Paying taxes and second precept

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by santa100 »

chownah wrote:If you are asking about me personally then the answer is that what I do or don't do has no bearing on the discussion and I will not go off topic with you by answering this question.
It absolutely has everything to do with the discussion. Did you even read the title of this thread: "Paying taxes and the second precept"? And this is exactly why even after I asked you 3 times, you've continued to dodge it. You are eating the cake and at the same time complaining about having to pay for it. The government might just call it whining, but in Buddhism, taking something and not paying for it is considered stealing. By the way, Buddhism's never taught you to be an irresponsible citizen of the land. You might call yourself a Buddhist, but as long as you're still enjoying all the social benefits provided by the government, you are a citizen of your country first and foremost, and you have to pay your dues as a responsible citizen of your country, plain and simple.
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by sentinel »

Dhammanando wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:31 am
sentinel wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:29 am Perhaps venerable dhammanando could help to answer this question, any difference between not taken what is not freely given as the second precept and not paying taxes?
I don't find this an easy question to answer.

On the one hand, for bhikkhus the Vinaya makes it a defeating offence of theft to smuggle goods into a country in order to avoid payment of customs duties. I think we can infer from this that the Buddha acknowledges the right of rājās to impose taxes and the obligation of citizens to pay them.

On the other hand, the suttas exhort rājās not to tax exorbitantly and to use the tax revenue to help the needy, provide for national defence, etc. and not for their personal aggrandizement.

So, in cases where an unrighteous rājā is taxing exorbitantly or where much of the tax revenue is being devoted to improper ends, can we say that he thereby forfeits his authority to tax and that anyone who withholds payment from him will not be in breach of the second precept? I don't know.

:shrug:
sentinel wrote: Tue Oct 15, 2019 4:29 amProbably I could give an example, a friend whom live in a majority of Muslims (75%) country, the government spend probably 80% of the accumulated taxes and spends on building mosques, Islamic schools,
80% of the tax revenue is spent on mosques? Are you quite sure? This doesn't sound like a believable figure even for the six remaining Islamic theocracies, let alone semi-secularized nations like Malaysia and Indonesia.
Venerable , for monks , smuggling is one thing which is breaching the laws + precept and then avoids paying tax breaks the laws and precept again I guess .
I don't have the exact and real number , but the meaning is something 80% which myself estimated , considering almost all the taxes accumulated spends specifically not just on continuously building mosques , Islamic schools , but e.g. in Malaysia , anything concerns malays race and Muslims or Islamic welfare , (recent news) 90% quota or even 100% of reserves seats in government universities and colleges with loans not compulsory in repayment and no fees , buying houses & cars which has 10 - 15% discount , schemes such as many type of bank savings with 6-8% of interest guaranteed by government , loans for businesses with very low charge interest that most of the time not repayable with no fix obligation or legal action taken , subsidized in plantation sector , fisheries , full scholarships for education in and outside country , etc etc anything you name it . From most recent news it mentioned the minority were and are paying 90% of the country taxes . Not to mention anything concerns minority would face obstructions and difficulties and being oppressed and threatened all the times . This is considered unrighteous government / authority / king .
Last edited by sentinel on Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
You always gain by giving
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by chownah »

santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 12:50 pm
chownah wrote:If you are asking about me personally then the answer is that what I do or don't do has no bearing on the discussion and I will not go off topic with you by answering this question.
It absolutely has everything to do with the discussion. Did you even read the title of this thread: "Paying taxes and the second precept"? And this is exactly why even after I asked you 3 times, you've continued to dodge it. You are eating the cake and at the same time complaining about having to pay for it. The government might just call it whining, but in Buddhism, taking something and not paying for it is considered stealing, plain and simple.
I have not complained about anything. I have simply attempted to inform people about how things really are so that they can see how you have misconstrued....1. There is no contract between a citizen and a gov't and this imaginary concept is used to make people think they have agreed to do what a gov't says to do....there is no such contract....it is fanatsy.....2. Even if one can live without recourse to gov't this does not in and of itself exempt one from paying taxes the gov't assesses....you can show the (US) tax man proof that you do not avail yourself of gov't services and they will tax you anyway....3. Whether you pay taxes or not has nothing to do with whether the gov't prosecutes you for stealing....if you steal something then you are charged with stealing....if you avail yourself of gov't services but don't pay taxes then you will be charged with tax evasion or tax fraud or something similar but NOT stealing.

