Would you turn in a tax cheat?

[rock jock]

I was alarmed on Tuesday by interviews from roving reporters in San Antonio (a city picked at random by a major news group) that indicated large numbers of folks cheat on their taxes without any compunction. Now, let me say at the outset that I think federal taxes are way too high. I could probably even be convinced that they shouldn't exist at all. I also believe that that a significant portion of our taxes are either squandered or go to support stuff that the federal govt. should not be involved in in the first place (Social Security, Medicare, welfare). HOWEVER, my opinion is that everyone should pay their fair part and when they don't, I end up paying more (by way of higher tax rates) to make up for it. The federal income tax is still the law of the land right now. I obey that law even if I don't agree with it. I also know that if everyone refused to pay their taxes, things like kicking Iraq's backside would be impossible. Just ask russia, who keeps its military barely surviving on $10 billion a year.

So, my question is, suppose you find out the guy down the street or a contractor you hired to renovate your kitchen, or a co-worker is not reporting a significant part of their income. Would you turn them in? If you're undecided, consider this: what if this person comes up to you one day and starts bragging about the brand new car he just bought. Now, you know that there is no way he could afford that car if he was paying his fair share of taxes. You also know that you are personally in desparate need of a new car and could afford the down payment if you hadn't paid several thousands of dollars into the govt. coffers last year. Would you just consider yourself a sucker for obeying the law? Would you just congratulate him on his new prize and inside envision a large anvil falling his head? Or, would you laugh and then later call the IRS and turn him in, collecting 10% of the back-tax penalty he is hit with? If you did turn him in, would you feel guilty, like a Big Brother collaborater, or would you simply chalk his loss up to his own irresponsibility and selfishness?

 

[Greg L]

I wouldn't turn him in. However if we had a business realtionship I would realize that it does carry over and have no more dealings with him.

I wouldn't rat him out for 10% of the penalty (my morals are more expensive than the less than $1k it would generate. Now if I knew that Bill Gates' accountants were screwing him, my morals may be a little more flexible (of course if I was that deep on the inside to know that, I'm sure that there would be plenty of other insider tips to make up the difference...))

Greg

 

[hammer4nc]

The open question is "fairness"...can a "fair" share possibly be determined by a tax code that is inherently "unfair"? Containing as it does all the bribery induced exemptions for special interests? Funding as it does wasteful programs that kill individual initiative, and help to destroy any observance of constitutional principles?

Its interesting that one would argue for compliance with a system based on "fairness", while at the same time completely ignoring most other moral implications of that system. "Fair share" is a term hyped by the IRS director, hoping to maximize his revenue by officially encouraging taxpayer units to snitch on one another, without conscience.

How much time do you think he spends worrying about the "fairness" of IRS rulings (not legislation) that make or break taxpayer units on a daily basis? How about the "fairness" of an appeal system that presumes guilt, and places the burden of proof on the taxpayer unit? In which the "judges" are former agents? Other systemic problems that I don't have the time to list right now.

Is it "fair" to facilitate an addict's dependency?

 

[Ian]

I also know that if everyone refused to pay their taxes, things like kicking Iraq's backside would be impossible.

Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

 

[JW2]

Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

I hope this is a sarcastic statement.

 

[AJ Dual]

Theft? No. Robbery? Yes.

Yup, you betcha. Taxes are theft, and I certainly won't raise a hand to stop anyone preventing theft through non-compliance. Heck, I'd actively encourage people to pay less (or nothing).

I hope this is a sarcastic statement.

I'd say it's only half sarcastic, taxes are not theft, which is the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property.

Taxes are robbery the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property by force, or threat of force.

Think I'm joking?

Nope.

If you decide you don't have to pay some or all of your taxes, what happens? Sure, the process is all "civilized" at first, involving paperwork, and lawyers etc. but what if you decide to ignore the paperwork, or a summons to court?

"They" come for you, to bring you to court. Who is "They"?
Police, Sheriffs, Agents. etc. etc. etc. What does such a person or persons do? They come up your door, and ask you nicely to go with them in the white cars with the neat lights on the roof to go see the judge.

