Tax Update Blog: Permalink

I'm impressed by your response.

> I'm not "gung-ho" about taking property from tax protesters.

Then why in a separate post do you advocate that the IRS set up a new unit specifically to go after protesters?

I'm not defending people who make up lies or bizarre technicalities. But the fact is that there are very good reasons for not paying one's federal and FICA taxes in the US of A today.

> I don't accept that there is a difference between taxing business and taxing "people."

I didn't posit one. Taxation in the USA today is armed robbery. Nationalization of private business in Argentina (or Venezuela, etc) is armed robbery. Yet you're for one and not the other. I don't understand why.

> I can't get excited about systems that can only work under conditions that will never occur

Your argument is highly abbreviated and loaded with implicit assumptions. It's not relevant, but I am in favor of a highly limited government that is funded via donations, user fees and possibly excise taxes.

> My own views are more along the lines of George Washington

So, again, you imply that you are in favor of using force to go after tax protestors, which strikes me as the very definition of gung-ho.

> once taxes are levied by a legitimate representative government

Define legitimate. 85% of feedback to Congress was against the bailout. Yet it passed. We are in 2 wars, neither declared. We have a unitary executive who does not respect habeas corpus and has skirted national and international law to create his own circle of hell in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and secret CIA prisons worldwide. Our currency is being inflated like there's no tomorrow by the Fed.

And when there is one standard for getting Republicrats on the ballot, and a radically higher one for independents and other parties, I don't think the words legitimate, representative or government can be honestly associated.

> somebody has to pay the government's bloated bills

Why?

> when the tax protesters don't the rest of us have to pay more

We will always have to pay more, no matter what. When limits are reached, they just borrow, which is essentially a tax on our grandchildren.

> implications of everybody deciding for themselves which laws to follow are as frightening

What happened to free will and individual conscience? So if the government mandates mercury-tainted flu vaccinations for your child, you would without thinking just do it? I hope you don't live in NJ.

In conclusion, you avoided my question and ripped to shreds a straw man, leaving me and my valid question quite intact and still awaiting a substantive response.

George, of course you won't be satisfied unless I agree with you, and I don't. I'll leave it as is. Of course my post is abbreviated; it's a blog post, not a treatise on government. I think it answers your question, within the restraints of the format; you just don't like my answer. Your response does help illuminate it, though. Take care.

Joe, I asked a simple question:

Why are you for government forcibly taking the assets of individuals when it's called taxes but against the same when it's called nationalization?

Apparently your response is that someone has to pay government's bills. Sorry, that's not an answer to my question.

Obviously you don't have to answer my question. I don't expect you to agree with me. I'm simply attempting to engage in a conversation with you. You have a blog here and a blog is just a vehicle for having conversations.

If you have no intention of engaging in civil and thoughtful conversations with your readership, having a comment function is superfluous and I respectfully suggest you disable it to avoid future misunderstandings.

George, the comments can be a conversation, or they can function as a "letter to the editors" section, or some combination of both. It's entirely up to me, and is a function of my time availability, interest and patience. I can't let commenters control what I talk about, or I'd do nothing but feed trolls all day.

A tax is by definition a forcible exaction. I don't favor all taxes, or the current system, but once the system is duly enacted, I favor equitable enforcement. If you don't see a difference between the income tax and nationalization of the means of production, no amount of dialog will make a difference, my friend.

I don't pretend, nor am I attempting in any way, to "control" what you write about. That's even more ridiculous and baseless than saying I won't be "satisfied" till you agree with me. Baselessly ascribing bad intentions to others is not within the bounds of civil discourse.

Even an LTE is just part of a conversation, the vehicle for which is a newspaper. It's all a conversation, or it loses utility.

I see you simply do not wish to answer the question, that's your right. You could have saved yourself the trouble by stating that up front.

I won't bug you about this further.

George,

We are a nation of laws. Protesters are breaking the law and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of that law.

In short, the government should go after tax protesters with the same vigor they go after bank robbers and burlgars.

Protesters steal, not from the government, but from other taxpayers.

Freedom ain't free, my friend. Taxes are the price we pay to live in an orderly, civilized society.

Payment of taxes is a part of the social contract in the same way that not punching your neighbor in the nose is part of the social contract.

Representative democracies do not run on unaminous consent. Elected officials enact laws that we are all bound to follow regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

You, of course, have the right to vote for people who think like you. By all means, fight for your position in the marketplace of ideas. Maybe, if your arguments are compelling enough, your view will gain a majority.

But don't voluntarily play the game (by living in America and accepting the fruits of it's governance) and then when you don't get your way have a tantrum, flip the board over and accuse the winners of cheating.

Incidentally, I'd better not see you taking a joy ride on the interstate highway that I helped pay for.

**(Joe is right. There is no arguing with a tax protester. Logic eludes them. Emotion controls them.)

> I'd better not see you taking a joy ride on the interstate highway that I helped pay for.

The Highway Trust Fund (HTF) is funded by the Federal Gas Tax, and taxes on truck and tire sales. Recent budget shortfalls nonwithstanding, the HTF funded our interstate system successfully for 50 years. Recent diversions of that fund for other uses (such as mass-transit) contributed to the recent anomoly.

Therefore: For any person you see joyriding on the interstate, provided they're not riding on a public bus, you could safely assume that they've paid their share.

But to speak to your larger point-- I believe I can honestly say that you've never realistically paid for any "benefits" I might have ever gotten from our government, regardless of whether I pay my income tax or not.

I pay my fair shares to the interstates with gasoline and sales taxes. I just finished paying off many thousands of dollars of medical debt-- No medicaid for my family. I live in a home, inspected by a city inspector paid for by sales taxes. If my property taxes didn't go towards educating other people's children (while I have none), I'm pretty sure that unfairly high sum would cover any small thing I might have missed, and the amount of national defense I would support.

But yes... I suppose you could just rationalize that having a potential 40% of my income stolen pays for my "freedom". As they say: "Freedom isn't free!" For real.

If income tax protests ever got off the ground, I think they would only succeed in forcing our government to start fewer wars. I do not think most tax protesters, if successful, would be feeding off of a system that you and other tax-paying citizens pay for; As I've already illustrated, It's pretty easy to pay your own way without paying income taxes.

My point is: There are likely millions of people like me, who you have never unwillingly given money to. You cannot realistically assert that we are theives. If we don't want to pay income taxes to fund a bloated federal empire--it doesn't necessarily affect your bank account.

Your sense of moral indignation... perhaps.