Some historical and global examples of tax resistance → United States → Vietnam War, ~1965–75 → No Tax for War Committee protest, 1967 → David & Jan Hartsough

Code Pink sent this out to their mailing list this morning:

“It is not enough to say we must not wage war. It is necessary to love peace and sacrifice for it.” — Martin Luther King, Jr.

As we honor Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, we want to celebrate his legacy not just with words, but with action. We ask you to join us in taking one of the strongest stands you can against war: refusing to fund it with your money.

Former Secretary of State Alexander Haig once said “Let them march all they want, as long as they pay their taxes.” Well, we have marched, we have vigiled, we have sent letters and phone calls and faxes, but Congress continues to fund Bush’s war. In the spirit of Martin Luther King, Jr. and as part of the American tradition of non-violent civil disobedience that goes back to Henry David Thoreau, now is the time for us to take the matter of war funding into our own hands and stage a tax revolt.

In our flash video at the end of his anti-war speech MLK says; “Take a Stand, Tomorrow may be to late.” Each year we have taken a stand, and this year it is a very personal one, but one we can do together.

Our Don’t Buy Bush’s War campaign calls people of conscience to take a stand against the war in Iraq or the threat of war in Iran by signing a pledge that when joined by 100,000 other signatories, they will refuse to pay their taxes until the US gets out of Iraq (a fully operational plan begun). Our campaign offers safety in numbers and a firm stand against the Administration’s funding of the war.

We know you’ll have many questions about the campaign, and perhaps some fears. Please go to www.dontbuybushswar.org to sign our pledge, learn about other ways to support the campaign, and find answers to your concerns.

Be assured that CODEPINK will continue to work to end to this war, to restore our Constitution, to close Guantanamo, and to redirect our nation’s resources towards the needs of its people.

Thank you for standing with us in Dr. King’s memory.

Six hours later, over a hundred new people have made the pledge, and they’re still coming in fast. Here are what some of the signers have written:

As the Bush administration responds only to threats of defunding, this is my line in the sand.

Steven Humes, Durham, North Carolina

As an educator, I believe that we have a responsibility to invest in our next generation here at home, rather than in military dominance of sovereign nations halfway around the world. I will put the amount I withhold directly into our educational system.

Suzanne Knoll, Goleta, California

I love a good Tea Party!

Kimberly Wyke, Camden, Maine

I will no longer pay for what I do not want. I will no longer act as an American who is for war. I am a human being on this planet who respects other human beings and my actions will follow in line with my words. My tax dollars will be used for the cause of good not evil.

Sarah Ealey, Kentfield, California

A government that does not listen to us should not be funded by us.

Tara Mulqueen, Brooklyn, New York

Don’t feed the hand that bites you.

Paul Eagle, Belfast, Maine

There is strength in numbers but even if this becomes a solitary endeavor, I’ll know I tried.

Mary Jane McElrath, Miami, Florida

Don’t wait for the group to do it. Start (or refine) your practice of mindful consumption by refusing to consume war, and redirect your money now.

Lee Gough, Brooklyn, New York

When the American people stop paying for war, wars will cease. Lets set a good example for Congress on how to stop a war!

David Hartsough, San Francisco, California

The war in Iraq costs $6,000.00/second. That figure doesn’t take into account all the other police actions ‘our’ government forces on ‘sovereign’ nations around the world. How can anyone of conscience support that?

Matthew Schmidt, Barnesville, Ohio

War can not continue without our taxes. Pure and simple.

Lakshmi Kerner, Oakland, California

I get angry every time I think of my tax dollars going toward anything this current regime endorses!

Diane Birmingham, Fort Collins, Colorado

I have not paid the percentage of taxes that go to war voluntarily for over 20 years. I will continue to protest war in this way. The government eventually comes and gets the money, but my conscience is clear that I haven’t willingly paid for people to die.

Mike Ellison, Vancouver, Washington

This is a beautiful thing!

Christopher Constantin, Three Rivers, California

I started resisting last year. This is the only real way we the people can change the coarse in our foreign policy.

Nicholas Collins, Phoenix, Arizona

Let’s stop funding the war and fund peace instead! Imagine a world where we fund peace, not war.

anonymous, Venice, California

I am encouraging all my friends to join in the modern day tea party

Bridget Miller, Centreville, Maryland

I worry about tax gestapo at the door, but we have to do something they will notice!

Emery Goff, Farmington, Maine

Enough’s enough. I have to take a stand and so does everyone else.

Reich Benasutti, Lawrenceville, Georgia

Thank you, Code Pink.

Jason Dalldorf, Fresno, California

We have lost our Democracy; we have destroyed another nation illegally, immorally and unjustly. I refuse to continue paying for death and destruction.

Rayeanne King, Oak Bluffs, Maryland

It’s about time we all take this stand!

Lyn Gottschalk, Green Bay, Wisconsin

I am an American citizen living in Canada. I pay U.S. taxes, but the amount is minimal. Nevertheless, I will sign the pledge and withhold a % (not sure how much yet). What the U.S. does affects everyone in the world, wherever they are.

Elizabeth Whitmore, Ottawa, Ontario

I’ve already cried out in this wilderness known as America. We the people are and have been struggling against the ‘policies’ of this misadministration. Perhaps this action will open your eyes and ears. Can you hear us yet?

Kathy Walsh, Lake Worth, Florida

This is not our war! Hear our voices we will not fund your war any more! If you want war go there yourselves!

Krystal Ansley, Jacksonville, Florida

My husband and I withheld 28% of our federal income taxes for the 2006 fiscal year. That percentage is the portion that the AFSC (Quakers) said goes toward current military and defense spending i.e. war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We don’t plan on paying at least that amount this year, either. We have been receiving threatening letters from the IRS for months. The last letter we got threatened us with a $5000 fine or jail time. We know the IRS only wants their stinking money, and they don’t want to throw us in jail and have to pay for us to be there.… In the letter we received from the IRS last week, they said our reason for not wanting to pay was frivolous. We call it taking a principled stand and doing the right thing. We will wait them out.… These fascists in U.S. government are a bunch of murdering thieves. We will not give our hard-earned dollars to people who wantonly kill other people and steal the natural resources of their country. If they won’t listen to anything else they’ll damned well listen up when the money spigot is turned off. Every single American taxpayer should suck it up, stop being afraid of the government we are all 100% part owner of and cut off the money that goes toward maiming and killing innocent people and contributes directly to the bloated war machine.

Kris Graham, Houston, Texas

I will no longer support this war with my tax money. We have voted and tried to work within the system to no avail. I do not know what else to do to stop war.

Susan Thorpe, Tucson, Arizona

What gives you the right to take my money and millions of taxpayers’ money and use the billions to bully, harass, and kill innocent victims.

Cynthia Stokes-Adam, Brooklyn, New York

Bush threatens to bomb Iran unless its citizens engage in just such civil disobedience as this. Let’s show them how like we did in Boston Harbor.

Tim Wood, Atlanta, Georgia

The two of us signed this prepared petition because we have been withholding the military portion of our income tax liability since 1980. At that time we realized we could not conscientiously pay for war when we were praying for peace.

Barbara & Jim Dale, Decorah, Indiana

Like the majority of citizens of the United States of America I am fed up with the Bush/Cheney Administration’s illegal tactics to scare us into funding a war that should never have been started.

Valory Warncke, Maumee, Ohio

We know the wars are created to line the pockets of the thugs who create it for greed and to control the people. I won’t pay and I won’t be controlled by the thugs.

Shiara Lightfoot, Buena Vista, Colorado

I have not ever done this before, but I am ready to do it now.

Liz Aaronsohn, New Britain, Connecticut

Thank you Code Pink.

Ann Meany, Saint Paul, Minnesota

I cannot, in good conscience, continue to throw away my hard-earned money to fund killing in the name of capitalism’s violence against American citizens, innocent foreigners, and our dying planet.

Hal Goldfarb, Mesa, Arizona

It is a human right to refuse to participate in killing and war. I am happy to join with others in redirecting our taxes away from aggression and violence and toward building a peaceful world.

Susan Quinlan, Berkeley, California

No funding of Bush/Cheney illegal war. Not now nor in the future.

Kathleen Wolfe, Des Moines, Washington

It’s funny, not really, that I have been saying this for many years: civil disobedience works.

Leslie Provatas, Orient, New York

When our children and grandchildren look back at this moment in history and ask what we did to stop the insanity, I hope we can say that we did at least this much, if not much more.

Christopher Senn, Orcas, Washington

This is a fantastic idea! I have thought about this long and hard in the past. I don’t want my hard earned tax dollars funding a senseless war! Thank you for your sincere hard working efforts which I wholeheartedly support!

anonymous, Muskegon, Michigan

I can no longer support the death of innocent people, by funding this war through my hard earned and very needed dollars! War serves no one! This one, in particular, is insane, and we must stop it! No funding from my part!

Susan Janes, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

War is evil, and the wars being waged in my name on the Iraqi & Afghani people are particularly sickening. Terrorism is best deterred with ethical behavior & education. My ethical behavior will now include withholding my tax dollars. My government has disregarded every other effort I and hundreds of thousands of others have made to request & demand the cessation of these wars. We must push back. Thank you Code Pink.

Mary E. Stone, Montague, California

Yes, it’s time for this action. Nothing seems to have an impact in this country any more except for money. Brilliant!!

Carol Bayard, Maplewood, New Jersey

We must stop plundering and destroying out of greed. I will not let my money go there anymore.

Karen Boyer, Portland, Oregon

I strongly support this effort to make war tax resistance a more public statement against the war machine. Thanks!

anonymous, Portland, Oregon

I’m sick of my tax dollars going to this blood war for oil, and I have nothing for myself or my daughter. But most of the people I know don’t want to pay taxes for this lying crap.

Brenda Brown, Placitas, New Mexico

No Killing in my name. Signing this petition is an ethical necessity for me personally. I have to take this stand in order to live honestly.

Mathilda Cassidy, Santa Rosa, California

Shortly after Tax Day, Cindy Sheehan will appear in court where the IRS will ask a judge to compel her to fill out a collection information statement so they can find assets to seize for her back taxes (or, possibly, so they can determine she doesn’t have enough assets to be worth pursuing).

When the IRS takes Cindy Sheehan to court to try to force her to support the war machine that killed her son, other war tax resisters from Northern California will be standing with her.

