Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Shake · 03-04-2003, 05:49 AM

From Texas Congressman Ron Paul comes legislation to repeal the 16th Amendment! From that site:

Quote:

�The Founding Fathers realized that �the power to tax is the power to destroy,� which is why they did not give the federal government the power to impose an income tax. Needless to say, the Founders would be horrified to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government."

This act would also relieve the federal gov't of a lot of what it's doing already (things not explicitly set forth in the Constitution). This is why it will more than likely not go anywhere, but at least the issue is being put out there.

RoddyM · 03-04-2003, 06:47 AM

Primitive governments quickly implement arrangements in the form of promises, bonds and insurance with the aim to protect the worthwhile big business in their jurisdiction. That's OK, and legitimate insurance should be enough.

Taxation of individuals wages is extortion. Propaganda convinces the individual that some of his wages are needed to support the "economy?"

As towns were being built, they were built for the purpose of the industry that was being built. Should cotton-pickers have to pay for the road that they drive to take them to the fields or the mill? If the plantation owner builds a movie theatre and a soda bar in the town he can then say that the roads are being used by people for their own pleasure and that they can then be taxed by local government.

We (and me in Australia) are being taxed for things that have been paid for a hundred times over. And in the act of taxation and being taxed we are blinded into thinking that income tax is necessary.

Kinross · 03-04-2003, 07:04 AM

Looking at the history of the income tax, it is really a war tax.

Abraham Lincoln started the income tax to fund the Civil War. In 1907 the supreme court declared it unconstitutional.

During WWI the 16th ammendment was passed to fund the war effort. Taxes were increased during WWII and paychecks began having estimated taxes automaticlly withheld so the government could get the citizens money sooner.

Initially income tax was only a tax on the rich. This was how the 16th ammendment was passed. The citizens believed that only the richest 1% would ever be taxed. Once the ammendment was passed the government took its new found power and began taxing everyone.

Ultron · 03-04-2003, 07:12 AM

Also the income tax was a flat 7% accross the board, which the poorest people didn't have to pay.

It's a good thing Ron Paul recognizes that the income tax as it stands is Constitutional. So many people don't, which is why the 16th Amendment is such a shocker to them.

RoddyM · 03-04-2003, 07:19 AM

In the old days, in merry old England, taxation was extorted from individuals.

After a period in the colonies, taxation was reintroduced. People had forgotten that taxation was a protection racket and paid up.

paul30 · 03-04-2003, 07:36 AM

I agree with Adam Smith.

Income tax is primarily for war.

After World War II, the US government was desperately afraid of another Depression. War spending had pulled the country out of Depression, so it was decided to continue war spending at WWII levels and beyond.

How to pay for this? Tax 'em.

How to get 'em to agree? Scare the hell out of 'em.

"The Communists are coming.! The Communists are coming!"

We had 50 years of pointless Cold War--which enriched and entrenched what Eisenhower called "The Military Industrial Complex."

Now this turkey is an economic albatross we can't get rid of.

When someone suggests that a military base close, the proposal meets vociferous opposition--not on grounds of "defense." The bases serve no "defense" purpose at all. (An outcry met the proposal to close Dobbins near Atlanta. The opponents were not afraid Georgia would suddenly be attacked by the Air Force of Alabama.) No. The outcry is made on simple economic grounds: jobs will be lost.

But such jobs are unproductive.

Better to cut the so-called Defense Department by 90%; make it a truly "defense" force (as opposed to what it now is: imperial troops sent to secure materials and markets abroad), and give the taxpayers back the money or use it for needed purposes, like health, education, repairing bridges, and so on.

RoddyM · 03-04-2003, 07:42 AM

In Australia they spend $30,000 repairing a bridge and three million telling everyone about it.

Amen-Moses · 03-04-2003, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RoddyM
In the old days, in merry old England, taxation was extorted from individuals.

After a period in the colonies, taxation was reintroduced. People had forgotten that taxation was a protection racket and paid up.

Interestingly enough income tax was introduced in Britain to pay for the Crimean war long after the western colonies went their merry own way. Maybe Australians were taxed but if they were I would imagine that being the tax collector was not a nice kob!

Prior to that only land owners and merchants paid taxes.

The American Revolution was all about merchants being charged higher taxes than they would have in the UK purely as a way for the government to recoup the massive investments they had made in the colonies, the merchants didn't like it and felt that they did not have the relevant representation in parliament because it took far to long to communicate across the pond.

Amen-Moses

RoddyM · 03-04-2003, 08:24 AM

Amen-Moses, taxation has been charged by every regime or authority that could get away with it. It's in the bible for chrissake.

