Some tax evaders believe that they have uncovered new interpretations of the law that show that they are not subject to being taxed: these individuals and groups are sometimes called tax protesters. However, many protesters merely rehash the same arguments that courts have rejected time and time again.

Tax resistance is the refusal to pay a tax for conscientious reasons (because the resister does not want to support the government or some of its activities). They typically do not take the position that the tax laws are themselves illegal or do not apply to them (as tax protesters do) and they are more concerned with not paying for what they oppose than they are motivated by the desire to keep more of their money (as tax evaders typically are).

…

Application to tax protestors

This statute is an example of an exception to the general rule under U.S. law that “ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution.” Under the Cheek Doctrine (Cheek v. United States[15]), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a genuine, good faith belief that one is not violating the Federal tax law (such as a mistake based on a misunderstanding caused by the complexity of the tax law itself) would be a valid defense to a charge of “willfulness” (“willfulness” in this case being knowledge or awareness that one is violating the tax law itself), even though that belief is irrational or unreasonable. On the surface, this rule might appear to be of some comfort to tax protesters who assert, for example, that “wages are not income.”[16] However, merely asserting that one has such a good faith belief is not determinative in court; under the American legal system the trier of fact (the jury, or the trial judge in a non-jury trial) decides whether the defendant really has the good faith belief he or she claims. With respect to willfulness, the placing of the burden of proof on the prosecution is of limited utility to a defendant that the jury simply does not believe.

Hmm? Well, tax fraud (which they put Al Capone away on) isn’t the same as refusing to pay, I suppose. The government might not be able to put you in jail for refusal, but they can get a civil judgement and seize all your assets.

1) Government workers can unionize

or

2) Government workers’ screwups can be used as grounds to sue the government and take the taxpayers’ money

In both cases, it’s tax money we’re talking about. The government has no money of its own, and it should be treated as such.

That’s certainly a legit use of unions.

But .. when I contracted at $governmentagency the main use of the union seemed to be to get federal employees the best offices, protection from being fired due to incompetence, and to inflict petty booshwah on the non-union contractor staff.

It soured me some on unions for public employees to see that stuff.

If we’re going to have tougher requirements on public-sector EMPLOYEES, we should also have tougher requirements on any corporation (or other business) that does business with the government.

If we’re going to take this aggressive stance, let’s take it all the way is all I’m going to say. The public service employee is no more of a crook than a corporation that provides services to the government.

Indeed, when you look at the big corporations that get tens of millions, hundreds of millions, even billions in direct government cash payouts (not even talking “tax writeoffs” here, I mean direct cash disbursements in exchange for a service), should they not be treated with the highest possible level of scrutiny, at least as stringent as those levelled at any individual government employee?

Indeed, who would be the bigger crook, the individual congressman who took a $100,000 bribe, or the government contractor corporation that defrauded the taxpayer of two or three billion?

Just to keep our questions in perspective, here.

(In case you hadn’t noticed, I’m very weary of the conservative/libertarian defense of mega-corporations. This is not 1975, and the biggest problem in the world at the moment is NOT how mean we are to massive corporations.)

But, since almost no one goes to jail for refusing to pay taxes–including countless people who actually have refused to pay taxes–I am not sure I can accept the logic.

In almost all cases that I’m aware of, including with the IRS, you can refuse to pay any tax. All you have to do is say, “screw you, no, I’m not paying it.” If you do, I know of no case in American law where you’d go to jail for that. No, not even if you do it to the IRS.

What would happen if you simply refused to pay your tax is, you’d get dunning notices, and collections letters. Penalties and interest would accrue. Eventually, if you continued to refuse to pay, you would be sued–usually in state court, even if it’s a Federal tax. There would be a judgment against you unless you could prove you didn’t owe the money. Then, if you had any major assets, the creditor would ask a court to seize them in order to pay your debt to them.

In other words, assuming you don’t commit any actual fraud, if you simply refuse to pay, then it’s exactly the same as if you refused to pay a credit card company or someone else you had a loan with.

It’s a little harder to declare bankruptcy against the government, but as it turns out it’s not that much harder. Mostly, the government has to play by the same rules as any private creditor.

So the libertarian argument–that government extracts taxes on pain of death–is more than a little hyperbolic in the vast majority of cases.

That said, I’m sympathetic to the idea that public sector employees should not be able to strike. In fact, I’d probably go further: I’m not sure they should be allowed to unionize at all. But maybe that’s wrong on my part; what I object to with unions is usually the “fatcats vs. the helpless victims” mentality. What I praise in unions is the concept of collective bargaining, which is entirely valid.

I would say that a no-strike clause is a genuine agreement though, and if you signed one then you’re bound by it.

At State, there are basically two unions, one for General (Civil) Service employees, one for Foreign Service employees. Many at State belong to both; many belong to neither.

The union I know best, AFSA which serve the FSO community, lobbies State Dept. leadership, the Administration, Congress, and the public (through the media) to ensure equitable treatment of FSOs as compared to other federal employees (of which agencies depends on the issue at hand).

For instance, the gov’t pays ‘locality pay’ to adjust incomes of employees working in higher-than-average cost of living places. That adjustment becomes part of basis upon which retirement income is based.

FSOs working overseas may or may not get local cost of living adjustments to their pay, but that money did not become part of their pay record for retirement purposes. AFSA lobbied successfully to get the DC locality pay factor included in FSOs’ income for time served abroad. Not the actual pay, but the result of the pay on retirement.

That wasn’t a bad thing, as far as my particular ox is concerned, though it only affected the last 18 months of my employment record.

Similarly, AFSA took the case of female FSOs who were–at least statically–being block from promotion and would-be FSOs from entering State Dept. as new employees. A protracted court case followed, with a $45 million settlement, job offers to women who had been rejected from entry, and enhanced promotion likelihood for women in the service. Didn’t work out all that well for me, as a male, unfortunately, as promotions into the Senior Foreign Service (between 7-9 annually) went predominantly to women (they’d get 6-7 slots) when I was looking for that particular promotion. That meant that I was competing against all male FSOs at my grade for one or two positions. Tough going.

I can’t argue that the process was ultimately unfair, but it didn’t help the males who may or may not have been personally responsible for depriving women of promotion opportunities. Since I received several EEO awards during the period, I assumed there was nothing against me personally, but institutionally, well….

AFSA also worked successfully to get rid of an archaic rule that prevented female FSOs from marrying (literally); to change annual evaluation forms (including the dropping of an ‘unofficial rating’ on spouses’ and dependants’ behavior; to deal realistically with Gays, people with AIDS, and people with various physical handicaps in the workplace.

As a manager, I’ve had several grievances filed against me. Because I was a good manager, none of them prevailed. But there certainly were State employees who did have valid grievances against management. The unions generally did a good job of fighting for the employee, winning a fair share of the cases they handled.

I definitely agree, though, that ‘no strike’ clauses in public service employment contracts should be read as written and strictly enforced.