So does this mean he does not accept a government paycheck or use his expense account?
If he does, does this make him a hypocrite?
Context, please? I’m no Ron Paul fan but he believes the federal government should tax to pay for constitutionally mandated functions of the federal government only. That is quite different than saying “taxes are theft.”
I’m sorry.
He was on Meet the Press just a few minutes ago, and he was telling David Gregory that he believes taxation is theft and immoral. We should not be taking money from people against their will. Fees tacked onto services are one thing, but taxes are another.
Hmmm…I googled Ron Paul and see some quotes that say he is in favor of abolishing the federal income tax. It looks like he favors government being funded by excise taxes, non-protectionist tariffs and spending cuts. From here:
I’m not sure this makes him a hypocrite. He disagrees with the way government funds itself but he, like any other elected official, must work within the confines of the current system in order to bring about change.
Go to 10:20 to hear about his views on taxes.
Ron Paul is just another presidential candidate/fund raiser, and hypocrite. Not exactly news. I doubt more than a tiny percentage of feather brained political idealogues actually believe everything any candidate says, or expect them to be consistent.
Taxation is theft when you use it to transfer wealth from one group to another. (Not sure I got the exact wording, but that’s the crux.)
That’s what he said. Do you want to rethink your OP in light of that?
Most taxation is pretty much transfering wealth from one group to another. The alternative is called “keeping it”.
What does that have to do with the questions the OP is asking?
I don’t see how that qualifier changes the OP, John.
Especially since my question is regarding the transfer of the taxpayer’s wealth to the congressman’s bank account.
I think we can safely characterize his qualification of that remark as confined to entitlements (welfare, SS, medicare, etc.). His salary is paid for services rendered, just as in the private sector.
I love bashing libertarians as much as the next guy, but isn’t Ron Paul working on behalf of the taxpayer and hence entitled to compensation? It’s not like Ron Paul is collecting social security and medicare while bitching about entitlement programs. He’s being paid to do a job.
How about for stimulus spending on infrastructure projects that create jobs?
I was referring to the same thing you were in the previous post. By using the word “wealth”, and by not being clear as to the meaning of “groups”, it allows the listener to fill in the blanks with whatever “group” she/he dislikes most-women, men, Republicans, Democrats, the poor, the rich, those of a certain race and/or country of origin. It is basically saying “I support you(whoever you are), and I oppose them(whoever they are).”
IANRP, but my guess is that he would object to stimulus spending on the grounds that it doesn’t create net jobs because it extracts money from the private sector, where the money is more efficiently used. I also suspect he would prefer any infrastructure spending to be done at the state level.
Only if the listener is intentionally trying to be obtuse, or is completely ignorant of RP’s political philosophy.
Ron Paul’s political philosophy holds government in roughly the same regard as Frankenstein’s Monster holds fire.
Not exactly nuanced. 
He talked about the income tax.
Does SS and medicare get funded out of income taxes?
His argument seems to boil down to the income tax not being what the country’s forefathers intended. They were all about fees for services (and boy were they!), but not for taxing people for the benefits they have reaped by being a member of society. For this reason, the logic seems to be, our tax system is immoral.
When people cite what the forefathers wanted or intended as the basis for deciding what’s moral or not, a flap drops over my ears.
But that’s neither here nor there. Surely, John, you can see SOME dissonance. If I discover my salary is based on a dirty scheme, I’m not going to keep cashing my checks. I’ll solicit donations from people who agree with me (because if some thievin’ is a-foot, surely the land is teeming with enough victims who’d support my cause). But I wouldn’t be taking that bad nasty thievery money. It’s called standing on your principles and not allowing yourself to be open to attacks of hypocrisy and nut-jobbery.
Ron is also on record saying the US president shouldn’t make more than $40,000 a year. I’m just curious if that’s anywhere close to what he’s pulling in as a congressman. If it’s not, is he returning that “excess” money to the poor people it was snatched from? Such an action would make him an inspiring figure, wouldn’t it?
I don’t know about the OP’s opinion, but that doesn’t make it look any smarter. In fact just as dumb. It dilutes theft to have a uselessly broad meaning while trying to keep it’s moral charge
Let’s assume “Taxation is theft when you use it to transfer wealth from one group to another” to be true.
That means student aid for college is theft, food assistance is theft, libraries are theft, public education is theft, stimulus is theft, the American highway system is theft, Coast Guard search and rescue is theft, UHC would be theft, and so fourth.
All you have to do prove that these programs are theft is show one group uses them disproportionately to how all the groups fund them. Pretty much any pillar of western society is theft under this. So, for example, either Pell Grants are evil or there’s good forms of theft.
Labeling things as theft does nothing to advance the debate.
Further I’m being generous in not point how arbitrary “groups” is. How is group defined? By income, race, religion, state, favorite color, what?
Since that statement includes no definition of groups then I say we group by planet of residence. Since all programs to benefit the group of Earthicans come from Earthican funds than no theft.
I am sure you are right WRT Ron Paul’s philosophy, but I fundamentally disagree with him, In a period of economic downturn, his definition of “efficient” does not grow the economy for the largest number of people in the shortest time. Capitalism is a wonderful system with powerful incentives, but when risks are high like today, the private sector sits on its hands because they want someone else to to assume the risk and jump start the economy. They want the profits that roll in during good times, but not the responsibility for pulling the bacon out of the fire when things go bad. Private sector ‘efficiency’ would eventually get around to it, but only after extensive damage to millions of lives. I believe in a government that will make that investment with taxes from the those who have benefited the most from the economic climate made possible by federal laws.
So, according to Ron Paul, we will never again attempt anything on the scale of the Interstate Highway system, or Hoover Dam?
He didn’t explicitly mention FICA in that interview, but do you really think he approves of it? He’s on record as wanting to privatize SS.
Immoral when used to redistribute wealth. He’s might be right about the FFs, but the fact is we did pass an amendment to the constitution, and that is now part of the constitution. The SCOTUS ruled the income tax unconstitutional, which is why that had to happen.
I don’t think he’s saying that. I think he 's saying that the FFs didn’t want it and that it is immoral. I don’t see him arguing for a causal relationship there.
Not really. With the qualifier he gave, he’s not involved in a wealth transfer scheme, but in a fee for services scheme.
What does he think a Congressman should make? Maybe he thinks a Congressman should make more than the president.
Not in my mind. If someone decides to hire me for more money than I think I’m worth, I’m happy to take that money with a clean conscience, as long as I didn’t misrepresent myself.
If you saw a painting at a garage sale with a price well under what you knew it to be worth at auction, would you offer to pay the seller more than he was asking? I wouldn’t. Or rather, I wouldn’t feel that I was morally obligated to do so.