Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"

[anaconda]

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this. Would it backfire politically with msm spin?

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Or cite the Federal Court justice who said the 16th amendment was never ratified?

I think Roscoe Bartlett was on to this (per Freedom to Fascism..) but sounds like somebody got to him..Did Bartlett ever say why he didn't follow through with the meeting with the IRS?

 

[angelatc]

Perhaps because his agenda is not your agenda?

 

[anaconda]

Perhaps because his agenda is not your agenda?

Hmmm..last time I checked Dr. Paul was very against the Federal Income Tax and also stated in the first Republican debate that, as President, he would seek to phase out the IRS "immediately."

Is this sufficient grounds for being curious? Just trying to connect some dots here. The only explanation I can come up with is that it would backfire politically. It seems that people who think that there is no law requiring them to file a 1040 are discredited like those who think the moon landing was faked or those who believe in reptilian shape shifters. But I'm only guessing, here.

 

[Danke]

Why? He could just look up the congressional records.



Revenue Act of 1862

Revenue Act of 1864

Revenue Act of 1865

Revenue Act of 1867

Revenue Act of 1870

Revenue Act of 1872

Revenue Act of 1873 (Revised Statutes)

Revenue Act of 1878

Revenue Act of 1894

Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909

Federal Reserve Act

Revenue Act of 1913

Revenue Act of 1916

Revenue Act of 1917

Revenue Act of 1919

Revenue Act of 1921

Classification Act of 1923

Revenue Act of 1924

Revenue Act of 1926

Revenue Act of 1928

Index To The Federal Statutes 1874 - 1931

Revenue Act of 1932

Revenue Act of 1934

Revenue Act of 1935

Social Security Act of 1935

Revenue Act of 1936

Revenue Act of 1938

The IRC of 1939

Appendix to the IRC of 1939
The 'Preliminary Materials' chapter in the 1986 IRC contains a dual cross-reference table, first indexing 1939 code sections to the 1986 code, then indexing 1986 sections to the 1939 sections from which they are drawn. Once having identified the 1939 section in which you are interested, find the section listing in the 1939 appendix, where the actual statute section that it represents is listed.

The Public Salary Tax Act of 1939

The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943

Elements of the Victory Tax Act and their repeal

The IRC of 1954

The Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Code of Federal Regulations for Title 26 (Internal Revenue)

Congress passed the Act > Statutes written > then Regulations > then Codes.

 

[MsDoodahs]

I think I've heard Ron say he does not believe the whole "16th amendment was not ratified properly" stuff.

 

[low preference guy]

he doesn't want to go to jail?

 

[MsDoodahs]

Hmmm..last time I checked Dr. Paul was very against the Federal Income Tax and also stated in the first Republican debate that, as President, he would seek to phase out the IRS "immediately."

That is true - but I think he BASES his point of view on something quite different that the basis you're seeking.

Is this sufficient grounds for being curious? Just trying to connect some dots here.

http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/topic.php?id=0

Check there.

The only explanation I can come up with is that it would backfire politically. It seems that people who think that there is no law requiring them to file a 1040 are discredited like those who think the moon landing was faked or those who believe in reptilian shape shifters. But I'm only guessing, here.

Or maybe ... Ron's objection to the income tax is based on very different grounds from the basis you're using for your objection?

 

[specsaregood]

He has answered this question before. IIRC that isn't the approach he has chosen, while he supports tax protesters such as the situation you describe, he doesn't think that approach will prove successful and he prefers to continue to fight it legislatively and via education.

 

[evilfunnystuff]

while not asking the question 2 minutes and 44 seconds in he talks about the issue a little YouTube - RP2012 - Ron Paul in America: Freedom to Fascism

 

[Acala]

Dead end

Because he doesn't have time to waste running down this dead end road?

This is exactly why I don't advise people to watch Freedom to Fascism.

There IS statutory authority for the income tax. If there is not specific authority for the filing of the 1040, so what? You are still required to pay whether or not you file a return. Understand the difference between paying the tax and filing a return?

And if there was no statutory authority for the income tax, how long do you think it would take Congress to enact it? A New York minute. Unless the people were united against it, which they are not. And if they were, the tax would be dead anyway regardless of what the law said.

As for the ratification of the 16th amendment, that water is so far under the bridge that it has gone out to sea, evaporated, and rained down on distant lands a thousand time. Forget it.

