I saw this the other day:
http://www.americanprogress.or...2011/06/low_tax.html
and it sort of jumped out at me.

It's pretty partisan/biased, and I'm not too keen on how they present some of the data, but the basic message is worth considering.  We here over and over again these days how taxes are unreasonably high from republicans, but actually taxes in the US are low both by historical standards, and in comparison to other western countries.

I live in Arizona, and I'm well aware of how bad the housing market is, at least here.  But stumbling upon an article describing the states capital city is always a nice reminder.  Might have something to do with every one working for minimum wage, and three jobs.  All in order to make a house payment of about 2,000 a month.  But I could be wrong on this one.

In metropolitan Phoenix, two-thirds of all residential mortgages are underwater. Of these, some 200,000 are 50% larger than the current market value of the properties. Many homeowners have come to doubt whether they'll ever retrieve their lost equity.

The NAR report says the median price of a home sold in the Phoenix area in June was down 13% from the same month in 2010. Realtor Robert Holt expects prices to remain weak because distressed properties are accounting for 64% of sales. With Phoenix having an inventory of over 120,000 empty or foreclosed homes, Holt expects "a tidal wave of foreclosures" will soon hit the market. He says with "overall mortgage delinquencies double and foreclosures eight times higher than historical norms, there is not going to be any easy or quick fix to the housing crisis."

http://finance.yahoo.com/real-...?mod=realestate-sell

The number of unemployed Americans is larger than the entire population of Greece.


The link has a nice line graph that tracks the percentage.


A lot of people may not want to hear this, but businesses in the United States are being absolutely taxed into oblivion.  The U.S. now has the highest corporate tax rate in the world, but that is only a very small part of the story.

Michael Fleischer, the President of Bogen Communications, wrote an op-ed last year for the Wall Street Journal entitled “Why I’m Not Hiring”.  The following is how Paul Hollrah of Family Security Matters summarized the nightmarish taxes that are imposed when Fleischer hires a new worker….

   

After reading all that, can you really blame business owners for not wanting to hire additional workers?
This message was last edited by the player at 03:51, Thu 25 Aug 2011.

That may be why one particular person wasn't hiring last year, but from what I've read, the majority of businesses aren't hiring because they're isn't sufficient demand for their products/services to warrant it.  If you're got 10 employees, and they're barely getting enough business to keep them busy, you're not going to hire someone else.

Also, while we may, on paper, have some of the higher business tax rates, in practice, we have some of the very lowest in the west.  This is because of the innumerable tax breaks, credits, exceptions, etc. that exist.  As people are very fond of pointing out these days, many large businesses don't pay any tax at all (GE being the one that gets brought up frequently).  I'm all for sensible tax reform (as is pretty much everyone, I think).  But blaming unemployment on taxes being too high is a red herring, I think.  Many businesses are sitting on large piles of cash right now.  Taxes or no, they could be hiring more people, but aren't because doing so is a bad business decision when there's low demand.  I'm sure there are some who find taxes the main obstacle, but I don't think they're the majority right now.

In the US, no matter what the situation, good, bad, or otherwise, you'll be able to find people who tell you taxes are killing the country, that taxes are too high, etc.  There is a good-sized group that think taxes, no matter what level they're set at are morally wrong and bad for everything.  If you ask these people why it's raining they'll tell you it's because of high taxes.  That's not to say that taxes are never a problem.  Sometimes they are.  But if you go to the folks who are going to say "lower taxes!" in every situation, you won't be able to tell if they're saying it because taxes really are the root problem in a given situation, or whether it's just part of their normal lower taxes agenda.

Indeed, businesses will hire as long as those people provide more value than they cost (and if the business actually exists, that suggests that is generally the case, with more orders requiring more employees).

Yes, the current setup encourages businesses to offshore what they can to Mexico, where they can pay Sally there $20k, and pay out maybe $5k for taxes on top of it. What they're effectively doing though is also offshoring the costs of living to that country. That Sally has no retirement. She has no medical care. She has nothing to fall back on should her life take an unfortunate turn. We here in the US have, by and large, agreed that this is not acceptable. We mostly agree that everyone should have access to health insurance. Whether you pay your premiums out of pocket, it's covered by your employer, or you pay it in taxes, you're still paying health insurance. You can move it around, but you can't magic it away.

