Nov 01, 2010 08:42 PST
Interesting note Larry, thanks. I'm sure it is the case that everyone interprets their 'resistance' (I like to think of it as 'complete refusal')
to pay for the insanity of war.
For one think it is quite important for me to keep my financial resources away from the IRS because they will use that money to kill people.
So, when they did sieze my account and get $4000 some years ago, that was a sizable amount that went to war (I know we generally calculate
about half goes in that direction). It is a real, literal, tangible issue to me; I don't want any of my resources to go to war (not to be too pure here,
I do drive my car quite a bit.....petroleum is quite a war-related problem....).
It's certainly an issue that if the IRS does sieze a large sum then the mechanics of living become problematic. I'm sure that's what Diogenes was
getting at when he said 'People don't own possessions, possessions own people.' He apparently lived in a barrel in the town square for quite a while.
I'm passionate....but not that passionate.
Also, if one can retain one's resources, one can redistribute them. Some years ago I gave $1000 to the town community center for their new roof;
when I handed the cash to the manager I stipluated that I was going to point out in a letter to the editor why I could afford to give away a thousand
dollars when I don't have a lot of money. I would like to get up to giving away 1/4 of what I make (total taxes are about 1/4 of income), but I'm not
there. It is however a real pleasure to give $100 here and $100 there; if the IRS got at my funds that would be impossible.
I'm 61 and I think I can get social security next year. Surprisingly, they are offering me something like $600 a month (I've paid very little into the system
in my life). My favorite idea is to take the money and then donate it to groups working on the aftermath of American war-making, or the many exemplary
groups I met in Afghanistan when there in March, trying to educate street children or take care of old people with almost zero resources (speaking of this
there are two good essays at CommonDreams right now by Kathy Kelly and her co-workers, who are in Afghanistan as we speak). I know not everyone
could afford to do this, but in my case I think I can make some money until I'm at least 70 selling at farmer's market and doing other work.
So....I had no intention of ending up an anarchist, but the Politics of Obedience are too much for me.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Rosenwald
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2010 7:04 AM
Subject: Re: [wtr-s] Banks
And as I mentioned once before, it is possible with small banks that have no branches to have an account in somebody else's name,
or more meaninfully, someone else's SS#. There can be two signers on the account but they only take the SS# of the first person.
Apparently this option does not exist with banks with branches; only dog knows why this is the case.
When the IRS siezed my account some years ago, the bank president came up to the teller window and explained this technique to
We keep our money in a local bank (two branches). I love Dana's story about the bank president!
But here's a question. As noted in an earlier exchange with Carol Moore, I think of war tax resistance as an act of civil disobedience, and in that context - and for other reasons - I am not trying not to be penalized; rather the being penalized is for me part of the civil disobedience. I hate being levied, I should make clear! But I understand being penalized as part of the process, and when I'm penalized, when we're levied, I take that occasion to publicize what we're doing.
I'm guessing from the responses to this thread, and from other threads, that other readers of this list don't think of wtr as civil disobedience, or think of civil disobedience in a different way, and I'd be interested in understanding these other conceptual frameworks better, if readers would be willing to comment on them.
All good wishes,