Conscientious objection to military taxation (COMT) is a legal theory that attempts to extend into the realm of taxation the concessions to conscientious objectors that many governments allow in the case of conscription, thereby allowing conscientious objectors to insist that their tax payments not be spent for military purposes.
Some tax resisters advocate legal recognition of a right to COMT, while others conscientiously resist taxes without concern for whether their stand has legal approval.
YouTube Encyclopedic
-
1/5Views:12 404 91115 385 70887016 7771 095
-
The Law You Won't Be Told
-
Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER"
-
U S Peace Tax Fund Compelled by Conscience
-
USCIS Updates and US Citizenship Frequently Asked Questions | N-400 | USCitizenshipTest.org
-
Freedom of Dissociation: A way forward for conscientious objection?
Transcription
# The Law You Won't Be Told On a Jury you know your options: guilty, or not. But there's another choice that neither the judge nor the lawyers will tell you -- often because they're not allowed to and also it might better if you *don't* know. This video will tell you that third choice, but be warned: simply *watching* may prevent you from ever serving on a jury -- so this is your last chance to hit the pause button before you learn about... Jury nullification: when the defendant is 100% beyond-a-reasonable-doubt guilty *but* the jurors *also* think he shouldn't be punished. The jury can nullify the law and let him go free. But before your on your next jury and yell 'Null! Booya!' at the judge you should know that just talking about jury nullification in the wrong circumstances can get you arrested. Though a video such as this one, simply acknowledging the *existence* of jury nullification and in *no way advocating* it is totally OK. And, while we're at it: *(CGP Grey is not a lawyer, this is not legal advice it is meant for entertainment purposes only. Seriously, guy, don't do anything in a court of law based on what an Internet Video told you. No joke.)* So why can't you do this? It's because nullification isn't *in* the law †, but exists as a logical consequence of two other laws: First: that juries can't be punished for a 'wrong' decision -- no matter the witnesses, DNA, or video proof show. That's the point of a jury: to be the decider. and Second: when a defendant is found not-guilty, that defendant can't be tried again for the same crime ‡. So there *are* only two stated options: guilty or not, it's just that jury nullification is when the words of the jurors don't match their thoughts -- for which they can't be punished and their not-guilty decision can't be changed. These laws are necessary for juries to exist within a fair system, but the logical consequence is... contentious -- lawyers and judges argue about jury nullification like physicists argue about quantum mechanics. Both are difficult to observe and the interpretation of both has a huge philosophical ramification for the subject as a whole. Is nullification the righteous will of the people or an anarchy of twelve or just how citizens judge their laws? The go-to example in favor of nullification is the fugitive slave law: when Northern juries refused to convict escaped slaves and set them free. Can't argue with that. But the anarchy side is Southern juries refusing to convict white lynch mobs. Not humanity at its best. But both of these are juries nullifying the law. Also juries have *two* options where their thoughts may differ from their words. Jury nullification usually refers to the non-guilty version but juries can convict without evidence just as easily as they can acquit in spite of it. This is jury nullification too and the jurors are protected by the first rule, though the second doesn't apply and judges have the power to overrule a guilty verdict if they think the jurors are… nt the best. And, of course, a guilty defendant can appeal, at least for a little while. Which makes the guilty form of jury nullification weaker than the not-guilty kind. Cold comfort, though. Given the possibility of jurors who might ignore the law as written, it's not surprising when picking jurors for a trial, lawyers -- whose existence is dependent on an orderly society -- will ask about nullification, usually in the slightly roundabout way: "Do you have any beliefs that might prevent you from making a decision based strictly on the law?" If after learning about jury nullification you think it's a good idea: answer 'yes' and you'll be rejected, but answer 'no' with the intent to get on the jury to nullify and you've just committed perjury -- technically a federal crime -- which makes the optimal strategy once on a jury to zip it. But This introduces a problem for jurors who intend to nullify: telling the other 11 angry men about your position is risky, which makes nullification as a tool for fixing unjust laws nation wide problematic. (Not to mention about 95% of criminal charges in the United States never make it to trial and rather end in a plea bargain, but that's a story for another time.) The only question about jury nullification that may matter is if jurors should be *told* about it and the courts are near universal † in their decision: 'no way'. Which might seem self-interested -- again, courts depend on the law -- but there's evidence that telling jurors about nullification changes the way they vote by making evidence less relevant -- which isn't surprising: that's what nullification *is*. But mock trials also show sympathetic defendants get more non-guilty verdicts and unsympathetic defendants get more *guilty* verdicts in front of jurors who were explicitly told about nullification compared to those who weren't. Which sounds bad, but it also isn't difficult to imagine situations where jurors blindly following the law would be terribly unjust -- which is the heart of nullification: juries judge the law, not solely evidence. In the end righteous will of the people, or anarchy, or citizen lawmaking -- the system leaves you to decide -- but as long as courts are fair they require these rules, so jury nullification will always be with us.