On April 19^th at 10:30 a.m., the IRS will ask a judge of the U.S. Federal Court, California Eastern District (501 I St., Sacramento) to compel Cindy Sheehan to give them information that would help them collect money from her. Northern California War Tax Resistance supports Sheehan’s continued refusal to cooperate.

Cindy Sheehan is not waiting for Congress to shut off the spigot of funding for war and militarism — she’s taking a stand of conscience by refusing to pay the taxes that make the wars possible. And she’s not alone: war tax resisters across the country are refusing to pay into the Pentagon’s budget.

Among them are members of the group Northern California War Tax Resistance.

“I wish more anti­war activists would put their money where their mouth is like Cindy does,” says David Gross, 43, of Berkeley, California. Gross hasn’t paid any federal income tax since 2003. “I didn’t feel like I could really say I was against the wars until I stopped supporting them with my tax dollars, so I decided to stop paying. Now I put all of my energy on the side of my values instead of being a reluctant part­time worker for the Pentagon.”

Jan and David Hartsough of San Francisco, California, have been resisting the federal telephone excise tax since 1968, and today they also refuse to pay half of their federal income tax. “The U.S. Government has already taken Cindy’s son for the immoral and illegal war in Iraq,” David says. “She should not in addition be forced to pay for other mothers’ sons to kill and be killed in Afghanistan.”

“This year I’m celebrating 25 years of refusing to pay war taxes to the federal government,” says Jon Marley, 50, of Berkeley, California. “I choose this kind of civil disobedience because I believe it is morally wrong for the U.S. to spend nearly 50% of our taxes on murder, torture, and rape in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. We should be using those dollars for projects that provide housing and food and education and health care. Cindy Sheehan understands this, and that’s why she has my full support in her brave stand as a war tax resister.”

“How many of our sons and daughters must die in faraway lands? And how many faraway sons and daughters must die at their hands?” asks war tax resister Susan Quinlan of Berkeley, California, who has been resisting taxes since 1981. “Thank you to Cindy Sheehan and to the other mothers and fathers who say ‘no!’ to this military madness! Not our children, not their children, and not with our taxes!”

Martha Cain, of Berkeley, California, says: “[Former U.S. Secretary of State] Alexander Haig said [of anti­war protesters], ‘Let them march all they want as long as they continue to pay their taxes.’ Cindy Sheehan interpreted this advice and acted on it. I support and admire Cindy for her courage and commitment in refusing to pay for more violence in this world.”

“I refuse to allow any of my tax money to be spent on wars, torture, rape, and killing people for whatever excuse the government and our corporations want to make up,” says Xan Joi, of Berkeley, California. “To attempt to force Cindy Sheehan to pay for this war on Iraq that actually took her child’s life is unconscionable, immoral — and demanding that she participate in supporting, condoning, and accepting the murder of her own child — let alone other mothers’ children. I feel so tender toward the women of this nation and other nations that I will not allow myself or others to injure their sons and daughters. Cindy Sheehan is a courageous mother who is refusing to be bought by the greed of our nation. I support her stands.”

“I have been resisting the military portion of my income taxes since Vietnam,” says Lorin Peters, 69, of Lafayette, California. “For two reasons: our military is being used for domination and empire, and not for defense; [and] nonviolent defense works better than violent defense, as was demonstrated by Gandhi and others.”

Sheehan appreciates the company: “I would like this to be a movement,” she says. “There are many, many people who are conscientious tax resisters around the country, but I think we need to make it a movement with more and more people joining us. There are many ways people can be conscientious tax objectors. You don’t have to do it 100% like I do.”

Here are a handful of artifacts relating to the American war tax resistance movement circa 1967.

First, some relics that were filed alongside a letter from Herbert Sonthoff to W. Walter Boyd (though I think this filing may be arbitrary and that the letters are not related to each other):

An Open Letter ^*

At this late date it is pointless to muster the evidence which shows that the war we are waging in Vietnam is wrong. By now you have decided for yourself where you stand. In all probability, if you share our feelings about it, you have expressed your objections both privately and publicly. You have witnessed the small effect these protests have had on our government.

By April 15^th, every American citizen must decide whether he will make a voluntary contribution to the continuation of this war. After grave consideration, we have decided that we can no longer do so, and that we will therefore withhold all or part of the taxes due. The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to the fact that a nationwide tax refusal campaign is in progress, as stated in the accompanying announcement, and to urge you to consider refusing to contribute voluntarily to this barbaric war.

Signed:

Prof. Warren Ambrose	Mathematics, M.I.T.
Dr. Donnell Boardman	Physician, Acton, Mass.
Mrs. Elizabeth Boardman	Acton, Mass.
Prof. Noam Chomsky	Linguistics, M.I.T.
Miss Barbara Deming	Writer, Wellfleet, Mass.
Prof. John Dolan	Philosophy, Chicago University
Prof. John Ek	Anthropology, Long Island University
Martha Bentley Hall	Musician, Brookline, Mass.
Dr. Thomas C. Hall	Physician, Brookline, Mass.
Rev. Arthur B. Jellis	First Parish in Concord, Unitarian-Universalist, Concord, Mass.
Prof. Donald Kalish	Philosophy, U.C.L.A.
Prof. Louis Kampf	Humanities, M.I.T.
Prof. Staughton Lynd	History, Yale University
Milton Mayer	Writer, Mass.
Prof. Jonathan Mirsky	Chinese Language and Literature, Dartmouth College
Prof. Sidney Morgenbesser	Philosophy, Columbia University
Prof. Wayne A. O’Neill	Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Prof. Anatol Rapoport	Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan
Prof. Franz Schurmann	Center for Chinese Studies, University of Calif., Berkeley
Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgy	Institute for Muscle Research, Woods Hole, Mass.
Harold Tovish	Sculptor, Brookline, Mass.
Prof. Howard Zinn	Government, Boston University

^* Institutions listed for informational purposes only

P.S. The No Tax for War Committee intends to make public the names of signers, hence if you wish to add your signature, early return is desirable. Contributions are needed, and checks should be made payable to the Committee.

The following page, dated 11 March 1967, shows a mock-up of the intended public advertisement showing the signers’ names:

The committee will publish the above statement with names of signers at tax deadline — April 15.

Send signed statements to: NO TAX FOR WAR COMMITTEE, c/o Rev. Maurice McCrackin, 932 Dayton St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.

For additional copies of this form, put number you will distribute and name and address on the following lines:
No. _____ Name ____________________
Address _________________________

Signers So Far

• Meldon and Amy Acheson
• Michael J. Ames
• Alfred F. Andersen
• Ross Anderson
• Beulah K. Arndt
• Joan Baez
• Richard Baker
• Bruce & Pam Beck
• Ruth T. Best
• Robert & Margaret Blood
• Karel F. Botermans
• Marion & Ernest Bromley
• Edwin Brooks
• A. Dale Brothington
• Mrs. Lydia Bruns
• Wendal Bull
• Mrs. Dorothy Bucknell
• John Burslem
• Lindley J. Burton
• Catharine J. Cadbury
• Maris Cakars
• Robert and Phyllis Calese
• William N. Calloway
• Betty Camp
• Daryle V. Carter
• Jared & Susan Carter
• Horace & Beulah Champney
• Ken & Peggy Champney
• Hank & Henry Chapin
• Holly Chenery
• Richard A. Chinn
• Naom [sic] Chomsky
• John & Judy Christian
• Gordon & Mary Christiansen
• Peter Christiansen
• Donald F. Cole
• John Augustine Cook
• Helen Marr Cook
• Jack Coolidge, Jr.
• Allen Cooper
• Martin J. Corbin
• Tom & Monica Cornell
• Dorothy J. Cunningham
• Jean DaCosta
• Ann & William Davidon
• Stanley F. Davis
• Dorothy Day
• Dave Dellinger
• Barbara Deming
• Robert Dewart
• Ruth Dodd
• John M. Dolan
• Orin Doty
• Allen Duberstein
• Ralph Dull
• Malcolm Dundas
• Margaret E. Dungan
• Henry Dyer
• Susan Eanet
• Bob Eaton
• Marc Paul Edelman
• Johan & Francis Eliot
• Jerry Engelbach
• George J. Etu, Jr.
• Mary C. Eubanks
• Arthur Evans
• Jonathan Evans
• William E. Evans
• Pearl Ewald
• Franklin Farmer
• Bertha Faust
• Dianne M. Feeley
• Rice A. Felder
• Henry A. Felisone
• Mildred Fellin
• Glenn Fisher
• John Forbes
• Don & Ann Fortenberry
• Marion C. Frenyear
• Ruth Gage-Colby
• Lawrence H. Geller
• Richard Ghelli
• Charles Gibadlo
• Bruce Glushakow
• Walter Gormly
• Arthur Goulston
• Thomas Grabell
• Steven Green
• Walter Grengg
• Joseph Gribbins
• Kenneth Gross
• John M. Grzywacz, Jr.
• Catherine Guertin
• David Hartsough
• David Hartsough
• Arthur Harvey
• Janet Hawksley
• James P. Hayes, Jr.
• R.F. Helstern
• Ammon Hennacy
• Norman Henry
• Robert Hickey
• Dick & Heide Hiler
• William Himelhoch
• C.J. Hinke
• Anthony Hinrichs
• William M. Hodsdon
• Irwin R. Hogenauer
• Florence Howe
• Donald & Mary Huck
• Philip Isely
• Michael Itkin
• Charles T. Jackson
• Paul Jacobs
• Martin & Nancy Jezer
• F. Robert Johnson
• Woodbridge O. Johnson
• Ashton & Marie Jones
• Paul Jordan
• Paul Keiser
• Joel C. Kent
• Roy C. Kepler
• Paul & Pauline Kermiet
• Peter Kiger
• Richard King
• H.A. Kreinkamp
• Arthur & Margaret Landes
• Paul Lauter
• Peter and Marolyn Leach
• Gertrud & George A. Lear, Jr.
• Alan and Elin Learnard
• Titus Lehman
• Richard A. Lema
• Florence Levinsohn
• Elliot Linzer
• David C. Lorenz
• Preston B. Luitweiler
• Bradford Lyttle
• Adriann van L. Maas
• Ben & Sue Mann
• Paul and Salome Mann
• Howard E. Marston, Sr.
• Milton and Jane Mayer
• Martin & Helen Mayfield
• Maurice McCrackin
• Lilian McFarland
• Maureen & Felix McGowan
• Maryann McNaughton
• Gelston McNeil
• Guy W. Meyer
• Karl Meyer
• David & Catherine Miller
• James Missey
• Mark Morris
• Janet Murphy
• Thomas P. Murray
• Rosemary Nagy
• Wally & Juanita Nelson
• Marilyn Neuhauser
• Neal D. Newby, Jr.
• Miriam Nicholas
• Robert B. Nichols
• David Nolan
• Raymond S. Olds
• Wayne A. O’Neil
• Michael O’Quin
• Ruth Orcutt
• Eleanor Ostroff
• Doug Palmer
• Malcolm & Margaret Parker
• Jim Peck
• Michael E. Pettie
• John Pettigrew
• Lydia H. Philips
• Dean W. Plagowski
• Jefferson Poland
• A.J. Porth
• Ralph Powell
• Charles F. Purvis
• Jean Putnam
• Harriet Putterman
• Robert Reitz
• Ben & Helen Reyes
• Elsa G. Richmond
• Eroseanna Robinson
• Pat Rusk
• Joe & Helen Ryan
• Paul Salstrom
• Ira J. Sandperl
• Jerry & Rae Schwartz
• Martin Shepard
• Richard T. Sherman
• Louis Silverstein
• T.W. Simer
• Ann B. Sims
• Jane Beverly Smith
• Linda Smith
• Thomas W. Smuda
• Bob Speck
• Elizabeth P. Steiner
• Lee D. Stern
• Beverly Sterner
• Michael Stocker
• Charles H. Straut, Jr.
• Stephen Suffet
• Albert & Joyce Sunderland, Jr.
• Mr. & Mrs. Michael R. Sutter
• Marjorie & Robert Swann
• Oliver & Katherine Tatum
• Gary G. Taylor
• Harold Tovish
• Joe & Cele Tuchinsky
• Lloyd & Phyllis Tyler
• Samuel R. Tyson
• Ingegerd Uppman
• Margaret von Selle
• Mrs. Evelyn Wallace
• Wilbur & Joan Ann Wallis
• William & Mary Webb
• Barbara Webster
• John K. White
• Willson Whitman
• Denny & Ida Wilcher
• Huw Williams
• George & Lillian Willoughby
• Bob Wilson
• Emily T. Wilson
• Jim & Raona Wilson
• W.W. Wittkamper
• Sylvia Woog
• Wilmer & Mildred Young
• Franklin Zahn
• Betty & Louis Zemel
• Vicki Jo Zilinkas

