Article Image Ernest Hancock
Letters to the Editor • TAXES: Federal

Questions To Ask If You Don’t Want To Pay Your Taxes

   Anyone who has no sense of social responsibility cannot or will never understand why we HAVE to pay our taxes. If they do, chances are that responsibility is viewed from a great distance away from the truth, as if the truth is being viewed from the depth of outer space at the wrong end of the telescope.

    Viewing the truth at such great distances plays trick to the mind’s eye. It misconfigures the object of vision, and what is visualized is something else. Victims of this optical mirage appear like a bungling fool that some people laugh at.

    Thus most often than not there are those clownish people who see and believe like a fool that paying taxes is “slavery”, and that taxation is a form of “robbery”. They are not joining this July Fourth celebration of Independence because they see this momentous event as an American self-declaration of slavery.  

     It is not really because of their myopic vision that makes them look like a clown, but the way they justify that what they saw was slavery instead of taxation, and it was not taxation they saw but robbery, which in the stage of public opinion make them the last comics left standing. Unfortunately, extreme Libertarians in the good company of the radical Left, chant this mantra of sightlessness due to such impaired vision.

     The story of “Benefits of Paying Taxes” [] is one of the great stories ever known to the American people. At least five of those benefits are best understood more than the reading of the Bible is understood in a Sunday church gathering.

1.                  Income for running the government. Taxes are used to run the government machinery.

2.                  Public utilities and amenities. To enable politicians to make good of their election promises to build roads, highways, free education, job opportunities, etc. we have to pay our taxes. For instance, you should be proud that the highway you drive through was built by the taxes you paid.

3.                  Free Education and Medicare. Millions of the underprivileged population gets a good free primary education and healthcare, aside from the fact that the Government planned for free high school and college education because of the taxes we paid.

4.                  Social Protection or Security. Imagine you are robbed and there is no police to protect you. Your taxes create the police force that go after those criminals.

5.                  National security. I like to explain this particular tax benefit verbatim with this appropriate quote: “Your taxes not only support the internal security forces but also the national security personnel. These security forces are what protect our country from external enemies and terrorists who threaten the security and peace of the nation.”

      The truth about Taxation is clear … that it is because of taxation that we are able to build our road and superhighways, had facilitated interstate commerce and our international trade thereby creating the richest and the mightiest country on the planet. It benefited Americans who paid their taxes to the Government – the State Government and U.S. Federal Government -- that created those wonders of modern civilization by using the taxes we paid.

      The questions to ask then, are:

       If you refuse to pay your taxes because in your freaking mind taxation is robbery, and yet you are using the roads and superhighways our taxes built, and reaping the benefits out what our taxes had created, aren’t you then a despicable FREELOADER?

      If you cheat paying taxes and get away with it because anyway in your freaking mind you are against tax laws  that “forced” you to pay taxes like everybody else [you complain that this is a form of robbery], and yet you feed on the bounty of the economy taxation has created when we paid our taxes with own sweat and blood, what are you then … an abominable BLOODSUCKER?

      If we pay our taxes with our dollar earned through our sweat and blood to build this greatest nation on the planet where you work and earned a living to feed yourself and raise a family, and yet as a tax evader you did not contribute anything because anyway in your freaking mind paying taxes is a form of slavery, and taxation is robbery, what are you then other than a BUM, a bloodsucking TICK, or a LEECH?

     Now is your chance to prove that you are not any of those.


Brutos Ectos

18 Comments in Response to

Comment by Arty Choke
Entered on:

The best judge of the politicians’ character is the voting public. This is the reason why any information available about the candidate is so critical to our constitutional exercise of Right of Suffrage.

Not to inflate his ego into a balloon, I have to say that Anno75 has this impeccable talent and unchallenged wisdom of reading the mind of the public which -- as recorded in my journal while I track down those discussions in Freedom Forum -- is almost bull’s eye or 99% correct.

