World Peace Through Tax Evasion?

[Roches]

The 1982 book Stop Nuclear War! A Handbook by David P. Barash and Judith E. Lipton (available with registration at the Internet Archive) discusses an interesting mechanism for civil disobedience in protest of the nuclear arms race: refuse to pay taxes for military expenditures. The book contains a list of "tax resistance groups" -- some groups continue to exist, such as the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee. As far as I could tell, the groups identified really did have the objective of opposing defense expenditures, as distinguished from freemen-on-the-land or other forms of tax evasion.

The book lists a few methods, such as declaring a "war tax exemption" for yourself, or just not paying taxes. The reader is assured the IRS' bark is worse than its bite, and presumably there would be some critical mass at which the government would have no choice but this:

Overall, the book is very pro-disarmament and liberal. Not suitable for Reaganites.

So, is it in any way plausible, with a POD at any point during the Cold War, for a tax resistance movement to significantly influence US military expenditures or foreign policy, or to cause some small ripple effect? I think, if a sufficiently charismatic figure got behind the notion, it might amount to something, since there are certain fringe benefits (more cash in your pocket) compared to the paying-taxes alternative.

Examples:

- In the 1960s: Vietnam protesters go a step further and withhold taxes, adding financial teeth to their message. (For argument's sake, assume hippies are taxpayers.)
- In the 1980s: A Cuban Missile Crisis-level incident makes nuclear war the hot-button issue in the US and public opposition to the mid-80s military buildup intensifies. (Easier to imagine if Reagan has already won in '84.)

 

[CountDVB]

Well, with the 1960s, maybe they can get vets from the Korean War to help them out with the tax thing and use the military alliance of sorts to add some bite.

 

[Asp]

In a word, no. In some more, the IRS bite is, if anything, worse than its bark.

Paying taxes is very much not voluntary and they don’t even need to send you to prison if you don’t, they can persue civil action (where you are pretty much guilt until proven innocent), especially garnishing your wages (for anyone who doesn’t know this is where they demand your employer give them the money you owe in taxes first and then give the rest to you). You would have to stop working or earning any money in any way, which would in turn make you homeless, starving, and cold.

Yeah, good luck selling that to a lot of people.

 

[Theodoric]

COMT as an idea has been around for a while, originally starting out mostly as a religious idea (started by religious conscientious objectors). It's not just the purview of radical activists. Honestly, like ASP says, by the time it'll grow up to be any way significant the IRS will strike at it. The only way such a movement can succeed if it works together with the religious conscious objectors within the system, to actually establish a Peace Tax Fund of sorts. And that would also neuter the movement.

A movement that tries to use illegal action to bring about such change is going to get repressed pretty heavily, and not just by 'the establishment'. Even ordinary people don't like it when they have to pay taxes while others in similar situations don't, it makes them feel duped.

 

[timmy_khagann]

"What can the average Joe gain from risking his present job and future career prospects by not paying his taxes?" is the question a "tax resistance group" should answer when they start a recruitment drive. "Bringing a future of peace" is cold comfort for families whose breadwinners were either arrested or had their pay severely reduced because they didn't like the fact that tax payments don't have a line-item veto mechanism.

 

[overoceans]

In addition to all the rebuttals already made, antiwar tax avoidance, if successful, would be a standing invitiation to every other kind of tax avoidance. "I object to paying for secular-humanist education in the schools/Communist propaganda on PBS/welfare paymemts for jezebel unwed mothers/foreign-aid to godless regimes/etc etc".

The only antiwar types who might be okay with setting that sort of precedent would be right-wing libertarians, who could use antiwar tax-evasion as a sprinboard for anti-taxation in general. But most liberals and left-wingers know that the society they envision is dpendant upon a healthy tax base, and wouldn't want to do anything to undermine that.

 

[Md139115]

Also consider that some conservatives might take this as an affront to the country and its ability to defend itself and voluntarily give more money to the government come tax time, in a way similar to war bond drive-style patriotism.

If however this happens, you would have conservatives lining up to pay more taxes and liberals trying to pay less... which in America counts as such a dramatic shift that all would regard it as a sign of the apocalypse!

 

[overoceans]

Also consider that some conservatives might take this as an affront to the country and its ability to defend itself and voluntarily give more money to the government come tax time, in a way similar to war bond drive-style patriotism.

Interesting sceanrio, but has it EVER happened? That is, people who think the government should be collecting more money being consistent by voluntarily donating back to the state?

I know when left-wingers of a certain income-level complain that taxes are too low, conservative sometimes respond "Hey, if you think you should be paying more, feel free to sit down and figure out how much you should be paying, and send that to the government, or donate it to charity." Not sure I've ever heard a left-winger jump up and say "I'm already doing that!!"

 

[Pantaleón Pantoja]

I'd buy a lot of cake that day.

 

[phx1138]

The reader is assured the IRS' bark is worse than its bite

Boy, oh boy, are they wrong. IRS can do things the law enforcement community could never get away with.

