fayfreethinkers.com

We have two questions under discussion, transplanted from another thread.

1) Is tax resistance is necessarily fraud? (If so, why?)

2) Does the State ultimately threaten death to those who don't pay?

For (2), I would answer 'yes.' If someone refuses to pay, and exercises his right of self-defense when federal goons come after him, then he'll probably get the same treatment as Randy Weaver or the Branch Dividians. Darrel, I suspect, disagreed because he was looking only at the formal penalties; there is no death penalty in the books for resisting taxation. I was looking at the if push comes to shove likelihood if someone persists in resisting government extortion.

Darrel answered (1) as follows:

Darrel wrote:I guess I would need to see specific examples. If a person is conducting themselves like anyone else in this country, making money buying and selling, and wishes to get out of paying taxes under the fraudulent ruse of "I don't live in America, I live in a Ozarkia, or Jesus-land" then yes, that would seem a fraudulent attempt to avoid paying taxes while still enjoying the benefits of our taxpayer created and financed infastructure.
There may be a way a person could be a earnest tax resister without being fraudulent but I suppose they would have to be a recluse of some sort and not participate in standard commerce. ...
Resistance is not necessarily fraudulent, but it would take a very bizarre and convoluted existance to live in this country and not participate in commerce and the use of infastructure.

That doesn't really answer it for me, since the qualification that there is "a fraudulent ruse" begs the question. Darrel, if you assume that the resister makes no fraudulent claims, but honestly believes that he has no moral obligation to pay protection money he has not consented to pay, what is your answer?

You hint (twice) that simply engaging in commerce and/or using infrastructure indicates consent to taxation. Is this what you really mean? That e.g. simply using a government road constitutes consent to taxation? Needless to say, I strongly disagree, but I'll wait until you assert this more explicitly before I argue against it.

Edited by Savonarola, 20060724 1257: Added link to other thread

DAR
As stated, I guess I would need to see specific examples. Why are you opposed to providing them? I can think of a few. Very poor, homeless, or those who exist by barter. But come to think if it, it's much easier than that. As I have said, I make a good living and pay little to no income tax. If it concerned me I could easily adjust things so I could pay none. It seems tax resisters are whiners and don't know how good they have it. Sometimes I wish they would take a long trip to Somalia.

HOGEYE
That doesn't really answer it for me, since the qualification that there is "a fraudulent ruse" begs the question.

DAR
No it doesn't. In answering the question I provided two instances that I, (and most likely any one, judge and jury etc) would consider fraudulent, and humorous, attempts to avoid taxes. Claiming you wish to get out of paying taxes because "I don't live in America, I live in a Ozarkia, or Jesus-land." Perhaps you disagree.

D.

An interesting current events update for this thread:

`Survivor' Richard Hatch Sent to Prison
The Associated Press
Monday, July 24, 2006; 1:35 PM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- Richard Hatch has been sent to a federal prison in Oklahoma as he serves a 51-month sentence for failing to pay taxes on the $1 million he won on the debut season of "Survivor."

Hatch, 45, of Newport, arrived last week at the Federal Transfer Center in Oklahoma City. It wasn't immediately clear why Hatch was moved or whether he will serve out his prison sentence at the facility, which is a hub for prisoners transferring through the federal system.

A federal jury convicted Hatch in January of failing to pay taxes on the "Survivor" prize and other income. He was sentenced in May to 51 months in prison by a judge who said the reality TV star had lied repeatedly on the witness stand.

Read more

DAR
I wonder if he will still owe the taxes when he gets out.

Okay, let's take a typical example. Joe Blow does handiman work, gets paid in cash, and doesn't file a tax return or pay any income tax. He believes in a society of contract, and has never signed a contract to give money to any government.

A. Is he doing anything fraudulent?

Suppose an IRS agent, backed by thick-necked federal marshalls with guns, asks him if he dutifully pays taxes.

B. Suppose he lies and answers, "Yes." Has he now committed fraud, or is he simply someone trying to avoid the wrath of armed thugs?