It is evident that Anno75 is a man of higher learning. I am sure his expose of Barry Hess is nothing personal. This politician deserved it when his comments betrayed his political limitations and personal weaknesses.

To Anno75 … I thank you, Sir, for what you are doing.




Comment by Bertha Anonimo
Entered on:

Kind of weird this certain Tyger had opened up a GUESSING game in this discussion where Barry Hess is exposed. He is not commenting on Brutos’ brainy Letter-to-the Editor exposing tax evaders and tax cheats as "freeloaders" or parasites of society. That’s obvious …it requires brain to tackle the issues Brutos raised in that LTTE. You either have it, or you don’t.

Instead, when Hess is losing the argument, this "Tiger" brought up the issue of the same or similar "IP" of pseudonyms of members of, insinuating that Brutos and I are the same person, which is incongruous if not silly.

As I said many times before, Ernie, the Publisher, requires the use of pen-name when registering to participate in the discussion of issues in Freedom Forum, as a matter of editorial policy. This requirement is printed in the form you fill up when you register.

If "Tiger" is Ernie’s Man Friday in the editorial staff that must do what Ernie tells him to do – like enforcing’s policy of using pseudonyms in Freedom Forum -- this "Tiger" should be fired immediately. Violating policy of anonymity by no less than the very people within who are supposed to enforce it, makes a mockery of as a respectable website of liberty and freedom.

It only takes a dimwitted maverick member of the Staff to besmirch and damage the reputation of this website, and destroy completely!

Having said that in defense of, let’s go back to the GUESSING game that this violator of editorial policy had brought up. I want our readers to know that this is the first time "Tiger" and Barry Hess showed up in Freedom Forum at the same time, as far as I can remember. Who can tell that "Tiger" and Barry Hess are not one and the same person?

Note that Barry Hess was in virtual panic after he posted his original comment on Brutos’ LTTE, self-incriminating himself either as a delinquent taxpayer, a tax-dodger or a tax cheat [he owed the IRS unpaid tax], and as a politician that has neither social conscience nor sense of social responsibility [read his original comment I now mark Exhibit A]. He needed a "Tiger" to support him, although it is possible that this "Tiger" is no other than himself. I said "possible", who knows? It is only a guessing game.

Read Barry Hess’ latest comment posted only yesterday [on 2012-07-04 16:05:30] which shows his very poor understanding of what "social responsibility" means, even though this has already been explained thoroughly.

For instance, even if you have no children, you must share the cost [tax] of educating other children because this country educates its youths the result of which benefits everybody including those who have no children. Barry Hess opposed this cost-sharing, and even calls it "extortion" [see his original post at the bottom]. This could be interpreted to mean that the man is mean-spirited if not selfish; as a politician he is showing his self-centeredness or antipathy, hostility and aversion towards public interest… in short, he has this infirmity of character that no one – even himself – can deny.

Barry Hess has a very limited understanding of "social responsibility". He thinks that it is nothing but his contribution to charities. He said:

"Make no mistake, I do absolutely believe we each have a social responsibility to be charitable, and while I'm not a bettin' man, I'd wager I give 10X to real charities where I expect absolutely no return..." [this is my second evidence marked Exhibit B.] Giving to charity is NOT Social Responsibility discussed in Brutos’ LTTE … it is different and much larger than that.

Now you know why the people of Arizona rejects Barry Hess ALL THE TIME, whenever he runs for public office. It is because of these cerebral deficiency and infirmities of character.

It is tragic to take note of the fact that judging the way he talks, he is not aware of these deficiencies or limitations that he have. He keeps on believing he can win in an election, and does not know why he cannot win or had never won a single electoral contest. In his mind he does not know why the people of Arizona reject him time and time again when he asks for their votes.

Anyway, much that I sympathize Barry Hess' predicament, with this presentation of Exhibit B, I now rest my case.

No more innuendoes. No more diversionary ploys … no more cheap trickeries. I do not want to hurt this "public figure" by unraveling this truth about him in public.