If your goal is to reduce costs, you need to look at the business and employee as a single unit. If your business pays $60 but no health insurance, and your competitor pays $50k with insurance (and insurance costs $10k) those are equal to me. And the cost of health insurance is linked to the cost of health care. So if we agree people should have access to health, our focus can't be on 'who pays the health insurance?', it will need to be on 'how can we reduce the cost of health care?' Reducing that reduces the cost of insurance, reducing the cost to businesses/employees. Same with retirement. Same with unemployment. Same with supporting government services.

I wanted to added the large and growing people in the informal or underground economy which is cash-only work and/or barter of skills for something else. I've been in this economy for since I left High School and like my peers do pretty well if your savey at it but we pay no income taxes or any related taxes. I don't for example have a bank account so having an income record for the IRS demands is impossible. And many people pretty much ignore licensing and other laws staying low profile and undercutting the main market in skills whether day labor, a profession like giving massages or other work like cosmotology related work. I know one woman that is barbering hair for $5 a cut out of her home well under the local shops and advertising mostly through her price and subtle advertising means.

Like I said its getting bigger from my experience on sites catering to it as a sidewalk performer I can make an average of $15 an hour all tax free, and I have far better days (local special events, fall festivals at churches, some top weekend locations on nice days).

So I was wondering how the government is going to deal with this after all if your only making cash and don't use banks and that is common for people like me, its alot of money they either - regulate so much to force it underground, tax in a way that makes it untaxable income and/or have to find the people doing this and tax them (which they have nothing to seize or leverage against in most cases).

I did check if I did declare my income and paid then the odds of a audit are high and I keep just envelopes with cash in it for records this much for rent, this much for this or that and my extra money that I don't spend is left. No ledgers, no banking records and well its not how they like to see income held and declared so assume I'm lying.

Well just asking how big nationally and globally is this an issue to?

People making money 'under the table'? With legitimate income earners, it's an issue, but not a huge one. Most of those people aren't making enough to pay income tax in the first place. Going after them to collect it is wasted effort. There are certainly a few exceptions, and then it's a big enough deal that the IRS works hard to get them (and normally it's someone with a lawyer playing funny games). The other big issue is illegal business, especially drug dealing. There's a LOT of money that goes through there that we don't get taxes on, and that is definitely an issue.

I suppose it comes down to whether you think the government should be providing services (like healthcare perhaps) as to whether you think you need to pay taxes.  For some "I can get away with it" is enough justification to do something, for others, it's more an issue of conscious.  When I was in grad school, my stipend wasn't reported to the government, so if I wanted to, I could have not paid any income tax, and the IRS would almost certainly never have caught me.  But I paid my taxes anyway because I think it's important that the government has money to do the things we think a government needs to do.  Granted, by stipend wasn't huge, so the amount they were actually making from me was probably a bigger deal to me than it was to them, but I felt it was important to pay my share anyway.  Due to a small mistake I made on a couple of tax returns (I put my income in the "other income" section, rather than the "wages" section), I got audited and had to go through quite a bit of hassle to convince them I didn't owe them a few thousand dollars more, which was annoying, so I can sympathize with someone who's afraid of reporting income and getting audited.  But at the same time, if you're paying what you owe, an audit will just be a hassle, not something that ends up costing you money.

As katisara says, most people getting paid cash aren't making much money, so by not paying their share, they're probably not harming the government all that much, so it doesn't bother me too much.  I do find it somewhat offensive if they dodge taxes while at the same time demanding more or better government services.  Another way to look at it, is that a busker not paying taxes doesn't do nearly as much harm as a stock broker not paying their taxes, but they're both doing something I consider dishonest.

As to the actual question:  how will the government deal with this?  Well, if it becomes more and more common, the government will be able to offer fewer and fewer services, both because it won't have the money to do so, and because the people who do actually pay their taxes will be more and more loath to support everyone else who doesn't.

With the 99% Protests I thought this is a interest take on it from a local group.

http://streetshooter45.wordpress.com/

This woman is what they should be talking about the one that is slipping through the system.

I know people have an issue with others not paying for specific taxes, (since others would be paying for those taxes), however, if one is taking a stance opposing specific government action, shouldn't they be allowed, and perhaps encouraged in doing so?

For example, an American paying their income tax accepts that a lot of the money they are paying will be used for numerous reasons, including ones they may be opposed to. There's no way to pay a portion of the tax so that only specific items you support, such as education, are covered, but ones you do not support, such as military funding for mercenary forces in Iraq, are excluded.

Once the government has your money, they can do anything they choose with it, including mismanaging it.

