Sorry, it is he who makes a claim that there is a connection here, and it is therefore he who must provide the evidence.
By comparison, suppose I claim that pink things are heavier than white things. This is ridiculous, right? But you say, politely, that there is no evidence to support that claim. I counterattack: you should prove why I am wrong. Do you see how illogical this is? The burden is on the one who makes a ridiculous claim, not the one who points out that it is such.
"The FED has been destroying the free market since 1913."
This is facutally incorrect. It was FDR, not the Fed, who instituted price-fixing and other controls of the economy. It was Nixon, not the Fed, who also fixed wages and price of oil. Which is why Ron Paul is nothing but a conspiracy theorist: he and his ilk attribute to the Fed the influence it does not even have and actions it never took. This boringly old theory was originally designed to demonstrate that Jews enslave the world (don't you know about the Rothschildss? They started all wars, you know).
"Income tax is an assault on our personal liberty."
No, it is perfectly constitutional: the Constitution allowed it with a provision that it be applied uniformly, that's all. Adam Smith, the most "conservative" and "libertarian" ecoomist, even decleared that to be fair a tax should be progressive.
But suppose for a moment that you are correct, suppose that income tax is an affront on liberty. Then you and Paul must demonstrate how alternatives such as tariffs are lesser affronts on liberty. He does not even try. Nor has he ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge of economics even to discuss this matter intelligently.
"The only function of the gov. should be what the Founding Fathers said to protect private property not to tax."
Factually incorrect again: our Founders have also told us about the provision of public goods such as defense. [FYI: any provision of public goods is an assault on individual liberty: markets do not provide public goods.]
See, the truth --- whether you speak of economics or Constitution --- is more subtle. We could disagree in the area of opinions, but not facts. And every single thing you said is counter to fact. You have bought, perhaps inadvertently, into a conspiracy theory. All such things manipulate (misrepresent) facts or invent them outright.
You may want to read up more on this issue. There is a book "A Brief History of Income Taxation in the U.S." (I forgot the author). If you read this much, you'll learn that income taxation is not at all contrary to the Constitution and has been used well before 1913.
The income tax is NOT Constitutional.
Ron Paul is not alone on this. U.S. Income Tax is a FRAUD
By comparison, suppose I claim that pink things are heavier than white things. This is ridiculous, right? But you say, politely, that there is no evidence to support that claim. I counterattack: you should prove why I am wrong. Do you see how illogical this is? The burden is on the one who makes a ridiculous claim, not the one who points out that it is such.
No the burden is on YOU. You made the claim that Dr. Paul is wrong. I asked you for a reason why. You didn't provide it and instead called Dr. Paul crazy. If I say the sky is blue, and you say it isn't and I ask you to prove to me why it isn't then it's YOU who needs to argue the facts.
But suppose for a moment that you are correct, suppose that income tax is an affront on liberty. Then you and Paul must demonstrate how alternatives such as tariffs are lesser affronts on liberty. He does not even try. Nor has he ever demonstrated sufficient knowledge of economics even to discuss this matter intelligently.
How are taxes considered "liberty"? They steal the fruits of our labor. Most of the things the gov. spends MY taxes on (gov. schools, libraries, obamacare) are things I NEVER asked for so why does the gov. DEMAND me to pay for them? If liberals and socialists and RINOs want to pay more in taxes for these things then let them but don't force ME.
Nomenclature in the art of political entities purposely confuses ‘Fed’ using it interchangeably between Federal Government and Federal Reserve Bank. By the headlines, you can never be sure which one is being referred to while both are in effect taking the blame.
And TopQuark, what are you talking about? Just trying to confuse the issue? I suggest you wrap your mind around the legal definition of ‘income’ before you start in on taxation. I can see very well where, the argument that labor is worthless and compensation is a gain when applied to work ethic, in your case.