Tax resistance

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Two questions

1. What do you think is the highest point of tax ratio that morally authorizes you to resist taxation?

2. What kind of means do you find morally justifiable to resist taxation?

For question no. 1., I'd say anything above 20 % avg. tax rate is unjust, therefore I'm going to find ways not to pay it or reduce the burden ratio as much as I can. Of course this simplifies the question, as it doesn't distinguish between sales, income and value added taxes, but let's say this: I make 100 euros of net profit. I give the government 20 euros, but no more. In my country, I (or my employer) have to pay 56 % of the salary as tax, which is a ridiculous plunder.

For question no.2. it depends on the avg. tax rate again. Above 50% tax evasion, offshoring and all kinds of illegal means of avoiding tax that will not get me in jail is okay for the reasons stated above. At an even high rate, I would say it establishes the right to overthrow the government.

[JP226]

1 +%
2 any means

[IrishHitman]

Eh, that's what tax brackets are for.
If you're being taxed 56% on your income, then clearly you earn enough for it not to matter.
Don't be a greedy b****cks.

There are only two things certain in life:
Death and Taxation.

1. What do you think is the highest point of tax ratio that morally authorizes you to resist taxation?

2. What kind of means do you find morally justifiable to resist taxation?

1. Depends on how much you earn.

2. Withhold payment or enter politics....

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

Eh, that's what tax brackets are for.
If you're being taxed 56% on your income, then clearly you earn enough for it not to matter.
Don't be a greedy b****cks.

It doesn't depend on my income. It's deducted even from the basic salary.

[IrishHitman]

It doesn't depend on my income. It's deducted even from the basic salary.

I just checked the tax rates from every country on earth.
No country has an income tax rate at 56%.
The Serbian part of Bosnia-Herz. has a payroll tax maximum of 57%, but I suspect you don't live there.

Regardless of that, no country would tax their workers across the board at 56%.

I suspect you're being ripped off by your employer.

Have a look yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Needless to say, if it were 56% across the board, regardless of your income, you should indeed resist.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I just checked the tax rates from every country on earth.
No country has an income tax rate at 56%.
The Serbian part of Bosnia-Herz. has a payroll tax maximum of 57%, but I suspect you don't live there.

Regardless of that, no country would tax their workers across the board at 56%.

I suspect you're being ripped off by your employer.

Have a look yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world

Needless to say, if it were 56% across the board, regardless of your income, you should indeed resist.

You ignored what VP said: the fees that are taxes in disguise. The complete burden of revenue including taxes and other obligatory payments for the government are up to 56 %. Trust me, I worked for months at an accountant, I know the exact numbers of my own country. If an employer wants to give you 34,000 money in hard cold cash, you must produce 100,000 money, because 56,000 goes to government, social security and all kinds of bollocks.

[IrishHitman]

You ignored what VP said: the fees that are taxes in disguise. The complete burden of revenue including taxes and other obligatory payments for the government are up to 56 %. Trust me, I worked for months at an accountant, I know the exact numbers of my own country. If an employer wants to give you 34,000 money in hard cold cash, you must produce 100,000 money, because 56,000 goes to government, social security and all kinds of bollocks.

Where do you live?

[JP226]

If you're being taxed 56% on your income, then clearly you earn enough for it not to matter.

Well, clearly...

[Viking Prince]

I will only attempt to answer #1 at this time.

Let's assume that you were living in Denver Colorado. You would be paying a wide variety of taxes and some user fees that are really taxes in disguise. The obvious taxes are federal payroll and disability, federal income, state income, city occupation privelege or head tax, sales tax, fuel tax, property tax, vehicle license and tax, and a myriad of little noticed taxes attached to telecommunications, transit, water provision, booze, tobacco, etc. No all taxes are on all income. Some taxes such as federal payroll are 'split' between employee and employer, but are really a tax on the employee.

