Ron Paul (again) on Ed & Elaine Brown & the income t

[ElfNinosMom]

Well, Ron Paul promoting shrimping sounds about right. That's how Forrest Gump made his millions, after all.

[.]

Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with cutting taxes, which I support.

Directing appropriated money to some particular purpose has everything to do with bringing the pork home to your district, which I don't support.

Whether he supports cutting taxes or bringing the pork home, he's a nut-job.

My support of tax cuts has nothing to do with him, or the fact that he's a nut-job.

[silversopp]

I support his cut spending, cut taxes agenda, but he really doesn't have a clue, and worse, panders constantly to the TP morons.

Cutting Taxes???

Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Considering that so many bills contain earmarks, it's probably very hard to vote for any bill without voting for earmarks as well.

[Quixote]

I support his cut spending, cut taxes agenda, but he really doesn't have a clue, and worse, panders constantly to the TP morons.

Cutting Taxes???

Ron Paul's $400 Million Earmarks

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html

Considering that so many bills contain earmarks, it's probably very hard to vote for any bill without voting for earmarks as well.

The $400 million in earmarks are just the earmarks Paul has proposed, not all of the earmarks he has voted for.

[RyanMcC]

The video quoted in this thread happened 2 months ago. This "Ron Paul (Again) on Ed & Elaine Brown" isn't again, this is the one and only time he commented on Ed & Elaine brown, the fact this was posted in "Ranting & Raving" and then again here doesn't mean Ron Paul did it again, it means it was posted twice. If this is "again" care to share with me the 1st comments Ron Paul made about the Browns?

The comments Ron Paul made about the Browns (that he was responding to in the video on post #1) can be watched here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L1RQkhjV85M

Watch the video of his original comments and note the question he was asked and how it was phrased.

Ron Paul was lied to about the facts of the case before he commented on it and he had no idea who the Browns were before being asked as the video clip above clearly shows.

--

It looks like Ron Paul is trying to play both sides of the fence

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes

and

I want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment

If the income tax is unconstitutional right now, then why would he want to repeal the Sixteenth Amendment?

We’re talking about an unconstitutional approach to collecting taxes

Acknowledging the 16th amendment exists and still disagreeing with the way the Income Tax is collected, and disagreeing that the 16th amendment should exist is not playing both sides of the field.

--

In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine, Paul acknowledged that the comments were printed in his newsletter under his name, but explained that they did not represent his views and that they were written by a ghostwriter. He further stated that he felt some moral responsibility for the words that had been attributed to him, despite the fact that they did not represent his way of thinking:

“They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them…I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that’s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.’”[65][8]

He further stated:

“I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren’t really written by me. It wasn’t my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady… we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.”[8]

Texas Monthly wrote in 2001, at the time they printed the denial, “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” They state that it would have been easier for him to deny the accusations at the time, because the controversy would have destroyed most politicians.[8]

In an April 2007 column on his official House of Representatives website,[66] Paul criticizes racism, saying:

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.”[66]

Books authored

NY Times Article - July 23, 2007:

“In the 1996 general election, Paul’s Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as “semi-criminal or entirely criminal” and stated that “by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government.” Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Paul’s newsletter as a laudably “racialist” publication.

Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself — quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. “Even the fact that you’re asking this question infers, ‘Oh, you’re an anti-Semite,’ ” he told me in June. Actually, it doesn’t. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraq’s Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and — unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration — defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israel’s. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.

[RyanMcC]

I support his cut spending, cut taxes agenda, but he really doesn't have a clue, and worse, panders constantly to the TP morons.

Pandering - 1. to indulge somebody's weaknesses or questionable wishes and tastes

Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that you will go to prison if you disobey the tax laws. That is not pandering to TP morons, that is educating them (and not a single thank-you from quatloos ). Here is an example of pandering:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=x1ZXD6AoNUU

With all due respect, Famspear, the problem I have with this kind of rhetoric is that it's a goddam lie.

You don't "plead" to a civil case, let alone ever "plead guilty". Those words apply only to criminal cases. Ditto the reference to constitutionality. The burden of proof in a civil case carries few constitutional implications, while the criminal burden of proof is written in virtual constitutional stone.

Do you think that Paul is such a dumbass that he doesn't know this?

