal tax code for support.
First piece of evidence; you are wrong about the Corporation Excise Taxation Act not having to do with anything:
"It is obvious that these decisions in principle rule the case at bar if the word "income" has the same meaning in the Income Tax Act of 1913 that it had in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, and that it has the same scope of meaning was in effect decided in Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe 247 U.S. 330, 335, where it was assumed for the purposes of decision that there was no difference in its meaning as used in the act of 1909 and in the Income Tax Act of 1913. There can be no doubt that the word must be given the same meaning and content in the Income Tax Acts of 1916 and 1917 that it had in the act of 1913. When to this we add that in Eisner v. Macomber, supra, a case arising under the same Income Tax Act of 1916 which is here involved, the definition of "income" which was applied was adopted from Strattons' Independence v. Howbert, arising under the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909, with the addition that it should include "profit gained through sale or conversion of capital assets," there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act, and that what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by decisions of this Court." -Merchants' Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka 255 U.S. 509 (1921) (Never over-ruled!)
-----------------------------
Second piece of evidence, income has been determined to be seperate from revenue whether that revenue is aquired by labor or capital.
"Yet it is plain, we think, that by the true intent and meaning of the act [Corporation Excise Taxation Act] the entire proceeds of a mere conversion of capital assets were not to be treated as income...
"Understanding the term in this natural and obvious sense, it cannot be said that a conversion of capital assets invariably produces income. If sold at less than cost, it produces rather loss or outgo. Nevertheless, in many if not in most cases there results a gain that properly may be accounted as a part of the 'gross income' received 'from all sources'; and by applying to this the authorized deductions we arrive at 'net income.' In order to determine whether there has been gain or loss, and the amount of the gain if any, we must withdraw from the gross proceeds an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration." -Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. (1918) Page 247 U.S. 179, 183 (Never over-ruled!)
----------------------------
Despite these rulings (which are still cited today as precident), when taxing wages, the government fails to allow American wage earners to "... withdraw from the gross proceeds [ie. gross revenue] an amount sufficient to restore the capital value that existed at the commencement of the period under consideration", Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co. supra, in violation of the 5th Amendment (US Constitution). As a consequence, the federal government, in effect, levies a direct tax on capital that is not income "...without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration," in violation of the U.S. Constitution - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 4. The government tyrannically decrees that the sale of labor for a wage is without an unadjusted base! This entails that labor, when provided by natural persons, is without factors of production and constitutes pure profit - i.e. 'income'.
I have read the entire tax code, and I have read just about every Supreme Court case on this; the philosophical and legal ground I stand on is very solid. The tax code is illegal. The Federal government is thieving from us!
"His brief on the Import-Export Bank, an FDR-era boondoggle of trivial significance to anything, including the US taxpayer, is positioned as a complaint that we are massively subsidizing China. In fact, the subsidy is tiny,"
As someone who earns 24,000 a year and pays 2,000 a year in income taxes I find the characterization of a federal government program that has a budget of 1000 million dollars and can risk tens of thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds as "tiny" to be outrageous.
Eliminate that "tiny" subsidy and hundreds of thousands of folks wouldn't have to pay the income tax. Cut out the waste and theft and no person would have to pay the income tax. Cut out the unconstitutional spending and we could cut many other taxes.
"His brief on the Import-Export Bank, an FDR-era boondoggle of trivial significance to anything, including the US taxpayer, is positioned as a complaint that we are massively subsidizing China. In fact, the subsidy is tiny,"
As someone who earns 24,000 a year and pays 2,000 a year in income taxes I find the characterization of a federal government program that has a budget of 1000 million dollars and can risk tens of thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds as "tiny" to be outrageous.
Eliminate that "tiny" subsidy and hundreds of thousands of folks wouldn't have to pay the income tax. Cut out the waste and theft and no person would have to pay the income tax. Cut out the unconstitutional spending and we could cut many other taxes.
"His brief on the Import-Export Bank, an FDR-era boondoggle of trivial significance to anything, including the US taxpayer, is positioned as a complaint that we are massively subsidizing China. In fact, the subsidy is tiny,"
As someone who earns 24,000 a year and pays 2,000 a year in income taxes I find the characterization of a federal government program that has a budget of 1000 million dollars and can risk tens of thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds as "tiny" to be outrageous.
Eliminate that "tiny" subsidy and hundreds of thousands of folks wouldn't have to pay the income tax. Cut out the waste and theft and no person would have to pay the income tax. Cut out the unconstitutional spending and we could cut many other taxes.
Wow. Whatever else can be said, I think this thread proves that Ron Paul's worst liabilities are his supporters. I can see why all the columnists would think he's a nutcase; anytime one of them takes him seriously enough to, y'know, argue with his policies rationally and like an adult, they must get thousands of these lunatics writing them saying things like "if I ever get laid off of my janitor position it looks like being a pseudo journalist doesn't have many requirements" and "the Neo-Cons are getting nervous and the slander has begun". It's not really fair to Dr. Paul, but I can see why people would think of him as nutty by association.
I think Paul has serious positions which deserve to be debated seriously (as Megan is doing here), but that's pretty hard as long as the legions of trolls are scorching the earth any time that shows signs of happening. The best thing most of his supoorters could do for him at the point is to just shut the fuck up and let the grownups talk.
Jamie wrote: ""So once it is written into the constitution it is, by definition, constitutional."
If it's illegal, it's not constitutional. There's no law, as passed by Congress, that states that you and I required to pay taxes on our income. As there is no law to go along with the so-called amendment, then the government is engaging in mere force and fraud to take our money and property.
It's simple thuggery.
Show me the law, passed by Congress, that states that you and I are required to pay income taxes.
Not the IRS code, mind you. The law.
Anthony, can you answer this question:
Why do you defend an unjust and immoral power to take our money and property?"
OK--the Constitution determines what is constitutional. If it's in the Constitutional, it's constitutional. It's not a so-called amendment---read what the Constitutional has to say about how to amend the Constitutional (Article V I believe, but you Paulites are constitutional experts after 5 minutes of youtube videos, so you should no that). The amendment passed.
Now, paying taxes is hardly immoral. It's the membership dues of living in what is really a pretty good society. Why do I defend it? I like roads.
Kim, you take a reasonable position, but Paul gives credence to conspiracy theories such as the "Nafta superhighway" and "N. American Union." He attracts his supporters for a reason:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070827/hayes
Kim Scarborough,
Your mentally minuscule assertion is abhorrent.
It lacks all the adult behavior that it claims to represent.
The topics of Ron Paul are difficult. They are not so simple as to be viewed by only one direction.
If you are to judge Ron Paul by his supporters then you truly are juvenile. Someone's Associates Should Not Influence In Totality An Opinion.
There is more needed in your education. If you disagree; then disagree. Insult is a last resort of frustration.
There is a much greater scope of data that you and the author are not considering in your judgment. Your arguments are not totally hollow but ring with selected data in support of particular outcome that can neither be verified or upheld as absolute.
I am sure that no matter what happens to Government people will not stop breathing.
I would prefer not to give my money to people who spend it foolishly. Government does nothing well. Fraud, Waste, and Abuse are inherent in all bureaucracies. The Larger, The Greater.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
Anthony Cantor,
Your Roads will get paid for by the Taxes that do not have to go to Washington before they have to be begged for and skimmed.
Socialism Sucks When Scaled Beyond The Community.
If we did not have so much Empire to maintenance and so many failed Departments to support, we could live much better.