How else could one oppose this mismanagement? Wait till the next election, and hope there are enough like minded people? And what if the next group of government continues to give away tax dollars in a way you do not support?

Good point. Of course, if you are taking a political stand through non-violent activism like this (or violent activism, for that matter), you need to be willing to accept the consequences of that, rather than just hide beyond it.

Agreed. But standing against the government seems to result in you as an individual needing to spending time and money to do so. But the government spends someone else's money and time to fight the citizen protesting. I think one side will have way deeper pockets and time. Not exactly equal footing.

Not at all, but, as they say, them's the lumps. Ghandi faced a far worse problem. And ultimately, our issues pale in comparison with Ghandi's.

The other alternative, if you don't support the government's actions, is to pull up your stakes and leave the country.

Really though, I do agree with you, and this is a huge reason why I'm an anti-federalist. If North Dakota is using tax money irresponsibly, it's a lot easier to move to South Dakota, or to campaign and shift how the government works.

For the most part, yes.  That's how democracy is supposed to work.  We don't always (or even ever!) get our way, unfortunately.

We can, however do more than just hope there are enough like minded people.  We can actively try to convince people there's a problem, in order to increase the chances of their being enough like minded people to bring about the chance we seek.


One way to think of it might be:  how would you want someone you vehemently disagree with (perhaps a white supremicist, or someone who wants to replace the US with an Islamic state) to go about their disagreement?  If everyone just decides to only follow the laws they agree with, well then we don't really have any laws.  If we want others to accept when they're not in the majority and not try to overthrow the system any time they don't get their way, we have to be willing to accept the same for ourselves when we're not in the majority.

There is a time and a place for breaking the rules, but in my view that's when they system prevents you from taking a path within the rules.  In a functioning democracy (functioning here in the sense that people get to vote, not necessarily in the sense that the resulting government is any good) there's a legal, non-violent path towards change.  While we have that luxury, I think we need to try to make use of it rather than take on more extreme measures.

A difficult choice, as that forces you to choose between freedom and friends. Still, it is a choice, just not an easy one.

Any countries that have a balance between safety and freedom while allowing you to choose to not pay taxes to your orginal country?


Yes. Surprisingly, there are some very obvious differences between various states and their budgets.

Right, we can do those things. But let's think about this, there has to be a limit, a tipping point where you would say it is justified to not pay the government taxes.

For example, if the government took 100% of your money, you would agree with many people that it is not acceptable, and to defy the government. But currently, if the government does not make any changes, you would be stuck paying 100% with no recourse other than hoping next vote might do the trick.

What other recourse is there for people who are tired of supporting a government that has mismanaged the US budget so thoroughly?

It's not like an American citizen could actually vote for specific actions to be taken. It can only show pleasure or displeasure, and even that doesn't mean the majority are represented.


Actually, this one has immediate recourse in the idea you can face someone is court for breaking the law. Still has some limitations such as available only to people with funds or some way to access the legal system with some group representing you.

Ultimately, I think we should accept, and even support there are different opinions and stances, and as such allow for those who do not pay certain taxes as a form of protest. In my earlier example, there should be numerous tens of millions not paying 100% of their income for taxes.


I don't think it a stretch here to say that the current American Government has not been very financially responsible with the money that was given to them. As such, while you may feel this point is not there for breaking the rules, what point would you say it is?

I think you can justify withholding taxes like that in two ways;

economically - 100% tax rate, you figure not paying your taxes and possibly going to jail is about as bad as paying your taxes, so you choose the one with the most hope for change. But if you are a moral person, you have to understand that you are withdrawing from the social contract. ANY services you use need to be paid for, or you are basically stealing, plus you need to be doing what is appropriate for your community. If you're super-rich, you can't just live in your private castle; you still need to support public services like libraries, civil defense, and so on. If you're middle class, you need to cover the services you're using, such as roads.

morally - If the government is using your money to perpetrate clear, immediate and grievous moral wrongs, such as genocide, it is morally justified to withhold your tax money. But this is the sort of thing where you're basically saying "you are in the wrong, and I will fight you with everything I have". You can't just stop paying taxes and continue living your life like normal. You need to actually be fighting for this cause.

Yes, I suppose so.  But at that point, not paying taxes is just one of many things I'd be doing to take down the government, because I'd be feeling I had no option of changing it within the system.


If I was only "hoping" that the next vote would do the trick, then it wouldn't be obvious that many people viewed it as unacceptable (or at least not a majority).  IF (and that's a very big, purely hypothetical IF) a majority of people got behind a 100% tax rate (a communist system, I suppose), then I think I should probably pay that tax rate (though I'd probably be looking to move elsewhere at that point).


