[rock jock]

I was alarmed on Tuesday by interviews from roving reporters in San Antonio (a city picked at random by a major news group) that indicated large numbers of folks cheat on their taxes without any compunction. Now, let me say at the outset that I think federal taxes are way too high. I could probably even be convinced that they shouldn't exist at all. I also believe that that a significant portion of our taxes are either squandered or go to support stuff that the federal govt. should not be involved in in the first place (Social Security, Medicare, welfare). HOWEVER, my opinion is that everyone should pay their fair part and when they don't, I end up paying more (by way of higher tax rates) to make up for it. The federal income tax is still the law of the land right now. I obey that law even if I don't agree with it. I also know that if everyone refused to pay their taxes, things like kicking Iraq's backside would be impossible. Just ask russia, who keeps its military barely surviving on $10 billion a year.

So, my question is, suppose you find out the guy down the street or a contractor you hired to renovate your kitchen, or a co-worker is not reporting a significant part of their income. Would you turn them in? If you're undecided, consider this: what if this person comes up to you one day and starts bragging about the brand new car he just bought. Now, you know that there is no way he could afford that car if he was paying his fair share of taxes. You also know that you are personally in desparate need of a new car and could afford the down payment if you hadn't paid several thousands of dollars into the govt. coffers last year. Would you just consider yourself a sucker for obeying the law? Would you just congratulate him on his new prize and inside envision a large anvil falling his head? Or, would you laugh and then later call the IRS and turn him in, collecting 10% of the back-tax penalty he is hit with? If you did turn him in, would you feel guilty, like a Big Brother collaborater, or would you simply chalk his loss up to his own irresponsibility and selfishness?

[Greg L]

I wouldn't turn him in. However if we had a business realtionship I would realize that it does carry over and have no more dealings with him.

I wouldn't rat him out for 10% of the penalty (my morals are more expensive than the less than $1k it would generate. Now if I knew that Bill Gates' accountants were screwing him, my morals may be a little more flexible (of course if I was that deep on the inside to know that, I'm sure that there would be plenty of other insider tips to make up the difference...))

Greg

[hammer4nc]

The open question is "fairness"...can a "fair" share possibly be determined by a tax code that is inherently "unfair"? Containing as it does all the bribery induced exemptions for special interests? Funding as it does wasteful programs that kill individual initiative, and help to destroy any observance of constitutional principles?

Its interesting that one would argue for compliance with a system based on "fairness", while at the same time completely ignoring most other moral implications of that system. "Fair share" is a term hyped by the IRS director, hoping to maximize his revenue by officially encouraging taxpayer units to snitch on one another, without conscience.

How much time do you think he spends worrying about the "fairness" of IRS rulings (not legislation) that make or break taxpayer units on a daily basis? How about the "fairness" of an appeal system that presumes guilt, and places the burden of proof on the taxpayer unit? In which the "judges" are former agents? Other systemic problems that I don't have the time to list right now.

Is it "fair" to facilitate an addict's dependency?

[Ian]

I also know that if everyone refused to pay their taxes, things like kicking Iraq's backside would be impossible. Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

[JW2]

Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

I hope this is a sarcastic statement.

[AJ Dual]

Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

I hope this is a sarcastic statement.

I'd say it's only half sarcastic, taxes are not theft, which is the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property.

Taxes are robbery the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property by force, or threat of force.

Think I'm joking?

Nope.

If you decide you don't have to pay some or all of your taxes, what happens? Sure, the process is all "civilized" at first, involving paperwork, and lawyers etc. but what if you decide to ignore the paperwork, or a summons to court?

"They" come for you, to bring you to court. Who is "They"?
Police, Sheriffs, Agents. etc. etc. etc. What does such a person or persons do? They come up your door, and ask you nicely to go with them in the white cars with the neat lights on the roof to go see the judge.

If you don’t?

They grab you.

If you pull away?

They pepper spray you.

If you still won't submit?

They pull their guns.

If you pull a gun?

Lead starts flying, and eventually you lose.

The ultimate result of refusal to pay taxes, and the property confiscation that will ensue, is imprisonment or death.

Taxes, therefore is indeed the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property by force, or threat of force. Whether or not it's robbery, I leave to you.

But I don't remember voting for, or signing anything that said I agreed to be taxed.

If you think this is all melodramatic hyperbole, what happened to Randy Weaver's family over his refusal to pay a $200 tax for cutting a shotgun barrel to less than 18"?

So I suppose someone might argue that taxes are still not robbery since you get things in return for your taxes, roads, police, schools, Social Security (yuck), NASA, and the Military etc. etc.

Ok, then. So if a bum comes up to you on the street, puts a knife to your throat, and "sells" you a watch, that's OK too?

Just checking.

[Ebbtide]

collecting 10% of the back-tax penalty he is hit with?

Is this true? If so, i could quit my job and do this full time.

[JW2]

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

[cuchulainn]

law of the land

If you lived in Canada and your friend had an unregistered gun, would you turn him in? (Or Cali, NY, Mass, NJ, etc). Or to take it to the most extreme, if you lived in Nazi Germany and your neighbor was hiding a family of Jews, would you turn him in?

Don't worry, I'm not comparing Nazism to taxation. Rather, my point is to ask if the law is wrong, do you have a moral obligation to:

1) not only obey it, but
2) become an agent of the state and assist in catching others who don't obey it?

There's a big leap from 1) to 2)


BTW "fair share" = Clintonspeak

[JW2]

I don't think you have a moral obligation to do either one, especially not choice 2.

[AJ Dual]

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

Well, I'm partly just playing Devil's Advocate here, but also partly serious.

If you'd like to see "how that would work", I suggest you read some books by a nice man named L. Neil Smith.

They're enjoyable reading too, and full of plenty of gun tidbits to keep thehighroad.org members happy.

http://www.lneilsmith.com/

[JW2]

Maybe Mr. Smith's ideas drift from his parties' and he does have a plan for completely eliminating taxes, but browsing this guy's website, he appears to be a Libertarian. IIRC the Libertarians have never advocated eliminating taxes, but simply promoted more responsibility for individuals and private organizations to take part in their community to provide services that the government normally provides. This would cut taxes dramatically but not eliminate them by taking away social welfare programs. Also by cutting back the military to a level necessary to defend the US from attack, it would cut back on military expenditure. They may have other plans to reduce taxes but there is no practical and realistic way that taxes could be completely eliminated and still have roads, military, etc.

Yes, I believe that taxes could be drastically cut, but never eliminated completely.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled program. :)

[mercedesrules]

I'm with Ian, Andrew, and cuchulainn on this one. Taxation is theft and must be ended. What anyone does after that is their own business. I would buy a few dozen stinger missiles and RPGs.

MR

[Partisan Ranger]

I realize that some form and level of taxation is necessary. After all, even if the federal government actually stuck to the functions enumerated in the Constitution, it would need SOME money to operate (for such things as separating the heads and torsos of murderous terrorist savages).

My problem is with income taxes. Why should people pay taxes based upon how much they earn, and the more they earn, the more they pay? It seems to me, the more productive you are, the more you should be rewarded, not punished. Rewarding sloth and punishing acheivement isn't American - it's Soviet.

I believe moving to a consumption tax is the only fair way to collect taxes. A national sales tax, like the Fair Tax, taxes people for what they use, not what they earn.

[JW2]

Now I have no argument with you here partisan ranger, the key to your post is that some form of taxation is necessary. There are some who would have you to believe that taxes in general are unnecessary and wrong.

[Marko Kloos]

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

Nobody should be forced to pay taxes, more accurately. If you do not control the fruits of your labor, then you do not own yourself. As it is, you work until June to contribute your "fair share", which means that you're a slave to the government for almost half the year.

Now, if the government were to walk around the neighborhoods with collection cups, and politely ask whether the citizenry would be interested in contributing to a stealth bomber or a few thousand sacks of wheat for Somalia, I'd have no problem giving what I can to the causes I see necessary. When you introduce compulsion under threat of force, it becomes immoral robbery.

If it's not legal or moral for you to hold a gun to the head of neighbor Smith to collect 50% of his income, so you can give it to neighbors Jones and Davis in the form of welfare checks and farm subsidies...why on Earth should it be legal and moral for the government to do it for you?

The average family pays more in taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. – Congressman Dick Armey, Why a Flat Tax? Durell Journal of Money and Banking, Spring 1995

According to the Tax Foundation, taxes now consume more than 38% of the average family's budget. That is more than is spent on food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. Compare this to the plight of medieval serfs. They only had to give the lord of the manor one-third of their output -- and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us? – Daniel Mitchell, The Washington Times, 3/9/99

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – President Calvin Coolidge

The average American family head will be forced to do twenty years' labor to pay taxes in his or her lifetime. – James Bovard, Lost Rights

All the fiery rhetoric of the Founders was directed at a "tyrant" who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. Today, we in "the land of the free" are taxed at about 50 percent when you add federal, state, and local taxes. What kind of government would do this? A dictatorship would. – Doug Newman

It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion." – Harry Browne

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer. – Joseph Sobran, columnist.