No more foulmouthed personal attacks either, especially those coming from Lilliputian minds that do not have the capacity to argue intelligently.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Barry, if you mean that you are going to keep running for Arizona Governor, I just might start voting again.

They used to call it electing. Next time you see Gene, ask him for a copy of the electing v. voting paperwork that his paralegal buddy in Payson put together back in the early '90s. It is really terrific stuff.

Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

Tyger, I gotta say that's just plain funny. 

Anon, Mr./Ma'am,  your insinuations are beneath warranting a reply, but I will say that; as your friends, (the internal --to the Federal Reserve--revenue 'service') obviously agreed, there was never anything owed (records showed I actually overpaid).  Incidentally, I did NOT admit to any debt in my actual quote, only that that was what the IRS said I owed.  What, you still think the Olde Media press prints anything resembling the truth?  You know, it amazes me when the tiny minds spurt their slober about 'some sort of social contract'--i.e. a legal obligation to 'give' my money to a politician's favorite vote-buying cause, and get weird.  Make no mistake, I do absolutely believe we each have a social responsibility to be charitable, and while I'm not a bettin' man, I'd wager I give 10X to real charities where I expect absolutely no return...than Ms./Mr. Anon.  I just chose my own charities--is that alright?  Finally (seriously, this is just silly) I will say your assessment of my political involvement is quite different than mine.  I still have the distinction of having the highest 'trust' level of any politician in AZ, and have always been the 2nd choice of over 80% of voters.  Like the mini-minds supporting Romney, their doubts weren't about 'me'--their doubts were about my being able to overcome the fraud to actually win.  That's why I'll be back.  I'm proud to continue to do all that I can to plant the seeds of liberty in the minds of the young.  Most people just sit at their computer, lashing out at that which they do not know, and to write really goofy letters, and then scurry under anonymity to comment on and praise their own work...know anybody like that?



Comment by Tyger Gilbert
Entered on:

Interesting that Brutos Ectos and Annonymous75 both have the same IP address. One might guess that they are the same person, writing the letter and commenting on it as if they are two different people.

Comment by Courtney Jalospanis
Entered on:

Anno75, Panocha is right. Please stay awake. There are characters here that need a lot of teaching lessons you are good at.

Comment by Ana Panot
Entered on:

I know Sir Annonymous75, you are getting bored.  You are looking for comments that should at least match your wit, knowledge and wisdom. Sorry, none of it has yet come up. But please don't leave ... stay, for the sake of our reading public.  Just take a cup of hot, black Colombian coffee, and stay awake!

Comment by Bertha Anonimo
Entered on:

To Barry Hess: When you ran for Governor in Arizona in 2002 and was almost totally rejected by the voters of Arizona, you cannot deny that you admitted owing the IRS $47,000. I quote your admission published in the Internet read by millions: "Hess admitted to owing the Internal Revenue Service $47,000 in unpaid taxes …" Now, how did you end up with this amount of unpaid tax, plus or minus it does not matter – either as a tax evader or a tax cheat – I will no longer put you to task for this infirmity of character, if indeed it is a character of a politician enervated by the strain of politics.

In the original editorial Brutos wrote, which is the subject of your self-incriminatory comment, he was exposing tax-dodgers and tax cheats as our society’s parasitic freeloaders, i.e., those that owe taxes to the IRS – and presto, you happen to be one of them! Your comment turned the key, and – presto! – you open the closet of your character … for anyone to know who and what you are, not only to the people of Arizona but also to the IRS that Brutos was writing about.

Of course it is also foolish to deny that the voters of Arizona reject marginal politicians with such notorious infirmity of character, either as a tax cheat or a tax evader based on published evidence that you owed unpaid tax to the IRS [it does not matter to me how you wiggle your way out of it … maybe you are innocent, that I grant], and above all as a candidate without social conscience and a person without social responsibility, all of which were clearly shown in your self-incriminating comment.