The trouble here is that you seem to view your complaint as somehow more legitimate than other complaints.  What recourse do you think white supremecists should have when they are tired of the government treated not whites as equals?  What recourse do you feel Islamists who want the US to be run according to some extreme interpretation of the Koran should use when they're frustrated that they're not getting their way?  What recourse do you feel Fred Phelps and his crazy church should use to try to get their way?  The basic idea of democracies is that the majority get their way, regardless if the majority is right, wrong, crazy, whatever.  There's a system for getting your way, but you have to convince a lot of other people to do so.  If you can't do that, whether you're right or wrong, you're just another fringe group.  And if you believe in the concept of democracy, then you grumble about it but go along with it because you had your chance.  On the other hand, if you don't believe in the concept of democracy, you reject the rules and break the laws and say "I'm right and that's all there is to it."

No one likes paying taxes, but it's part of living in an orderly society.  If everyone who didn't like something the government did just decided to stop paying taxes, NO ONE would be paying taxes, the government would collapse, and whoever had the biggest guns would get their way.  I know it sounds attractive to some folks, but to me it doesn't.  So I'll pay my taxes, even when I disagree with much of the government spends it on.  I paid my taxes when we went into Iraq, when we fired up the patriot act, and through any number of other things I didn't like.  Because at the end of the day, I feel I have to accept that I'm not the king of the USA, and things aren't always going to go my way.  I'll work to change things, but convincing others to vote for people whose views are closer to mine, but I accept that other people have just as much right to shape how the country spends its money as I do.



You could run for office, and then be part of the decision-making process directly.  You have more power to cause change than you probably realize.  Granted, just not paying your taxes is easier.  But "easy" isn't the same as "right."


If you allow people to not pay taxes as a form of protest, no one will pay taxes.


The point for breaking the law is when you no longer have a legal way of trying to change the system.  When they take away your vote, or rig the system so that votes don't count, etc.  That's when you take more serious measures.  Remember, that was what the colonists rebelled over in the revolutionary war.  While the tea party seems to think it was all about taxes, it was actually about taxes without representation.  They didn't have any legal way to change the system, because they didn't have representatives in parliament, so they couldn't just all get together and vote for change.

Then you support that a tipping point exists. 100% seems obvious. Would you feel a tipping point might be 50% of all you make? 75% of your income? 90%, something else?

If the majority were complacent and ok with poor government, you'd find it acceptable to go past your tipping point? Really? I guess to each their own then. I wouldn't feel the same as you, but I accept that is your stance.

I agree with you on your statement that my complaint is more legitimate.  The government is wrong for mismanaging their responsibilities. That's a legitimate concern. It is proven they have not been able to properly budget financially.

You're actually comparing items that specifically addressed through freedoms that does not allow the USA to support freedoms allowed through the USA's constitution.

So I would say you're comparing apples to oranges here. The constitution states that people will be free from racism, or allowed to practice their religion, but the constitution does not state that the government has a right to misspend money as they see fit.

Will have to come back to the rest later.....

I do agree with you here on all points. I think that we should recognize tipping points are not universal, and as such we have to accept that no two people will react in the same manner. Tough to say one is wrong, and the other is right. I suppose since neither view is correct, we can only speak on how we'd react, rather than condemn either view points.


Agree, that is one possible solution.

Actually, people seem quite happy to let a few take the brunt, and not stand side by side as a whole. People have been protesting in the USA, Canada, and likely other countries. Some more successful than others. And there are still hundreds of millions paying taxes anyone, even though others are successful in not paying their taxes.

I'd agree with that. I don't quite think it's the only point, but still a reasonable one.

Quick question, does the electoral system in the USA allow for a majority vote? Or is it possible to have certain groups determine the majority numbers?

Not in the sense that you're using the word "tipping point."  If it's brought about through the democratic process, then there's no "tipping point" for me where I unilaterally decide to break the rules.  When I feel it's justified to start breaking the rules is when you have no legal path to change.  For me, the "tipping point" has nothing to do with taxes, and everything to do with voting.


That's democracy.  Even if the majority are chumps, they still get to make the rules.  If you think that's a bad way to run the place, you wouldn't be the first, but that's the downside of democracy.  It's not really fair or right, in my opinion, to hold a "majority rules (as long as the majority agrees with me)" position.