I am not whining about these things.....what I have presented is as far as I can tell a factual account of the way things really are.....do you dispute any of these things?

What I do and what I don't do has not been brought into the discussion by me....I have not mentioned or discussed it.... and you don't know anything about my situation....nothing at all....yet you make your unfounded assertions about me....

chownah

Hello everyone,
santa 100 posted:
You are eating the cake and at the same time complaining about having to pay for it.
Can anyone show where I have posted and have been complaining about my having to pay taxes?
chownah
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by santa100 »

chownah wrote:I am not whining about these things.....what I have presented is as far as I can tell a factual account of the way things really are.....do you dispute any of these things?
First, thank you for clarifying that you are not complaining about having to pay tax. But unlike me, you did not stick to the central theme of this thread, which is spelled out loud in its title: "Paying taxes and second precept". I have consistently stuck to the theme and consistently reminded you that as far as you are enjoying various government's social benefits and programs, it's only fair to pay your dues. If you do not pay tax while still getting all the benefits, that's stealing, hence breaking the 2nd precept, plain and simple. And no, you are wrong on item 2, if you are a real monk or nun who doesn't own personal property or financial possessions, you DO NOT have to pay tax. The (US) tax man will not come hunt you down for that.
Last edited by santa100 on Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by sentinel »

I think chownah was saying that No clear evidence of black and white contract (paper)
Signed between the government and citizens .
But , there is laws that governed binds the citizens to pay taxes .
You always gain by giving
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by Volo »

"If you don't watch commercials, you are stealing TV" (C) Homer Simpson.

I don't argue that paying taxes is totally appropriate and should be praised in every way. But I disagree that not paying them qualifies as stealing government social programs. First, you still pay taxes indirectly. When buying something VAT (in most countries) is included, also it contributes to the seller's salary and shop owner's profit, from which they pay taxes.

Second, there is no direct agreement between government and society: "you pay us taxes, we provide you this and that". If, say, somebody robs you off, and the police cannot find the robber (which is often the case), they wouldn't return you any taxes you've paid. You have your responsibility, they ... will try. Also most social benefits (like free medical care, etc) are received mainly by people who pay either no or very little taxes.

Not every break of civil law should be fitted into 5 precepts. Would, for example, consensual homosexual relationship be considered as break of the 3rd precepts in counties where homosexuals are punished by law?
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by chownah »

santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:22 pm
chownah wrote:I am not whining about these things.....what I have presented is as far as I can tell a factual account of the way things really are.....do you dispute any of these things?
First, thank you for clarifying that you are not complaining about having to pay tax.
There is absolutely no reason why I should have to clarify this.....you falsly accused my of whining about paying taxes when there is absolutely nothing in what I have posted which even remotely points to that....it is your fabrication and your fabrication only......
santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:22 pm But unlike me, you did not stick to the central theme of this thread, which is spelled out loud in its title: "Paying taxes and second precept". I have consistently stuck to the theme
EVerything I have posted has been in direct reply to what you have said. I did not introduce these topics, you did....I only tried to show how you had misconstrued the way things really are.
santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:22 pmand consistently reminded you that as far as you are enjoying various government's social benefits and programs, it's only fair to pay your dues.
You have gone far beyond saying "it's only fair....".....you have tried to show that I am obligated by some fantasy contract.......
santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:22 pm If you do not pay tax while still getting all the benefits, that's stealing, hence breaking the 2nd precept, plain and simple.

