Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tax Honesty Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was clear Delete after discounting new users and socks. Stifle 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Honesty Movement

Please add new comments at the bottom of the page.
  • Delete - POV fork of Tax protester. The leaders of this movement are serving long prison terms for fraud, tax evasion, etc. (See Irwin Schiff), and addressing the issue with this tone is the moral equivalent of saying that 'a growing number of people believe that the government has no power to punish murder'. BD2412 T 14:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. PJM 14:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • ReWrite as a personal way of thinking. If there are official wiki guidelines which this article violates and it cannot or nobody wants to rewrite an article on the behavior or propanganda then I guess there is no choice but to delete, because we would not want to mislead the gullible reader that the tax honesty stuff is either honest or in good faith. So my preference is for a first line to the article that states: "The tax honesty movement is an ironically named and dishonest attempt to mislead... blah blah blah..." John wesley 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) That is if we can't rewrite or if it's against wiki policy then delete John wesley 15:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • All the arguments raised by the "tax honesty movement" are already addressed in Tax protester - rewriting would only make this a duplicate of that article, so it is just as simple to delete, redirect, and add a line to the effect that recent tax protesters have used this name. BD2412 T 15:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Is there nothing different about this movement than standard tax protesters? If no, then Redirect to Tax protestor and include the term there if it is verifiable and notable. If there are some important differences, perhaps this topic deserves an article, and in that case, all the ridiculous POV just needs to be excised. Only delete if this term is not important or really used at all. I don't really have any familiarity with it, so provide some evidence if you can. - Taxman Talk 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Then incorporating or adding this new name for the current group of protestors and redirect would be just as good as rewrite. Go ahead and delete and add the name tax honesty movement to a list of names that these protestors call themselves. John wesley 15:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, for one thing, this article claims the phrase "Tax Honesty Movement" was coined in 2001, but refers to a 1948 tax protester as recognized as its founder, and recites arguments that were raised and dashed long before 2001. Some of these arguments (e.g. that the government refuses or is unable to point to where the power to tax originates) were previously added to the tax protester article,[1], [2], where they were debunked and revealed as nonsensical or having been rejected by courts in specific decisions. This is the very definition of a POV fork - material debunked as a fallacy in one article is used to set up another article that offers a competing version of the "truth". BD2412 T 16:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
        • Right, but that doesn't matter because all the unverified POV simply needs to go in any case. The only thing we need to decide is is this term an important one of it's own right?—if it is not at all important->delete; if it is a little important->redirect and mention in Tax protestor; iff there is significant importance of the term in its own right->keep and rewrite it to be NPOV about the term. I'm thinking it is clearly one of the first two, I'd just like more information to decide. Do you have any sources for that? - Taxman Talk 16:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
          • Are you asking whether I have sources suggesting that the term is important in its own right? Or whether anyone does? Personally, I've seen nothing that distinguishes this label from all others applied to or adopted by tax protesters. BD2412 T 17:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • Well I was asking both. If no evidence is provided for the use or importance of the term (again, in it's own right as a separate term from tax protestors), I'm fine with a delete. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
            • > "Personally, I've seen nothing that distinguishes this label from all others applied to or adopted by tax protesters." Well, you might consider that perhaps Tax Protesters have evolved into Tax Honesty Proponents, as more of the truth has been uncovered over the years. Perhaps it's the Tax Protester page that should be merged into the Tax Honesty page. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete or maybe merge to Tax protestor if there's really any content here; this is clearly a POV fork. One also notes that although the discussion is of the nonexistence of a certain class of laws, this article lists several of these laws explicitly. --Deville (Talk) 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, per above unless there is some evidence of the importance and distinctness of the use of this term. - Taxman Talk 17:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewrite - There is one very important distinction between "tax protestors" and the "tax honesty movement." Tax Protestors agree that they are subject to the tax laws, but they believe the laws are unfair and excessive and they don't want to pay. Whereas the belief held by the Tax Honesty Movement is that the laws, as written, are perfectly legal. However, the enforcement of the revenue laws are being grossly mis-applied and are not legal. They also agree that everyone should pay taxes that they are liable for, obviously because the government operates on tax money. And there are plenty of legal ways for the government to collect the necessary funds to operate. But taxing a person's money that they earn from domestic sources is not constitutional, nor is there anything in the internal revenue code that imposes such a tax. The tax laws are written clear enough to understand that they don't apply to most americans. There are a number of ex-IRS agents that have quit because they've come to the same conclusions. And they are part of a class action lawsuit against the government because the government refuses to answer their questions(givemeliberty.org). A good place to start learning about this movement and to learn about the revenue laws, is by going to originalintent.org/edu. You can also read the Internal Revenue Code at www.law.cornell.edu/uscode. It is Title 26 (pay close attention to the statutory definitions) --Tax Heretic —This unsigned comment was added by 159.37.7.44 (talk • contribs) .
    • Actually, the distinction to which you point is the one between tax protesters and tax resisters. Tax protesters, as the term has been used by courts and government agencies, dispute that the tax laws are valid or constitutional. For example, the claim that "taxing a person's money that they earn from domestic sources is not constitutional" is a classic tax protester argument. Tax resisters (generally) do not dispute the legality of taxes but nonetheless refuse to pay them. The claim that "a number of ex-IRS agent... have quit because they've come to the same conclusions" is part of the scam language used to lure people into this nonsense. Also, "Tax Honesty Movement" is a POV title - kind of like naming a pedophile group the "Benefits of Sex With Children Honesty Movement". BD2412 T 18:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
      • > "Actually, the distinction to which you point" Not at all. According to your own stated definition, Tax Honesty proponents are neither Tax Protestors nor Tax Resistors. Tax Honesty proponents aren't questioning the legality of any law, nor are we refusing to pay a tax with which we disagree. You seem to have completely misunderstood the entire concept. What we're saying is that the law is COMPLETELY proper and constitutional, and that it simply doesn't apply to us. IRS and DOJ are intentionally misrepresenting and misapplying the law as it's written. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: If it's verifiable, then the movement should have an article. It's got a long way to go for NPOV, but that's a separate question. Peter Grey 19:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect: can this be closed now, since the nom said he is ok with deletion? --Hetar 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: Is this not the policy regarding the label of a "POV fork"? Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. Instead, assert the application of NPOV policy — regardless of any POV reasons for making the fork, it still must be titled and written in an NPOV-consistent manner. It could be that the fork was a good idea, but was approached without balance — or that the person making it has mistakenly claimed a kind of "ownership" over it. The tyranny of those wanting to delete this is obvious. What's your hurry? Makes me suspicious. Where's the repeated vandalism? If anything, perhaps a rewrite may me in order to ensure it complies with the NPOV policy. I have notified the original author. Give him a chance to respond. --dick-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.39.253.142 (talk • contribs)