So when you audit someone you start with the presumption the person being audited is innocent?

4th Amendment:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

What happens if during an audit I refuse to give the auditor any information or paperwork he requests citing the 4th amendment? Am I punished in some way for upholding my 4th amendment right?

The 5th amendment is predicated upon the case being a "capital, or otherwise infamous crime", but not the 4th.

Ron Paul says the income tax is operated in an unconstitutional manner (not that the tax system is unconstitutional), and if a system punishes you in any way for upholding any constitutional right it would be hard to disagree.

The "guilty plea" part was speaking figuratively, you do in essence have to prove your innocence to the IRS. They don't just sit around and say "we will take his word for it untill we have proof otherwise", all too often your name is randomly picked from a computer and you then have to prove your innocence to the IRS (ie: audit) as opposed to them having to prove you did anything wrong to begin with.

[Demosthenes]

Ron Paul definitely panders to the tax protest world.

Some obvious examples would be his appearance in Aaron Russo's movie and his speaking gigs at various tax scam conferences such as IGP.

[wserra]

So when you audit someone you start with the presumption the person being audited is innocent?

I don't do tax work, and plenty of people here do. They can correct me if this is wrong. But it seems to me that the words "presumption" and "audit" don't belong in the same sentence. A presumption affects a burden of proof - a fact or conclusion will be assumed to exist unless proved otherwise. I don't see the applicability of this concept to a non-adjudicative proceeding, where there is no burden of proof.

4th Amendment:

I know what it says, and quite a bit about it.

What happens if during an audit I refuse to give the auditor any information or paperwork he requests citing the 4th amendment? Am I punished in some way for upholding my 4th amendment right?

You have no 4th A. right to refuse to give information during an audit. You do have a 4th A. right not to have the auditor break into your house or office without a warrant and take your stuff. That's the "search" part, you see.

The 5th amendment is predicated upon the case being a "capital, or otherwise infamous crime", but not the 4th.

Only that part of the 5th A. which requires "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury" is predicated upon a felony (which evasion is, BTW). The part of the 5th A. which grants a privilege aganst self incrimination applies "in any criminal case." That part is not likely to help you in the event of an audit, though, for various reasons. The most important is that an audit is not a criminal case. And the auditor can always say, "OK, no documentation? Deduction disallowed." You are then without recourse.

There is a little more to this stuff than the TP (or Ron Paul) comic books show.

Ron Paul says the income tax is operated in an unconstitutional manner (not that the tax system is unconstitutional), and if a system punishes you in any way for upholding any constitutional right it would be hard to disagree.

Except it's not, and it doesn't.

[wserra]

his speaking gigs at various tax scam conferences such as IGP.

Paul spoke at an IGP conference? I didn't know that.

What an asshole.

[Quixote]

What happens if during an audit I refuse to give the auditor any information or paperwork he requests citing the 4th amendment

He denies all the deductions the paperwork would have supported. If he thinks you're hiding income, he'll gather the necessary information by some other means. And you will have not met the requirements of IRC 7491 under which you might have, in the event you petition Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency, shifted the burden of proof onto the IRS.

Am I punished in some way for upholding my 4th amendment right?

No. Your 4th amendment right never came into play. A request for information is neither a search nor a seizure.

The "guilty plea" part was speaking figuratively, you do in essence have to prove your innocence to the IRS.

No you don't. The IRS cannot indict you, much less convict you of a crime.

They don't just sit around and say "we will take his word for it untill we have proof otherwise", ...

School must have been a living hell for you, what with your teachers refusing to just take your word for it that you learned everything they taught. How dare they presume you ignorant until you proved otherwise.

... all too often your name is randomly picked from a computer and you then have to prove your innocence to the IRS ...

A very small percentage of returns are randomly selected for audit to keep the DIF calibrated. If you get audited a lot, it's because you've been sending up flares.

Oops, Wes beat me to it.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ron Paul definitely panders to the tax protest world.

Some obvious examples would be his appearance in Aaron Russo's movie and his speaking gigs at various tax scam conferences such as IGP.

Far too many people, even here, simply don't understand local politics and what it takes to stay in office. Paul panders only to his constituency by letting them be the proxy supporters of the fringe element from other parts of the country.