Government does not have to do everything for us. When they do they ten to have no accountability and are ambivalent in care for spending.
I trust no other candidate, save Ron Paul, for doing what he intends. His policies may not be able to be Ideally achieved; But It Is A Move In The Right Direction.
We Will be bankrupt, as the Russians were, If Ron Paul Is Not Elected.
Things are shaping up to be a Global Catastrophe Economically.
It Is A Case Of "Baton Down The Hatches; Or Sink".
You wrote that depressions were worse in the 19th century and the gold standard did not protect us from them. Some if not all of the business cycles were caused by deviations from the gold standard. The inflationary financing of the War of 1812 was certainly the cause of the recession of 1816. The government suspended bank payments “in specie”, effectively giving banks the right to steal. In turn, the banks financed the government’s unpopular war. The gold standard will only work in the absence of laws that force people to accept bank notes in lieu of gold.
Anthony Cantor,
"Jeff, there is slavery going on in the world. Comparing it to us paying a tax is pretty disgusting."
Not paying "a tax", paying a forced income tax on the fruits of my labor. Stay on subject!
I'm not comparing outright slavery to our situation. The degree of slavery they face as opposed to ours is tragic. Just because we are less slave makes it okay? Or not slave enough to recognise it? What is wrong with you?
You seem to be yet another that thinks that the whole pie chart above is paid by the income tax alone, that that unavoidable tax pays for EVERYTHING! What is wrong with you?
I don't mind a little socialism for those that need it but not when the funds necessary for it are extracted from people by force. You seem OK with the use of force, I am not!
If these programs cannot be funded by avoidable taxes then we should not be doing it. By the way I never heard of retirees eating cat food before social security came to be. My grandmother would be eating cat food if she didn't have a job, and her family to help, because her SS check is a joke!
The great depression was a result of uninformed, irresponsible citizenship that allowed private banks to control our currency. PERIOD. It was the excuse used to introduce the socialistic programs, that we can't pay for today, that your revere so much.
"And yet you have no problems with "socialised defense," "socialised police," "socialised roads." You see, that's what taxes do; "
What the hell is socialised defense?
Which taxes pay for these things? My local sheriffs and city police are not dependant on federal funds.. Local sales and property taxes are fine my arguement is with federal "income" taxes only. Most of the roads I travel are locally funded as well.
Why is it that when someone rails against the income tax people think they are against all taxes?
You make it sound like if the federal government isn't doing it then it will never get done. Ironic that the opposite is more often true! There were roads before the feds got involved and there was no income tax paying for them!
Which society are you referring to? I don't remember volunteering. Society is not compulsory, if it is then there is another word for it! A word you seem to take an exception to, slave.
Now go earn me some unemployment benifits and don't forget to waive your 5th amendment rights when you sign your 1040EZ! Yeah, it really is voluntary! Trust me.
Brad:
You basically prove my point. Anyway, please rest assured that I'm trying really really hard not to judge Ron Paul because of supporters like, well, you.
And here's a handy tip for you, free of charge: randomly capitalizing words does not make you more convincing (assuming that's your goal). Also, three exclamation points does not make a statement triply impressive.
I don't see the relevance of disputing whether the federal income tax is legal or not. If I'm not mistaken, Ron Paul doesn't mention this point when discussing his desire to do away with it, and the subject matter here is Ron Paul's platform...isn't it?
He did mention the film America : Freedom to Fascism in his Meet The Press interview, and I believe he appeared in the film itself, so I'm sure he is well aware of all the debate surrounding the issue. I'm sure he knows all about the numerous court cases, where many Americans have been acquitted on all charges of income tax evasion, due to the question of the accepted definition of the word "income".
Maybe he recognizes the gray area that this subject occupies, and feels there are enough good reasons to abolish the tax, without getting into all this(see rants above).
Maybe he realizes that if he were to be elected President, he could go straight to the supreme court and have them make a decision on what is the accepted definition, once and for all, citing all the things that posters have cited in this thread. That is, if he feels it is necessary to help him accomplish his goal. Or maybe he doesn't think it IS necessary.
But until he starts talking about the income tax in this particular way, I don't see what purpose it serves to sit at a computer and scream your fingers off about it.
The US constitution is a contract between the federal government and the states written to restrain the fed from encroaching on our rights.
People, as in "we the people" equals "state" as in New York state.
So how is it that the constitution, meant to restrict the feds, now imposes on us, the People of the states? This contract has been so distorted and misconstrued that it almost is a useless peice of paper.
My bad, I was mistaken to belief that we are the "people". In reality we are "14th amendment US citizens" by contract. SUBJECTS of the UNITED STATES a.k.a. federal government.
The 14th amendment was the vehicle of our ruin! Never before the 14th was a people of one of the several states subject to federal jurisdiction.
Enjoy your chains however light they may be!
jeff, see this and the rest of the FAQ
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#slavery
here's the rest, a great rebuttal to "tax protesters"
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html
"Paul gives credence to conspiracy theories such as the "Nafta superhighway"
Anthony, you'd better tell the government of Alberta that it's just a "conspiracy". They have a honkin' big map of the NAFTA Superhighway:
http://www.infratrans.gov.ab.ca/2760.htm
Jamie, Montana also passed a resolution against it; it's still just as much a conspiracy theory as the anti-tax nonsense posted here. Read the article I posted.
Jon...your reading of globalsecurity.org military budget is off quite a bit. Your own link states that the U.S. spends $623 billion and that the rest of the world (not including the U.S.) spends 500 billion. This means that the U.S. spends $123 billion more than the rest of the world combinted (not $477 billion). Secondly, the $623 billion is the FY08 budget and the $500 billion is a 2004 estimate so the comparision is inexact especially when nations such as China and Russia are estimates.
Secondly, how much do you think could be saved by bringing our troops home (not including Iraq or Afganistan which would net a substantial savings I suppose)? They would still have to be paid, equipped, and trained which is the real expense of having them in Europe and Asia.
"conspiracy theory"
I've read too much history to be solely a coincidence theorist anymore.
"Jamie, Montana also passed a resolution against it; it's still just as much a conspiracy theory as the anti-tax nonsense posted here" Anthony Cantor
I read an article recently wherein a congressman from Oklahoma stated that fourteen states have passed resolutions against it. He also added that the plans they were presented with from the federal government were actually titled "The NAFTA Superhighway".
I read the article you posted. All I can say is "What the f**k?"
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why efficient transportation (in the form of a Mexico-to-Canada highway) is a problem for free-trade libertarians.
Anthony,
Cites out of context, the favorite weapon of attorneys and politicians. I've been to Evans site before, I have him in my favorites in my self "serving lawyers" folder. I don't see the law that obligates me to pay, specifically, a tax on my labor on his site?
If the 16th amendment authorizes the Fed to do it then congress must write a law then it must be codified in the US code and enacted in the Code of Federal Regulations. Unambigous and clear obligation to pay. Could you point it out to me please? No one else has including the IRS!
I do love this cite on the link you provided.
“If the requirements of the tax laws were to be classed as servitude, they would not be the kind of involuntary servitude referred to in the Thirteenth Amendment.”
I'll bite, what kind of involuntary servitude would it be classified as?
14th amendment is an amendment to a contract. You are only a US citizen if you contract to be one. Birth certificates, SSN, Selective service and the like. None of these thing are obligatory. If you accept the benifits then you are liable for the duties. Income tax is one of those duties and I agree with the courts in fact.
