Live Free or Die?

January 21, 2007 7:28 AM

The Tax Man Cometh:

"They believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that their citizen's understanding of the written law should, and in some Platonic sense does, trump the realities of dealing with the government. This makes them uniquely American rebels--more true, they maintain, to the nation's core values than those of us who follow the pragmatic advice . . . "You mess with that shit, you are going to jail."

Brian Doherty analyzes the tax resistance movement (from 2004). Meanwhile, another ugly confrontation is brewing in New Hampshire, and violence is in the air. Mr. Brown, of course, has his views.
posted by fourcheesemac (112 comments total)

Yikes. In case it's unclear, the first link ("The Tax Man Cometh") goes to the article; Brian Doherty's name link goes to his profile. /too clever by half
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:29 AM on January 21, 2007

MagicalThinkingFilter.
posted by localroger at 7:58 AM on January 21, 2007

So if taxes are not certain, does that mean death isn't certain either?
posted by birdherder at 8:01 AM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Brown said the militia is setting up 'Constitutional courts' in numerous states, including here in New Hampshire, 'for the purpose of taking back America.'
Who will be tried? 'Anybody who commits un-American activity. Anybody who has created insurrection or sedition or conspiracy against the American people.' And what will the penalty be? 'Whatever the people decide.'

Oh boy I just love that part, nutjobs like him deciding who lives and dies and who is a good American or not.
posted by Iron Rat at 8:02 AM on January 21, 2007

From the third link:

"Attorneys do not understand constitutional law," he said, in an interview after testimony wrapped up. "Attorneys do not understand IRS law."

Is he mentally competent to stand trial after saying stuff like that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:06 AM on January 21, 2007

"Attorneys do not understand constitutional law," he said, in an interview after testimony wrapped up. "Attorneys do not understand IRS law."

But you do, Mr Brown? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:07 AM on January 21, 2007

Oh for God's sake, I suck.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:07 AM on January 21, 2007

Hoo-ah, great links all around. Back in my high school days, my friend's father was pretty far gone on the New World Order stuff. (I still love the bumper sticker he gave me during the '92 presidental race, supporting Bo Gritz - "Vote for Bo in '92, let's get them 'fore they get you!") We used to get stoned and listen to his completely insane ideas, all the stuff mentioned in those articles. My friends & I never did end up drafted & fighting in Russia, which if I recall correctly was supposed to happen within a year of Bill Clinton's first meeting with the Pope. "Buy some good winter coats, boys," he used to say. "It's damn cold in Siberia." Good times!
posted by Banky_Edwards at 8:19 AM on January 21, 2007

And seriously, these people are beyond stupid. Throw 'em all in jail and be done with it.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 8:23 AM on January 21, 2007

Rather than paying federal income taxes, they began sending letters to the IRS demanding an explanation of the relevant law. They said they've received no response to their questions.

They don't have to explain themselve; they have a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force.

What does Brown expect; rule of law or something? What a dope.
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:29 AM on January 21, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

themselves
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:29 AM on January 21, 2007

I wanted to give the guy the benefit of the doubt and assume he actually said:
"Tax attorneys do not understand constitutional law," he said, in an interview after testimony wrapped up. "Constitutional attorneys do not understand IRS law."

But I suspect the nutjob version, as reported, is the corrected one.
posted by mullacc at 8:30 AM on January 21, 2007

Some yearts ago, Henry DavidThorewu went to jail because he would not pay his taxes to support slavery and the Mexican War. The govt then fixed things so that taxes would be taken out of paychecks b efore you got your pay (not that Henryt had a real job)...it is important to pay taxes so that the very wealthy do not have to pay them. If none of us paid, who would support the wealthy?
posted by Postroad at 8:31 AM on January 21, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

This sounds like a body of somewhat badly drafted law that's been fixed up by complex chain of case law decisions. The proper course would probably indeed be a set of new statutes that clarify and codify the current state of the law.
posted by mr. strange at 8:36 AM on January 21, 2007

From the Reason article: Mel Gibson's controversial father, Hutton Gibson, gives a rousing speech on the need to fight the New World Order to defend our traditional liberties and is cheered heartily.

If I were organizing a conference for a radical political group, I think one of my main priorities would be to keep the disreputable radicals of other movements from attending. But I suppose that's why I'm not organizing any conferences for radicals.
posted by mullacc at 8:36 AM on January 21, 2007

The proper course would probably indeed be a set of new statutes that clarify and codify the current state of the law.

Yes, but wouldn't that de-legitimize the collection of all prior taxes?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:47 AM on January 21, 2007

Oh, come on, Postroad. These people are modern day Thoreaus? Give me a break.
posted by papakwanz at 8:49 AM on January 21, 2007

i pay my taxes. i've had enough of this shit. lock 'em up!
posted by bruce at 8:56 AM on January 21, 2007

They don't have to explain themselve; they have a monopoly on the "legitimate" use of force.

It's not like responding to the nutjobs would do anything, so why bother?
posted by smackfu at 9:01 AM on January 21, 2007

Am I mistaken, or are the amendments passed by God? I had assumed fallible hu-mans.
posted by shownomercy at 9:10 AM on January 21, 2007

"The proper course would probably indeed be a set of new statutes that clarify and codify the current state of the law.

