Serious question for Ron Paul supporters

[STAGE 2]

I don't want to hear about whether or not Paul can win.
I don't want to know about whether Paul is an anti-semite.
I don't want to see a single word about any other candidate, the Iraq war, global warming or Bush.

What I do want is for someone to respond to a question that went unanswered in a previous thread. Specifically, if Ron Paul is the second coming of christ with respect to defending the constitution, then how is it he can advocate for people to not pay their taxes.

The income tax was brought about by a properly enacted amendment to the constitution. Thus, while he may not like it (and I'm sure many here don't including myself) to encourage people to not pay their taxes, or to call an income tax "tyranny", is he not violating the very precept he is running on?

So without getting into the validity of taxes or why Ron Paul is just swell, lets hear an answer. How is this position consistent.

 

[TheBluesMan]

I'm not a RP koolaidbibber, but I think this guy in Louisiana would agree with Ron Paul on the income tax issue. So, apparently, has a jury.

http://www.shreveporttimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070713/NEWS03/707130321/1062/NEWS03

 

[Eghad]

Would you cosign for a loan for a friend that spends more money than he makes?

 

[Doug.38PR]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZl6202HJGQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpETNZTIF6A

 

[Wildalaska]

So, apparently, has a jury.

But we dont know why...yet...

WildaniamcuriousAlaska

 

[Danzig]

Simple..there is NO law requiring any of us to pay taxes on our wages. If there was..don't you think that the Government would have pulled that card out during the various tax trials that they have LOST!?

They haven't shown the law for the simple fact that it does not exist.

So it's only right that Ron Paul supports those who rebel against an illegal imposition of a tax that does not in fact exist.

 

[Crosshair]

Specifically, if Ron Paul is the second coming of christ with respect to defending the constitution, then how is it he can advocate for people to not pay their taxes.

He is praising their non-violent (so far) approach of protesting what he believes to be an unfair system.

Ron Paul is not against taxes. Many people spin that to make Dr. Paul seem like a wackjob when he has a very well thought out platform. Dr. Paul is against the INCOME tax as he believes it is an unfair, inefficient, and un-american way to gather taxes. He also is against the bloated bureaucracy we currently have in our government.

Before 1913 we got by just fine without an income tax in the US. Many of todays problems are created as a result of the government. (Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, War on drugs, etc.) When the government both causes the problems and tries to fix them, the end result is a government ever increasing in size and cost.

The people in the US spend around $99 BILLION just complying with the income tax. (As figured out by Forbes Magazine.) $99 Billion just for everyone to show the IRS. Here is what we owe and how much extra we owe/get back. That is pure economic dead weight. An economic parasite. (I love telling income tax preparers that.)

I see nothing wrong with being against the income tax. In fact, a large number of people agree with such statements.

 

[applesanity]

, but I think this guy in Louisiana would agree with Ron Paul on the income tax issue. So, apparently, has a jury.

And here comes the fine print (buried 2/3 of the way down):

Cryer created a trust listing himself as the trustee, and received payments of dividends, interest and stock income to that trust, according to the indictment.

Ah yes, the question of whether capital income is really taxed, or *can* (as opposed to *should*) be taxed. I smell loopholes.

The article has obfuscated the story. The case in the article is not about the constitutionality of taxing your wages or vehicle purchases - it's about taxing capital income. The laws regardng how to tax capital are so freaking complicated that many Americans aren't even aware that they owe "Alternative Minimum" taxes (AMT), and the IRS has set up a system so loopy that they frequently overlook those who do owe. Personally, I wonder if the jury even comprehended the case they were hearing - and if the journalist understood the story she was reporting. I'm not insulting their intelligience - I'm saying that the only people who really, really understand taxing capital income are the experts themselves: tax attorneys, carreer IRS people....

I mean, I have a basic understanding of how this branch of tax law works, but I wouldn't be certain (beyond a reasonable doubt) whether the defendent actually did anything wrong.

"I determined that my personal earnings were not 100 percent profits, some were income," Cryer said.

Compare to: "I didn't want Uncle Sam taking a cut of my Friday paycheck"

So let's not be so quick to jump to conclusions after merely grabbing the first few paragraphs of a story.

I suggest the Urban-Brookings "Tax Policy Center" for more info; they've done massive work on this stuff. I should know; I worked there.

urban.org/books/taxingcapitalincome/intro.cfm
taxpolicycenter.org/newsevents/amt.cfm

 

[GeorgeF]

You dont have to agree with everything in order to defend the constitution. As I understand it, Paul wants to repeal that amendment. The beauty of the Constitution is that it can be fixed if enough people think part of it is broken. Just look at the 18th and 21st amendments (prohibition and repeal of same).

He is saying that we have to abide by the Constitution. He is not refusing to pay taxes, he is campaigning to REMOVE THE INCOME TAX. Its like saying you love someone, but you cant disagree with them.