My objection is that damn few know the true nature of the contract, for if they did income tax collection would grind to a halt and the money hungry government knows it. One of my favorite legal maxims is "let he who would be decieved, be decieved" and apparently it is the governments favorite as well.
OMNES LICENTIAM HABERE HIS QUÆ PRO SE INDULTA SUNT, RENUNCIARE.
“All persons shall have liberty to renounce those privileges which have been conferred for their benefit.”
But just not here in the land of the free? I am often amused by those who think so many things are obligatory. I haven't registered my autos in some time and I travel in them everyday. I don't do a lot of things that others do and it saves me thousands of FRNs every year. I have never been pulled over or cited despite over 2 dozen patrol cars tailgaiting me to read the notice in leiu of DMV plates. But most people think you have to have a licence and registration to own and travel in a car.
I don't consent to contract over something that is a fundamental right and apparently authority agrees with me. With taxes I refuse to contract foolishly especially when waiving my rights are involved. Of course you and the IRS disagree with me on this. Thank god you are not in government and the IRS is just a collection agency.
Perhaps my arguement is not one best aimed at the government as much as it is one aimed at the blind ignorance of the population at large. Government is just a reflection of that population. I find it no coincidence that the Federal government took over education in the forties when the income tax went nation wide.
I check in tomorrow, with great anticipation, to see that unambigous US Code or CFR that creates a obligation for me to pay a tax from my labor.
Peace - Jeff
rhys,
The quotes you give are plainly concerned with whether or not capital gains on the sale of assets used in the production of goods ("capital assets") should be counted as "income." The Supreme Court concluded that they are, and that only the gains, not the whole sale price, should be counted as "income." And indeed, taxpayers do get to subtract the basis from the sale price when they sell an asset, even one which is not itself profit-producing.
But, see, labor is not an asset. Accordingly, taxation of labor does not require the subtraction of any basis.
Incidentally, the quotes you provide give no evidence that the interpretation of "income" is a constitutional issue. The Court seems concerned that the word "income" should be the same in all statutes. I am unaware of any constitutional reason that Congress could not, if it wished, declare "income" to be the same as revenue, with no subtraction of basis at all.
Jeff, Rob Lyman and David Nieporent posted everything you demand above.
"I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me why efficient transportation (in the form of a Mexico-to-Canada highway) is a problem for free-trade libertarians."
Rob,
It isn't so much that building a kick ass super highway is objectionable. I would love to have one that ran through L.A.. The problem is the contract that goes along with it that infringes on soviergnty and the eminent domain issues, thanks civil rights act, that go along with it. The Fed is treating or contracting away our self determination as a Union to foreign interest, like NAFTA did. If we were solely funding this, without the eminent domain issues, within our boarders I doubt there would be much objection. But that doesn't seem like the case and many are upset. I think this is another symptom of the growing distrust of government in general. Who here trusts that everything they do is in our best interest? Anyone? Hello? ;^)
Jeff
Unambigous and clear obligation to pay. Could you point it out to me please? No one else has including the IRS!
26 U.S.C. sec. 1:
"There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
[various types of people, of which you are one]
a tax determined in accordance with the following table: [table]"
26 U.S.C. sec. 63 (no link to dodge moderation):
"“taxable income” means gross income minus the deductions allowed by this chapter"
26 U.S.C. sec.62:
"gross income means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items; "
So...there is a tax on taxable income, which is defined as gross income - deductions. Gross income is thereafter defined as "all income from whatever source derived," explicitly including "compensation for services," i.e. wages.
Beyond that, not even an an eye doctor can cure willful blindness.
Now if I could ask a meta-question of Jeff and rhys: why would you believe that the government could just sort of ignore the law and get away with it? If the Supreme Court says "You must do X," and then the government goes and doesn't do X, don't you think the Court would get a little peeved? In like manner, if there is no obligation to pay tax because Congress screwed up the tax code, don't you think Congress would just turn around tomorrow and pass a correction?
Jeff, Evans addresses your contention that SSN in voluntary here
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#SSN
as for a law, try the Internal Revenue Code.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#law
It is weird that it is easier to believe in a vast conspiracy consisting of every judge who has ever ruled on this issue, Congress, etc., than to consider that you might just be wrong
IF the federal income tax is actually an illegal tax, would that mean that Al Capone was incarcerated illegally?
Anthony,
Thanks for pointing that out.
26 U.S.C. § 1 is the clear unambigous law? Sad.
It really doesn't take much to convince you does it? The IRS loves "persons" like you. HAHA
"all of those are "laws passed by Congress."
Statutes are what they are.
Statutes have the force and effect of law within a society but they are not law. Laws apply to all people while statutes only apply to persons within their shere. The income tax is constitutional when properly applied.
The statutes he quoted only say "U.S.C. § 1. Tax imposed". On who? A person. Individual and person are the same.
Are you a person in regards to federal law?
A "person" is a commercial entity that you may or may not have. You are only a person in regards to contract.
Have a drivers licence? You are a person under the motor vehicle act, statutes. It doesn't make you a person for any other legal purpose.
Have a SSN? Then for contractual purposes you are a 14th amendment US citizen (person) and thus subject to a tax!
It is contract law that only applies to certain persons. Not everyone. If applied beyond its contractual limitations is is unconstitutional.
This is where the word "voluntary" keeps coming up from in regards to the income tax.
But I am probably wasting my time trying to convince you.
The constitution before the 14th amendment had no force over the people of the states. Contract is the only constitutional method the Feds can use to bring you into their jurisdiction.
Think about it and take care.
Jeff, that shows a pretty glaring ignorance of constitutional jurisprudence and the history of constitutional interpretation. Evans addresses your 14-amendment point and others.
"The quotes you give are plainly concerned with whether or not capital gains on the sale of assets used in the production of goods ("capital assets") should be counted as "income." The Supreme Court concluded that they are, and that only the gains, not the whole sale price, should be counted as "income." And indeed, taxpayers do get to subtract the basis from the sale price when they sell an asset, even one which is not itself profit-producing.
But, see, labor is not an asset. Accordingly, taxation of labor does not require the subtraction of any basis." -Rob Lyman
'Income may be defined as the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined,’ provided it be understood to include profit gained through a sale or conversion of capital assets." -Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)
More recently the Court has stated the matter even more broadly: it said that Congress intended the income tax statute to exercise "the full measure of its taxing power," so that the statute should be read to cover all income that may constitutionally be taxed, and it suggested that "income" would include all "accessions to wealth." Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co., 348 U.S. 246 (1955).
Some argue that if you could deduct anything from your wages, it would be the cost to you of your labor, not the value of your labor. But you didn't pay anything to own your own labor in the first place. Your basis is zero. So there's nothing to deduct.
But you should get to deduct the various costs you pay to be able to perform labor: the costs of your work clothes, transportation to work, the food you need to eat so that you can stay alive and keep working, etc. And some work expenses are indeed deductible. The tax laws don't allow deduction of many of these expenses, such as the basic cost of commuting to and from work, and certainly they don't allow the basic cost of food as a deduction, even though you need to eat to stay alive and work. (One reason for this is that it would be too difficult to distinguish the business expense of the food you need to eat for work purposes from the personal expense of the food you would eat whether you worked or not.)