Following this was a page explaining how to go about resisting:

Some Methods of Nonpayment

1. For those owing nothing because of the Withholding Tax.
   
   Such persons write a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer cannot in good conscience help support the war in Vietnam, voluntarily. The writer therefore requests a return of a percentage of the money collected from his salary.
   
   Note: Of course, the IRS will not return the money. However, the writer has refused to pay for the war voluntarily and has put it in writing. This symbolic action is not to be belittled since anybody who does this allies himself with those who will withhold money due the IRS.
2. For those self-employed or owing money beyond what has been withheld from salary.
   
   Such persons write a letter to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer does not object to the income tax in principle, but will not, as a matter of conscience, help pay for the war in Vietnam. The writer is therefore withholding some or all of the tax due.

Note: In all cases, we recommend that copies of these letters be sent to the President and to your Senators.

Remarks:

The Internal Revenue Service has the legal power to confiscate money due it. They will get that money, one way or another. However, to obstruct the IRS from collecting money due (by not filing a return at all, for example) seems less important to us than the fact that each is refusing to pay his tax voluntarily. With this in mind, many of us are placing the taxes owed in special accounts and we will so inform the IRS in our letters.

Willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in jail, together with the costs of prosecution. So far, the IRS has prosecuted only those who have obstructed collection (by refusing to file a return, by refusing to answer a summons, etc.). Usually, the IRS has collected the tax due plus 6% interest and possibly an added fine of 5% for “negligence”. The fact that the IRS has rarely, if at all, prosecuted tax-refusers to the full extent of the law does not mean they will not do so in the future.

Finally, an article from the December 1967 edition of The Capitol East Gazette:

Tax Refusal Urged by Group

Two thousand anti-war leaflets on telephone tax refusal were distributed in Capitol East on Saturday, Nov. 18, by members of CHOICE, a group of local residents who are withdrawing their support for the Vietnam war.

The leaflet explains that the 10% phone tax was enacted in April 1966 specifically to raise money for the Vietnam war.

According to CHOICE, the phone company will not remove a person’s telephone if he refuses to pay the tax. The company asks refusers to state why they are withholding the tax and then turns the matter over to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to CHOICE, there are presently 25 known tax refusers in the Capitol Hill area.

Those desiring CHOICE’s leaflet are asked to call LI 6‒9836.

Some bits and pieces from here and there:

• Darian Worden has written an interesting piece on the political philosophy of Henry David Thoreau for the Center for a Stateless Society.
• Longtime war tax resister David Hartsough has an opinion piece on the subject up at the Waging Nonviolence blog that’s getting some buzz around the interwebs.
• As you may have heard, the IRS got caught spending thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to make a silly Star Trek parody video. At first they tried to play it off as having been a somewhat whimsical but still useful training video, but as you can see from the video itself, there’s not much of anything in it that could be described as training material, and the agency has since admitted “that this video did not reflect the best stewardship of resources.” This is making it harder for the agency to push back against budget cuts in Congress. William Shatner himself chimed in: “I am appalled at the utter waste of US tax dollars.”

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1967

By 1967, though there was still no consensus in the Society of Friends about whether paying taxes was the right thing to do (and if not, how best to resist it), the issue had become impossible to avoid. The issues of the Friends Journal published that year reflect this, with most of them including at least a mention of war tax resistance or of the dilemma for Quaker taxpayers.

War tax resistance was again on the agenda of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s annual conference in March, but the Journal only includes the topic in a list of “special concerns” that were covered on the last day of the meeting, without giving any details of how the conversation went.

In the opening article in the 15 May issue, “Tithing for Peace” by Alan Strain, the author expresses his anguish over how much he has “tithed for war and instruments of war… several dollars each day to create a warfare state in which fear and violence have become ever more accepted and expected.” However: “I cannot see how to disentangle myself from this madness… I cannot even see a way to end my involuntary tithing for war.” Rather than resist the war tithe, he has decided to try to match it with a peace tithe: “giving this amount to private or public agencies working to remove the causes of war and to develop the conditions and institutions of peace.”

In that same issue, a note about the Canadian Friends Service Committee’s humanitarian efforts in Vietnam includes a parenthetical remark that some of the $60,000 donated to the cause came from “two U.S. churchmen who sent money normally used to pay income taxes.”

In the 15 June issue, the American Friends Service Committee tried to capitalize on the new craze with this ad:

In August the Baltimore Yearly Meetings approved a minute “including refusal to pay the surtax for the war if such a tax is imposed.”

An article by Cynthia E. Kerman on “The Rationale of Protest” in the 15 September issue made note in passing of the communicative possibilities of war tax resistance: “Tax refusal, for instance, may be a means of speaking to people — not only of purifying our lives.”

In the 1 November issue, a letter from Lucy P. Carner picked up where Cynthia E. Kerman left off, asserting that there are “possibilities for witness inherent in tax refusal” that are not immediately obvious to people who are looking for a quick fix “to put a stop to war.” Excerpts:

Tax refusal enables one to “speak truth to power.” A letter to the Revenue Service protesting the tax, but paying it, is likely to get less attention than one explaining why one is not paying a portion of the tax. In the latter case, the Revenue Service has to do something about it. A representative of the service has to make a telephone call reminding the taxpayer of his delinquency. Here is another opportunity to witness.

“You mean you do not intend to pay?” said the incredulous voice of the representative. I explained to him what I had already written to his office. “Yes, I know that you will eventually get the money from my bank. That isn’t your fault and you have very courteously fulfilled your duty. But this is my way of saying that I think the war is wrong. Only for that reason would I break the law — I’m not accustomed to breaking laws.”

“Yes,” said he, rather helplessly, and hung up.

A few months later a bank official will send a letter saying how much the bank would regret allowing the tax collector to take money from my account and won’t I please pay up and avoid this embarrassment. Here is another opportunity to write my objection to the war. Refusal to pay the additional Federal tax on my telephone bill provides similar opportunity to make my voice heard.

Tax refusal, then, is a manner of speaking to government officials, to banks and business concerns. It is a nonviolent way of reaching the hard-to-reach, for it has nuisance value. It deserves wide consideration as one way of bearing witness to one’s conscientious objection to war.

The lead editorial in that same issue, by Ruth A. Miner, suggests that instead of resisting war taxes, Quakers should pay an additional tax — “the same amount (or a practicable fraction of it — or even more!)” — to the United Nations. This, she suggests, would be in the spirit of Jesus’s suggestion that “whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two.”

That issue was also the first to feature the ad from “Southern California Business Service” (see ♇ 1 July 2013) that included the message: “A word about tax refusal: Since we limit our income to avoid paying income tax, our rates are low — and — in hiring our help we actively seek out C.O.s and/or tax refusers.”

Phone tax resistance

James B. Osgood, in a letter-to-the-editor in the 1 January issue, takes note of the American Friends Service Committee’s “stickers which one can attach to one’s phone bill to make payment of the war tax under protest” (see ♇ 13 July 2013).

This form of protest is better than nothing, but its practical effect is next to nothing. No real witness is made; no war funds are withheld from the government; no one’s reputation is put on the line.

Those of us who have refused to pay the ten per cent tax hope that others joining us will make a great visible witness and will cause sufficient trouble to the government to give it pause for thought over both collection and prosecution of those who conscientiously refuse. This, however, will require a real step forward, not a mere licking of a label.

Maris Cakars of the Committee for Nonviolent Action also wrote in, and his letter appeared in the following issue. He believed that there were “hundreds” of telephone tax resisters who had not notified the Committee of their resistance, and hoped they would speak up so that the campaign could move on to its next phase: “placing advertisement in newspapers and holding press conferences. For this phase to have maximum impact it is important for us to have as complete a list of tax refusers as possible.”

The 15 March issue announced that the Claremont (California) Meeting had decided to resist the telephone tax on its meetinghouse phone.

