Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Concerning the Peace Tax Fund Bill--Part II
I first discussed this topic in my post of June 26. I recently got an e-mail from a volunteer with the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. He hasn't really addressed my longstanding concerns about the legislation but then he probably hasn't seen them but he'll get his chance. Here's the text of a message I sent to him:
Below is a section from the "Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act" Wikipedia article that illustrates why I think the legislation may be a well-intentioned shell game (and, no, I didn't write any part of this Wikipedia article).
Hi [name withheld by request],I'll keep you posted on what the Peace Tax Fund volunteer has to say or maybe he'll leave a comment or two.
I have some questions for you.
1. The proposed legislation (currently HR 2631--the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act) says, "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would INCREASE Federal revenues" (emphasis added). The text of a previous version (HR 1186) of the bill claimed that two committees/studies determined that the bill, if passed, would INCREASE total federal revenues. Why should war tax resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objector to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?
2. Money is fungible, is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?
3. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues and isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs? In short, doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?
4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of INCREASING federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?
Salaam,
Michelle
Below is a section from the "Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act" Wikipedia article that illustrates why I think the legislation may be a well-intentioned shell game (and, no, I didn't write any part of this Wikipedia article).
Effect of the act on government revenue and spendingRemember, too, that the bill has a historically pretty restrictive definition of a CO:
The legislation itself notes that "The Joint Committee on Taxation has certified that a tax trust fund, providing for conscientious objector taxpayers to pay their full taxes for non-military purposes, would increase Federal revenues."[4] This presumably because some war tax resisters would return to paying taxes.
There would be some additional cost in implementing and accounting for such a distinct fund and in providing mechanisms for taxpayers to use it.
The act would not directly reduce either the amount of money the federal government spends on the military nor the percentage of the federal budget that goes to military spending. The National Priorities Project, using a similar definition of "military purpose" as is in this bill, estimates that “[m]ilitary spending consumes 26 cents out of every individual income tax dollar. It makes up about 20% of total federal spending and over half of the discretionary budget.”
The bill would only directly affect the amount of military spending if the general fund were to become smaller than the amount to be spent on the military. If that were to happen, the government would either have to borrow money to make up the difference, illegally dip into the Peace Tax Fund, or reduce military spending.
How many people would have to become conscientious objectors to military taxation for this to happen? If, for simplicity’s sake, we assume that likely conscientious objectors to military taxation currently pay on average about the same amount of taxes as everyone else, in order to make any reduction to the 26% of every tax dollar that is spent for military purposes, more than 74% of taxpayers would have to declare themselves conscientious objectors.
Designated Conscientious Objector- For purposes of this Act, the term 'designated conscientious objector' means a taxpayer who is opposed to participation in war in any form based upon the taxpayer's deeply held moral, ethical, or religious beliefs or training (within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. App. 450 et seq. [the specific section is 456(j)])), and who has certified these beliefs in writing to the Secretary of the Treasury in such form and manner as the Secretary provides.
Labels: critical thinking, money, Peace Tax Fund Bill, politics, resistance, United States, war tax resistance
Comments:
<< Home
I said I'd keep you "posted on what the Peace Tax Fund volunteer has to say ..." He was unhappy that I blogged my message to him even though it contained nothing he had written. He also didn't want me using his first name and last initial in the post. He had absolutely nothing of substance to say in response to the questions I raised. He wrote, "Again, I'm just a volunteer, and you should be addressing your concerns to the National Campaign for a PTF office staff."
However, his first message made quite a few claims about the PTF and he opened by saying, "It has been brought to my attention by [name redacted] that some members of the Green Party Peace Action Committee have some concerns, confusion, objections (or all of the above) regarding the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill, run by the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund." Yet, when I tried to engage him about the bill he had nothing to say. Though, he did write, "I am sorry it seems to me that you are on such a crusade against this when we all have better things to do."