Contrary to the government's hypothesis, it is not impossible to calculate the capital value of the factors of production for labor provided by natural persons, which must be equal to or greater than individual wage revenue. It is just impossible for the government to rationally decree a blanket capital value for the factors of production for all labor, which, by the way, is the ultimate goal of Communism. The U.S. government then goes on to achieve the Communist ideal of commandeering the control of the production factors of labor by decreeing that their capital value is $0! But logically, if the government can't rationally determine the monetary value of the production factors for labor; it can't rationally substantiate that the capital value is $0; and it must rely on the free market to set the price, which occurs as labor providers secure their wellbeing through their individual purchases of goods and services. In this way, it is easy to see that, while the actual unadjusted base expense to provide labor is different for every individual laborer, once these expenses are subtracted from the equally variable individual wage revenues, then the gross income from wages is always $0. Any adjustments then applied to the gross income of wage earners that results in a tax must be a direct tax and not an income tax.
I need my own blog. I think I am going to start one.
But you should get to deduct the various costs you pay to be able to perform labor
Well, maybe so; write your congressman. But you haven't offered any support for the notion that the Supreme Court says that you get to deduct the cost of staying alive. They do say, consistently, that you get to deduct the cost of assets from the sale price when calculating income.
Again: labor is not an asset, never mind a capital asset as you seem to think; it has no basis.
Individual and person are the same.
They are frequently different. A "person" may include corporations, associations, and other aggregations of people; an "individual" is always just a single natural human being. That would be why the "Tax imposed" section says "individual," because corporate taxes are calculated differently.
A "person" is a commercial entity that you may or may not have.
I'm going to have to ask for a cite to some sort of legal authority for this proposition. I gave you what I had; let's see what you've got.
Taking a broader view, when the Ron Paul carnival of 200 comments started, I called on our gracious hostess to not only attract gold bugs, many of whom are relatively respectable, but also to bring in the tax protesters and the redemption/UCC nuts, who have a higher entertainment value. It's nice to see that my call has been heeded.
Hey Rob, who are the the redemption/UCC nuts? They can't be as hilarious as the tax protestors and their twisted logic and wordplay...
Statutes have the force and effect of law within a society but they are not law.
There is not a single court in the entire English-speaking world which would agree with this sentence.
Anthony: Oh, yes they can. I need to get to bed. For a quick summary by a judge, read this opinion.
Or, google "contract trust account."
"Again: labor is not an asset, never mind a capital asset as you seem to think; it has no basis." -Rob Lyman
If labor is not an asset, why do I get payed for it?
Nobody will give me a thing of capital value for something without capital value. If a thing has a positive capital value, it is a capital asset. My labor is my personal property and is an asset with real value. And my proof, is the fact that I am able to trade my labor for a wage.
The basis of my labor is my survival/wellbeing which is not without real capital costs. The Federal government does not have the right to ignore these real capital costs as they are essential in order to determine income. The government does not have the right to decree what my costs are through the assignment of authorized deductions. Authorized deductions may only be assigned after a determination of income, not before. This is not my opinion, but is the definition of income as stated by the Supreme Court.
--------------------------------
I was so motivated by this exchange, I pieced together an article and created a blog. My site isn't sharp yet because I just put it up. I posted my argument there. Just click my name, if you are interested. Sorry you can't comment on it yet, I don't really know how to use the software yet, but I'll try to get comments up in the next couple days.
Thanks
A number of readers want me to really dive into Ron Paul's economic policies and explain why I don't like them.
Well, glad you are responding to all 6 of those requests.
Now that your over-inflated ego that thinks people are hanging on your every view of Ron Paul is satisfied -- how about getting back to reporting what is happening on the Paul campaign.
The 14th amendment isn't a contract. The constitution isn't a contract. You're a US citizen if you're born or naturalized in the United States. Laws are obligatory, not contractual. You don't have to accept social security checks, but your obligation to obtain a social security number and pay the taxes remains unchanged regardless. Statutes are laws. Did you flunk English class? Look up "synonym" in the dictionary. (Is Merriam-Webster part of the conspiracy also?)The Constitution is not a contract. The 14th Amendment is not a contract. Citizenship is not a contract. The government's jurisdiction over you does not depend on contract. Your obligation to obey statutes -- i.e., laws -- does not depend on your agreeing to do so. Look, I know you want to believe these things. But wanting really hard to believe something doesn't make it so. They have drugs to treat conditions like that; you may want to look into them. Irwin Schiff is a fraud. Bill Benson is a fraud. Some of the other people in the tax protester movement are just nutjobs. And other people believe it out of self-interest, because you don't want to pay taxes and because it's fun to think you've discovered that other people aren't smart enough to discover.
//////
Perhaps you should. But that's a policy argument, not a constitutional argument. Write to Congress and get them to change the law. (Of course, if they responded, they might write back and point out the personal exemption on your taxes constitutes the deduction you're looking for.)"The Constitution is not a contract. The 14th Amendment is not a contract. Citizenship is not a contract. The government's jurisdiction over you does not depend on contract. Your obligation to obey statutes -- i.e., laws -- does not depend on your agreeing to do so."
Government is government by consent. A contract is a consensual agreement. If a majority (or even a sizable portion) of Americans no longer give their consent to the way that affairs are being managed, then the government no longer has the consent of the governed and the government has become, by definition, despotism. Granted, it's a soft despotism (per de Tocqueville) but despotism nonetheless. The consensual agreement is no longer valid and the governed have a right to eject the despotic minority.
For instance: A majority of the population wants out of Iraq, yet a minority keeps us there. This war is being prosecuted by despots. We could call them soft despots if it makes anyone feel better.
Another for instance: A majority of people would abolish the income tax. Yet it's kept in place by minority opinion.
Apologists for despotism will counter with the usual arguments. I'd ask them to read these first before making such lame appeals:
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles/Landes_Elections.htm
http://www.votefraud.org/how_a_private_company_counts_our_votes.htm
rhys,
Assets are things; labor is not a thing. A corporate balance sheet shows assets such as cash, land, securties, etc., but does not show the value of the labor its employees are expected to perform, because labor, unlike those things, is not something that can be held or owned.
I'm not sure what you mean by "capital value," but it is certianly possible to trade cash for something that is not a capital asset. Capital assets are those which are used repeadedly and over the long term in pursuit of profit. So for instance, a shopkeeper's store is a capital asset, but his inventory, although composed of assets, is not composed of capital assets. Yet you would certainly trade cash for inventory.
Hey Tommy - Here you go from Iowa:
"Three Republicans, former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Texas Rep. Ron Paul, registered 8 percent in the poll."
And this from New Hampshire:
"According to the latest CNN/WMUR New Hampshire Primary Poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, McCain has overtaken Giuliani for second place behind Romney, who has maintained a steady lead with 34 to 32 percent for the last two months.
McCain has 22 percent of the likely Republican voters -- up from 18 percent -- a week ago, while Giuliani has dropped from 19 to 16 percent since last week. Huckabee, who leads polls in Iowa, is fourth with 10 percent and Texas Congressman Ron Paul is fifth with 5 percent.
Anything else to know about the Paul campaign?
Hey anti-tax nuts: at least Jeff Jacoby loves you!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/12/30/a_resolution_abolish_the_income_tax/
"anti-tax nuts"
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -Gandhi
Jamie--sometimes you just get laughed at.
Anthony, you'll stop laughing after Iowa and New Hampshire.
As I've said before, I'm really gearing up for a stabbed-in-the-back legend after Paul wins neither of those states. You guys are so convinced he'll win that you'll only be able to explain his loss through foul play. That's a pretty dangerous mindset.
Just keep laughing. The mindset that you're displaying has thus far been proven wrong for the past seven years.
I expect that trend to continue.
