Tax Evasion is Not a Crime. Simply a Refusal to Share Wealth

Tax Evasion is Not a Crime. Simply a Refusal to Share Wealth

If aliens from outer space were to visit us today, there would be a lot of frenzy. It would be expected as such because it is an extraordinary event. But then if such alien visit has to happen regularly and supposing they're here to stay, what happens next is that people will get used to aliens. The alien event will no longer be as extraordinary as the first time.

When something is already going on for a long time, humans will tend become at ease with it. The thing will be treated just as normal and typical.

Same with taxation. At the early times of civilizations, the idea of taxation as imposed unto the members of a society must have been an alien idea to all people. That is why even a minuscule rate imposed could result into a revolt. But then as the society rolls on, taxation became one of the typical stuffs in daily social life. People contend that such system is necessary and that paying taxes is an absolute duty of every individual.  

Taxation begun as a repugnant idea. But it did not remain as such through times. People got used to taxation already for a long time and they now thought it is already normal. People, over time, got used to it. 

So now, we are in era that people think that taxation is normal. Little do they know that taxation is a form of slavery. But hey, it already became normal. Poor slavish people but they no longer know it as such after the fact.

Taxation became acceptable these times partly because of the constant propping up of its importance. It is important to note that taxation could have never reached it current collective acceptance in the society without creating first a new type of crime called tax evasion.  Taxation is never been a voluntary system of contribution. Rather it is a forced collection of funds from people. At times an individual is suspected of not paying his 'fair share', he will be accused of the of tax evasion. This way people are intimidated to join the system. If they don't then they pay the price, penalty or jail, set under the new crime defined.

However, the nature of taxation can be understood clearly if one tries to look closely. In trying to reword the act, tax evaders are not actually accused of a crime of evading taxes. In truth, they are accused of a crime of not sharing their wealth.  Of course, there is no such thing as crime of not sharing wealth. Tax is a portion of a man's income or a part of the value of his properties. When a tax is collected from him, what he is doing is sharing a part of his wealth. So, tax evasion is simply a refusal to share wealth. But it is a joke, right? Because again, there is no such thing as a crime of not sharing wealth. Tax evasion, when reworded in the context of private property and ownership of income, becomes a ridiculous form of crime. 

Tax evasion was defined in the context of duty to the society; a man being his brother's keeper. Without it having that way, there is no way to impose that tax evasion as a crime. The choice of words is the key. The term evasion is synonymous to dodging, avoidance and refusal. Tax refusal is being impressed as refusal to be a brother's keeper. 

However, again on the same sense, refusal to pay taxes is simply refusal to share wealth to 'brothers'. But this amounts to selfishness, is it not? Not sharing a part of one's wealth, they say, is a glaring show of selfishness. A man who does not give for the 'greater good' is a selfish individual. But I think there is a huge misconception on that. 

First, if a man refuses to share his wealth to the rest of the society is called selfishness, what to call then those other men who demand a part of wealth from the former? The current state of social affair tells that the man who don't give is a selfish member of the society and the man that collect taxes is a public servant. The man who collects taxes is promoted as a hero and saint who is duty-bound to serve for the greater good while his subject of collection, the tax payer, if he refuses, is called in a negative characterization.

However, there is an idea that is unapparent within the impression that tax evaders are bad and the tax collectors are good. And that is no other than the nature of collection. Collection is done in aggression. Taxation runs in intimidation or threat of penalty and jail. This fact, that collection is a form of force or aggression, is rarely known. 

Now, conceding for a moment that those who refuse to share their wealth to others are selfish men, the ones collecting the taxes should be categorically characterized in a proper manner. Tax collectors are simply by nature aggressors. These people use force to collect taxes. They use threat on people who hesitate to share a part of their wealth. 

And there we see who is the real victim. The victim is not the greater good, neither the people who are unable to produce wealth themselves nor the tax collector. The real victim is the person subject of aggression, the one coerced to share his wealth. 

I am not against sharing wealth at all. I share my money to beggars too. The act of sharing somehow gives comfort to me. It feels good to be compassionate. However, what I will be against is if I am forced to give my money to beggars. Worse is when beggars demand to me that it is their right for me to give them money. What I will protest against is if I am forced to be compassionate. 

There is nothing wrong with sharing wealth. Neither the refusal to share wealth. What is wrong is the use of force just to have a portion of other's property and money. Taxation as implemented by bureaucracy is inherently thru force akin to robbery albeit a legalized one. 

The society we are in today has a lot of people who consistently demand that every man must share his wealth pro-rata to all others, that is according to his capacity, a.ka. fair share. But if come closer to scrutinize it, there is a characteristic only found on people who demand that everybody must chip-in and that evasion of taxes is a crime. 

I see these people as PARASITES; leeches at best in every opportunity they can.

So I am not against of sharing wealth. I am critical to the act of intimidation and threat in forcing people to share their wealth. Sharing must be done voluntarily. And if some people refused to do so, let them be and never resort to aggression for them to give. 

Beggars have no rights in demanding me to give them money. Same with the rest of the society.

Read Related Articles :