In the 15 July issue was a letter from a representative of 57^th Street Meeting in Chicago, in which they noted that two other Meetings had contacted them about actions they had taken in response to their call for phone tax resistance, and said “we would be pleased to act as a clearinghouse on positions taken by Meetings on telephone-tax refusal…”

In the 1 November issue, George Lakey wrote an article about why he was joining the crew of the Phoenix to illegally (by U.S. law) bring humanitarian aid to North Vietnam. He described the escalation of his activism, from letter-writing and congressman-lobbying to his current action. Along the way, he says, “I stopped paying the telephone tax.”

War tax resistance internationally

The 15 April issue noted that Quakers in The Netherlands had formed a “Conscientious Objectors’ Committee Against Paying Taxes for Defense Purposes” which was trying to come up with some sort of government-approved “peace tax”-style plan. I got a wry smile out of the closing sentence: “In The Netherlands it is not permitted to affix protest stickers on tax forms; instead one must use a written announcement of protest.”

The fourth Friends World Conference was held that summer. The “Protest and Direct Action group” there “called upon Friends in countries party to the [Vietnam] conflict to ‘go as far as conscience dictates in withholding support from their governments’ war-making machinery,’ first by direct communication with those against whom the protest is made, and then if necessary by public witness and individual action, including the possibility of refusal to pay taxes for war.”

“Corporate Witness and Individual Conscience”

The lead (guest) editorial in the 15 August issue was “Corporate Witness and Individual Conscience” by Lindsley H. Noble. It cautioned Quaker corporate bodies (like Meetings) that were contemplating civil disobedience actions like phone tax resistance. For one thing, he says, a Quaker group should make sure to have the consent of all of its members before it takes such a drastic step, something he thinks some groups have been careless about. Secondly, even if every member of the group consents to civil disobedience, the group as a corporation has a different relationship to the state than individuals do. While individuals and their consciences predate and arguably supersede the state, corporations are creatures of the state and are therefore necessarily subordinate to them. Quakers incorporate their meetings in part in order to get government privileges associated with legal incorporation. “In voluntarily putting ourselves under the law to receive these subsidies do we not morally forego corporately the right to refuse to obey other laws not to our liking?” If Quakers, as a group, find a law so intolerable that they must disobey it as a group, he says, they should first legally detach themselves — “withdraw from our contract with the state and give up our subsidies before setting out on this path.”

This led to months of discussion in the letters-to-the-editor sections of future issues, in particular:

• Victor Paschkis thought that Noble’s argument failed on both points. First, his call for groups to reach consensus before taking a civilly disobedient stand should be understood for what it is — merely a preference for the law-abiding status quo. After all, “inaction in a given situation may violate the conscience of some members just as action may violate the conscience of others.” Secondly, a Quaker Meeting, whether or not it has incorporated under the laws of the state, still has a yet higher allegiance to God that must be taken into account. Also, what’s the point of having Meetings if they do not have “corporate insight” greater than the sum of their parts?
• Stephen G. Cary mirrored some of this: “There are times when inaction speaks to the world as clearly as action. In these situations inaction does not leave us neutral, but committed by default. Responsibility is not a one-way street, resting only on Friends who wish an action taken. Those who oppose the action are committing the Meeting, too. I do not suggest that the proponents’ views should necessarily prevail; I only want it recognized that responsibility to conscience cuts both ways and requires both sides to search their hearts.” He is also suspect of the idea that corporate entities have no responsibility to disobey unjust laws: “Does the Nuremburg principle have no bearing on the institutions of society? I prefer to regard the corporation as the creature of those who create and operate it, and the fact that the state charters it does not make the state its ultimate master.”
• Marie S. Klooz also defended “corporate witness” as being not exactly “the witness of a corporation” but the collective witness of the corporation’s “component members.” Such a thing is not only justifiable, but is particularly important to Quakers: “Each member is supposed to test his light by the corporate light.” And: “If the light requires social action, it is our duty to labor lovingly with those whose light differs, not to refrain from action.” It is no more necessary for a Meeting to divest itself of its corporate charter to be civilly disobedient, than it is necessary for an individual to first renounce his citizenship.
• Pat Foreman found himself uncomfortable with the peace testimony “as interpreted by most Friends” and thinks Quakers like him “sometimes have the feeling that we are being shunned.” He wants “to remind Friends that Quakerism is a religion and not a prodigious committee.”
• Evan Howe thought that dissenters were asking too much if they were asking Quaker Meetings to give up their corporate privileges in order to engage in civilly disobedient actions under the direction of the “sense of the Meeting.” Such a “surrender of subsidies, as I see it, while apparently a demand of conscience, is rather a surrender of conscience with the ultimate consequence of destroying the society. I do not believe that dissent gives anyone that right.”
• Norman J. Whitney stressed that “Meetings do have a responsibility for corporate witness if the integrity of our testimonies is to be maintained. It is not enough to shift responsibility to ad hoc committees or special groups among us.”
• Roy W. Moger suggested that Noble had hit on a truth when he suggested that legal incorporation was a sort of “trap” that the Religious Society of Friends had fallen into, “thereby placing our conscience in jeopardy.”:

  I wonder if the Religious Society of Friends should not begin to unincorporate and remove itself from the trap into which it has fallen, so that Friends can once more seek dependence upon the Holy Spirit, act under guidance of that Spirit as a corporate body, and not have to say, “As a group we dare not take corporate action [and offend the state] because our corporate life depends upon the State, and we are obligated to obey. The individual can alone take the risk and break the law of the State if he feels the law of the State breaks the law of God.”

• Roger S. Lorenz said that because there is a good argument that the Vietnam war is itself illegal, both under international and under domestic law, what it means for a person (or a corporation) to remain within the law under our circumstances is no easy question to answer.

David Hartsough

Over the years, starting in 1967, David Hartsough contributed several pieces to the Friends Journal touching on war tax resistance:

• In the 15 May 1967 issue, he set out a simple, compelling case for war tax resistance — “is it not our responsibility to set the example and refuse to pay our taxes for the weapons and ammunition which inflict this suffering?” He also suggested that if enough people were to refuse, the government would probably legalize some form of conscientious objection to military taxation.
• In the 15 May 1968 issue, he paraphrased George Fox’s advice to William Penn: “Pay the military portion of thy tax as long as thou canst.” He suggested that people begin now by resisting the phone tax, and then prepare to resist “the 69.2 percent of our income taxes which go for war” next April.
• In the 1 January 1969 issue, he told the story of what happened when an IRS agent came to his office to try to collect his unpaid income taxes. Excerpts:

  We talked about the Nürnburg trials, in which the Americans told the Germans that they should obey their consciences rather than their state. I told him I felt that when we are bombing and burning people and their homes in Vietnam, I cannot condone this action by paying other people to do it.

  “I want to make it clear that I have no argument with you on your position about the war,” he said. “I do not argue that you shouldn’t follow your conscience. But it is my responsibility to get this money.”

  …he gave me a financial statement to fill out. I refused. He reminded me: “It’s my job to get this money in any way I can. I don’t like to do this, but we can take any property you have — your house, your car, or whatever.”

  “I have a bicycle downstairs,” I said, “and the suit I’m wearing.”

  “No, no, I wouldn’t take your bike or your suit.”

  He also expressed concern about the dangers of the poorer neighborhood where I live — a concern beyond his responsibility.

  “I guess I’ll have to do what I believe is right,” I said when he was leaving, “and, friend, you will have to do what you believe is right.”

  He left without collecting the overdue tax or taking any of my property.

• In the 15 March 1969 issue, he penned another exhortation: “Let us, like Friends through the years, blaze the trail and set the example for others, rather than wait until there are masses of people taking this action.” He recommended redirecting taxes to the American Friends Service Committee or the Friends Committee on National Legislation, which “will do a much better job of putting our beliefs into action than does the Pentagon.”
• David & Jan Hartsough returned to the Journal in May of last year with a letter expressing the same basic argument, and giving some details as to how their tax resistance technique had evolved: “Each year we write a check to the Department of Human Services (rather than the IRS) for the 50 percent of our taxes that we do pay. Along with the check, we send our 1040 form to the IRS and ask them to spend all that money for healing and education, not for killing. And the other 50 percent (the war portion), we refuse to pay. Instead, we contribute those funds to organizations helping to feed the hungry, heal the sick, house the homeless, and work for justice and peace in the world.”

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 2012

There were a few scattered mentions of war tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 2012.

A obituary notice for Kenneth Hilbert Champney in the February issue noted:

He volunteered printing services for the Peacemakers, a group dedicated to nonviolence, to start a newsletter. Ken believed in resisting the income tax in order to oppose military spending. He withheld what he judged to be the military portion of the taxes on his employees, continuing this practice even under threat from the IRS. He kept his own income low enough and his charitable contributions high enough to stay under the taxable limit year after year. In later life, Ken devised an investment system that enabled him to avoid paying income taxes.

Kyle Chandler-Isacksen promoted war tax resistance in an article in the April that asked the reader to imagine the taxpaying process as if it were more of a personal encounter with the government, or with its embodiment, “General Sam.” The about-the-author note below the article read:

Kyle Chandler-Isacksen and his family have been war tax resistors for the past five years by living below the poverty line. They are the founders of Be The Change Project, an urban homestead devoted to family learning and service in a low-income neighborhood in Reno, Nevada.

David and Jan Hartsough had a letter-to-the-editor in the May issue (which I’ve already covered, in the 14 July 2013 Picket Line). That issue also had brief review of a children’s book based on the tax resistance of American women’s suffrage activists Abby & Julia Smith.

Merry Stanford, in an October article on the conscientious use of money, alluded to her war tax resistance:

By the time I was a young mother and attending Quaker meeting, my life had taken several surprising turns, and my resources were very scarce. Living on a poverty income in order to resist paying war taxes, I didn’t consider myself someone who had much to share with others.

That issue also contained a review of the NWTRCC-produced documentary Death & Taxes. Excerpts:

The film puts a human face on the subject, telling and showing the stories of those whose ultimate protest against war is their refusal to pay for it. The resisters are sincere, some even joyful, and their clarity of conscience is inspiring. They are folks with whom one would want to have more conversation, and the film will have its greatest use as a discussion starter for classes and study groups.

We live in an era when many taxpayers are objecting to the way their tax dollars are spent. Some taxpayers object to paying for publicly funded health care, public universities, public employee pensions, prisons, research, foreign aid, or for social security. How to sort out which public sector activities are moral and which are immoral is not a question the film does much to answer, however, I have no doubt that the people interviewed have given this subject thoughtful attention, but one needs to go beyond the film to probe more deeply. Refusal to pay taxes is a rather blunt instrument, except in the few cases where a tax or surtax has been specifically put in place to pay for a military undertaking. The film barely addresses this social complexity.