Jamie, even Ross Perot, who wasn't even as nutty as Paul, who gathered nut-cases around him, still couldn't win. Just because a lot of you anti-tax nuts hang out on the internet, doesn't mean that there are proportionately a lot of you in the population.
"The mindset that you're displaying has thus far been proven wrong for the past seven years"
I have no idea what that means. My mindset is that candidates with no shot don't win. Yes, they said that about person x who won, but they also said it about lots of other guys who didn't. Remember President du Pont? Me neither.
Ron Paul has the broadest base and broadest appeal of any politician in 50 years. That's what makes the usurpers and their apologists nervous.
We're not nervous. We're annoyed that guys who discovered politics 5 minutes ago make these unhinged assertions that a)aren't true (broad base and appeal? the conspiracy community is big on the internet, but nowhere else) and b)will only lead to more dangerous assertions when your wild predictions don't come true, of the kind that we actual historians have seen over and over.
"guys who discovered politics 5 minutes ago"
I'm 46 years old. I've been a lifelong follower of American politics and politicians. I'm just tired of people that don't bother to think for themselves and take opinion that is spoonfed to them by the proven liars in the government and the media.
Only a fool or a child keeps believing proven liars. Which are you?
"A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve."
Patriotism
by Ron Paul
Before the U.S. House of Representatives, May 22, 2007
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul388.html
The east is red, the sun is rising.
America has brought forth a Doctor Paul.
He amasses fortune for the people,
Hurrah, he is the people's great savior.
Doctor Paul loves the people,
He is our guide,
To build a new America,
Hurrah, he leads us forward!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_East_is_Red
"Only a fool or a child keeps believing proven liars."
Sounds like a pretty good description of guys who hold fast to anti-tax myths and gibberish, no matter how often it is refuted. I know you want there to be a magic bullet that proves that everything you don't like is the result of lies and betrayal, but you don't have one and neither does Dr. Superhighway. (And for a guy who makes insulting claims to be the only candidate to care about the Constitution, he doesn't understand it very well at all.)
I was trying to give you some backhanded credit with the 5-minutes crack, as it is hard to believe that someone who has followed politics for some time would reach conclusions you do.
"it is hard to believe that someone who has followed politics for some time would reach conclusions you do."
As American politics is a history of corruption and betrayal by a few towards the many, I have an equally difficult time understanding how anyone with even a summary knowledge of current statecraft and mediacraft could reach any conclusion in favor of the status quo.
"Perhaps you should [be able to subtract personal expenses from wages before making authorized adjustments]. But that's a policy argument, not a constitutional argument. Write to Congress and get them to change the law. (Of course, if they responded, they might write back and point out the personal exemption on your taxes constitutes the deduction you're looking for.)" -David Nieporent
No. By 'should' I don't mean the legislation is poorly written. By 'should', I mean the legislation that does not allow persons to calculate their income before making authorized adjustments violates the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, income is not revenue, it is profit that arises as a result of corporate activity.
----------------------------------
"Assets are things; labor is not a thing. A corporate balance sheet shows assets such as cash, land, securties, etc., but does not show the value of the labor its employees are expected to perform, because labor, unlike those things, is not something that can be held or owned." -Rob Lyman
A corporate balance sheet doesn't show the value of the labor its employees are expected to perform because that is not an asset of the corporation. The labor belongs to the employee until it is puchased by the corporation, at which time the purchase of the asset does appear on the corporate balance sheet as a cost no different than when a corporation buys advertising. The corporate balance sheet, by analogy, also doesn't show the value of the work yet to be performed by a computer. The value of the computer to the corporation can only be determined by the relationship of its cost, depreciation, and its ability to increase profit. Labor is only different in that its depreciation costs belong to the creator of the asset - the laborer.
Assets are not just things, they are anything of value including such ephemeral things as intellectual property and software code. I am not claiming that these things have value in themselves, but like labor, once they are put in the market, they have demonstrable capital value. As such, they are assets.
"Perhaps you should [be able to subtract personal expenses from wages before making authorized adjustments]. But that's a policy argument, not a constitutional argument. Write to Congress and get them to change the law. (Of course, if they responded, they might write back and point out the personal exemption on your taxes constitutes the deduction you're looking for.)" -David Nieporent
No. By 'should' I don't mean the legislation is poorly written. By 'should', I mean the legislation that does not allow persons to calculate their income before making authorized adjustments violates the Rights guaranteed by the Constitution. According to the Supreme Court, income is not revenue, it is profit that arises as a result of corporate activity.
----------------------------------
"Assets are things; labor is not a thing. A corporate balance sheet shows assets such as cash, land, securties, etc., but does not show the value of the labor its employees are expected to perform, because labor, unlike those things, is not something that can be held or owned." -Rob Lyman
A corporate balance sheet doesn't show the value of the labor its employees are expected to perform because that is not an asset of the corporation. The labor belongs to the employee until it is puchased by the corporation, at which time the purchase of the asset does appear on the corporate balance sheet as a cost no different than when a corporation buys advertising. The corporate balance sheet, by analogy, also doesn't show the value of the work yet to be performed by a computer. The value of the computer to the corporation can only be determined by the relationship of its cost, depreciation, and its ability to increase profit. Labor is only different in that its depreciation costs belong to the creator of the asset - the laborer.
Assets are not just things, they are anything of value including such ephemeral things as intellectual property and software code. I am not claiming that these things have value in themselves, but like labor, once they are put in the market, they have demonstrable capital value. As such, they are assets.
Sorry for the double post, my computer froze.
I don't understand the anti-anti-tax haters. I don't owe the government anything, and neither do any of you. I don't mind paying for things I need, but I don't need most of the government for which I currently pay; I'm sure that most of you would agree with me. I am the sovereign and the government the servant, not the other way around.
For instance, look at a list of the agencies in the Department of Justice, how many of these are necessary for real justice?:
* Antitrust Division
* Asset Forfeiture Program
* Attorney General
* Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
* Bureau of Justice Assistance (OJP)
* Bureau of Justice Statistics (OJP)
* Civil Division
* Civil Rights Division
* Community Capacity Development Office (OJP) (includes Weed and Seed and American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk)
* Community Oriented Policing Services - COPS
* Community Relations Service
* Criminal Division
* Diversion Control Program (DEA)
* Drug Enforcement Administration - DEA
* Environment and Natural Resources Division
* Executive Office for Immigration Review
* Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys
* Executive Office for U.S. Trustees
* Federal Bureau of Investigation - FBI
* Federal Bureau of Prisons - BOP
* Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States
* INTERPOL -- U.S. National Central Bureau
* Justice Management Division
* National Criminal Justice Reference Service (OJP)
* National Drug Intelligence Center
* National Institute of Corrections (FBOP)
* National Institute of Justice (OJP)
* National Security Division - NSD
* Office of the Associate Attorney General
* Office of the Attorney General
* Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management
* Office of the Chief Information Officer
* Office of the Deputy Attorney General
* Office of Dispute Resolution
* Office for Domestic Preparedness - now part of the
Department of Homeland Security
* Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
* Office of Information and Privacy
* Office of the Inspector General
* Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison
* Office of Justice Programs
* Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention - OJJDP (OJP)
* Office of Legal Counsel
* Office of Legal Policy
* Office of Legislative Affairs
* Office of the Pardon Attorney
* Office of Professional Responsibility
* Office of Public Affairs
* Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and Tracking - SMART (OJP)
* Office of Special Counsel
* Office of the Solicitor General
* Office of Tribal Justice
* Office for Victims of Crime (OJP)
* Office on Violence Against Women
* Privacy and Civil Liberties Office
* Professional Responsibility Advisory Office
* Tax Division
* U.S. Attorneys
* U.S. Marshals Service
* U.S. Parole Commission
* U.S. Trustee Program
rhys, you are choosing to define "asset" differently than pretty much anyone else. That's certainly fine with me, but it means your reading of Supreme Court cases is warped because you mean something different by "asset" than they do. All of the cases you have cited concern the sale of things, not labor, and the subtraction of the basis from the sale price.
