It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ron Paul: The Founders Didn´t Believe In Income Tax!

page: 1
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
This is another great interview by Ron Paul, he talks about a few things here, but the title of the video only focuses on income tax.


We need to get rid of the income tax people, it's just another tool used by the elite along with poor education systems and minimum wage laws that ensures the masses remain poor and uneducated securing their positions for generations.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


We should get rid of that host first. lol. Didn't he get caught with a prostitute? I think Ron Paul should bring up that issue to him since all the other hosts bring up his legalization of prostitution in an effort to discredit him.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
This is another great interview by Ron Paul, he talks about a few things here, but the title of the video only focuses on income tax.

We need to get rid of the income tax people, it's just another tool used by the elite along with poor education systems and minimum wage laws that ensures the masses remain poor and uneducated securing their positions for generations.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


The income tax is actually against the elite. The income tax is a progressive tax. This means that it benefits he middle class. The minimum wage laws should be strengthened and the pay rate should be raised and be indexed to inflation.

I do not know where you get your information about income tax or minimum wage, but its wrong. The taxes that hurt the middle class are sales taxes or flat taxes instead of taxes that are proportional to income.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by mayabong
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


We should get rid of that host first. lol. Didn't he get caught with a prostitute? I think Ron Paul should bring up that issue to him since all the other hosts bring up his legalization of prostitution in an effort to discredit him.

Mhm, I'm not sure, I know he was involved in some type of scandal not too long ago, but I didn't pay too much attention to it.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   
what wealthy white slave owner would ?

ok get rid of the tax.

which programs do you take away to cover it ?

since the US is already in a huge hole, this just proves Ron isn't a serious candidate. If you did this , the US would watch it's already crumbling infrastructure become a laughingstock, and probably never recover



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by gorgi
 


No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


The rich are not going to stop working or keeping their businesses open because of an income tax. The rich got pissed when FDR raised the taxes on them.

And income tax is different than taxation on other goods such as capital.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by syrinx high priest
 

Governments can find other ways to get money without stealing it through taxation. Maybe you could organize a bake sell or something?



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by gorgi
 


No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


The rich are not going to stop working or keeping their businesses open because of an income tax. The rich got pissed when FDR raised the taxes on them.

And income tax is different than taxation on other goods such as capital.

Sure they won't stop working, they won't even change their life style, they'll pass costs onto the poor. If you tax the poor, the rich will have to pay them higher wages and charge lower prices, income taxes help no one, but big government.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by gorgi
 


No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


The rich are not going to stop working or keeping their businesses open because of an income tax. The rich got pissed when FDR raised the taxes on them.

And income tax is different than taxation on other goods such as capital.

Sure they won't stop working, they won't even change their life style, they'll pass costs onto the poor. If you tax the poor, the rich will have to pay them higher wages and charge lower prices, income taxes help no one, but big government.


The rich do not pass on costs because of an income tax. Where do you get your information from ? Some times business will pass on other taxes, but income taxes do not get passed on.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by gorgi
 


No not really, by taxing income you punish production and thereby protect the currently wealthy from competition. Essentially it means keeping the lid on capital accumulation so that the current owners of capital stay on top. The rich actually love high income taxation, because it's really taxes on the upper middle class and it suppresses upwards mobility in the group that is most likely to compete with them.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)


The rich are not going to stop working or keeping their businesses open because of an income tax. The rich got pissed when FDR raised the taxes on them.

And income tax is different than taxation on other goods such as capital.

Sure they won't stop working, they won't even change their life style, they'll pass costs onto the poor. If you tax the poor, the rich will have to pay them higher wages and charge lower prices, income taxes help no one, but big government.


The rich do not pass on costs because of an income tax. Where do you get your information from ? Some times business will pass on other taxes, but income taxes do not get passed on.

Yes, I believe they would. Anything that will help them eliminate competition they will do.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:43 PM
link   
reply to post by gorgi
 


Yeah , I always have a bit of a chuckle when people start spouting about percentages , and how our income tax is "progressive"

What I always find lacking or missing in the percentages argument is the more important question of:
WHAT IS CONSIDERED TAXABLE INCOME?

The ultra wealthy have pulled off this slight of hand trick quite well. There is a reason the tax code is 16,845 pages long and it has nothing to do with the average wage earner.

