Why Withholding Your Taxes in Protest Could Actually Help Trump and Musk
It's tax season, and if you're upset about how things are going in government right now, you might be tempted to protest by withholding your taxes. After all, conservatives had their Tea Party moment. Why shouldn't those opposed to the efforts of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk to dismantle the government, alienate our allies, and degrade America's standing in the world have their own? But there are a few reasons why this would be a bad idea.
As a preliminary matter, the tea party reference just doesn't work. True, the taxes the original tea partiers protested were tariffs, and tariffs are one of the many things people are protesting today. However, the original tea partiers dumped the imported tea into the harbor rather than purchase the goods and pay the tariffs. No one seems to be suggesting that we dump imports into the harbor. If nothing else, the environmentalists would have a fit!
While not filing or paying taxes is a more environmentally friendly form of protest, it would have its own issues. For one thing, the tax revenues at issue in 1775 were to be sent to England. Any forgone tax revenues now would affect our own government, which builds our roads and pays for our defense, education, etc. If your complaint is that you want more government, not less, reducing government revenues by refusing to pay your taxes is an odd way to go about it. Any tax protest now would hurt us, not some foreign power.
But if you're still considering it, here are a few more things to consider.
The first is philosophical. Tax protests have a long history in the U.S., ranging from the Whiskey Rebellion to a variety of anti-war protests. The former was a protest against a tax, while the latter were aimed at U.S. foreign policy. Folks today are contemplating the second kind of protest, though they are angered by a wide array of government actions, ranging from tariffs and foreign policy to the decisions to fire government workers and dismantle agencies, and efforts to cut research funding and dictate to colleges and universities what can and cannot be taught. (The full list of things one might protest is too long to get into fully here.)
The question is: When are protests warranted? We have a democratic government, where the majority gets to set policy and decide what to spend money on and how much. When does disagreement with government policy rise to the level that it justifies a refusal to pay taxes? We could all identify something that might inspire us to protest, whether from the left or the right: war, abortion, guns, the death penalty, NPR. The list goes on. The problem is: We are either committed to our democratic process or we are not. It would be ironic for those outraged about the attack on the rule of law to protest by … ignoring the law.
The second consideration is strategic. In many ways, it is like the conundrum the Senate Democrats just faced regarding the government shutdown. Trump and Musk are determined to shrink the government workforce and slash government spending. I'm not saying the Dems were right to support the continuing resolution, but a government shutdown could well have strengthened Trump's hand. The government needs more money, not less. Folks are already predicting the loss of $500 billion based on what DOGE is doing to the IRS. A refusal to pay taxes would only exacerbate these losses and could make it easier for Republicans to argue for deeper cuts.
Finally, there are the financial and legal consequences. Civil protest can be a powerful tool, bringing attention to injustice and bad government policy. But no matter how just the cause, it does not permit folks to break the law with impunity. Failure to file and pay taxes can lead to two different penalties and interest charges that can outstrip the amount owed if enough time passes. It can even lead to criminal charges and prison. Just ask Hunter Biden.
And don't think that you might get away with it because the IRS will be seriously understaffed. If you're a working stiff with a W-2 and some 1099s, the government already has most of your tax information, and the collection process associated with that information is largely automated. The sad fact is that reducing the IRS's auditing capacity will primarily degrade its ability to go after the wealthy, leaving the rest of us holding the bag.