This is not stealing...it is tax evasion or tax fraud or something similar.....there is in the US not connection made between not paying taxes and accepting gov't services....none whatsoever....
santa100 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 1:22 pmAnd no, you are wrong on item 2, if you are a real monk or nun who doesn't own personal property or financial possessions, you DO NOT have to pay tax. The (US) tax man will not come hunt you down for that.
I you are an american citizen and if you have no property or financial possessions and you work in a foreign country and you are living completely independent of the US gov't you are still required to pay income tax on your foreign income and they will prosecute you if they have the chance. Just because you do not use gov't services does not exempt you from paying US taxes.....
chownah
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by santa100 »

chownah wrote:EVerything I have posted has been in direct reply to what you have said. I did not introduce these topics, you did....I only tried to show how you had misconstrued the way things really are.
Contantly dodging question directly related to the thread title is the complete opposite of "directly reply to what i said". So want to know whose fabrication it was? Get a mirror and take a good close look at it.
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by sentinel »

Volo wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 2:36 pm Not every break of civil law should be fitted into 5 precepts. Would, for example, consensual homosexual relationship be considered as break of the 3rd precepts in counties where homosexuals are punished by law?
Another example is when banks execute some rules that ripoff the clients by overcharged them in many ways which is not violating the laws and not breaking the precept because it is an act of not individual . Unless some authority steps in to rectify it , there is nothing much can be done .
Does the majority shareholders should bear the karma consequences and all those involves will reap the unwholesome karma in the future no one really knows !
You always gain by giving
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by Dhammanando »

chownah wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:41 am
Dhammanando wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:31 am

On the one hand, for bhikkhus the Vinaya makes it a defeating offence of theft to smuggle goods into a country in order to avoid payment of customs duties. I think we can infer from this that the Buddha acknowledges the right of rājās to impose taxes and the obligation of citizens to pay them.
It seems likely to me that the buddha didn't want monks to take on the hobby of smuggling which would of course create huge problems for the sangha.....and also the rule itself would signal to the gov't that if this did occur it was not something that was being ignored or even sanctioned. Also, the robes they wear could certainly hide alot of contraband and additionally the border authorities were probably hesitant to search under a monk's robes I guess....don't know for sure....
chownah
This is Bhikkhu Varado's explanation, from an email discussion about whether copyright violations would count as theft under the second pārājika rule:
Ven Kumara: When discussing this matter, I’m reminded of the case in the vinitavatthu of Parajika 2, where a monk, for a fee, smuggled a taxable jewel across the border. So, here too nothing physical was stolen, but it was accordingly judged by the Buddha as parajika. What do you think of this?

Ven Varado: Tax is money that is owned by the government. It is not a fee that is owed to it. Likewise, when goods are imported, the government automatically has a part share in them. In paying import tax, importers are buying back the government’s share of the goods. Smuggling is therefore a form of theft: taking the government’s portion without paying for it.
https://sasanarakkha.org/2007/01/07/dia ... nd-vinaya/
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
User avatar
Volo
Posts: 1065
Joined: Sat Jul 28, 2018 9:32 am

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by Volo »

The issue with the smuggling is a bit tricky. The first strange thing (although it's from the Commentary):
BMC wrote:It [Commentary] also states that if a bhikkhu goes through customs with a conditional intent—“If they ask to see my belongings, I’ll pay the fee, but if they wave me through I won’t”—then if the officials do wave him through without asking to see his belongings, he incurs no offense.
Why would this matter? But okay, it's a commentary. But here is another strange exception from the rule. This one is from Vinaya:
BMC wrote:The Vibhaṅga states that if, to avoid paying an import duty at a frontier, one crosses the frontier in such a way as to evade the customs area (§), one incurs only a dukkaṭa. At present, the civil law judges this sort of behavior as more reprehensible than slipping an item through customs, but from the point of view of the Vinaya the lesser penalty still holds. The Commentary says that this allowance applies only in cases when one evades the customs area by a distance of more than two leḍḍupātas—approximately 36 meters.
So, basically if a bhikkhu sneaks through the border avoiding customs he gets a minor offense instead of pārājika (carrying the same valuable item)!

