[Lorionasodi]

During the January 16th debates in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, Presidential candidate Ron Paul laid down a bombshell by advocating his goal of gradually lowering the personal income tax to 0%, while at the same time shrinking government and finding new sources of revenue for Washington to use to perform its duties. In response to this, economist and Senior editor for the Wall Street Journal not only agreed that Congressman Paul's plan was feasible, but it would also be the greatest job creator for a nation in the history of the world.

Judge Napolitano: But the biggest sound bite of last night comes from another cowboy from Texas. Congressman Ron Paul, whos tax ideas outgunned his opponents.

Ron Paul: We should have the lowest tax that we’ve ever had, and up till 1913 it was 0%. What’s so bad about that?

Debate moderator: So you’re answer is 0?

RP: Zero

JN: Zero! Joining me now to discuss abolishing the income tax is a man who’s no stranger to studying and analyzing taxes. He’s Steve Moore, head of the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.

JN: Can we take Congressman Paul seriously at his word? That were he to be nominated and elected President, he would move to reduce the income tax rates to zero, or as he says, gradually abolish the income tax, shrink the government down to its Constitutional size, and force it to go to other resources for cash.

Steve Moore: This is a point Ron Paul made very effectively last night, which was for the first roughly 130 or 140 years of our nation we didn’t have an income tax, and yet we did have a prosperous country, we got richer every year, and so there’s no reason we can’t imagine what America would be like without an income tax.

SM: As an economist, can you imagine America’s competitive position in the world if Ron Paul were able to get our income tax rate down to zero, when other countries have 30, 40, 50% rates… you would see the most insourcing of jobs into America in the history of the world. – Freedom Watch

Prior to 1913, there was no income tax instituted on the American people, and the US government collected revenues primarily from fees, licenses, and customs issued on foreign goods coming into the country. The infamous Port of New York and New York Customs House was so powerful in its time, that Chester Arthur used his position in the revenue collecting agency to run for, and win the Presidency after James Garfield was assassinated in office.

However, leading into the 20th century, banking forces continued to push for a central bank, and after the Panic of 1907, Congress finally passed legislation to create the Federal Reserve, and with it, pushed through the Income Tax Amendment (16th). Since the Federal Reserve was a privately owned bank, part of the contract required the government to create an income source to be able to borrow money from the Fed, and the taxing of citizens was the universal program to create that collateral.

Since 1913, the personal income tax system has gone through many major changes, but for the most part, it still remains an intrical part of government revenue collection. It's tiered system of higher tax rates on higher incomes has led to a decline in many Americans ability to spend in the economy, and has also led to a decrease in our nations manufacturing and industry.

Ron Paul's plan to gradually lower the personal income tax to 0% for the American people has received praise and confirmation by a very reputable economist at the Wall Street Journal. So much so, that his assessment of the plan would lead to the greatest job creation by a country in the history of the world.


http://www.examiner.com/finance-exam...r?CID=obinsite

[zCLadw3R]

The problem is it would lead to a decline in GOVERNMENT jobs. Get the picture?

[bumxumer]

The problem is it would lead to a decline in GOVERNMENT jobs. Get the picture?

Yep, and since government gets to make the decision, there's no reason to believe that they'd want to change their policy of enriching themselves at the expense of the people.

I've accepted the fact that RP isn't going to win the presidency, but if he did, I'd love to watch him try to get the income tax abolished.

[Jeffery]

Cutting taxes might lead to a reduction in government, but it doesn't have to. According to Walter Burien, governments of all kinds own almost all the big corporations in America, and they have investments in foreign countries like China. They receive a huge amount of return from these investments. They do not report this source of funds anywhere but in their CAFRs, and the population at large has no idea that there is such a thing as a CAFR. Governments are fabulously wealthy. They don't need to tax us.

Ron Paul, and the WSJ will not discuss CAFRs. The WSJ doesn't want the public to be aware of their existence. Ron Paul won't raise the issue because he would be assassinated quickly if he did.

We don't need to pay taxes. Check out this web site:

http://taxretirement.com/

Hatha

[Peertantyb]

Yep, and since government gets to make the decision, there's no reason to believe that they'd want to change their policy of enriching themselves at the expense of the people.

I've accepted the fact that RP isn't going to win the presidency, but if he did, I'd love to watch him try to get the income tax abolished.

You can abolish it all by yourself, by redeeming non-expandable public money in the form of US Notes