Yes, but wouldn't that de-legitimize the collection of all prior taxes?

No, it wouldn't. All that would have to be done is to write the set of statutes; this can be done without nullifying previous laws. Happens all the time.
posted by azpenguin at 9:11 AM on January 21, 2007

So theese people who don't want to pay taxes, presumably they use roads? Or at least goods and servuces made possible by roads?
posted by Artw at 9:14 AM on January 21, 2007

what a bunch of idiots ... a person who plays his cards right can have his taxes offset by the checks he gets from the trilateral commission and the illuminati ...

why protest them when you can get PAID by them?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:21 AM on January 21, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Artw writes "So theese people who don't want to pay taxes, presumably they use roads? Or at least goods and servuces made possible by roads?"

Of course they do. They just don't want to pay for it.

See, I really think that's what this boils down to. They're searching for any bullshit justification they can find, so that they don't have to contribute to society, and yet still be able to reap its rewards.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:25 AM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Some yearts ago, Henry DavidThorewu went to jail because he would not pay his taxes to support slavery and the Mexican War.

And today, this guy will not pay his taxes because FUCK YOU IT'S MY MONEY AND CIVILIZATION NEVER DID A GODDAMN THING FOR ME
posted by Flunkie at 9:25 AM on January 21, 2007

I knew of one of these guys once. The IRS took his house. dumbfuck
posted by caddis at 9:28 AM on January 21, 2007

birdherder - So if taxes are not certain, does that mean death isn't certain either?

That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.
posted by porpoise at 9:35 AM on January 21, 2007

So theese people who don't want to pay taxes, presumably they use roads? Or at least goods and servuces made possible by roads?

Highway maintenance is paid for by sales tax on gasoline, not income tax.
posted by Laugh_track at 9:36 AM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Of course they do. They just don't want to pay for it.

Sometimes people who say things like "Social Security is unconstitutional" and "why should I pay to educate everyone else's kids?" plan on supporting things like roads through usage fees.
posted by mkb at 9:36 AM on January 21, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

There are also variants of this that support the extensive use of sales taxes, heavy taxes on corporate profits, and (in some cases) accept the legitimacy of state and local taxes. I think most of us agree this is not a viable philosophy; what I thought was interesting was the careful analysis of the relationship between language and reality in Doherty's piece. I think it explains a lot of cult-like social movements of our times, including evangelical and fundamentalist religious cults. The downside of the spirit of capitalism, as it were.
posted by fourcheesemac at 9:41 AM on January 21, 2007

So theese people who don't want to pay taxes, presumably they use roads? Or at least goods and servuces made possible by roads?

There's a rabid libertarian at work whom I often get into political discussions with; his quote was "Roads are the third rail of libertarianism." Pretty apt.
posted by azpenguin at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2007

I'll concede these guys are nuts - self-interested, disingenuous nuts- but we all know our taxes pay for a lot more than roads: the war in Iraq; corporate subsidies, bailouts, and other pork; abstinence only sex-ed and the "faith based initiatives". The list goes on and on.

"I pay taxes so these bastards should pay taxes, too," isn't an argument any more than, "I tithe, so these bastards should tithe." Maybe you shouldn't tithe.

Are we really so sure there's a moral obligation to obey the law?
posted by Richard Daly at 9:44 AM on January 21, 2007 [2 favorites has favorites]

Laugh_track, in the US road maintenance is very highly subsidized by the federal government, which is indeed funded by income taxes. What you say is true in some countries, which is why gasoline costs USD$5/gallon in those countries.
posted by localroger at 9:47 AM on January 21, 2007

Daly:
Yes, taxes go to support bad things, but that argues instead for better oversight of government spending and the setting principles to determine what is just use of taxpayers' money.

Corporate taxes I'm totally down with. Extending sales taxes or applying usage taxes on the roads is a great way to fuck the poor and middle class.
posted by papakwanz at 10:11 AM on January 21, 2007

The interview with Edward Brown is 13 years old, by the way. I think a few people missed that. Originally published in the New Hampshire Sunday News, Oct. 9, 1994
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:15 AM on January 21, 2007

Sorry, 12 and half years old.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:16 AM on January 21, 2007

He's given plenty of recent interviews, but I found nothing as detailed or interesting as the 1994 interview. Proof, in any case, that these people didn't go away with the end of Clinton and Y2K paranoia.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:25 AM on January 21, 2007

Highway maintenance is paid for by sales tax on gasoline...

He said "roads," you said "highways." Everybody reaps the rewards of the latter (interstate trucking), but not everybody drives on 'em.

In 1996, the Browns filed a joint return with a zero on the line that should have shown income from Elaine Brown's practice, according to Paul Crowley, an IRS agent who described the document. That year, the Browns claimed they owed no income tax and appended a letter to their return form.

The IRS publishes a standard answer to this "I don't owe income tax!" nonsense. I'm mildly surprised nobody clipped a copy to an audit notice and mailed it back.
posted by cribcage at 10:29 AM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

Richard Daly, you're right, the government does do things I wish it wouldn't. But there's a legitimate way to change that called voting, and because of that I pay my taxes. These antisocial nutjobs want something for nothing and to create their own little perfect world. I don't wish them luck.
posted by A dead Quaker at 10:30 AM on January 21, 2007

He's given plenty of recent interviews, but I found nothing as detailed or interesting as the 1994 interview.

