Tax Resistance

[Zoot]

Let's say for a moment that I suspect my government's elite pack of soldiers weren't commended by George W. Bush for something of which I would approve. Let's hazard a guess, in fact, that if Bush felt it necessary to commend their efforts, I'd probably find their efforts morally reprehensible.

So.

My government won't tell me who these NZ SAS soldiers have been killing, or assisting in killing, with my tax money.

Is it fair for me to inform the government that I won't be paying taxes until they tell me what the NZ SAS have been doing, and I don't find it morally reprehensible.

And just to say the words before anyone else does: Hitler, Nazis, etc.

[LadyShea]

Sure it's "fair" to ask you government to be accountable to you since you're footing the bills. They will probably jail you for it, but it's fair.

[Petra]

I thought it was for help in Afghanistan.

And what's the Queenie thing all about? Why is she involved?

[Godfather]

I refuse to pay tax while violent criminals have colour TVs in their cells.

I refuse to pay tax while Leighton Smith is allowed to talk on the radio.

I refuse to pay tax while the flesh of dead animals is sold in supermarkets.

I refuse to pay tax while churches do not have to.

I refuse to pay tax while women are subject to patriarchal oppression.

I refuse to pay tax while Islamic terrorist 'asylum seekers' get free room and board.

I refuse to pay tax while shopkeepers who work on Christmas Day are not put to death.

I refuse to pay tax while students have to mortgage their futures.

I refuse to pay tax while Maori are denied sovereignty.

Everyone objects to something about their country, because we're all arseholes.

[Zoot]

Yeah, but none of those things make you complicit in murder.

[Godfather]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Yeah, but none of those things make you complicit in murder.

Oh, is that all? My taxes have already made me an accessory to countless murders: joggers, hitch-hikers and TV designers murdered by recidivist rapists automatically parolled by my justice system; East Timorese children blown apart by landmines sold to Indonesia by my military; transplant patients waiting years for surgery from my public health system; women killed by their abusive partners while my police waste time chasing drug users. I somehow manage to sleep at night.

If you don't like McDonalds or K-mart, you can vote with your wallet. If you don't like the government, you have to vote with your vote. You can write a letter to your MP as well, if you like, or put an axe through an electorate-office window, or 'march' to Parliament in an air-conditioned coach. But witholding tax, on its own, is not a form of protest - it's just tax evasion.

[Zoot]

But witholding tax, on its own, is not a form of protest - it's just tax evasion.

Thoreau disagreed.

I'm giving money to people to buy weapons and use them, and they won't tell me how they're using them.

[wade-w]

Does your demand to know exactly what they are doing trump the lives of these soldiers?

[Zoot]

Does your demand to know exactly what they are doing trump the lives of these soldiers?

That's a good question.

Do you think it's possible that reason has been used to prevent the public from learning that their armed forces are doing things they wouldn't approve of?

[Godfather]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Thoreau disagreed.

And he got arrested for it, and it achieved roughly fuck all. It was a lot easier for him, anyway. He could actually physically refrain from giving money to someone. In a country where income tax is payed 'as you earn' by your employer, you would have to get a different job with an employer who is prepared to pay you illegally, under the table. A lot of people do this already, and they are generally viewed as criminals, so good luck pursuading anybody that your motives are politcal, rather than financial. Then, when the IRD eventually caught you out, you would need to make sure you had no bank account or any siezable assets of any kind. Basically, you would have to avoid participating in the capitalist framework of the country altogether. It would not be impossible to do that while also maintaining a comfortable lifestyle, but it would be bloody hard work. And no one would know you were doing it to protest the Government's lack of transparency regarding the activities of the SAS unless you marched up the street and told them so. But then you might as well just skip the whole tax thing and get straight to marching up the street, because that would achieve roughly the same ends with an awful lot less disruption to your lifestyle.

I'm giving money to people to buy weapons and use them, and they won't tell me how they're using them.

No, you are giving money to people to buy food and clothes for the children of an unemployed solo mum. The activities of the SAS are paid for by the taxes of people who believe solo mums should be left to fend for themselves.

[Zoot]

Hm. So I'd have to take the tax I wasn't paying, and contribute it to needy in the community. Or work an equivalent of the tax, without pay, at a hospital or somesuch. The former would probably be preferable in making clear that it's not financially motivated.