Ven Thanissaro makes a reasonable suggestion to rationalize this (somewhat similar to Ven Varado's point quoted above by Ven Dhammanando):
The Vibhaṅga’s position here is important to understand, for it has implications concerning the extent to which the evasion of other government fees and taxes would fall under this rule. The underlying assumption here seems to be that a dutiable item carried into a customs area is impounded by the king (or government). The payment of the duty is thus an act of recovering full ownership of the item. An item carried across the frontier without entering the customs area would not count as impounded, even though the king would probably claim the right to impound or even confiscate it if his agents apprehended the smuggler. Translated into modern terms, this would indicate that the evasion of other taxes claimed by the government—such as inheritance taxes—would incur the full penalty here only if the item being taxed was impounded on government property, and one evaded the tax by taking the item out of impoundment without paying the required fee. Otherwise, the penalty for tax evasion would be a dukkaṭa.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by chownah »

Dhammanando wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:00 pm
Ven Kumara: When discussing this matter, I’m reminded of the case in the vinitavatthu of Parajika 2, where a monk, for a fee, smuggled a taxable jewel across the border. So, here too nothing physical was stolen, but it was accordingly judged by the Buddha as parajika. What do you think of this?
I would reply to ven kumara by asking: Did the buddha declare that the act was parajika based on it being stealing?.....
chownah
sentinel
Posts: 3236
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by sentinel »

:reading:
Last edited by sentinel on Thu Oct 17, 2019 11:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
You always gain by giving
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6492
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by Dhammanando »

chownah wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:44 am I would reply to ven kumara by asking: Did the buddha declare that the act was parajika based on it being stealing?.....
Yes. The episode is placed in the Vinaya's second pārājika section. All the acts judged to be defeating offences in this section are acts of stealing.
Yena yena hi maññanti,
tato taṃ hoti aññathā.


In whatever way they conceive it,
It turns out otherwise.
(Sn. 588)
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Paying taxes and second precept

Post by chownah »

Dhammanando wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 9:13 am
chownah wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:44 am I would reply to ven kumara by asking: Did the buddha declare that the act was parajika based on it being stealing?.....
Yes. The episode is placed in the Vinaya's second pārājika section. All the acts judged to be defeating offences in this section are acts of stealing.
I asked this because based on volo's post it seems there are three possibilities each with a different result for the "smuggler". 1. If someone crosses at a customs office and has the thought "if asked I will pay" and is not asked then they successfully smuggle the gem with no penalty. 2. If someone crosses where there is no customs office he successfully smuggles the gem and is given a light penalty. 3. If someone crosses at a cutoms office and is asked and subsequently lies and/or conceals the gem they have successfully smuggled the gem but they incur a heavy penalty.

So...it seems that in 1. and 2. the smuggler does not make false statements to the king's officer at customs....the penalty is light to non-existant even though the "stealing" has occured. In 3. the smuggler makes false statement or actively deceives the king's officer at customs....the penalty is a heavy one.

To me it seems that the parajika level of punishment was meted out because the monk lied and deceived the king's officer. It seems that the "stealing" itself is not the operative principle since given that in all three instance the intent is to smuggle and the attempt is successful...and the main difference that I see is the degree of active deception required....so if you can "steal" (I call the stealing because there is intent to smuggle/steal) something without actively deceiving the authorities then there is no adverse reaction.

To me this seems really strange in that it seems to me that intent should be the main thing....but I guess it is not possible to be sure about what someone's intent is so when it comes to enforcing rules it is more practical to have some things not hinging on assumed intent but rather on actions which come about through intent....I guess....don't know for sure.....

Are the penalties (vinaya penalties) the same if they do not succeed?
chownah
Post Reply