I wasn't criticizing, fourcheesemac, I was just pointing it out because some commenters seemed to have missed it. This is a good post.
posted by Kraftmatic Adjustable Cheese at 10:33 AM on January 21, 2007

you know, when i was in my twenties i played in a band with a another kid, he was a great singer and a smart guy. at the time he was an apprentice electrician. all these years later i haven't seen him but hear he's got a family and is running his own very successful electrical contracting business. very successful. so this past summer i open the paper one day and there he was, tearfully pleading guilty to tax evasion to the tune of over a million bucks. the article said he had taken up with a group of tax revolutionaries and sincerely beleived he didn't owe any tax. go figure.
posted by quonsar at 10:34 AM on January 21, 2007

The Neoliberal Position on Government

Stay out of my bedroom! What goes on there is none of your business!
My phone calls are private! No listening!
What I smoke is no business of yours!
It's my body! Keep your nose out of my womb!
Hey you can't search my car! It's illegal!
You're reading my mail? Outrageous!
But please, watch every financial transaction I make. Monitor my bank accounts. Take the money from my paycheck before I see it--it's yours. Watch who I hire, be it inside or outside my home. It's the right think to do.
posted by iconjack at 10:36 AM on January 21, 2007 [5 favorites has favorites]

Ed and Elaine Brown haven’t paid federal income taxes in years because they don’t think the law requires to them.

Sorry, but it does.
posted by triolus at 10:37 AM on January 21, 2007

We have the same kind of kooks in Canada. The best known in this province is David hyphen Kevin colon space Lindsay. From tax protesting to non-government identity cards, the world owes him a living.
posted by Listener at 10:39 AM on January 21, 2007

Now that I'm actually RTFA, it gets crazier:

Since 1999 Schulz has presented his contentions regarding the income tax's illegality to the IRS, the president, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and every member of Congress. He has humbly beseeched them to answer a list of questions regarding whether he, or any American citizen, has an actual constitutional, statutory, legal obligation to pay the federal income tax.

Somebody needs to learn him the 16th amendment (which triolus links to).
posted by A dead Quaker at 10:46 AM on January 21, 2007

Laugh_track, in the US road maintenance is very highly subsidized by the federal government, which is indeed funded by income taxes.

Not quite. Federal highways are paid for by federal matching funds and state funds. General maintenance is primarily the duty of the states, though I think they get a block grant to partially pay for that from the feds. But federal money mostly goes into capital construction costs of new and existing roads, not to keeping them paved.
posted by dw at 10:47 AM on January 21, 2007

Some yearts ago, Henry DavidThorewu went to jail because he would not pay his taxes to support slavery and the Mexican War.

Also some years ago, Led Zeppelin made some awesome albums.

But these guys are fucking retards.
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:03 AM on January 21, 2007

iconjack wins!


(The Professional Basket Weavers' Award for Best Strawman, that is)
posted by papakwanz at 11:10 AM on January 21, 2007

Yes, ironjack, everybody who doesn't complain about paying income tax clearly has some vast unstated internal hypocritical conflict about privacy issues.

Kudos.
posted by Flunkie at 11:12 AM on January 21, 2007

Here we go again.

Take it from someone currently in an income tax class, these people are delusional.

I'll even throw in a cite to Glenshaw Glass for those of you who, you know, accept the U.S. Supreme Court as an authority on tax law.
posted by saslett at 11:26 AM on January 21, 2007

These people are modern day Thoreaus? Give me a break.

Of course they're not modern-day Thoreaus. The main difference is that Thoreau expected to go to jail for refusing to pay taxes (this was pre-16th amendment. he refused to pay poll taxes). Thoreau didn't claim that the government had no right to collect taxes. He claimed that he would rather go to jail than give the government the satisfaction of using his money for an immoral war. The modern-day tax protesters want to have their cake and eat it too.
posted by deanc at 11:33 AM on January 21, 2007 [3 favorites has favorites]

I'll even throw in a cite to Glenshaw Glass for those of you who, you know, accept the U.S. Supreme Court as an authority on tax law.

Not to derail, but what was Douglas' "dissent without opinion" mean in this case? My curiosity is piqued.
posted by dw at 11:49 AM on January 21, 2007

iconjack: But please, watch every financial transaction I make.

Which doesn't happen, at least here in the UK, and would be illiberal just as much as the other things you talk about. You have to declare your income and pay tax on it, and shops have to pay VAT (sales tax) - but there isn't and shouldn't be a link between who spent what portion of their untaxed income in which shop on which item.

Your favourite straw man sucks.
posted by athenian at 12:24 PM on January 21, 2007

Dw,

It means exactly what it says. Writing dissenting opinions in every case in which justices dissent is a fairly recent practice in the Supreme Court. My law student understanding is that there are several reasons for the (now abandoned) practice:

(1) The Supreme Court's caseload was much heavier even forty years ago than it is today and justices didn't have as many clerks to assist them. It simply wasn't economical to write dissents in every case, especially in cases where your side overwhelmingly lost in an 8-1 decision like Glenshaw Glass.