Yep, it's a legitimate concern.  But "you can break the law when you have a legitimate concern about the government" isn't really part of how democracy works.  The way you address your legitimate concerns is through the vote.


Yes, but if someone finds the constitution opposed to their beliefs about how government should work, how should they go about trying to change it?  Do you want people who support unconstitutional actions to take the law into their own hands, or do you want them to work within the system, and accept that until enough people agree with them to make a change, they have to accept that their views aren't the law?


I would disagree.  The constitution sort of does say that the government has the right to spend money as it sees fit.  It most certainly it doesn't say that you are the one to judge whether it's spending its money appropriately, and thus the one to decide if you owe any taxes or not.  You're talking all about the constitution here, while proposing a completely non-constitutional action for yourself, no?



Legal relativism?  We each get to decide which laws we want to follow, and no on gets to say who's right or wrong?  Doesn't sound like a formula for a functioning legal system to me.



If you give everyone a legal option of not paying any taxes, I promise you, next to no one will pay any.  That some people are avoiding their taxes is true, that others are upset about this is also true, mostly because they feel they don't have a legal option for doing the same.


Currently, the electoral system doesn't do a direct majority rules vote for president.  We're slowly moving closer to that with the proposal CA sign on to a few months back, but that's still a ways off.  And on individual issues, we have representatives who vote, rather than the people themselves, so yes, it's possible for them to vote counter to the majority.  But you get to vote for those representatives.  You still have the same voice as anyone else.  You've got the same right to run for office as anyone else.  The people making the decisions that you're upset about were voted in by people who agree with those positions.

Are there problems with the system?  Yes, certainly.  It could be improved.  But simply deciding the law doesn't apply to you anymore isn't going to improve the system.  Working for change is harder than just breaking the law, but it's the right thing to do.  What makes democracy work is people accepting that they don't get their way when more people vote against their view than for it.  If you refuse to accept that, then you're rejecting the basic concept of a representative democracy, and are promoting either anarchy or absolute monarchy (where you're the king).

I think a major issue here is, any form of protest which directly profits the protestor isn't really a form of protest, it's a business plan. Not paying your taxes is a legitimate form of protest ... if you clearly state to the IRS, "I owe this much, and I am paying this much, because I refuse to support X", and then when they take you to court you plead guilty and go through with your sentence.

If you were to make sneaky tax evasion a legitimate form of protest though, you'd suddenly find a few hundred million hippies, anti-Christian, pro-Christian, extremist, moderates and so on saying "sorry guys, I really can't support my government intervening in business/not supporting business/taxing gays/legalizing tuna fish," whatever and no one will pay. You'd be stupid to say "yeah, I'm pretty happy with everything, I'll pay my taxes in full". Everything will just fall apart. If you want to live like that, more power to you, but I would recommend moving to North Dakota or Montana where that's basically already an option, rather than ruining someone else's party.

I think katisara's hit the nail on the head there.  Most of things we think of a legitimate protest aren't actually very enjoyable or beneficial to the protestors.  They're making a sacrifice of some manner in order to draw attention to their cause.  Hunger strikes are clearly unpleasant.  Marches, demonstrations, etc., all take up time and effort with no immediate benefit to the demonstrators (and in some cases puts them in physical danger).  Being arrested and spending time in jail limits the protestor's freedom.  While any of the cases may be illegal, we view them as protest because the people involved are sacrificing something themselves in order to try to change people's minds.  It's why we call the folks in london not long back "looters" and "rioters" not "protestors" (though the whole thing did kick off with a protest march).  Breaking into a store and taking a new pair of shoes isn't a protest, it's theft.  Likewise, simply not paying your taxes (and expecting others to just accept this) isn't a protest, it's tax evasion.

I think I get the money isn't an issue for you. Over all, I figured that was something that was clear and agreeable to everyone when it comes to performance problems considering the way the economy is doing so terrible that it  will affect everyone sooner or later.

So then the tipping point for you is when it comes to freedoms and rights? Like if not everyone had the same rights, you'd have a tough time giving support to such a country if they decide to ignore the rights of the people, or denied them entitled freedoms? Or would it still be ok to remove rights and freedoms as long as you or some other group could go to the courts to deal with it?


I suppose the only way would to be join politics, that way they could do anything they want then. Worse case scenario, they get a pension even if they sucked at doing the job, and gave tax payers dollars to their friends.

Me, I suppose I'd have to look at it on a case by case basis. However, I accept you should not follow a law that is wrong. I do accept that sometimes you need to do so within the law, but at the same time, when something is wrong, you stand in the way, and let people know it.