No one enjoys paying taxes under the best of circumstances. And refusing to pay to advance one's cause can make it all seem noble. But it is not that simple. Nothing ever is. So, feel free to fantasize about standing up to the man and refusing to pay your taxes. You can even imagine yourself wearing a tricorne hat. However, to paraphrase Michelle Obama, if you're worried or upset about what's going on today, do something … else.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
About 154,000 federal workers took Trump administration's buyout offers, source says
By Alexandra Alper and Courtney Rozen WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Roughly 154,000 federal employees have taken buyouts offered by the Trump administration this year, part of a broader push to slim the federal workforce, a person familiar with the matter said on Thursday. The resignations, which amount to 6.7% of the civilian federal workforce, are the result of a program launched in January by billionaire Elon Musk, a former adviser to President Donald Trump, with an email titled "Fork in the Road." The buyouts included staff at the Departments of Agriculture and Energy, and the Internal Revenue Service, among others. Similar buyout offers were made in the following months at different agencies. The number of employees taking buyouts was first reported by the Washington Post. In exchange for leaving, the administration agreed to pay the employees for several months after ceasing work, but all will be off federal payrolls by the end of the year, the person emphasized. "In normal times, a 6.7% turnover rate would not be unusual for the federal government," said Don Moynihan, a professor at the University of Michigan's Ford School of Public Policy. "But these are not normal times. Along with the firing of probationary employees and other large-scale reductions in force, the deferred resignation program deeply cuts government capacity." The White House and the Office of Personnel Management did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Attrition in the U.S. government's civilian workforce was 5.9%, or 116,000 workers, in 2023, according to the Partnership for Public Service, a non-profit that compiles statistics on federal staff. Employees opted into the buyout program amid plans from Trump and Musk to eliminate their jobs. Days after the administration closed its initial buyout offer, the administration fired tens of thousands of employees who were new to their jobs. Cabinet secretaries have promised more cuts in the coming months. The 154,000 workers who took buyouts do not include staff who were fired or opted into other programs to slash the federal payrolls, such as an incentive program to retire early.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US end of parcel tax relief threatens eBay, Etsy trade
LONDON/NEW YORK (Reuters) -Americans shopping for secondhand, vintage or handmade items on platforms like eBay and Etsy face steep customs duties on international purchases next month, potentially hurting trade on those peer-to-peer sites. In a surprise move late on Wednesday, U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the removal of "de minimis" duty-free treatment on parcels under $800 from all countries, starting August 29 - bringing forward a change previously set for July 2027. The acceleration follows pressure from groups that argue the exemption facilitates fentanyl smuggling and has led to a flood of cheap products entering the U.S. duty-free, undermining U.S. retailers and manufacturers. Trump ended duty-free access for low-value parcels from China and Hong Kong at the start of May, disrupting ecommerce flows for online retailers like Shein and Temu. After asking for feedback on widening the removal of de minimis, some U.S. businesses had spoken out against the policy. "These exemptions are a powerful tool that helps small creators, artisans, and makers participate in and navigate cross-border trade," Etsy's global head of public policy and advocacy Jeffrey Zubricki wrote in a submission to Customs and Border Protection in March. "Many American Etsy sellers rely on de minimis to import and export products with key trading partners, sustaining their businesses and generating income to support their families." The majority of Etsy's 5.6 million active sellers and nearly 90 million buyers are in the U.S. Etsy did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday. eBay also urged the customs agency to reconsider, arguing that de minimis gives American consumers access to "a global market to find value at lower prices, particularly for used goods and a unique, collectible inventory that is not available domestically". In a results call on Wednesday, eBay CEO Jamie Iannone flagged the elimination of de minimis outside of China as a potential disruption that may impact revenue. eBay did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Goods shipped through the postal system will face one of two tariffs: either an "ad valorem duty" equal to the effective tariff rate of the package's country of origin or, for six months, a specific tariff of $80 to $200 depending on the country of origin's tariff rate. It is the latest headache for small businesses grappling with hefty import tariffs imposed by Trump, driving up costs, forcing many to hike prices and fuelling concerns that Americans will be paying more for everyday goods. "The complexity of doing business with the U.S. has gone to levels nobody could have imagined," said Andrew Wilson, deputy secretary general of the International Chamber of Commerce. He also questioned whether U.S. authorities can handle the tariff collections, potentially leading to delays and backlogs. "Is border trade equipped to manage the checks and duties collection? If not, what happens with customs backlogs? It's a huge additional burden from next month," said Wilson. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
22 minutes ago
