[pdkl95]

Nonsense. we don't[1] have a debtor's prison in the USA and I believe most laws that criminalize a simple inability to pay would be unconstitutional by the 13 Amendment.

Now, this is a very fine legal line to walk, because intent (mens rea) to withhold taxes is indeed a crime. Failing to file any required paperwork may also be a crime in some situations. IF by some chance you cannot pay, but still file on time and explain the situation to the IRS, they will only be able to impose financial remedies. So you can certainly get some sort of payment plan, or wage garnishes, or liens on any property you own - but not jail time or forced labor.

In practice, of course, this applies to only a very small set of people. It is cleasrly a attempt to work around the moral issues to allow tax laws to exist. If slavery is the concern, tax law is way to minor of an issue. I suggest looking into the current trend of trying (and succeeding, to some degree) to bring back slavery in the form of prison labor. For-profit prisons are a bad enough idea, but allowing way-below-minimum-wage labor and a lack of oversight and regulation is creating a huge moral hazard.

[1] I realize that there are currently trying to reverse the current situation a bring back various forms of criminal penalties and/or a type of debtor's prison. While concerning, they have had only limited, local success so far.

[nickff]

The parent said:

>"if taxes are extracted through coercive means (as they are in most present-day states), then they can be viewed as coercing individuals into a choice between either wage slavery or poverty."

You never actually addressed the issue of coercion as a whole, you only addressed what happens when there is an 'inability to pay'; as you state:

>"So you can certainly get some sort of payment plan, or wage garnishes, or liens on any property you own - but not jail time or forced labor."

But you do not address what happens when one hides the money, in foreign accounts, or domestic locations. If one does either of these, they are subject to imprisonment, though it may not be called a 'debtor's prison', this is still coercion.

TLDR; If I demand money from you, under threat of confinement, it is coercion, whether or not you have the means to pay.

[pdkl95]

> under threat of confinement

In the area of taxes, nobody is making such a threat.

As I said above, "confinement" (jail) is the one thing that that would be the one thing that can't happen for only inability to pay.

> hides the money

See, that's not what I'm talking about. By attempting to hide what would otherwise be taxable money, you are committing a different crime, which is really a type of fraud (or possibly, if a court was involved, perjury).

After facing whatever penalty there is for fraudulently filling out tax forms[1], someone who evades taxes (any way) would still owe the outstanding back taxes.... which cannot result in further jail time.

So yes, the government will make your financial life hard if you fail to pay taxes. They can (and do) coerce your property very harshly. The government should only start using coercive force against you (instead of just your property) if there are other related crimes involved.

{ For the record: this is not legal advice, see a lawyer for better information. Especially see a lawyer before attempting some sort of scheme to move money around in the hopes of hiding taxes. That is getting harder and harder to pull off in the modern "big data" world and and clever analysis techniques[2] }

[1] note: lack of filling them out still counts, as the IRS simply files a substitute tax return in your place. Obviously, they will not be filling it out in your favor. Their minimal filing doesn't even include the "standard deduction". So

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law#Accounting_frau...

[zenogais]

My apologies for not being clearer, but then again this honestly this strikes me as overly pedantic. By coercion I meant coercion in the broadest sense as anything designed to influence your behavior - eg induce pain or potential hardship so that paying taxes seems more desirable than not paying them. Therefore, while the legal classifications of the particular offenses may vary and be debatated ad nauseum, I don't think they detract from the fundamentally coercive, or even at least perceived coercive, reality underlying them.

[pdkl95]

I would agree that the interpretation being used here by the government (and others) is indeed waling a fine line. I see it as mainly a historical thing: guaranteeing at least <i>personal</i> liberty in a system that uses taxes was a huge improvement over what came before it. We should, of course, try to improve the situation even further in the future.

I jsut think the tax issue is somewhat less important than aquite a few of the other threats to freedom that currently exist. (the prison labor mentioned above being a good example. There are other concewrns, too, of course.

[zenogais]

We are in total agreement here. Taxes are far less concerning to me (and honestly seem like a distraction) compared to any number of other more impactful and coercive systems in existence.