C. Suppose he tells the truth and says, "No, and I don't intend to, ever." Do you really seriously think that (when they look him up and find he hasn't filed) they won't put him in jail?

D. Has he committed fraud?

Hogeye wrote:Okay, let's take a typical example. Joe Blow does handiman work, gets paid in cash, and doesn't file a tax return or pay any income tax. He believes in a society of contract, and has never signed a contract to give money to any government.

DAR
His parents probably signed his birth certificate, that'll do it.

A. Is he doing anything fraudulent?

DAR
I don't know if that is fraud. Probably not.

Suppose an IRS agent, backed by thick-necked federal marshalls with guns, asks him if he dutifully pays taxes.
B. Suppose he lies and answers, "Yes." Has he now committed fraud,...

DAR
Yes of course.

or is he simply someone trying to avoid the wrath of armed thugs?

DAR
False dichotomy.

C. Suppose he tells the truth and says, "No, and I don't intend to, ever." Do you really seriously think that (when they look him up and find he hasn't filed) they won't put him in jail?

DAR
Eventually they would probably get around to that step but there are several more steps and he would probably commit fraud on the way, and of coures lose all of his stuff. If he wants to participate in commerce, use government money to accumulate wealth while enjoy a society built in large part with tax dollars, then he is going to have to pay his taxes, or lose all of his stuff.

D. Has he committed fraud?

DAR
In your "B", yes of course.

This is why I said it would take a very special case for one to avoid paying income taxes while still functioning somewhat normal in society. I pay diddly squat. If I made just a little less it would be zero.

Living in this country, like all successful societies I can think of, is set up so that if you want to participage in commerece and accumulate wealth while enjoying the infastructure, then you need to file a tax return and pay the number it says at the bottom of the page. Paying this percent is not optional, but living in the country is. You can always move to one of the hell holes (Somalia comes to mind) where there is no income tax.

D.

From your answers, Darrel, I've learned 1) that you're not clear on what fraud is, and 2) you think it's morally permissable to sell newborns into indentured servitude or slavery, in particular that you think such a "contract" made by parents is morally binding on the offspring. That surprised me.

Here are my answers:

A. Is he doing anything fraudulent? No. Fraud is the non-consentual taking of someone else's property by deception. The assumption is that Joe gains his income by trading his handiman's labor for cash, which is not fraudulent.

B. Suppose he lies and answers, "Yes." Has he now committed fraud? No. Joe is not taking property by deception. He is trying to protect rightfully-acquired property from theft. A lie is not fraud. A lie to protect you or yours from a thief or extortionist is even praiseworthy if it has a reasonable chance of success.

C. Suppose he tells the truth and says, "No, and I don't intend to, ever." Do you really seriously think that they won't put him in jail? They'll sure as hell try to, and will often succeed. See the article Sav posted called "Survivor Richard Hatch Sent to Prison" for proof. Your idea that they only jail for fraud is simply wrong.

D. Has he committed fraud? No. In C, the person was stupidly truthful and will probably be imprisoned, but he hasn't stolen by deception. Ergo, no fraud.

My idea of a valid contract is that all parties involved must personally consent. A contemporary of your great-great-great grandaddy can't consent for you, nor can your parents. These would negate the very meaning of "consent."

Darrel wrote:If you want to participate in commerce and accumulate wealth while enjoying the infastructure, then you need to file a tax return and pay the number it says at the bottom of the page.

LOL! Pretty absurd. Did the IRS pay you to write that?

Hogeye wrote:From your answers, Darrel, I've learned 1) that you're not clear on what fraud is,

DAR
Crystal clear actually. I am not clear one whether the law considers this an instance of fraud. Don't know the law here. Don't confuse the difference.

A. Is he doing anything fraudulent? No. Fraud is the non-consentual taking of someone else's property by deception. The assumption is that Joe gains his income by trading his handiman's labor for cash, which is not fraudulent.

DAR
My dictionary has:

"A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain."

