User talk:Famspear/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Famspear. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

An anonymous user at IP 200.25.182.42 improperly inserted the following material on my main user page in my material on tax protesters and psychology:

This analysis would surely apply to many of our Founding Fathers at the Boston Tea Party as well, No? Would it be too much to say that maybe you might be the one with a bias? or unwillingness to consider the simple preposition that sometimes government goes to far? What is plainly obvious to those of us that can read and understand common english is that there is no law imposing a tax liability and that the current income tax is being enforced in violation of the direct and indirect taxing provisions of the U.S. Constitution, unless of course the law really is voluntary. Frankly, you hold these entries hostage to your own point of view, please allow others to have a say

More on this later. Famspear 01:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a diff't anon user, one who is questioning the use of language that does not reflect the meaning at the time. The article could be much more specific in terminology. As it stands, it employs stereotypical usages which trivialise the issues. The Pollock case is best explained in the Brushaber decision, which was written by Justice White who wrote the minority opinion in Pollock. He explictly wrote that Congress had the income tax act collect the tax at source as required for any excise. This requirement has been upheld by every revisit of the matter, such as Gurley v. Rhoden. White knows better than anyone alive today. He did not mention wages as an item of taxable income. The original 1040 for 1913 implemented exactly what Congress intended to achieve with the 16th. You can read it at the irs.gov site, and see that it does not include wages as taxable income. The 1040 spanning 3 decades until WWII did not tax wages, and so was not an issue in 1913. The onus is on you to prove that Justice White did not consider 'substance' to be an issue. Do you internet people have the intellectual honesty to admit that it was, or the diligence to study the decisions cited? His decision explictly states that the Pollock court acted as if it was their duty to disregard form and consider substance alone: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=240&invol=1#17 Thus, it was an issue whether the tax was indirect in form but direct in substance. Now, if I come along and refine the entry to reflect the same language for the same issues that White considered, I shouldn't have to educate you people to overcome your ignorance, or convince you that you all are not graced with papal infallibility. Thus, it is quite appropriate to make personal attacks on those too arrogant to study the historical record, if only because a status quo based on ever laxer standards is good enough for a low-minded consensus. That is what keeps Newton's flawed theory of gravity as a Law, and prevents Einstein's theory from becoming one, despite repeated observations bearing out its most outlandish aspects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.137.3.208 (talk • contribs)

Now, an anonymous user using IP 200.25.130.156 has inserted the following material on my user page (again, in the wrong place), so it has been moved here:

This analysis would surely apply to many of our Founding Fathers at the Boston Tea Party as well, No? Would it be too much to say that maybe you might be the one with a bias? or unwillingness to consider the simple preposition that sometimes government goes to far? What is plainly obvious to those of us that can read and understand common english is that there is no law imposing a tax liability and that the current income tax is being enforced in violation of the direct and indirect taxing provisions of the U.S. Constitution, unless of course the law really is voluntary. Frankly, you hold these entries hostage to your own point of view, please allow others to have a say.

Look familiar?

No, I don't think the analysis on my user page would apply to the Founding Fathers at the Boston Tea Party or anywhere else. Protesting taxation without representation, etc., is one thing. Placing false material in Wikipedia is something else. Wikipedia has rules, including Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. My psychology discussion is not focused on whether someone has a "bias" or not. It's focused on the concept of Transference.

Nobody here is unwilling to consider the simple proposition that sometimes government goes too far. Tax protester arguments are not about government "going too far." Tax protester arguments are about attacking tax laws that people don't like by pretending that the laws don't really exist, don't really tax wages, etc., etc. Tax protesters, as a legal term, describes people who make legally frivolous arguments to try to avoid paying taxes they legally owe. Sorry, but that's the way it is. I didn't make the rules.

No one is holding "entries" hostage to a point of view, whatever that is supposed to mean. Wikipedia articles are absolutely not the place for you or me or anyone else to "have a say." Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Wikipedia has its rules. Wikipedia is not the place for us to push our own personal agendas about how bad taxes are, or how bad the Federal Reserve System is, or how bad big government is, or how bad anything else is. In certain appropriate places in Wikipedia, we can report on other people's opinions -- as long as we're really presenting other people's opinions and not our own opinions in disguise -- and as long as those opinions are clearly identified as opinions and not fact.

Law is knowable, and tax law is knowable. The provisions of statutes and regulations, and the rulings of courts, are objectively determinable using rules of legal analysis. And Wikipedia has rules. I did not write the tax law, and I did not make the Wikipedia rules. There is no room in Wikipedia for "making it up as you go along" in terms of coming up with your own theory about why you feel the Federal income tax is bad. Wikipedia articles are not soapboxes to promote a Wikipedia editor's point of view.

In my personal view, the Federal income tax system, or at least many parts of it, is a needlessly complex, unfair, over-lawyered mishmash that changes far too often, and for the wrong reasons -- with the currents of change in political thinking. Taxes are too complicated and too high. And it is frustrating at times dealing with an agency -- the Internal Revenue Service -- that is hopelessly behind the times in some ways. Most people at the IRS that I have dealt with are honest and diligent, but a few I have dealt with have been, well, let's say socially challenged. A few are clock punchers.

I think every tax practitioner who deals the IRS extensively is aware of the concept of "systemic incompetence" at the IRS. It is bad, but certain aspects of it have slowly gotten a little better the past few years. But it is still bad. I talk with many IRS employees each month, and my impression is that there is a certain level of frustration within the IRS itself at how the IRS works. It's a huge government bureaucracy. That says it.

I have had some some tax protesters attack me personally because I call them on the phony information they post in Wikipedia. Read my summary about the psychological aspects of tax protesters again.