    • The basic claim attributed by the article to this group is the same as information that has previously repeatedly been removed from the Tax protester article and related articles on income tax in the U.S. The recent addition of the word "Honesty" to the name of a group espousing such views is inherently POV, as it suggests that the theories they espouse are "honest" (i.e. the truth), and that the actions of Congress, the Executive Branch, and repeated holdings of courts up to and including the Supreme Court of the United States are all part of a conspiracy to enforce laws which don't exist, or which the government has no power to enact. This is the tax protester movement under another name, and nothing more. BD2412 T 21:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
    • > "This is the tax protester movement under another name, and nothing more." That's not true. These are former Tax Protesters with new understanding about what the laws say. The understanding couldn't have come about without the advent of the internet, which is why it's a new phenomenon. It's you, sir, who is refusing to adapt and grow and who is grasping at old and outdated monikers. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • ReWrite Tax Honesty is not synonymous with Tax Protest nor is it a derivative. The difference comes in how supporters of either group intend to deal with the IRS and/or taxes. To Protest the tax, one assumes it is legitimate yet overreaching in scope. Honesty purports the tax is illegitimate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.16.100 (talk • contribs)
    • Please read the Tax protester article, which clearly states that tax protester "has been used by the Internal Revenue Service and by courts to describe those who believe that tax laws do not apply to them, or to their income", e.g., are illegitimate. BD2412 T 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
      • We are not what some judge calls us--we are what we call ourselves. Our freedoms, our lives, our liberty do not depend upon nor derive from any government decree. We are government's creator and are therefore its master. This is reflected in our national charter. --InteXX 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: ***Mr. BD2412, I notice that you seem to be leading the charge to delete this article. You undoubtably became aware of it's existance shortly after I added one sentence from the Tax Honesty Movement article to the Tax Protester article. I did this with the hope that linking to additional information would stimulate input to the Wiki and help further clarify issues for Wiki users. My intent was to add information, and I never deleted anything that already existed. You, on the otherhand, chose to immediately delete my addition from the Tax Protestor article, added paragraph the the Tax Honesty Movement article without giving citation of the court case from which you liberated text (out of context?), and initiated deletion proceedings against this one. Is your agenda here based upon finding and learning the truth or is is based on distortion and obfuscation? If it is the latter, sir, it resembles the actions of the best tyrants and autocrats. It appears that your objection(s) to the continued existence of this article are based mostly on your personal POV and smacks of censorship.
The Tax Honesty Movement is a name given to a growing number of individual Americans who desire honesty and accountability in the application of the tax laws of the United States. I'm sure that you will agree that having our tax laws applied honestly and fairly by our own government is in the best interest of all Americans, including yourself. I submit that blindly obeying orders from any taxing authority without knowing what the law actually requires and to whom it actually applies is servile, unpatriotic, and un-American. These people are gravely concerned by the fact that representatives of their own government refuse to sit down face-to-face and discuss questions that they have regarding proper application of tax law. In fact, in a recent press conference, a representative of the IRS stated that those who dare ask questions will be met with enforcement actions, rather than answers. Does this fit in with the IRS mission statement which says in part:
"Provide America's taxpayers top quality service by helping them understand and meet their tax responsibilities and by applying the tax law with integrity and fairness to all."
The formal organization leading the effort to get substantive response from the government is called the We The People Foundation. According to your own Wiki bio, during your time in law school you state that you focused on the First Amendment. It should interest you that the We The People Foundation has a First Amendment lawsuit against the govenment currently in the courts. The question in this suit is in regard to the fifth Right enumerated in the First Amendment regarding the Right To Petition. Members of the We The People Foundation created an exceedingly polite petiton to the government which asked over 500 questions begging answers regarding proper application of tax law. To date, the government has refused to answer the petition. In fact, the government has actually argued in court that while the Peope do indeed have the Right to petiton, there is nothing in the Constitution that compels the government to answer. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should see this as insufferable arrogance on the part of the government, as the Right To Petition with expection of answer has a long and rich history dating as far back as the Magna Carta. Perhaps you should watch this case as it now appears likely to go to the Supreme Court.
Mr. BD2412, I respectfully request your participation in a public discussion of federal income tax law with one of the most outspoken members of the Tax Honesty Movement, Dave Champion, on his weekly radio show called The American radio Show. Perhaps you will do us all a favor and do what no government lawyer has yet been willing to do by slaying Mr. Champion publicly on his own radio show and forever lay to rest the Tax Honesty Movement. --dick--
The point of this AfD is not whether tax laws are constitutional or properly applied, but whether the Tax Honesty Movement is a separate concept from anything covered in the Tax protester article. Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid - the Tax Honesty Movement can snugly take up a paragraph of that article. (I note that reference to Vivian Kellems far precedes the coining of the term "Tax Honesty Movement", and should be in the tax protester article anyway, and the paragraph on the law prohibiting IRS reference to "illegal tax protesters" duplicates material in the tax protester article. As for the proferred debate, I am neither a tax lawyer nor a debater. No amount of rhetoric will stop the IRS from assessing taxes, or spring Schiff from the federal pen - if you really intend to avoid U.S. taxes and remain a free man, your choice will be to leave America, or ruin its government. BD2412 T 03:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per everyone who has read WP:AUTO. Eivindt@c 04:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge useful material with Tax protester and edit for POVness. Fishhead64 06:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge/delete as above. -- Simon Cursitor 07:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Mr. BD2412. Proto||type 10:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Maybe a little of this material could be put into the tax protester article, but overall, it needs to be scrutinized for POV and Verifiability at a minimum. But even if some of the material passes the Wikipedia tests, I argue it belongs in the tax protester article. Yours, Famspear 15:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