They don't have to give you a fair hearing. They can seize your house & freeze your bank account. If they give you wrong advice, it's your fault for believing it & not getting advice from somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. (I am not kidding, not even a little.)

You want to rob a bank? You're better off. Tax evasion is certain to ruin you.

 

[FBKampfer]

Boy, oh boy, are they wrong. IRS can do things the law enforcement community could never get away with.

They don't have to give you a fair hearing. They can seize your house & freeze your bank account. If they give you wrong advice, it's your fault for believing it & not getting advice from somebody who actually knows what he's talking about. (I am not kidding, not even a little.)

You want to rob a bank? You're better off. Tax evasion is certain to ruin you.

Unless you're a major corporation

 

[phx1138]

Unless you're a major corporation

Then you're Too Big to Sue & Too Big to Prosecute.

 

[IntellectuallyHonestRhino]

In a word, no. In some more, the IRS bite is, if anything, worse than its bark.

Paying taxes is very much not voluntary and they don’t even need to send you to prison if you don’t, they can persue civil action (where you are pretty much guilt until proven innocent), especially garnishing your wages (for anyone who doesn’t know this is where they demand your employer give them the money you owe in taxes first and then give the rest to you). You would have to stop working or earning any money in any way, which would in turn make you homeless, starving, and cold.

Yeah, good luck selling that to a lot of people.

Taxes have been the foundation of civilization for millennium. I agree with you that this is ASB.

 

[Napoleon IV]

The IRS took down Al Capone. Saying that their bark is worse than their bite is like saying "Go ahead, pet the grizzly bear cubs. Mama bears are actually really peaceful and will back down from a confrontation." Because of this it would take a lot of support for the anti-war movement to be able to successfully carry out a tax protest, so much so in fact that they would have the support to simply elect politicians who are anti-war and anti-military long before they had enough support not to get crushed by the IRS.

 

[Riain]

Taxes have been the foundation of civilization for millennium. I agree with you that this is ASB.

As has war; if there's one thing people love its getting their friends together and killing 'the other' and stealing all their shit!

 

[Hvalrossen]

Interesting sceanrio, but has it EVER happened? That is, people who think the government should be collecting more money being consistent by voluntarily donating back to the state?

I know when left-wingers of a certain income-level complain that taxes are too low, conservative sometimes respond "Hey, if you think you should be paying more, feel free to sit down and figure out how much you should be paying, and send that to the government, or donate it to charity." Not sure I've ever heard a left-winger jump up and say "I'm already doing that!!"

Many people don't see the state as there own property even if they pay membership dues. This is also why i think people are less caring about what the state spends money on. Also it is easier to give something if everyone else is doing it too!

 

[Barry Bull]

Unless you're a major corporation

The blame goes to the congress.

 

[troosvelt_68]

Setting aside the already mentioned issues, how does this impact nations like USSR, China, etc ?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

Setting aside the already mentioned issues, how does this impact nations like USSR, China, etc ?

Not happening and the scenario is unworkable if the IRS can get away with what has been stated above what do you think the KGB is gonna do?

 

[Napoleon IV]

Not happening and the scenario is unworkable if the IRS can get away with what has been stated above what do you think the KGB is gonna do?

It's also worth pointing out that tax evasion would be much harder and less effective in the USSR because of the way that their tax system is set up (I have zero knowledge of the Chinese tax system, so I won't talk about it). Income tax was not a large part of the Soviet budget; for example in the 1950s the income tax was only about 10% of the Soviet budget (compared to 50% in the US during the same time period). Instead, the main Soviet tax was what's known as a turnover tax, which is similar to a value-added tax. VAT works by taxing the producers along each stage of the production chain. The Atlantic gives an example here:

The example I always use is a loaf of bread you buy in a store for a buck -- so you have a farmer, a baker, and a supermarket along the production chain. Let's put the VAT at 10 percent.

1) The farmer grows the wheat and sells it to the baker for 20 cents. The VAT is 2 cents. The baker pays the farmer 22 cents, and the farmer sends 2 cents in VAT to the government.

2) The baker makes a loaf and sells it to the supermarket for 60 cents. The VAT is 6 cents. Now the supermarket pays the baker 66 cents, of which 6 is VAT. The baker sends the government 4 cents -- he pays 6 cents in VAT but receives a two cent credit from the government.

3) The store sells the loaf to me for a dollar. I pay $1.10. The store sends the government 4 cents total - the 10 cents it collected in VAT on its sales, minus the 6 cents it paid to the baker in VAT, which it gets back in a credit. In total, the government gets 2 cents from the farmer, 4 cents from baker, 4 cents from the store. That's 10 cents on a final sale of a dollar -- for a 10 percent VAT.

Due to the fact that the Soviet state ran the economy most of the people who could have tried to avoid this tax were state employees, and thus the state could simply fire/arrest any manager who tried to resist the turnover tax and replace him with someone who would go along quietly.