The annual tax season “fifteen minutes of fame” for the American war tax resistance movement has begun:

• Vice magazine published a nice feature by Charles Davis titled “Don’t Pay Your Taxes” that spotlights American war tax resisters like David Hartsough, Susan Quinlan, Erica Weiland, and Ruth Benn. Excerpt:

  “They’ve never actually done anything,” Erica Weiland, a 30-year-old activist from Seattle, Washington, told me when I asked her about the consequences of her tax resistance. Weiland generally tries to avoid owing taxes in the first place, but when she does owe something, she files a return without paying a dime. And while she’s received a few letters, she’s never responded, nor had a problem. Freed from the burden of paying for broken fighter jets, she has been able to give money instead to those causes she believes in, which, she said, is “one of the things that’s the most rewarding about being a war-tax resister.”

  Weiland learned about tax resistance while working with the group Food Not Bombs, which helps feed the homeless in cities across the United States (at least where its activities are not banned). She met a war refugee from Sri Lanka who refused to accept anything more than room and board as payment for his labor, not wanting to contribute in any way to the sort of violence he witnessed firsthand — funded, in part, by the U.S. government. If a poor immigrant could do it, Weiland decided she could too, and she hopes her actions will send a message that Americans are not as powerless as popularly imagined. “I want to show people that there’s more that we can do to resist war and stop military actions than just marching and sending letters to Congress,” she said.

• NWTRCC put out its annual press release about “Tax Day” protests going on nationwide.
• The Independent Video Archive published a couple of excerpts from television shows first broadcast in 1991 & 1992 concerning the war tax resisters Randy Kehler & Betsy Corner, and Wally Nelson.
• William Ruhaak published his thoughts on “What would Jesus do about paying taxes for war?” on the Pax Christi blog.
• Jack Payden-Travers has commentaries on war tax payment up at WVTF Public Radio and at the Las Vegas Informer.
• The Sonoma Press Democrat covered war tax resister Ruth Paine.
• Engaging Peace published Erica Weiland’s thoughts on war tax resistance.
• SeacoastOnline plugged Seacoast Peace Response’s annual “penny poll” demonstration.

There’s a new NWTRCC newsletter out, with content that includes:

• “Transformative Nonviolence” — Bob Bady wonders whether the war tax resistance movement is taking a wrong turn by trying “to make war tax resistance more attractive by making it less disruptive and risky.” Instead, he thinks, “we need to find a way to harness risk rather than shy away from it.” He concludes that if war tax resisters are going to be willing to take on such risk, “we need to develop a substructure that better supports, sustains, and nourishes the resister.”
• Counseling Notes — including the new taxable income levels, a question about whether people who are not tax-compliant can sponsor non-citizens for permanent residency, and some notes about tax law changes and IRS struggles.
• International News — from tax resistance campaigns in Hong Kong and Italy.
• Ideas & Actions — some activity of local NWTRCC affiliates, news of the Satyagraha Institute’s upcoming summer training program, a note about the imprisonment of Kathy Kelly for her participation in a protest against the military drone assassin program, and a brief review of David Hartsough’s new autobiography, Waging Peace.
• NWTRCC News — including announcements of the upcoming national and New England gatherings, a call for nominations for the Administrative Committee, and a note about the War Resisters League honoring NWTRCC coordinator Ruth Benn with its Ralph DiGia Award.

There’s a new issue of NWTRCC’s newsletter out, with content including:

• a look back at the life and work of Juanita Nelson with contributions from Bob Bady, Karl Meyer, Ginny Sсhnеider, Ed Hedemann, Lori Barg, and Ed Agro
• some notes about trends in tax enforcement including IRS levies on royalty income, the sudden decline in property seizures for the past 15 years, phone tax resistance, and Elizabeth Boardman’s attempt to get some respect for war tax resistance in the courts
• a note about the passing of Dirk Panhuis, who had been active with Conscience and Peace Tax International
• some updates about war tax resisters Julia Butterfly Hill and Joseph Olejak, the Spring Rising anti-war action, Greg Wise’s mouthing off about tax refusal, and the Mennonite Central Committee’s war tax redirection program
• news about tax day outreach on social media, at the U.S. Social Forum, at the Jewish Voice for Peace conference, and the Intercollegiate Peace Fellowship
• and a profile of Peter and Mary Sprunger-Froese of the Bijou Community — excerpt:

  Members of the Bijou Community were already involved in war tax resistance when Peter and Mary arrived. Early on, money was held in common, but that evolved over the years to each doing their own thing. One year the community did a tax protest and filed a 1040 saying they didn’t want to pay anything “because we don’t want to support the war.” That seemed to trigger an audit, which took an exhausting six months of collecting receipts to convince the IRS that members were not living off donations that came in for the soup kitchen and houses of hospitality. “The IRS said don’t file like that anymore because it messes up our system, and we said don’t audit us anymore because it messes up ours!”

Also, on the War Tax Talk blog, Jason Rawn reviews David Hartsough’s book Waging Peace: Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist. Excerpt:

David Hartsough is a Quaker and a War Tax Resister who has for decades been redirecting a large portion of his “tax obligations,” believing that if war is abolished, “humanity can not only survive and better address the climate crisis and other dangers, but will be able to create a better life for everyone. The reallocation of resources away from war promises a world whose advantages are beyond easy imagination.” (Editor’s note: The 2016 U.S. budget for past, present, and future wars is $1,300 billion.) He cofounded the Nonviolent Peaceforce, inspired in part by Gandhi’s idea of a shanti sena, a peace army, and this organization is now active in 40 countries, stationing trained professional peaceworkers in conflict areas around the globe and is sustained by an $8 million budget. He works with World Beyond War and is currently executive director of Peaceworkers in San Francisco. Waging Peace has been in the works for 27 years.

And Ruth Benn of NWTRCC was a guest on Law and Disorder radio recently.

The latest news from the U.S. war tax resistance movement:

• Erica Weiland reviews American war tax resister Frances Crowe’s memoir, Finding My Radical Soul. “Now 96 years old, she is still an activist and still getting arrested for civil disobedience.”
• Ruth Benn reflects on “The Mysterious Ways of the IRS” — the agency seems arbitrary and unpredictable at times in the ways it responds to war tax resisters.
• The three activists who boldly broke through security at the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant in 2012 have had their sabotage convictions reversed on appeal and are no longer being imprisoned. One article about their successful appeal concluded: “They are still obligated to pay the government a fine of $52,953 for the break-in at Y-12. But they took vows of poverty decades ago, don’t have bank accounts, and have neither the means nor the intention of paying it.”
• The War Tax Talk blog has reprinted an op-ed debate that was published in the Sunday Republican of Springfield, Massachusetts back in 1993. It features Juanita Nelson dueling with a U.S. Air Force Reserve Lieutenant-Colonel over the question: “Is it ever right to refuse, on principle, to pay taxes?”

• There’s a new edition of NWTRCC’s newsletter out, with content including:
  • reports from this year’s Tax Day actions
  • concerns bubbling up in the war tax resistance community, like:
    • what to do about sudden, unexpected financial gains
    • how resisters might get hit with an Estimated Tax Penalty
    • how to avoid the now-epidemic tax debt telephone scams
  • book reviews:
    • American Gandhi: A.J. Muste and the History of Radicalism in the Twentieth Century
    • Waging Peace: The Global Adventures of a Lifelong Activist (David Hartsough)
    • Peace Activist: The Autobiography of Bradford Lyttle
  • a report on NWTRCC’s recent national gathering in Milwaukee
  • Redmoonsong reflects on how tactics of dealing with tax resistance and government benefits may change as one ages

Some new links of interest to war tax resisters in particular:

• The next national gathering of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee will be held from 13–15 May 2016 in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania (near Philadelphia). Check this page for details.
• Anne Barron shares her experiences in organizing a recent war tax resistance teach-in in San Diego.
• I’ve put together a page on Pioneers of the Modern American War Tax Resistance Movement at the NWTRCC site. It gives brief biographies of those resisters who were part of the organized war tax resistance movement that emerged in the late 1940s.
• War Resisters’ International highlighted the bright yellow attack by war tax resisters in Bilbao on the Juan de Garay military barracks.
• Fifth Estate carries Erica Weiland’s article on how war tax resistance featured in the movement to end the U.S. war on Vietnam.

I also recently discovered some war tax resistance items on Issuu — an on-line magazine publishing platform:

• “Mennonites say no to war taxes” — the cover story from an issue of The Mennonite from 2014.
• “Turning Toward Peace program redirects war taxes” (page 40) — a war tax redirection program sponsored by the Mennonite Central Committee, as described in The Mennonite of April 2015.
• The Broken Rifle #62 — an issue of the War Resisters’ International newsletter devoted to war tax resistance, from 2004.
• “What if They Gave a War and Nobody Paid?” — an article by David Hartsough in the April 2013 Street Spirit.
• Clearly from My Heart — devoted to the life and ideas of Albuquerque war tax resister Don Schrader.

Some nonviolence-oriented groups have come together to issue a joint call for activists to begin to refuse and redirect their taxes to protest the belligerent and xenophobic Trump agenda. Their letter follows.

Dear Friends,

We are writing to ask you to do something that you probably have never done in your life. This is a historical moment you can be an active part of shaping.

We all know the stories of people who committed atrocities and said, in their defense, that they were following orders.

Here is a snapshot of current events:

• A ban on Muslims
• A wall along the border we share with Mexico
• The dismantling of environmental protections
• Billions added to US defense spending and cutting almost everything else.

We know about slippery slopes, about things getting worse not all at once, about the frog that didn’t escape the heating water because it was being heated so gradually. When does what happens cross the line? We know the famous words of Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

We signed this letter because we want you to consider joining others this year to take a stand. We can non-cooperate with this government which is not of, by and for all the people. As a first step, we can refuse at least a token amount of our taxes to this government.

Specifically, we want to ask you to consider withholding and redirecting a small amount of your taxes. How much? We suggest a symbolic minimum of $10.40, and a maximum of whatever amount works for you. All of us signing this letter are redirecting some tax money, either for 2016 if we haven’t prepaid all our taxes, or through changing our allowance or reducing our estimated taxes for 2017. Will you join us?