LEAVE IT AS IS!. Mr. 2412 states Since the latter article exhaustively addresses the various arguments contending that the income tax is unconstitutional, illegal, or improper - including the belief that there simply is no law that requires taxes to be paid. It seems Mr. 2412 wants to delete an article the contradicts his own POV article. Mr. 2412's article IS a POV article because the law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers. Quite simply, Mr. 2412, you are wrong. You are wrong for a very simple reason: You don't address the actual written words of law. If you don't address the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES, REGULATIONS, and appropriate Supreme Court rulings, then anything you have to say about the "INCOME" tax is Hearsay. Neither do you address the distinction between what constitutes a direct tax and an indirect tax. And neither do you address what definition of "INCOME" the Supreme Court limited Congress to using; Quote: "there would seem to be no room to doubt that the word must be given the same meaning in all of the Income Tax Acts of Congress that was given to it in the Corporation Excise Tax Act" Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509 (1921) Since you don't discuss the Consitutional meaning of "INCOME" as used in the 16th. Amendment, you can't be very clear on what is taxed with an "INCOME" tax. Just on this one issue, I have 6 plus pages dedicated to showing, what the definition of "INCOME" that is taxed by the "INCOME" tax is according to the Supreme Court. Because of the Cognitive_dissonance that many have regarding this issue I have approximately 74 questions on numbered pages 4-10 on my website. The questions are in the manner of an open book reading comprehension quiz. You may access those questions here: [3].

