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.
If you think that truth is determined by vote, neither I nor anybody else can help you. " 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."
What you said here is correct but is inapplicable to the issue at hand (it is what is called a non-example). The claim "the sky is blue" has been verified numerous times by multiple methodologies (in scientific methodology the latter is called triangulation). It is, most importantly, a statement of fact.
Unlike a statement of fact, claims such as "Fed (A) brought about this or that (B)" are questions of causality. There are numerous threats to causal inferences (they have been eloquently enumerated by Cook and Campbel in 1956 and now available in any textbook on research methods under "Threats to Validity"). The person making a causal inference "A causes B" must demonstrate, in particular, that it is not some C, D, etc. that caused B instead of A.
Once again: it does not matter what A and B are; the author of assertion musd demonstrate the validity of the causal implication he proposes. It's just a matter of logic (you are welcome to verify that, too; these issues go back to the early 1800s, in particular, J.S. Mill "On science" -- you'd like him, as he is a fellow libertarian).
TQ: "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. C: "How are taxes considered "liberty"?
Forgive me, but this is total nonsense: where did I say that taxes are liberty. If anything, I said that (i) if he advocates abolishing income tax because it is an affront on liberty, then he must also demonstrate that other forms of taxation are not, and (ii) provision of public goods (defense, police, street lighting, etc.) is always an affront on liberty: free markets do not provide public goods (this is a fact of economics), and a coercive power of the government is needed for that.
You response to my words is not wrong: it does not make any sense.
I have mentioned that notions you operate with are well-established, well-known and available in textbooks and other sources --- on economics, research methods, and history. Trying to be of help, I have tried to summarize them briefly. If I were you, I'd simply conclude that I apparently haven't learned enough and jumped to conclusions. The choice is yours.
Thank you for the discussion.