For an older example (one among many), see the dissent in the 8-1 decision of Buck v. Bell.

(2) Many justices felt that writing a dissent when so many of your colleagues was against you was, at best, impolitic (less likely to get you votes in future cases perhaps?) and at worst, undermined the legitimacy of the Court. A dissent without opinion still makes the Court speak with what seems one voice but also acknowledges that there was disagreement. This sounds silly to us--with so many 5-4 decisions today we know that the Court is composed of human beings with different opinions--but in earlier times, justices wanted the Court to appear more as an institution speaking with one voice. Douglas's practice, however, was especially odd since this had long gone out of fashion by the 1960s. My understanding is that Douglas was the last justice to dissent without opinion.

There's an article in this month's Atlantic Monthly where Justice Roberts talks about his preference for minimizing dissents for reasons of legitimacy. Of course, he doesn't want to revert to the old practice of dissenting without opinion, but writing narrower majority opinions that most or all justices can agree on.
posted by saslett at 12:26 PM on January 21, 2007

Which doesn't happen, at least here in the UK, and would be illiberal just as much as the other things you talk about.

Though there is some speculation that this whole national ID card thing is motivated by wanting to keep closer tabs on financial transactions and close off a bunch of tax loopholes. I;'m not os sure I buy that, but itmakes more sense than the reasons they've been giving (alleged security benefits against terrorists, etc...)
posted by Artw at 12:32 PM on January 21, 2007

On the roads thing, it's kind of interesting that a lot of people who make the biggest noise about taxes live way the hell out in the middle of nowhere, and so make greater use of obscure backroads that cost tax money to mainatin but are used by fewer people. Proportionatly they probably get far more for their tax dollar than someone living in a dense city enviroment.
posted by Artw at 12:36 PM on January 21, 2007

Artw: That's true; but at least in New England, it's also true that those lesser-traveled roads are more sparsely maintained while certain urban, main roads are conspicuously torn up and repaved every 2–3 years.
posted by cribcage at 12:52 PM on January 21, 2007

The last I read, Waco and Ruby Ridge has forced the federal government to change doctrine in regards to these kinds of standoffs, so I wouldn't expect any immediate fireworks.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 1:02 PM on January 21, 2007

I'd be curious to see soe statistical studies of the demographics of these *ahem* "freedom fighters." My purely speculative assumption, based only on anecdotal evidence, is that the majority of them are white middle to upper-middle class. I don't see many of the working poor or minorities holing up in their compounds to shoot it out with the NWO. I could be wrong on that, though.
posted by papakwanz at 1:06 PM on January 21, 2007

Corporate taxes I'm totally down with. Extending sales taxes or applying usage taxes on the roads is a great way to fuck the poor and middle class.

and the corporations add the cost of the tax to whatever's being bought from them and seeing as it's proportional to income, it STILL fucks the poor and the middle class

the real reason that we have corporate taxes is so people don't know how much they're really paying to the government

But please, watch every financial transaction I make. Monitor my bank accounts. Take the money from my paycheck before I see it--it's yours. Watch who I hire, be it inside or outside my home. It's the right think to do.

and i always thought that working was a public act
posted by pyramid termite at 1:13 PM on January 21, 2007

We are all slaves! Watch Aaron Russo's America: Freedom to Fascism. Full-fledged gun-toting IRS agents he interviewed couldn't find the law requiring the payment of taxes.
posted by augustweed at 1:23 PM on January 21, 2007

My purely speculative assumption, based only on anecdotal evidence, is that the majority of them are white middle to upper-middle class.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but I'll point out that racism and classism are both objectively bad whether they're directed at the privileged or the oppressed. You're probably right — it takes a certain level of education to follow the specious arguments set forth by the income tax protestors, and we know how education tends to distribute — but I'd rather dismiss anti-tax arguments because they're selfish and dumb than because their proponents are rich or white.
posted by cribcage at 1:31 PM on January 21, 2007

Full-fledged gun-toting IRS agents he interviewed couldn't find the law requiring the payment of taxes.

that's why we have prosecutors and judges
posted by pyramid termite at 1:48 PM on January 21, 2007

Thanks saslett! Fascinating stuff, especially in a time when a single SCOTUS decision can have four or five opinions.
posted by dw at 2:13 PM on January 21, 2007

See also: Wesley Snipes
posted by MegoSteve at 2:43 PM on January 21, 2007

1. The Browns are crazy and will eventually go to jail.

2. I pay an astonishingly huge amount of tax -- but I'd be willing to pay more if it were going for a good cause.

3. That said, the IRS and many other government agencies like the BATF, the DEA, even the FDA and FCC, have become like a law unto themselves often with their own little armies responsible to no one -- I don't think there are armed IRS agents but all the others have their crack troops, even the FCC, who have been known to literally swoop into people's houses and hold them to the ground with the barrel of their rifle to the back of the head (I couldn't find a web reference for that last claim which I read in a book on pirate radio).

The fact that these people are supposed to be working for the taxpayer has been lost -- due process has been abandoned.