Tax Honesty Researchers are a small, but not insignificant, and growing number of people who have actually taken the time to study what the WRITTEN WORDS of the STATUTES and REGULATIONS of the tax law actually say. And in reply to the insult about the use of the word honesty in the label: It's the government that refuses to answer questions. 1,200 people asked 6 questions of the government via Commissioner Everson and Secretary Snow. Those 6 questions and the government's non-responsive reply may be read here:[4] Perhaps you could put together a Wiki page on government evasion and use the scan of that evasive, insulting, threatening letter that does not answer the questions asked. You don't need my IP logged. Here's that website again: [5] [Note: The above comments were posted by an anonymous user at IP 4.158.201.8 on 31 March 2006.]

Anyone doubting the true nature of the "income tax" need only research the subject FOR THEMSELVES! Without relying on governement baffoons that lie, cheat and steal from the people they are supposed to work for.

Or you may want to go see "America, from freedom to fascism" when it hits theaters this summer, and watch the IRSS stumble all over itself trying to lie on camera. It is truly pathetic to watch. Or wait until congressmen are asked point blank if there are any laws requiring us to file or pay, and they say NO right on camera. The game is over, the people are aware. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.157.175.198 (talk • contribs)

Dear fellow editors: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion: whether the article in question should be deleted. I argue that neither this page (nor any formal Wikipedia articles) should be used as a soapbox for people on a mission to argue that the tax laws, etc., are invalid, etc., etc. Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. So let's take a deep breath and relax ......... Yours, Famspear 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, that's it. Breathe deeply and slowly, deeply and slowly....... Famspear 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page. Yours, Famspear 21:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"" Keep the page ""

I do not know why these people want this page deleted. The free flow of information is what makes this country great. I remember something about the 1st ammendment but I'm not sure its allowed anymore judging on whats going on here. The same debate about creation or evolution could easily open the wrath of multitudes, but we don't delete the information simply because some nut job blows a gasket because he doesn't agree with it. Information about the tax honesty movement on both sides of the arguement should be kept free and open. Let the individual reader decide for themselves what they believe to be true or false. My take on the tax honesty movement is that it is simply a grass root movement by free thinking people who are seeking to find out for themselves what is true and what is not about the Income Tax. Those in the movement are in the process of networking, learning, and educating themselves, searching for the truth. Some in the movement may be more vocal than others. Some have even written books and devoted considerable resources on the subject, but there are no "leaders" of the movement. There are some who have used mistaken information and have paid a price for it, while others who have done more research have found where they went wrong and learned from it. Those who make claims about the tax honesty movement being "heresy" and crying out "you people are evil Tax Protestors" appear to me to be nothing less than the same ilk of book burners of histories past.

2412, the "tax honesty movement" is an adjective phrase. As opposed to the noun sentence "Tax protestor". The two are not synonymous. I sincerely suggest you look up the legal definition of the words you use before you go spouting off accusations.

