Tax Resistance

[Zoot]

You didn't?


I don't know about this Ched Myers' plan of subtracting a percentage. I ask myself what would happen if a large number acted in this way.

[Zoot]

Let me add,

it's not that I don't want to contribute to my community. I do. It's just that I don't want to contribute to that part of my community that goes out and kills people to prop up a US puppet regime in a country on the other side of the world to get on the good side of the US administration.

[Sycophant]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Let me add,

it's not that I don't want to contribute to my community. I do. It's just that I don't want to contribute to that part of my community that goes out and kills people to prop up a US puppet regime in a country on the other side of the world to get on the good side of the US administration.

I don't like your idea Zoot.

You don't want to pay because you are not happy with what the SAS does. Fine.

But as the Godfather pointed out, we can all find things we object to funding with our tax money. Your justification is murder, but it that a clear enough line?

Maybe you should withhold just the percentage that goes to funding the SAS (given out military budgets and their size, I suspect it would be a very small about). But what happens when the NZ First voters start withholding the part of their tax that funds immigrant services. And Destiny members start withholding who knows how much they deem to be supporting the ungodly act of civil unions (after all, all sins are equal before god, so that's on the same level as murder).

You may have a legitimate concern, but I do not think yours is any more worthy than that of other peoples (who I think are insane). And I am unwilling to allow you to make this sort of judgement for yourself, because I do not want others to be able to do the same. Sure, you'll take your 3% or whatever and give it to charity, but John Smith down the road, who is always calling Radio Pacific to complain about the 'yellow peril' he's going to take his 30% (he didn't like public health or immigrant services) and spend it on slots at the pub, B&H Special Filters and tinned beef.

No. Bollocks. We can all pay a proper share, it can get spread around to benefit everyone, and if you don't like what the SAS does, you can do what everyone else does, write letters to you MP and call Leighton Smith (although he'll cut you off, you pinko liberal commie).

[Socratoad]

Zoot, you actually can do almost anything you want, if you are willing to pay the price. Depending on your sincerely held ethics, I would say go for it. But surely you cannot expect any organized society to be able to function at all if everyone can decide where every cent of their contribution goes. That is why "true" democracy has never worked. What we supposedly have is representative democracy, which could actually work if humans were to participate rather than be distracted by bread and circuses.

[Zoot]

You may have a legitimate concern, but I do not think yours is any more worthy than that of other peoples (who I think are insane). And I am unwilling to allow you to make this sort of judgement for yourself, because I do not want others to be able to do the same. Sure, you'll take your 3% or whatever and give it to charity, but John Smith down the road, who is always calling Radio Pacific to complain about the 'yellow peril' he's going to take his 30% (he didn't like public health or immigrant services) and spend it on slots at the pub, B&H Special Filters and tinned beef.

No. Bollocks. We can all pay a proper share, it can get spread around to benefit everyone, and if you don't like what the SAS does, you can do what everyone else does, write letters to you MP and call Leighton Smith (although he'll cut you off, you pinko liberal commie).

Well, since I pre-empted everyone in the first post and no one took the bait... what about Hitler? Would it have been an acceptable stance to refuse to contribute taxes to the Nazi government, choosing instead to contribute to the community by direct labour or giving money directly to those in the community in need, on account of disapproving of something like concentration camps?

I suppose the difference between the government killing people and the government letting Asians into the country (if one found that disagreeable) is one of degree, and not type, so at some point I would have to draw the line between those actions in which I could not in good conscience participate and those in which I could participate while working within the boundaries of the law to change.

Though perhaps there is a difference of type here. Would Johnny Cockmunch's complaints about the Yellow Peril be a moral objection?

[Dingfod]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Well, since I pre-empted everyone in the first post and no one took the bait... what about Hitler? Would it have been an acceptable stance to refuse to contribute taxes to the Nazi government, choosing instead to contribute to the community by direct labour or giving money directly to those in the community in need, on account of disapproving of something like concentration camps?

I don't know how Hitler's government dealt with tax protesters, but I bet it wasn't in a friendly way. You might have gotten to contribute all you wanted in a concentration camp alright, or a job with the government, pushing up daisies.

[Zoot]

I don't know how Hitler's government dealt with tax protesters, but I bet it wasn't in a friendly way. You might have gotten to contribute all you wanted in a concentration camp alright, or a job with the government, pushing up daisies.

Well, yes. Good point. But my point was mainly as a response to "well, all governments do something you don't like, but it's a terrible precedent to go refusing to pay taxes because of it." There's a difference between disagreeing with government policy on, say, immigration, and finding it unconscionable to participate in a system that is doing something you find morally abhorrent.