5 ms·

I mean, AFAIK technically taxes are voluntary. Is the IRS really under mandate to "enforce" taxation?

clock_tower 9y ago
"Voluntary" is an old-fashioned term of art; it means "you volunteer your version of events to the information to the IRS" rather than "the IRS sends you what they know".
dpark 9y ago
> AFAIK technically taxes are voluntary. You are incorrect as a large number of would-be tax avoiders can attest. e.g. Mr. Snipes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes
- microcolonel 9y ago
  Wasn't it the falsified returns which generated the charges though?
  - dpark 9y ago
    No. He was convicted of failing to file returns.
    - tdeck 9y ago
      Furthermore, he produced videos instructing the viewer on how he avoided paying income tax [1], then sold those videos. For income. That he didn't report. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL-F4-RDNz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL-F4-RDNz4
- tdeck 9y ago
  Or my personal favorite, Kent Hovind, who actually maintains those taxes were voluntary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
  - seanp2k2 9y ago
    Wow, what a read. There are two certainties in this life: death and taxes. Some people try to unsuccessfully avoid one or both :)
    - devoply 9y ago
      Well income tax was magically mandated without any sort of discussion so there's that. In the end the question is a question of hard power. If you have none, you are in no position to bargain. IMO giving government taxes that are used for purposes that may not agree with your personal sense of responsibility and morality may itself be immoral, for instance if the government uses your taxes to start wars you want nothing to do with. For infrastructure and education though they are fine regardless. They are always tooting the horns of voting with your dollars, in this case where is the voice of voting with your dollars as to what gets done with your money. /rant.
      - caf 9y ago
        That seems redundant when you can vote with your... vote. (Also: the sixteenth amendment?)
        devoply 9y ago
        When you vote, you are not voting for anything or anyone substantial. Party A and Party B have the exact same policies with simply different political tones and groups of elites that they support. The 16th amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913. Good to read its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... and how controversy still stands despite a century of litigation.
        dpark 9y ago
        > The 16th amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913. Yes. 4 years after congress passed the amendment, it was ratified by the 36th state and adopted. In no way was this "magically mandated without any sort of discussion".
- dahoraTSUNAMI 9y ago
  You are confusing practice, or customary, with technical (constitutional law), which I would include political philosphy and the unalienable rights of man as identified by Rosseu. If I cannot choose to not pay taxes, then I have been denied the right to choose, then it is a forced subjugation of my free will. Correct would be to give my taxes voluntarily, according to my disposition and agreement with the government. If you are profoundly 'contra' what the government is doing, then how can you be forced to help with activities that you believe to be deeply detrimental to the well-being of yourself, others, and all life on earth and beyond? Tolstoy argues this point very well in his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You." He essentially says that if we pay taxes to a government that kills innocents or tortures Arabs their blood is on our (the taxpayers') hands. If the government is doing something that I find to be deplorable then I have the moral obligation to find a way to avoid contributing to such array of horrors.
  - jrochkind1 9y ago
    No, you are confusing philosophy with law.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - croon 9y ago
    > If you are profoundly 'contra' what the government is doing, then how can you be forced to help with activities that you believe to be deeply detrimental to the well-being of yourself, others, and all life on earth and beyond? Because you participate in society and its infrastructure and services, paid for by taxes. I'm sure there are uninhabited tundras where no one will bother you.
notyourwork 9y ago
I guess you can say lots of things are technically voluntary. I suppose you can say if you choose not to volunteer there may be consequences.

"Voluntary" is an old-fashioned term of art; it means "you volunteer your version of events to the information to the IRS" rather than "the IRS sends you what they know".

dpark 9y ago

> AFAIK technically taxes are voluntary. You are incorrect as a large number of would-be tax avoiders can attest. e.g. Mr. Snipes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Snipes

microcolonel 9y ago
Wasn't it the falsified returns which generated the charges though?
- dpark 9y ago
  No. He was convicted of failing to file returns.
  - tdeck 9y ago
    Furthermore, he produced videos instructing the viewer on how he avoided paying income tax [1], then sold those videos. For income. That he didn't report. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL-F4-RDNz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jL-F4-RDNz4
tdeck 9y ago
Or my personal favorite, Kent Hovind, who actually maintains those taxes were voluntary: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind
- seanp2k2 9y ago
  Wow, what a read. There are two certainties in this life: death and taxes. Some people try to unsuccessfully avoid one or both :)
  - devoply 9y ago
    Well income tax was magically mandated without any sort of discussion so there's that. In the end the question is a question of hard power. If you have none, you are in no position to bargain. IMO giving government taxes that are used for purposes that may not agree with your personal sense of responsibility and morality may itself be immoral, for instance if the government uses your taxes to start wars you want nothing to do with. For infrastructure and education though they are fine regardless. They are always tooting the horns of voting with your dollars, in this case where is the voice of voting with your dollars as to what gets done with your money. /rant.
    - caf 9y ago
      That seems redundant when you can vote with your... vote. (Also: the sixteenth amendment?)
      - devoply 9y ago
        When you vote, you are not voting for anything or anyone substantial. Party A and Party B have the exact same policies with simply different political tones and groups of elites that they support. The 16th amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913. Good to read its history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_Uni... and how controversy still stands despite a century of litigation.
        dpark 9y ago
        > The 16th amendment was adopted on February 3, 1913. Yes. 4 years after congress passed the amendment, it was ratified by the 36th state and adopted. In no way was this "magically mandated without any sort of discussion".
dahoraTSUNAMI 9y ago
You are confusing practice, or customary, with technical (constitutional law), which I would include political philosphy and the unalienable rights of man as identified by Rosseu. If I cannot choose to not pay taxes, then I have been denied the right to choose, then it is a forced subjugation of my free will. Correct would be to give my taxes voluntarily, according to my disposition and agreement with the government. If you are profoundly 'contra' what the government is doing, then how can you be forced to help with activities that you believe to be deeply detrimental to the well-being of yourself, others, and all life on earth and beyond? Tolstoy argues this point very well in his book "The Kingdom of God is Within You." He essentially says that if we pay taxes to a government that kills innocents or tortures Arabs their blood is on our (the taxpayers') hands. If the government is doing something that I find to be deplorable then I have the moral obligation to find a way to avoid contributing to such array of horrors.
- jrochkind1 9y ago
  No, you are confusing philosophy with law.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- croon 9y ago
  > If you are profoundly 'contra' what the government is doing, then how can you be forced to help with activities that you believe to be deeply detrimental to the well-being of yourself, others, and all life on earth and beyond? Because you participate in society and its infrastructure and services, paid for by taxes. I'm sure there are uninhabited tundras where no one will bother you.

notyourwork 9y ago

I guess you can say lots of things are technically voluntary. I suppose you can say if you choose not to volunteer there may be consequences.