In studying historical tax rebellions, I have observed that governments have frequently been ready to commit mass murder in order to maintain their tax hegemony over a people. South Korea committed mass murder against the poor tax revolters on Jeju Island, who rose up in rebellion in 1948; Californians rode out to suppress the Indian tax revolters in 1851; Britain waged war against American colonists who unilaterally declared a permanent tax holiday from King George; the Romans razed the Temple at Jerusalem and crucified the anti-tax zealots in the Jewish War of succession in AD 66-70. Even George Washington, the beloved president who cut down the cherry tree but could not lie about it, personally led the troops against the Western Pennsylvanian tax protestors in the Whiskey Rebellion. No nation which wants to be taken seriously can ever allow a tax revolt. That’s why Irwin Schiff, father of investor Peter Schiff, rots in a Federal prison.
There are lessons to be learned from these examples. The revolts in question in every case took place because the protestors felt that the taxes were unfair. If the tax really is unfair, then protestors will revolt in large numbers, forcing the taxing authority to act. So I’ve decided to point out some aspects of fair taxes which people are willing to pay, compared to unfair taxes that leads to tax revolts.
Fair taxes seem to me to have the following characteristics:
- A fair tax is not onerous and well within the ability of the citizen to pay.
- A fair tax is part of democratic process in which the citizen has a right to vote for a local person who represents the taxpayer’s area in a legislative assembly. Representation in the legislative assembly is also proportional to population.
- A fair tax is proportional, i.e., charges all citizens proportionally to their means and not disproportionally.
- The proceeds of a fair tax must benefit the community of which the taxpayer is a part.
- Penalties for failing to pay a fair tax are proportional to the crime and the damage to the government which claims a right to collect taxes.
The following are characteristics of unfair taxes which will lead to revolt:
- An unfair tax is taken without local representation in a legislative assembly that makes tax law.
- An unfair tax is disproportional and onerous.
- An unfair tax does not benefit the community of the taxpayer but rather, it benefits the needs of others.
- An unfair tax is a weapon to destroy the taxpayer’s community or to make sure that that community never rises in prominence or wealth.
- An unfair tax comes with stiff penalties for disobedience–penalties which include destitution, detention, and death.
- An unfair tax results in the alleged protector becoming the chief enemy and persecutor of the taxpayer.
As any casual observer can see, the United States taxation of its expats fits the description of unfair taxes that I here provide. (1) It is done without local representation; (2) it is disproportional and onerous, not taking into account the taxpayer’s other tax burdens–e.g., Canadians already pay about 50% of their income in Federal, Provincial and Munipal taxes–including taxes for which there is no foreign tax credit (GST/HST); (3) it is done for the benefit of homelanders not for the communities of the expats; (4) it unfairly taxes the expat’s home countries tax bases to the weakening of those countries for the benefit of the profligacy of the United States; (5) the penalties for failure to comply with US extra-territorial taxation may result in the detention and destitution of the taxpayer–it often leads the taxpayers to renunciation of citizenship, and can even result in exile [Reed Amendment] or death, if the taxpayer commits suicide or resists arrest; (6) The United States has made itself the chief enemy and persecutor of expats.
Historians seldom look back favorably upon regimes that institute unfair taxation. History is now in the making. Will the United States continue down this path of demagoguery and despotism? Will it commit total annihilation of its own expat community through a form of Expat Cleansing which forces all Americans abroad either to renounce their citizenship or return to the homeland? I think so. I see no real signs that this situation will change but only that it will get worse. I hope that I am wrong.
Let me say one thing here in my own defense: The Isaac Brock Society is not a whack-job website, and Petros is neither an extremist nor a terrorist. Rather, I am a scholar with an interest in history, justice and fairness. A part of me died on February 28, 2011, the day I relinquished my US citizenship. That is the part of me that loves the United States. The United States’ crime of forcing expats to comply or to renounce their citizenship, in my opinion as a scholar, will go down in history as signalling a catastrophic end of the final vestiges of good will that the United States enjoyed in the world. Historians will remember this generation of leaders in the United States under a very dim light, and the Isaac Brock Society will be a primary source for their understanding of this period.
I know that as long as we consist of various political persuasions and opinions, that there will be differences between us. But I see no one here contradicting my main points of contention in the post. Sure I agree with ConfederateH and James Bellington on taxes–they should be minimal, and everyone should pay the same thing–there it’s on the line: I don’t believe in progressive taxes at all. I agree with Recalcitrant, that a point of sale consumption tax is likely the best tax. In Canada we have that plus income taxes, property taxes, and all kinds of other taxes. We are taxed too much. It is very hard to run a small business.
