If one is a pacifist, is there an argument to be made that minimizing taxes is in fact the ethical thing to do?
If one is a pacifist, is there an argument to be made that minimizing taxes is in fact the ethical thing to do?
Sure, if everyone did that it would have an impact, but that seems pretty improbable.
This is essentially what a nonprofit does. Then what ends up funded is what's whimsical. For example, people donate to save cute polar bears instead of saving the ugly worm that fixes the soil problems.
So really, the citizens' choice in my example would have be to designate percentages at the top level, say to DoJ, DoD, DHS, etc.
That in and of itself would put a lot of power back in the citizens' hands. Of course, I don't see this happening, but that would be transformative. And we'd see a lot of campaigning/advertising/propaganda from each Department asking for taxpayers to direct their funds to them...
But my original premise was that Congress is gridlocked and if you think they're not serving the citizens' best interests, then this is an alternative from left field.
Do not get super clever to pay less taxes, leave those who cannot avail themselves to such methods to pay more (or the government to go further into debt), and call that morality. Don't kid us, and don't kid yourself.