So by the clear definition of the term, as opposed to some kind of legal fraud (which was what I was referring to), Joe is clearly deliberately doing something to secure unlawful gain. That's definitive fraud in plain simple english. I can't imagine you would have trouble with it considering your knowledge of latin phrases.

B. Suppose he lies and answers, "Yes." Has he now committed fraud? No. Joe is not taking property by deception.

DAR
The english couldn't be more plain. Joe is clearly deliberately doing something to secure unlawful gain. That's fraud.

C. Suppose he tells the truth and says, "No, and I don't intend to, ever." Do you really seriously think that they won't put him in jail? They'll sure as hell try to, and will often succeed. See the article Sav posted called "Survivor Richard Hatch Sent to Prison" for proof. Your idea that they only jail for fraud is simply wrong.

DAR
I am sorry, you will have to better than "is simply wrong." I read the article. Perhaps you didn't. Here is a quote:

"He was sentenced in May to 51 months in prison by a judge who said the reality TV star had lied repeatedly on the witness stand."

Why do you suppose he was lying? Do you think it might have been "to secure unlawful gain"? That's fraud. BANG goes the gavel. Perhaps we should ask a foreigner to rule on the case? Do they allow you to lie to avoid taxes in other countries?

D. Has he committed fraud? No. In C, the person was stupidly truthful and will probably be imprisoned, but he hasn't stolen by deception. Ergo, no fraud.

DAR
As any child can understand, clearly fraud in A but not necessarily legal fraud. And legal and jail worthy fraud in B and C.

Darrel wrote:If you want to participate in commerce and accumulate wealth while enjoying the infastructure, then you need to file a tax return and pay the number it says at the bottom of the page.

LOL! Pretty absurd. Did the IRS pay you to write that?

DAR
Nope, and I stand by the comment. Following the law is absurd? I guess to an anarchist who has such a successful system and model for human society that no one the planet will dare try it, well except Somalia, and we all know how that went.

If you don't like the number at the bottom of the tax page, get a better accountant. I make enough in three days to pay my income taxes for a year. With few exceptions, tax resistors are whiners, and by definition, frauds.

D.

Hogeye, Darrel's point is perfectly valid. If you want to participate in commerce and accumulate wealth (wealth valued in government backed and valued monies, at that) while enjoying the infrastructure built with tax dollars, you need to pay your share of those tax dollars. In a nicely progressive tax system, you pay as you are able (i.e., Darrel's point that if he made just a little less money he'd pay no taxes at all - as there have been times in my life when I haven't). In a regressive tax system you pay (or at least owe) based on some other valuation (current estimated selling price of your property, for example). Either way, you have more or less clean water on tap, roads to walk, bike, or drive (or skateboard) on, emergency services (fire, police, ambulance) to respond to your problems, a legal system that allows you to seek redress if somebody delivered to you something other than what you purchased, etc. - if you use the services, pay the taxes. If you don't want to pay the taxes, go somewhere they don't have services.

FYI - I just spoke to a friend who is a lawyer and the guy who did the work and was paid cash and didn't declare it did not commit legal fraud - he committed tax evasion.

Darrel, we are not on the same page. I'm on the moral theory page, and you're on the legalistic page. I'm making a moral point, and you're quoting scripture again. In particular, you take "unlawful" to mean against statist decreed law, while I would take it to mean against moral law, "natural law", "higher law", or whatever name you give to the implications of moral philosophy. Sorry, some rulers saying "it's illegal" is not good enough for me. I do not accept their authority and ultimate say in the matter. As a freethinker, I need to verify and evaluate with my own brain.

Barbara wrote:Darrel's point is perfectly valid. If you want to participate in commerce and accumulate wealth (wealth valued in government backed and valued monies, at that) while enjoying the infrastructure built with tax dollars, you need to pay your share of those tax dollars.

That's relevant to a variation of question #2, I suppose. 2b) Does the State try to penalize or imprison those who don't pay? It is not relevant to the prescriptive question (#1) of whether tax resistance constitutes (real moral) fraud. Darrel seems to want to avoid the moral questions, preferring to appeal to decreed law. (If he were on a jury, it is pretty clear that he wouldn't nullify tax laws on moral grounds!)