I have a friend that is specialist house renovator. He broke even for the first time last year since after his separation, and actually was able to pay all his bill (car, rent, etc.), except one– a 7K tax bill that was a big surprise. Now he is thinking of moving to South America and is teaching himself Spanish, and I will have to visit him in South America if I want to see him (not so bad an idea, I might move there myself). So believe me, I am acutely aware that tax rates in Canada are crippling. That’s what makes me so angry about the IRS’s stupid claims on me–just give it a break! I live in Canada not Cayman Islands (I am thinking of moving there too).
But perhaps some people think that my friend is just paying his fair share and that crippling his business is just normal. Then we will all pay more for renovations–it is already very expensive.
But my question is really this: What have I said in the above post about the extra-territorial claims of the United States is wrong? On all six points of unfair taxes, that lead to tax rebellions resulting in violence, the United States is guilty towards expats. These are not contrived points, but inductive observations based on a study of tax revolts in history. Is the United States, through its unfair tax policies towards expats, priming itself for a tax revolt from its expats? What will that look like? What will be the reaction of the United States?
“Without taxes there are no social investments, infrastructure, schools, police and fire protection, public health services”
This is what the progressives have been drilling into us for 100 years as they brainwashed our children, stole our freedom, and grew government into a raging beast. It is simply not true, but many who look to the state for support, women in particular, who don’t want to be dependent on a man while raising a family, accept this as the gospel truth.
“If the population votes for and is willing to pay the taxes required to
support universal health care, basic science reasearch, social
assistance, skills retraining and other services from the government:
then the Canadian taxes ,although higher then US taxes, can be
considered as fair.”
Why are you reading this blog, Patricia, if you are “willing” to pay these taxes that the “elected” politicians imposed on us at the cost of our freedom? If 50.000005% of the population decided to raise 99.9999% taxes on 49.999995% of the population, it would be fair by your definition because the “population” voted for it. You see there are certain rights that transcend your “right” to “fairness”. You really ought to read the declaration of independence.
“Another quality of fairness, everyone is viewed as contributing to the effort“
Oh yes, if a welfare mother with 3 bastard children from three absentee fathers pays a consumption tax then they are “viewed as contributing to the effort” by the progressives who want to grow this group of people and thus their power. The same would apply to a SS and Medicare recipient or even government employes. None of them are contributing a thing, all of them are sucking at the tit of the state as long as the state uses coercion to force productive people to pay for these parasites.
@Patricia, That is my take on it as well. I chose (so we can say that I definitely volunteered) to move to a country, France, that has higher taxes than where I was from in the US. For my money I get: outstanding medical care, a public education system that is excellent and well-funded, good roads to drive on, a safe environment to live in, and so much more. I have never complained about my French taxes because I believe that I am getting good value for my money. When I visit home and I see public libraries closing, my friends who worry about their health insurance, the quality of the public schools (my God what a mess), or I walk through an American airport that resembles a third-world one I have to agree on some level with my American friends who want their taxes lowered. They pay THAT and get THIS? It’s not worth it in my honest opinion.
@ConfederateH: Please, try to follow the logic of my post. I know you want to attack taxes in basically all western democracies, and I think we all get it. I don’t personally disagree. But in this post I am trying to accomplish one thing and one thing only: I want people of all somewhat reasonable persuasion (which is, I think, all our readers despite our disagreements) to agree that the United States is, vis-a-vis expats, playing the role of tyrant.
The United States is playing the role of tyrant and a despot towards its citizens abroad. Does anyone disagree? Why? In the past, these kinds of tyrannical taxes have led to violence. Should we expect otherwise in our case? Why?
@ConfederateH- I am afraid that you and maybe too many others on this thread have confused two seperate totally unrelated issues and fused them together to try to make a point about “fairness in tax administration”. Extraterritorial taxation and fair taxation levels are not the same issue. We all agree that extraterritorial taxation is unjust as a violation of the sovereignty of other nations and an outright negation of the rights of citizens to live where they please. Fairness in the administration of taxes is a whole other matter that does not relate whatsoever to the issue of extraterritorial taxation.
I have no problem with right or even the duty of government to tax the economic productivity of its citizens. This is because governments do have obligations to the communities that they represent. The only way that a government can meet those obligations is via taxation. I obviously am therefore not a libertarian. I do not believe that government is inherently evil but rather that government does have a legitimate purpose. A purpose which goes beyond just funding a military, police and fire department. I love national health care. I came to Canada from the States because the health care system in America stinks and it will still stink even if Obama Care is fully implemented. The American health care systems reliance on “private” health insurance providers prevents all U.S. citizens from receiving good health care at a reasonable price.
I don’t ignore issues of private property. I pointed out earlier that I do not support inheritance taxes, which are the number reason for estates having to be broken up. If the government wants the land so that it can build a highway or ramp then the government can pay fair market value for it. If the fight comes down to a question of the government having to exercise eminent domain then this is an issue for the voters to address by communicating with their politicians. Either way though the land holders should not receive anything less than fair market value.