If you don’t?

They grab you.

If you pull away?

They pepper spray you.

If you still won't submit?

They pull their guns.

If you pull a gun?

Lead starts flying, and eventually you lose.

The ultimate result of refusal to pay taxes, and the property confiscation that will ensue, is imprisonment or death.

Taxes, therefore is indeed the unauthorized removal or acquisition of someone else's property by force, or threat of force. Whether or not it's robbery, I leave to you.

But I don't remember voting for, or signing anything that said I agreed to be taxed.

If you think this is all melodramatic hyperbole, what happened to Randy Weaver's family over his refusal to pay a $200 tax for cutting a shotgun barrel to less than 18"?

So I suppose someone might argue that taxes are still not robbery since you get things in return for your taxes, roads, police, schools, Social Security (yuck), NASA, and the Military etc. etc.

Ok, then. So if a bum comes up to you on the street, puts a knife to your throat, and "sells" you a watch, that's OK too?

Just checking.

 

[Ebbtide]

collecting 10% of the back-tax penalty he is hit with?

Is this true? If so, i could quit my job and do this full time.

 

[JW2]

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

 

[cuchulainn]

law of the land

If you lived in Canada and your friend had an unregistered gun, would you turn him in? (Or Cali, NY, Mass, NJ, etc). Or to take it to the most extreme, if you lived in Nazi Germany and your neighbor was hiding a family of Jews, would you turn him in?

Don't worry, I'm not comparing Nazism to taxation. Rather, my point is to ask if the law is wrong, do you have a moral obligation to:

1) not only obey it, but
2) become an agent of the state and assist in catching others who don't obey it?

There's a big leap from 1) to 2)


BTW "fair share" = Clintonspeak

 

[JW2]

I don't think you have a moral obligation to do either one, especially not choice 2.

 

[AJ Dual]

Plenty of civilizations have or had no taxes...

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

Well, I'm partly just playing Devil's Advocate here, but also partly serious.

If you'd like to see "how that would work", I suggest you read some books by a nice man named L. Neil Smith.

They're enjoyable reading too, and full of plenty of gun tidbits to keep thehighroad.org members happy.

http://www.lneilsmith.com/

 

[JW2]

Maybe Mr. Smith's ideas drift from his parties' and he does have a plan for completely eliminating taxes, but browsing this guy's website, he appears to be a Libertarian. IIRC the Libertarians have never advocated eliminating taxes, but simply promoted more responsibility for individuals and private organizations to take part in their community to provide services that the government normally provides. This would cut taxes dramatically but not eliminate them by taking away social welfare programs. Also by cutting back the military to a level necessary to defend the US from attack, it would cut back on military expenditure. They may have other plans to reduce taxes but there is no practical and realistic way that taxes could be completely eliminated and still have roads, military, etc.

Yes, I believe that taxes could be drastically cut, but never eliminated completely.

I now return you to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[mercedesrules]

I'm with Ian, Andrew, and cuchulainn on this one. Taxation is theft and must be ended. What anyone does after that is their own business. I would buy a few dozen stinger missiles and RPGs.

MR

 

[Partisan Ranger]

Income Taxes Are Un-American

I realize that some form and level of taxation is necessary. After all, even if the federal government actually stuck to the functions enumerated in the Constitution, it would need SOME money to operate (for such things as separating the heads and torsos of murderous terrorist savages).

My problem is with income taxes. Why should people pay taxes based upon how much they earn, and the more they earn, the more they pay? It seems to me, the more productive you are, the more you should be rewarded, not punished. Rewarding sloth and punishing acheivement isn't American - it's Soviet.

I believe moving to a consumption tax is the only fair way to collect taxes. A national sales tax, like the Fair Tax, taxes people for what they use, not what they earn.

 

[JW2]

Now I have no argument with you here partisan ranger, the key to your post is that some form of taxation is necessary. There are some who would have you to believe that taxes in general are unnecessary and wrong.