Theory
COMT is thought by its proponents to be a logical extension to conscientious objection to military service. A person with a religious or ethical scruple against taking part in killing people during war is likely to feel no less scruple about paying somebody else to do the killing or about purchasing the mechanism of killing. If a government can respect the right of a person not to participate directly in making war, can it also respect the right of the person to avoid this indirect participation?
Proponents of COMT and of "Peace Tax Fund"-style legislation say that it will have numerous benefits that go beyond accommodating individual conscientious objectors, for instance:[1]
- It will free people who are unwilling by reason of conscience to pay taxes or to engage in taxed activities to go ahead and pay taxes without fear of violating their consciences.
- It will promote freedom of religion and freedom of conscience and serve to educate people about their choices concerning warfare. As one advocate put it, "it will extend the legal recognition due to the absolute value of human life, and the freedom of the individual conscience to acknowledge it."[2]
- It will increase government funding by encouraging tax resisters to become tax payers.
- It will encourage other anti-militaristic legislation and reevaluation of military spending.
Terminology
In tax circles, to restrict a tax payment from a particular purpose, or to designate a tax payment for a particular purpose, is called hypothecation.
Historical precedents and legislative proposals
In the more general category of hypothecation, there are already well-established precedents: they include the gasoline tax in the United States, which is dedicated to the funding of transportation infrastructure.
In the more specific category of military-related hypothecation, there was at least one legal, government-instituted historical precedent: An "alternative tax" related specifically to militia duty lasted for eight years in Upper Canada between 1841 and 1849, as we see in this quote:[3]
In 1793 in Upper Canada, Governor John Graves Simcoe offered Mennonites, Quakers and Brethren in Christ an exemption from militia duty, to encourage their immigration to Canada. They were however expected to pay a fee so that others could serve in their place.... In 1841, after years of lobbying, the government agreed to use this tax for public works. In 1849, the tax was eliminated.
Notice that the above quote refers to tax in exchange for "militia duty" and does not mention militia equipment, etc. In that respect it could be perceived as simply another form of quasi-alternative civilian service for conscientious objectors. Nevertheless, this tax still stands as a precedent because an alteration was made to a taxation system (as opposed to simply requiring alternative civilian service).
In the 1960s, a Quaker group in the United States drafted a prototype law that would allow conscientious objectors to pay their taxes to UNICEF instead of to the U.S. Treasury.[4]
In the United States, legislation establishing a "Peace Tax Fund" has been proposed in Congress since 1972.[5] As of 2021[update], the current proposal is called the Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act.
Similar legislation is being considered in many other countries, and an international campaign to encourage such laws began in 1975, but no country recognizes a legal right for a taxpayer to direct his or her taxes for only non-military purposes.
A legislative bill was tabled in the Parliament of Canada in 1983, and several others have been tabled, but not passed, since then. New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Bill Siksay tabled bills C-397 (38th parliament, May 2005) and C-390 (40th parliament, May 2009). The latest incarnation of this legislation occurred in 2011 as Bill C-363. It was a private member's bill proposed by NDP MP Alex Atamanenko and would put income tax paid by Canadians committed to COMT into a special account to be audited yearly by the Parliamentary Budget Officer and used exclusively for peace building purposes. Conscientious objectors would be able to register with the Canada Revenue Agency so their taxes could be diverted away from the military.