Anxious? Thousands of people before you have done this. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee has an impressive array of resources to help: written materials, videos, webinars, and one-on-one support in some cases. Reach out to them here. Or talk to friends, and perhaps create a group of people who will support each other with the emotional and material risks involved. We ask that you re-direct these funds to the cause that matters most to you.

If tax resistance is not the right choice for you, consider other ways to pursue civil disobedience and noncooperation. There is no way this government, or any government, can continue without the funding and cooperation of its citizens.

Sincerely,
David Hartsough, Peaceworkers
Kit Miller, Gandhi Institute for Nonviolence
Michael Nagler, Metta Institute for Nonviolence Education
Miki Kashtan, Bay Area Nonviolent Communication
Ruth Benn, National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee

They’re still collecting signatories, so if you represent a group that is willing and able to sign on, contact Kit Miller and say so.

It’s nice to see this coordinated effort. There has long been an idea floating around war tax resistance circles that if we could create a campaign that has sufficiently low risk — a small, symbolic tax refusal that’s not going to bring the IRS hammer down on anyone — lots of people would be willing to sign on to it and tax resistance would stop seeming so scary. This campaign may end up being a good test of that hypothesis.

My own view is that minimizing risk isn’t enough. The reason more people don’t practice tax resistance involves more dimensions than just riskiness. People are also skeptical of tax resistance’s effectiveness, and of whether it is ethical. You have to find the sweet spot on all of those dimensions in order to bring more people into the fold, and there may be no one-size-fits-all solutions.

However, a good argument against my skeptical point of view is the rampant phone tax resistance in the U.S. during the Vietnam War. This was a small act of resistance, relatively risk-free; it did bother the government; and it did increase the visibility of tax resistance as a tactic in the anti-war movement and probably led to more people doing more significant tax resistance.

Here are a few more items concerning tax resistance that I found in back issues from the 1980s of Friends Bulletin, the journal of the Pacific Yearly Meeting of Quakers.

The March 1980 issue included an announcement from the Orange County Monthly Meeting of the launch of “The Conscience and Military Tax Resolution.” This sort of thing is frequently proposed in modern war tax resistance circles, but has yet to show much success. In this incarnation people who “are not ready to resist now” could sign on to the resolution to “show that you are at least ready to begin when 100,000 others agree to do so.” Once that target was reached, signers of the Resolution would begin to refuse to pay at least a certain percentage of their taxes. The goal of this was to pressure the government into passing “the World Peace Tax Fund Bill or similar legislation which would provide a legal alternative for taxpayers morally opposed to war.”

The November 1980 issue had several items on war tax resistance, beginning with this statement and commentary:

A Refusal to Cooperate with War

We express our love for God and all the peoples of this earth. A vital act of this love is to refuse cooperation with registration for the draft and payment of our tax money for war. We testify against rendering unto Caesar that which is God’s. We, the individuals who serve on the Pacific Yearly Meeting Peace Committee, join with those Friends who refuse to cooperate with war taxes and registration. As a result of this call, we have chosen to protest war taxes, some refusing at least a “Token Ten” dollars.

Friend — what canst thou say?

Lonnie Valentine
Betsy Eberhart
Gladis Innerst
Mike Turner
Ellen Lyon
Duane Magill
Franklin Zahn
Ed Flowers
Bonnie Wells

The above statement, written by the Pacific Yearly Meeting Peace Committee and others came with labor over several minutes on conscription and peace from monthly meetings as well as Friends General Conference July 4, 1980 minute, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s statement, and Sarasota Monthly Meeting’s Statement of Peace. The intent was a minute of action in which our Peace Testimony would be not just words but applied to our lives in 1980.

Two suggestions came out of a subsequent threshing session: 1) that the statement be made available for others to sign and 2) that the Peace Committee be available to labor with monthly meetings on this statement.

All monthly meetings have previously received Franklin Zahn’s “War Taxes–Minus a Token Ten” of August 1979 which develops the idea and makes suggestions on alternative uses of the token ten dollars. In essence, withholding $10.00 in objection to the federal government’s use of our tax money for war is similar to withholding the U.S. Tax from telephone bills which was done during the Vietnam War.

I am raising the question within monthly meetings and among Peace Committee members whether PYM Peace Committee should sponsor a weekend conference at Quaker Center. Your suggestions and/or responses would be appreciated.

Also, I hope that monthly meetings, meanwhile, are taking advantage of Lonnie Valentine’s availability to provide workshops on War Tax Objection.

In peace and love,
Ellen Lyon, Clerk
PYM Peace Committee

Lonnie Valentine also penned a separate article on “War Tax Objection” for that issue:

How can we who are above the draft age support Friends faced with registration? In Our Peace Testimony it says:

Our witness to the way of peace requires that we refuse military service of any kind, and challenges us to consider whether we can in any way submit to that involuntary servitude which is conscription. Friends should work to abolish state conscription — whether for military or other purposes — and should refuse personally to cooperate with the draft.

Since many of us do not have this opportunity to refuse to register for the draft, we must look to those other ways in which we can refuse cooperation with the draft.

One way is refusing registration of our money for war through the taxation system. When we willingly submit a tax form, we are supporting registration for the draft; when we willingly pay taxes of which over half is used for war, we are supporting registration for the draft. When we do these things, we are withdrawing support from Friends who are refusing to register for the draft. Therefore, one unequivocal way we who are above draft age can support Friends resisting the draft is to resist payment of those taxes which, in part, go for registration and conscription.

If we recognize our “involvement in militarism through the payment of taxes used for military purposes” but do not act to end such involvement, then are we not hypocritical to tell Friends faced with registration to refuse military service? If draft age Friends take the Peace Testimony to heart and refuse to cooperate with the draft, then is it not time that we who are no longer of that age refuse to cooperate with the drafting of our money for war?

Perhaps our Peace Testimony states what we believe too rigidly when it calls on Friends to refuse cooperation with the draft. Perhaps, however, the testimony does not state what we believe with regard to the payment of war taxes strongly enough. If we agree that we should refuse cooperation with the draft, then it is time we should refuse cooperation with war taxes.

That issue also included this on-point notice from one Quarterly Meeting:

College Park Quarterly Meeting Minute of Support for Non-Registrants and War Tax Refusers

In these times of draft registration and military buildup, many persons may be led to actions in harmony with the Quaker Peace Testimony. College Park Quarterly Meeting supports those who feel spiritually led, for reasons of conscience, to perform such actions, including non-registration for the draft and war tax refusal.

October 19, 1980

A letter to the editor from Walter Klein in that issue suggested that Quakers, instead of resisting war taxes, should pay twice their normal tax, but pay the extra amount for a non-military purpose, perhaps one chosen as a group. “It would be legal, it would be a statement of conscience, wars and armament would continue; but the message might be loud and clear and perhaps more effective.” He suggested the program be called “ ‘The Better Use of Government’ Fund or ‘BUG’ Fund for short.”

Lonnie Valentine reminded Quakers of their historical tradition of war tax resistance in the March 1981 issue:

Saying “NO!” to Taxation for Draft Registration

by Lonnie Valentine, Orange County Meeting

A.J. Muste once remarked that “The two decisive powers of the government with respect to war are the power to conscript and the power to tax.” Now it can be claimed that the government’s ability to wage war depends decisively upon its power to tax. After all, our nuclear age began beneath one airplane, twelve men, and millions of drafted tax dollars.

As early as 1755 American Friends recognized the connection between taxes and war. In an epistle to Pennsylvania Friends, John Woolman, John Churchman, and others wrote:

As we cannot be concerned with wars and fighting, so neither ought we to contribute thereto… though some part of the money be raised… is said to be for such benevolent purposes, as supporting our friendship with our Indian neighbors, and relieving the distresses of our fellow-subjects… we could most cheerfully contribute to those purposes, if they were not so mixed, that we cannot in the manner proposed, show our hearty concurrence therewith, without at the same time assenting to… practices, which we apprehend contrary to the testimony which the Lord hath given us to bear…

Indeed, the Friends’ clear apprehension of the connection of money and war was reflected in the Constitutional debates (about whether to include a conscientious objector amendment) with regard to the conscription of men and money. Roger Sherman of Connecticut remarked that “It is well know that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die then do either one or the other.” How much are we now ready to do for our scruples about conscription?

If we were all to be subject to the military draft in the next war, we would not pay a fee to hire someone in our place. However, we seem to have forgotten that with the payment of taxes we are hiring substitutes. We are paying to have someone go in our place. In being unable to say “No!” to the payment of taxes used to register and conscript others, we nullify our ability to say “No!” in other ways. After all, the government cares little if we leaflet post offices, learn draft counseling, or even advocate draft resistance as long as we continue to pay our taxes. Simply put, when we pay our taxes, we enable the government to conscript.

If other Friends are concerned enough about conscription to contemplate saying “No!” to the drafting of our tax dollars, please write me at 27122 Cipres, Mission Viejo, CA 92692 to let me know [sic] about the many ways we can protest and resist paying war taxes. Also, please feel free to ask those Friendly questions about justifying suffering for such a witness!

Joshua Evans reflected my feelings long ago when he said: “I found it best for me to refuse paying demands on my estate which went to paying the expenses of war, and although my part might appear at best a drop in the ocean, yet the ocean, I considered, was made of many drops.” Are there other Friends who are willing to be drops in this ocean?

[Lonnie Valentine has travelled in the ministry among Friends in Pacific Yearly Meeting this past year under the auspices of the Fund for Concerns to share with Friends his concerns about paying taxes for war.]

A letter from Harold Waterhouse in the same issue warned Quakers against making their war tax resistance “an act so private in nature that sometimes its sole impact falls on some harassed IRS clerk [and, a]s an act of witness… is chiefly between us and God.” While such an act “relieves our conscience… if it reduces our drive for peace to the point that we fail to act in more effective ways, then war-tax-withholding, on balance, is counter-productive.”

A letter from David & Janet Hartsough to the IRS, reprinted in the May 1981 issue, explained why the Hartsoughs were refusing outright to pay $10.40 of their federal taxes (redirecting that to the Oakland Catholic Worker “to feed the hungry and house the homeless”), and paying the remaining $747.60 but in the form of a check made out to the Department of Health and Human Services instead of to the U.S. Treasury, in the hopes of thereby keeping the money out of the hands of the Defense Department.