So while I deplore what they're doing and feel that they're greedy and paranoid, I feel that the Browns are at least partly correct in their claim that the government is moving towards totalitarianism.

Their idea that the government has secret plans to deal with a revolution is very interesting. The Browns appear to be extremely badly informed, and you wouldn't want to trust their opinion on anything, but if you think about it, it is almost certainly the case that such plans must exist somewhere. I'd be extremely curious :-D to see what they might contain.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 2:53 PM on January 21, 2007 [1 favorite has favorites]

it is almost certainly the case that such plans must exist somewhere.

Google for Rex-84. That'll get you started.
posted by cribcage at 3:00 PM on January 21, 2007

I'd be pretty pissed off if somebody had the right to use my tax contributions to fight wars without even needing congress's (and tacitly, my own) approval. Maybe your country needs to rethink the whole "Commander-in-Chief" thing?
posted by tehloki at 3:09 PM on January 21, 2007

Stay out of my bedroom! What goes on there is none of your business!
My phone calls are private! No listening!
What I smoke is no business of yours!
It's my body! Keep your nose out of my womb!
Hey you can't search my car! It's illegal!
You're reading my mail? Outrageous!
But please, watch every financial transaction I make. Monitor my bank accounts. Take the money from my paycheck before I see it--it's yours. Watch who I hire, be it inside or outside my home. It's the right think to do.

The privacy issues liberals generally support are the ones which are concerned only with individual people and their personal lives. The ones which you consider analogous are social.

If no one pays taxes, we can't run our government. If we tried to "let the market sort out" things like slavery, or in modern times workplace discrimination, a large portion of our population would suffer. But if we allow people to fuck each other or not have babies, who is harmed?

Allowing people to get high is a little more complex, as it can have larger social consequences - which is precisely why most "neoliberals" (in yr terminology) support some form of regulation (as I said here).

Wanting to make laws about cultural norms is authoritarian; wanting to make laws about the equal treatment & responsibility of citizens is democracy.
posted by mdn at 3:33 PM on January 21, 2007

Wanting to make laws about cultural norms is authoritarian.

Does that include laws about funding cultural norms?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 4:33 PM on January 21, 2007

For the record, I was not arguing that all taxes are inherently evil. I was, as many surmised, pointing out what I feel is an inconsistency in the ideology of the modern liberal. Did I create a straw man? Beats me. My intention was to point out an aggravating hypocrisy.

I don't know who could honestly argue that the US income tax, as it is now administered, is not at or near the top of the list of most egregious invasions of privacy.
posted by iconjack at 4:55 PM on January 21, 2007

Did I create a straw man?

Yup.
posted by Flunkie at 5:06 PM on January 21, 2007

I don't know who could honestly argue that the US income tax, as it is now administered, is not at or near the top of the list of most egregious invasions of privacy.

unless you're crawling through the sewers to work, where you work is a public fact ... especially if you deal with the public

how much you earn is a matter that banks, employers, credit agencies, lenders and other economic agents know so you can qualify for loans and credit (and jobs!) ... if private parties can have that information, i don't see why the government can't ... especially seeing as it's supposed to figure out what you owe on taxed income

it's not just a straw man, it's a red herring ... if you're willing to fill out a loan application you've already given up your "privacy"
posted by pyramid termite at 5:26 PM on January 21, 2007

Does that include laws about funding cultural norms?

Any method of deciding anything has to rely on some authority to enforce it, at the very least the "gentleman's agreement" of participants to abide by the group decision or be thought of badly. Otherwise any one stubborn individual can veto the whole process merely by refusing to comply, if they cannot be forced to comply. This is another one of those third rails of libertarianism, and also international law.

I don't know who could honestly argue that the US income tax, as it is now administered, is not at or near the top of the list of most egregious invasions of privacy.

I'll argue that one, on the word "egregious". Egregious invasions of privacy are those invasions of privacy that go beyond what is necessary to fulfil the objective, assuming that the objective--in this case, that citizens pay tax--fulfils its own test of whether it is worthwhile (ie, not egregious). Tax agents given unlimited time and budget could go much further to invade privacy than they do, and could insure nearly 100% compliance with the law by doing so. Or they could close most of the tax office, accept at face value everything given to them, and therefore lose compliance down to a small minority of people who would comply with tax law completely voluntarily (maybe 5%, maybe 30%, who knows?).

They must balance the privacy invasion consequent to checking out whether what they have been told is in fact true, with an acceptable level of compliance with the tax law. My completely unfounded guess as to the current compliance rate is 80%: I'd consider that acceptable, and therefore the privacy invasion doesn't seem egregrious when averaged out over the whole society. Obviously some individuals are going to be disbelieved, against the evidence they present, and have their privacy egregiously invaded by tax agents unnecessarily seeking further evidence. Some are going to be believed even though the evidence they present is fraudulent. Any error rate in tax auditing, which is carried out by human beings, would cause both of these effects.

The same principle works for criminal trials - another invasion of privacy, although I'd put the acceptable (ie, not egregious) level of privacy invasion much higher for them. Simply locking you up while you await trial for a crime is a greater invasion of your privacy than anything the tax office does, short of actual prosecutions.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 5:34 PM on January 21, 2007

For the record, I was not arguing that all taxes are inherently evil. I was, as many surmised, pointing out what I feel is an inconsistency in the ideology of the modern liberal. Did I create a straw man? Beats me. My intention was to point out an aggravating hypocrisy.

