Fed up with War, some won't pay Taxes

[Roonie]

War protesters have been pushing for a law called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund that would allow designated conscientious objectors to have their income, estate, or gift taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. After years of efforts, they hope a Congressional hearing will be held on the proposal next year.

I think this would be interesting if this went through. I could see a lot of folks designating non military for their taxes who are against the war. The President would not be so ready to fight everyone if he didn't have the money to back it up.

Fed Up With War, Some Won't Pay Taxes

By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN, Associated Press Writer

document.write(getElapsed("20070704T191834Z"));3 hours ago
David Gross poses for his photo on Tuesday, June ...

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - When the United States invaded Iraq more than four years ago, war opponent David Gross asked his bosses for a radical pay cut, enough so he wouldn't have to pay taxes to support the war.
"I was having a hard time looking at myself in the mirror," Gross said. "I knew the bombs falling were in part paid with my tax dollars. I had to actually do something concrete to remove my complicity."
The San Francisco technical writer was making close to $100,000 a year. He didn't know exactly how big of a pay cut he would need to fall below the federal tax threshold, but later figured out he would have to make less than minimum wage.
In any event, his employer turned him down and he quit. Gross, 38, now works on a contract basis, and last year he refused to pay self-employment taxes.
War tax resistance, popularized by Henry David Thoreau in the 19th century and by singer Joan Baez and others during the Vietnam War, is gaining renewed interest among peace activists upset over the Iraq war.
"Clearly this year we definitely had more people calling, sending e-mails about how they decided to start resisting," said Ruth Benn, coordinator of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee in New York.
Based on the committee's mailing list and reports from numerous groups it works with around the country, Benn estimates 8,000 to 10,000 Americans refuse to pay some or all of their federal taxes over war objections. Internal Revenue Service officials say they don't have figures for that specific category, but earlier this year reported an overall noncompliance rate of 16.3 percent and estimated the annual tax gap at about $345 billion.
Peace activists are considering a mass tax resistance campaign next April to step up pressure to end the war in Iraq, Benn said.
Many tax protesters say they redirect the money they withhold to charities. Some, like Joanne Sheehan of Norwich, keep their income below taxable levels.
"I don't see the point of working for peace and paying for war," Sheehan said.
Gross said he now manages to live on about $15,000 per year by carefully tracking his spending.
He acknowledged the tax resistance movement is too small to stop the war.
"But I think what we're doing is showing the way for people in the anti-war movement," Gross said. "I can look myself in the mirror and say at least I'm not supporting it, at least I'm not part of the machine."
The IRS said that while taxpayers have a right to express their opinions, they still have an obligation to pay their taxes. Tax resisters place an undue burden on taxpayers who pay their fair share of taxes, IRS spokeswoman Dianne Besunder said.
John Ubaldi, spokesman for Move America Forward, which supports the military and the war on terror, said the government would not be able to function if everyone opposed to a program stopped paying taxes.
"They're showing the terrorists that America is not committed," Ubaldi said.
The IRS considers it a frivolous argument when a taxpayer cites disagreement with the government's use of tax money as the reason for not paying taxes.
A new federal law increases the penalty for frivolous tax returns from $500 to $5,000. The IRS says it investigates promoters of frivolous arguments and refers cases to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution.
Unlike the days when Thoreau was sent to prison in a tax protest against the Mexican-American War, modern war tax protesters rarely go to prison, according to tax resisters. The IRS may take their money from wages and bank accounts _ with penalties and interest _ after sending a series of letters.
"They're very polite, which makes it a little boring," said Rosa Packard of Greenwich, a longtime anti-war tax protester.
But Randy Kehler, who has refused to pay federal income taxes since 1976 to protest U.S. military policy, was evicted with his wife from their home in Colrain, Mass., in 1989 for nonpayment of more than $45,000 in taxes, interest and penalties. Kehler was also jailed for nearly three months for contempt of court.
Their tax fight was the subject of a 1997 documentary called "An Act of Conscience," narrated by actor Martin Sheen.
War protesters have been pushing for a law called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund that would allow designated conscientious objectors to have their income, estate, or gift taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. After years of efforts, they hope a Congressional hearing will be held on the proposal next year.
"People fear the IRS more than they fear God," said Alan Gamble, executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. "They're paying under a tremendous burden."

