Hey parents, join the LA Kings on Saturday, November 25th for an unforgettable kids day presented by Pear Deck. Family fun, giveaways, and exciting Kings hockey awaits. Get your tickets now at lakings.com/promotions and create lasting memories with your little ones. Welcome to Radical Personal Finance, a show dedicated to providing you with the knowledge, skills, insight, and encouragement you need to live a rich and meaningful life now, while building a plan for financial freedom in 10 years or less.

Yesterday on the show, I talked to you about why is Joshua so anti-tax. But that show was largely philosophical. I talked about a little bit of theory, some moral theory, some governmental theory, political theory, etc. And you're welcome to listen to that show, but it wasn't particularly practical. I just talked about theory, but we talked about things that really you and I have no chance to affect.

It's just a theoretical discussion that I think is worth thinking about, to ask ourselves if we're complicit in things that are immoral. But I didn't go into any detail about anything practical. I thought today, however, it would be interesting to talk about tax protesting and tax evasion, because I made the comment in yesterday's show that I don't personally support or practice any kind of tax evasion, the willful, intentional non-payment of taxes that are legally owed.

By way of reminder, there are two words that we use in tax planning. We use the word tax avoidance, which is simply choosing to arrange your affairs in a way that you avoid a tax that is due, and tax evasion, which is willfully and intentionally not paying a tax that is legally owed.

So an example would be tax avoidance would be if taxes, if you live on the line of a place where there are no state income taxes and gas is five cents cheaper, then you can go over the state line and you fill up your car where the gas is five cents cheaper.

You're avoiding the tax, the high tax in your state. Tax evasion would be doing something like going and using non-taxed off-road fuel and putting that in your on-road vehicle, which then drive on the vehicle, which is technically illegal. It's not illegal to cross the state line and buy your things there where the taxes are lower.

It is illegal to use off-highway diesel fuel in your on-highway vehicle. So with regard to income taxes, tax avoidance simply means choosing to do something like put money into an IRA to avoid the tax on a certain amount of income. Tax evasion means not telling the IRS about $5,000 of income that you earned in cash from side work.

Now this distinction is important because when we talk about tax protesting, we have a number of different techniques that you can choose from. Tax protesting means not paying a tax out of protest for what it is. And this is not a new subject here on Radical Personal Finance. If we were to go all the way back to, I think, episode 17 in July of 2014, July 10, 2014, I interviewed David Gross, who is the author of the book 99 Tactics of Successful Tax Resistance Campaigns.

And the title of that episode was "Should I Stop Paying My Taxes on Moral Grounds?" David Gross is a tax protester, specifically a war tax protester, after the United States' invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan back in after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, he stopped paying his taxes to protest the war effort.

And although, by my assessment, it seems that the current war tax resistance movement is pretty weak in the United States, I'm not aware of it being any significant political movement at the moment, there is a significant history in US American culture of war tax protesters. David writes extensively about his experiences.

I like David. I've read his writing over the years. I think he does a good job of following these issues. If you're interested, you can read his work at sniggle.net, s-n-i-g-g-l-e.net. That's his website that he curates on these topics. The challenge is that war tax protesting or tax protesting in general can be an extra challenge for Christians.

And this show is primarily targeted towards the audience of Radical Personal Finance that identifies as Christian. You're, of course, welcome to tune in if that's not you. But tax resistance is very difficult for Christians because, on the one hand, there's an obvious moral horror at many of the things that are done with tax money.

The most obvious example would be the war machine of the United States and many other governments. The behavior of the US military, the unjust and immoral wars that are constantly prosecuted by the US military, bringing death to millions of people all around the world, are obviously immoral, obviously completely antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

And so for Christians who try to look at this and say, "How do I reconcile the fact that my tax dollars are going to support this military empire?" It can be very, very difficult because you look at the behavior of the military empire and it turns your stomach. And you don't want to be complicit.

You don't want to have your money involved in it. But the challenge is there are a number of very clear teachings in Christianity by the major prophets and founders of the faith that very clearly teach submission to government authority and the payment of taxes. And if you look at the environments and the governments that these men were dealing with, it's hard to say that they had it tougher than we do.

You can begin with Jesus Christ himself, who was executed without cause, without any kind of justice, was executed by the government of his day. And yet Jesus taught very clearly to pay taxes. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's." Paul also very clearly taught to pay taxes.

Paul also executed completely without cause by the Roman Empire. Peter, "Honor the emperor, give to all, honor the emperor." In 1 Peter 2, "Honor everyone, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the emperor." And yet Peter also executed by the government of his day. Now, I don't know how you get much clearer than dealing with men who were executed by the government of their day when they did nothing wrong.

They did nothing other than preach a gospel message, preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. Christ, of course, preaching his own gospel. Paul and Peter preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ. They went about doing good, delivering people from demons, healing hundreds or thousands of people. We don't know exactly, but at least thousands of people collectively.

And did nothing good. All of the accusations that were brought against them were trumped-up charges. We have record of the trials of Christ and of Paul, and all of the accusations were false charges. They were lies that were brought against them in court. We don't know, we don't have the record of Paul's final trial, but we have the record of several of his trials before Festus and Felix, I think, before he ultimately went to Caesar.

We have record of his defense before King Agrippa in Jerusalem. So, when you look at the, and study what these men were facing, they certainly had a lot to be upset about with the government of their day. We don't have, of course, the record of Peter's trial, but we do know that he was executed by the government.

So, it seems a little bit difficult for those of us in the modern era who are frustrated with the immoral behavior of our governments to turn and appeal to the Bible as a defense and say, "Well, things were better back then." They just don't know what we're talking about.

No, it's the exact opposite. You know, in those days you had Christians being doused in oil and used as human candle in candles in Nero's garden. It's hard to say that they didn't, they had it, you know, easier than we do. We have such an easy, cushy life that it's not even worth comparison.

It's not even worth the comparison. So, but yet still you have this challenge, and I think a new challenge, especially a challenge that certainly Christians in half a dozen states at least are facing is, "How can I be complicit and involved in the abortion of children?" In general, your involvement of your tax dollars in the military empire of the United States is the same no matter what state you live in, or even if you live outside the country.

If you're a citizen of the United States, your money is involved in that. But then, of course, there's an increasing usage of tax monies to fund abortion. I find that issue particularly difficult, particularly challenging. There are a number of Christian tax protesters who are not paying taxes because of the state's involvement in abortion.

And there's a very real chance that in the coming years there may be, if a Democratic president wins the presidency in the previous election, all of the Democrats, both, in that case it was Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, pledged to repeal the Hyde Amendment. I haven't seen or noticed any public statements by this raft of Democratic candidates, but I would assume that in time they would make that pledge publicly as well.