Let me see if I read that right:

Do I know what I'm talking about? Beats me. But liberals are wrong.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:38 PM on January 21, 2007

if you're willing to fill out a loan application you've already given up your "privacy"

Agreed, but one can opt out of loan applications. I certainly do. If I opt out of filing an income tax return, I might go to jail.
posted by iconjack at 5:42 PM on January 21, 2007

Do I know what I'm talking about? Beats me. But liberals are wrong.

Wait, isn't this a straw man?

I don't think liberals are wrong. I am a liberal, and proud of it. I'm not against taxes. I'm not an anarchist. I am against the government, especially the feds, sticking their big fat overbearing nose in my business. The liberal defense of the US income tax law strikes me as inconsistent with the principles that liberals normally espouse. Sorry if I stepped on the toes of any sacred cows.
Moo.
posted by iconjack at 5:50 PM on January 21, 2007

"Liberals are wrong"

I'm pretty sure that he's not making a dig against liberals, but rather pointing out an inconsistency in our society's progress towards more individual rights and freedoms in the concept of governmentally-enforced income tithes.
posted by tehloki at 5:53 PM on January 21, 2007

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make

I wasn't trying to say "whites and the rich" are bad thus their ideas are bad. Some of my best friends are rich and/or white!

My point was that these tax hataz seem to be a lot like every other libertarian I've been exposed to in my life. Their attitude is often, "look at me, *I* made it on my own, why can't everyone else? Why should the government take money from me just to help people too lazy to succeed the way I have?" without realizing all the privileges brought to them by being 1) members of the ethnic group that has been the preeminent power since the founding of this country; and 2) from well-off families that could afford to send them to private schools. That's not even counting the fact that they are part of, you know, a SOCIETY that makes everything they enjoy in life possible.
posted by papakwanz at 5:59 PM on January 21, 2007

It's unfortunate that the prevalence of this sort of craziness (I refer to these people generally as the flag fringe contingent) has effectively silenced any rational debate on the income tax, its means of administration, or the IRS's abuses of its power, some of which rival those committed in the name of the War on Drugs. Anyone who wonders why it's necessary that per-capita taxation, as well as individual tax liability as a percentage of income, need to increase without end year after year (unless you're GM, a Bush, or a Kennedy, of course) is dismissed along with these "tax protestors," and when the IRS botches another raid (they certainly do have guns, lupus_yonderboy), tries to frame a senator, or turns over your tax returns to our boys fighting the War on Terrah, it's given a pass where other federal agencies would be more thoroughly scrutinized.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:38 PM on January 21, 2007

Does that include laws about funding cultural norms?

not sure I follow you... but funding is a method of support whereas my argument was that denying people individual rights is what's authoritarian. So funding things is unlikely to be authoritarian - I suppose funding that supports things like abstinence policies or religious education could be considered authoritarian as they are ultimately attempts to restrict activities.

But I don't see how you can argue that funding policies of allowing everyone rights is authoritarian. And again, the things which liberals support compliance with are social issues, not individual ones - all citizens are responsible for paying taxes and recognizing the equality (in human rights terms, not in individual traits) of their peers. Not paying taxes is not claiming individual rights; it's rejecting the defense of rights across the board in favor of an "each man for himself" philosophy.

The liberal defense of the US income tax law strikes me as inconsistent with the principles that liberals normally espouse.

You should read Hobbes. You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the state.
posted by mdn at 7:17 PM on January 21, 2007

Liberals tend to support income taxes because they are far less regressive than other major taxation methods.
posted by norm at 8:08 PM on January 21, 2007

MetaFilter: Wait, isn't this a straw man?
posted by knave at 8:26 PM on January 21, 2007

I'm not against taxes, but individual income tax does bother me a bit. Two specific things bug me: 1) Taxing income might be said to discourage economic activity, especially the way it's done. 2) Business gets to deduct their costs & expenses, often to an insane degree (corporate jets) while individuals can't deduct their costs and expenses, such as commuting expenses.

The former is a philosophical issue. I'm aware it's popular amongst the libertarian folk, but that doesn't make it wrong. The latter is one to which I've never found a satisfactory answer.

I'm not anti-government. But I'm not blind, either. Sending taxes off to Washington so they can administer it, then send some back, is inefficient. The system wasn't designed, it became what it is through political process, and is a costly tangle of regulations and bureucracy. Of course, partly, this is just the cost of the political system. And the more complex, the more costly.
posted by Goofyy at 9:14 PM on January 21, 2007

Everybody here who has ever intentionally overpaid on their income taxes stand up and take a bow. The rest of you statist lackeys STFU.
posted by oncogenesis at 9:49 PM on January 21, 2007

I feel obliged to mention, since nobody else yet has, that the flag fringers include celebrated creationist Kent Hovind.

