That is about as concise and accurate as a definition can be; it leaves no room for argument as to what taxation is. In that statement of fact the word “compulsory” looms large, simply because of its ethical content.
The quick reaction is to question the “right” of the State to this use of power. What sanction, in morals, does the State adduce for the taking of property?
Is its exercise of sovereignty sufficient unto itself?
A basic immorality becomes the center of a vortex of immoralities. When the State invades the right of the individual to the products of his labors it appropriates an authority which is contrary to the nature of things and therefore establishes an unethical pattern of behavior, for itself and those upon whom its authority is exerted.
Thus, the income tax has made the State a partner in the proceeds of crime; the law cannot distinguish between incomes derived from production and incomes derived from robbery; it has no concern with the source. Likewise, this denial of ownership arouses a resentment which breaks out into perjury and dishonesty.
Men who in their personal affairs would hardly think of such methods, or who would be socially ostracized for practicing them, are proud of, and are complimented for, evasion of the income tax laws; it is considered proper to engage the shrewdest minds for that purpose.
More degrading even is the encouragement by bribes of mutual spying. No other single measure in the history of our country has caused a comparable disregard of principle in public affairs, or has had such a deteriorating effect on morals.
The first great lesson to learn about taxation is that taxation is simply robbery. No more and no less. For what is “robbery”? Robbery is the taking of a man’s property by the use of violence or the threat thereof, and therefore without the victim’s consent. And yet what else is taxation?
NAR quickly released material to show that the tax doesn’t target real estate and will in fact affect very few home sales, because it’s a tax that will only affect high-income households that realize a substantial gain on an asset sale, including on a home sale, once other factors are taken into account. Maybe 2-3 percent of home sellers will be affected.
Seventy-nine percent say everyone should pay something, according to a Fox News poll released Thursday. That includes 85 percent of Republicans, 83 percent of independents and 71 percent of Democrats.
Supreme Errors by Peter Schiff (“The Evil Republicans Will Never Repeal O-Care They love power and pelf, too. Article by Peter Schiff.”)
In the wake of my last commentary on the horrendous Supreme Court decision upholding Obama’s health care plan, several people have pointed out that I erred in saying that the income tax is a “direct tax.” While it is technically correct that the Court ultimately declared it to be an excise, not a direct tax, it is important to understand how it arrived at that opinion and why the decision has no practical relevance to the way the tax has been enforced.
Just as it has done with Obamacare, the Court came up with a technically constitutional pathway to allow the government to collect a tax in a blatantly unconstitutional manner.
(“Dr. No is on one side. The Republicrat Party is on the other……”) Alan Stang — Republican Party, Red From the Start
…..So, again, the Republican Party did not “go wrong.” It was rotten from the start. It has never been anything else but red. The characterization of Republican states as “red states” is quite appropriate.
What do these revelations mean to us?
Again, Dr. Paul is an aberration. He is not a “traditional Republican.” A “traditional Republican” stands for high taxes, imperial government and perpetual war.
Dr. Paul is much more a traditional Democrat.
I refer of course to the Democrat Party before the Communist takeover, which began with the election of Woodrow Federal Reserve-Income Tax-World War I Wilson and was consummated with the election of liar, swindler, thief, traitor and mass murderer Franklin Delano Roosevelt.