[JW2]

Now, if the government were to walk around the neighborhoods with collection cups, and politely ask whether the citizenry would be interested in contributing to a stealth bomber or a few thousand sacks of wheat for Somalia, I'd have no problem giving what I can to the causes I see necessary. When you introduce compulsion under threat of force, it becomes immoral robbery.

I'm sure we'll never come to an agreement on this, but I think your idea is great, if we lived in an ideal world. The problem is, you and I would freely give some of our money to taxes, but would we be able to rely on the goodwill of everyone to give enough to maintain the proper amount of money needed for government functions? If someone decides not to give taxes for roads, for example, should a database be constructed and those who didn't give shouldn't be allowed to drive on that road?

It's a good idea in theory but would never work in the real world.

[DeltaElite]

Is there a reward? :neener:

As long as multi-millionaires pay less than I do, anyone who can get away with it is on their own, I don't really care.
When they get caught, they will care, since the IRS is all powerful.

[Partisan Ranger]

One other thought - the key to tearing down the current tax structure in our Republic is to eliminate withholding of taxes. Do you all know that withholding started during WWII as a 'temporary' war measure? It seems that the light bulb came on for some pols in the 40s after the war. "Hey guys, you know, if we withhold people's money before they ever receive it, most of them are too dumb to notice! We can spend through the roof and stay in office forever! Yay!"

Eliminating withholding would cause a revolution that would make the one in 1776 look like a mild skirmish.

[CZ-75]

Nothing would be more fair than a national sales tax.

You choose whether or not to pay taxes through how much you consume.

As to the poor, they could apply for a refund, based either on actual receipts or an estimated consumption that takes into account income and number of persons living in the family and age of those persons.

From everything I keep hearing, we pay 22% hidden tax on most goods because the sellers, distributors, and manufacturers pass those costs on to the consumer. Were the govt. to charge the same, overtly, we'd still come out ahead (assuming retailers, etc. didn't see this as an opportunity to collect an add'l. 22% profit)

Imagine the amount of paperwork (and money) that could be saved, also.

[Kaylee]

turn him in? no...
applaud.. maybe. :)

As to the IRS being all powerful.. feh. NO human being or human institution is all powerful, not even them... as much as they'd like us to believe it. Heck, there's a whole bloody industry out there of ex-agents making a living fighting the IRS off in the backrooms of courthouses.. and should it ever come right down to it, IRS folks are even more susceptible to the Bowman treatment than the ATF boys.

The question is.. how much are you willing to give up fighting them? Since I'm a wuss, basically... I stay honest with 'em. :)


Finally, as to the morality of taxation..
I really don't see an ethical difference in extortion whether pressed by an individual or a collective. If it's something you can't get most everyone to willingly pony up for.. I guess it just ain't that important.

Seriously.. if an idea's so unpopular the only way you can pay for it is through the threat of force... maybe it's time to reconsider the necessity of the idea in the first place.

-K

[444]

No, I wouldn't turn him in or think any the worse for him. Let's stop and think for a minute who the theif is here. When I was a very young kid my parents taught me that the act of taking something that wasn't yours, without the owners permission was called stealing. Later on I learned what the word extortion means.
Extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.
If I knew someone who was being extorted by anyone and this person turned the tables I certainly would congratulate them. If I knew someone was being robbed and they turned the tables I would congratulate them.

[Kaylee]

Oh yeah.. one more thing.

Sometimes I really have to wonder where these politicians, particularly (but by no means exclusively) the leftist variety, go to school as kids. I mean, they learned an entirely different kind of math than I did in Cobden Elementary...

"spending cut" == more than last year, but not as much more as I wanted.

"your fair share" == as much of your money as I decide you owe me.

"budget surplus" == The amount of money we'll have left over in ten years if these extremely atypical boom conditions last indefinately and we keep our hands out of the cookie jar, which we all know will never happen.

"spending the surplus" == not taking as much of your money as we'd originally planned


I mean.... :confused:

-K

[444]

This whole "you should pay your fair share" argument is one of my faviorites. Let me give an example at the federal, state, and local level.
I make an upper middle class income, however I am unmarried, have no children, and own a very modest 1000 square foot "modular home". In other words, I don't have many write offs.
A guy I work with makes more money than I do, but he has six kids (his choice), owns a very large home (around 3000 square feet), and is married.
He pays a tiny fraction of the federal income tax that I do even though he uses infinitely more government services than I do.

I own a 2003, 3/4 Ton, 4 wd, diesel, Ford pickup. I pay though the nose to register this truck because the registration fee is based on it's worth.
My next door neighbor owns a POS, old, beat up, oil burner. He pays a tiny fraction of what I do because it isn't worth as much.
Yet we both drive on the same roads. Am I using more of the roads, or the signs, or whatever than he is ?

Before I moved to my present home, I bought this 2 1/2 acre lot. It was just a piece of desert that has been here since the dawn of time. It is on a dirt road. It had no public utilities, and I didn't live here. There was a volunteer fire department and a paid sheriff's department, but who cares since I had nothing here to lose. Yet I had to pay property taxes. What services was I paying for ?
When I decided to move here I had to pay to have power brought in, I had to put in a well and septic tank, I errected a building..................... So now my taxes went up because I improved the land. Yet, I am not using any more services now than I did before. If I put a shed up or a garage up, the taxes go up, yet no more services are being used. If I built a 4000 square foot home complete with landscaping, pool etc. My taxes would skyrocket, yet I am still not using any more government services because of it.
I don't have any kids in the public schools, I have never used a medical facility here, I went to the pubilc library once just to have a quiet room to study in without any distarctions, I have never been to a public park here................................. What am I paying for that is my fair share ?

[cuchulainn]

the key to tearing down the current tax structure in our Republic is to eliminate withholding of taxes. Bingo! I pay quarterly estimates, and the number is always very annoying even though I have it all budgeted months in advance. I don't remember being annoyed back in my "painless" W2 days.

[cuchulainn]

Kaylee,

Yep on the doublespeak.

"Give" = "not take," as in "This tax cut gives too much to the rich."

One time, in band camp, I went into a room and saw a wallet on the dresser with $100 sticking out. I was going to take $20, but decided not to. I told the owner about it, but oddly he didn't seem grateful that I had given him $20 by not taking it. How very uncouth!

[Partisan Ranger]

Anytime you hear a politician say a tax cut 'gives too much to the rich,' grab your wallet.

At some point in life, many Americans will fall into that 'rich' category, which is often a couple who makes 75K per year in a major urban area (ask them how rich they feel especially if they have kids).

Also, a tax cut 'gives' nothing to no one. It is, by definition, the people's money. It was never the property of the federal treasury.

[Frohickey]

There are people that say the Income Tax Amendment was not properly ratified. That it failed to gather the necessary state legislature votes for ratification.

These people are not being given a hearing by the IRS. There was supposed to be a Congressional hearing with the IRS, and the WeThePeople foundation about this issue. It was scheduled for Sept 14, 2001, or sometime thereafter, and it was postponed because of the Sept 11, 2001 WTC attacks.
It was then postponed yet again, and again, until it was cancelled by the Congressman. Supposedly because the WeThePeople foundation was urging people to wait to file taxes until April 15th, or until after the hearing.

WeThePeople archives (http://www.givemeliberty.org/spotlights/archive/Archive1.htm)

[pax]

Nothing would be more fair than a national sales tax.

I agree. Nothing would be more fair than a national sales tax.

;)

pax

No government would be better than the one we've got. -- bumper sticker spotted in Seattle

[rock jock]

Unbelievable. I am really disappointed in the character of some people on this board. A lot of the arguments I read are the same I hear from petty thieves in the paper and on TV who justify their theft as "gettin' some back since I been squeezed all mah life". Our founding fathers spilled their blood so we would not have taxation without representation. We do not. We have a representative government. But instead of making your opinion on taxes heard by lobbying your congressman, or joining an organization that does just that, you just decide you won't pay. You laugh while other Americans pay into the system so that you can enjoy an infrastructure and military that keeps you fat, happy, and free. An still you continue with your pathetic excuses:

"Taxes are unconstitutional". Wrong, see the Sixteenth Amendment.

"The rich don't pay taxes". The rich don't pay taxes when they make NO money during a given year, the same as you. There is a difference between wealth and income.

"I don't like the way the govt. spends our money". Well, get in line. Neither do the rest of us. But cheating only puts more of the burden on the rest of us who do pay.

"Taxes are not fair". Nope, they're not. Only a flat tax or sales tax comes close to being fair, but until we change the system, fairness dictates that we all play by the rules. Are you going to decide on your own what is and is not fair? No concensus. No representative govt. Just make your own rules, huh? Maybe we should just dispense with the trial by jury system because too often our justice system is not fair, either. If there is anything this country is not in short supply of, its groups who feel that they have been treated unfairly. Some of them are right, many are just whiners. You can be as cynical as you want, just like every other group. But I've got news for you. Once we decide as a whole to abandon our rule of law, the flood gates will be opened and any semblance of fair ply that ever existed will be gone. It will be might makes right and you might be on the short end of the stick.