Who, just the other day, got ten years.
posted by dansdata at 11:17 PM on January 21, 2007

It's not taxes that are an issue (sales, import/export, corporate, etc.), but income tax. He states that it is unconstitutional to tax labor and, although I file and pay my tax each year, I agree with him. And btw, his property tax pays for his use of the roads he uses
posted by sluglicker at 11:23 PM on January 21, 2007

He states that it is unconstitutional to tax labor and, although I file and pay my tax each year, I agree with him.

You have no logical basis for this, though.
posted by oaf at 11:29 PM on January 21, 2007

I think there is. First of all, income from labor wasn't taxed prior to around 1900 or so (I'm approximating; don't know the exact year off the top of my head). Secondly, I have to perform labor in order for me to stay alive. We are being taxed merely because we exist, not on the basis of capital gains through business transactions or based on the property I own. I labor to produce food, clothing and a roof over my head (I rent) which are necessary for me to maintain my life. The gov't is taking part of that.
posted by sluglicker at 11:59 PM on January 21, 2007

I agree with all other forms of taxation including fees, tolls, sales, etc...
posted by sluglicker at 12:01 AM on January 22, 2007

The Sixteenth Amendment expressly allows it, so it can't be unconstitutional.
posted by oaf at 1:17 AM on January 22, 2007

Well, yes, but it wasn't ratified until 1913. Certainly the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of our present laws and no one who claims otherwise has a snowball's chance in hell to win in court.

Prior to the 1895 U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.,[6] all income taxes had been considered to be excises (indirect taxes) required to be imposed with geographical uniformity, but not required to be apportioned among the states according to population.

Treatment of income taxes prior to the Pollock case
The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2% on incomes over $3,000. Derided by its opponents as "communistic," it was challenged in federal court. Until that time, direct taxes had been deemed to include only capitations, or poll taxes (taxes directly on persons) and property taxes imposed on property by reason of its ownership (generally, ordinary ad valorem property taxes). Until 1895, all income taxes -- regardless of the sources of the incomes -- had been considered indirect taxes ("excises").

In the case of Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. the Supreme Court declared that certain income taxes -- taxes on income from property under the 1894 Act -- to be unconstitutional unapportioned direct taxes. The Court reasoned that a tax on income from property should be treated as a tax on "property by reason of its ownership," and should therefore be required to be apportioned. The reasoning was that taxes on the rents from land, the dividends from stocks and so on burdened the property generating the income in the same way that a tax on "property by reason of its ownership" burdened that property.

The Pollock case
This meant that, after Pollock, while income taxes on income from labor (as indirect taxes) were still not required to be apportioned by population, taxes on interest, dividends and rent income were required to be apportioned by population. The Pollock ruling made the source of the income (e.g., property versus labor, etc.) relevant in determining whether the tax imposed on that income was deemed to be "direct" (and thus required to be apportioned among the states according to population) or, alternatively, "indirect" (and thus required only to be imposed with geographical uniformity). [via]

The vast majority of U.S. citizens are, if not slaves, certainly serfs in the usual sense of the term: The usual serf "paid" his fees and taxes in the form of seasonally appropriate labor, usually a couple of days a week plowing his lord's fields (demesne), harvesting crops, digging ditches, repairing fences, etc. The rest of his time was his own to tend to his own fields, crops and animals.

Lastly, according to my logic and a recognition of an inalienable right to life, no one, no law and no government may interfere with my actions to maintain my life. Prior to 1900, a man could chop down some trees and build a cabin. He could hunt and fish every day for his food, and then tan the hides to make clothing. We can no longer do that, but instead, I trade my forty hours of labor for food, clothing and shelter. Approximately two days a week, I am compelled to work for the "lord". If I don't comply, my right to liberty is violated.

Is income tax the law? Yep. Should it be? No.
posted by sluglicker at 1:46 AM on January 22, 2007

Lastly, according to my logic and a recognition of an inalienable right to life, no one, no law and no government may interfere with my actions to maintain my life.

Given that you can afford Internet access, no government is interfering with your right to life.
posted by oaf at 2:15 AM on January 22, 2007

I trade my forty hours of labor for food, clothing and shelter. Approximately two days a week, I am compelled to work for the "lord". If I don't comply, my right to liberty is violated.

This is impressively whiny and overwrought. The difference between a pioneer class hermit and you is night and day. if you participate in the economic system maintained by the government, you pay taxes. If you don't want to, emigrate or lobby to change it.

Besides, I am sure there are still a few places you could live like Ted Kacynski if you wanted to. But, as pointed out, those places probably don't have internet access.
posted by norm at 2:44 AM on January 22, 2007

@oaf
Actually, I don't purchase internet access.

@norm
You're really impressed with my whining? Boy, it sure doesn't take much, does it?