I and the other editors of Wikipedia are not the enemy. We are not here "upholding the evil tax system," or whatever it is some tax protesters think. Let's observe the Wikipedia rules and guidelines. Especially, Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Encyclopedia Brittanica articles are not the proper place for you or me to "have a say" about the wisdom or legitimacy of the Federal income tax or anything else. And Wikipedia articles are not the proper place either. Yours, Famspear 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and don't forget that my essay is entitled "Tax protesters and my twenty-five cent psychology lesson." That's 25 cents. That's about what the essay is worth. Remember, I am not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. And the material, even if "correct" in some limited way, does not necessarily apply to all tax protesters. Eventually I'll probably be taking that essay down and replacing it with something else. Famspear 02:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear readers: As noted on the talk page for Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the discussion by the user at IP 129.137.3.208 regarding Federal income taxes earlier on this talk page is incorrect. Some of the errors are pretty blatant. Because the material was posted on both talk pages, I will also respond here.

The verbiage to the effect that "White [Supreme Court Justice White] knows better than anyone alive today" and "He did not mention wages as an item of taxable income" is not on point, as the Brushaber case did not involve taxation of wages in the first place. Our anonymous contributor seems to be assuming -- incorrectly -- that there is some sort of rule of law that requires a Supreme Court decision that did not even involve taxation of "wages" to nevertheless list "wages" as an item of taxable income in order for wages to be taxable.

Justice White certainly did not write that Congress had the income tax act collect the tax at source as required for any excise -- whatever in the world that is supposed to mean.

Now, regarding the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Gurley v. Rhoden, 421 U.S. 200 (1975) -- I'm sorry, but this case did not involve the Federal income taxation of wages. The decision did not involve the validity of Federal income taxes at all. The decision involved the validity of a Mississippi sales tax law (and the Mississippi law was ruled valid). The terms "wage," "wages," "salary," "salaries," etc., do not even appear in the decision. Get real.

Now, let's look at this assertion by the anonymous contributor:

The original 1040 for 1913 implemented exactly what Congress intended to achieve with the 16th [i.e., with the Sixteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution]. You can read it [the original Form 1040] at the irs.gov site, and see that it does not include wages as taxable income. The 1040 spanning 3 decades until WWII did not tax wages, and so was not an issue in 1913.

These statements are blatantly false. No Form 1040 for any year has ever allowed wages to be excluded from taxation. Indeed, no Form 1040 could legally do so. Although Form 1040 is an official tax form, official tax forms are not the law.

I agree that the original 1913 Form 1040 does indeed implement exactly what Congress intended. The 1913 Form 1040 is a three page form, plus instructions. The very first line for the various kinds of taxable income on page 2 of the form, under "DESCRIPTION OF INCOME," is "Total amount derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal service of whatever kind and in whatever form paid" (bolding added).

Have a nice day. Yours, Famspear 21:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if you were watching this case but I thought I would post. Tax Fugitive Barricaded in House: 'Show Us the Law, and We'll Pay' Morphh ^(talk) 05:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm hoping that this story does not lead to a larger tragedy. Yours, Famspear 13:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The slavery you support suggests you do not and you believe others do not own themselves. 206.124.31.24 06:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear anonymous user: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by your question. Slavery in the United States was made illegal by the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Neither I nor any reasonable person in the USA today supports slavery. My edits here in Wikipedia relate largely to issues regarding taxation. While some people -- such as Irwin Schiff -- have apparently considered Federal income taxation itself to be some form of slavery in a very loose sense (I think Schiff actually used the words "involuntary serf" or something like that), the Schiff argument is hyperbole.

Ownership in the legal sense refers to property -- a relationship among people with respect to things. In one sense, you cannot "own" yourself (and nobody else can either) -- as you yourself are not "property."

Freedom and liberty -- as those terms are applied to the American experience -- have never historically meant, do not now mean, and will never mean, the absence of taxation. In the United States, our Founding Fathers -- who fought against taxation without representation -- nevertheless imposed taxes on themselves, and paid those taxes. Today, people who don't like taxes would be well served -- and would serve the nation well -- by making cogent, logical arguments against taxes, and not by pretending that taxes are not valid, not legal, not constitutional, not properly imposed, not properly applied, etc., etc., etc. Work to change the laws you don't like!

Further, many tax protesters try to use Wikipedia and other internet web sites to spread their stories. Wikipedia articles are not properly to be used as a cyberspace soapbox for arguments to make society a better place by doing away with income taxes, etc., etc. And, in particular, Wikipedia articles are not the proper place to plant false information about the legal status of income taxation in the United States. Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, and No Original Research. Yours, Famspear 15:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Taxation is slavery. He is right, and your cult is wrong. 206.124.31.24 18:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your feelings with us. Famspear 18:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that taxation is slavery isn't about feelings. It's about involuntary servitude. 206.124.31.24 19:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 206.124.31.24: The statement that taxation is about “slavery” is certainly about your own feelings, your own emotions. You have repeatedly indicated here and on other talk pages in Wikipedia your own feelings about taxes, about the U.S. legal system, about lawyers as a group -- a group which you have repeatedly called "a cult" -- and about me personally. Your feelings of anger are palpable when you engage in personal attacks, such as the following statement you made in one of your railings against the legal system, and against me in particular:

“We understand perfectly that it [the U.S. legal system] is unjust, immoral, and worthy of all the violence it receives (and more) in response to the violence it dishes out. It is my profound wish that you and your cult members receive the true justice you deserve. Your type will, again, one day, hang from trees."[1]

These are obviously very strong feelings. Wikipedia is not the proper forum for you to express these feelings. Yours, Famspear 03:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)