It's been a while but I'm pretty sure it's an issue of standing. Citizens don't have standing to sue based on how their tax money is spent because spending the funds is too far removed from the collection of them and so there is not a concrete injury, which is part of the requirements for standing. The thinking is that once they collected it, it goes into a big pot with all the rest, and then they spend out of that big pot basically, so you can't show that your money actually went to whatever thing you happen to oppose and therefore don't have a specific concrete injury to show. There's also something about suing for general grievances where basically everyone has the same injury as you and your case is nothing special essentially. That's kind of a loose answer, but it's something like that. I do remember for sure that it is an issue of standing.

Not saying I agree with it or anything, just saying that's what the courts say, at least something like that.

So, to answer your question, the suit would be dismissed for a lack of standing.

I appreciate it, thank you.

Losing case. You can't be held legally liable for that if all you're doing is paying the taxes your government requires you to pay.

"Conscientious objection" doesn't fly in the courts, except maybe to keep a gun out of your hands if you happen to get drafted.

"Conscientious objection"

Yeah, that was the angle. Hmm.

It seems like the only way to legally avoid paying US federal taxes for life is to renounce citizenship. Or maybe be insanely wealthy - 0.01% tier.

Sucks because it's not even some ploy to just avoid paying taxes. Just not paying for this endless fucking death and destruction.

Well, technically you're not paying for it, or at least not much of it. Your children might be. Unless the US keeps kicking the debt can down the road. Eventually though, someone will have to pay.

[deleted]

How can you say losing case when an actual case hasn't been proposed?

Huh? Did you miss the subject?

What if: a concerned and morality-minded citizen took to court a case against paying any more fed taxes on the grounds you do not want to be complicit in the murder of overseas innocents or the spying on of fellow citizens?

[deleted]

You asked why I wrote "losing case".

I wrote losing case because the OP asked about taking a case to court.

What connection is missing?

[deleted]

The OP proposed a case, didn't he? I'll quote and highlight it again.

What if: a concerned and morality-minded citizen took to court a case against paying any more fed taxes on the grounds you do not want to be complicit in the murder of overseas innocents or the spying on of fellow citizens?

Scroll up if you don't believe me. It's right there at the top of the page.

Is it an actual court case? Well, duh, no.

I still don't see what the disconnect is.

[deleted]

I ruled? Fuck. When does my judge's pay start?

You made your opinion known, you don't think its possible. I disagree, if enough people understood and were on board, we would/could just change the process. We're human beings, it can be any way we want it to be.

It's easy, right now, to say that this "case" wouldn't fly and you'd be right. In the hypothetical, you're right. Its not about this one person though, its about the whole message and who supports it. You don't have to make the obvious judgement from afar when the circumstances are as they are.

You couldn't say the same thing if enough people made enough of a stink about it that it couldn't be ignored. Things would grind to a halt real quick. Do things grind to a halt when everyone thinks/says "I don't want to support war X or terrorist group Y"? or do they stop when people start saying things like "Our conscientious objection (AKA - Your/our opinion) doesn't matter, don't bother...."?

Chose the message you send.

Believe it or not this has been attempted and from what I saw had some success. I will try and find sources later, but from my recollection these folks had to battle hard. The post regarding standing is quite correct, citizens are chattle so you must establish yourself as a superior. The legal world is built upon the lawful world, two different concepts. There are international laws that are being disregarded, but if judges swear an oath to the constitution and trample it anyways how far will you get?

As with any conspiracy subject, the defense mechanisms are well established: "tax evasion" to "sovereign wacko" - labels that are hard to shake and carry heavy bias. Even if you establish proper jurisdiction and legal footing it may not be enough to conquer the beast since you are going for the jugular.

http://www.paynoincometax.com/federalmafia.htm

The Federal Mafia exposes every facet of the government’s illegal enforcement of the income tax.

They would probably just tell you that they could set your taxes aside so they specifically go to roads or something along those lines just to be assholes.

[deleted]

Why am I not surprised?

Well, technically you're not paying for it, or at least not much of it. Your children might be. Unless the US keeps kicking the debt can down the road. Eventually though, someone will have to pay.