By the way, hiding behind your insinuation that Annonymous75 is using a creative "Avatar" is infantile. The identity of those making comments in Freedom Forum [using an "Avatar" when you become a member of is required, don’t you know?] is not the issue here. Your irrelevance bores me.

[My prayer … Please make my day by giving me a smarter politician, not a dull one …! My wit is getting bored and my interest is declining rapidly! To recharge, I want to go back to the Academe and find some intellectual excitement there to stay awake.]

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Great comment, Gene. The rest of us needed it. Too bad BE doesn't get it.

Comment by Gene Kernan
Entered on:

Well said, Barry!  Clearly, "Brutos Ectos" is a pseudonym (he'd better have gotten his Group Manager's and his Manager's Manager's authorization), and sadly appropriate.  Rather Freudian to choose a pseudonym (however badly) that falls back to the most famous of tax-buried fallen republics in support of a "bread and circuses" argument.

As with most "feeding at the public trough" (the real ticks, leeches, etc), in his(?) mind, "a tax" = "everybody's tax", demonstrating that his(?) knowledge of taxation extends only as far as the apparent source of his "government" check.  But his "free education" (which, BTW, doesn't go past high (sic) school) didn't even equip him with the power to raise a good example.

If the Gov you so worship can or could be believed, Bru, fuel taxes pay for the roads.  So, the people that use them pay for them, and do so to the extent of that use.  You needn't reach into any unwilling pocket to support the roads.    

I could go paragraph by paragraph on errors, omissions, and (what can only be described as) lies, but even Tacitus couldn't convince contemporary Romans that "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous its laws."  And its "taxes".

Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

The flattery never stops from people who choose to hide behind such creative avatars as "anonymous".  While I'm flattered to have been highlighted in his/her  nonsensical tirade, I was curious about my 'odd' libertarianism to which he/she alluded.  She/he  seems to have done some research or has maybe kept up with my efforts.  Who knows?  Unfortunately, virtually every figure he/she stated--is wrong.  Even the IRS thing,  He/she would have been smarter to actually find out what they were talking about.  First off, the figure they cited was an allegation--not a debt.  Obviously, its publication was intended to influence government-educated mo-mos.  The fact is, any alleged amount owed was the result of their (IRS) "dis-allowing" real live deductions.   I didn't back down, or cower, I wanted to litigate....but they decided to drop the whole thing (maybe afraid I'd expose their fraud?)...and what they said they wanted was 10X that amount.  They never got a dime. I guess 'anonymous'  didn't do it's homework to report on the disposition of the instance they felt compelled to mention...sigh.  I guess I'll never know what 'anon' meant by "odd libertarian", but I wouldn't have it any other way.

Comment by Bertha Anonimo
Entered on:

I commend and endorse your good works, Brutos and JV. You are doing a good service to our reading public. But I must point out that this expose’ of culpable "parasitic tax-dodgers" attracted some interesting comments from tax cheaters themselves and their supporters.

Citizen X posed a challenge:"Why can't we choose to contract with other agencies to provide these services?" Yes, we can.

It seems to me that X is not aware that she/he is talking about "Privatization". The heavily funded Government-owned Conrail System has been privatized. In this case privatization is the transfer of expensive government-owned, government-operated railway transportation system [government services] to the private sector.

We can contract some heavily-funded Government-owned public services to private-enterprises. But huge development projects of the Federal Government such as the earlier massive construction of the United States land transportation system and interstate superhighways to become what they are today is a government responsibility. The private sector cannot do it because of the gargantuan funding required that only the Government is in the position to provide. No private-owned enterprise was financially capable of handling this massive multiple-projects during the early founding of the United States.

The other area the private sector would hardly go into is in Social Capital Investment. Unlike in Economic Capital Investment, SCI has neither direct nor immediate monetary rate of returns. You learn the details of this esoteric knowledge in graduate school when you study Advance Economics.

This notion that the Government has a "monopoly" of public services "because of its immoral self-granted power to initiate violence on peaceful individuals" X wrote, is not only gibberish but pure hogwash.