You can't just change the meaning of a word and then expect everyone else to conform to your idiosyncratic definition.
Really, if you're right, why haven't the courts agreed with you? Why should the Supreme Court tolerate such flagrant disobedience?
I don't understand the anti-anti-tax haters. I don't owe the government anything, and neither do any of you.
I think it is because your view is, frankly, a bit simplistic. Government exists to provide a great deal of services across the total range of the population. Government is not an ala carte service where you can pick and choose, individually, what you participate in - maybe in some sort of idealized world that would be the case, but in our reality it is not.
So you claim to not "owe the government anything" - roads? Safe streets? Passport control to keep out all those illegals everyone is so concerned about? What about the NIH? A huge amount of basic research comes out of NIH research - so you can't take any medications that came out of that. Don't fly an airplane because that's controlled by the Federal Government - which you don't owe anything to. Your house gets destroyed by a fire - and insurance companies long ago stopped insuring against fire in your area - well, don't think about taking the government help after they declare your area a national disaster zone. Oh and don't call the National Guard when the looters take what remains of your possessions - because you didn't pay for any of it.
My problem with this kind of thinking is that it is so self-centered - if people feel this way, then go off to the mountains of Canada or some other place where they can't track you down - have no connection to the world or other people. Care nothing for anyone else. Only allow corporations, who "know better" to use their freed tax dollars to let the market work. Who cares about the outcomes as long as I am ok? You can choose to live in that world, but most Americans (and myself) would not.
Does this mean that I don't agree that the government could be spending our money? I absolutely believe it could - so in terms of the list you have provided of government agencies - here's a simple test: how many of them exist to fund our useless war on drugs and the supposed war on terror? Eliminate all those - reduce the military along with it. Effectively destroy the military industrial complex.
Lastly, fix our voting system so that we can have viable alternative parties and a sound election process. You want a place where I'd love to see the Federal government get involved? How about in elections?
But this broad-stroke "get completely rid of the government" - that I just don't get - show me one working example of it. There isn't one as far as I know - sounds more like the world portrayed in that stupid show Jericho after the bombs are dropped.
DMWR:
You do not understand LIBERTY. Our FOUR fathers were all-knowing, gold-loving, LIBERTY lovers. And look where we are today.
You say we need roads, I say I'll walk through the woods to the next town. You say we need passport control, I say you do not understand LIBERTY! You say, What about the NIH?, I say once LIBERTY is unleashed unfettered capitalism will produce our research. You do not understand because you have not read fourth-hand tracts on the works of von Mises and Rothbard--both of whom understand LIBERTY and the value of GOLD. Fiat money was the RUIN of Rome and GREECE and EVERY great civilization! So, I take off my tinfoil hat to you, and wish you the best. Until you know the truth, until you have been initiated into the secret wisdom of GOLD and LIBERTY you will not understand the TRUTH and right-thinking of Dr. Paul.
You do not understand LIBERTY. Our FOUR fathers were all-knowing, gold-loving, LIBERTY lovers. And look where we are today.
Uh, these were the wealthy land owners who owned slaves and built an economy around it?
Even given that, if you look at the history of the US, it first becomes a powerful country - it is with the unification of our debt by Alexander Hamilton - this is one of the moves that allows the US to become a powerhouse vs. a collection of individual states with no bargaining power.
But I don't think you want to hear that - I think you keep capitalizing LIBERTY while changing the meaning every time. But hey, once you put that tinfoil hat back on, you'll realize that even if Paul gets elected he will be unable to destroy the government as you would seem to like!
Or maybe your post was a parody - but man, does it sound like religion!
I think the post was a parody. The "tinfoil hat" bit simply has to be parody.
"rhys, you are choosing to define "asset" differently than pretty much anyone else. That's certainly fine with me, but it means your reading of Supreme Court cases is warped because you mean something different by "asset" than they do." -Rob Lyman
I don't choose to define asset different than they do. I am using the same criteria of the definition of asset, income, and capital as the courts. Legislators have decided that human labor has no basis and its production is pure profit, yet the courts have always recognized that every form of revenue is associated with costs. The main argument of the legislators is that this revenue is real but the costs are not. But this is ridiculous. There is real capital value associated with the revenue from and cost of human labor.
Most people do not understand economics well enough to be aware of the arguments I am making. But I am right, and there will be court cases that will eventually vindicate me (assuming the system is not completely corrupt). I would look at "Murphy vs. IRS" for the most recent example of the point I am trying to make. But, it must be understood, cases in which legislation violates the Constitution may remain unchallenged indefinitely. There are no reasons why the Supreme Court must take any particular case over another.
My guess as to why the courts haven't ruled in my favor is because 1) the courts are pretty conservative and pretty pro-government, of which the income tax represents a huge government interest. 2) Unlike corporations, individuals do not have the ability to deluge the legal system with cases that would cause the government to take notice. As an correlary I would point the fact that the Courts have been very liberal when upholding the First and Fifth Amendment, but very stingy when upholding the Second and Tenth Amendment.
Corporations are more protected legally than individuals because they wield more political influence due to their special abilities to produce profit by lobbying for it (and their ability to grease the wheels of the machine with money). If it was a benefit of corporations to protect individual rights, what I am arguing would already be codified by legislation or court rulings.
I have scoured the Constitution and economics texts, but have yet to find a reason why I am wrong. Of couse, the legislators could simply annul my argument by passing an Amendment to the Constitution which allows a DIRECT TAX on individuals without regard to census or enumeration. But as it stands, income has a specific meaning and they are collecting, at least in part, what amounts to a direct tax by not allowing the subtraction of costs before the application of authorized adjustments.
Plus, would someone who had actually read "fourth-hand tracts on the works of von Mises and Rothbard" actually call them that?
I too have "scoured the Constitution and economics texts, but have yet to find a reason why I am wrong." Thank God for the internet tubes and Dr. Paul--but for them I would never have discovered the secret truths of LIBERTY and GOLD.
"roads? Safe streets? Passport control to keep out all those illegals everyone is so concerned about? What about the NIH? A huge amount of basic research comes out of NIH research - so you can't take any medications that came out of that. Don't fly an airplane because that's controlled by the Federal Government - which you don't owe anything to. Your house gets destroyed by a fire - and insurance companies long ago stopped insuring against fire in your area - well, don't think about taking the government help after they declare your area a national disaster zone. Oh and don't call the National Guard when the looters take what remains of your possessions - because you didn't pay for any of it." -dmwr
When I say that I don't owe the government anything, I am not claiming that I don't think we should have a government. I am simply claiming that the goernment has no inherent right to my private property.
By analogy, I might say, I don't owe the Grocery Industry anything. Am I correct? If I do owe the Grocery Industry something just for their existence, then they should be allowed to just send me a yearly bill for their services regardless of whether I use their services, right?
When I say I don't owe the government anything, I am not claiming that I should not pay for the services I consent to, what I am claiming is that the government does not have a pre-existing claim to my wealth due soley to the name of their organization.
If you are correct, and you do owe the government something, then they would be right to take your money even in the case where the didn't provide any services at all.