One part of the Constitution is broken (imho), the rest is just great. As I understand it the definition of 'income' was modified to mean wages. Originally it was intended to mean "money obtained from the sale of goods or property, or as profit from financial investments". That would exclude Joe Public who works at the factory and doesnt create anything. The definition was later expanded to include labor and services.

Hope this helped to clear some things up.

 

[STAGE 2]

He is praising their non-violent (so far) approach of protesting what he believes to be an unfair system.

Ron Paul is not against taxes. Many people spin that to make Dr. Paul seem like a wackjob when he has a very well thought out platform. Dr. Paul is against the INCOME tax as he believes it is an unfair, inefficient, and un-american way to gather taxes. He also is against the bloated bureaucracy we currently have in our government.

So he's advocating people to break the law. Whether its non-violent is irrelevant. Whether its efficient, fair, or american is irrelevant. What is relevant is that its the law, and americans have an obligation to follow a valid law.

He is saying that we have to abide by the Constitution. He is not refusing to pay taxes, he is campaigning to REMOVE THE INCOME TAX. Its like saying you love someone, but you cant disagree with them.

No, he went on national TV and clearly stated that more americans should not pay their taxes in order to cripple the govt to bring about a change. Thats not how the system works, and thats not what the framers intended when they developed the amendment process.

If Paul wants to change the law, then he should work to repeal the 16th amendment or change the tax code. However what he's doing now is undermining the process our system was founded on.

I see nothing wrong with being against the income tax. In fact, a large number of people agree with such statements.

Apples meet oranges. I personall think the income tax is a horrible idea and contrary to everything the framers intended. However since it was validly enacted I have an obligation to comply until our representatives pull their heads out and change the system. Because I disagree with it however doesn't mean that I have the right to shirk the law, or advocate that others don't follow the constitution.

Simple..there is NO law requiring any of us to pay taxes on our wages. If there was..don't you think that the Government would have pulled that card out during the various tax trials that they have LOST!?

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.

Thus congress clearly has the power to tax income. So the question becomes what is income.

(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:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;
(8) Alimony and separate maintenance payments;
(9) Annuities;
(10) Income from life insurance and endowment contracts;
(11) Pensions;
(12) Income from discharge of indebtedness;
(13) Distributive share of partnership gross income;
(14) Income in respect of a decedent; and
(15) Income from an interest in an estate or trust.

Wages fall under section 1. However even if they didn't, this list is not exhaustive and wages would still fall under income should congress wish it, even if it wasn't listed here.

So then wheres the law that say you have to pay taxes? TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I > § 1. I'm not going to copy and paste it because I'm sure you're very familiar with it since you pay your taxes.

And as a refresher, the united states code is a compilation and codification of the general and permanent federal law of the United States.

In short, the law does state that we have to pay taxes on income and it is constitutional as per the 16th amendment.

So I ask again, how can one be a defender of the constitution when they are advocating people to NOT use the processes set forth to chage the constitution, but blantantly violate the law.

 

[Rob308]

So he's advocating people to break the law. Whether its non-violent is irrelevant. Whether its efficient, fair, or american is irrelevant. What is relevant is that its the law, and americans have an obligation to follow a valid law.

Segregation would have never ended if everyone blindly followed the governments 'valid' laws, which is what you are saying people should do. If a law is unjust, you should break it. It's stupid to support everything the government does because it's technically legal. Would you let the government take your family to concentration camps because there were laws permitting it?

 

[STAGE 2]

Segregation would have never ended if everyone blindly followed the governments 'valid' laws, which is what you are saying people should do. If a law is unjust, you should break it. It's stupid to support everything the government does because it's technically legal. Would you let the government take your family to concentration camps because there were laws permitting it?

Thats the worst case of logic I've ever seen. If you could show me where you have a fundamental right not to pay taxes I'll happily concede the point. And as an aside, segregation was ended through the courts as the system had intended. The income tax has been upheld ad nauseum by a variety of courts because its legal.

Your unjust law is only that way because you say so. Its no more relevant that if I said that its unjust for cities to have metered parking because its a free country and I should be able to park whereever I want.

No one's rights are being violated by paying taxes. Your argument is merely an excuse to get out of doing something you don't personally like, which is essentially what Paul is promoting.

 

[Rob308]

Thats the worst case of logic I've ever seen.

That doesn't mean a whole lot coming from someone who said that you should follow laws just because they are laws. It's not like the US government has never passed a bad law.

Your argument is merely an excuse to get out of doing something you don't personally like

That's nonsense. That's not the only reason someone would refuse to pay taxes. If a government is using my tax dollars to do something I think is illegal and pointless, I don't think I should be forced to pay them (which I do, it's not worth fighting over IMHO).

 

[STAGE 2]

That doesn't mean a whole lot coming from someone who said that you should follow laws just because they are laws. It's not like the US government has never passed a bad law.

I never said people should blindly follow every law passed by government. What I did say is that people have an obligation to work within the system to change laws they disagree with that are 1) technically valid and 2) don't violate anyone's rights.