"According to the US Government Printing Office, it's 13,458 pages in total. The full text of Title 26 of the United States Code (the part written by Congress--available for an additional $179) is a mere 3,387 printed pages, bringing the adjusted gross page count to 16,845. "

It is like saying that 17% of $100 is less than 38% of $10 because the percentage is bigger.

One also needs to consider the FICA tax, which hits average person harder. If you are employed by somebody you pay 6.2% and your employer kicks in another 6.2%. If you work for yourself or own a business you pay the full 12.4% tax. Now here is the catch...that is only up to the first $102,000 earned, after that there is no FICA tax. Who does that benefit?

So when speaking about percentages, do not forget to add the FICA tax, that really amounts to nothing for the wealthiest Americans, but adds another 6.2% for a wage earner and 12.4% to small business owners income and self-employed.( I also wanted to add that this tax cannot be reduced by any means, so everybody from minimum wage up pays this tax period, no refunds, write off's etc. It is taken out and you never can/will see it again until you collect on social security or in this day and age IF you collect)

FICA is truly a tax also because it is not used as intended, since the formation of social security, the federal government has taken ALL the surplus and used in it the general budget leaving an IOU into the fund. Every year they calculate how much in benefits they are going to need to pay out and then take the rest and leave that IOU. They are able to get away with it because it is considered an investment for the fund, because we all know the Federal government will pay it back with interest


I guess my point is, you cannot just take the straight percentages of the tax table vs income, the system is much more complex than that....for a reason.
edit on 14-5-2011 by Dreamwatcher because: Added line about FICA not being wrote off or refunded.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Dreamwatcher because: Removed reduntant word



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
End all wars, police actions and bring all troops back. We can now remove the training wheels and see if the world can ride without assistance...... mmmmkay moving on.

The tax system was initially intended for large corporations, especially those that directly contributed NOTHING to the economy and these would include but not be limited to stock brokers, commodity traders et al...

Cut big government down to a manageable size say..... from nearly 15 million employees down to 10 million and then a few years later 5 million.... steady as she goes.

Legalize or Decriminalize drugs and prostitution, employ potentially millions = all those laid off government workers as they were good being the .gov's ho then they will do okay being a real ho right?


Return millions of acres of .Gov land to small farmers, promote organic farming, the less fertilzer, the less water you use, the less run off you contribute to etc etc the bigger the subsidy, if we can afford them.

Break up the WALMART monopoly.
Criminalize Monsanto and its ilk. Give their land to more small farmers.
Nationalize energy and oil....... nationalize BIG PHARMA = safe, cheap drugs....yeah baby!!!


If immigrants can come here and receive 10 years of no business taxes as an incentive to start a business then all americans should have the same if not more incentives!

Insurance, a national insurance plan that no one but the participants benefit from, also a national auto insurance and home insurance hm yeah lets insure ourselves....... hard to understand???

I worked for a fortune 100..... over 100,000 vehicles at one time..... no insurance....
Thats right the company held no insurance policies with any insurance company = they can prove financial responsibility = they insured themselves... all they needed was a good sized up front Fund of Cash and then rake in the savings because they know its a scam uhm I mean cheaper yeah.....

and heres the part that will get Mr Paul and myself SHOT!!!!


Congress cannot be trusted, nor the senate, nor the supreme court.... we need a panel of people who can run a printing press and still be trusted basically......... buddhists monks? Robots?

END THE FED! Yesterday....

Base our currency on a basket of commodities = end fiat currency = money from thin air = money that is debt.

Oh we could do alot of things yet the "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS" people and the "THAT IS AN 'ISM!" people and yer blue breasted "THATS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION" rules lawyer types........are like a bunch of old mules that will not go anywhere you want them to go but backwards off a cliff.......

Do they not realize that their beloved CONstitution made their Bill of Rights neccessary?

I think the terminology "the founders" should be a bit more refined.... you mean the ANTI FEDERALISTS don't you Mr. Paul?

and you can quit trying to say that TJ wasnt an ANTI FEDERALIST....simply because you had him business in France!!!



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


This interview was the first time I've seen Dr. Paul not have a decent answer to a question. Spitzer pointed out that income tax was an amendment because the alternative was a per-capita arrangement. I know I don't wan to pay the same taxes as a billionaire so that kinda sounds like it makes sense. We all know there are better options which is why I was surprised that RP didn't address them. He sort of just side-stepped it instead, which is very non-RP.