This is the kind of idiocy that all too often passes for thinking on the Left: "I like it, so I'm for it and if you don't like it then there's something wrong with you." In fact, I am not on a "crusade." I just think the bill has real, fundamental problems and for years I have tried, to no avail, to get its advocates to discuss them with me.
Last night, I send the URL for my blog post to NCPTF staff. We'll see if any of them has anything to say.
However, his first message made quite a few claims about the PTF and he opened by saying, "It has been brought to my attention by [name redacted] that some members of the Green Party Peace Action Committee have some concerns, confusion, objections (or all of the above) regarding the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill, run by the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund." Yet, when I tried to engage him about the bill he had nothing to say. Though, he did write, "I am sorry it seems to me that you are on such a crusade against this when we all have better things to do."
This is the kind of idiocy that all too often passes for thinking on the Left: "I like it, so I'm for it and if you don't like it then there's something wrong with you." In fact, I am not on a "crusade." I just think the bill has real, fundamental problems and for years I have tried, to no avail, to get its advocates to discuss them with me.
Last night, I send the URL for my blog post to NCPTF staff. We'll see if any of them has anything to say.
The following is my response to Michelle's questions, which were also brought to my attention by the Green Peace Action Committee.
Dear Green Peace Action Committee,
Thank you for contacting the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. One of your members, Michelle recently e-mailed me some questions about how the legislation would work, and I’m glad to clear up any confusion. I would invite you all to review the materials on our website, particularly the basics Q & A, available for download on our publications section: http://www.peacetaxfund.org/resources/brochures.htm.
Obviously the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill is not a cure-all for the entire military budget or the dilemmas facing conscientious objection to military taxation (COMT). But it is a significant step towards protecting the rights of conscience for all people, and making COMT more of a mainstream issue. We hope your committee will come to understand this and support the bill by officially endorsing the Campaign and making it a side project to educate and activate fellow Greens.
Below you will find each question, followed by our response.
1. Why should War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?
As you said, HR 2631 would increase federal revenues. However, the bill also states “It is the sense of Congress that any increase in revenue to the Treasury resulting from creation of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund shall be allocated in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Fund.” Your question implies that War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) are anti-government. Although WTR/COMT ideology varies greatly from person to person, many WTRs/COMTs are not anti-government, and are not against the government having revenue, as long as it isn’t used to create violence or oppression. Many WTRs/COMTs support this legislation because they want their beliefs to be respected, and to have a legal option to pay their taxes without their personal tax money being spent on military activities. This legislation would increase revenue that would be allocated in a manner consistent to the purpose of the Fund, which is to extend COMT rights, and it would give them a legal option that does not violate their conscience. I hope you will come to see how that goal is worthy in itself.
2. Is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?
The Campaign has never claimed that HR 2631 would divert money from the pentagon. Money is fungible, and HR 2631 would only divert money from military spending if enough taxpayers paid into the Peace Tax Fund that the government’s general fund became smaller than the military budget. That may seem unlikely, however, many taxpayers who are not currently WTRs/COMTs might use the bill once they become aware such an option exists. However, the main goal of the bill has always been to extend to WTRs/COMTs the rights COs have enjoyed since 1940 by ensuring that legal penalties are not imposed because of their beliefs that killing is wrong, and so is paying others to kill in their names.
3a. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues?
3b. Isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs?
3c. Doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?
It is a personal choice whether one pays their full income taxes or practices war tax resistance. It would also be a personal choice whether or not a WTR/COMT would use the Peace Tax Fund. Some WTRs/COMTs may still refuse to pay taxes after HR 2631 is signed into law. But we simply want to give people that choice. WTRs/COMTs do actually suffer at the hands of the IRS, which recently sent 3 WTRs to prison – a very rare punishment and troubling development. Had the bill been law, it would have prevented this abuse of conscience. To be honest, we don’t know if prosecutors will consider failing to use the provisions of 2631 as an aggravating circumstance. That will probably vary greatly from case to case depending upon the WTR/COMT’s circumstance and legal argument.