It's an interestingly orchestrated PR dance. Keep the faithful in the district honed in on the need for a "Ron Paul" candidate and let them feel good about standing up for everone else in other (less "aware") parts of the country who don't have a choice.

In effect, their heroic actions in keeping him in office serve the greater good of any movement away from the status quo.

Y'all need to spend some time in certain parts of Texas to fully understand how this sh*t works.

[RyanMcC]

A very small percentage of returns are randomly selected for audit to keep the DIF calibrated. If you get audited a lot, it's because you've been sending up flares.

Oops, Wes beat me to it.

Yes, I noticed how you both made that false assumption.

Never been audited, I pay 40% of my income to the IRS, and report every penny. I don't claim many deductions but can prove every single one for years back, and I probally missed a couple deductions if you forced me to go back and check. Heck the IRS mails me every year reminding me I forgot to claim EITC..

You fine folks have become jaded debating so many tax protestors, to a degree I understand, some of you need a vacation though.

I said the 5th amendment will not help in an audit, the Supreme Court already addressed this issue if I'm not mistaken. How wes managed to completely agree with that statement while somehow do it in a contradictory way is beond me..

You do have a 4th A. right not to have the auditor break into your house or office without a warrant and take your stuff. That's the "search" part, you see.

And you will have not met the requirements of IRC 7491 under which you might have, in the event you petition Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency, shifted the burden of proof onto the IRS.

Wouldn't an audit would be a search of your papers and effects? Atleast a law that required you turn them over without them having to "search" seems just as bad. If there were probable cause that you weren't being honest then it would seem reasonable. Seemingly if you don't comply with their request for information your only option would be to appeal to tax court where the burden of proof would then be on you. Which sounds like the point Ron Paul was trying to make. Burden of proof on you = Guilty until proven innocent.

My objection isn't that they can do it, my objection is that they can seemingly do it for little or no reason, or worse malicious reasons.

[Paul]

Heck the IRS mails me every year reminding me I forgot to claim EITC..

You're in a 40% bracket (I assume you rounded up) and somehow it appears to the IRS that you might qualify for EITC? No wonder EITC fraud has been such a problem.

[RyanMcC]

Heck the IRS mails me every year reminding me I forgot to claim EITC..

You're in a 40% bracket (I assume you rounded up) and somehow it appears to the IRS that you might qualify for EITC? No wonder EITC fraud has been such a problem.

My tax bracket will be considerably higher this year, the last 2 years I qualified for EITC though, I've never claimed it.

Actually considering what I expect to have to pay this year I was rounding down to reach 40% (25% federal tax + 15% social security + state tax). I'm self employed so I get to pay it all.

[Nikki]

Wouldn't an audit would be a search of your papers and effects? Atleast a law that required you turn them over without them having to "search" seems just as bad. If there were probable cause that you weren't being honest then it would seem reasonable. Seemingly if you don't comply with their request for information your only option would be to appeal to tax court where the burden of proof would then be on you. Which sounds like the point Ron Paul was trying to make. Burden of proof on you = Guilty until proven innocent.

My objection isn't that they can do it, my objection is that they can seemingly do it for little or no reason, or worse malicious reasons.

When you file a tax return, you sign, under penaliy of perjury, that (in essence) the return is accurate, correct, and complete.

If, for whatever resson, your return is selected for audit, you are required to substantiate the claims you made on the tax return.

You do that, in most cases of individual (as opposed to businesss) filers, by producing documentation which demonstrates that your return was accurate. If you claimed a mortgage deduction, you produce the statement from your mortgage holder. For local real estate taxes, you produce the tax bill.

You have the choice to not produce any documentation supporting your claims. In that case, the auditor presumes that your claims can not be substantiated and he disallows them.

There are no 4th or 5th amendment rights at stake. YOU made specific claims on your tax return which you are required, by law, to substantiate. (Unfortunately, the lawmakers have too little faith in the taxpayers to allow them to proceed on trust alone.)

You are only "guilty" if you lied on the tax return and can't document your lies.

Similarly, in Tax Court, you have to prove that the Commissioner was in error when he took some action that increased your taxes. If your initial position was correct and can be substantiated, the Commissioner WAS in error and you win.