When I say I don't owe the government anything, I am not claiming that I should not pay for the services I consent to, what I am claiming is that the government does not have a pre-existing claim to my wealth due soley to the name of their organization.
If you are correct, and you do owe the government something, then they would be right to take your money even in the case where the didn't provide any services at all.
Again, you're living in a dream world - if you belong in the country, you pay the taxes (unless you're smart/rich/corrupt enough to get out of them).
You can argue all kinds of technicalities (definition of assets, etc.) but it's a silly argument - there are just about no "real" governments and countries that function this way.
Is it just that you want a law in the Constitution that explicitly says "we can take your stuff?" or would you propose to make income taxes even more complicated by allowing a million types of deductions? Or would you argue that we should get rid of it altogether? And if you argue that last one, how would the US government continue to function?
It's like your screaming for something that is completely impossible. Look around the world - you see any go ahead and find me a major country where what you're describing is implemented.
" I am the sovereign and the government the servant, not the other way around."
Maybe you should claim sovereign immunity when they prosecute you for tax evasion.
"Is it just that you want a law in the Constitution that explicitly says "we can take your stuff?" or would you propose to make income taxes even more complicated by allowing a million types of deductions? Or would you argue that we should get rid of it altogether? And if you argue that last one, how would the US government continue to function?" -dmwr
There is already provisions in the Constitution that provide for the Federal government to 'take you stuff". But, there are certain processes that the Federal government must follow to legally 'take your stuff'. To violate these processess is a violation of the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution, which States (in part):
"...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I would argue, that the income tax is justified for coporations, which operate by government charter, are profit accumulation machines, and owe their existence to the state as opposed to individuals, which are sovereign by inalienable right. I would argue that the illegal personal 'income' tax only generates about one third of Federal revenue, and the Federal government should be brought into compliance with the Constituton.
I am a stickler for the law. I figure that it is fair that when I am violating the law by speeding, the government has a right to fine me. I pay my speeding tickets. But when the government violates the law by illegally leveling a direct tax on me, since we can't fine the government, we have the right to 'just compensation'.
I don't think we should have no government, I just think they should be equally bound by the law as me. Selfish? No - Justice!
Anthony Cantor:
Maybe you should discover the secret of GOLD--if America does not elect Dr. Paul, all praise be to him for he understands the secret of GOLD, then we will have finally lost our LIBERTY. Yes, the LIBERTY won by our foresightful FOUNDING FATHERS, who instituted a secret clause in the CONSTITUTION decreeing that Amendments 14 and 16 would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL, but only those wearing (aluminum) tinfoil hats and understanding the secret of GOLD would understand.
So it just comes down to interpretation - as many other here have already demonstrated, there is clearly some that believe the basis already exists in the law. You do not. You're a stickler for the law, but really you're a stickler for the law as you interpret it.
Therein lies the issue - but from my point of view reading your arguments vs. those of others on the blog, I think your arguments are weak, and, at the end of the day, meaningless - every government in the world (as far as I know) levies taxes from the people. If you don't believe in it, then move someplace where those rules don't apply - and let us know when you've found one that allows that.
"Maybe you should claim sovereign immunity when they prosecute you for tax evasion." -Anthony Cantor
What legal tax did I evade? And, what income do I produce? They will never prosecute me for tax evasion because they can never prove that I owe taxes. I am not sneaky; I do not lie; I play their game; The tax system is set up to tax most people, not all people.
I fail to generate taxable income; therefore I am sovereign and have no need to declare so in my defense.
Thinking about society as an a-la-carte menu and prancing about declaring yourself sovereign just seems childish. Plus, it has been laughed out of court time and time again.
I fail to generate taxable income; therefore I am sovereign and have no need to declare so in my defense.
Have fun in jail - not really much else left to say really.
"Plus, it has been laughed out of court time and time again."
Those are only the pretend courts that the masses use, sheep like you Cantor, the ones that don't know about the secret clause in the CONSTITUTION decreeing that Amendments 14 and 16 would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The real courts, staffed by justices who know the secret of GOLD and who have issued secret decisions, have deemed initiates in the secret of GOLD sovereign.
"Have fun in jail" -dmwr
You don't understand. I have only generated taxable 'income' twice in my life. Both times I paid, not because the government was right, but because it is cheaper to pay them than fight them. But you want to ignore me because it makes you feel better about spending 30% of your life toiling for...a War in Iraq? The Patriot Act? Bridges to nowhere? The national debt? the Federal Reserve? No Child Left Behind? The IRS?
Well, I'm glad you are happy paying for the excellent services we have been rendered by our Federal government. I am glad that you have decided to pay my share too. Maybe one day you will realize that it is not really fair that people like me mooch off people like you, and you will realize that there is no way to stop me by passing more laws; I do not produce what the government calls income. Maybe some day you will get upset enough to vote for change, and make me work for a living. Hopefully, that will occur this election cycle.
Vote Ron Paul.
We understand that you think this, just like you think the 16th amendment doesn't authorise a direct tax, or that filing violates your due-process rights. None of these things is true; you've wasted enough courts' time with them for that to be pretty clear.
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#individual
http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html#direct
and so on
"“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.”
That "whatever source derived" is a real flaw in your slaw, eh?
I do not produce what the government calls income. Maybe some day you will get upset enough to vote for change, and make me work for a living. Hopefully, that will occur this election cycle.
Vote Ron Paul.
If you think Ron Paul will enact what you are describing, you are seriously deluded. He is, at best, advocated a flat income tax - but even he has no intention of getting rid of income tax. And he is an advocate of selective deductions - so it's not even a "real" flat tax. I would, however, support either Ron or Dennis as President given a choice.
What you should really be upset about is not the tax code, but our continued flawed voting system. And no candidate is making that part of their platform which the real shocker after the issues with the 2000 and 2004 vote.
" I am the sovereign and the government the servant, not the other way around."
You know, it must be pretty hard to detest your society, and it must be comforting to imagine that that society has somehow been led astray and you represent its "true" incarnation. I do feel sympathy for the position you're in, but it doesn't magically make things true that aren't. Here's what federal courts have to say about this particular claim:
“Also basic to Mr. Sloan’ “freedom from income tax theory” is his contention that he is not a citizen of the United States, but rather, that he is a freeborn, natural individual, a citizen of the State of Indiana, and a “master”--not “servant”--of his government. As a result, he claims that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. This strange argument has been previously rejected as well. “All individuals, natural or unnatural, must pay federal income tax on their wages,” regardless of whether they requested, obtained or exercised any privilege from the federal government. Lovell [v. United States], 755 F.2d [517] at 519 [7th Cir. 1984]; cf. [United States v.] Studley, 783 F.2d [934] at 937 [9th Cir. 1986] (Studley’ argument that “she is not a ‘taxpayer’ because she is an absolute, freeborn and natural individual ... is frivolous. An individual is a ‘person’ under the Internal Revenue Code.”). Moreover, the tax code imposes a “direct nonapportioned [income] tax upon United States citizens throughout the nation, not just in federal enclaves,” such as postal offices and Indian reservations. United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 629 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 2022, 114 L.Ed.2d 108 (1991) (citing Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R., 240 U.S. 1, 12-19, 36 S.Ct. 236, 239-42, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1916)). Mr. Sloan’ proposition that he is not subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States is simply wrong.”