I think that most WTRs/COMTs would be glad to have legislation that brings attention to their dilemma of conscience. While the bill does not decrease military spending, a worthy goal of many other campaigns and organizations, it does recognize that conscientious objection extends not only to physical participation in war, but to financial participation as well, and increases visibility that such beliefs exist in our country. This is a core civil liberties issue that thousands of people and hundreds of organizations support, including the Green Party of the United States and Veterans for Peace. (See the list at http://www.peacetaxfund.org/endorsements/index.htm.) The bill would also require the government to report the level of Peace Tax Fund usage, providing a measure of the number of taxpayers who are COMTs. This would add to the dialogue about military spending priorities and could build momentum toward changing current priorities.
We can’t know the future, and laws can be amended as necessary. First we have to pass the bill. To do that we need allies like the GPAX to educate and activate its members. We hope the committee will help educate Greens about the bill and the party’s endorsement and write a quick email to congress via the take action section of our website: http://www.peacetaxfund.org/takeaction/congress.htm
4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of increasing federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?
The Campaign has been around for over 30 years and continues to evolve. In the peace tax movement there has not been broad consideration of a Peace Tax Credit Bill. However, our legislative committee carefully considers how the legislation gets written, though ultimately the final phrasing is up to our lead sponsor in Congress, which is currently Rep. John Lewis (GA-5). If you have ideas on how the tax credit idea would be implemented I’d be glad to discuss it with you. You are also welcome to make a written proposal to the Campaign’s board of directors. But the Campaign remains focused on passing the bill that we have and trying to build grassroots awareness and support among our allies.
Thanks again for your interest in the Campaign. I hope I have answered your member’s questions to your satisfaction, or at least so the committee has a better understanding of what the bill does and does not do. I hope the GPAX committee will work through its consensus process to join the Green Party of the US in officially endorsing and actively supporting the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill.
Peace,
Chris Fretz
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
Post a Comment
Dear Green Peace Action Committee,
Thank you for contacting the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund. One of your members, Michelle recently e-mailed me some questions about how the legislation would work, and I’m glad to clear up any confusion. I would invite you all to review the materials on our website, particularly the basics Q & A, available for download on our publications section: http://www.peacetaxfund.org/resources/brochures.htm.
Obviously the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill is not a cure-all for the entire military budget or the dilemmas facing conscientious objection to military taxation (COMT). But it is a significant step towards protecting the rights of conscience for all people, and making COMT more of a mainstream issue. We hope your committee will come to understand this and support the bill by officially endorsing the Campaign and making it a side project to educate and activate fellow Greens.
Below you will find each question, followed by our response.
1. Why should War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) or their allies support a bill that would admittedly INCREASE federal revenues?
As you said, HR 2631 would increase federal revenues. However, the bill also states “It is the sense of Congress that any increase in revenue to the Treasury resulting from creation of the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund shall be allocated in a manner consistent with the purposes of the Fund.” Your question implies that War Tax Resisters (WTRs)/Conscientious Objectors to Military Taxation (COMTs) are anti-government. Although WTR/COMT ideology varies greatly from person to person, many WTRs/COMTs are not anti-government, and are not against the government having revenue, as long as it isn’t used to create violence or oppression. Many WTRs/COMTs support this legislation because they want their beliefs to be respected, and to have a legal option to pay their taxes without their personal tax money being spent on military activities. This legislation would increase revenue that would be allocated in a manner consistent to the purpose of the Fund, which is to extend COMT rights, and it would give them a legal option that does not violate their conscience. I hope you will come to see how that goal is worthy in itself.
2. Is there any evidence that HR 2631, if signed into law, would actually divert a single penny away from military spending?