And so it can be, it may be very difficult. We may be in a situation a couple of years from now, if there is a change in the political party, where we face some difficult choices. And so I thought it'd be useful to talk about tax protesting, both big picture and then a little bit theologically, to give you an idea and get you thinking about the topic.

Now, the first thing I want to point out is that there are different ways and models of tax protesting. Oftentimes people assume that tax protesting means that I simply, I owe the IRS $15,000 and I don't pay it, right? And many people rightly have trouble with that. But in studying the issue over the years, I came to the conclusion there are a number of different ways that you could engage in tax protesting.

I'll use David Gross as an example. David Gross practices two different methods of tax protesting. The first thing that he does is he keeps his earned income below a level of taxation for his federal income taxes. When he decided to become a tax protester, that was the first strategy that he chose to employ.

Now, in the United States, based upon the way the tax code works, you can use the provisions of the tax code. And as long as your earned income is below the level of federal taxation, you can avoid owing any income tax. So David Gross is self-employed, he runs a business.

And so of course, in a business you have your gross income. Let's say that you earn $50,000 of gross income. Funny, gross income, David Gross. You have $50,000 of gross income. Then you additionally have some level of business expenses. Let's say that you have $10,000 of business expenses that are associated with that.

So now you have $40,000 of net income. Then of course, you could do something like make a $10,000 401(k) contribution, which would then drop your income from $40,000 to $30,000 of income. And then for a single taxpayer in the United States, I don't remember exactly what the numbers are for this year, David does a good job of calculating it each year.

But if you have $30,000 of annual income, then you're not going to owe any federal income taxes on that, waste upon the personal allowances and exemptions, et cetera. And so you could, in that situation, you could effectively earn $40,000 of net profit from your business and not pay any income taxes legally using those means.

You haven't broken any law. You haven't run the risk of going to prison. You haven't done anything except use the law that exists, but yet lower your earned income. That type of strategy is the type of strategy I think is usually the first place, especially that Christians would go.

Because as you're seeking to balance honoring the emperor and being a good citizen of the king, while also registering your protest, you want to be careful about breaking the law. It's hard for Christians to be openly defiant and say, "I'm going to break the law." And so that's one thing that you could consider.

And I think that a lot of what we talk about on Radical Personal Finance really could fit into those kinds of strategies. For example, if I wanted to become a tax protester, but I wanted to live in the United States, I could avoid most federal income taxes through putting these methods together.

If you understand business taxes, if you are self-employed, if you understand the proper legal documented business expense deductions, if you understand how to live frugally, you're not going to be riding around in your private airplane, but you could live frugally, if you understand the various tax exemptions and the activities that are not tax intensive.

For example, maybe you build your own house. That gives you a distinct monetary value, but you wind up at the end of it with a debt-free house that you build yourself, and you can maintain a lower income but still have a high standard of living. You garden. Well, the government doesn't tax the food that you harvest from your garden.

They don't tax the rabbits that you raise in your backyard, so you can feed your family while needing a lower level of income. As long as you keep your income below the level of taxation, you could, in effect, pay no federal income taxes using that particular process. If you have children, you get some tax credits for those children, and so you have a slightly more generous ability to earn income, and you could always just adjust your income and just simply choose not to work.

You could take your time, and instead of using your time to be engaged in paid activities, you could take your time and you could invest it into activities that you're not paid for. There are many productive ways for you to use your time and energy and not be paid, and yet still have an impact, still be busy, and still be productive while not paying federal income taxes.

You can do that following the law. Well, that's a perfectly reasonable and acceptable form of tax protesting. Now, David Gross's story is interesting. He went through a phase. He did that for a number of years, and then he ultimately decided to stop paying his self-employment taxes. And this is the other wrinkle, because the challenge is that because of the multifold nature of the US tax system, you're going to have multiple taxes that you have to deal with.

You have to deal with your federal income taxes. That's one set of tax planning. But then you have to deal with your employment taxes or your self-employment taxes. The employment taxes are the 15.3% that you pay of your income as a self-employed person that goes to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

And then, or if you're an employee, it's the 7.65% of your income that you contribute from your paycheck and the 7.65% of your income that your employer contributes towards your Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. And this again brings in another interesting ethical dilemma. If you're protesting war taxes, you can make a decent argument that, "Hey, I'm not funding the war effort when I'm funding Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid." But if you have a different point of protest, for example, let's assume that you were protesting the use of Medicaid funds to provide for abortion.

Well, now all of a sudden, your employment taxes are a lot more tricky. Well, David Gross, after a number of years of doing things with simply lowering his income, he went on and stopped paying his self-employment taxes. So he went all the way. And so his is a combination of tax protesting methodologies.

Part of his practice is to not pay federal income taxes simply because he doesn't owe them, but then he doesn't pay his self-employment taxes, although technically the government says that he owes those taxes. And that's where we cross the line. You cross into different strategies. Am I going to practice those techniques that are considered to be illegal, that I could be prosecuted, I could be sued for, or am I going to stay with techniques that are legal?

Now, I don't know that there's a right answer on these things. It's a matter of conscience, and it is a difficult question because there seem to be things that are pooling in multiple ways. First thing I guess is I would say you could, there's a decent strength to the argument that it's not your fault.

For example, taxes are not optional. When you live somewhere, and when the government that has jurisdiction over where you live tells you you have to do this, you can make a very clear and strong and compelling argument that this is not optional. This money is being stolen from me.

And if it's being used to do things that I think are immoral, it's being used to fund a military empire, it's being used to murder babies, it's being used for medical practices that I think are immoral. Canadian Christians face far more challenges with this than US Christians. Many European Christians face bigger challenges with the medical practices that are practiced and paid for by the national healthcare systems.

But you could say, "Listen, the money was taken from me, and so I don't have moral responsibility for that. It was taken from me without my vote." So the analogy that I would compare this to would be to simply say, "Let's assume that you have a car, and the car is sitting in your driveway, but then one night a thief comes and takes the car, and then they use the car in a terrorist attack to mow over a bunch of people at the green market on Saturday morning in your town, and they kill a bunch of people using your car.

Well, you're not morally complicit in the murder of those people by the terrorist because they stole your car. It's your car. You didn't do anything wrong. Your car was locked. It was protected. It was in your driveway. The guy stole your car, and he used that car to murder a bunch of people." So morally, you could reason and say, "I'm also no longer complicit in the murder of people with the government's war machine.