A letter from Elinor Gene Hoffman to the IRS, reprinted in the June 1981 issue, explained why she was withholding 33⅓% of her taxes (“approximately the amount we are spending for future wars and present armaments”), redirecting them “to organizations I believe are dedicated to peace and to furthering life on this planet,” and declaring this on her tax return as a “Quaker Peace Witness” tax credit. She wrote, in part:

Please observe that by withholding only one-third of my taxes, I demonstrate my willingness to pay for past wars and veterans’ benefits. I believe we should honor past debts and that veterans of all wars should receive our cherishing care.…

I take this stand in full recognition of the many benefits we all derive from our representative form of government and the freedoms it enables me to enjoy. But I firmly believe nothing good my government has done or will do can endure if we do not halt our military pollution of the planet.

The January 1982 issue included a special section on “Conscientious War Tax Refusal”:

• A reprinted letter from DeAnne Butterfield and John Huyler, Jr. of Boulder Meeting to the IRS explained why they were withholding 39% of their taxes and declaring a credit in a similar manner to Hoffman’s action explained above. Excerpt:

  We hope most fervently that legal options (such as the proposed World Peace Tax Fund) may be available in the future and would gladly pay into such a fund. Until then we see war tax refusal as the only avenue which allows us to follow our religious principles.

  We welcome your scrutiny of this return. You will find that we have been forthright and complete to the best of our ability. Furthermore, we hope that this commitment on our parts can be a useful catalyst for dialogue. We will welcome you our your agents into our home in hopes that, together, in a spirit of mutual concern and respect, we may discover better ways to bring about an end to all wars.

  A note appended to this letter added: “Through the efforts of DeAnne Butterfield, John Huyler, and others, Boulder Meeting adopted a one-year trial program of reducing war taxes and diverting them to peaceful uses through hiring a part-time Peace Secretary who will help stimulate activity in the Meeting and in the community.” (See ♇ 7 June 2018 for more information about this.)
• A reprinted letter from Gerald Morsello of Eugene Meeting to the IRS explained his tax refusal, which involved redirecting “a portion of my Federal Income Tax” to “the Oregon Urban Rural Credit Union for use by people most affected by recent Federal domestic budget cuts.” He said he was doing this although he would prefer “to be able to place the money I owe the Federal government in a legally recognized alternative, such as the World Peace Tax Fund.”
• An letter from Constance Jolly of the Berkeley Meeting to the IRS, excerpted from the newsletter of the National Council for a World Peace Tax Fund, explained her redirection of 35% of her taxes to “an organization that works for peaceful reconciliation, for human rights, and for disarmament.” Excerpt:

  I am not one who breaks the law lightly, but for me the law that commands its citizens to do evil is less binding than the higher law that commands that “Thou shalt not kill.”

• An announcement for an upcoming conference on “A Religious Response to Growing Militarism” sponsored by College Park Quarterly Meeting said that it “will be a nurturing and supportive gathering for those Friends and others who are facing issues related to draft and tax resistance, [etc.]”
• A note read:

  The 1981 Tax Resistance issue of Newsletter is available (40¢ each) from 331 17^th Ave. E., Seattle WA 94112. Contents include information about forms of tax resistance or refusal, possible penalties, resources for decision-making, a national listing of counselors, Centers, and Alternative Funds.

  Those contents sound like the sort of stuff NWTRCC puts out nowadays. But NWTRCC wasn’t founded until 1982, so I don’t know who was putting out such a newsletter in 1981.
• An article concerning statements by Episcopalian and Catholic bishops on nuclear weapons included this section:

  [I]n June Archbishop Raymond G. Hunthausen of Seattle proposed that “a sizable number of people in the state” undertake a taxpayers revolt to protest the buildup in nuclear arms. He argued that refusing to pay fifty per cent of income taxes “in resistance to nuclear murder and suicide” would be “a definite step toward total disarmament… Our paralyzed political process needs that catalyst of nonviolent action based on faith. We have to refuse to give incense — in our day tax dollars — to our nuclear idol.”

• Brief summaries of the activities of various meetings included such notices as these:
  • “Conscience and Military Tax Campaign [and] Consequences of Tax Refusal” were among topics on the agenda of University Meeting’s “study hour.”
  • “Eugene friends held a threshing session on tax resistance: ‘No consensus was sought, and the Meeting was clearly divided on this difficult issue.’ ”
  • “Conscription of Taxes” was discussed by the Phoenix Meeting in the context of “discussions growing out of the New Call to Peacemaking statement.”

Finally, the April 1986 issue included a report from Anne Friend of the Santa Monica Meeting on The Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns:

The Friends Committee on War Tax Concerns is well on the way to working itself out of a job. The committee was established early in 1985 to accomplish three tasks: (1) to publish a guidebook on war tax concerns; (2) to encourage consultation on war tax issues throughout the Society of Friends; and (3) to develop queries and advices for Quaker employers.

The proposed guidebook has become a series of pamphlets and a bibliography. Three of the pamphlets, the ones on Quaker history and recent statements of Friends, on the Biblical basis for conscientious objection to war taxes, and on the spiritual and rational bases for war tax concerns, should be in print by April 15, along with the bibliography.

In mid-continent and mid-October there will be a conference for employers. Invitations will be sent to schools and religious organizations operated by all the groups participating in the New Call to Peacemaking. About 100 people are expected to gather and explore the positions that can be adopted vis à vis the Internal Revenue Service and the range of possible solutions to problems which may arise.

Two regional conferences, “Money and Conscience” and “Paying for War/Paying for Peace,” were held in 1985. Both were very successful. Several more are planned for 1986. FCWTC will provide resource material and assistance with program planning for conferences wherever there are Friends who recognize the importance of war tax issues and are willing to do the basic planning and arrangements. I hope this means some of us.

Each of us on the committee represents a different Friends organization. Most of us refuse to pay some or all of the taxes that pay for war. However, the committee is concerned with “concerns,” not just resistance. We believe that all Friends should go as far as they can, but not all are called to go in the same direction. What aspect of this explosive issue do you most want to learn more about, discuss with other Friends, make the subject of a conference? If you can’t give time, can you give money? The basic program of the committee is to prepare resource materials, distribute them where they are needed, help people with similar problems and concerns to get in touch with each other and then to lay the committee down, probably about a year from now.

I will try to get to any meeting in Southern California (maybe further) and hope to get to Intermountain Yearly Meeting in June (Anne Friend, 836 N. Beaudry, № 5, Los Angeles, CA 90012). Lon Fendall at the Center for Peace Learning, Newberg, OR 97132, is willing to visit some meetings in North Pacific Yearly Meeting, as way opens, and/or to help plan a conference. Linda Coffin is the staff at FCWTC, P.O. Box 6441, Washington, D.C. 20009. Any of us would like to hear from you.

If April 15 is getting to you more every year, think about what you can do about it. And while you’re thinking about it, do something to get others thinking about it, too.

The FBI was nice enough to take careful notes at a war tax resistance protest that took place in Washington, D.C. on this date in 1968, and write up what they saw. Seems that the government does sometimes pay attention to protests.

Tax Resistance Action in Washington, D.C., March 15, 1968

An advertisement in the March 7, 1968, issue of “Village Voice,” a weekly newspaper concerning activities in Greenwich Village, and other sections of New York, N.Y., was captioned “Tax Resistance Action in Washington, D.C.” It stated the Catholic Worker, Resist, Writers and Editors War Tax Protest, and the War Resisters League would sponsor the activity at 1 p.m. on March 15, 1968, at the Internal Revenue Service, Washington, D.C. (WDC).

This advertisement indicated the peaceful action at the Internal Revenue Service would be preceded by a public meeting in Judiciary Square, Fourth and E Streets, N.W., WDC, at 11 a.m. Dr. Arthur Waskow of the Institute for Policy Studies; Dave Dellinger, Chairman of the National Mobilization Committee (to End the War in Vietnam); Harold Tovish of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Barbara Deming, an author; and Professor William C. Davidon of Haverford College would be among the speakers at this public meeting.

On March 13, 1968, a confidential source, who has furnished reliable information in the past, made available a flyer published by the Tax Resistance Project, War Resisters League, 5 Beekman Street, New York, N.Y., calling for support of the activity on March 15, 1968. This flyer asks participants to bring their completed income tax return or a statement explaining why they are refusing to file a return. It is stated that these returns and/or statements, accompanied by an insufficient amount of money or no money at all, will be turned in to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), WDC, at 1 p.m., March 15, 1968.

A copy of this flyer is attached.

The publication, “Washington ’68” describes the Institute for Policy Studies, 1520 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W., WDC, as an institution created to serve as an independent center of research and education on public policy problems in WDC.

The National Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam was formerly known as the Spring Mobilization Committee (SMC).

The SMC is described in the publication entitled “Communist Origin and Manipulation of Vietnam Week (April 8–15, 1967),” a report by the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives. On page 53, the report states in part, “Communists are playing dominant roles in both the Student Mobilization Committee and the Spring Mobilization Committee.”

A second source, who has furnished reliable information in the past, as of August 3, 1967, identified Arthur Waskow as a member of the Steering Committee of the Washington Mobilization to End the War in Vietnam, an outgrowth of the SMC.

A third confidential source, who has furnished reliable information in the past, reported on May 14, 1963, that during a symposium in New York City on May 10, 1963, David Dellinger, editor of Liberation magazine, identified himself as a pacifist, advocated a communist society, and said, “I am a communist.” However, he pointed out that he was not a “Soviet-type” communist.

On March 30, 1961, Professor William C. Davidon was a participant in a program on Radio Station WEAU, Chicago, Illinois, concerning “Peace Walks.” During this program he admitted being a sponsor of the Committee to Secure Justice for Morton Sobell (Committee to Free Morton Sobell) (CFMS).

A characterization of the CFMS is attached.

An article appearing in the January 10, 1967 issue of the “Cape Cod Standard-Times,” a daily newspaper, Hyannis, Massachusetts, stated that Barbara Deming returned to the United States the previous day after spending eleven days in North Vietnam. She accused the United States of waging a war of terror against a civilian population.

On March 15, 1968, Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation observed approximately fifty-five people gathered in Judiciary Square, WDC. At approximately 11:30 a.m., Professor William C. Davidon, acting as master of ceremonies, opened the program by stating that a large number of people are not paying taxes because their money is being used to kill in Vietnam. He estimated that four thousand people are not paying the telephone tax.