He could have mentioned that the states can charge income tax (mine does). He could have mentioned that sales tax could be tiered to heavily tax the more luxurious items. There are a number of things he could have said. I'm really wondering why he didn't.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
They may not've been for taxing but they clearly did not shut the door that allowed for it as they figured taxation would eventually be law as you've got to finance your fortress somehow. The only thing they were deadset and totally against was "No taxation without representation".



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by gorgi


The income tax is actually against the elite. The income tax is a progressive tax. This means that it benefits he middle class.


In summation, you said the income tax...benefits the middle class. How exactly does the income tax benefit the middle class? Which programs do the middle class enjoy because of the income tax? How would it negatively hurt the middle class if the income tax was removed?

I could say that the income tax does not benefit the middle class based on the simple explanation that the less money you are taxed the more money you have, making yourself richer and the economy more active because there would be more disposable income to spend. That would benefit the middle class. The notion that taxes help the middle class is akin to saying the Kingship helps the poor because the king occasionally throws crumbs towards the poor. Even if 100 percent of the income tax was redirected towards social programs enjoyed by all (never been proven) one could still ask why this has to be the case to begin with, when free people can choose their own programs to enjoy. But the truth is 100 percent of the income tax does not redirect to social programs, not even close, and those social programs do not benefit all, even though the Constitution says all laws must be uniform, so section 8 housing is unfair since it is not for ALL and welfare is not fair since it is not for ALL, and even when a social program tries to appease all such as social security it runs into deficits and eventually it will benefit NONE.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 12:03 PM
link   
Ron Paul: We should have cooperated with Pakistan on Bin Laden
CNN: Ron Paul says Bin Laden raid was unnecessary.

Spin much?

Ron Paul: What about the moral responsibility to let people keep what they earn?
CNN: Ron Paul says no constitutional authority for FEMA.

Way to just hump the federal government for no reason other than its the federal government here to protect us

Ron Paul: Taxes equal theft
CNN: Ron Paul says taxes equal theft

Hey Hey they got one right! Interesting how they feel they don't need to spin this. CNN is banking on the majority of Americans being proud to pay taxes
This is proof the 'elite' like this prostitute wielding "host" is clearly mistaken about what the American people want.
edit on 15-5-2011 by filosophia because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
what wealthy white slave owner would ?

ok get rid of the tax.

which programs do you take away to cover it ?

since the US is already in a huge hole, this just proves Ron isn't a serious candidate. If you did this , the US would watch it's already crumbling infrastructure become a laughingstock, and probably never recover







"Which programs do you take away to cover it ?
The correct answer is none .

Income tax was NEVER intended to be levied against " WAGES EARNED "
only the interest on unearned income.

The Treasury Dept has a chart showing the flow of money from the private sector v Corporations. Prior to 1914 100% of said income was paid by corporations.

As you are probable aware the Federal government has thousands of taxes utilized for the function of the continuation of government.

Income tax is NOT one of those sources. If you have ever been unfortunate enough to be forced ( Although they state very clearly it is voluntary ) to write the IRS a check, you will notice it is deposited into the Federal Reserve Bank. Not the Treasury.

I could see the obvious frustration on the part of RP attempting to address issues of which the commentator has little understanding



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by filosophia

Originally posted by gorgi


The income tax is actually against the elite. The income tax is a progressive tax. This means that it benefits he middle class.


In summation, you said the income tax...benefits the middle class. How exactly does the income tax benefit the middle class? Which programs do the middle class enjoy because of the income tax? How would it negatively hurt the middle class if the income tax was removed?

I could say that the income tax does not benefit the middle class based on the simple explanation that the less money you are taxed the more money you have, making yourself richer and the economy more active because there would be more disposable income to spend. That would benefit the middle class. The notion that taxes help the middle class is akin to saying the Kingship helps the poor because the king occasionally throws crumbs towards the poor. Even if 100 percent of the income tax was redirected towards social programs enjoyed by all (never been proven) one could still ask why this has to be the case to begin with, when free people can choose their own programs to enjoy. But the truth is 100 percent of the income tax does not redirect to social programs, not even close, and those social programs do not benefit all, even though the Constitution says all laws must be uniform, so section 8 housing is unfair since it is not for ALL and welfare is not fair since it is not for ALL, and even when a social program tries to appease all such as social security it runs into deficits and eventually it will benefit NONE.


Essentially all of them. Do you really want me to name all o them ?



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dazbog

Income tax was NEVER intended to be levied against " WAGES EARNED "
only the interest on unearned income.


"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."
caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

"...from whatever source derived..." seems to encompass wages earned to me.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join