Objections
There are a number of common objections to COMT. Some people oppose legal recognition of conscientious objection even for military service and conscription, arguing that all citizens are obliged to serve in the military when the country requires it, and that nobody should be able to expect special treatment on conscientious grounds. This argument applies just as well or just as poorly against COMT.
Others argue that COMT would be too difficult to implement.
Another commonly raised objection is that COMT, if allowed, would establish a precedent for a general freedom for individual taxpayers to opt out of contributions for any tax-funded activity which they do not wish to support, including, for example, public education and healthcare.
Anarchists argue that to fund government at all is to fund violence, and so the only true pacifist conscientious tax objection is complete tax objection.
Objections from conscientious tax resisters
Some conscientious tax resisters have a different set of objections to COMT. They argue that the legislative proposals that have been proposed so far that would legalize COMT actually would have the paradoxical effect of encouraging more conscientious objectors to pay for more war than before.
They point out the ease with which the government can shift money from place to place in its budget, and borrow money when funds are not available. If a conscientious objector who had been unwilling to pay taxes started to pay into a "peace tax fund", this would only mean more money for the government to spend, and the likely result of that is more money for the military. The Religious Freedom Peace Tax Fund Act in the United States, for instance, would give the government more tax revenue and would not change how much or how high a percentage of this money was spent on the military.[6]
The analogy to conscientious objection is flawed, these critics say: A conscientious objector to military service does not take up arms and kill. Perhaps somebody else is drafted to do so instead, but the conscientious objector does not. A "peace tax fund" payer, on the other hand, pays just as much money as the ordinary taxpayer, but just cherishes the illusion that her dollars were peaceful ones. It would be as if the government told conscientious objectors that they had to take up arms and shoot at the enemy just like everybody else, but that they didn't have to take credit for their kills if they didn't want to.
Another objection is that to make COMT legal is to make it no longer a protest against or a confrontation with evil, but instead a compromise with it. One Christian tax resister wrote that "worldly priorities must be objected to in word and deed. If the objecting deeds are done legally, they register little if any protest. If consciously illegal, they register an unequivocal refusal to agree with the world's values. The latter gets the attention of the state, the former does not."[7]
See also
- National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund
- National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
- Tax resistance in the United States
- War Resisters League
- On the Duty of Civil Disobedience
- Conscience: Taxes for Peace not War
References
- ^ Gross, David M. (25 August 2004). "'Peace Tax Fund' Schemes — A Closer Look". The Picket Line.
- ^ Gross, David M. (8 September 2004). "Simon Heywood Defends 'Peace Tax' Schemes". The Picket Line.
- ^ Woodside, Don. "A Brief History of Conscientious Objection in Canada" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2009-02-05. Retrieved 2022-08-03.
- ^ Kaufman, Donald D. The Tax Dilemma: Praying for peace, paying for war Herald Press, 1978, p. 51
- ^ Hedemann, Ed; Benn, Ruth (2003). War Tax Resistance. War Resisters League. p. 125. ISBN 9780940862159.
- ^ Gross, David M. (27 April 2005). "Is There Any Way the 'Peace Tax Fund Act' Could Reduce Military Spending?". The Picket Line.
- ^ Schenk, Phil (13 December 1977). "World Peace Tax Fund". The Mennonite: 735.
External links
- "The Peace Tax Seven". (peace tax fund advocates from the United Kingdom)
- "Conscience Canada".
- "Conscience and Peace Tax International". (International NGO works for recognition of the human right to conscientious objection to military taxation)
- "Advantages of a Peace Tax Fund". peacetaxfund.org. September 8, 2003. Archived from the original on October 19, 2004.
- Gross, David M. (27 September 2004). "A Parable About the "Peace Tax Fund"". The Picket Line.
- Harding, David (10 March 2005). "Quaker Tax Protesters Challenge Law". Accountancy Age. (includes a discussion of "hypothecation")
- Pennock, Robert T. (Winter 1998). "Death and Taxes: On the Justice of Conscientious War Tax Resistance" (PDF). Journal of Accounting, Ethics & Public Policy. 1 (1).
This page was last edited on 17 November 2023, at 15:03