When I was a very young kid my parents taught me that the act of taking something that wasn't yours, without the owners permission was called stealing.
The govt. got permission via the 16th Amendment. I bet you don't complain about stealing when you hop on the interstate highway system or visit a national park or cheer on our troops when we took out the Taliban? Ever attend school at a state-run college or university? Why do you think tuition is still relatively affordable at these schools (compared to private colleges). Being unfair and stealing is a huge leap. The long and short of it is the govt. spends money for services that you benefit from and taxes are the check for those services. Now, it would be nice if taxes were applied cafeteria-style, where you only pay for the services that you actually use. But that is simply unrealistic and totally impractical.

Nobody should be forced to pay taxes, more accurately.
Oh, I see, taxes will be voluntary, huh? And you expect to raise how much money that way? BTW, that is what the founding fathers argued before we had representation, remember?

If you do not control the fruits of your labor, then you do not own yourself.
Oh, and who owns you? The govt.? I didn't realize that slavery was still legal in Tennesee.

[Bonker]

"So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all."

We could go from a compliance dependant tax to one that is more built-in. This already works with things like the local sales tax and federal gasoline tax. You know anyone who has figured out a way to cheat the gasoline tax? :)

The income tax in it's present form is just wrong. I don't care what the courts say, a progressive tax is just the opposite of equal protection under that law.

Until we get either a flat tax or a sales tax and end progressive taxation I will continue to applaud the patriots who practice civil disobedience by not bowing down to the IRS.

If I made enough money to make cheating worthwhile I would. If everyone quit paying, they would be forced to give our freedoms back.

"Oh, I see, taxes will be voluntary, huh? And you expect to raise how much money that way? BTW, that is what the founding fathers argued before we had representation, remember?"

But the founding fathers would have been horrified at a progressive tax system at rates that exceed that payed by serfs in the middle ages and that punishes the achievers.


"Oh, and who owns you? The govt.? "

Actually yes. If the government takes 50% of what you produce, then you are a serf for 6 months of every year.


"The long and short of it is the govt. spends money for services that you benefit from and taxes are the check for those services."

Ok I agree with you. We'd never have fancy $600 hammers, Statues of Robert Byrd, or millionare politicians who live off the taxpayers for life without our frend, the 16th amendment.


But wasn't the original post just a question of wheather we'd turn in a cheater? :)

[cuchulainn]

Uh, rock jock, with all due respect, you are jumping to a big, honking non sequitur. You asked whether people would turn in someone ELSE for cheating taxes. People say "no," so you come back and criticize people for not paying their OWN taxes. :)

And I'll ask you again, would you turn in a buddy who broke a gun registration law lest "we decide as a whole to abandon our rule of law, the flood gates will be opened and any semblance of fair play that ever existed will be gone. It will be might makes right and you might be on the short end of the stick."? ;)

[rock jock]

Breaking a gun registration law upholds the Constitution, not violates it. It also doesn't cost me a dime when you don't register your gun.

Tax cheats are not patriots any more than Tim McVeigh.

[cuchulainn]

It also doesn't cost me a dime when you don't register your gun. 1) Tell that to the tax payers of Canada. Refusal to register guns is one of the reasons the cost was driven up to more than $1 billion.

2) So it's all about whether it hurts you not whether the law is immoral(*) (abeit constitutional).

I guess you would have turned in the people who ran the underground railroad. Slavery was constitutional, and runaway slaves hurt the owners and thus the economy. ;)

(*) Immoral in the rate, not in general. I understand that some taxation is necessary.

[Ian]

Are you going to decide on your own what is and is not fair? When the question is how much of my money may be stolen from me, then you're darn right I will.

I don't want any of the services provided by government, and would eagerly reject them all, if the government would let me. Yes, there are some which I use anyway (primarily roads), for the simple reason that government has driven all competition out of the market and forcibly prevented anyone from using any practical alternatives. As for state-funded schools, I pay out-of-state tuition, which means I am getting no benefit from tax money.

Oh, I see, taxes will be voluntary, huh? And you expect to raise how much money that way?No, I don't expect they'd find much money is they couldn't use force to get it. That's the whole point. The stuff the Feds do is either grossly inefficient, not needed or just plain wrong. We'd be better off without them.

[Bonker]

"Tax cheats are not patriots any more than Tim McVeigh."

That's disgusting. Tax cheats don't kill 168 innocent men, women and children. If you can't see the contrast then I pity you.

And tax cheats don't cost you a dime anyway. Let's say the government gets all the money that cheaters tried to keep. You think for a second that your taxes will be lowered? Heck no! They will just squander MORE money. In fact, they will use the extra cash to spend on more government programs aimed at buying more and more votes for the biggest spenders. So in effect, I would argue that cheaters save us money! That's how Washington works.
When thinking about the federal government, if it seems counter-intuitive, stupid, and counter-productive, then you're probably on the right track :)

[rock jock]

And tax cheats don't cost you a dime anyway.
That's what robbers and thieves who target businesses and banks instead of individual homes say all the time. It lets them justify their behavior.

That's disgusting. Tax cheats don't kill 168 innocent men, women and children. If you can't see the contrast then I pity you.
I didn't say that tax cheats are as bad as Tim McVeigh. But they are certainly no more of a patriot than him. In fact ,what is disgusting is that some tax cheats who leech off society consider themselves to be patriots. They equate their own thievery and laziness with those who have spilled their blood for freedom. Tim McVeigh was, at his core, just a little pathetic whiner who decided to make up his own rules because he felt he had been treated unfairly by the system. Not much of a different attitude than a tax cheat. Both types justify their actions so they can sleep at night.

Let's say the government gets all the money that cheaters tried to keep. You think for a second that your taxes will be lowered?
Possibly. You are forgetting the tax cut we got last year? And the one planned by Bush now? The fact that most do pay does not excuse those who do not. The tax burden should not be shouldered by some and not others.

Are you saying its OK to not pay for services that you receive?

[CZ-75]

You know anyone who has figured out a way to cheat the gasoline tax?

The Russian Mafia.





I paid my taxes this year, but if there were some sort of cash income that I could avoiding paying tax on, I would. Unfortunately, being an employee means this is not and will not be the case.

Being a business owner would open up opportunities, however, especially in a retail environment. I've known restauranteurs who never reported more than 10% of cash sales; only traceable items like credit cards and traveler's checks were reported regularly.

Anyway, I pay for infrastructure every day through my gasoline and sales taxes and so would those folks who didn't report their income. Misery may love company, but I applaud those who can avoid having their incomes extorted to pay for those who won't support themselves. If we want to get mad at someone for not paying their fair share, we should look toward those sponging off entitlements.

[Tamara]

Am I a complete geek for knowing that the harshest insult in the Klingon language is "willing slave"? :confused:

[CZ-75]

Are you saying its OK to not pay for services that you receive?

What services do I receive?

I pay for roads with gas taxes.

I pay for schools (don't have kids, but may use public schools sometime down the road) with property taxes.

I pay for "public safety" with sales taxes.

And I really don't use anything else enough that I can think about it. I guess the military and state security apparatuses, but a national sales tax would cover these just fine.

[Bonker]

"They equate their own thievery"

How can you steal what is yours in the the first place? The government didn't earn the money..YOU did.


"You are forgetting the tax cut we got last year? And the one planned by Bush now?"

Yes I am well aware of it. First, it proves the government is taking too much of what you earn. Second, we are still in massive deficiet spending mode. We will run in the red no matter how much they collect.
Do you believe that the tax cuts will put more capitol in the hands of the people and will therefore boost the economy. Then you can't possible argue that tax cheats will do the exact same thing, only faster! :)


"What services do I receive?"

Ditto!

[rock jock]

I have always been told that if you want to know about a person's true character, look at their checkbook. What I am learning here is that all this talk of individual responsibility and rule of law is just that, talk. Making others pay for the services you receive is easy to rationlize if it means more money in your pocket.

[cuchulainn]

Am I a complete geek for knowing that the harshest insult in the Klingon language is "willing slave"? Only if you actually know how to say it in Klingon ;)

[cuchulainn]

Making others pay for the services you receive is easy to rationlize if it means more money in your pocket. Playing junior gestapo to those who rebel against an immoral tax rate and insane government waste is easy to rationalize if it means more money in rock jock's pocket :neener: ;)

[CZ-75]

Making others pay for the services you receive is easy to rationlize if it means more money in your pocket.

I pay for everything I receive as well as three or four other people on some income reallocation program.


What does that say about my character?

SUCKER!!! :cuss:

[Justin Moore]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/18b.htm

Written: 19 May, 1918
First Published: Newspaper report published in Izvestia VtsIK No. 99, May 19, 1913; Published according to the text or the book: Report on the Work of the First All-Russia Congress of Representatives of the Financial Departments of Regional, Gubernia and Uyezd Soviets, Moscow, 1918
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 27, pages 383-387
Translated: Clemens Dutt; Edited by Robert Daglish
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala
Online Version: Lenin Internet Archive March, 2002

Centralisation Of Finances

The centralisation of finances and the concentration of our forces are essential; unless these principles are applied in practice we shall be unable to carry out the economic reforms that will provide every citizen with enough to eat arid the possibility of satisfying his cultural needs.