And
“Appellant challenges the district court’ jurisdiction by contending that because he is a state citizen, the United States government lacks the constitutional authority both to subject him to federal tax laws and to prosecute him for failing to comply with those laws. Citing to Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), appellant argues that as a white, natural born, state citizen, he is not subject to the taxing power of Congress. This argument is completely without merit. As this court has made clear in the past, claims that a particular person is ‘not a [federal] taxpayer because [he or] she is an absolute, free-born and natural individual’ constitutionally immune to federal laws is frivolous and, in civil cases, can serve as the basis for sanctions. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 937, n. 3 (9th Cir. 1986).”
I am using the same criteria of the definition of asset, income, and capital as the courts.
Then perhaps you would be so good as to provide a citation to a court case that agrees with your points. The ones you have cited so far concern the deduction of a basis from the sale of things.
Or perhaps you would consider consulting a dictionary, especially a legal dictionary, to determine whether labor is an asset.
My guess as to why the courts haven't ruled in my favor is because 1) the courts are pretty conservative and pretty pro-government, of which the income tax represents a huge government interest.
Perhaps so, but according to you, the Supreme Court has already ruled against the government. Why aren't the lower courts upholding that ruling? Why isn't the Supreme Court interested in upholding its own ruling?
2) Unlike corporations, individuals do not have the ability to deluge the legal system with cases that would cause the government to take notice
Apparenlty you have never worked at a court and had the pleasure of interacting with the serial pro-se litigants who do just that.
Rob, I checked out the UCC guys. Thanks for the heads up. They are truly one step beyond the anti-tax cult. I wonder why all the Paulites don't just send Paul the maximum donation via a bill of exchange drawn on their secret trust account.
"I wonder why all the Paulites don't just send Paul the maximum donation via a bill of exchange drawn on their secret trust account."
That shows how much you know Cantor. We don't recognize the government's ILLEGITMATE and ARBITRARY limitations on campaign finance. Dr. Paul understands the secret of GOLD, so he isn't bound by your finance "reform" "laws." Therefore we send DOCTOR Paul as much GOLD as we like! It is a FREE investment, done by FREE people, to a man who understand LIBERTY!
LIVE FREE or DIE!
26 USC Sec. 1 is the tax code. Pual supporters are bad for America because they are CLUELESS! ALmost as bad as the religious right cword that elected Bush. Way too naive for their own good.
does TYPING IN CAPS make you right? RON PAUL supporters SEEM to THINK SO.
Jason:
"does TYPING IN CAPS make you right? RON PAUL supporters SEEM to THINK SO."
Typing in caps doesn't make us right, the CONSTITUTION makes us right. Try reading it! LONG LIVE LIBERTY! LONG LIVE THE CONSTITUTION! LONG LIVE GOLD!
Kim Scarborough,
Your comment:
"You basically prove my point. Anyway, please rest assured that I'm trying really really hard not to judge Ron Paul because of supporters like, well, you.
And here's a handy tip for you, free of charge: randomly capitalizing words does not make you more convincing (assuming that's your goal). Also, three exclamation points does not make a statement triply impressive."
Are you such the Grammar Police that you value Symbolism Over Substance?
I would hope that you could develop the ability overcome you issue with presentation and focus on what is written. The content has more value than the presentation.
I am unconventional and not easily led. I would hope that you would be at least the latter. You have the Contrary Way, but seem to put focus on trivialities.
Views Untested Are Worthless.
Please look into the Fraud, Waste, And Abuse that we currently suffer from with our present Government. I suggest you look at the Governmental Accountability Office to start. Ron Paul is the only candidate who is talking with any substance of real change.
Economic Catastrophe is in motion. We will be sold to our enemies before we are over run by armies.
Paradigms can be painful to change.
Core Character Counts; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
Brad, it is you that is trying to make "presentation" matter by Randomly Capitalizing Words. Presumably you think this has certain effects; Kim was just telling you that it doesn't. Quite the opposite, actually, it makes you seem unhinged, er, or is that Unhinged?
P.S. Ron Paul feeding into your misapprehensions that you don't have to pay income tax and often misrepresenting the constitution doesn't show the "Core Character" (whatever that means) that you think it does.
You won't find a single court case, at the Supreme Court level or otherwise, in which the court said that individuals get to calculate their incomes the way you want to do.
What you can't do -- well, I suppose you can, but it has no legal merit -- is to cobble together words and sentences out of context from numerous different court cases interpreting numerous different laws to come up with some proposition that yet another law must mean what you wish it would mean.
But the way to abolish these agencies is to convince people that they aren't needed or are even immoral; it's not to find a magic code in which if you just say the right words in the right order, with the right capitalization and punctuation, the federal government will vanish in a puff of smoke. They're not vampires that can be held off by brandishing a cross and a copy of a 19th century Supreme Court decision.
"If it were up to me, I would abolish about 90% of the federal government, including many of the agencies you identified (although the DoJ itself is a legitimate agency)."
I agree. For those sentiments, I take my tinfoil hat off to you.
"But the way to abolish these agencies is to convince people that they aren't needed or are even immoral; it's not to find a magic code in which if you just say the right words in the right order, with the right capitalization and punctuation, the federal government will vanish in a puff of smoke."
Here is where you are wrong David. Please go and research the secret of GOLD! Please. If you care about LIBERTY, you must read fourth-hand pamphlets of Von Mises' later work and Rothbard and spend an inordinate amount of time on the internet spreading the WORD! Learn about the UNCONSTITUTIONAL nature of the 14th and 16th amendments! Learn how our FOUNDING FATHERS wanted us to preserve our LIBERTY! VOTE DOCTOR PAUL! JOIN us David. LEARN THE SECRET OF GOLD.
Tinfoil--last time it was our "FOUR FATHERS", or is that five?
Look Cantor, your grammar antics are typical of people who don't understand the CONSTITUTION or LIBERTY. I may make mistakes, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE TRUE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION, and I understand the secret of GOLD! Why don't you go and use some worthless fiat money to buy a copy of the CONSTITUTION and get more familiar with LIBERTY! Why not read what our FOUNDING FATHERS have said about our sacred LIBERTY? Or are you afraid to discover you and the rest of academia and the courts DON'T UNDERSTAND the CONSTITUTION?
VOTE RON PAUL!
Oops. I was thinking of your name typed "Anthony" instead of my usual comment name. I apologize.
VOTE RON PAUL!
tinfoil--if I use some liberty dollars (or LIBERTY DOLLARS) to buy you a copy of the constitution, along with a set of hooked on phonics, will you please actually read it?
And another thing, Cantor. There are MANY more than four FOUNDING FATHERS! (Shows what you know.) There are at least twelve! And when DOCTOR PAUL becomes President, there will be a thirteenth!
You know Cantor, you are just like my brother. He thinks that just because he studied law, and because he is a laywer, that he understands the Constitution. Well, he may make fun of me, but he obviously doesn't understand ANYTHING about the CONSTITUTION--because he doesn't understand that the 14th and 16th amendments ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That means all of the reasoning for his "interpretation" of the CONSTITUTION are based on FALSEHOODS so his "interpretation" MUST be FALSE!
Further, DOCTOR PAUL will show all of you pointy-headed academics who quote ILLEGITIMATE court OPINIONS, he will refound America based on the sound LIBERTY-LOVING principles of limited CONSTITUTIONAL government, low taxes (AND NO INCOME TAXES!), free markets, and a return to GOLD!
VOTE RON PAUL!
They're not vampires that can be held off by brandishing a cross and a copy of a 19th century Supreme Court decision.
I had no idea vampires could be held off with Supreme Court decisions.
I'll sleep much better now.