Dear Robyn,

At 12:36 PM 13/05/2005, you wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your time this morning, Dave
> 
> One pragmatic query is 'why bother?'.
> 
> Or rather, is this one of the most effective actions that I can take to
> demonstrate my objection. In terms of potential costs (my own and others'
> time, energy and resources, and material costs) is this effective? The
> absence of my 1 x $$ isn't going to make a dent in the military spending, or
> the rationale which mandates the spending. Because of its high priority my
> 'bit' will come out the pool from which all other - including very worthy -
> allocations are made. I hope that one day, eventually, the wildfire point of
> popular comprehension and response will embrace courage, compassion and
> creativity as a good means of designing the future. Tops knee jerk
> intelligence, in my humble opinion.


I'm very sorry I have taken so long to reply to this very sensible question. But 
I needed time to sort through it again myself.

It has become very real to me again, since a few days after I spoke to you on 
the phone (in May) I received notification that the tax office has obtained 
judgement against me for the sum of $17,000 and are starting bankruptcy 
proceedings (again). And since I have done nothing about it, two days ago I got 
notice that a hearing is set for 16-Nov-2005. If I don't turn up (submitting a 
written defence in advance) I will certainly be declared bankrupt and the 
appointed trustee will probably be able to sell my only substantial asset, a 
rental property that my wife Janelle and I own jointly. (Fortunately not the 
house we live in - my wife owns that outright). Alternatively, I can do the same 
as last time and try to show that I am _able_ to pay - just unwilling - and 
defeat the bankruptcy.

Why bother? Well for people of conscience such as ourselves, there is enough 
pain in knowing that things like the US/Australian/etc invasion of Iraq happen 
at all, without the pain of knowing that we have directly contributed to them 
with our money, no matter how little.

You are right in pointing out that there is no way of actually forcing them to 
take your withheld taxes away from the "defence" budget, as opposed to say 
health, education etc. But you know if you pay it all, some will definitely go 
to "defence". This argues for the position of some war tax resisters which is to 
redirect _all_ your tax. At least that way you can be _sure_ you haven't 
contributed to death and destruction. 

I am currently wavering on this point. I redirected only 10% up until the Tax 
Office's 1993 attempt to have me declared bankrupt. Since then I have withheld 
it all by default and the idea of now paying the other 90% really sticks in my 
craw. I would be paying this money to a government that routinely breaks 
international laws including invading another nation in defiance of the UN and 
the wishes of a large majority of its own citizens, and incarcerating refugees 
in violation of a UN treaty we signed and ratified. A government which fails to 
do anything significant about our contribution to Global Warming or our 
dependence on declining oil, and is daily dismantling civil rights and workers 
rights which were hard-won over centuries.

I'm guessing that the "redirect 100%" position will lose me a lot of public 
support, since people will say, "I can allow an individual conscientious 
objection over a life-and-death issue such as funding military defence or 
abortion, since you understandably want to avoid complicity in what you see as 
murder, but on matters of lesser moral import you really should go along with 
the wishes of the majority. After all we do live in a democracy and although it 
may not be perfect, it's the best system we've got".

One way to partially address that would be to donate the withheld money to 
appropriate causes in approximate proportion to their budget allocation. i.e. 
Donate the defence proportion to some Australian organisation that in a broad 
sense enhances our security (without violence or the threat of same), similarly 
for health and education.

One idea I have is to donate a solar power system to my local school. It would 
cover all three since decentralised energy supply is good for security, avoided 
greenhouse gasses are good for the planet's (and hence our) health. And 
installing it on a school could help educate the kids about renewable energy.

You would also be right to point out that the amount that any one person is 
likely to withhold will be insignificant to the Government, but I assume you are 
familiar with the cartoon showing thousands of people all thinking silently to 
themselves "But what can one person do?".
http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images1/whatcan1do.gif

It also gives one a unique authority to speak out on the issues. How strongly 
can you denounce it if you're still paying for it?

General Alexander Haig once sneered, regarding anti-war protestors, "Let them 
march all they want, as long as they keep paying their taxes".
http://www.warresisters.org/wtr_complicity.htm

I would love to hear what you think about the 10% versus 100% question. What do 
you think I should do? What were you thinking of doing? You can reply to this 
email or if you prefer, phone me on (07) 33662660. I can then phone you back to 
share the costs if you wish.

-- Dave Keenan