But my real response to your question is...So the only people allowed to not follow the constitution is the government? How is that fair? :)


To be clear, I was comparing that you were bringing up actions specifically denied, and comparing it to something that was not specifically denied. Apples to oranges.

Well, I am pointing out some human rights. And there is an amendment that allows them to collect taxes.

However, plenty of people use methods of non violent forms of protest. Essentially, it recognizes the law is there, but that the law is unlawful in the way it is enforced.



Not legal relativism. I'm talking about people having different views on what is right and wrong.

For example, are you saying it's wrong to protest in this manner? Or are you saying it is unlawful to protest in this way. If unlawful, it doesn't need to be wrong, and as such, I think it reasonable that we should support others to be able to protest.



That is simply untrue. There are people who are successful in not paying taxes, and still millions pay up.



I appreciate you have a viewpoint that is different than mine.

More or less, yes.  Rights and freedoms are far more important in my view than taxes.  In particular, the ability change the system from within is crucial, and the lack of it is something that would warrant going outside the system.  Issues of fundamental rights would be other issues, but I still think if there's a legal way to attempt change, that should be the main focus.




In that case, I'd say there's your answer of how you should work to change tax levels.


Are you saying no one should follow any law they disagree with?  Because that seems to go too far for me.  Especially on things like tax levels, which aren't really a moral issue, but something on which rational people can have legitimate disagreement.


No, the government should follow the constitution as well.  When they don't, people should pursue the issue as the constitution dictates, rather than just taking the law into their own hands.  There is a defined process for dealing with politicians who overstep their power.  The constitution doesn't say "people don't have to pay taxes if they don't want to."


Non-violent protest is fine, but a key part of non-violent protest is willingness to accept the penalty for breaking the law.  Theft isn't non-violent protest, it's just theft.  It's sounding like what you're proposing isn't "not paying your taxes, and spending time in jail to draw attention to the problems in the tax system" but rather "not paying your taxes and getting away with it" (correct me if I've misunderstood you on that).  There's a big difference between the two.  If the folks who did the boston tea party didn't throw the tea overboard, but instead just took it home and sold it out of their back door, that wouldn't have been a protest, it would have been theft.  As it was, it was destruction of private property, but at least they didn't make any personal profit off of it.

Put it this way, do you think people who murder someone are engaging in protest against anti-murder laws that they fell are unfair, or do you think they're just ignoring the murder laws and hoping they don't get caught?  Because what you're proposing sounds more like the latter to me than the former.  Again, if you're willing to do the jail time for breaking the law, and fully expect to get caught, then I could see it as a protest.  But if you're hoping that you just don't get caught, then I don't see it as a protest, but just the act of a scofflaw.


Yes, definitely people have different views about what's right and wrong.  But if we all just make up our own minds about it, then we don't really have a legal system.  Part of the social contract in a democracy is that you sometimes have to go along with decisions you disagree with when you're in the minority.  It's not a very pleasant thing, but it's necessary to make democracy work.  Now, because no one likes to not get their way, I think the law should, as much as possible, allow people to make their own decisions, and only limit their options when they start impinging on other people's ability to make decisions.  But thing like taxes and spending sort of necessarily require people to accept the overall decision and go along with it even when they disagree.


If by "this manner" you mean not paying your taxes and hoping you don't get caught, then I would say yes, it's both wrong and illegal.  If you fully intend to get caught, and pay the penalty that comes with getting caught, in order to draw attention to the problems in the system and change peoples minds, then I could see it as an acceptable (though still illegal, obviously) form of protest.  I'm a bit confused when you say we should "support others to be able to protest" in this way.  Do you mean it should be legal?  Or that we should view it as morally acceptable?  Or that we should say "good job!"?  Or something else?



Go back and read what I said.  Does everyone have a legal option of not paying any taxes?  If not, then what you say doesn't really apply to my statement.  I'm saying that if you say "everyone, if there's anything you don't like about the way the government spends it's money, you can simply not pay taxes as a 'protest' and nothing bad will happen to you" then essentially no one will pay taxes.  As I pointed out, yes, there are people who avoid paying taxes, and while people still 'pay up' as you say, I'd hardly say they're happy with those who avoid their taxes (especially when they use illegal or questionably-legal methods to do so).


Which part are you referring to in particular?  You sort of covered a lot of statements in that quote, so I'm not sure which part you see as the problematic.