Professor Davidon then introduces Arthur Waskow as a representative of Resist. Waskow described Resist as a group encouraging and supplying funds to those who refuse to kill. Waskow said they were assembled to uphold the law. He said that the war in Vietnam is illegal, and that the crime is in the White House and executive offices, not in the streets. He claimed that the President and the Secretaries of State and Defense are the ones violating the law.

Waskow further stated that the President has helped wreck the dollar with the war in Vietnam. He urged those present to uphold the economy and the law by withholding that portion of their income tax that is paying for the “obscene” war. Waskow also felt it is illegal for IRS to collect money to pay for that war.

The next speaker, Harold Tovish, stated the Johnson Administration has alienated the youth of today with lies and a foul war. He said that the youth of America wants a life that is worth living, and he was not certain that life today is worth living. Tovish also said they had gathered in WDC to show that they cannot tolerate the type of life that has been formed for Americans today.

At approximately noon, March 15, 1968, the majority of the group left Judiciary Square and walked to the Constitution Avenue entrance of the IRS building. About fifteen carried posters reading, “Don’t Pay War Taxes.”

Beginning at about 12:15 p.m., Barbara Deming spoke to the gathering. She said she believes in government of, by, and for the people, and stressed how little tax money is spent for people. She claimed the United States is saying to the Vietnamese — let us self-determine you or we will have to destroy you. Deming stated the lives of the Vietnamese do not belong to the Government, and that she refuses to pay her taxes to deliver these lives “up to Caesar.”

An individual identified as Wally Nelson stated that in 1948 he affirmed that no human being should be killed and indicated he has refused to pay taxes since that date. He said that rational people should not pay for slaughter, and should not allow a portion of their taxes to be used for that purpose. Nelson stated that any government that prides itself on killing people owes its people an apology. He indicated he will continue to refuse to pay taxes.

James Leo Herlihy, a novelist, spoke briefly about the inflated cost of killing people you do not really hate. He said that at one time it cost $14,000. to kill a person during a war, but that now that cost has risen to $234,000.

David Dellinger spoke of refusing to pay taxes to a government that tortures, kills, and maims people. He stressed the need for door to door contact to ask people how long they are going to be willing to pay for killing.

Professor Davidon then read what he said was a telegram from three doctors in Cambridge, Massachusetts, supporting their action against IRS.

At approximately 1 p.m., March 15, 1968, a delegation of seven of the demonstrators was admitted to the IRS Building to meet with IRS officials. This delegation said they were prepared to deliver “thirty envelopes” to IRS.

Whle waiting outside the entrance one ⸺ ⸺ of Connecticut state an associate has been harassed by IRS since 1965 for not paying taxes, and that he, Hayworth, is now suffering the same harassment. [Probably Neil Haworth―♇]

A ⸺ from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area, and ⸺ of Princeton, both spoke briefly against paying taxes to support the illegal war in Vietnam.

The demonstrators passed out literature of the War Resisters League. One leaflet captioned, “Resist Vietnam War Taxes,” states that about 67 percent of taxes collected by the Government go for war and preparations for war, and that about 23 percent goes for the war in Vietnam. Another captioned, “Hang Up on War! — Telephone War Tax Refusal Campaign,” urges refusal to pay the ten percent telephone tax.

The delegation that had been admitted to the IRS Building at about 1 p.m. left the building at approximately 1:55 p.m., and the demonstrators dispersed shortly thereafter. There were no arrests or incidents during this demonstration.

On March 15, 1968, Mr. Ray Brennan, Internal Security Division, Office of the Assistant Commissioner, Inspection, IRS, advised that the following were admitted to meet with Deputy Assistant Commissioner Leon C. Greene and a representative of the IRS Baltimore District Office:

• David Hartsough
• Arthur Waskow
• Barbara Deming
• William Davidon
• Wallace Nelson
• Harold Tovich
• David Dellinger

A copy of an IRS news release dated March 15, 1968, concerning the activity on that date is attached.

The attached flyer announcing the action was a typewritten sheet with a crudely-drawn headline:

Friday, March 15
Tax Resistance Action in Washington, DC

Internal Revenue Service Headquarters, 12^th St. & Constitution Ave.

Join us in an act of collective tax resistance. Bring your completed tax return, form 1040, or a statement explaining why you are not filing, and together we will return forms and statements accompanied by either no money or an insufficient amount of money. The action at IRS will be preceded by a public meeting at Judiciary Square, 4^th & E St. N.W., 11 a.m. Dr. Arthur Waskow of the Institute for Policy Studies and Dave Dellinger, Chairman of the National Mobilization Committee, will be among the speakers.

We act because for many verbal opposition to the war in Vietnam is no longer enough. Resistance has become necessary. Our consciences dictate it. The young men resisting the draft have shown a way and we who are not subject to the draft must develop creative parallels. Tax resistance is such a parallel act because it confronts the administration directly and challenges it at a vital point. It liberates the tax resister by showing him that he does have choices.

Total refusers, partial tax refusers, and telephone tax refusers will all be there. Join us.

That flyer then listed the sponsors (Catholic Worker, Writers & Editors Tax Protest, Resist, and War Resisters League) and included a tear-off section that could be returned to War Resisters League headquarters for people who wanted more information or transportation options. It encouraged recipients to also sign this pledge: “I dissociate myself from my government’s actions in Vietnam and therefore I am not paying all or more portion of my 1967 income taxes. Signed:…”

The IRS press release, also attached to the FBI report, was mostly uninteresting. It snidely contrasted the protesters with “[t]he overwhelming majority of taxpayers [who] carry out this obligation of citizenship in a conscientious manner” and also suggested that the protesters were part of a tiny movement, most of whom would ultimately buckle: “In a relatively few cases, IRS has had to enforce collection against tax protestors. Most have paid when asked and some who failed to pay voluntarily notified the IRS where the taxes could be collected from their bank accounts.”

The following letters to the editor are from the April 1987 Wendell [Massachusetts] Post:

To the Wendell Post:

It is with great sadness that I am again forced by country’s military policies, to withhold payment of federal taxes. I cannot in good conscience help to pay for the probable destruction of our globe (nuclear weapons) or the mindless arming of other countries, even those dealing in blatant terrorism. I am ashamed of us!

This is the strongest protest I can think of and it is with full knowledge that it is our freedom and right as Americans that dictates our ability and responsibility to right what is wrong in government.

Now the world (including U.S.A.) is playing with micro-wave bombs which promise to alter people’s brains as well as doing other horrible physical damage. I cannot participate.

Sincerely,
Susan Dunlany

Considering War Tax Refusal

To the “Post”

Could you imagine the Selectmen in Wendell saying, “OK, we are going to take 50% of the town’s tax money this year and use it to harass, maim, and kill people in Erving until they see this Rt. 2 thing our way?” We would, of course, find the very idea absurd and refuse to allow the selectmen to use our taxes in such a way.

Is it any different then, with federal income taxes from which 63% goes to the military for payment on past, present, and future wars?

If Washington doesn’t like a newly formed government, then in the name of democracy and freedom it asks us to finance torture, murder, and propaganda to overthrow that government. If the U.S. government does not particularly care for a certain dictator but that leader is sympathetic to U.S. military and economic concerns, it will finance military support for that dictator. Disrupted lives, violence, brutality, and killing purchased with personal income and phone taxes. It is just as real and unjustifiable regardless of whether it happens in a neighboring town or on a neighboring continent.

With high tech weaponry and paid mercenaries, it takes money more than soldiers to wage war. A case in point is that the drafting of young men into military (dis)service is currently inactive yet the federal government’s active draft of income and phone taxes is amply fueling a war in Nicaragua, and an unending nuclear and chemical weapons buildup.

Yet people continue to pay their federal income taxes. Why is it that we can allow cruel injustice to occur daily in one place while refusing to allow it in another? Are the lives of latin Americans or Philippinos [sic] less important to us than those of our neighbors in Erving? Or is it that with distance the truth of what is happening becomes less real to us; for we are not faced with the routine torture of our friends and family?

To question is to have the burden of finding the truth placed upon ourselves. It means introspection with a possible finding of complicity and guilt. It means change; changing the way we see things and how we act accordingly.

All of us are familiar with the old saying about how people don’t like change. More to the point, perhaps, is that people fear change, especially if it means one is deciding to refuse to pay their federal income taxes.

To refuse paying federal income taxes puts us at risk of losing those things which make us feel secure and free. In light of how vague the suffering of distant people is to us, we are not readily convinced to put ourselves at risk.

But by turning our backs on the truth we lose more than security, we lose a part of our humanity. And so, when we see for ourselves the wrongs done in our name and with our money, how do we refuse taking part in them?

In March, members of Pioneer Valley War Tax Resistance who live in Wendell held an evening potluck and discussion on the matter of war tax refusal. About 25 people attended to talk about the philosophy, history, methods, and consequences of war tax refusal. Throughout the evening we realized that we share many common values that, perhaps, lead us to tax refusal.

Supporting each other as we live according to these values makes the uncertainty about our futures easier to take. In the event that our home is on the IRS auction block, the fact that we have someplace else to stay may give us the strength to endure our loss. If we must leave our job because IRS takes our paycheck for its uses, then the monetary support of our friends helps to feed and clothe our family.

If we recognize and foster our interdependence based on faith in community and nonviolence, then we provide the security we need with each other to face squarely the possible consequences brought by living our beliefs.

Rosie Heidkamp
Eileen Sauvageau

For a more recent example of letters in this tradition, see this letter to the IRS from David and Jan Hartsough recently posted at the CODEPINK site.

Some links from here and there:

• War tax resisters David & Jan Hartsough share their letter to the IRS this year.
• Kay Bell, at Don’t Mess with Taxes, reports on how the IRS’s fleet of private debt collection companies tangled with the wrong guy. The victim, who did not actually owe the IRS anything (his debts had been discharged in bankruptcy), sued the debt collectors for illegal harassment and won.
• Neighbors of a homeless encampment in a park in Vancouver are threatening to withhold their taxes to pressure the government to do something about it. The Vancouver Sun painted this as a NIMBY-hostility-to-the-homeless issue, but one of the neighbors took to Twitter to explain that they’re trying to pressure the government not to act against the homeless encampment, but in assistance of those who live there.
• There’s a new NWTRCC newsletter out.
• The human war on traffic ticket issuing radar robots continues, with the robots taking casualties in Saudi Arabia, France, and Italy; Italy and France; and the United States, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and Germany in recent weeks.