The money was taken from me. It was stolen from me without my ability to resist. It was taken. If I resisted, they'd put me in prison and take it anyway. Take my stuff." So it was taken from me without the ability to resist. The money was then used to fund this airplane that's dropping bombs on these people, and it was used to blow up a wedding, and now there's 10 people dead here in the compound, and my money funded it, but it wasn't my choice.

I'm not morally complicit. I think that's a strong argument. I do. But for a lot of people, it doesn't feel quite right because just because you're not morally complicit doesn't mean that you're not actively fighting against something. And you look at the great atrocities that are committed over the years, and you think, "Shouldn't somebody have actively fought against this?" I recently read an interesting book called Unbroken, a World War II story of—was Unbroken, a World War II story of survival, resilience, and redemption.

The author is Laura Hillebrand, and she wrote this book about the life primarily of a man named Louis Zamparini, who, among other things, was an American aviator who was shot down in the South Pacific during World War II and eventually became a prisoner of war in the Japanese prisoner of war camps.

And what's interesting is for those of—in general, those of us who are exposed to a general study of history, we don't really know much about the Pacific theater of operations during World War II. Because of the European—the importance of the European theater with D-Day and the concentration camps and Hitler, we're super focused on that history.

And so we tend to go to concentration camps of Jews rather than thinking about the Japanese. But this book—and I would strongly recommend it to you, I really enjoyed it—but this book profiles and discusses, among other things, what happened in the Japanese prisoner of war camps. And it was interesting because it was, of course, just untold cruelty by the Japanese soldiers who were in charge of the prisoner of war camps.

And yet there were people who were in those prisoner of war camps, and perhaps around, who were trying to help the prisoners in some way. There were a few people who were kind. And I've often thought, what if I had been Japanese and I had been living there? Would I have had the moral courage to stand up for the proper treatment of people?

And of course, you'd think, well, probably not. You know, they didn't, and there was a reason they didn't, so I probably wouldn't have either. Like, I'm not special, I'm no different than anybody else. I probably would have gone along to get along just like just about anybody does. So then you look at your own day and you bring it back and you say, but the fact that they didn't stand up when people were being tortured, when people were being abused, the fact that they didn't stand up is a stain on the Japanese culture of that day.

And yet, is there something that I should be standing up for right now that'll be a stain on, say, the American culture when it's reflected back on in 50 years? And, you know, the obvious examples are the American military occupations of other places and the untold hundreds of thousands of people, innocent civilians who've been killed in the various wars that the US government prosecutes, and the murder of hundreds of 60 million people in the United States with abortion.

And you think, how am I going to reflect back on this 40 years from now and say about what I've done today? Am I going to say, well, my money was taken from me and there was nothing I could do about it? Or is there something that I can do about it?

And that's where you get into the, one of the strategies some people would go to would be tax protesting. And you say, well, I should actively do something active. So yes, the money's taken from me, but at least this would be one thing that I could actively do to try to starve the beast a little bit.

And it seems, there seems like that's a good argument, seems compelling. Now, let me just lay out for you briefly your options, because I thought a lot about this a number of years ago. And what's particularly difficult is when you look at the way that tax protesters are generally treated if they don't win, right?

Because if you win, the victors write the history books and everything is fine. But if you don't win and you look at the way that protesters are treated, it's pretty tough. And one of the things that certainly has changed for me, they say that people who fight wars are young men with no families and old men, right?

Who don't have anything to lose. But I'm in the stage where it's the least, I'm the least likely candidate to be an activist or a protester, etc. Simply because of my family responsibilities. And you think, I'm not going to get involved in that, they'll lock me up. You look at the people who have been locked up over the years and who made well-meaning, I think, very sound arguments on many things, but yet doesn't matter.

The person, the government has all the guns, wins. And if they have the guns and they have the general support of the population, they win. I always think of Erwin Schiff, locked up, died in prison. He made, I thought, pretty decent arguments, but it doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how decent your arguments are, you still wind up locked up and dead in prison.

And so when you have young children, you think, "What good do I do? Anybody locked up in prison." Puts things into perspective and you say, "It doesn't seem like a particularly good strategy." So I thought a lot about it and I thought, "What are the options?" And so I'll just lay them out for you and then we'll talk a little bit about the theology of tax protesting.

So far as I see it, you have two basic techniques or you have two basic choices first. The first choice is, do you want to stay in the legal jurisdiction of the taxing government or do you want to leave the legal jurisdiction of the taxing government? Because the reality is you always have a choice to stay or to leave.

And for much of my life, I never thought you had a choice. And then one day I was thinking about it and I realized, no, you do have a choice. And a peaceful solution that almost anybody has available to them, if you're involved in something that could be a potential conflict, is to peacefully leave.

And I think the strategy and the practice of leaving, of withdrawing your support, is one of the most effective strategies that in time can lead to change of an organization. So if you're part of a company that is not engaging in what you consider to be moral and ethical behavior or business practices, you can leave and that company will not have your services.

Now you can try to change things from the inside first, and I think in general we probably have some responsibility to do that, or at least it's a good thing to do that, it demonstrates your care for other people. And so you might choose to become an advocate for something, try to be an outspoken person inside, and it might be that you can make some change from the inside, but ultimately if you judge that no change is going to happen, you can leave, you can leave that company.

Similar thing, let's say you're involved in an organization and the organization is not doing something, or you're involved in church and the church is not doing what you believe is right to do. Well, your best option, often, I think especially in a church, you owe a duty of opening your mouth and seeking to correct the thing that is wrong, but you can just simply leave.

And leaving is particularly powerful. First, leaving is obvious. Leaving shows that you're serious, you put your actions where your mouth were. Your loss of your presence will be very clear. Your contributions will be gone, your money will be gone, your skills are gone, your talent's gone, your promotion is gone, and that makes a statement.

Now, you can never be sure that your particular statement will be the one that is heard, but it certainly does make a statement. And if other people don't come in and replace you in time, the leaving strategy is entirely peaceful, and yet it makes a difference. You can see companies that are hollowed out by employees leaving.

You can see churches that are hollowed out by people simply leaving. You look and study the religious atmosphere. I follow it closely in the United States of different denominations, et cetera. And you can just see how the mainline liberal Protestant denominations just utterly hollowed out. You can see so many of the Catholic, what's it called, seminaries, totally hollowed out.

The priests aren't coming. And that leaving has an effect. It leaves certain things. Now, you're not systematically destroying something, it's just leaving. And so you always have this choice, of course, with government, or you usually have this choice, again, with government, where you can just simply leave. You can leave the government or you can stay.

Now, if you're going to stay and you don't want to pay taxes, you have, as I consider it, two basic options. You can use techniques that are so-called legal, use legal techniques to reduce or eliminate your tax bill, or you can conscientiously choose not to pay, even though you legally owe the tax.