Why is it the employer's fault if the employee doesn't pay taxes? Something could be worked out, surely.

And I would have to be moderately vocal about it, I suppose. Otherwise, as you say, it's not really a protest.

[Zoot]

Forgetting specifically New Zealand for a while, let's make this thread about tax resistance in general.

Here's a quote from http://riseup.net/nacc/wtr-fly.htm#risks

War tax resistance is an act of civil disobedience, and it is wise to understand that possible consequences of this form of direct action for peace before beginning it. Talking to an experienced war tax resistance counselor is recommended; you can call NWTRCC for referrals.

The risk incurred vary greatly depending upon the type of resistance, but are almost always financial in nature. Criminal prosecution is possible, but in practice extremely rare. There is very little precedent for war tax resisters being jailed; when it has happened (fewer than two dozen times since World War II), it has generally been not for non-payment, but for related decisions (e.g., contempt of court for refusal to produce financial records). The IRS acts, essentially, as a collection agency.

A nonpaying individual’s liability to the IRS will usually include assessed taxes, penalties, and accumulated interest. Civil penalties of up to 25% are possible for failing to file and failing to pay; so-called "frivolous" returns or filing false information on the W-4 form may lead to additional penalties. Interest on unpaid taxes and penalties is compounded daily at a rate that varies each quarter, depending on the prime interest rate.

Generally, resisters receive a series of tax due letters from the IRS, culminating in a "Final Notice Before Levy," thirty days after which the IRS is legally entitled to collect. The IRS tends to go after people’s most liquid assets first (e.g., bank accounts and wages), these being the easiest for them to handle. Occasionally the IRS seizes property such as cars or houses; at that point many people either buy their property back, or organize around the seizure and generate publicity for their protest. The IRS rarely collects from telephone tax resisters because of the small amounts involved. If you have no property in your name, no bank accounts, and are self-employed, there may be nothing for the IRS to seize, whatever your debt. Making yourself "uncollectable" is an option chosen by a number of resisters. It is helpful to bear in mind that a resister may "bail out" at any point by offering to begin payment if she or he wishes.
Depending upon your collectibility and the IRS’s efficiency, it may take a few months, many years, or forever to collect your taxes; the longer the period of resistance, the greater the accumulated interest on the debt. An experienced war tax resistance counselor can help you assess your willingness to take on risks, and what types of resistance will be most effective for you at this time.

The benefits of war tax resistance are clear: you are not paying for war. You are demonstrating to others that they need not pay for war. And by redirecting refused taxes, you also have the opportunity to help others understand the connections between the criminal use of our tax dollars on militarism, and the lack of availability of so many basic human services in the U.S. today.

[Zoot]

It would be easier to be backed by religious convictions, I expect.

Internal Revenue Service

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed is my 2002 tax return.

According to estimates of the War Resisters League (WRL), present current military expenditures account for about 27% of the Federal budget for Fiscal Year 2004—not including costs for the Iraq war and war on terrorism. Thus, as an act of citizen responsibility I am redirecting 27% of my 2002 tax obligation to more human purposes, in order to reflect my refusal to subsidize military expenditures.

As a follower of Christ, and as a U.S. citizen committed to doing my part to contribute to a more just and peaceful national and international order, I cannot in good conscience contribute to the military portion of the Federal budget. My reasons for this are as follows:

1. My religious convictions obligate me to a life of non-violence. As a Christian I heed Jesus’ admonition to discern, in every historical situation, “what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God” (Mark 12:17). As part of my commitment to follow Jesus’ way of non-violence, I aspire not only to minimize my direct participation in the military operations of any country, but also my indirect participation through financial subsidy of such operations. Refusal of the military portion of my tax obligation is the clearest way to register my conscientious objection to militarism and war.

2. Current U.S. military policies, deployments and technologies are fundamentally immoral by Christian moral standards. I am opposed to the unilateral U.S. military intervention in Iraq, as well as to the Bush administration’s unlimited and undefined “war against terrorism,” because I believe that military responses cannot solve political problems. I am also opposed to U.S. military subsidies of wars elsewhere, such as those currently occurring in Israel/Palestine, Afghanistan, the Philippines and Columbia. Finally, this administration’s defense posture is predicated upon the threat and use of nuclear and other weaponry of indiscriminate destruction, which violates international law and traditional just war tenets as interpreted today by all major religious bodies. I cannot support these national policies and practices with my tax dollars.