Coercion is in the very nature of government. Without the power to compel a government cannot function. Even the clubs that you may belong to have the power to coerce their members to perform certain acts and their power to coerce is derieved from their government charter. In which the government cedes to them a limited amount of its own coercive power.
In the end though I would say that we need to refocus this thread on the issue at hand, which is extraterritorial taxation. Otherwise we are just wasting our energy.
“two seperate totally unrelated issues and fused them together to try to
make a point about “fairness in tax administration”. Extraterritorial
taxation and fair taxation levels are not the same issue.”
Oh but yes they are. Just because you like certain government goodies but happen to currently be a victim of one specific and particularly unfair tax, the extraterritorial tax, you claim that it is a separate issue. In the 70 thousand pages of US tax code there are many extremely unfair tax issues, the majority having to do with loopholes for special interest groups. But the progressives’ rape of our freedom through confiscatory taxes transcends just the USA, it is at its heart the entire OECD including Canada who are the enemies of freedom. If you cannot see this then you are a part of the problem and it will serve you right when the Canadian government finally gets around to coercing you into doing something you despise. Like perhaps sending a child overseas to fight for Nato in a UN war of “responsibility to protect” in Syria, Libya, Yemen or Egypt.
@bubblebustin: I voluntarily pay US tax… I do this for fear of reprisals by the US government…
Then if you haven’t seen it before, you might get a kick out of this interview with the genius that is Sen Harry Reid:
@Watcher- Harry Reid is showing his stupidity. The only reason that the U.S. doesn’t take out all of the taxes that you owe is because the tax perparation industry would lose its chance to feed off of the tax code.
This from the man who wants to tie Americans involuntarily, who would renounce their citizenship, into future U.S. tax obligations by making it harder for them to expatriate. I can’t believe that he went to a post secondary institution. What a liar.
This was a nice interview for you to find.
Ok, ok, I volunteer to pay us taxes as much as a victim of robbery volunteers to give up her purse at the point of a gun. Without compliance, however, I can never achieve the goal of removing their threat once and for all.
Two bedrocks in my view of taxation. (1) Cost of compliance to the individual should be nil (paperwork, effort, time, financial outlay). (2) It could all be done in the back room of government and business with variable rate consumption tax – nothing on basic raw material groceries, 10% on packaged processed foods, 25% on gasoline, 50% on air travel, 100% on cell phones, 200% on pet food, 300% on RollsRoyce, etc. Maybe, for those who like paperwork, an annual rebate from relevant government for certain levels of certain expenditures (eg prescription medication) or even for nonexpenditures. So many problems solved, including “borders” and “citizenship” and “residence.” This is just a rough sketch.
@USX, 200% on pet food? Well I guess my Tertia can hunt for a living.
Bailey prefers our food in any case.
@usxcanada, Most countries with no income tax do not have VAT or sales tax either. They rely on high import taxes for revenue, which is what many countries, including the US, used to do before they created income taxes. They also tend to have limited governments.
It seems that what you are suggesting is what Brazil does, but it still has income tax on top of that. Maybe geeez can explain it in more detail.
There is also the extreme case of North Korea, the only country in the world without taxes (except on foreigners and foreign investment). The government simply owns the whole economy, charges fees for services, and keeps the profits.
Personally, I prefer Estonia, as I wrote before.
@Petros, I realize that you are trying to use logic and reason with the welfare statists to try to coax them over to a more libertarian view of the situation, and also that I am like a bull in a china shop.
But I have been fighting this fight for decades. I probably decided to renounce before you even knew what a FBAR is (I have been filing FBAR’s for 20 years). I have been debating this with liberal members of my extended family and the very diverse groups of people I have worked with while contracting in IT at dozens of companies. When confronted with this evidence of tyranny their reaction was almost always “well if you don’t like it, just drop your citizenship”. I too likely will never return to see my family in the US. My mother is not happy with my decision and I don’t know what bearing this will have on her estate or what will happen to all the family heirlooms (if you could call them that) when she dies.
So now after all these years I am making comments to Canadian liberals on this blog who are of a similar disposition to those liberals I have debated. But these Canadians have been forced to recognize the reality that so many of their colleagues continue to ignore. However, these readers still try to maintain their old narratives even though they have been so clearly contradicted. In this thread you choose diplomacy, but you don’t always do that.
I however am pretty consistent. I have no patience for their welfare state bubble of lies. I realize that my “extremism” has contributed to the departure of the sandbox set, but you have also done a good job here yourself. If you would like me to leave or take a “vacation” by all means just say so. I just don’t think carrying on discussions on their terms will accomplish anything, but if you think you can more power to you.
*ConfederateH
Why am I reading this blog? I am one of the original exiles from the expat forum, where our discussions were censored then deleted. It is this experience that has resulted in site the is not moderated or censored. Petros`s comment is as strong a pushback you will get.