So legal techniques that you could use to reduce and eliminate your tax bill. First thing that you could do is you could use legal deductions and credits to lower your taxable income below the tax base. That is one practical, useful strategy. Use the legal deductions and credits that are part and parcel staples of good financial planning, good tax planning, to lower your taxable income below the tax base.

You can use legal investment techniques to lower your taxable income below the tax base. So you can just use investment techniques. There are many available. I've talked about a number of ways that you can generate tax free income. You can do tax free investing. It can range from the simple, you buy muni bonds instead of taxable stocks.

You buy real estate and you make sure that you have the appropriate strategy in place to never pay taxes on your real estate. And it'd be very possible to do. Or you can work less and/or earn less income to lower your taxable income below the tax base. So you can, instead of investing your time into activities that generate $150,000 of net income, you can invest your time into activities that generate $40,000 of net income and then invest the rest of your time into things that are productive but simply don't generate income.

So those are your legal techniques to reduce or eliminate your tax bill. And I think here, everything that we talk about in radical personal finance lines up with those. Again, practice techniques with frugality, even extreme frugality. One of the things that, as I've profiled and talked about different kind of extreme frugalists, Charles Long, Jacob Lund Fisker, Amy Decision, and I studied their works and their commentary.

What you find is that if you are committed to extreme frugality, it has the side benefit of allowing you to live a really great life without a lot of cost, which means you don't need much income. And it's very, very tax efficient. Interestingly, it can also actually be very profitable because if we go in the direction where welfare programs go, if you participate in those, which is its own moral quandary, do I participate or not?

But if you do participate in those things, you wind up lowering your income is one of the best things. I shelved the show, I decided not to do it, but I did a whole analysis of how to live well and yet using all the government programs. By somebody who is intelligent, but just simply knew how to work the numbers and chose not to invest their time into productive remunerated activities, but just simply to be a leech and live off the dole.

I think it's bad for the character, which I don't really wish to popularize it, but you could study it and you could do the same thing. So those are legal techniques that you can use to reduce or eliminate your tax bill. The challenge there is some taxes are easier to do that with another.

So federal income taxes is straightforward. Self-employment taxes or employment taxes is much more difficult. Now there are a few ways that you could do that, ways that you could legally eliminate self-employment taxes, but it's much more challenging. Then the second thing that you could do is you could conscientiously choose not to pay even though you legally owe.

And there are different ways that this is done. So some people choose not to send a representative portion of their tax to the government. So they calculate their taxes and they say this percentage of my, I have a $10,000 tax bill, this percentage here, this thousand dollars is what would ordinarily fund the war machine.

So as a point of protest, I'm not going to send you this thousand dollars. I'm going to send you $9,000 and instead I'm either keeping the thousand dollars or I'm making a thousand dollar donation to an anti-war charity to try to counteract the military empire that you've established. That would be one strategy where you choose not to send a representative portion of your tax to the government.

The second example would be you choose not to send any of your tax to the government and instead you keep it or you give it to a charity that actively counteracts the actions you oppose. Again, you owe $10,000, you say I'm not sending it to you, but I'm going to give it to my local church or I'm going to send it to a church that's in Iraq that needs money, that needs support, who's trying to minister to the people that you're bombing and we're going to send it there instead and things like that.

But all of those things keep you in the legal jurisdiction of the taxing government. Or the second option is that you could leave the legal jurisdiction of the taxing government and then again by leaving using techniques discussed on this show, you can either legally reduce or eliminate the taxes that you owe.

When I talked about for US taxpayers, if I talked about moving abroad, you can use those techniques using the foreign earned income exclusion to eliminate the federal income tax on your first $105,000-ish of income. So now if you're going to be a tax protester, it becomes a little bit simpler for you to figure out how to earn a little bit more money so you're not left destitute earning $30,000 in the United States to follow the law.

But by living outside of the United States, you avoid the income tax on your $105,000. It also clears up, if you work for a foreign corporation, it clears up the problem of owing those self-employment taxes. And so you can effectively live tax-free with regard to the United States. Maybe you move to a country where their government is not involved in some of the actions that you think are wrong or you move to a tax haven and you don't owe taxes to the tax haven or you live on a sailboat or whatever you do.

You become a PT or however you handle it. But it's very doable for you to practice those techniques. Very, very doable. And so that may be one way that you can follow the law. And I've always found that some of those things are, at least I've found for me, that it solves, at least having that as an option, solves some of my moral consternation over those questions.

Because in that way, you can engage in an effective form of tax protesting by not paying the taxes, but by not breaking the law, you can also satisfy your conscience of not breaking the law. And that to me is important. So I consider that. That's just an overview of tax protesting.

It's not a particularly popular subject. Most people don't think about it. Most people don't care. Most people don't seem to even reason about the stuff. But there are some. And I really respect, I have a lot of respect for tax protesters. There are tax protesters from many traditions. There are some religious tax protesters, there are some that are not.

David Gross is not a Christian, he's not religious at all. But you really appreciate, I really appreciate somebody who is willing to stand for their convictions. You really appreciate that. And so I admire people who feel that conviction. But as far as I can see, it's a matter of dealing straight with the scripture, and then also dealing straight with the scripture and dealing straight with your conscience.

As far as I can see, there's a wide degree of individual saying of conscience. And then there's also a significant measure of wisdom being needed. Again, I think it's wisdom to stay out of prison. So you consider it. Now to the theology of tax strikes. I'm simply going here to read you an article that was published almost three decades ago, back in 1981, in the publication Biblical Economics Today.

And the author of this publication was a popular author on these topics named James Jordan. And he wrote this article called "The Christian and Tax Strikes, Pros and Cons." And I've read other things on this, but I thought this was a fairly fair discussion and raised good points. So if you're a Christian and you've ever thought about tax strikes, again, to my experience, in general, my answer is, for me, is in general, Christians shouldn't participate in tax strikes.

But I think there can be circumstances. And you study church history, and there are circumstances many times where you find a group of people that really wrestled with it and came to the conclusion, "No, we cannot, we can't do this." And they tried to find solutions to that. And so my personal opinion is that, in general, don't participate in a tax strike.

It's unwise, and I'll read these discussions and arguments to you in a moment. But there might be exceptions. And so it's not one of those very clear, all the way things. So here's the article called "The Christian and Tax Strikes, Pros and Cons." The purpose of this essay is not to settle once and for all the matter to which it is addressed, but rather, hopefully, to set out some principles which will help the reader as he or she comes to grips with the tax rebellion of the 1980s.

