You know, the guy who hasn’t paid his income taxes in ten years and is now suffering the penalty. He claims that income tax is not legal because the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified; even though, according to most major, and credible, sources, it was, by 42/50, or 84%..
Regardless of legal standing, why would someone not (want to) pay their federal income tax? Does not the taxes they pay fund highways, military, FDA, etc.? Does not Ed Brown share the protection that the military offers us mere civilians who choose not to protect ourselves? And if he derives such benefit, should he not make just compensation? Does he not see such logic, or is he merely greedy or against all things government?
Aye. Thanks. I did a search, and after a half hour, it returned:
“ed was too common and eliminated from search.”
Here are the results of “Brown”, which, you could imagine, was quite voluminous.
But let’s assume the tax law is valid (which it is, of course). Why do people not see the need to compensate the government for the services they provide, roads and military, amongst others?
People who don’t want to pay income tax feel that the governement should be funded the way it was prior to income taxes. Primarily, this involved taxing goods that were imported or exported. We could, one supposes, continue to fund federal government that way, but either the price of goods would shoot up dramatically, or the federal government would shrink considerably, and probably default upon its debt in the process.
Paying income tax is annoying because we see it, and it equals a lot of money. But there are no free lunches, so short of shrinking government, everyone pays for it somehow.
It’s not so much greed as selfishness. You never hear of these tax evaders doing anything that could (if they prevailed) eliminate the tax for everyone. They just want it eliminated for them, and perhaps a small circle of family/friends. Their thinking never even gets as far as how public works and institutions would be funded. It stops at how they can get out of paying for it.
Having had some tax evaders as close family friends when I was growing up (they’ve since seen the light, though) can report that in my experience tax evaders are not as you say. The family friends I spoke of did not pay taxes, and sincerely believed that no one should. They acted on this latter belief, as well, actively attempting to persuade others that the income tax is illegal.
I still, however, perceive a flaw in their approach. Perhaps it’s thoughtlessness and not selfishness. I don’t see any sign that tax evaders do anything that could realistically relieve the nation as a whole from the obligation to pay income tax, and I don’t see that they have a plan that will realistically equalize (so to speak) tax revenues and government services. So from my perspective, they benefit from government services, and would be hard-pressed to survive without them, but essentially ignore the question of how they really would be paid for, concentrating only only how they believe they should not be paid for.
Am I off the mark here, or is that a reasonable assessment?
I believe I established their fundamental reasoning on the whole issue in my first post. They (perhaps, no likely, unrealistically) believe that federal government should not be financed through personal income taxes. Since the majority of federal money prior to the income tax was raised through taxation on goods (excise taxes, tarriffs, etc.), presumably they would not object to a continuation of that method. Possibly, they are not adverse to the corporate income tax, though I doubt there is concensus. Most assuredly, they would love to see a reduced federal government. But for the most part, so would most anyone.
This analysis is a bit flawed. There are a variety of people who do not pay income taxes. If you are what they call the “working poor” you don’t pay income taxes. In fact, thanks to the EITC, you may get back more from the government in a “tax refund” than you paid in income taxes. So there are a number of people who benefit from government services who do not pay taxes. I’d be tempted to say that these people actually benefit more from government services (such as Medicaid, TANF, free and reduced school lunches, etc.) than people who make enough income to pay taxes.
The U.S. tax system is not set up on your idea that if you derive a service from the government, you should make just compensation. You are trying to make it out like he’s stealing from the government or otherwise being immoral by not wanting to pay taxes. I think his logic is flawed, but he’s certainly not stealing or being immoral in my view. He is simply trying to put himself in the same boat as millions of other Americans who consume government services and yet do not pay taxes.
It’s hard to say what motivates people to take such extreme stands against what seem to most of us to be a fair system to raise money to pay for services that we all use. The guy has millions but thinks he’s entitled not to pay for his share of the government. I say lob the tear gas at him, corral him, and book him.
What a crock. The dude made $1.9 million between 1996 and 2003. The fact that people in poverty pay little or no taxes is no excuse for him. Anyone getting the EIC would trade incomes with him in a heartbeat and gladly pay their rightful taxes.
Here is what Mince asked, “Does not Ed Brown share the protection that the military offers us mere civilians who choose not to protect ourselves? And if he derives such benefit, should he not make just compensation?” This question is not based on ability to pay but on the fact that Brown receives certain benefits from the government and that he should pay for such benefits. I simply pointed out that a number of people receive benefits from the government and do not pay taxes. If you are claiming someone should pay taxes based on benefits received from the government, as Mince seems to be doing, then that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how our tax system is set up.
I think there’s a huge difference between being unable to pay and unwilling to pay. Since we all reap the benefits, all of us who are able to pay should do so.
And I agree, but I would add the provision that you should pay if you are able. Should hospitals perform free care for all because they care for the indigent? Sure, some people get free benefits from government. The downside to that is that they live in poverty.
