I can't tell if this is satire or not.
Note that tax evasion/fraud[1] is illegal, which may be difficult to distinguish in some cases.
[1] not to be confused with tax avoidance
[2] services like national security, various types of infrastructure, verification and enforcement of safety regulations (e.g. no melamine in your food). You may not like all of these services - I certainly disagree strongly with some - but citizenship is not à la carte[3]. If you don't like some things your tax money is going to, I encourage you to participate in the political process so your opinions are heard, or even run for office yourself.
>If your poor, the IRS won't throw you in jail. However, if you have a reasonable source of income, you will be asked to pay your share of the services you're using.
This is false. The government does not ask. The government demands and punishes non-compliance with expropriation of private property and or prison.
Of course. You still have to file tax forms, and if you have the money you have to pay it. The situation I'm referring to is how not having the money to pay taxes is only a civil offense. Failure to file or filing fraudulently are, of course, offenses that risk jail time.
> This is false.
I suspect you're conflating filing the tax paperwork (i.e. 1040 and related forms) with the actual payment. These are separate requirements with different potential punishments for non-compliance.
> The government does not ask.
Obviously.
So the income tax is a grotesque violation of Human Rights and should be abolished.
To even categorise refusal to disclose one's personal income as "fraud" (which is an entirely different behavior) is political language to rationalise this human rights violation.
In your ideal world, when you legitimately owe someone money and you're past due, what should happen when you refuse to pay, and you're willing to escalate as far as possible? You seem to object to the idea that repeated noncompliance can increase the severity of punishment. But what's the alternative? To not enforce small crimes at all?
Or in other words: You started the discussion by saying it's terrible to "threaten to throw someone in prison" for X. The normal interpretation of that phrase is that the direct punishment you get is prison. But that's not true, the direct punishment you get is a fine. The sense in which you could go to prison is equivalent to the statement "the law is actually enforced". You have to fight pretty hard to end up in prison over it. It's not a violation of human rights to have some fees for things, and it's not a violation of human rights that laws are actually enforced.
I'm arguing that this interpretation is wrong, as it ignores the violence and force that ultimately backs all government mandates.
The violent/forceful quality of government mandates is why we should not be making morally legitimate behavior, like refusing to honour a debt that one did not voluntarily assume, or refusing to surrender one's privacy, a civil or criminal offence.