The need for centralisation is now reaching the consciousness of the masses; this change is taking place slowly and for this reason it will be more extensive and more profound; an urge towards decentralisation is to be observed, but it is a disease of the transitional period, a disease due to growth, and is quite natural because the centralism of the tsar and the bourgeoisie engendered hatred of and disgust at all centralised authority among the masses.

Income And Property Taxation

The second task confronting us is the correct organisation of a progressive income and property tax. You know that all socialists are against indirect taxation because the only correct tax from the socialist point of view is the progressive income and property tax. I will not conceal the fact that we shall meet with tremendous difficulty in introducing this tax-the propertied classes will put up a desperate resistance.

The bourgeoisie are today evading taxation by bribery and through their connections; we must close all loopholes. We have many plans in this sphere and have cleared the ground on which to build the foundation, but the actual foundation of that building has not yet been built. The time for this has now come.

Decrees alone will be insufficient to put the income tax into effect; practical methods and experience will be needed.

We assume that we shall have to go over to the monthly collection of the income tax. The section of the population receiving its income from the state treasury is increasing, and measures must be taken to collect the income tax from these people by stopping it out of their wages.

All income and earnings, without exception, must be subject to income tax; the work of the printing press that has so far been practiced may be justified as a temporary measure, but it must give place to a progressive income and property tax that is collected at very frequent intervals.

I should like to ask you to work out this measure in detail and draw up practical and precise plans that can be incorporated in decrees and instructions in the shortest time.

On the question of indemnities, Lenin said:

I am not against indemnities in general; the proletariat could not destroy the bourgeoisie without resorting to indemnities; it was a correct measure in the period of transition, but now that period is past and the taxation of the propertied classes must be replaced by a single, centralised state tax.

There is no doubt that the bourgeoisie will try with every means in their power to evade our laws and indulge in petty frauds. We shall struggle against that and in the end we shall defeat what is left of the bourgeoisie.

I guess old Lenin was a fan of 'withholding' too ;)



Welcome to Amerika :evil:

[JW2]

Some of you people are really misguided. You say that taxation is robbery, unfair, etc.

Then you turn right back around and say that the taxes should be built into the things we buy, such as gasoline, merchandise, etc. If you don't use something, then you shouldn't pay a tax on it.

See a contradiction there? I do.

Are sales taxes and use taxes not taxes? They most certainly are. When you say outright that taxation is unjust, then you cannot accept taxes in any form.

The more appropriate thing to say may be that income tax is unjust, or the current tax system is unfair, unless you truly mean that ALL taxes should be eliminated and everyone be left to pay a "voluntary tax" (LOL) or just fend for themselves. :rolleyes:

[Justin Moore]

Some of you people are really misguided.

Like Lenin and the other Marxists? :cool:

[rock jock]

Playing junior gestapo to those who rebel against an immoral tax rate and insane government waste is easy to rationalize if it means more money in rock jock's pocket
There you go, resort to the favorite tactic of the soccer moms - call anyone who disagrees with you a Nazi. Yeah, that's it - a Nazi! Your powers of debate are underwhelming.

Tax cheats are rebelling how exactly? By not paying for services they receive? If they really want to rebel, why don't they take up arms aganist the govt.? Oh, that's right, that would actually require that they get off their rearends. Plus, there is a real risk to that. Its much easier to enjoy the fruits of others labor while sucking down a six-pack a day.

And what is your solution to our immoral tax rates? To lobby Congress? To act in a way consistent with representative govt.? No, it is to simply lie and, again, enjoy the benefits paid for by others. Personal responsibilty is so inconvenient sometimes.

[rock jock]

I pay for everything I receive as well as three or four other people on some income reallocation program.
If that means you pay your taxes, great!

[JW2]

You can believe what you want, but the fact of the matter is that there is no way to get around paying some sort of tax and live in the level of society that we live in today. We could go back to third world standards and swing it perhaps....

[cuchulainn]

rock jock,

For the record, tax cheats don't increase your taxes because the government gets billions from people who either don't understand or don't bother with all the deductions they are legally entitled to.

The government is coming out ahead in this game, therefore others' tax evasion is not justification for raising your taxes (though the goverment might rationalize it that way).

Yeah, that's it - a Nazi! Your powers of debate are underwhelming. Dude, calm down, the "gestapo" bit was a joke. That's why I followed it with both :neener: and ;)

The real point, however, was a goose and gander thing.

You're upset about people who care more about putting more in their pocket at the expense of your pocket (a false concern, see at top). I simply flipped that around -- you're more concerned with an illusion that they're taking your money than with letting them keep what's taken from them immorally.

"But they're doing something illegal!" Yeah, so were those who ran the underground railroad.

"But they're costing honest citizens money." So were the people who ran the underground railroad.

"But taxation is ratified into the Constitution." So was slavery. Just like the constitution does not confer rights, it does not render things moral. If the 2nd was abolished and new amendment was added banning guns, would you turn in gun owners?

Tax cheats are rebelling how exactly? Um, they don't pay their taxes?

By not paying for services they receive?
Most tax cheats pay only part of what they owe rather than skipping taxes altogether. By paying only part, they do pay for whatever services they receive but not all that other pork barrel and social engineering stuff. ;)

Heck, given that so many people fail to take the deductions to which they're entitled, I bet that a lot of tax cheats pay what they're supposed to, but simply fail to fill out the right paperwork. I wouldn't be surprised if some pay more by cheating than they would by actually going to the trouble of deducting.

If they really want to rebel, why don't they take up arms aganist the govt.? Oh, that's right, that would actually require that they get off their rearends. Plus, there is a real risk to that. Its much easier to enjoy the fruits of others labor while sucking down a six-pack a day. 1) You're joking that there isn't real physical risk to tax evasion, right?
2) Didn't you start your comments off being upset about negative ad hominem arguments (at least I was joking)? Maybe you forgot to add a :neener:

And what is your solution to our immoral tax rates? To lobby Congress? To act in a way consistent with representative govt.? Yes, those are my solutions.

No, it is to simply lie and, again, enjoy the benefits paid for by others. Personal responsibilty is so inconvenient sometimes. 1) Your high horse has been amusing so far ... so far.
2) I pay my taxes, so don't accuse me of either telling lies or cheating. As I type, I'm looking at a 2-inch thick file for my 2002 state and federal taxes (that reminds me, I need to put it in the drawer ... stomp, stomp, stomp ... there, done.)

Like I said earlier, you are jumping to a big honking non sequitur to accuse people who say they would not turn in a tax evader of themselves evading their own taxes.

[Ian]

Are sales taxes and use taxes not taxes? They most certainly are. When you say outright that taxation is unjust, then you cannot accept taxes in any form.They certainly are coercive taxes, and for that I am against them. How can a civilized society be based on legalized robbery?

Its much easier to enjoy the fruits of others labor while sucking down a six-pack a day.Excuse me for being a bit riled by this, but I find it insulting to a lot of exceptionally hard-working people. You sound like you're equating serious tax evasion to being a welfare leech, when the truth could not be more different. The people I know who refuse to pay income tax do so for serious ideological reasons, and they are consistant with them. These people wouldn't touch a welfare check if they were starving. They don't send their children to public schools. They don't use Social Security numbers. They don't patronize the USPS. They don't rely on police protection in their day-to-day lives. And they most CERTAINLY don't do all that because it's easy. They can't get paychecks, they can't invest in the stock market, they can't use bank accounts. They have to work a heck of a lot harder than the average citizen, and live on less income even so.

If you think serious income-tax evaders (as opposed to those who simply fudge a little on their on-the-side income) do this for any reason other than an incredibly strong devotion to individual freedom, you're sorely mistaken.

[JW2]

They certainly are coercive taxes, and for that I am against them. How can a civilized society be based on legalize robbery?

Then how would you propose that highways, courts, military, etc. get paid for if we don't impose some sort of taxation system? I'm seriously interested in hearing opposing points of view here.

[cuchulainn]

never mind (mistaken post deleted).

[mercedesrules]

Then how would you propose that highways, courts, military, etc. get paid for if we don't impose some sort of taxation system? I'm seriously interested in hearing opposing points of view here.
Since these things are really just services and products provided by real, live people, maybe private firms could provide them on a free-market basis.

Let's start with an easier one - the highways. Some highways are really important; others not so important. The railroads were planned and built by railroad companies for their own gain. Couldn't the highways be financed by those that benefit from them? Trucking companies, grocers, movers, travelers and other users could pay fees to use them - much like our current toll roads.

Courts could be financed by those needing their services. I have never needed a judge; others seem to always be suing someone. Charge the parties to the suit for the time the judge spends on their case.

I'm sure that I can't predict how defense against invaders would be organized, but I think that the country was organized around the idea of citizen militias. No nation has attacked mainland north america and if we maintained a non-interventionist foreign policy combined with free trade, I don't think any would. Virtually all men would volunteer to defend their local region and those that didn't would gladly fund it if their own lives, family and property were in jeopardy.