3. Current U.S. military spending is unjustifiable and represents a gross misallocation of national resources. We as a nation lead the world in both domestic military spending and in arms sales abroad. In contrast, our domestic spending for health, education and social welfare is woefully inadequate to meet the needs of our most vulnerable citizens. These distorted priorities are undermining the social fabric of our national life, and represent the true threat to our security.

As a U.S. citizen it is my democratic responsibility to register my “vote” on issues of U.S. militarism in the strongest possible way. I do this through my work as an educator, a writer and an activist, as a matter of vocation. I also express my convictions by conscientiously and openly redirecting the military portion of my tax obligation toward those serving the poor.

My enclosed 1040 form is filled out in full. My adjusted calculation of my 2002 taxable income is, in light of my war tax redirection, as follows:

- 2002 tax obligation ...
- Minus 27%, military portion redirected ...
- My non-military tax obligation ...
- Minus amount already withheld ...
- Amount owed ...

The redirected portion of my tax obligation has been donated to organizations that provide human services and work for peace and justice.

I stand consciously within the best tradition of our Republic, whose own independence struggle began with a tax protest (the Boston Tea Party). I do not object to paying taxes in principle, which is why I have paid the non-military portion of my obligation. I do support the right of conscientious objection for taxpayers, though it is not yet recognized in our law. I will pay my tax obligation in full when I can be assured that those revenues will be applied only to non-military purposes.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Myers

[Dingfod]

The old saying is that there only two sure things, death and taxes. That's just not true. You absolutely do not have to pay any taxes at all. All you have to do to accomplish this is not work and not buy anything. It's legal and simple, sleep on your friend's sofa or in a cardboard box under the viaduct, mooch all your food from others, get free medical care at the emergency rooms of charity hospitals, get free food and clothing from the various governmental and charitable organizations. If you do earn any money, make sure it's under the table, the same for your purchases. The IRS cannot do anything to you for not paying taxes on money you don't earn and the local government cannot do anything to tax you on money you don't spend. Simple, huh? Refusal to participate in the economy altogether is the ultimate protest against everything modern capitalist society stands for, including war and the death penalty.

[Petra]

Zoot, I didn't know you were a libertarian?

[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.

[justaman]

Man this is so Team America.

New Zealand is trying to show itself that it isn't a pussy, it can be dick too. (And New Zealanders can, man. I've met some New Zealand army guys and they are switched fuckers.) You've virtually been arbitrarily dismissed by the U.S. ever since that incident with the nuclear powered boat and you've been getting much of your U.S. info second-hand off Australia - that which we're allowed to give anyway. I'd suggest your government is realising this is a shitty way to do business, especially given the way every one around the world seems intent on kicking each other in the balls right now. Not being in with the U.S. - and you aren't to the extent Aus is - is a bit of a monkey in the wrench as far as being aware of local security is concerned.

I know you'd probably prefer to be cut off from the whole world than be 'in' with the U.S. since the Iraq thing. I hate the way they've gone about it, but I can't convince myself totally that there wasn't some good that came out of it. I think they had to do it in the miserable way they did because they had to convince the public it was a good idea. That was why it needed to be painted in the colours it was, and then pursued in the abhorrantly inefficient way.

In all honesty, I'm still on the fence about it. I despise the neo-con brigade in the white house, but I can't help thinking that maybe the U.S. actually managed to do the right thing for all the wrong reasons.

Regardless, I think it's fairly safe to say the NZ SAS is unlikely to be kicking any Iraqi asses. That's not their role. In fact if a NZ defence force member has discharged their weapon in that nation I would be extremely surprised.

And I continue to voice my concern about you having a Minister for Lord of the Rings. That more than anything is probably enough to make me quit paying taxes.

[flufeemunk]

Here's a good idea. For 2005, send your tax bracket's worth on tsunami disaster relief. That is less money to be spent on the impending Iran war. I would say its better to give your money where you think it should be spent, after all.

[Zoot]

It makes sense that we have a Minister of Lord of the Rings. It was a bigger industry than half our exports