On the other hand, Barry Hess’ comment shows he has no sense of "social responsibility" that Brutos was writing about in his Letter to the Editor. Hess’ thinking is that "those who never have children … are forced to pay for the (dis-)education of the welfare class". What he meant was that if you have no children, you should not pay taxes for the education and welfare of other children… Hess is an "odd" kind of Libertarian. This statement, which shows lack of social responsibility, identifies not only his kind of politics but also his obtuse mentality.

His other fallacious argument Hess posted is that "a diploma doesn't even mean the kid knows anything…" For Hess to say that a "kid" who went to school to get educated and obtained a "diploma" does not know anything is absurd. It shows that this trifling politician is mentally reckless -- not careful and deliberate enough to know and understand first that what he is talking about is right. Here he is totally wrong. An educated "kid" must have learned something after earning his "diploma". It is stupid for any bottom-rated politician to say otherwise.

Contributing your share of taxes to get children educated benefits society. However, Hess is suggesting that those who have no children should not share this social cost [in his comment, he calls this "extortion"]. Only those without any social conscience would take that stand.

As I said earlier, Hess is an "odd" Libertarian politician that unfortunately the public rejects. He finished at the bottom of the race when he ran for a seat in the Arizona Senate with only 5.06% of the total votes.

He ran for Governor of Arizona against three other candidates and he landed in the bottom with only 1.22% of the entire votes. "Hess was publicly endorsed by professional wrestler Sean Morley …"

I mean, as a marginal politician on the fringe endowed with a knee-jerk mentality, lack of social conscience and complete absence of social responsibility as above-cited, how can he hope to get elected to a high public office? Who in his right mind would endorse his candidacy? Does one has to get into the ring and end up punch-drunk to endorse his candidacy? [No offense intended.]

By the way, Hess owed the IRS $47,000 in "unpaid taxes" when he ran for Governor in Arizona in 2002.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville
Entered on:

Nice editorial, Brutos. This well-written essay reminds readers of "tax evaders" or "tax cheaters" who I agree, are our society’s parasitic "freeloaders".

By giving a bad example to the taxpaying public, the Federal Government has become parsimonious, close-fisted and meaner to "tax-dodgers" and "tax cheaters" … and treats them like "lepers".

Shunned by the rest of society, the IRS is empowered by law to seek and arrest parasitic tax-escape-con-artists and quarantine them in no better place than the calaboose so as not to contaminate others, so to speak.

In general, not just tax felons but anti-Government bangers with a rebellious militia mentality, i.e., R3volutionary Libertarians in extremis and the extreme Radical Left, have this spiteful idea or rabblerousing conviction as well as this twisted belief that taxation is a coercive government imposition, a sinister exaction, a blackmail, an extortion or robbery, and to pay any taxes, not just "fuel" tax is "slavery". They argued this position in many of their published writings, and in the court of law, but to no avail.

What they are doing is simply exhort defiance of the U.S. Tax Code, if not subversion, not necessarily to topple down the Government but to create a reign of Libertarian Anarchism. This is what was in the mind of a tax felon who was convicted for attempting to cheat the IRS and/or trying to avoid paying his income tax for years, until he was finally arrested, tried in court, convicted and served his sentence in jail.

Among others, the notorious case of tax evader Larken Rose [who finds a home in this website] was published by the IRS in the Internet for taxpayers to know how foolish a tax-dodger argues in Court to defend a tax felony [cheating the Government of federal taxes].

After conviction, this infamous tax protester tried to get even with the Government and the IRS – at least that was how the public sees it -- when he published, video-taped and sold derogatory anti-Government materials declaring what he had argued in Court that taxation is in effect a form of government extortion, a robbery, and paying taxes under the Revenue Code is slavery. And believe it or not, he even insinuated that Americans must have the courage to kill government officials and to shoot cops dead!

If you want to verify the truth of what you are reading now, just backtrack to his published books, seditious reading materials and distributed videos, which some of them had appeared in this website.