However, by twisting words, you can make the process look like something totally different from what it is. That is exactly what Ron Paul does: twists words to pander to his electorate to keep him in congress.

If he really cared about the income tax, he'd do something more than introduce token legislation -- which gets laughed out of committee -- to abolish it. He doesn't care. He just wants it to appear that he does.

[LPC]

Actually considering what I expect to have to pay this year I was rounding down to reach 40% (25% federal tax + 15% social security + state tax). I'm self employed so I get to pay it all.

There is no 30% federal income tax bracket. There is a 28% bracket, and a 33% bracket, but no 30% bracket.

And for a single taxpayer, the 33% bracket STARTS at $160,850, which is a nice piece of change in my book. (The 28% bracket starts at "only" $77,100 of taxable income.)

The combined FICA/Medicare self-employment tax is 15.3%, but half of that is deductible, so the effective tax rate (at 33%) is only 11.77%, which makes the combined tax rate 44.77% if you are earning more than $160,850.

Of course, your AVERAGE tax rate is much less than that.

My heart bleeds for you. You poor bastard, forced to live on less than $100,000 per year.

[RyanMcC]

Actually considering what I expect to have to pay this year I was rounding down to reach 40% (25% federal tax + 15% social security + state tax). I'm self employed so I get to pay it all.

There is no 30% federal income tax bracket. There is a 28% bracket, and a 33% bracket, but no 30% bracket.

And for a single taxpayer, the 33% bracket STARTS at $160,850, which is a nice piece of change in my book. (The 28% bracket starts at "only" $77,100 of taxable income.)

The combined FICA/Medicare self-employment tax is 15.3%, but half of that is deductible, so the effective tax rate (at 33%) is only 11.77%, which makes the combined tax rate 44.77% if you are earning more than $160,850.

Of course, your AVERAGE tax rate is much less than that.

My heart bleeds for you. You poor bastard, forced to live on less than $100,000 per year.

I made an average of $8,000 per year for the last two years and paid an average of $1,500/yr taxes on that. I hope to have a considerably better year this year.

I also wasn't asking for sympathy, I was responding to the people who made the inaccurate assumption that I get audited often or don't pay taxes.

Refer to my previous statement about some of you being too jaded and needing a vacation.

[Nikki]

I made an average of $8,000 per year for the last two years and paid an average of $1,500/yr taxes on that.

$1,500 is approximately 18.75% of $8,000, no where near the 40% you claimed.

Obviously you weren't employed as a mathematician.

[RyanMcC]

I made an average of $8,000 per year for the last two years and paid an average of $1,500/yr taxes on that.

$1,500 is approximately 18.75% of $8,000, no where near the 40% you claimed.

Obviously you weren't employed as a mathematician.

No, you obviously didn't read my last couple posts where I addressed this.

I hope to have a better year this year than previous. As a self-employed person I make estimated tax payments am sending in about 40% of what I am making because that is what I estimate I will owe.

Considering that most things in this forum have been for the purpose of slamming Ron Paul or twisting the words of anyone defending him I'm beginning to feel like I'm shouting 26 USC 1 at a tax protestor..

[wserra]

Yes, I noticed how you both made that false assumption.

Quixote can ably speak for himself - what assumption did I make? None that I can see.

I said the 5th amendment will not help in an audit, the Supreme Court already addressed this issue if I'm not mistaken. How wes managed to completely agree with that statement while somehow do it in a contradictory way is beond me..

I thought my post was pretty honkin' clear. While you were right that the 5th A. does not generally apply to an audit, you got the reason wrong. It has nothing to do with the existence of a "capital, or otherwise infamous crime". It has everything to do with (1) the absence of a criminal case at all, and (2) you have no privilege to refuse to produce records the law requires you to keep in the first place (except in an interesting little corner of the law called "act of production" for short, which doesn't apply here).

Wouldn't an audit would be a search of your papers and effects?

Not even close.

Atleast a law that required you turn them over without them having to "search" seems just as bad.

Not to those (appellate judges) whose opinions count.

Burden of proof on you = Guilty until proven innocent.

Quixote already answered this in other words. Suppose I claim that last year I had $1.5M in unreimbursed employee business expense. Are you actually saying that the law should require the IRS to prove that I didn't?