It is a total waste of energy to chase these legalistic "solutions" to creeping tyranny. The courts are NEVER going to restore freedom in any significant way. Only a united and outraged public can do that.

 

[Nationwide]

Yes, there's statutory authority for AN income tax, but its not the income tax the IRS would have us all believe. It's due to the very limited nature of INCOME. Income is not "all that comes in" for federal tax purposes because of prohibitions in fundamental, Constitutional law. The statutory income tax does not apply to most Americans. It's all spelled out here.

Agree that the 16th amendment is insignificant here.

And yes, it's virtually impossible to win this in court. It appears the judges are in on the scam & deception. And you may be right in "Only a united and outraged public can" expose the fraud and end it. I'm ready. Name the date and let's organize it.

 

[catdd]

He's one of the few people with the courage to lump them in with the CIA and Federal Reserve, but picking a personal fight with the IRS is too dangerous.
People have been thrown in prison for less.

 

[Travlyr]

Because he doesn't have time to waste running down this dead end road?

This is exactly why I don't advise people to watch Freedom to Fascism.

There IS statutory authority for the income tax. If there is not specific authority for the filing of the 1040, so what? You are still required to pay whether or not you file a return. Understand the difference between paying the tax and filing a return?

And if there was no statutory authority for the income tax, how long do you think it would take Congress to enact it? A New York minute. Unless the people were united against it, which they are not. And if they were, the tax would be dead anyway regardless of what the law said.

As for the ratification of the 16th amendment, that water is so far under the bridge that it has gone out to sea, evaporated, and rained down on distant lands a thousand time. Forget it.

It is a total waste of energy to chase these legalistic "solutions" to creeping tyranny. The courts are NEVER going to restore freedom in any significant way. Only a united and outraged public can do that.

Thank you! People try and stir up controversy and waste time. Sheesh.

​

 

[anaconda]

Thank you! People try and stir up controversy and waste time. Sheesh.

I was certainly not trying to stir up controversy. Freedom to Fascism was a great eye opener for me and an inspiring influence to want to roll back government. I wonder how many other people would wake up if Ron Paul tossed a couple of quick talking points in with his usual ones regarding the IRS. Something to the effect of "We're going broke. We tax too much. Spend too much maintaining our empire abroad. We are sacrificing our civil liberties. And, by the way, tell your senator that you want to see the law that requires you to pay taxes on your wages..." He could have even mentioned this in one of the debates.

If he had done this, you might be seeing "Show Us the Law" signs at all of the tea parties and the IRS might now be running for cover to the same extent that Ben Bernanke is.

Ron Paul obviously does more than anyone could ever hope for the cause of freedom. I am just wondering why he steers clear of this topic in his talking points. This is likely a planned strategy decision on his part. My suspicion is that the topic is so hot that the PTB would pull out all of the stops to suppress any discussion of it, much like the 9-11 issue. i.e. anyone who touches is is a "wingnut."

 

[Matt Collins]

Making the Case for Ending the Income Tax: Part One

[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Making the Case for Ending the Income Tax: Part One

by Sharon Harris

Ending the personal income tax would be a great blessing for America.

However, to most Americans -- even those who hate the income tax -- the idea currently seems unrealistic and breathtakingly radical.

Can we persuade others to accept this idea -- and eventually propel it into the mainstream political discussion? Libertarians are already doing this with many issues, including drug relegalization, ending the Federal Reserve, privatization, and many more.

I believe we can and should add ending the personal income tax to that list. Here are some ways to present the idea as sensible, desirable, and realistic.

ONE: Use the popularity of Ron Paul. If you're discussing this issue with a Ron Paul admirer (and there are millions of them), then the battle is already at least half won. Just tell the person that Paul has long supported ending the personal income tax, and several times he has introduced legislation, the Liberty Amendment, to do this, most recently on April 30, 2009.

(Here are Paul's comments on introducing the Liberty Amendment. And here is the wording of the Liberty Amendment.)

In fact, even if your listener isn't a Ron Paul fan, the mere fact that legislation has been introduced in Congress to end the personal income tax will make the idea seem more real, more possible.

TWO: If appropriate, explain your position with dramatic language along these lines: "I want to end the income tax -- and replace it with... nothing." This makes it clear that you're calling for bold change, not just a reshuffling of the status quo. This is powerful and provocative phrasing. The "nothing" at the end surprises your listener -- and makes him eager to hear what you'll say next.