Again, well-done Brutos.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

Besides, it isn't that people don't want to pay their taxes. What it is about is being liable for the taxes in the first place.

There are a lot of people in America who have the option of legally avoiding taxes. If they use their option, and place themselves outside of the taxable position, then this letter doesn't apply to them at all!

The nature of the wording of this letter shows that it is only for those who have agreed to have taxes, and then have reneged on that agreement. And I have to agree with this point. Anybody willfully reneging on an agreement that he/she knowingly entered into, is a "bad" person.

Comment by Ed Price
Entered on:

I like to think about toll roads in the sky. Just think, if we each had our own high-flying hover vehicle, would we even need roads? Would Gov want tax money to pave the sky? Sure, they would figure out a reason.

Private, unregulated toll roads would cause the masses to have developed sky-cars long ago. All that taxes do is keep tolls low enough so that Gov gets a reasonable cut, and so that people don't invent and manufacture sky-cars.

Why wouldn't Gov want us to have sky-cars?... especially of the kind that we each can park in our own driveway? Because it reduces their overall control! Look at how long it has taken Gov to get TSA into the airports. And the TSA is being stymied by its attempts to get into trains and buses, and to do ID checks on the roads. Think of how much freer we would be if we didn't need roads.

Comment by Barry Hess
Entered on:

Poor Brutus...sigh.  Oh well, I thought it odd that he miss-used probably the only example where a use tax might make some sense.  The "fuel" tax was said to be the sole source of funding for the maintenance of the public thoroughfare, so the users of the public roads paid for their repair in equal measure with their use.

It was also disturbing to read an ostensibly full-grown man arguing that because one segment of the population (the 'morally' blind) was fooled into thinking that the money collected was spent on the taxpayer's behalf, that 'everybody' else should suffer for their ignorance, too.  Ah, no thanks.

Even the writer's brain would have to do a little pretzel-twisting of morality to suggest that people who never have children and are forced to pay for the (dis-)education of the welfare class, somehow 'take' a benefit because another kid 'graduated' from the government welfare public schools.  They say an 'educated society' is good for all of us because there'll be 'less crime'.  Forgetting the obvious stupidity of that kind of reasoning, and the fact that a diploma doesn't even mean the kid knows anything; stripping all the crap away, he suggests that 'we' comply with his demands, or there'll be evil come upon the land.  Hey, that's extortion!

Poor Brutus, he gleefully feeds the beast that is devouring him.  Et tu, Brute? 

Comment by Glenn Jacobs
Entered on:

This entire letter is based on the premise that only the State is capable of providing these services. Is this the case, or is the fact that the State prohibits the market from providing such services as justification for its existence? In other words, are the services that the government provides simply a justification for its power to tax and therefore control. Libertarians have never claimed that services should be provided "for free." We realize that in the market, we would have to pay for them. In fact, under the current system, the free rider problem is much wise than it would be in the market. For instance, how does one determine what a "fair" taxation policy would be? Why doesn't the government send every individual a bill for the services that he utilizes? Why don't we have the ability to refuse certain services that we do not want? Why can't we choose to contract with other agencies to provide these services? It is not paying for services that libertarians object to. It is the monopoly that the State claims on these services because of its immoral self-granted power to initiate violence on peaceful individuals.

Comment by Joe Blow
Entered on:

There you have it people. We taxed our way to prosperity. If only we could give all the peoples wealth to the government then we would live in bliss!

Does the writer of this know the USA existed for 100+ years before the income tax? Gasp! Choke! How did we ever survive all that time? No socialist security?! The hell you say!

While it is probably true we couldn't make it very far without any taxes, and I know there are few who argue we could. Income tax and social security are defiantly not necessary and only fatten up the fat cats.

The gas tax, that is supposed to pay for our road and highways, is pretty hard to get around. I wonder who the writer is talking about freeloading by not paying that tax. I mean, who ARE these people? Am I right folks?