What you both neglect to address is that I stated I do pay taxes...all taxes that are due. And I stated that I'm not opposed to all other forms of taxation and contributing my fair share for the benefits I receive. The Wilson-Gorman Tariff Act of 1894 attempted to impose a federal tax of 2% on incomes over $3,000...which would be around $50,000-$70,000 today? I would support tax on labor above what it costs to live along similar lines. I earn about $15,000/year. I just get by and sometimes I don't even do that. Yet I pay about 12% of that "below poverty income" to the gov't...in addition to all fees, sales, tolls, gasoline and the many other forms of tax that are required.
posted by sluglicker at 4:25 AM on January 22, 2007

Lastly, according to my logic and a recognition of an inalienable right to life, no one, no law and no government may interfere with my actions to maintain my life.

well, according to my logic, you can't have a functioning civilization without paying for it ... and my historical reading seems to indicate that we pay less for our government than the greeks, romans or medieval peasants did

Prior to 1900, a man could chop down some trees and build a cabin. He could hunt and fish every day for his food, and then tan the hides to make clothing.

there are many 3rd world countries where one can still do that ... enjoy

We can no longer do that, but instead, I trade my forty hours of labor for food, clothing and shelter. Approximately two days a week, I am compelled to work for the "lord".

no, you trade those two days for roads, police, and many other government services
posted by pyramid termite at 5:55 AM on January 22, 2007

I earn about $15,000/year. I just get by and sometimes I don't even do that. Yet I pay about 12% of that "below poverty income" to the gov't

No you don't. Or if you do, you have spectacularly bad skills at filling in forms.

If you are single this year, your federal income tax on $15000 is $655, or 4.4%.

Less, or even zero, if you have tuition or other tax credits to use.

Less, or maybe even negative, if you have a kid and can take the EITC.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:04 AM on January 22, 2007

if you are as poor as you claim, you should be in support of the income tax. as a percentage of income, it's far fairer to you than all those taxes you so willingly pay.

Besides, you probably get back more than you pay in services from the Lord, as it were.
posted by norm at 6:05 AM on January 22, 2007

ROU_Xenophobe, if you are an "independent contractor" (or if your employer finds it convenient for its own tax purposes to pretend that you are) you can easily end up paying 12% on $15,000 between both regular and matching FICA (which at this income level is often a higher figure than the "regular" tax). I'm currently on the IRS's shit list because I didn't have the $1,000+ it wanted after a year in which I pulled down a cool ten large as a "contractor."
posted by IshmaelGraves at 6:17 AM on January 22, 2007

sluglicker on income tax: I have to perform labor in order for me to stay alive. We are being taxed merely because we exist

and

I agree with all other forms of taxation including fees, tolls, sales, etc...

This is unbelievably poorly thought out. Of course the govt. taxes you because you exist. How are they going to tax someone who doesn't exist. But more to the point, presumably you have to buy things to stay alive as well, yes? Like food, shelter, the axe to cut down a tree, the bow and arrow you use to hunt animals for their warm hides, or whatever the hell. The govt. is taking part of THAT money too. That's taking something you need to stay alive. How is that you can agree with sales tax, then?
posted by papakwanz at 7:36 AM on January 22, 2007

Actually, I don't purchase internet access.

If you spent any money on your computer, my argument stands.
posted by oaf at 8:44 AM on January 22, 2007

Actually, I don't purchase internet access.

You sitting in a library? What funds their computers? What keeps their power running?

You enjoying this Internet thing? It was built initially with US military funds. Many of the advances have come through universities funding through federal grants.

Hate on taxes and your whiny "serfdom" all you want, but at your income level you're getting back as much from the Feds in direct and indirect benefits as you're putting in. And at 4.3%, probably even more.
posted by dw at 10:55 AM on January 22, 2007

Hell, at any income level you get back more than you put in. Without the gummint, 99.9999999% of us would be relieved of our possessions by the small number of individuals with viciousness and charisma enough to maraud. And the wealthy, it would be almost impossible for them to pay too much, as their wealth depends almost entirely on the infrastructure and human capital made possible by government expenditures.
posted by Mental Wimp at 12:14 PM on January 22, 2007

As Frank Zappa once wrote in the song "Teen-Age Wind":

"Free is when you don't have to pay for nothin or do nothin.
We wanna be free!"
posted by papakwanz at 3:28 PM on January 22, 2007

Goddammit! My whole argument has fallen apart because I've accessed the internet. And I would have to buy an axe, wouldn't I? How could I have been so stupid? Doh!

You guys took the blue pill, didn't you?
posted by sluglicker at 9:34 PM on January 22, 2007

let me guess - you took the green pill?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:01 PM on January 22, 2007

The one's my mother gave me didn't do anything at all.
posted by caddis at 10:31 PM on January 22, 2007

now that is one fine example of comma abuse
posted by caddis at 10:59 PM on January 22, 2007

... and I can not apparently tell a comma from an apostrophe - time for bed, I am falling asleep on my keyboard in a vain attempt to avoid the inevitable trudge off to work tomorrow, to make some dough to pay my taxes
posted by caddis at 11:08 PM on January 22, 2007

"The wages of sin are death, but by the time taxes are taken out it's just sort of a tired feeling" ~ Paula Poundstone
posted by amyms at 11:18 PM on January 22, 2007

On second thought, I wouldn't have to buy an axe. I could just follow a beaver around and when he was finished gnawing down a tree I could run up behind him and grab it.
posted by sluglicker at 11:43 PM on January 22, 2007

I think that most people who are so vehemently opposed to income tax just don't like the way it's presented. Sales tax is very easy to overlook, just a few cents here and there. However, when the government sends you a several-page-long bill (for services that you might not have even used) every year, it's a little easier to notice the money goin' away.
posted by tehloki at 2:53 AM on January 24, 2007