 

[Marko Kloos]

So nobody should pay taxes? I don't see how that would work at all.

Nobody should be forced to pay taxes, more accurately. If you do not control the fruits of your labor, then you do not own yourself. As it is, you work until June to contribute your "fair share", which means that you're a slave to the government for almost half the year.

Now, if the government were to walk around the neighborhoods with collection cups, and politely ask whether the citizenry would be interested in contributing to a stealth bomber or a few thousand sacks of wheat for Somalia, I'd have no problem giving what I can to the causes I see necessary. When you introduce compulsion under threat of force, it becomes immoral robbery.

If it's not legal or moral for you to hold a gun to the head of neighbor Smith to collect 50% of his income, so you can give it to neighbors Jones and Davis in the form of welfare checks and farm subsidies...why on Earth should it be legal and moral for the government to do it for you?

The average family pays more in taxes than it spends on food, clothing, and shelter combined. – Congressman Dick Armey, Why a Flat Tax? Durell Journal of Money and Banking, Spring 1995

According to the Tax Foundation, taxes now consume more than 38% of the average family's budget. That is more than is spent on food, clothing, housing, and transportation combined. Compare this to the plight of medieval serfs. They only had to give the lord of the manor one-third of their output -- and they were considered slaves. So what does that make us? – Daniel Mitchell, The Washington Times, 3/9/99

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – President Calvin Coolidge

The average American family head will be forced to do twenty years' labor to pay taxes in his or her lifetime. – James Bovard, Lost Rights

All the fiery rhetoric of the Founders was directed at a "tyrant" who taxed his subjects at a rate of about three percent. Today, we in "the land of the free" are taxed at about 50 percent when you add federal, state, and local taxes. What kind of government would do this? A dictatorship would. – Doug Newman

It's wrong for someone to confiscate your money, give it to someone else, and call that "compassion." – Harry Browne

"Need" now means wanting someone else's money. "Greed" means wanting to keep your own. "Compassion" is when a politician arranges the transfer. – Joseph Sobran, columnist.

 

[JW2]

Now, if the government were to walk around the neighborhoods with collection cups, and politely ask whether the citizenry would be interested in contributing to a stealth bomber or a few thousand sacks of wheat for Somalia, I'd have no problem giving what I can to the causes I see necessary. When you introduce compulsion under threat of force, it becomes immoral robbery.

I'm sure we'll never come to an agreement on this, but I think your idea is great, if we lived in an ideal world. The problem is, you and I would freely give some of our money to taxes, but would we be able to rely on the goodwill of everyone to give enough to maintain the proper amount of money needed for government functions? If someone decides not to give taxes for roads, for example, should a database be constructed and those who didn't give shouldn't be allowed to drive on that road?

It's a good idea in theory but would never work in the real world.

 

[DeltaElite]

Is there a reward?

As long as multi-millionaires pay less than I do, anyone who can get away with it is on their own, I don't really care.
When they get caught, they will care, since the IRS is all powerful.

 

[Partisan Ranger]

One other thought - the key to tearing down the current tax structure in our Republic is to eliminate withholding of taxes. Do you all know that withholding started during WWII as a 'temporary' war measure? It seems that the light bulb came on for some pols in the 40s after the war. "Hey guys, you know, if we withhold people's money before they ever receive it, most of them are too dumb to notice! We can spend through the roof and stay in office forever! Yay!"

Eliminating withholding would cause a revolution that would make the one in 1776 look like a mild skirmish.

 

[CZ-75]

Nothing would be more fair than a national sales tax.

You choose whether or not to pay taxes through how much you consume.

As to the poor, they could apply for a refund, based either on actual receipts or an estimated consumption that takes into account income and number of persons living in the family and age of those persons.

From everything I keep hearing, we pay 22% hidden tax on most goods because the sellers, distributors, and manufacturers pass those costs on to the consumer. Were the govt. to charge the same, overtly, we'd still come out ahead (assuming retailers, etc. didn't see this as an opportunity to collect an add'l. 22% profit)

Imagine the amount of paperwork (and money) that could be saved, also.