There is nothing magic about these services. The free market usually provides desired things at a higher level of efficiency than most, if not all, government agencies can manage. If highways, courts and militias are desired, seems like they would be provided and funded.

MR

[JW2]

Ok, I see where you're getting at, but I still see some problems with these things.

Let's start with an easier one - the highways. Some highways are really important; others not so important. The railroads were planned and built by railroad companies for their own gain. Couldn't the highways be financed by those that benefit from them? Trucking companies, grocers, movers, travelers and other users could pay fees to use them - much like our current toll roads.

Ok, I'll kinda give you that one in that it would at least work in theory.

EDIT: But isn't this a tax in reality? Who here does not use roads? Nobody? Practically all adults use roads. So a fee paid for the ability to use them would be a tax by definition of the word. Would it be more fair than the current system in that the more you use the roads the more you pay? Absolutely, it would. But it is still in essence a variable rate tax.

Definition of tax:

1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses

Sounds like a tax to me.

Courts could be financed by those needing their services. I have never needed a judge; others seem to always be suing someone. Charge the parties to the suit for the time the judge spends on their case.

What if you get arrested for a crime you didn't commit? Who pays for the court trial to find you not guilty? The state? Where does the state get the money to pay the court fee? What if a homeless man commits a crime and has to go to court. The homeless man has no money to pay the court fee. Who then pays it?

I'm sure that I can't predict how defense against invaders would be organized, but I think that the country was organized around the idea of citizen militias. No nation has attacked mainland north america and if we maintained a non-interventionist foreign policy combined with free trade, I don't think any would. Virtually all men would volunteer to defend their local region and those that didn't would gladly fund it if their own lives, family and property were in jeopardy.

Tanks, F-22s, ? Where would the money for those things come from? I can't see my local neighborhood militia ponying up to buy an F-22.

[mercedesrules]

Definition of tax:
1 a : a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes b : a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
Sounds like a tax to me.
If it were a fee charged by a private company at the time and place of use, then it is neither "imposed by an authority" nor "for public purposes". It's more like a ticket to Disneyland.
What if you get arrested for a crime you didn't commit? Who pays for the court trial to find you not guilty? The state? Where does the state get the money to pay the court fee? What if a homeless man commits a crime and has to go to court. The homeless man has no money to pay the court fee. Who then pays it?
Currently, we all pay to prosecute and defend total strangers. It's a form of welfare. Why can't we pay our own defense? Why is the state a party to criminal suits? In what way is it injured?
Tanks, F-22s, ? Where would the money for those things come from? I can't see my local neighborhood militia ponying up to buy an F-22.
http://www.af.mil/lib/afissues/1997/f-22.jpg

Yeah, the new fighters are expensive. But the government still finds the money to buy them. That money comes from the taxpayers - us. So, if the residents of a large local area decided that they really needed air superiority, they would have to chip in. I'm not sure fighters are necessary to protect anomalous areas of north america. Who's attacking and why? Populated areas have millions of possible donors.
BTW, JW, my son lives in Florence!:)
MR

[CZ-75]

If that means you pay your taxes, great!


Yeah, great. :rolleyes:

Nothing like paying for Socialist (in)Security so someone's granny can play bingo, after not working since WWII at a paying job, while collecting her husband's pension at the same time, never minding the fact they never saved a dime and her husband's contribution, adjusted for prevailing interest rates over the duration of his contribution, was exceeded by the benefits they both collected.

Nothing like paying for some substance abuser to stay home and watch cable TV while I'm at work. Votes just like Oprah tells him, too.

:barf:

Vaseline, please!

[JW2]

I do love a good debate :)

Currently, we all pay to prosecute and defend total strangers. It's a form of welfare. Why can't we pay our own defense? Why is the state a party to criminal suits? In what way is it injured?

This might work, but if the accuser of the crime doesn't have the money to prosecute it, then the criminal may walk. And if he is convicted, would the victim of the crime pay for the criminal's incarceration, or maybe the criminal? But if the criminal doesn't have the money to pay, then who does?

Yeah, the new fighters are expensive. But the government still finds the money to buy them. That money comes from the taxpayers - us. So, if the residents of a large local area decided that they really needed air superiority, they would have to chip in. I'm not sure fighters are necessary to protect anomalous areas of north america. Who's attacking and why? Populated areas have millions of possible donors.

Yes, that money does indeed come from us, but if it were left up to the general poplulation, surely anti-war hippies would decide that they aren't contributing to such a defense fund. For those who didn't contribute, they would surely still benefit from a defense if an attack should occur. If a rival military has jet fighters, then we certainly do need them ourselves. If they have tanks, then we need tanks. If we're relying on people to voluntarily contribute to any kind of fund, then it's not going to work to its full potential.

I'm not a socialist, marxist, nazi, liberal.... Basically, my position on the whole taxes issue is this:
We are wasting too much money right now and our taxes are too high. Eliminate wasteful spending by the government by privatizing many industries and functions. But we will still must rely on the government to provide some basic functions to society, and for that we still need some form of taxation, even if it is a greatly reduced amount from what we are paying now. A more equal form of tax collection should be implemented to prevent individuals from paying a disproportinate amount of tax.

BTW, JW, my son lives in Florence!

Cool, that's not very far from here at all. Its a nice area IMO. :)

[mercedesrules]

This might work, but if the accuser of the crime doesn't have the money to prosecute it, then the criminal may walk. And if he is convicted, would the victim of the crime pay for the criminal's incarceration, or maybe the criminal? But if the criminal doesn't have the money to pay, then who does?

First, there would probably be be many fewer actions considered crimes; only those that actually injured a complainant like fraud, theft, burglary, robbery, arson, rape and murder. Many perpetrators would be caught red-handed by armed victims. The victims would decide if it was affordable to bring the criminal to justice. Mostly easy-to-prove cases would be brought. The punishment I prefer would be restitution from the criminal to the victim. Perps that "walked" would probably be shunned by the community and have to move in order to earn a living (like some current sex offenders).


Yes, that money does indeed come from us, but if it were left up to the general poplulation, surely anti-war hippies would decide that they aren't contributing to such a defense fund. For those who didn't contribute, they would surely still benefit from a defense if an attack should occur. If a rival military has jet fighters, then we certainly do need them ourselves. If they have tanks, then we need tanks. If we're relying on people to voluntarily contribute to any kind of fund, then it's not going to work to its full potential.

What you are saying is that it is preferable for government to force people to do what many don't want to do instead of having a society based on consent. That government, while made up of mortal men, nevertheless knows what is best for us commoners.

I believe that most people, recognizing a real threat, would contribute to their defense - even hippies :) I was never a hippie, but I think that what they objected to was military forays into faraway places like Vietnam, not to defense of their lives, homes and families. Again, the founders didn't envision a standing army and tried to insure the concept by requiring that congress reconsider military funding every two years...and be the ones to declare war, by the way.


We are wasting too much money right now and our taxes are too high. Eliminate wasteful spending by the government by privatizing many industries and functions. But we will still must rely on the government to provide some basic functions to society, and for that we still need some form of taxation, even if it is a greatly reduced amount from what we are paying now. A more equal form of tax collection should be implemented to prevent individuals from paying a disproportinate amount of tax.


I can't argue against cutting waste nor lowering taxes. But what you are saying is that you are willing to accept a certain amount of violence (the forced collection of taxes) to feel secure. The government couldn't prevent an attack on their own military headquarters. What are the chances that they will prevent one here in rural East Texas?

MR

[Ian]

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan makes a very good argument that defeating tanks and aircraft doesn't require more tanks and aircraft. It requires just shoulder-launched missiles (which are a heck of a lot cheaper than tanks and aircraft) and decent tactics.

Also, keep in mind that court costs are high today in large part because of the education required to be a lawyer, thanks to the incredibly complexity of the legal system. Private arbitration (which exists already) is far, far less costly than the legal system.

[BigG]

What if the gummit went pay as you go? You use the service, you pay. All roads are toll roads, mail a letter put on a stamp, etc. If your kid goes to school, you pay? Hmmm... I think I'd be money ahead, myself.

[Partisan Ranger]

I do like the cafeteria idea regarding government services.

Some of course you do use - such as roads.

But imagine if one could opt out of SS or Medicare! Oh, I wish. If I could keep the money that they extort from me, I would invest every dime in moderate to aggressive funds and be rich at 50.

That's what pisses me off when I here the old saw about having to 'invest' (ie rob the taxpayers) more money in SS, Mediscare, etc.

Hey, leftist, Marxist parasites, no one would need your stupid government programs if you just let people keep their freakin money in the first place. If people lack the sense to invest their money properly and blow it on cigs, why should I have to pay for their error?

[Ian]

BigG - Combine that with allowing private individuals to compete with the government in providing services, and it's exactly what I would like.

