http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2001/pr050101.htm

Washington: Congressman Ron Paul recently introduced a bold constitutional amendment designed to radically reform our tax system. The 16th Amendment, passed in 1913, allowed the federal government to do what the Supreme Court had always ruled unconstitutional: levy a direct income tax on individuals. The "Liberty Amendment" (HJR 45) repeals the 16th Amendment, paving the way for real change in the way government collects and spends our tax dollars.

"The income tax has given government a claim on our lives," Paul stated. "It has enabled government to expand far beyond its proper limits, invade our privacy, and penalize our every endeavor. The Founding Fathers never intended an income tax, and they certainly would be dismayed to know that Americans today give more than a third of their income to the federal government."

Polls demonstrate that America is fed up with the labyrinthine tax code and the abusive IRS. The tax code increasingly faces grassroots legal challenges, and interest in flat-tax and national sales tax proposals has never been greater. America clearly is ready for sweeping tax reform, yet Congress remains focused on rewarding certain constituencies by forever making complex small changes to the existing tax laws. The Liberty Amendment is an attempt to eliminate the system altogether, forcing Congress to find a simple and fair way to collect limited federal revenues. Most of all, the Liberty Amendment is an initiative aimed at reducing the size and scope of the federal government.

"America existed for nearly 140 years without an income tax," Paul concluded. "The federal government generally adhered to its strictly enumerated constitutional functions during that time, operating with modest excise revenues. When Congress introduced the 16th Amendment, it opened the door to the era of big government. This amendment would close that door."

-- (for@you.KoFE), May 09, 2001

Answers

I think Ron Paul is misguided. He's reading the 16th "as if" it means what I've been arguing against.

There is no Mandatory Order in the tax code for a citizen to pay an income tax, unless he or she has foreign earned income.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 09, 2001.

"The Founding Fathers never intended an income tax..."

That may be so. None of them have come back from the dead to tell us otherwise. However, those "fathers" could not have forseen the population explosion, and could not have forseen the industrial revolution, and therefore had no idea what it would take to run a country of our size.

Believe what you will, but social services, in my opinion, are a necessary evil. The New Deal was enacted because the administration at the time realized that without a minimum of basic services, the gap between the wealthy and the poor would be so large that civil unrest was a surety. Certainly the gap today between the rich and the poor is enormous, but conflict is avoided in large part because basic human needs are being met for the most part through medicare and other programs(W.I.C., etc.).

Ideaologies, opposition to social services based on non-intrusion of a centralized government, do not feed people; they do not create programs to keep children off the streets. If you stop funding the new deal programs, increased poverty is sure to follow, and class riots will be right behind them.

-- Enlightenment (gone@away.now), May 09, 2001.

Enlightened is right, Rioting was a national pastime before the New Deal.

-- KoFE (your@town.USSA), May 09, 2001.