The basic thrust of the essay is this. The Bible clearly teaches that Christians are to submit to the powers that be and pay whatever taxes are required of them. But citizens of the United States of America, including Christians, may properly raise the question of just precisely what is required of them, and in raising this question may work for reform.

That is to say, Christians are required to work within the system, as it were, even as they try to change the system itself. The bulk of this essay is devoted to reasons against engaging in tax strikes. By making the strongest possible case against tax rebellion, we will be unable to see clearly on what precise grounds we might possibly join the tax revolt.

As the central government of the United States becomes more and more oppressive and evil, and as it takes more and more money from its citizens and uses that money to promote greater and greater evils, it is natural that the Christian conscience should rebel and should consider refusing to pay taxes.

The present civil government of the United States takes far more from its citizens in taxes than the blueprint for Christian society found in scripture allows it, and the present lords and bosses of America use that money to finance gross evils such as abortion and military aggression. Thus, it would seem at first glance that Christians should refuse to pay their taxes, both as a witness against these evils and as a means of avoiding complicity in their guilt.

There are, however, strong scriptural considerations which lead to the opposite conclusion. The following lines of argument need to be taken seriously by anyone considering a refusal to pay taxes. 1. Tax strikes as a kingdom method are contrary to the teaching of Jesus. In Matthew 22, verses 15-22, the Pharisees sought to entrap Jesus by asking him if it was lawful to give the pole tax to Caesar.

Jesus rebuked their hypocrisy and declared to them that since Caesar's likeness and inscription were on the coins, they were to "render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." In context, that which is "rendered" is money, so the meaning is this, "pay your taxes to the state and your tithes to the Lord." Caesar's coin had on it an inscription which claimed that Caesar was divine.

Jesus says that Caesar is due the tax, but not any divine honors. The issue is not to be fought over money, but over worship. What this passage teaches is that although God's claim and God's law cover all of life, yet the proper point at which the kingdom of God is to be argued is the question of worship.

It was wrong for Pharaoh to hold Israel in slavery in Egypt. Pharaoh was violating all kinds of divine laws by his action. All the same, when God challenged Pharaoh, he did not challenge him at the point of slavery or of oppressive taxation, but at the point of worship. (Exodus 3.18 and following) Pharaoh was smart enough to know that if he granted Israel the right to worship their God and granted the legitimacy of that worship, then he could no longer claim to be a God himself.

Pharaoh knew that all the cultural aspects of life are dependent on the fundamental question of "who is God?" Thus, Israel's liberation from Egypt was not fundamentally a political liberation. It was not gained by a work strike or a tax strike. True, lower taxes, righteous government, and Sabbath rest were the result of the deliverance, but they were not the means.

The issue was the gospel. Both the tax strike and liberation theology obscure this fact. In Matthew 17, verses 24-27, it is not the Roman poll tax which is in view, but a temple tax which grew up during the intertestamental era, a variant of the Mosaic head tax in Exodus 30.

Jesus' teachings at this point is critical. He tells us that God's imposition of the head tax in the Old Covenant was a sign that the people were not fully sons of the kingdom, but in a sense were still strangers. "Sons of the household do not pay taxes," says Jesus.

Paul makes the same point in Galatians 4. In comparison to the privileges of the New Covenant, the members of the Old Covenant only experienced a kind of slavery. Of course, in comparison to the pagan world around them, ancient Israel was a nation of free men, sons of God. Having said that the sons of the kingdom do not pay taxes, Jesus goes on to say that they should be paid "to avoid giving offense." The tax money is provided in a miraculous manner which teaches us that all money is God's and we do not need to worry about coming up with more if we pay taxes to avoid giving offense.

This passage constitutes a pledge to the sons of the kingdom that God will provide them the money to pay their taxes. Because the Christian is freed from bondage to money, he can pay taxes without worry. 2. Tax strikes as a kingdom method are contrary to the teaching of Paul.

For some well-intentioned Christians, Matthew 17 and 22 are not proof that tax strikes are unbiblical. They argue that all these passages pertain to are poll taxes, which is a far cry from the modern oppressive graduated income taxation. In Romans chapter 13 verse 7, however, we are told to pay to all "what is due them, tax to whom taxes due, custom to whom custom, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor." This far more general command more clearly covers the modern tax situation.

The general teaching of Romans chapter 13 verses 1 through 7 is unclear to many people and bears directly on our subject. In Romans chapter 12 verse 19, God commands us never to take our own personal revenge. But in Romans chapter 13 verse 4, God tells us that he has established the civil magistrate as his minister of vengeance.

These two verses establish the important distinction between personal ethics and civil ethics. There are some things that it is right and proper for a civil magistrate to do, such as executing murderers, which are not at all proper for private persons to do, such as killing for revenge. In Romans chapter 13 verses 1 and 2, Paul addresses private persons and tells them that it is their responsibility to submit to the powers that be.

Even the worst rulers, Caesar, Staller, Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, Bokassa, are ordained by God and we are commanded to submit to them in the fear of God. Those who resist rulers, we are told, are resisting God himself. This is the duty of private citizens. On the other hand, in verse 4, Paul makes it plain that it is the magistrate's duty to submit to God and rule according to his law.

Notice the difference. Citizens are to submit to rulers and rulers are to submit to God. We are not told that each Christian ought to obey God's civil law willy-nilly, trying to force the hand of the magistrate. Rather, we are told to submit to the existing order, pay our taxes, pray for the conversion of the magistrate, and proclaim the gospel to him and to all men.

Paul does not say in verse 6, "pay taxes whenever rulers are servants of God," but rather he says to "pay taxes because rulers are servants of God," whether they know it or not. We pay taxes for conscience's sake, as unto the Lord, not as unto men. The only proper place for civil resistance is the proclamation of the gospel, Acts 5 29, and this includes proclaiming the gospel to our children and thus Christian schools.

It does not include tax strikes. Point 3. Tax strikes are disorderly. God is a God of order and it is sin which has brought disorder to the ordered cosmos that God set up. God's plan of redemption is designed to re-establish order in an orderly manner. This means that covenant headship must be respected as much as possible at all times.

The theology of the Reformation recognized the distinction between the duties of citizens and the duties of officials as taught in scripture. Thus, the theology of the Reformation does not allow individual citizens to rebel against oppressive regimes. Rather, it is only an ordained civil magistrate who may, if all else fails, lead an insurrection against the regime.

This is because God has commanded the lesser magistrate to obey his civil law, and thus the lesser magistrate has a duty to perform in this regard. If he is forced to declare his independence from the larger regime, he does not do so in the interest of maintaining his own rights, but in the interest of fulfilling his duties.

