Snipes was put in jail for willfully evading taxes. More specifically, he argued, among other things, that he was a non-resident alien not obliged to pay taxes. He also argued that his fifth amendment right against self-incrimination meant he didn’t have to file returns. A jury found that his beliefs were not in good faith.

Taxes are obviously coercive. I’m not virulently anti-tax and entirely concede their necessity. And I also think it’s necessary hat they’re coercive. But coercive they are. I quite frankly don’t understand why you and Dino are arguing with me about seems to be an obvious point.

And just as a historical footnote,
I clerked in a federal appeals court for a year and we got all kinds of material sent to us on tax issues, ie a long book seeking to show how the sixteenth amendment was never properly ratified by the states. All of it was laughably wrong.

If your claim is that Wesley Snipes followed all the rules up to the time he was jailed — and I’m not saying that is your claim, since it’s your claim and not mine — you’re laughably wrong.

I'm pretty sure kerowo's question is still referencing the idea of debtors prisons. He's asking whether or not someone (not Snipes) whose only crime was inability to pay their taxes would go to prison.

It's clearly just a case of semantics. Obviously tax is coercive but the penalty for simply not paying is civil, not criminal, and would be something like wage garnishing or property seizure to cover the debt. It becomes criminal when you deliberately misrepresent an aspect of your finances in an attempt to lower how much you owe and that is what can land you in prison.

The answer to that is no. Check me on this, but I haven’t argued otherwise.

Let me draw a distinction here between “simply” not paying and “willfully” not paying. The latter is criminal.

A guy I know well got foreign income (ie not reported to the IRS when he got it) of about 400K in a year where he otherwise made about $400k. He didn’t report or pay taxes on the foreign income and the feds charged him with a felony.

For the record, I’m not in favor of debtor’s prison. Although bankruptcy is a ridiculous racket much of the time.

And by that standard every law is coercive.

And as with every other law there’s a distinction made based on intent and scale.

Try living in Chad a while, or some place else with no functional central government, then come back and make your argument again.

Taxes pay for central banking system, court system, infrastructure, police, fire department, healthcare, education, military.

All institutions that help protect capital and the income that you earn.

So no taxation is not theft. To me the only question is about what tax rate is fair.

Indeed, and I that is an important point to always remind ourselves of. The state does use coercive and forceful means. We can't simply ignore that by declaring that "the state decides what is right". Such a logic would mean that any type of state or law is ethically justified.

I think it is also a good reminder that every time a state does use coercion, we're paying an ethical cost for what we gain. You're almost forced into utilitarian ethics when you look at it that way. I don't want to go into a debate on whether utilitarian ethics is justified, but at least doing some reasoning around "cost" and "reward" should be a good exercise every time the state takes from its citizens to fund something.

I think this is also at the root of what appeals to your libertarian or AC-crowd. If we go by principle, those kind of systems are purer and they avoid a lot of the paradoxes that a "monopoly of violence" inherit.

I do think those views tend to ignore a lot of empirical and historical evidence and practical considerations, but then again there is also a limit to those kind of protests. There is no shortage of horrible regimes which have excused their actions as simply necessary to deal with the flaws of human nature.

Yeah my condo association uses 'coercion and forceful means' to get me to pay my fees each month. Big whoop.

'No poach' agreements are theft and should be punished with significant jail time. CMV.

Last time I checked you can't really opt out of the social contract. If you have similar terms on your housing situation, I'd look into that.

You don't have an argument on this matter if you can't admit that the state is forcefully coercive in a way that it allows no other party within its borders to be. It does monopolize violence. What you need to show is why this isn't wrong.

Anything else is just handing any libertarian or anarchist you engage with an automatic win.

You can leave most states, which is a kind of opting out.

You can move to another country. You can renounce your citizenship. And anyone who isn't in a position to do this is in all cases the beneficiary of the tax system.

Merely moving geographically would not rid you of your citizenship, and you still answer to state laws. You could renounce your citizenship, but most states do not allow you to renounce citizenship if you do not have a new one waiting.