- USA Today
Next stop, White House? Anticipation builds for Kamala Harris, other eager Dems
Like the party they hope to lead, the jumbled field of Democratic presidential hopefuls lacks a consistent philosophy or plan for victory - yet. She'll have plenty of company. Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed the door on a campaign for California governor next year, keeping open the door for a White House bid in 2028. Three years out, the presidential contest is rapidly becoming a full employment project for ambitious Democrats. Already in the mix of The Hopefuls and the Often-Mentioneds are governors and senators, rising stars and the once-were-rising stars. There are both Democratic Socialists and centrists, those who vow to battle President Donald Trump at every turn and those who counsel accommodation when it's possible. The Democratic contenders and maybe-contenders form a disparate group that lacks a consistent political philosophy or a clear plan for victory, in a party that could be described the same way. That's no coincidence. One shapes the other. A compelling candidate who emerges at the top in town-hall forums, debates and primaries will define the Democratic Party. And a consensus on where the Democrats stand will affect which candidate is seen as compelling. But not yet. The Republican Party could be clearly defined and immediately identified by the official, glowering portrait of Donald Trump. But without a president, or a presidential nominee, or even a frontrunner − or, for that matter, a speaker of the House or majority leader of the Senate − both the Democratic Party and its White House race is at the moment a wilderness. Albeit a crowded wilderness. There was a sign of the battles ahead on the Senate floor Tuesday night. When Nevada Democratic Catherine Cortez Masto sought to move a bipartisan package funding police departments, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker accused his fellow Democrats of "complicity" with Trump. "I say we stand, I say we right, I say we reject this," he declared. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar − who, like Booker, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 −rose to object that perhaps he should have shown up in the Judiciary Committee when the bills were being considered instead of waiting for the bigger stage of the Senate floor. How to spot a presidential candidate To identify prospects who would like to be president, or at least to be considered for the job, the key often isn't to listen to what they say. The default stance is that they love their current job in the Senate or the statehouse and are committed to it. Instead, watch what they do. Gathering chits by campaigning for fellow Democrats in 2025 and 2026? Check. Launching a "listening tour" to hear from voters in South Carolina? Check. Railing on Trump and his policies? Check. Dropping by New Hampshire on summer vacation? Check. Writing a book on policy prescriptions laced with personal anecdotes? Check. By the way, Harris announced she wasn't running for governor on July 30, Wednesday. On Thursday morning, Simon and Schuster announced she had written a memoir, titled "107 Days," chronicling her the whirlwind presidential campaign last year. More: Kamala Harris explores 'drama of running for president' in new book on 2024 bid The publication date is Sept. 23, less than a year since that Election Day. In another time, or maybe another political party, Harris would be viewed as the early frontrunner. She is credited with running a credible campaign under difficult circumstances, carrying 48.32% of the popular vote, compared to 49.80% for Trump. The Electoral College count was more lopsided, at 312-226. But she lost, and Democrats in the past have demonstrated little loyalty to losers. The last Democratic nominee who lost one presidential race and was nominated for another was Adlai Stevenson, in 1956, who lost to Dwight Eisenhower again. That was eight years before Harris was born. For the record, Republicans seem to be more forgiving. Trump, for one, was nominated in 2024 and won after losing to Biden in 2020. Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 and won after losing to John F. Kennedy in 1960. In what may have been an object lesson for Harris, Nixon chose to run for California governor two years after that loss, in 1962, only to lose to Democratic incumbent Pat Brown and declare he was through with politics altogether. "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," he famously, and prematurely, announced. Dealing with the legacy of Biden Harris would face another challenge: The continuing debate over Biden. The former president's decision to seek a second term, only to belatedly withdraw amid questions about his mental acuity, has contributed to the Democrats' current nadir. She was his vice president and defender. Now the Democratic field is wide open with the possibility to numbers could rival the 30-something record set in 2020, when a comprehensive alphabetical list included six names before you finished with the "Bs": Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Biden, Booker, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. More: Tarnished legacy? How Biden's age and refusal to pass torch earlier hang over his exit For 2028, a non-comprehensive list of those who have signaled interest in the presidential race would start with Biden administration veterans Harris and Buttigieg. Governors Gavin Newsom of California, J.D. Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Wes Moore of Maryland. Senators Booker and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, House members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ro Khanna of California. Whoever prevails faces an uphill job ahead. In a new Wall Street Journal poll, only 33% of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party; 63% had an unfavorable one. That's a three-decade low.