The "right of revolution" in Reformation theology is distinguished from modern humanistic revolutionary ideas then at two points. The question of who may revolt, only magistrates or anybody, and the question of the grounds of revolution, duties or rights. It is not surprising that the advocates of Christian tax strikes are mostly found in groups which do not adhere to the theology of the Reformation.

American individualism has given rise to the belief that there are, in the New Testament period, no longer legitimate office-bearers on earth to whom we are to give rear. Thus, a large number of Christians today are convinced that there are no real offices in the church or state, but only people carrying out various special functions.

This thinking is anti-covenantal and naturally is found in Baptist circles far more readily than in Reformation churches, where the concept of covenant headship and submission for conscience's sake has been better preserved. The Bible, however, is not individualistic but covenantal, and this has implications not only for the doctrine of baptism but also for the doctrine of the right of revolution.

Point number four. Tax strikes ignore the New Testament principle of invisibility and cooperation. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus told his people to be pleasant and cooperative with oppressive authorities, so as to remain invisible and thus able to work in peace. Nothing is clearer than his command, "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil." Jesus illustrates this principle of cooperation and invisibility by saying, "And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also; and whoever shall force you to go one mile, go with him too." (5:40-41) Was it right for the Roman authorities to steal shirts from the local population?

Was it right for the state to force men to leave their jobs and carry a soldier's weapons the first mile out of town? No, clearly such actions violate the eighth commandment. Well, then, shouldn't the citizen resist this evil? Shouldn't he make a witness for the truth by standing up and refusing to cooperate?

Would it not be better if everyone became a martyr rather than put up with his gross wickedness? No, says Jesus. It is a sin for the state to steal, but it is a sin for the citizen to rebel. What is the cash value of cooperation? Well, first of all, peace is gained.

The state tends to leave people alone who cooperate with it, and peace is an indispensable prerequisite for social progress and economic advancement. The longer the kingdom is left alone, the better chance it has to grow. Second, invisibility is gained, since the anti-Christian state tends to ignore people who are not in flagrant rebellion.

Invisibility allows the Christian counterculture to develop to great strength, unnoticed. Third, evangelism is enhanced, since the soldier will marvel when you carry his armor a second mile, and you may get the chance to tell him why you are doing this for him. Here again, the kingdom of Christ is advanced.

Of course, ultimately the humanistic state will attack the church regardless and over the issue of who is God, the issue of worship. This, though, is the real issue, and the proper point at which to draw the line. By this time, however, the underground Christians will hopefully be powerful enough to thwart such a move.

Tax strikes, in contrast, go in the opposite direction. By refusing to pay taxes, the striker calls attention to himself. He may argue that he is making a witness for Christ and for God's law, but in fact his witness is questionable. Christ has told him to pay, not to strike.

Moreover, few will take his witness seriously. Most will think he is refusing to pay because he does not want to lose the money. Most will assume that his refusal to pay is nothing more than selfish materialism and rebellion, covered hypocritically by religious excuses. That is how people will look at it, and so the witness is compromised and lost.

Does this advance the kingdom? How much better to be able to say, "I disapprove of these modern taxes, and I hope to help change them, but I pay them for conscience's sake because I am more concerned with principle than with my own money"? That is a witness people will hear.

Part of the problem for legitimate tax strikers lies at just this point. The vast majority of tax strikers are not acting out of Christian principle, but either out of an anarcho-libertarian philosophy or out of pure personal covetousness. "This is my money." It is hard, I do not say impossible, for the Christian witness of a constitutional tax striker to be received in this present-day social context.

Point number five. Tax strikes partake of the illusion of political power. The biblical insight that culture is an effect of religion is implicitly denied by political resistance movements. Politics does not change things. Rather, political change is a response to more fundamental cultural changes. What this means is that resistance movements always fail.

The only resistant movements in the history of the world which have had any semblance of success have been those financed and supported by outside powers, such as the French resistance during World War II. The Bible recognizes this and thus puts emphasis on proclamation and education as the primary means of cultural transformation, though not the exclusive means.

At present, Christian politicians can accomplish little to change the course of events. They can, however, use their offices and their campaigns as opportunities to witness and educate. Once the consensus of opinion in the United States has once again become Christian, the political order and its taxation will change in response.

Tax strikers often argue that in the United States, each citizen has some limited powers of rule, since each citizen is a voter and each citizen may challenge bad laws in the courts. This is true and may form a rationale for refusal to pay taxes. In this case, the striker will make it plain that when push comes to shove, he will pay his taxes and submit, but that he is trying to get a test case before the courts.

If, by its actions, the United States government shows that it is a pure tyranny, then we must submit to it as Israel had to submit to Rome. We are not to that point yet, however. Point number six. Tax strikes resist the judgment of God. As the United States has voted itself into sin, God has increased his judgments against us.

One of his primary means of judgment is to put an oppressive state over a sinful people. If we recognize that we have sinned, the proper response is to be mute under the chastening hand of God and not rebel. If the United States is ruled by oppressors, it is because the United States deserves to be punished for its sins.

The Bible recognizes that statism is the only proper condition for slaves. Thus, Joseph, an agent of God, helped reduce the population of Egypt to slavery (Genesis 47). It is a species of non-covenantal anarchy to assume that an evil population can be given the privileges of liberty or will even desire such privileges.

What this means is that the virtues of free enterprise and low taxes will never be apparent to people until they have first changed their religious beliefs. If the tax revolt were successful, it would only lead to anarchy because of the immorality of the American populace. This is nothing to worry about, however, because most people want the "benefits" of big government more than they want lower taxes.

They are slaves, and because of their lawless behavior, the only kind of civil order appropriate to them is a heavy-handed one. Modern Americans do not want to take care of their old people. They want to chuck them off into old folks' homes. Because of this irresponsibility, the government steps in.

That means higher taxes. The only way to change this is for people to take care of their grandparents as they used to. It will accomplish little to attack the matter at the point of taxation. When God brought judgment on the kingdom of Judah, Jeremiah warned the people to submit to the chastening of the Lord.

He told them to submit to Nebuchadnezzar. The rebels in Jeremiah's day, however, viewed him as a traitor and as an immoral man. They accused him of being a false prophet who wanted to "sell out the truth" to the heathen. Unlike Jeremiah, they were going to be loyal to God.

They would fight Nebuchadnezzar. They would resist the oppressor. And they were wiped out. Over and over, they were wiped out. Jeremiah was right. When God judges us, we must submit to his judgment and preach his word. If we do so, in time, the situation will change. Point #7. Tax strikes work against dominion.

