The Income Tax vs. Freedom: Ayn Rand Explains

LEARN MORE ABOUT AYN RAND’S RADICAL CASE FOR FREEDOM
in her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

This was Ayn Rand’s answer to a question asked during an interview on 19th-century capitalism.

Question 1: Do you think the income tax amendment is in contradiction to the Constitution?
Question 2: Is the progressive feature of the tax the source of the contradiction?

TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:03) - Do you think the income tax amendment is in contradiction to the Constitution?
(00:19) - Is the progressive feature of the tax the source of the contradiction?

Ayn Rand, “19th-Century Capitalism,” Columbia University, WKCR, 1964.

Subscribe to ARI’s YouTube channel to make sure you never miss a video:
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:

******

******

[kitchencarvings]

That distant future is here now, Ayn. I believe we are going to see it very soon.

[GabrieleCripezzi]

And that's exactly what's about to happen

[zalvador]

Don't simply retire from something; have something to retire to. Start saving, keep saving, and stick to investments

[joshcal]

The bigger problem in my opinion are property taxes. They effectively mean you can never live off the grid, or even retire if you don’t plan to pay pay the government for the rest of your life to be allowed to keep owning what you’ve already bought. It’s literally a tax to stop them from stealing your things.

[fightlikabrave]

the tax is being miss-applied since the around 1930's -1940's.
The word "INCOME" as defined in the tax documents is always under-pinned by FEDERALLY connected economic activity and not private. Your ACTIVITY is what makes you liable for a tax, not simply earning money. Thats the trick. the tax is for those who either work at the govt, have govt contracts, earn through a benefit of govt property/contracts (excise or usage) (earn from a govt source which is what the 16th amd addresses, it does NOT grant taxation to ALL money made).

the income tax was made to make sure that anyone who profits from the govt or govt deals/contracts GIVES BACK for their contractual priviledge or use of govt property.

PRIVATE EARNINGS fron NON federally connected sources are NOT taxable and are NOT "income" as defined on the tax forms. When you fill out the "witness" forms every year, you are allowing them to withold money thats ALL yours AND signing under penalty that you DID "earn income" according to the tax codes.. you CAN use the subsitute forms... this is all withing our laws and its NOT "soverign citizen/change your status" crap its as simple as : "If my earnings are not federally connected, they are not "income".

TGHIS is %100 the trick and the solution is out there: Run with these breadcrumbs

[chetpomeroy]

The income tax *itself* is scrupulously Constitutional. If one earns taxable federal income, one is required to pay taxes on those types of earnings. However, those who earn money from working in the *private sector* wherein our federal government was not a party to their economic transactions are not legally subject to the tax.

[me-hkrl]

of course not. it is bondage nullifying the right to life by laying a tax on the right to work for that which is necessary to avail oneself of this right.

[allansmith]

My simple solution to TAX only pay tax on what you use and what want. If you don't use it don't pay for it. Simple.

[luukzwart]

What is the name and date of the article she is talking about from 1:21 onwards?

[HMD]

The concept of taxation contradicts the idea of a society composed of truly free individuals. Even if a small amount of coercion, such as 1%, is considered acceptable, it will inevitably expand into a fully coercive society, akin to a concentration camp. This is similar to how a single cancer cell can eventually develop into a full-scale tumor.

[Menstral]

Forget the income tax, property taxes where the real scam is

[p_sndp]

Abolish income tax department and save the world from income tax terrorism

[duaneronan]

You must have income to live. You pay tax on income. You pay tax to live. A tax on every individual, to live. The Founders understood this as a crime, and Constitutionally banned it accordingly. The Amendment, instituting income tax, was never properly ratified. Further, the Founders believed people had God given rights before the Constitution was accepted, and nothing in that document can change that. Not even an Amendment. Any Amendment that violates people's rights, is a crime by the government. It may make it "Constitutional", but that only degrades the Constitution, and it is still a crime. Ayn preferred to say it is our right by virtue of our nature as Man, rather than "God given right". But, she certainly came to the correct conclusion.

[davedismantled]

The solution is NO government, at all. Ayn, you were good - but you fell short.

[carllelendt]

I'm a natural-born, extreme!! tightwad. I require force-of-law.

[SneakySteevy]

Only when they manage is well managed.

[adrianainespena]

Question "Do we want/need a government?" If no, no problem. If yes, how do we pay its bills? Governments do not work for free, you know.

Since there are no money trees, then the people must pay.

Of course, you could do as the early Republic did, and use tariffs on imported goods. It worked well then, I understand.

Freedom is not free. It must be paid for.

[hellothere-hxby]

I think the best way to have a voluntary form of taxation is by making it an obligation of citizenship since those who wish to be citizens wish to have political power and support the government. If someone wishes to be represented in the government, they cannot push their moral responsibility to fund their representatives onto others. "No taxation without representation" must also have "no representation without taxation." But, this would have to be subject to other "checks and balances" conditions so that the government isn't able to deter too many people from being citizens.