You keep trying to dillute the argument by adding in things I haven't said. The tax laws are valid whether you like it or not. They don't violate the fundamental rights of anyone, or any rights for that matter. As a result citizens have an obligation to follow them until such time they are changed.

All of your cute examples of segregation and alike were examples of policies that were questionable under the law at the time they were enacted. This isn't the case with taxes.

That's nonsense. That's not the only reason someone would refuse to pay taxes. If a government is using my tax dollars to do something I think is illegal and pointless, I don't think I should be forced to pay them (which I do, it's not worth fighting over IMHO).

And if memory serves, SCOTUS has already ruled that taxpayers have no standing to challenge taxes on the basis of where and how their taxdollars are spent unless, the funds are used for an unconstitutional purpose. See Flast v. Cohen 392 US 83

HOWEVER, this isn't what Paul is arguing (yet another attempt to change the issue). Paul is stating that people should pay taxes because the system ITSELF is wrong, unfair, bad, etc. SCOTUS has already ruled that people have no standing to challenge the tax system on these grounds.


So, at the end of the day, we come back to the original question. How can someone uphold the constitution and tell people to violate it/ignore it at the same time.

 

[Rob308]

I never said people should blindly follow every law passed by government.

Whether its non-violent is irrelevant. Whether its efficient, fair, or american is irrelevant. What is relevant is that its the law, and americans have an obligation to follow a valid law.

And if memory serves, SCOTUS has already ruled that taxpayers have no standing to challenge taxes on the basis of where and how their taxdollars are spent unless, the funds are used for an unconstitutional purpose.

Unconstitutional? Like warrantless wiretapping unconstitutional? In any case, I don't care what they said...

No taxation without representation!

 

[Oldphart]

"What I did say is that people have an obligation to work within the system to change laws they disagree with..."

That might work well if the "system" wasn't so skewed toward protecting itself. Over the past few years I've read of several cases - tax cases, gun cases, other cases - where the judge officially denied the defendant the opportunity to cite constitutional grounds in his defense. When this sort of thing becomes commonplace the next recourse is defiance and disobediance of the law. If that too is denied the people have only one last recourse and none of us want that.

 

[Freedom_1st]

Specifically, if Ron Paul is the second coming of christ with respect to defending the constitution, then how is it he can advocate for people to not pay their taxes.

The income tax was brought about by a properly enacted amendment to the constitution. Thus, while he may not like it (and I'm sure many here don't including myself) to encourage people to not pay their taxes, or to call an income tax "tyranny", is he not violating the very precept he is running on?

No, because he believes it is a bad law. For the same reason civil rights marchers disobeyed jim crow laws, Paul advocates the same sort of civil disobedience with reguard to income tax.

Paul also states that if one chooses to participate in civil disobedience then one must also be prepared to pay the consequences for ones actions.

Paul wants to repeal the income tax ammendment and is attempting to do in in a manner that is constitutional. He is running for office and attempting to create change in a constitution manner.

The fact that he calls the income tax tyranny is not unconstitional or even against the law. Its simply and opinion protected by the first ammendment.

 

[Al Norris]

See? This is why I'm a strict constructionist. The word "Income" in terms of the day, did not mean wages. Any more than the phrase, "gross income means all income from whatever source derived," means wages. At least, not in the terms known to the people that proposed the amendment nor to the citizens and States that voted for it.

From the 1913 edition of Webster's (pg. 745):
3. That gain which proceeds from labor, business, property, or capital of any kind, as the produce of a farm, the rent of houses, the proceeds of professional business, the profits of commerce or of occupation, or the interest of money or stock in funds, etc.; revenue; receipts; salary; especially, the annual receipts of a private person, or a corporation, from property; as, a large income.

4.... Income tax, a tax upon a person's incomes, emoluments, profits, etc., or upon the excess beyond a certain amount.

Nowhere in the above are wages, that is, a monetary remittance for labor performed, listed.

This came later.

Income now means wages, but it did not at the time of the ratification of the 16th amendment.

Therefore, as a strict constructionist, I have to state that the term, as it has changed in meaning, is not in accordance with what the 16th meant.

This is what I think Ron Paul may be alluding to. But I think he could be much more clear, if that is what is going on.

 

[MrApathy]

number of other republican candidates said they would repeal the 16th amendment and sign the Fair Tax into law. Ron Paul is not alone.
though in case of FairTax Ron Paul doesnt want us to end up with both Fairtax and taxed income.

1913 isnt that the year they passed the Federal Reserve act?

 

[GoSlash27]

This entire line of reasoning assumes from the outset that "The income tax was brought about by a properly enacted amendment to the constitution", which apparently has not been established.
It also presumes that he "encourages" people to not pay their taxes, which isn't quite true. He publicly admits his admiration for those that peacefully resist compliance, yet cautions everyone that such behavior has grave consequences.
I admire such people myself, but that doesn't mean I'm encouraging everyone to do it.

He wants to repeal the 16th Amdt and replace it with a much less draconian system that supports a much smaller and less intrusive Federal government. That goal is more in line with the law governing the government, not less.