THREE: The natural question you'll be asked is: "But how will we fund the government without the income tax? How can we fund essential services?"

Happily, there's a great and persuasive answer. On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times interview:

"About 45 percent of all federal revenue comes from the personal income tax. That means that about 55 percent -- over half of all revenue -- comes from other sources, like excise taxes, fees, and corporate taxes.

"We could eliminate the income tax, replace it with nothing, and still fund the same level of big government we had in the late 1990s. We don't need to 'replace' the income tax at all."
[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul493.html[/URL]

That is remarkable and eye-opening: to think that we could adapt a budget from roughly ten years ago (or, more precisely, cut spending back to the still extremely high levels of just ten years ago) -- and no longer be plagued by the personal income tax.

FOUR: Having made this striking point, you can de-radicalize the issue by adding: "So perhaps this idea isn't so radical after all."

FIVE: Strengthen your case further by adding something along these lines: "By the way, in the late 1990s, when Bill Clinton was president, I don't remember many people complaining that government wasn't big enough, or complaining we had too little government."

Ask your listener if he would be willing to reduce the federal government to the size it was in the last years of the Clinton administration -- if it meant we could abolish outright the personal income tax.

Many people will respond by saying that we need more reduction than that! Congratulations -- you've just turned a radical-sounding idea into something that doesn't sound radical enough!

Next issue I'll share further ways to persuade your audience that this bold libertarian proposal is realistic and desirable.

* * * * * *
Sharon Harris is president of the Advocates for Self-Government. See more One Minute Liberty tips.[/FONT]

 

[Travlyr]

I was certainly not trying to stir up controversy. Freedom to Fascism was a great eye opener for me and an inspiring influence to want to roll back government. I wonder how many other people would wake up if Ron Paul tossed a couple of quick talking points in with his usual ones regarding the IRS. Something to the effect of "We're going broke. We tax too much. Spend too much maintaining our empire abroad. We are sacrificing our civil liberties. And, by the way, tell your senator that you want to see the law that requires you to pay taxes on your wages..." He could have even mentioned this in one of the debates.

If he had done this, you might be seeing "Show Us the Law" signs at all of the tea parties and the IRS might now be running for cover to the same extent that Ben Bernanke is.

Ron Paul obviously does more than anyone could ever hope for the cause of freedom. I am just wondering why he steers clear of this topic in his talking points. This is likely a planned strategy decision on his part. My suspicion is that the topic is so hot that the PTB would pull out all of the stops to suppress any discussion of it, much like the 9-11 issue. i.e. anyone who touches it is a "wingnut."

Why Has Dr. Paul Never Publicly Demanded The IRS To "Show Us The Law?"
You answered your own question. He would be framed as a "wingnut."

That's right. It is our job to expose the IRS.

 

[erowe1]

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Maybe he he decided to ask someone from the IRS privately first to see what they'd say, and maybe the IRS person he spoke to simply said, "It's 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)," and maybe Dr. Paul realized that a public version of that same exchange wouldn't turn out to be so exciting after all. Or maybe RP didn't even need to ask an IRS agent about that to begin with, since it's such easy-to-find information.

 

[anaconda]

Maybe he he decided to ask someone from the IRS privately first to see what they'd say, and maybe the IRS person he spoke to simply said, "It's 26 U.S.C. § 6012(a)," and maybe Dr. Paul realized that a public version of that same exchange wouldn't turn out to be so exciting after all. Or maybe RP didn't even need to ask an IRS agent about that to begin with, since it's such easy-to-find information.

26 CFR 602.101 - The Form Required appears to be only OMB No. 1545-0067 ("Foreign Earned Income") aka form 2555 (not 1040).

http://www.tax-freedom.com/index.htm

 

[DamianTV]

Was wondering if anyone had any thoughts on this. Would it backfire politically with msm spin?

Couldn't Dr. Paul have intelligently asked the IRS to "show us the law?" requiring us to file a 1040?

Or cite the Federal Court justice who said the 16th amendment was never ratified?

I think Roscoe Bartlett was on to this (per Freedom to Fascism..) but sounds like somebody got to him..Did Bartlett ever say why he didn't follow through with the meeting with the IRS?

Because then they WOULD write one in. Backfire waiting to happen.

 

[akforme]

What about the issue with the 5th?

That's what kinda pisses me off.