So, let's move on from morality to the practicality of tax resistance. I agree that government goons may make it hard on you if you resist taxation. But I've known enough successful tax resisters to see that it is a gross exaggeration to claim "you need to file a tax return and pay the number it says at the bottom of the page" to successfully "participate in commerce." If you're a guerrilla capitalist, you gain by avoiding paying "protection money" and the related paperwork, and in many cases avoiding a lot of regulation, licensure, and other barriers; but you may get apprehended by goons who try to steal your stuff and put you in jail. Both of these risks can be managed somewhat by asset protection techniques, anonymity/pseudonymity, not leaving a paper trail, etc. So there are gains and costs to engaging in counter-economics, as the agorists call it.

Barbara wrote:I just spoke to a friend who is a lawyer and the guy who did the work and was paid cash and didn't declare it did not commit legal fraud - he committed tax evasion.

Right. Now maybe Darrel will concede that people are charged and imprisoned for tax evasion per se - that committing fraud is not a necessary legal condition for getting jailed.

Hogeye wrote:2b) Does the State try to penalize or imprison those who don't pay?

DOUG
This looks like the fallacy of equivocation. Some people "don't pay" because they commit fraud. The government jails people for fraud. Some people "don't pay" because they don't have the money. The government doesn't jail those people. And so on.

Not paying taxes is not a sufficient condition to be thrown in jail.

Doug, a fallacy pertains to an argument, not a question. I agree with you that not paying taxes is not a sufficient condition to be thrown in jail. Most tax resisters don't get caught.

Darrel, we are not on the same page.

DAR
I don't think we're even in the same library.

Even tax evaders who get caught are not necessarily jailed - if they pay the back taxes and fines, they frequently aren't. Inability to pay taxes is not a crime, ability combined with refusal to pay is. The fact that (fortunately a small percentage) some people manage to evade taxes or bribe their way out of them is immaterial to the argument. It is illegal to murder. The fact that some people get away with murder doesn't mean we should revoke the legal prohibition.

A jury's job is to do its best to determine guilt or innocence of a specific, given, law and whether or not there are mitigating circumstances that would effect sentencing. They are not there to determine anything to do with the validity of the law itself. Therefore, if Darrel were on a jury, the moral implications of the law itself might determine how he would vote on sentencing, but not guilt or innocence. To change laws, one either takes them to court or lobbies lawmakers, depending on the perceived constitutionality os said law.

Meanwhile, nobody in this country is executed for not paying taxes - although they may (and will, if the law enforcement branch can't find any way of disarming them) get themselves killed if they start shooting at tax collectors.

Barbara wrote:Even tax evaders who get caught are not necessarily jailed - if they pay the back taxes and fines, they frequently aren't. Inability to pay taxes is not a crime, ability combined with refusal to pay is.

I agree with that. Some cops won't bust you for dope, either. The fact remains that by resisting government extortion, one almost always breaks a law subjecting you to jail. E.g. Many tax resisters don't file. Failure to file is an offense. Others don't disclose cash income. Purposely failing to disclose income is, I think, also an offense. So, while technically not paying is not an offense, virtually every way of not paying is.

Barbara wrote:A jury's job is to do its best to determine guilt or innocence of a specific, given, law and whether or not there are mitigating circumstances that would effect sentencing. They are not there to determine anything to do with the validity of the law itself.

You're kidding, right? I find it hard to believe you've never heard of jury nullification. Might I suggest fija.org? Jury nullification is the citizen's way to nullify unjust laws. Did you know that people almost never got convicted of disobeying the Fugitive Slave Act? The neighbors simply refused to convict someone for helping a slave escape. There are many other examples. But I guess we should start a "Jury Nullification" thread if we want to discuss this.

We seem to be meandering toward new but related questions:

3a. Is taxation (non-consentual extortion by State) morally just?

3b. Is it morally permissable to resist taxation?

I would answer: No; yes.