A. Neuman


Ummm, at the expense of appearing to inject an off-topic response to off-topic comments above, I'd like to point out that under the rules of English grammar I don't think there is any such thing as a "noun sentence." Also, "Tax protestor" is not only not a "noun sentence," it's not a sentence at all. In English, sentences generally have to have both a subject (express or implied) and a verb. Maybe we need to set up another fun after school project on English grammar. Yours, Famspear 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC) Oops, I may be wrong. I think I found an example of a noun sentence in Engish. But "tax protester" does not appear to qualify. Yours, Famspear 22:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Leave As Is--The page accurately describes something that's really happening, and as such has merit. It's quite generic, not advancing any particular legal argument over another. Members of the Tax Honesty Movement aren't Tax Protesters at all. We're not protesting any tax, but rather we're saying that the law doesn't permit a tax in the first place. We're taking a stand against willful misapplication and misrepresentation of the written law by government agencies. The gentlemen who holds up trial convictions of prominent Tax Honesty figures is either ignorant of or is ignoring the fact that these convictions were gained through judges cooperating with and assisting prosecutors. A common theme in these trials is that defendants aren't allowed to use the written law in their defense. True justice is almost lost in America today. --InteXX 01:58, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as POV fork. --Khoikhoi 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete
Some definitions:
1. Tax Protester: Someone who argues that a tax is illegal
2. Tax Resistor: Someone who disagrees with a tax
3. Tax Honesty proponent: Someone who argues that the law is being misapplied
This is anything but a POV. It's verifiable fact, by anyone willing to do the research.--InteXX 01:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

--- KEEP There is something wrong when the government will not answer the people!

Bob Schultz and the "We The People" movement politely and respectfully asked questions to those we have elected to serve us. There was no reply.

People have been jailed without having the chance to present their facts to the jury. Irwin Schiff's trial transcripts demonstrate the government's refusal to address the truth.

Larken Rose's trial, Tessa Rose's trial and Ward Dean's trial were all miscarraiges of justice and blantent hiding of the truth.

If the tax were being properly applied to most Americans, why the continued silence except for the shouts of "Frivolous"???

KEEP IT

Finally the word is getting out, don't bury your heads in the sand any longer. This is TRUE! I have investigated it myself for years. Show us the Law!

Keep

The "Tax honesty movement" folks are not "Tax protesters." They believe Title 26 is legally correct and binding. There problem is not with the Tax Laws but with the misapplication of the law by the IRS. If those views are incorrect it should be a simple matter for the IRS to show statutes and regulations that support their position. As an aside, Mr. BD2412's POV is not supported by the findings of the Grace Commission. Further, Income taxes collected don't go to the U. S. Treasury. They go to the International Monetary Fund. I have a POV as to what the IMF does with our Tax Dollars but that is not appropriate here.

Last reply here.Mr./Ms. Famspear correctly states: I'd like to suggest that maybe we should reserve this page for comments about the substance of this discussion... Mr./Ms. Famspear incorrectly states: Statements such as the "law supports the Tax Honesty Researchers" and "You don't address the actual written words of law" and "It's the government that refuses to answer questions" are not material to the question before us. That is exactly THE material that drives the tax honesty movement. I submitted external links for the purpose of giving those that are going to be active in this decision process something to think about in regards to the tax honesty movement article. A taste if you will, of the thought process of at least one person who, after reading the written words of the statutes and regulations, has determined that the law does not apply to him.

Mr./Ms. Famspear further states: By the way, for anyone who is interested, I just thought of a fun after-school project! I'm going to take the anonymous comments by the users at IP 4.158.201.8 and IP 63.157.175.198 above, and discuss them at Talk:Tax protester. Watch that Talk page in the next few days if you're interested. I argue that Talk:Tax protester is a more appropriate page to talk about that kind of stuff, not here on this page.

Mr./Ms. Famspear, I am that person that posted from IP 4.158.201.8. I am not anonymous. Merely, not advertising my name. The website SynapticSparks is mine. If you want to take on the comments, and since your userpage states: I am an American attorney with an interest in Income tax in the United States, then how about a little one on one, you and I. You, a hifalutin big city lawyer, and me, a dumb ex-truck driver. Since you are the educated one, expect lot's of questions. I've only a few days before I am indisposed for about 2 weeks, so our little tête-à-tête will be interupted. The page is already set up for us. [6] You may send your email answer directly to me [7] as that is how your comments will be put on that page.

Save This Page. This entry is well written and only states facts, exept for the last paragraph which states an opinion. the last paragragh should be deleted. Why would anyone have a problem with stating. Such entries as "Communism", "Aztlan" and "Fascism", etc. are groups that I and a lot of other people do not agree with. I, however, would not support deleting them, because they provide usefull information. isn't this why Wikipedia exists. Save the page delete the last biased paragraph.

KEEP !!!!! It's sad when undisputable, credible evidence is presented and backed up by resignations of their own officers, extensive research by folks such as Bill Benson, Irwin Schiff and others and folks (mostly corrupt judges !!)want to call that effort null and void !!! The largest exposure of the fraud shows when the government has been invited many many times to a press conference to "stake their claim" that they've been right/legal in what they've been doing all these years and miracuously "get the flu" every time about a week or so before it was supposed to happen. Come on people, doesn't the fact they've been "ducking the issue" all these years "throw up a flag" with even the most diehard of "still tax believers" ? You're living in fantasy land if it doesn't !!!