Forbes (http://www.forbes.com/global/2006/0522/032a.html) ran an article on overall tax burden on the economy that is easy to access on the web. The observation is that most countries have increased the percentage over time and the trend is to spend more than taxes generate. This trend is not a Keynsian cycle, but a clear and consistent trend that indicates the future tax burden will continue to increase, The increase may or may not mean a higher percentage though, since the economies can also grow.

The real key to the tax burden has to do with what citizens want government to to. The basic services of defense and rule of law can mean a fairly low level of taxation. If the citizens want a social safety net, then this is an add on cost. how much depends on how big the net. If it includes retirement pensions, health care, higher education, parks, highways, telecommunications support, and the various services that we have grown accustomed to in the developed countries -- the tax burden easily tops 30% for the most frugal of countries in the developed world.

The USA federal burden runs about 26% but the state and local burden needs to be added to ths. This brings the typical tax burden in the USA up to about 30% which is better than the EU burden at about 40%.

The problem with the percentages is that the poor are net takers in the developed economies (remember the social safety net) and this means the actual burdens for those not in poverty or in need of the social safety net are going to be above these percentages. You 56% is probably about right in a progressive tax system with a decent social soafety net.

If you want to be paying a lower percentage, lower the expenses of government.

[Boer]

The real key to the tax burden has to do with what citizens want government to Do.

[I assume that's what you wanted to type] That is really the key. I think people are/would be more willing to pay higher taxes if they thought they were getting their moneys worth in return. It seems only natural that a government providing its people with many services would need a higher amount of taxes to pay for the services, and people need to realize that. The government could (theoretically) run with 1% tax rate if it did nor have to do anything, but needs 50% if it is expected to become a so-called nanny state.

[cristophe el perno]

The UK uses a series of tax bands, so its not about sheers percentages - those percentages are linked to what you earn.
The 50% tax band we recently aquired I am happy with (it's only on the very rich), but I would be uneasy with any higher proportion than that.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

If you want to be paying a lower percentage, lower the expenses of government

How about lowering the taxes and easing the economy from unnecessary burdens which will in time produce more revenues for the government?

The UK uses a series of tax bands, so its not about sheers percentages - those percentages are linked to what you earn.

Progressive taxation is not the question here, read the thread before posting.

[Panzerbear]

1) anything above 30% I would personally consider a highway robbery.
2) any means, including various tax-evasion schemes and other legal or illegal activities.

[Kiljan Arslan]

1.in peace time? 45%

in war 85%

2. openly resisting only honorably way in my sight also do it without claiming that their is a government cabal, or that your a man of god so all your money belongs to god.

[Justice and Mercy]

Our tax code is far too complicated to come up with a hard number.

I don't think the problem is so much how much you're taxed, but how the taxes are used.

In a time of war, it'd be foolish to believe it immoral to go above a certain tax level. Sometimes high taxes really are necessary.

Not that I'd prefer income taxes in the first place. They have no advantages. National sales tax is the proper method of taxation.

[Barry Goldwater]

1. 35% and up would be ridiculous and intolerable to me - during peacetime. In wartime, I will shoulder any tax up to 80%
2. Whatever is the easiest and safest option

that your a man of god so all your money belongs to god.

I will be using that excuse for the lolz

[Kiljan Arslan]

that idiot kent hovind claimed that and it got him ten years in prison.

[Barry Goldwater]

that idiot kent hovind claimed that and it got him ten years in prison.

There goes my lolz

[Kiljan Arslan]

well it got me lolz because ther guy was a major douche anyway one of those young eart creationist types who claimes that there is a NWO also published Protocals of the Elders.

[Каие]

Tax becomes viciously immoral in three circumstance.

1. When the poor are taxed at all. Both on incomes and savings.
2. When people are taxed at more or half of what they earn. (49% or more. )
3. A tax on death. Inheritance tax. A punishment for succeeding in the life long battle to pay off your mortgage.


As to resist the only legitimate means is parliamentary protest. Rebellion is unacceptable.