Dear Linda:

The Church teaches what Christ teaches, "render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's". Here is the official teaching and then afterwords I'll have a comment or two.

From the Catechism (nn. 2238-2242):

The duties of citizens

2238 Those subject to authority should regard those in authority as representatives of God, who has made them stewards of his gifts: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution.... Live as free men, yet without using your freedom as a pretext for evil; but live as servants of God." Their loyal collaboration includes the right, and at times the duty, to voice their just criticisms of that which seems harmful to the dignity of persons and to the good of the community.

2239 It is the duty of citizens to contribute along with the civil authorities to the good of society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity, and freedom. The love and service of one's country follow from the duty of gratitude and belong to the order of charity. Submission to legitimate authorities and service of the common good require citizens to fulfill their roles in the life of the political community.

2240 Submission to authority and co-responsibility for the common good make it morally obligatory to pay taxes, to exercise the right to vote, and to defend one's country:

Pay to all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

[Christians] reside in their own nations, but as resident aliens. They participate in all things as citizens and endure all things as foreigners.... They obey the established laws and their way of life surpasses the laws.... So noble is the position to which God has assigned them that they are not allowed to desert it.

The Apostle exhorts us to offer prayers and thanksgiving for kings and all who exercise authority, "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." 

2241 The more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin. Public authorities should see to it that the natural right is respected that places a guest under the protection of those who receive him.

Political authorities, for the sake of the common good for which they are responsible, may make the exercise of the right to immigrate subject to various juridical conditions, especially with regard to the immigrants' duties toward their country of adoption. Immigrants are obliged to respect with gratitude the material and spiritual heritage of the country that receives them, to obey its laws and to assist in carrying civic burdens.

2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." "We must obey God rather than men":

When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.

There is an obligation of government to provide the common good AND the moral good. When the government fails at this we have the right to redress of grievances in a legal and orderly manner, but we ought not to break the law or refuse that which is demanded by the common good.

Taxes serve the common good even though a portion of the tax money is spent on things we do not support. The proper redress of that grievance is to write our Legislators, lobby the legislature, promote or even write new legislation to propose to our Legislators, file law suits to challenge constitutionality, and, of course, "vote the bums out" of office and elect those who represent our virtues, or run for office ourselves. All that is the proper way to redress the grievance that our government is spending tax money on things that we do not support.

To refuse to pay taxes altogether because the government spends it on some things we do not like would be to, for example, deprive starving children of food that is paid for by tax money in various social programs, as well as money to help the homeless, to support research on a cure of cancer, to provide funds to ensure that our food chain is safe, and the drugs we buy are safe, that auto companies conform to safety standards in the making of vehicles, that we have a military apparatus to protect our country from invaders and terrorists, a police force to help prevent crime and to capture criminals, etc.

Some of our tax money goes for abortions and other immoral things. Some tax money goes for nonsense and is just plain wasted. But without the tax revenue, babies will die from starvation, rapists will be allowed to rape with impunity, poor pregnant women, infants, and children will not have the proper diet they need and can receive on programs like W.I.C.

We have a moral responsibility before our government and before God to pay our fair share of taxes for the common good.

A valid argument cannot be made that the government is illegal because it pays for abortions. It is legal to have an abortion whether we like it or not. But what is legal does not mean that it is just or moral. Something can be completely legal and yet remain totally unjust and totally immoral. Thus, we cannot make the argument that the government is illegal to justify our not paying taxes.

In the early twentieth century tax protesters tried to make that argument about Income Taxes saying that it was unconstitutional. Well, the authority to assess income taxes was inserted into the Constitution in a Constitutional Amendment. Ipso facto, it IS constitutional and fully legal to assess Income Taxes.

The law is the law. Unless we change the law, or the courts strike down the law as unconstitutional, or we amend the constitution it IS THE LAW, what whatever that law prescribes or proscribes is legal and we have a moral obligation to obey it unless it violates God's law.

Since taxes serve a common good beyond the immoral law on abortion, we do not have the right or moral imperative to refuse to pay taxes.

Now with this said, although one could argue that to voluntarily remain in poverty for the express purpose of avoiding taxes is reneging on one's responsibility, one does have the right to do that if they wish as long as they accept the consequences of that decision by actually living in poverty.

No one has the right, however, to work for cash "under the table." That is cheating the alleged decision to live in poverty. That is a federal crime, a felony, punishable by prison time.

What this friend of yours is actually saying is that "I will not actually live in poverty, only be in poverty 'on paper' in terms of income reported to the IRS."

That is not poverty and he insults and offends all those persons who are truly living in poverty.

I know thousands of truly poor people who would love to "build a house." Give me a break. This man is not poor, he is a cheater, and he is an offender against the truly poor. He ought to be ashamed of himself. This is not Christian behavior and violates Church teaching.

He, and anyone, can legally and morally try to reduce their tax burden by legal and allowable means (e.g., deductions, etc.). But to receive income in cash "under the table" makes him a common criminal.

He, and anyone, can legally and morally live in voluntary poverty even if the motivation is to protest and avoid taxes, but such a person must accept the poor lifestyle as a consequence.

I live in voluntary poverty, a religious vow of poverty (though now even if I had not taken a vow of poverty, I would be in "involuntary" poverty because of disabilities). I wonder if this man could live on $900 per month? less than $600 per month as some people do? I doubt if he would even want to try.

I am sorry for sounding harsh, but people like your friend need to be slapped upside the head to wake them up and out of their obsessively false ideas, and be held accountable for their irresponsibility.

This is why we have a Pope and Magisterium. The public, and individuals, can get themselves lathered up in a tizzy-fit about things like this. The Church can bring us back to reality.

God Bless,
Bro. Ignatius Mary