Paying what you owe isn't morally wrong. But using your wealth to corrupt the system so that you and you ilk owe less in taxes IS morally wrong. Its also wrong to support,continue and benefit from the system that keeps the corruption in place.

This, to me, is the biggest moral dilemma.

To avoid ("legally" or fraudulently) taxes is to push the burden onto the people who are paying their appropriate amount of taxes.

But to contribute to a corrupt, warmongering government, is also wrong.

What you can do - what I do - is choose to live in a higher taxed country that isn't nearly as bad with respect to how it spends tax money. And so long as you pay more taxes to the country you live in, you end up owing none to the US.

What you should do is at the very least, vote for social democrat type candidates who can at least restore balance to tax code and enhance social programs. At best, advocate for the end to capitalism.

Since you aren't in the U.S., though, I guess there isn't much you in particular can do.

So...you benefit from the social programs of the US without contributing. Nice solution!

I'm pretty sure I get nothing out of the US social programs considering I'm a resident of another country.

You're probably protected by the US military, via US navy protecting shipping routes, or some other form of defense.

Do you think the US is not being "paid" by its position as the dominant world power?

US military is not particularly known for its altruism. You may want to rethink the internal logic of your argument here.

The US Government? and by extension, the US people? No, it is not getting paid at all. Private government contractors though? Yes! This is Neoliberalism in a nutshell. Move social profits into private hands until everything collapses.

By the same token, if you believe that tax evasion is theft then what is morally wrong with doing everything within the law (and without since the law is written by those whose primary interest is in restoring anti-constitutional feudalism) to counter it? Careful with that double-edged sword.

Nothing.

But if your ability to avoid taxes is mostly due to your wealth and you can end up paying less in taxes than a normal family then something is obviously out of sync.

But why would you believe taxation is theft?

TL;DR taxation is ultimately backed up by the use of force, and is therefore morally identical to some asshole mugging you on the street.

(no, I'm not on board with the idea, but that's the gist. IMO it's a transparent rhetorical trick, but the emotion it drags along sure seems to convince/strongly-reinforce-convictions-for a certain set of people.)

Property ownership is also backed up by force, so by the same logic, it is also theft.

If you believe you own your body and the labor you produce, why would anyone else (including the state) have a right to your body's production?

People say "social contract". When did we opt in, and can we opt out? It's being enforced without consent. We pay for things we don't want. Whether this be never ending wars around the world, or the welfare state such as the ponzi scheme known as social security.

Sorry, but you can't really exist here without benefitting from thousands of years of human effort offered up to you by our ancestors. Your ideas, your choices, your work, everything that you might consider a part of you, is a natural consequence of exposing the same basic machinery to a some combination of pre-existing material.

You are an emergent phenomenon - to claim "ownership" of anything is pure hubris, and reflects a dangerously limited understanding of causality.

I agree, voluntary interaction between each other is what creates wealth. Not the shuffling of stuff from one group of people to another.

Social security isn't a Ponzi scheme because enough people die before getting the benefits that it covers those that do. For example smokers will never see a cent of the social security they pay because they will die first.

The definition of a Ponzi scheme is paying off existing investors with money contributed by new investors. If it's a successful Ponzi scheme due to people dying, then that's a different argument. A Ponzi scheme is a ponzi scheme whether it's a success or failure.

You opt in when you don't really own your body (when you grow up), you can opt out when you're an adult by choosing another mafia in another country (but there's too much at stake for most people, I agree)

> If you believe you own your body and the labor you produce, why would anyone else (including the state) have a right to your body's production?

Because others contribute to your body's production. Your position only works if you are truly prepared to ask nothing from the state - not defense, not roads, not clean water, not law enforcement. Most people who take the "taxation is theft" position don't recognize how much they benefit from the existence of the state.

Pretty much the same with HOA's in my opinion.

You can opt out with the US government as well - it's just a bit more complicated to do so.

dexterdog, I have upvoted your comment. Taxation is indeed theft. Just because some of that tax money is recycled for some benefits does not make a tax justifiable. Just because a thief robs me and then buys me a lunch doesn't make his act justifiable.

But the low earning morons cannot see through this - those in power manage to use their latent enviousness of the rich to convince them that the taxes are for all those social benefits that they get. One cannot and should not argue with a moron.

I would be surprised if everyone trying to minimize their taxes is doing so from some deep seated moral belief about the morality of taxes.

By the same token it's hard to believe people pushing to raise other people's taxes spent a lot of time considering the morality of their position.

Funny thing is I don't really know if rich people believe taxation is theft and/or are libertarians ?

You don't have to be libertarian to want to maximize profit/minimize cost.

Exactly my point. They could want to maximize profit AND not believe that 'taxation is theft' and have some anti libertarian beliefs for some of them

It isnt a moral issue, its a money grabbing issue

It's not money grabbing. It's money keeping. They aren't taking from others, but keeping the money the earned.

I mean the state's intent in pursuing this path is about money grabbing.

The state is the only entity that can actually money grab

Money that the society they are avoiding paying taxes back into allowed them to earn in the first place.

"Allowed"? Are we slaves, that we need to ask permission from the state to engage in voluntary economic transactions?

I'm talking about the infrastructure, services, laws that enable people to make money like this in the first place.

You know, stuff paid for by taxes.

Why tax income?

"allowed"

See above.

    Many states use tax money to improve the lives of citizens by providing healthcare, education and so on.

And so what ? They also wage war, do you like contributing to death due to wars abroad ?

   How do you morally justify taking money away from those services just so you can buy a new Jaguar? How do you morally justify the increased tax burden on everyone else caused by you not contributing your fair share?

What is your definition of 'fair share' ? Paradise papers are about legal optimizations almost all the time.

   Also, Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. 

There's two different story of Robin Hood. Some say he stole back money from taxes to give it back the the poor (taxpayers)

https://fee.org/articles/robin-hood-man-of-the-people-or-des...

robin hood didn't steal from tax collectors only, and it's an interesting but unsupported claim that the ultimate accumulators of the wealth in his day stole less than the perpetrators of pyramid schemes, pump and dump stock schemes, or their opposite ; devaluation of a valuable stock before the release of say a new iphone -- ie jim Kramer. I'll axmit that while I am not aware of groups considering tax-the-rich politicians as "robin hood" types it's believeable, not necessarily a straw man argument. robinhood brokd the law to do something people liked, the Arthurian legends were similar in not promoting an obvious moral purity in their tales, but i think robinhood would have been just fine stealing from comcast and the linked article seems to imply something different, and is also comically absurd in its claims