There are varieties of tax strikers, and this criticism does not apply to all, but it applies to some. Some tax strikers are so concerned that the government not get any of their money that they restrict their dominion so as to avoid paying taxes. One talented man quit a job for which he had trained for years, just because the company he worked for insisted on the practice of withholding.

He makes much less money now as a result. Thus, his tithe is proportionally lower, and the work of the kingdom suffers proportionally. One even hears of some who have taken "vows of poverty" to avoid taxes. And others move from place to place, fleeing IRS agents, thus thwarting the dominion mandate and disrupting family life.

Now, this kind of thing strikes me as a great evil. The Bible commands us over and over again to take dominion over the earth. Those faithful in small things are put over larger things. Nothing is said about the state in all this. God expects us to work, to expand our work, to prosper, and to tithe, whether the state be good, bad, or indifferent.

We do not do our work with reference to the state, but with reference to God. Those seeking to force the hand of the humanistic power state by limiting their work and dominion are not taking into account the fact that the heart of the king is in God's hands, and God can turn it whithersoever he wishes.

(Proverbs 21:1) In the film "The Bridge on the River Kwai," the captured British soldiers are forced by the Japanese to build a bridge for them. Initially, the soldiers do very crummy work, seeking to obstruct the progress of the Japanese empire. The British commander, however, remarks that the bridge should be built to last forever, since someday the Japanese would be gone, and, by implication, the British would enjoy the benefits of the bridge.

This is a future-oriented and positive view. Similarly, we must work hard, expand our dominion, and wait for God to put us in charge. This was Daniel's attitude. He did not try to obstruct the workings of the Babylonian empire, but sought to be a servant par excellence. As a result, he was trusted by Nebuchadnezzar, and God advanced him to a position of power in the Babylonian empire.

Daniel became "ruler over the whole province of Babylon and chief prefect over the wise men of Babylon" (Daniel 2.48). Then, God struck Nebuchadnezzar with insanity for seven years (Daniel 4), during which time Daniel was doubtless the effective ruler of the empire. After Nebuchadnezzar recovered, he was convened and served the Lord.

A second benefit of a work orientation is positive morale. The British commander in "The Bridge on the River Kwai" was concerned that his men find joy and pride in their work. The Japanese were not his concern. He left their fate to providence. People whose lives are dedicated to obstructing the enemy are building a negative outlook on life into themselves, whether they realize it or not.

We are called to build. God will remove the enemy when he is ready. Alexander Solzhenitsyn makes the same point in "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich". The day's labor consists of building a wall. At the end of the day, Ivan takes pride in having built a straight wall.

Ivan's situation was blessed because he was permitted to engage in meaningful work, not simply moving stones from one pile to another and back again. The point, however, is that even in the Gulag archipelago, men can find satisfaction in work. Even if Ivan's wall is torn down the next day so that no one inherits the fruits of his labor, he is still a better man for having built it well.

The Bible teaches many places that a work-oriented culture will overcome an oppressive statist culture. It is significant, for instance, that the judge Shamgar defeated the Philistines using an implement of work and that the evil Abimelech was crushed by an implement of work (Judges 3:31; 9, 7-15, 53). The principle is set out expressly in Zechariah 1:18-21.

In that passage, Israel is oppressed by four horns and delivered by four craftsmen. The horn is a universal symbol for oppressive external power and force. To get the right picture, we need only think of the Vikings with their horned helmets, raiding and oppressing Christian civilization. God does not, however, destroy the pagan horns with four horns of his own.

Rather, they are overcome by four craftsmen. Diligent, dominical labor overcomes oppression. A culture based on work and capital will overcome a culture based on conquest and raping. It is no accident that Jesus Christ was a carpenter. If Christians will be faithful and expand their dominion, pay their taxes without thinking about it for conscience's sake, and pay their tithes to the work of the kingdom, this country will be turned around soon enough.

The argument of the persecuted early church was this, we pay our taxes to Caesar and we pray for Caesar. In fact, we are Caesar's best and most law-abiding citizens, but we cannot and will not worship Caesar. Thus, they made the issue crystal clear, and they won the day. Finally, let us turn to some considerations more positive toward tax strikes.

To this point, we have been dealing with scriptural teachings in the abstract. Citizens of the United States of America must apply these teachings to their own historical and cultural situation. First, we need to ask a couple of questions. Do we live in a Roman Empire type of tyranny? If so, let us pay taxes and be as invisible as possible.

Do we live in a period of judgment, like Jeremiah's? If so, let us submit to God's chastening rod and build for a future day. Given the behavior of the IRS, I think we live in a situation somewhat close to tyranny, and given the apostasy of the citizenry of the United States, I think we live in a situation rather close to Jeremiah's.

For these reasons, we ought to approach tax striking with a great deal of care. Second, we ought to have a clear rationale if we are going to join the tax revolt in an open, public way. In general, the proper rationale runs something like this, "Caesar for the U.S. is the Constitution, and the IRS is engaged in unconstitutional activities.

I, as a citizen ruler in the United States, am engaging in a legitimate and constitutional form of protest. I am working within the system." There are, of course, a variety of specific arguments used within this framework. The question of what constitutes income, the question of what constitutes real money, the question of the Fifth Amendment, and so on.

Third, we need to count the cost. Luke 14, 28-32. Do we have an organization sufficiently powerful to take on the IRS? As more and more people join the tax revolt openly, the possibilities of rolling back the IRS increase. The point is to count the troops before declaring war. Counting the cost is also personal.

The pioneers of the anti-IRS movement will emerge as heroes in due course during the 1980s. Not every person, however, is called or able to be such a pioneer. To fight the IRS, one needs to have a pretty sharp mind, a good acquaintance with the law, a tough and aggressive personality, a supportive family, and money.

There is no doubt but that the IRS functions tyrannically. The question is whether the U.S. government as a whole is now a tyranny also. If you have a wife and small children, who will care for them when you are in jail? If your children are grown, keep in mind that the IRS will persecute them as a way of harassing you.

Okay, you're tough and your wife is tough. Now how smart are you? How did you do in school? Do you know the law or do you have a sharp lawyer? Another question, how much money do you make? It will take lots of money to fight one court case after another.

You may have to flee from state to state. Count the cost. Fourth, recognize that you are forfeiting a lot of present dominion. Your goal is to enhance future dominion for your children by rolling back oppression today. Also keep in mind that you are fighting a negative battle. The kingdom of Christ will advance through conversion and education.

At best, your fight against the IRS, if moderately successful, will give a few more years for the Church to do her work. Face it, the people of the United States want the so-called "benefits" of big government. Only the gospel will change that. Fifth, recognize the right of other Christians to remain uninvolved.