The US can (and likely will) block renunciation of you do not have a second passport or nationality. However, let us for argument's sake say that they allowed it this time:

1. You are not opting out of any laws.
2. You would still have to pay tax if you resided in the US and had income.
3. You will not be less at the mercy of states, but more. You give away rights and privileges and gain none. It does not in any way or form affect a state's monopoly of violence.

Yeah you're human and can't escape the human condition except in some really remote and desolate places that aren't very compatible with human habitation. All the good land is already controlled by groups of humans who naturally form governments.

Don't you guys realise this is totally absurd? Every other country on the planet doesn't tax its citizens if they move to another country its based on residency. Its the only argument the OP makes that taxes are theft that has some merit. If a American citizen moves to New Zealand and has nothing do to with the US but they can't escape US taxes how is that not theft?

And a tenant who leaves their apartment isn't magically absolved from their rent owed. Neither are they able to ditch a lease without notice.

You're right though, you can vacate your apartment without needing a new place lined up. Because your landlord really doesn't give a **** in the way governments might, because landlords don't have to worry about you pretending to move out and then squatting on the premises without paying rent. They'd figure that out pretty quickly.

If your concern is that the process takes too long or you have a specific bone to pick with how tax treaties between countries fine but it's not the same complaint. You can move. You can choose a place with different rules.

No matter how you try to twist it, the analogy does not work. A landlord or condo association does not have the powers of the state. They are indeed subjected to the power of the state, in the same way that you are.

The only way your landlord can use force to make you pay is either through petitioning the state to do it for him or by using legal mechanisms already established by the state. Because the state is the party that owns the right to use violence or force, anybody else can only do it when the state permits it (or establishes your right to do so).

It is definitely unusual, only 3-4 countries do this and the US is (as you point out) one of them. I do think there are some exemptions you can get if you pay enough tax to the country of residency, but I'm no tax law expert.

I'm no fan of calling tax theft. I think that is a rhetorical tactic more than anything. Perhaps it does share similarities with theft, though I much prefer a comparison with a protection racket.

I should probably note that I am not an opponent of tax. Given a decently ethical country I think it is a good thing. You could even argue that for most of us on this forum, the states we live in are important reasons we even have a fair income to tax. But I prefer being honest about what it is and what principles it operates by. A modern state does declare it has the right to a portion of your income and it will take it if you do not pay what you owe. Instead of complaining about tax on general principle, I prefer to see this as the state engaging in an ethical obligation to its citizens.

Except no, because the state also uses the power of the state to enforce tax laws. In our nations the government can't operate extra-judicially. Further as has already been shown we don't use violence to enforce tax payments -- it's a civil matter, not criminal. Criminality only comes into it when you willfully lie or try to defraud the tax authority, which is essentially lying to or defrauding your fellow citizens. Much as it would be if I tried to lie to my condo board -- it's not the board I'm lying to, it's all the other residents -- the board just represents them.

Further, and again as has already been shown, there is no law against leaving a county like the US and taking up residence in a tax free place. In fact it's quite the opposite, as I believe it's a guaranteed right.

Again this is false. Leave tomorrow and go live in Dubai or Monaco. You're perfectly entitled to do so. Don't forget to write.

Well again many of the libertarian arguments depend on this notion that the state and the citizens therein are somehow two separate entities, when in reality they aren't. In a western democracy the state IS the citizens.

So yeah, we have as citizens agreed to make violence illegal and to imprison or otherwise sanction those who would commit crimes that harm others. Why wouldn't we? Upon doing that, the fact that we've also granted powers to law enforcement authorities to enforce said laws only makes logical sense.

The governmental authorities that collect taxes are paid into by all participating parties. Part of what you get for paying these taxes is employees whose job it is to enforce the laws.

Would you say that a bar has no power to enforce it's rules because they have to hire a bouncer to physically escort people out when they get unruly?


It almost sounds like you're arguing against the entire concept of laws and private ownership.

Nobody has ever said that they don't.

Even calling it a protection racket is pejorative though.

Laws need to be enforced to someone. You have to pay those people to do it. That costs money.
The alternative is... what?