[rock jock]

Well, I decided not to reply to this thread again because of my total disgust with some of the replies. I really had a higher opinion in general of the cross-section of folks on this board, but I can say that no longer. To be sure, I think there are plenty of people on THR who are outstanding in their character, but they are obviously a good number who fall far short of that mark. I changed my mind about replying because I think there are some folks who are genuinely on the fence on this issue, and also because in the interest of debate, I would like to deconstruct some of the fallacious arguments presented.

First and foremost, we live in a nation where we enjoy a great deal of freedom which is allowed to thrive because, among other reasons, we are nation where the rule of law governs. People are by and large confident that justice will prevail and that corruption will not be tolerated. In other words, we have an unspoken social contract that guarantees that each person will be held accountable for their actions, without regard to wealth or power. Noteworthy exceptions do occur, but this is unavoidable in a nation of 300 million and these exceptions do not invalidate the rule. For the most part, we don't face the chaotic and corrupt governments and societies of many third world nations because people have respect for the law. When that social contract is broken, anarchy reigns. And not the good kind of anarchy, the kind born of pie in the sky philosophical musings which have no basis in reality, but rather the real kind that generates organized crime and breeds tyranny. As part of that contract, we also demand that the law under which we live is fair and respectful of our rights. When that ceases to be the case, we act within the bounds of our representative government to make our grievances known. This it to preserve our social contract because we know, or should know, that as much as we like to beat our chest and talk of revolution, we know that if revolution were to actually occur, the result would be much more bloody and destructive to our country and to our own own lives than we can imagine. So, we tolerate an imperfect system with great patience and do our best to try and presuade others with reason of our cause. Of course there always is the possibility that the social contract will be rendered moot and massive non-compliance will be necessary to force change. When this should take place is a matter of great debate, but most agree that it should only happen after a period of intolerable conditions that will not be resolved in any other way even after all avenues afforded by representative govt. have been exhausted.

That is the premise of our society. How does it relate to taxation? Well, the question is whether a tax cheat is a true revolutionary? Some have commenented that taxes are immoral by their very nature. Yet, every society in existence taxes its citizens. In fact, I have yet to hear of a single society of any significant size that has ever existed without taxation. Even the Israelites were taxed in the OT, so on what basis do you say that taxation is immoral? And if you claim this, what alternative would you propose? (I should say realistic alternative that would actually work.) Taxation is not immoral; rather, it is a necessary evil. So, the question becomes whether or not our current system warrants revolution? It certainly is unfair. A progressive tax punishes those who achieve. However, does it meet the aforementioned criteria? Have we exhausted all avenues to change the system? No. So, wide-scale revolution because of our unfair tax system is not warranted yet.

But, you say, tax cheats are not engaging in revolution, just rebellion in a personal way. Umm, I see. Well, if they are so morally repulsed by our govt. that they have abandoned the legislative process to rectify this wrong and are unwilling to pay taxes, surely they must also be be opposed to other, more outrageous violations of our fundamental rights and are equally willing to rebel against them as well, right? So, have they taken up arms against our govt for violations of our Second Amendment rights? Have they resorted to vigilantism because of the fundamental unfairness of our justice system which allows stacked juries and the wealthy to buy the best legal counsel while the poor suffer with public defenders? Have they thrown down the gauntlet much on the same way that the founding fathers did and said in effect "No more will I accept these conditions!" No, they haven't. They are silent on these other matters. Why? Why haven't they expressed their outrage and moral indignation in these more conspicuous ways? Why are they willing to compromise on these other issues? Why are they willing to break the social contract in this area only? Because that would entail actual risk and their rebellion only extends to their pocketbooks. Through their selective non-compliance, they are essentially saying that they will tolerate any misdeed as long as it doesn't affect their bank account. How nobel of them. How brave. How inspiring. Patrick Henry would be proud. I can almost hear their rallying cry - "Give me money and I'll keep my mouth shut".

No the truth is that tax cheats are the worst kind of hypocrite. They are not altruistic in their actions, they are simply greedy. Their warped sense of responsibility lets them rationlize that since they don't agree with the way the govt. spends our tax dollars, they can just opt out. But they certainly have no problem living in a country relatively free from foreign threats because of our strong military. They have no qualms about enjoying a community unaffected by rampant crime thanks to state and local LE. They don't complain about breathing in clean air and drinking clean water regulated and enforced by the EPA and state environmental agencies. They don't whine about the advances in medicine and technology that result from tens of billions in govt research grants that allow them to live longer and healthier lives, and enjoy safer cars and foods. They don't rant against the early warnings they receive from the National Weather Service that save their lives during tornados and floods. They don't cry when federal LE investigates, and our Justice system prosecutes, corrupt politicians who would otherwise threaten our freedoms. They may not receive social entitlements themselves but they certainly don't complain that their aunt or mother or father receives Medicare or Social Security. No, in fact they love these things. Of course they might even tell you they would gladly do without them, that they they would defend our country against tanks and bombs and nukes and invading armies with their single AR and a few Skoal cans stuffed with gunpowder, that they would gladly accept one or more of their children dying from plagues and childhood diseases due to a lack of clean water and absent the world's best heathcare system, that they would happliy shoulder the financial burden for their infirmed relatives currently borne in full or in part by the taxpayers, that they would rather their children not go to college than to go to a public university funded by the state on a federal loan, that they would stoically do without all the benefits realized from other people's taxes and enjoyed either directly or indirectly by themselves. They say this comfortable in the knowledge that that won't ever happen because there will always be folks who will step up to the plate and pay their portion of the burden even if they know its unfair. They know that those people want to work within the system to change it and if ever comes to true rebellion, it won't stop at dumping tea into the harbor any more than it did with the founding fathers.

Tax cheats are not patriots. They are leeches and hypocrites and deserve the same comtempt as a common thief.

[CZ-75]

Where's my violin?

[cordex]

Now, it would be nice if taxes were applied cafeteria-style, where you only pay for the services that you actually use. But that is simply unrealistic and totally impractical.
Why is that unrealistic and impractical?
If phone companies, power companies, repair companies, hotels, toll-road owners, etc, etc, ad infinitum can keep track of who owes what for which service, why can't the government?

Love the two sides here, though.
1. Money you make is yours. Period. If anyone (whether or not they hold an elected position or a badge) says that they should give up that money for "the common good" and threatens to take it from them if they don't pay up is a thief.
2. Money you make is yours unless the gov't wants it. In which case, you owe them for services you have not requested (but it is understood that you owe them, of course) and may or may not ever use. If you refuse to pay, you are a thief (and probably are going to bomb a federal building to boot).

I say, pay for what you use.
You want tanks and F-22s? Hire General Jim's Defense Systems or Admiral Bob's National Security. Armies don't have to be wee little things. They could be big companies too.

Still, I grudgingly pay my taxes. The fact that I'm grudging about it and believe that the way they are handled in the 'States is morally wrong means I'm probably going to start driving a U-Haul, eh?
wide-scale revolution because of our unfair tax system is not warranted yet.
Not that alone, no.
*is dragged away by men with dark glasses*

[JW2]

rock jock, check your pm :)

[hammer4nc]

rockjock, thanks for starting the thread. Taxes are a topic worth considering and debating. I can take issue with your opinions without impugning your character.

If you accept that THR is a representative cross section, you might want to re-examine your notions as to the current level of non-compliance. Without actually counting the votes, seemed overwhelming dissatisfaction with the current program, even if those who work as employees cannot opt out right now.

Those more educated and dedicated to redress of greivances concerning taxes have petitioned the government for answers, only to be given the brush-off, harassed and threatened for pursuing their questions. Example: http://www.givemeliberty.org
Never, not once, has IRS or the government seen fit to engage in a dialogue to resolve these outstanding questions. How do you explain that?

I'd say that the country is quite capable of maintaining freedom and security without a progressive income tax. In fact, owing in part to individual noncompliance, coupled with the fact that special interests purchase sizeable tax exemptions for themselves from "representatives" (usually during campaigns), the income tax is in the process of being phased out, in favor of fees and sales taxes. One might say that non-compliance will hasten what is arguably a positive change. I seriously doubt that massive non-compliance will lead to revolution.

Lastly, I'm a bit confused regarding the poll itself...would you have thought more highly of the collective character of your fellow THR members if they had voted YES to "snitching"? If that was your expectation, I'd sure like to hear the moral defense of your preferred choice.

[rock jock]

Why is that unrealistic and impractical?
Because the services rendered by the govt. are not commodities, i.e., they can not priced like a can of tuna. They are usually more esoteric in nature. They can be appreciated on a grand scale but cannot be packaged for individual sale. How can you assign a cost to individuals for the clean air they breathe? How can charge for one unit of national security?

You want tanks and F-22s? Hire General Jim's Defense Systems or Admiral Bob's National Security.
Hiring an army is beyond the ability of any individual, except perhaps for Bill Gates and a select few. So, we hire armies as a national community. Think of the country as a very large community. The community has come together and indicated to their city council members/county commisioners (i.e. Congress) that they want.

The fundamental issue at hand is that when a person joins a community, they make certain concessions to be part of that community. That's the way is has worked in EVERY community in EVERY nation for ALL time, ALWAYS. If that person doesn't want to make those concessions, they can leave. In this case, the community is the U.S. Now there are places on earth where you can go and be free of ALL community standards and obligations. Of course, all the good spots have already been taken so you are pretty much limited to places no one wants.