More to the point, I have an equal right to post my opinion as you have.
I started working at 17, in fifty years received roughly 3 months unemployment and never on welfare.
I have read the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution, took an oath to uphold and defend the Costitution, eight years USAF active duty during the Vietnam conflict.
I am not a little woman hoping some man will take care of me. Most men my age are looking for a nurse with a purse, they want me to take care of them. NO thank you.
I live with two cats, they are cute, affectionate and entertaining; never complain about my looks or what I wear. My appartment is mouse free. How many men are up to those standards?
Your comments are long on rethoric and short on solutions. When you solve the tax injustices in the US, please tell how it is done.
@Patricia
Bravo. Well, said.
@ConfederateH- I don”t understand why every time that we have people here who have differences of an opinion that someone seems to start talking about leaving. Even though I am one of those “liberals” to whom you refer, I see no reason why you should be offering to no longer participate on this blog.
I haven’t been offended by anything that you have written, but then I am accustomed to debating with Libertarians. I find the Libertarian position on government to be an extremely negative and therefore inaccurate characterization.
I have lived under the governments of both Canada and the U.S. and I must say that I prefer the Canadian government. I like living in a country that has a national health care system, affordable access to post secondary education, and is not so large that it can afford to wage wars of expansion around the world.
@Patricia, I’m a man, I don’t have a cat and my apartment is also mouse-free. I find affection and entertainment in family and friends, the real thing, not animals that just emulate these emotions. No man or woman is perfect and they don’t have the same interests. I think any relationship, including friendship and especially marriage, involves compromise, learning with each other and growing together.
@recalcitrantexpat, ConfederateH doesn’t seem to agree with the US expansion and wars either. I think libertarians sometimes go too far by proposing no government, I admit that some government is necessary and the discussion should be more quantitative. But people generally don’t like to talk about numbers.
Maybe we can combine with Plenty-offish to reach a broader audience.
*@Shadow Raider
my comments were part sarcasm and part anger
@Patricia, Thanks for explaining, sometimes I don’t realize when people are being sarcastic. And sorry if my comments were harsh, I shouldn’t give lessons about life over the internet to people that I don’t even know and who are older than me.
I have some open questions about taxes:
Is it really fair that everyone pay the same percentage of income in taxes? Shouldn’t there be a maximum? What kind of government service could possibly justify millions of dollars in taxes just from one person? Do the rich use government services so much more? Isn’t the purpose of taxes just to provide revenue for the services that the government provides? Aren’t progressive or proportional tax rates just to avoid creating a burden on the poor? Are governments trying to achieve distribution of wealth with taxation? Is that fair? Can taxes be considered charity if they are not voluntary? Can taxes be considered legalized theft if the person who pays them receives no benefit from them? Even if the person receives benefits, can a government or a society force people to pay for benefits that they don’t want, or at a cost with which they don’t agree?
And about government in general:
What kind of majority justifies enforcing laws on a minority? Half? Two thirds? 90%? Does it have to be unanimous? Is democracy any different from absolute monarchy with 50% of popular support? Aren’t there certain basic rights that not even a majority of 99% can deny the 1% that disagrees? Is representative democracy really democratic if no candidate you vote for gets elected? Does it make any sense that only one person wins an election? Does it make any sense to count votes meticulously in a close election? In that case, won’t only half of the voters be represented anyway, regardless of who has the slight majority? Shouldn’t all candidates be elected and have a voting power in an assembly proportional to how many votes each one had in the election? Wouldn’t that be actual representative democracy? How about splitting the term among all candidates proportionally to how many votes they received in the election? Would that be practical? Should all people be allowed to vote? Should the votes from all people count equally? Should there be any test for qualifying people to vote? Who would be in charge of administrating such test? Would that be practical? How much do elections cost? Do elected officials really represent the people who voted for them? Is democracy really better than monarchy?
And most of all, why doesn’t ANYONE discuss these things?
Petros – Just throwing out a few provocative ideas on spending that would be less and more discretionary. If taxation made pet food more expensive, maybe Tertia would get more steak? See, I care about Tertia. Cats are sharp little animals, very good at taking care of themselves. As you and Patricia know at first hand. The 10,000 year history is intriguing – a relationship still more a matter of symbiosis than domestication. Unlike certain other “pets” that have been bred into fawning perpetual poop-in-public dependency. Some “florists” enjoy being the dictator, even if they can only do it to a nonhuman animal engineered to be an Epsilon.
Patricia, I never asked you to leave. I asked you:
“Why are you reading this blog, Patricia, if you are “willing” to pay
these taxes that the “elected” politicians imposed on us at the cost of
our freedom?”
You are the one who used the word “willing”, and the question remains unanswered.
If you are willing to pay all other taxes besides the extraterritorial tax then you implicitly still support all that the state does.
Pingback: The Isaac Brock Society