We all have costs to count. Not everyone can be a tax warrior. Sixth, and finally, keep your Christian principles in mind and before the public. Don't fall into the myth of political power. Don't try to make it out that the Bible requires you to do this. Make it clear that you have limited goals and that you are fighting on the basis of the principles of English common law and the U.S.

Constitution, which you maintain are Caesar. Yours is not a revolutionary, but a conservative movement. And thus ends the essay. Now what's interesting is to reflect on what has happened since that article was published in April of 1981. My understanding of the last 40 years of history is that in essence, every single one of those arguments that were being pushed forward in the courts, etc., were lost, legally speaking.

You can, if you consider yourself to be competent at legal thinking, you can consider whether you think they should have lost or not. From time to time I get people who send me very interesting articles, discussions, etc., on the question of what does the law say, etc. As far as I'm concerned, it's not a matter of what the law says or what the law doesn't say.

It's just a matter of who's got the guns and who wants the money. And the question is, what is the Christian responsibility towards tyrants? What do you do? So I thought that Jordan did a good job of discussing that. There are other, you can find other discussions, very active in the Mennonite community.

You can find some discussion about war taxes and whatnot in the Mennonite community. You can find other things over history that many people have wrestled with these things. But as far as I'm concerned, I think Jordan's article does a good job of striking to the heart of the matter.

I remain sympathetic and appreciate those who feel strongly about tax resistance. But for many of the reasons outlined in that article, and just simply the sheer practicality of it, does not seem wise. I do not think that it is something that people should engage in. I would say that if you want to follow the legal methods that avoids the risk of being imprisoned, which is of course incredibly important, you can think about whether it's worthwhile to reduce your income.

As far as I'm concerned, it seems much wiser to me if you can make $400,000 a year. It seems much wiser to me to make $400,000 a year and set up a charitable organization dedicated to whatever the specific cause are, and then fund it with $200,000 per year of your income, take a $200,000 per year tax deduction, let the US government keep the rest of it.

That seems a lot more effective than lowering your taxable income to $40,000 per year so that you don't pay federal income taxes. When you look at it and you understand financial planning, I think there are enough answers and solutions in good financial planning where you can stay on the right side of the law, you can be ignored and quiet by the IRS, you don't wind up being on the front page of a newspaper, you don't wind up being imprisoned, you can follow the law, and yet you can make much more productive change.

Even if you don't, like, let's say that you have the opportunity, you say, "I have the capacity to serve people effectively enough to make a half a million dollars a year, but that means I'm going to owe some tax." Well, do it. Owe the tax. But then again, set up the appropriate organizations to accomplish some appropriate change in the local community.

And if you, I'd much rather stroke a check for $100,000 to the IRS, let's say, let me just give you a simple example. What is better served? Let's say that you can earn, you can live on $50,000 tax-free for round numbers. And so you could become a tax protester, lower your income to $50,000 and live on that so that you don't wind up owing the tax.

Or you can work hard, you can exercise the talents and the skills and the knowledge and the ability that God has given you effectively, and you can earn half a million dollars. Well, earn the half a million dollars, put aside the 50, live on 50,000, freeing up 450. If you have to write a check for 100 to the government, write a check for 100 to the government and put the other 350 to work doing something useful.

Take care of the widows and the orphans that live in your community. Take care of the poor. Take care of the people who are hungry. Preach the gospel. Endow the churches. Endow the people who are busy, who are doing good work. And that $350,000 will go so much farther than your tiny little voice in a tax protest movement.

So that's how I see it. All of us have to wrestle with these things and settle them before the Lord, but that's how I see it. Hope that was helpful to you. It's an interesting topic. I've never heard a personal finance show that talked about tax protesting in anything other than a mocking way, which I don't think is a...it's very insulting because many millions of people have legitimate crises of conscience when it comes to these things.

And so I hope that I've done a good job of dealing with it seriously, being careful with my language, talking about the solutions and the opportunities. I'll close today by telling you about my How to Survive and Thrive During the Coming Economic Crisis course. One component of that course is international expatriation.

And one of my reasons for expatriating internationally, among other things, was I didn't ever want to be in a position where I didn't have a chance to get out of the United States if I came to the point that my conscience wouldn't allow me to have my tax money going towards things that are immoral.

I've thought about it a lot over the years. I've wrestled with it. I've come to the point that...come to the positions I've just described. But I didn't...I wouldn't want to be stuck in a position where I was forced to pay taxes to a government that's engaged in immoral behavior.

Well, what do you do? If you want to stay out of prison, if you want to follow the law, if you want to have a good witness of being a loyal citizen and a good subject of the king, what do you do? Well, one of the few options I see is to leave.

Peacefully leave. And you're not hurting anybody, you're not harming anybody, you're just simply exercising your right of withdrawal. And that seems to me to be a healthy thing to do. Well, interestingly, that doesn't have to be something to be done in a crisis. It's an effective way of solving...of planning for a crisis.

But it's also an extremely effective way of planning for things like increasing taxation and using the tax code as it exists. If you're a U.S. citizen, you can, as I described...described elsewhere on the show, you can live outside the United States and you can earn $105,000 a year not owing any taxes to the United States government.

So if you want to be in finance, go work in the Cayman Islands, go work in Dubai. You don't owe any taxes to those governments, any income taxes to those governments, and you'll take advantage of your foreign earned income exclusion to the U.S. government. And if you want to be a war tax processor, that seems to me to be a better thing than living in the United States.

Right? Just seems like an effective solution. And if you're a citizen of other countries as well, you can always expatriate. I've spoken to people who were German. Germans don't allow their citizens to homeschool, so you can stay in Germany and you can homeschool your children. You can fight it out with the police and you can battle them out, as a Christian homeschooling family did a number of years ago, all the way to the German Supreme Court.

Or you can simply leave and you can homeschool your children in any corner of the world where such practices are legal. And in fact, as a German tourist, you can pretty much go anywhere and nobody will bother you. So it seems more effective and wise to me to avoid those conflicts and exercise your option to leave.

If you're interested in how to prepare for an economic crisis to stay, I cover that too. But if you're interested in how you can avoid an economic crisis by leaving and that economic crisis could be personal, could be other things as well, I think you would enjoy my course called How to Survive and Thrive During the Coming Economic Crisis.

You can find that at radicalpersonalfinance.com/store. Radicalpersonalfinance.com/store. Hey parents, join the LA Kings on Saturday, November 25th for an unforgettable Kids Day presented by Pear Deck. Family fun, giveaways and exciting Kings hockey awaits. Get your tickets now at lakings.com/promotions and create lasting memories with your little ones.