KEEP

I'm amazed that there are those who claim this article (in its original form) to be POV. Is it not factual? If it isn't, then let's discuss those portions of the article that are not. Truth be told, the tax honesty movement does exist, irrespective of how one might feel about it. The facts are that there are a growing group of people associated with these ideas, as evidenced by Bob Schulz and the We The People lawsuit. The emergence of the internet has caused an increasing number of people to start reading the law on their own and questioning the government as to the proper enforcement of the U.S. code and Federal Regulations. These issues will not go away if the government does not answer. These are FACTS.

To ignore the fact of a growing movement as an appeal to opinionated diatribe is intellectually obscene at best, and moral bankruptcy at worst. How is it that in America a group of people who promote honest, level-headed and rational discussion of law are considered "dangerous"? In America the citizenry is entrusted with government oversight and that can only be achieved through honest, tough-minded discourse that makes use of all the facts. Wikipedia is an excellent resource in that it makes this exchange possible by providing ALL the factual evidence necessary. Burying one's head in the sand at the sound of a movement he disagrees with is inherently un-American and close-minded.

If this page is truly dangerous then we need to close down pages covering other topics that might "fool" honest people. Simply pick ideas you disagree with and request deletion. Absurd.

I see this page as prompting more dialouge covering the issue, which, of course, can be covered by Wikipedia. For example, anarcho-capitalism has its own page but with links to sites that are critical of the theory. Why not employ the same open-exchange with respect to the Tax Honesty Movement? Once again, the article is factual. Because it points to facts that some don't like is not grounds for a wild POV accusation.

And if you disagree with the FACT that this movement exists, then go to Bob Schulz's website and view the briefs being filed in federal court, the summaries of his victory over the IRS concerning a summons issue, or see Aaron Russo's film when it comes out.

P.S. I am referring to the article in its original form. BenLS 15:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dale R. Eastman or User at IP address 4.158.201.8: Regarding your questions to me personally (see above), please see my response at Talk:Tax protester, so we don’t clutter this page with any more off-topic material. Thanks, Famspear 05:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP!

Why on earth would anyone want this entire topic deleted!? Prior to the American Revolution many colonists 'went to jail' for opposing tyrannical government and oppression. One cannot justify the removal of a concept, a phrase, a reality simply because there have been penal consequences for a few brave souls that stand up for truthfulness; that stand up for clearly written rights known to many through the bible, others through 'common sense' and fewer still from our written constitution. Thank you for the opportunity. D. Davis- Hawaii —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.84.114 (talk • contribs)

  • Merge/delete as above. CronoDAS 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP

There is a clear POV with this issue in the suggestion to delete Tax Honesty. To try to group everybody into a Tax protestor category is clearly a POV to degrade the message of people wanting honesty. Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty are clearly two different things. Tax protestor’s are just protesting something they owe. Tax Honesty is stating the law is misapplied.

The goal of those that are demanding the Tax honesty be grouped into Tax protestors are imposing a POV. For this reason alone Tax Honesty should be separate. The proper thing to do is to take anything in the tax protestor listing that would infer a Tax honesty position, that the law is misapplied, and move it to tax honesty. To do otherwise is clearly a POV contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. LOL Fox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.189.11 (talk • contribs)