[Lebe]

,.. and the most direct way for the government to transfer power from the populace to the government is for the government to take the peoples money.

,.. not much in the way of "checks and balances" to prevent it, either,...

No,.. I wouldn't turn anyone in for keeping the money that they've earned through their own labor.

[rock jock]

hammer,

First, I hate the progressive tax system. My wife and I are well-paid engineers so you can imagine the chunk of income that we lose every year. Half of our national budget is directed to social services. That is a form of socialism and I hate that also. BUT, tax cheats are not doing anything for anybody but themselves. I stand by my statement that they are nothing but greedy cowards. They are supposed to be heroes because they give the govt. the finger by not paying taxes? Where is their heroism when it comes to fighting the AWB by manufacturing FA weapons? The govt. will NEVER change the tax system because some people break the law. Furthermore, any outrage and political activism they might engage in on this issue is lost because they don't care since they are not participating.

Never, not once, has IRS or the government seen fit to engage in a dialogue to resolve these outstanding questions. How do you explain that?
The IRS is not in a position to change the tax code. The only place for change is Congress. We have representatives. Make your voice known. Now that we have a Republican Congress, we have a better chance of getting fundamental change than before.

In fact, owing in part to individual noncompliance, coupled with the fact that special interests purchase sizeable tax exemptions for themselves from "representatives" (usually during campaigns
I have to be honest. I have no idea what you are talking about. Most of the tax shelters of the 70's and 80's were phased out. Maximum contributions to individual campaigns have been capped at $1,000 for several years. Soft money is also being restricted.

Lastly, I'm a bit confused regarding the poll itself...would you have thought more highly of the collective character of your fellow THR members if they had voted YES to "snitching"? If that was your expectation, I'd sure like to hear the moral defense of your preferred choice.
No. I myself have never turned in a tax cheat even though I easily could have. I also do not call the police on dope smokers either, even though I also have a pretty low opinion of them too. Would I ever turn in a tax cheat? Possibly, depending on the circumstances. That said, it is absolutely disgusting to equate a tax cheat that is only consumed by greed and who doesn't have the moral courage to be intellectually consistent and rebel against the govt. on other fronts to a true patriot who puts their very lives on the line to protect their freedom, not their pocketbook.

[rock jock]

,.. not much in the way of "checks and balances" to prevent it, either,...
You don't have an elected representative?

BTW, I have yet to hear a truly viable and realistic alternative to public taxation.

[CZ-75]

BTW, I have yet to hear a truly viable and realistic alternative to public taxation.



Expropriating half to all the assets of the "wealthy" and "big" businesses?

It's been tried by governments around the world.

;)

:neener:

[cordex]

Because the services rendered by the govt. are not commodities, i.e., they can not priced like a can of tuna. They are usually more esoteric in nature. They can be appreciated on a grand scale but cannot be packaged for individual sale. How can you assign a cost to individuals for the clean air they breathe? How can charge for one unit of national security?
People pay for security all the time. Nothing new about that. Paying for national security isn't a huge step.
Clean air? You mean through enacting legislation that limits pollution output of Big Companies(tm)? heh ... oh yeah ... that works.
Are you concerned with the cost of enforcing these rules?
Hiring an army is beyond the ability of any individual, except perhaps for Bill Gates and a select few. So, we hire armies as a national community.
That's like saying "Privatized international shipping is impossible. No individual can afford to buy a boat or aircraft for the express purpose of shipping a single package!"
What prevents a private army from hiring out it's defensive services to ten cities? A hundred cities? A thousand cities?
It's an elementary economic principal. Sure, the gov't does it, but they deny their component parts the right to make the choice.
Think of the country as a very large community. The community has come together and indicated to their city council members/county commisioners (i.e. Congress) that they want.
Hmmm ... here's what I see happened.
A majority decided they wanted a large, well funded, nationalized standing army. They paid for part of this army themselves, and forced everyone else to dish out the cash as well (under threat of force, I might add).
Would you disagree?
The fundamental issue at hand is that when a person joins a community, they make certain concessions to be part of that community. That's the way is has worked in EVERY community in EVERY nation for ALL time, ALWAYS. If that person doesn't want to make those concessions, they can leave. In this case, the community is the U.S. Now there are places on earth where you can go and be free of ALL community standards and obligations. Of course, all the good spots have already been taken so you are pretty much limited to places no one wants.
When did I agree to make these concessions? When I signed up for the draft? (under threat of force) When I first started paying income tax? (under threat of force) When exactly did I sign that paper?

If I don't like the way things are I can leave, eh? Hmmm ... not sure I like the sound of that. Would you like to expound on it?
Are you saying that no one should work to enact change, that they should accept things as they are and bend over with a smile just because "that's the way we've always done it"?

*sigh*

The system as it is set up at this moment is wrong.
BTW, I have yet to hear a truly viable and realistic alternative to public taxation.
Pay for use. Privatization of governmental services that can be privatized.

[Lebe]

Alan Keyes has some comments about freedon vs. income taxation.

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/income.html

[rock jock]

When did I agree to make these concessions? When I signed up for the draft? (under threat of force) When I first started paying income tax? (under threat of force) When exactly did I sign that paper?
You can thank the previous generations for that - your mother and father or their own relatives. You know, the sins of the father......

[Ian]

Tell me, rock jock, does the government create progress or do individuals create progress?

Edit: If a contact signed by a handful of Easterners 200+ years ago is binding on me, then can I write a contract which will be binding to Oklahomans three generations from now? If not, why?

[rock jock]

Tell me, rock jock, does the government create progress or do individuals create progress?
Re-read my posts. You'll find how I feel about taxes.

[atek3]

this thread is hilarious. However, I still can't believe there are 'fair share' socialists on a gun board :)
(sorry europeans, this comment was regarding americans only)

atek3

[LiquidTension]

There is NOTHING wrong - morally or legally - with not paying federal or state income taxes. There is no law requiring citizens to pay income tax, there is just a penalty for not doing it :scrutiny:

Everyone that voted for the "they are leeches on society, enjoying the fruits of others' labor" choice is misguided. All a tax "cheat" is doing is avoiding ONE OF MANY taxes. You think that his/her income isn't taxed? HARDLY. :rolleyes: Look at it this way:

You work so you can get paid. How did you get to work? In a car, that you paid taxes on (1). What fuels the car? Gas, that you paid taxes on (2). Say you drive through a toll booth on the way to work - tax #3. Then, after you get paid, the governent takes MORE of your money in the form of federal (4) and state (5) income tax. In addition to that, you pay SS (6), FICA (7) and some other stuff that I don't know what it is. So, by the time you actually get to a store to buy something, you've already paid at least 7 taxes - and that's JUST GETTING TO THE STORE with money to purchase something. When you buy something, you pay sales tax (8). If you buy alcohol or cigs, they have more taxes built in to the price (9). Say you buy a tv. When you pay for cable, you get hit with an additional 3 taxes - paid for with money that you've already been taxed on at least EIGHT TIMES!!!!!!

Would I turn in a "tax cheat"??? EMPHATICALLY NO. If you can figure out a way to be taxed only 9 times instead of 10, GO FOR IT. If the government had less money, they'd have less of it to waste on useless programs.

Did you know that EVERY function of government that is outlined in the Constitution can be paid for with import taxes and tarrifs? Every other tax is just to pay for stuff that the government has made up for itself to spend money on over the past 200+ years.

Alan Keyes has it right - a national sales tax. That way you get to decide how much of your money the government gets instead of them deciding how much you get to keep. When the people do not want some government program, they can cut funding themselves by not buying things that they don't need. Wouldn't it be nice if politicians were accountable to their constituents?


[edited to remove a sentence that would have had a mod yelling at me, even though it was the truth and not intended as an insult.]

[cuchulainn]

Even the Israelites were taxed in the OT, so on what basis do you say that taxation is immoral?

Well, I don't think taxes are immoral in and of themselves. It's the extent (50%) and manner (progressive). See the difference?

In other words, we have an unspoken social contract that guarantees that each person will be held accountable for their actions, without regard to wealth or power.

Our tax system violates that contract in two ways:

1) It treats different classes differently.
2) The government does not hold itself accountable.

It is not being fixed, despite decades of polticians claiming they want to fix it. Some people get fed up with the failure to fix this violation of our social contract, and they rebel by not paying taxes. It's not that I admire them or anything like that. But I do understand their frustration, and I wouldn't turn them in.

And for the record, I don't know if any of my family, friends or acquaintences cheat on their taxes.

This is just a theoretical discussion for me, which leads us to...

Well, I decided not to reply to this thread again because of my total disgust with some of the replies. No attack here, serious question: Why the disgust? Your very visceral reaction is fascinating me. People simply have a different opinion about taxes than you -- it's not like we said we wouldn't turn in a child molester. Honestly, your anger strikes me like getting angry at someone who said they wouldn't turn in a speeder (which does more damage to society than does tax cheating).