The fairest and most useful "tax" that I can think of is the one paid by big businesses that embark on risky endeavours. That's what Lloyd's was about. Sharing the risk so that business people were willing to risk at all. It was for their benefit, not the benefit of their customers.

The public, at least those that were in the marketplace, were congratulated and then conned into thinking that they had to also pay for something that had already been paid for. How many times do you have to pay for a Roman road?

theyeti · 03-04-2003, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Liberty Amendment, which repeals the 16th Amendment...

Good grief, just how Orwellian can you get?

This whole thing is so harebrained it strains credulity. If Ron Paul really wanted to end the income tax, he could just introduce a bill and get a simple majority of both houses of Congress and Bush's signature. Instead he wants to amend the Constitution which is a thousand times harder (read: impossible). This is obviously just a political stunt. What a joke. Ha ha ha, hee hee hee...

theyeti

03-04-2003, 07:36 AM	#6
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	war tax I agree with Adam Smith. Income tax is primarily for war. After World War II, the US government was desperately afraid of another Depression. War spending had pulled the country out of Depression, so it was decided to continue war spending at WWII levels and beyond. How to pay for this? Tax 'em. How to get 'em to agree? Scare the hell out of 'em. "The Communists are coming.! The Communists are coming!" We had 50 years of pointless Cold War--which enriched and entrenched what Eisenhower called "The Military Industrial Complex." Now this turkey is an economic albatross we can't get rid of. When someone suggests that a military base close, the proposal meets vociferous opposition--not on grounds of "defense." The bases serve no "defense" purpose at all. (An outcry met the proposal to close Dobbins near Atlanta. The opponents were not afraid Georgia would suddenly be attacked by the Air Force of Alabama.) No. The outcry is made on simple economic grounds: jobs will be lost. But such jobs are unproductive. Better to cut the so-called Defense Department by 90%; make it a truly "defense" force (as opposed to what it now is: imperial troops sent to secure materials and markets abroad), and give the taxpayers back the money or use it for needed purposes, like health, education, repairing bridges, and so on.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-04-2003, 06:47 AM	#2
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	Primitive governments quickly implement arrangements in the form of promises, bonds and insurance with the aim to protect the worthwhile big business in their jurisdiction. That's OK, and legitimate insurance should be enough. Taxation of individuals wages is extortion. Propaganda convinces the individual that some of his wages are needed to support the "economy?" As towns were being built, they were built for the purpose of the industry that was being built. Should cotton-pickers have to pay for the road that they drive to take them to the fields or the mill? If the plantation owner builds a movie theatre and a soda bar in the town he can then say that the roads are being used by people for their own pleasure and that they can then be taxed by local government. We (and me in Australia) are being taxed for things that have been paid for a hundred times over. And in the act of taxation and being taxed we are blinded into thinking that income tax is necessary.

03-04-2003, 07:04 AM	#3
Kinross Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: . Posts: 1,281	Looking at the history of the income tax, it is really a war tax. Abraham Lincoln started the income tax to fund the Civil War. In 1907 the supreme court declared it unconstitutional. During WWI the 16th ammendment was passed to fund the war effort. Taxes were increased during WWII and paychecks began having estimated taxes automaticlly withheld so the government could get the citizens money sooner. Initially income tax was only a tax on the rich. This was how the 16th ammendment was passed. The citizens believed that only the richest 1% would ever be taxed. Once the ammendment was passed the government took its new found power and began taxing everyone.

03-04-2003, 07:12 AM	#4
Ultron Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: here Posts: 738	Also the income tax was a flat 7% accross the board, which the poorest people didn't have to pay. It's a good thing Ron Paul recognizes that the income tax as it stands is Constitutional. So many people don't, which is why the 16th Amendment is such a shocker to them.

03-04-2003, 07:19 AM	#5
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	In the old days, in merry old England, taxation was extorted from individuals. After a period in the colonies, taxation was reintroduced. People had forgotten that taxation was a protection racket and paid up.

03-04-2003, 07:42 AM	#7
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	In Australia they spend $30,000 repairing a bridge and three million telling everyone about it.

03-04-2003, 08:24 AM	#9
RoddyM Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Melbourne, Australia Posts: 183	Amen-Moses, taxation has been charged by every regime or authority that could get away with it. It's in the bible for chrissake. The fairest and most useful "tax" that I can think of is the one paid by big businesses that embark on risky endeavours. That's what Lloyd's was about. Sharing the risk so that business people were willing to risk at all. It was for their benefit, not the benefit of their customers. The public, at least those that were in the marketplace, were congratulated and then conned into thinking that they had to also pay for something that had already been paid for. How many times do you have to pay for a Roman road?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.