It may well be questioned whether the state which preserves its life by settled policy of violation of the conscience of the individual will not in fact lose it in the process. --Justice Harlan Fiske Stone, U.S. Supreme Court, 1919
The federal government found it necessary in 1941 to shift from a class tax to a mass tax. Until 1941, less than ten percent of the population in the U.S.--mainly the upper income level--paid federal income taxes: 14 million of the 132 million people. But the enormous military costs of World War I brought a marked change in federal taxation policy, causing the government to tax a far greater number of lower income citizens. By 1974, 39 percent of the people were federal taxpayers; the Internal Revenue Service received 83 million tax returns from 213 million Americans.
As the nature of modern warfare changes and relies much less on large numbers of soldiers and much more on highly sophisticated and expensive weapons, the war portion of our federal tax payments becomes increasingly crucial to the military system. During World War II, there were 12.2 million men in arms; now there are only 2.1 million. Nevertheless, the potential for inflicting massive destruction accelerates with modern technological warfare. Hiroshima demonstrated that a profound change had occurred in the nature of warfare.
Our country places no restraints upon militarists, but pacifists are penalized if they follow their consciences. They are forced by law to help finance multi-billion dollar weapons programs. Congress terminated the draft in 1973. While we don’t expect Congress to terminate the military budget, the legal recognition for conscientious objectors seeking an alternative peaceful use for the military portion of their federal tax payments would be in keeping with the 1940 provision in the Selective Service Act providing alternative civilian work “contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest.” The first such legislative alternative in the area of taxation originated in 1971 with a small group of conscientious objectors--a Quaker physician, joined by Mennonites and Brethren with long standing religious convictions against war. More recently, Catholics and Methodists with convictions of con science against paying for weapons of death followed their lead.
The World Peace Tax Fund Act, first introduced in the House of Representatives in April, 1972, would if enacted extend the principle of conscientious objection to not paying federal income, estate and gift taxes. Through an amendment of the Internal Revenue code, the taxpayer would be allowed to channel the military portion of these federal taxes to peaceful uses.
The mechanism for channeling the war tax portion would be a special trust fund, the World Peace Tax Fund, administered by 11 trustees “who have shown a consistent commitment to world peace.” The General Accounting Office would annually determine and publish the percentage of the federal budget which was spent for military purposes in the year just ended. This percentage would determine the portion of the qualifying taxpayer’s tax which should be received by the trustees.
These funds would then be used for such purposes as United Nations activities, research into nonviolent solutions to international conflicts, disarmament efforts, and international education and welfare.
The taxpayer would have the option of marking a simple checkoff item printed on the annual IRS income tax form, reading, “Do you believe that you are conscientiously opposed to participation in war, within the meaning of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended?” The Secretary of the Treasury could challenge the declarer’s status as a taxpayer qualified to participate, through the U.S. District Courts. However, since nothing would be gained by checking off this option, if one were not sincerely opposed to participation in war (the objector’s taxes would not be reduced) there seems little reason to believe that many others besides conscientious objectors would participate.
In the early stages of the bill’s operation, with a small minority of citizens checking the C.O. box, the reduction in funds going to the military would be small. Yet this small percentage would, it is estimated, amount to anywhere from $180 million to $4.5 billion. These figures are based on a range from the most conservative to the most liberal estimate of conscientious objectors, the smaller figure representing the .4% classified by the Selective Service System as Conscientious Objectors during the Vietnam War. The larger figure is based on the 9% of the population polled at the time of the Calley sentence in 1971 who thought a soldier was not justified in killing an enemy in war.
What is the likelihood that such a bill might ever be passed by Congress? The 23 sponsors in the House of Representatives during the just concluded 94th Session seem to represent little support; nevertheless, backing has been gathering since the initial ten sponsors introduced the bill under Rep. Ronald Dellums’ (D-Calif.) lead.
The recent introduction of the bill in the Senate for the first time by Senator Mark Hatfield (R-Ore.), is a significant step toward enlarging the support needed in both houses of Congress.
When this article appeared, Delton Franz was director of the Washington, D.C. office of the Mennonite Central Committee, Peace Section.
Got something to say about what you're reading? We value your feedback!