 

[Kaylee]

turn him in? no...
applaud.. maybe.

As to the IRS being all powerful.. feh. NO human being or human institution is all powerful, not even them... as much as they'd like us to believe it. Heck, there's a whole bloody industry out there of ex-agents making a living fighting the IRS off in the backrooms of courthouses.. and should it ever come right down to it, IRS folks are even more susceptible to the Bowman treatment than the ATF boys.

The question is.. how much are you willing to give up fighting them? Since I'm a wuss, basically... I stay honest with 'em.


Finally, as to the morality of taxation..
I really don't see an ethical difference in extortion whether pressed by an individual or a collective. If it's something you can't get most everyone to willingly pony up for.. I guess it just ain't that important.

Seriously.. if an idea's so unpopular the only way you can pay for it is through the threat of force... maybe it's time to reconsider the necessity of the idea in the first place.

-K

 

[444]

No, I wouldn't turn him in or think any the worse for him. Let's stop and think for a minute who the theif is here. When I was a very young kid my parents taught me that the act of taking something that wasn't yours, without the owners permission was called stealing. Later on I learned what the word extortion means.
Extortion: to obtain from a person by force, intimidation, or undue or illegal power.
If I knew someone who was being extorted by anyone and this person turned the tables I certainly would congratulate them. If I knew someone was being robbed and they turned the tables I would congratulate them.

 

[Kaylee]

Oh yeah.. one more thing.

Sometimes I really have to wonder where these politicians, particularly (but by no means exclusively) the leftist variety, go to school as kids. I mean, they learned an entirely different kind of math than I did in Cobden Elementary...

"spending cut" == more than last year, but not as much more as I wanted.

"your fair share" == as much of your money as I decide you owe me.

"budget surplus" == The amount of money we'll have left over in ten years if these extremely atypical boom conditions last indefinately and we keep our hands out of the cookie jar, which we all know will never happen.

"spending the surplus" == not taking as much of your money as we'd originally planned


I mean....

-K

 

[444]

This whole "you should pay your fair share" argument is one of my faviorites. Let me give an example at the federal, state, and local level.
I make an upper middle class income, however I am unmarried, have no children, and own a very modest 1000 square foot "modular home". In other words, I don't have many write offs.
A guy I work with makes more money than I do, but he has six kids (his choice), owns a very large home (around 3000 square feet), and is married.
He pays a tiny fraction of the federal income tax that I do even though he uses infinitely more government services than I do.

I own a 2003, 3/4 Ton, 4 wd, diesel, Ford pickup. I pay though the nose to register this truck because the registration fee is based on it's worth.
My next door neighbor owns a POS, old, beat up, oil burner. He pays a tiny fraction of what I do because it isn't worth as much.
Yet we both drive on the same roads. Am I using more of the roads, or the signs, or whatever than he is ?

Before I moved to my present home, I bought this 2 1/2 acre lot. It was just a piece of desert that has been here since the dawn of time. It is on a dirt road. It had no public utilities, and I didn't live here. There was a volunteer fire department and a paid sheriff's department, but who cares since I had nothing here to lose. Yet I had to pay property taxes. What services was I paying for ?
When I decided to move here I had to pay to have power brought in, I had to put in a well and septic tank, I errected a building..................... So now my taxes went up because I improved the land. Yet, I am not using any more services now than I did before. If I put a shed up or a garage up, the taxes go up, yet no more services are being used. If I built a 4000 square foot home complete with landscaping, pool etc. My taxes would skyrocket, yet I am still not using any more government services because of it.
I don't have any kids in the public schools, I have never used a medical facility here, I went to the pubilc library once just to have a quiet room to study in without any distarctions, I have never been to a public park here................................. What am I paying for that is my fair share ?

 

[cuchulainn]

the key to tearing down the current tax structure in our Republic is to eliminate withholding of taxes.

Bingo! I pay quarterly estimates, and the number is always very annoying even though I have it all budgeted months in advance. I don't remember being annoyed back in my "painless" W2 days.