[Tamara]

Even the Israelites were taxed in the OT, so on what basis do you say that taxation is immoral?

The Israelites in the OT also stoned people to death for picking up sticks on Saturday, so you'll forgive me if I don't use that as my guidebook for moral legislation. ;)

[biere]

Until everyone pays the exact same amount of tax or the exact same percentage, I will never expect anyone who has some imagination to pay their full amount in taxes.

I don't have a solution for everyone.

My solution is to barter or buy used where possable. I try and produce goods from raw materials where possable to eliminate the taxes hidden in finished products.

I used to work fulltime and overtime and trade stocks so I could appear to make a lot of money.

I got tired of working so hard and having so little, now I have time and I keep a lot more of what I make because I have gotten simple.

[444]

I wouldn't turn in my worst enemy for cheating on their taxes.

[mercedesrules]

(atek3) I still can't believe there are 'fair share' socialists on a gun board

Haha! Me, neither!

MR

[mercedesrules]

(cuchulainn) I don't think taxes are immoral in and of themselves.

I do. If someone takes even a penny of my money without my express consent, it is no different than if a mugger did it.

If two muggers come up to me on the street and say, "We voted and the result was that you have to give us 15% of the money in your wallet.", that's exactly what taxes are - strangers voting money out of my wallet. Bah! Would it matter if there were a thousand muggers? Not in my book.

MR

[Justin Moore]

I still can't believe there are 'fair share' socialists on a gun board

Nor can I. You guys did see my post above about Lenin didn't you? I sure hope so.

[Dex Sinister]

Re-read my posts. You'll find how I feel about taxes.

Yet, you seem to have a double standard when it comes to the question of whether individuals can evaluate laws that seem to them immoral in the face of a popular majority who happens to prefer things another way.

Presumably, then, according to your statements if the majority decided to confiscate 90% of your income, rather than the current amount, you’d think that this was fine because the “social contract” allegedly says that’s okay to do? Or is it only immoral to withhold your income, as opposed to physically rebelling by shooting some politicians who are, after all, only representing the majority.

Or, if “they” managed to pass the “Gun Prohibition” amendment, presumably you’d not only turn in your guns, but at least consider turning in anyone who presumed to disagree with such a legal edit under the “Social Contract” by keeping their guns? If not, why would keeping your guns be more morally correct than retaining your own money, regardless of whether the government asserts ownership of either?

People are by and large confident that justice will prevail and that corruption will not be tolerated. In other words, we have an unspoken social contract that guarantees that each person will be held accountable for their actions, without regard to wealth or power.
[…]
That is the premise of our society.

Ahhh, I see that you have been reading John Rawls, or someone heavily influenced by his A Theory of Justice. Yes, you are correct, (more or less,) that this is [was – he died last December] Rawls conception of the premises of our society. The Founding Fathers would, however disagree, as would John Locke and others upon whom their ideas were actually based on. J.S. Mills would disagree as well.

Since the Founding Fathers were individualists, who thought they were founding a strictly limited government based on the idea that individuals, not the government, possessed rights, you’ll have to forgive me if I don’t find it quite so easy to believe that “the premise of our society” is to obey a mythical “social contract” based on whatever the majority happens to want to do.

As an antidote to Rawls, you might want to try Lysander Spooner’s No Treason (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/ls-cona.htm) or Éttiene de la Boétie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/edlb-vs.htm) Or, you might not. In any case, it’s an opportunity to broaden the perspective that “everybody” believes in “social contract theory.” Http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise (http://www.mind-trek.com/treatise/) is a nice resource for some important 18th-19th century writings.

No the truth is that tax cheats are the worst kind of hypocrite. They are not altruistic in their actions, they are simply greedy.

First of all, where in the Constitution is it mentioned that altruism is a virtue? I don’t recall the passage. [Of course I wouldn’t in any case, as the Constitution merely empowers the government in certain ways – not mortgages the lives of all the Founder’s decedents and later immigrants to perpetual slavery-by-involuntary-contract.

Second, you haven’t defined “cheating,” as you understand it. Is it generally the government’s position that if one arranges one’s life so as to avoid owing taxes, that one is “cheating” the government out of potential revenue to which they are somehow “entitled.” One sees this Rawlsian logic everywhere. Is this what you mean? Or, do you limit your condemnation to people who blatantly defy the income tax laws, such as extra-legal sorts who are clearly legally obligated to declare their income, but would also thereby incriminate themselves and forfeit Constitutional protections against self-incrimination?

Why are they willing to break the social contract in this area only? Because that would entail actual risk and their rebellion only extends to their pocketbooks. Through their selective non-compliance, they are essentially saying that they will tolerate any misdeed as long as it doesn't affect their bank account.

Another obvious answer here is that they are simply too polite to subject the rest of the citizens to armed rebellion over a purely monetary loss. Current law in many states is that you cannot fire a gun at someone who is not currently threatening you with immanent bodily harm, even if they are carting off your life savings – but you are not only saying that people should universally shoot to kill in robbery situations, but go kill politicians too, as the only moral response. That seems a bit odd.

A more subtly interesting part of your reasoning seems to indicate that you believe that the government’s willingness to spend money obligates all of the citizenry to pay for its adventures, regardless of how clever or stupid they are. Fundamentally, this indicates that you do not believe that you own your own life, but that you merely rent it from your neighbors, and retain it at their pleasure. If you do not, in fact, think your life is the property of other people, then you might want to examine the inherent contradictions contained in your premises.

The logic here is the same as the legal “angle” that finally worked to convince juries to stick it to “big tobacco” companies, and which lawyers and cities are even now attempting to use to bankrupt the gun industry: That if the government is willing to pay for certain things [in this case medical care,] and that if there is a possible link between a product and the government having to pay more of the money that they volunteered to pay, “due to said product,” then the target industry must therefore “owe” the government compensation. The mere fact that this logic is completely specious, and a fallacy, seems to be completely overlooked by most people. I can assure you that lawyers are amused, though.

To the government, the ability to spend other people’s money is power, pure and simple. Of course it is true that the government does some good [as well as some idiotic] things with the money, but that is actually irrelevant. The point is that the government’s desire to spend this money is not necessarily a legitimate moral obligation on your life, and your efforts to sustain your own life. It is certainly true that you have incorrectly made a moral connection between the government using money it exhorted from the people, and whether you or others are morally obligated to assist it in such efforts. In any case, no one “steals” from you by failing to arrange their lives so as to pay the maximum amount possible to the government for its efforts.

As for rebellion, far more people would in fact rebel and refuse to pay taxes if they were not painlessly extracted by the government prior to ever seeing them. We have freedom fighter Milton Friedman to thank for that particular innovation – but I’m not sure that you’d argue that there was something “inherent in the social contract” that required that the government be allowed to arrange to do things so as to make sure only a small minority were ever annoyed enough to think of rebellion at any given time, would you? My guess is, if the government sent you a bill at the end of the year, you’d be both a bit less enthusiastic about taxes in general, and a good deal more critical of the things the government spend our money on.

The base premise behind the 2nd amendment, and the right to bear arms that preceded both its and the country’s existence is that my life, my liberty, and my property are my own, and that no one has the right to deprive me of them without my consent. The logic behind all rights is exactly the same – including the right to keep that which you earn through voluntary trade with others.

Either one owns one’s life, or one doesn’t. If you have a right to protect your life with deadly force, you certainly have a right to fail to surrender the products of that life to others except on your own terms. Check your premises: Freedom is freedom – you can’t treat some rights one way, and others a different way.

[edited for minor typos]

Dex http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[Chris Rhines]

How in the world did I miss this thread? (bangs head)

No, I wouldn't turn in a tax cheat. I might buy him a beer, though.

Tax resisters are heros.

- Chris

[Dex Sinister]

No, I wouldn't turn in a "tax-cheat." Might buy him lunch, though.

"Over and over again, courts have held that there is nothing sinister in arranging one's affairs to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich and poor, and all do right because nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: Taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions."

JUDGE LEARNED HAND
DISSENTING OPINION
COMMISSIONER V. NEWMAN,
159 F.2D 848, 850-851 (CA2 1947)

Dex http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/contrib/ruinkai/FIREdevil.gif

[edamon]

why rat someone else out for no reason?

if the crime isn't murder or something of the like then
mind your own business.

[Oleg Volk]

On a purely emotional level, I don't see how turning anyone in to the gestapo, revenuers, gun police or any other "friends of the people" could ever be a good idea, unless you are using one despicable organization to squash members of another (Bowmanism by proxy).

[Chris Rhines]

Hmmm.

Turn in BATF agents for tax-code violations, and IRS agents for illegal firearms?

Hmmm. TIPS, indeed!

- Chris

[Soap]

Hell no. Would I turn in some guy just because his shotgun's barrel is 2" too short? Hell no. Would I turn in someone for selling alcohol on Sundays in Indiana? Hell no.

[benewton]

I'd turn in a thief, or fire on him, if it seemed necessary, in a second.

But how can you steal your own money???

[Soap]

benewton just described the situation perfectly:

But how can you steal your own money???