[kinggovernor]

no fucking way this should be passed

[Kytro]

I doubt it would be, but I am not entirely opposed to the idea of tax-allocation. If people have to pay taxes, then they should at least be able to say how they funds are used.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I doubt it would be, but I am not entirely opposed to the idea of tax-allocation. If people have to pay taxes, then they should at least be able to say how they funds are used.

They did in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and they will get another chance next year.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

They did in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006 and they will get another chance next year.

Not in in real manner. While it is technically possible, if the right candidates exist, in reality this is untrue

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

Not in in real manner. While it is technically possible, if the right candidates exist, in reality this is untrue

this is reality, not a math problem.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

this is reality, not a math problem.

I was suggesting that allowing taxpayers in influence spending would be interesting. I don't like pretending to give people a say, either you do or do not, anything else is just deception

[Simius]

Worst idea ever. Either the government would just put more of the non-allocated taxes towards the war or whatever program got the shaft... or some programs would become bloated with too much money and other needed programs would receive far too little. It would make the government 11ty billion times more inefficient.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Simius

Worst idea ever. Either the government would just put more of the non-allocated taxes towards the war or whatever program got the shaft... or some programs would become bloated with too much money and other needed programs would receive far too little. It would make the government 11ty billion times more inefficient.

So you are saying people should just accept whatever the government chooses to spend money on?

Personally I don't like the idea of individual tax allocation because people are not qualified to understand the impact of what they do - not that the government is much better.

Suffice it to say I disagree with the current system of funding as well

[thomez]

Originally Posted by Kytro

So you are saying people should just accept whatever the government chooses to spend money on?

People should vote every 2 years on people that will spend money to their liking.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Kytro

I was suggesting that allowing taxpayers in influence spending would be interesting. I don't like pretending to give people a say, either you do or do not, anything else is just deception

The people DO NOT have the right to make day to day policy. We are not a democracy.

[hsmith]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

The people DO NOT have the right to make day to day policy. We are not a democracy.

this is not a cheerocracy!

[Roonie]

Goooooooooooo team!

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by Roonie

War protesters have been pushing for a law called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund that would allow designated conscientious objectors to have their income, estate, or gift taxes used for nonmilitary purposes. After years of efforts, they hope a Congressional hearing will be held on the proposal next year.

I think this would be interesting if this went through. I could see a lot of folks designating non military for their taxes who are against the war. The President would not be so ready to fight everyone if he didn't have the money to back it up.

How about we be fair and have "all" taxpayers have a choice where their money will be spent, not just war protestors? Note the people who don't actually "pay" income taxes are not invited to join this experiment in Democracy!

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

If we force people to pay for wars no matter what, then why don't we force people to physically serve in wars no matter what? Why the contentious objector exception for physical service but not for money?

I think the contentious objector excuse is bullshit, both for taxes and for service. If your religion or conscience won't allow you to participate in national defense, then go live somewhere else where you're not dead weight. People can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want the protections of this nation even when the nation doesn't feel like it, then you should fight/fund for the nation even if you don't feel like it.

[thomez]

People would probably be a little more receptive of that idea if we could quit going to war for reasons other than self-defense

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by thomez

People would probably be a little more receptive of that idea if we could quit going to war for reasons other than self-defense

The way for the people to protest stupid wars is through not electing retarded presidents and/or through their representatives in congress controlling war funds. And then if neither work, then leave the country.

Individuals staying in America but deciding that they don't want to be soldiers and/or fund wars breaks down the general military ability of the country...militaries don't work if they're democracies where all the funders and soldiers get to veto the decisions of the commander.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by thomez

People should vote every 2 years on people that will spend money to their liking.

This is the only answer. This is your influence on how money is spent.

As Diesel66 said, the US is not a democracy, and other than calling our senators and representative, we don't influence policy directly.

[Joe_Cool]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

If we force people to pay for wars no matter what, then why don't we force people to physically serve in wars no matter what? Why the contentious objector exception for physical service but not for money?

I think the contentious objector excuse is bullshit, both for taxes and for service. If your religion or conscience won't allow you to participate in national defense, then go live somewhere else where you're not dead weight. People can't have their cake and eat it to. If you want the protections of this nation even when the nation doesn't feel like it, then you should fight/fund for the nation even if you don't feel like it.

I'm pleasantly surprised to agree with you.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by thomez

People should vote every 2 years on people that will spend money to their liking.

That obviously works well