The Campaign has never claimed that HR 2631 would divert money from the pentagon. Money is fungible, and HR 2631 would only divert money from military spending if enough taxpayers paid into the Peace Tax Fund that the government’s general fund became smaller than the military budget. That may seem unlikely, however, many taxpayers who are not currently WTRs/COMTs might use the bill once they become aware such an option exists. However, the main goal of the bill has always been to extend to WTRs/COMTs the rights COs have enjoyed since 1940 by ensuring that legal penalties are not imposed because of their beliefs that killing is wrong, and so is paying others to kill in their names.
3a. If HR 2631 was signed into law wouldn't some WTRs/COMTs understandably still refuse to pay because they realize that money is fungible and the bill INCREASES federal revenues?
3b. Isn't it likely that prosecutors would invoke failure to avail themselves of the provisions of HR 2631 as an aggravating circumstance when prosecuting such WTRs/COMTs?
3c. Doesn't HR 2631 potentially create two classes of WTRs/COMTs--one legal (but helping to INCREASE federal revenues), the other illegal--thereby splitting an already too small movement and furthering a divide-and-conquer strategy by the government?
It is a personal choice whether one pays their full income taxes or practices war tax resistance. It would also be a personal choice whether or not a WTR/COMT would use the Peace Tax Fund. Some WTRs/COMTs may still refuse to pay taxes after HR 2631 is signed into law. But we simply want to give people that choice. WTRs/COMTs do actually suffer at the hands of the IRS, which recently sent 3 WTRs to prison – a very rare punishment and troubling development. Had the bill been law, it would have prevented this abuse of conscience. To be honest, we don’t know if prosecutors will consider failing to use the provisions of 2631 as an aggravating circumstance. That will probably vary greatly from case to case depending upon the WTR/COMT’s circumstance and legal argument.
I think that most WTRs/COMTs would be glad to have legislation that brings attention to their dilemma of conscience. While the bill does not decrease military spending, a worthy goal of many other campaigns and organizations, it does recognize that conscientious objection extends not only to physical participation in war, but to financial participation as well, and increases visibility that such beliefs exist in our country. This is a core civil liberties issue that thousands of people and hundreds of organizations support, including the Green Party of the United States and Veterans for Peace. (See the list at http://www.peacetaxfund.org/endorsements/index.htm.) The bill would also require the government to report the level of Peace Tax Fund usage, providing a measure of the number of taxpayers who are COMTs. This would add to the dialogue about military spending priorities and could build momentum toward changing current priorities.
We can’t know the future, and laws can be amended as necessary. First we have to pass the bill. To do that we need allies like the GPAX to educate and activate its members. We hope the committee will help educate Greens about the bill and the party’s endorsement and write a quick email to congress via the take action section of our website: http://www.peacetaxfund.org/takeaction/congress.htm
4. Have supporters of HR 2631 considered a Peace Tax Credit bill that instead of increasing federal revenues would give WTRs/COMTs a 100% tax credit for money spent on non-profits charities, non-profits, etc.? If not, why not?
The Campaign has been around for over 30 years and continues to evolve. In the peace tax movement there has not been broad consideration of a Peace Tax Credit Bill. However, our legislative committee carefully considers how the legislation gets written, though ultimately the final phrasing is up to our lead sponsor in Congress, which is currently Rep. John Lewis (GA-5). If you have ideas on how the tax credit idea would be implemented I’d be glad to discuss it with you. You are also welcome to make a written proposal to the Campaign’s board of directors. But the Campaign remains focused on passing the bill that we have and trying to build grassroots awareness and support among our allies.
Thanks again for your interest in the Campaign. I hope I have answered your member’s questions to your satisfaction, or at least so the committee has a better understanding of what the bill does and does not do. I hope the GPAX committee will work through its consensus process to join the Green Party of the US in officially endorsing and actively supporting the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund and the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Bill.
Peace,
Chris Fretz
National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
# posted by 
: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:27:00 AM
: Wednesday, August 02, 2006 7:27:00 AM << Home