  • This is simply incorrect. Tax resisters refuse to pay a tax that they owe. Tax protesters deny that they owe any tax, stating that the law is misapplied. The arguments that no taxes are owed because the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified, or that the Sixteenth Amendment gives no power to tax, or that no law passed by Congress assesses an income tax, or that wages are not income, or that the IRS is not empowered to collect taxes, or that U.S. dollars are not money, or that the failure of the IRS to answer questions about its authority proves a lack of authority, or that no tax is owed because the United States ceased to operate under the Constitution during the Civil War, these are all arguments explicitly classified by U.S. courts and tax professionals alike as arguments of the tax protester movement. BD2412 T 13:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
    • BD2412 says: Tax resisters refuse to pay a tax that they owe. Tax protesters deny that they owe any tax, stating that the law is misapplied. BD2412 is attempting to use a Loaded_term for a label upon members of the Tax_honesty_movement in an attempt to justify the censorship he aims to institute on something he doesn't agree with. This "labels" argument is no different than what goes on in the Pro-choice / Pro-life conflict. People on both sides of that issue are fervent in their positions. What BD2412 attempting to do as a result of his personal opinion is no different than if a Pro-Choice advocate insisted upon deleting the Pro-Life article or vice versa, the Pro-Life advocate insisted upon the deletion of the Pro-Choice article.
    • BD2412 says: [T]hese are all arguments explicitly classified by U.S. courts and tax professionals alike as arguments of the tax protester movement. BD2412 aligns himself with the Courts.. BOTH can be observed using a Loaded_term in an effort to kill interest in; and ignore what the Tax_honesty_movement members are saying. (The Court is a tax revenue consumer, no conflict of interest there, right?)
    • BD2412 lists these topics as ignorable now because the tax protestors have examined them:
    • the Sixteenth Amendment was never ratified; Bill Benson and The Law That Never Was [8]Right from one of the legal briefs [9] (PDF 112 kb.) of the Bill Benson case: No one can doubt that if the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified, the income tax is unconstitutional. That part of Benson’s speech is absolutely true. The government is here attempting to make the utterance of the statement – that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified – unlawful activity subject to penalty, but the statement in reality does nothing more than state an opinion contrary to the government’s opinion. A free people decide important questions by comparing opinions, not by censoring unpopular ones. (hint, hint.) And now the government is in a bind: Here is the latest filling regarding the 16th. Amendment not being ratified: [10] (PDF 78 kb.)
    • the Sixteenth Amendment gives no power to tax; It doesn't. SCOTUS in STANTON says: ..it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling [BRUSHABER] it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation.. SCOTUS in Brushaber says: ... the bill alleged twenty-one constitutional objections specified in that number of paragraphs or subdivisions. ... they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment ... We are of opinion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation ... And the far-reaching effect of this erroneous assumption will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions advanced in argument to support it ... But it clearly results that the proposition and the contentions under it, if acceded to, WOULD CAUSE ONE PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION TO DESTROY ANOTHER; that is, they WOULD RESULT IN BRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF THE AMENDMENT exempting a direct tax from apportionment INTO IRRECONCILABLE CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL REQUIREMENT that all direct taxes be apportioned. ... Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. ... This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion. It also should be noted that the lower courts are deciding opposite to each other based upon their reading (and mis-reading) of the Brushaber case. A more fleshed out treatment of the 16th may be found here: [11] with links to the cases on FindLaw.
    • Since the amount of time, and the amount of space my reply has taken up is so great, I am ignoring the rest of BD2412's list of naked assertions. The reason for my voluminous post is to refute assertions and personal opinions presented as if truth.
    • Since BD2412 is attempting to spin what the Tax_honesty_movement is with his catch-all Loaded_term label of "tax protestor", he opens the door to having a Loaded_term label applied to his own group of "IRS Collaborators" in the finest tradition of the Vichy_French Nazi Collaborators aiding and abetting tyrants.
    • I look forward to Mr. 2412 joining the discussion with Mr. Famspear and myself after (heavy spin and POV) "Tax Terrorism Season" is over and we all have time to hash this out. -Posted:Dale Eastman. 15:24 EDT 4/4/06

KEEP

Mr. 2412's willingness to keep a category like Tax Protestor and delete one called Tax Honesty is itself a POV. It ignores the point he makes himself above. The term Tax Protestor is a POV label invented by beneficiaries of the fraud, if indeed there is a fraud, being perpetrated by missapplication of perfectly Constitutional but deliberately confusing tax laws.

The notion that lying and deception are the exclusive provence of those not in line for government pensions is optimistic at best. Most "tax protestors" risk far more than they stand to gain in saved taxes. At the same time tax collectors, accountants, attorneys and other "tax professionals" can protect comfortable incomes and benefits with no risk at all by defending a misapplied law.

If indeed it turned out that Title 26 were being misapplied and the income tax only applied to certain Federally privileged activities, a large portion of the current tax enforcement and compliance sector would have to seek honest work. For that reason alone tax professionals and tax enforcement agencies, including the federal courts, cannot be considered neutral parties to the discussion. It would surprise me if the chief advocate here of deleting the Tax Honesty heading, Mr. 2412, was not among those whose economic fortunes are in some part dependent on the current popular interpretation of Title 26.

The very persistence of a movement that questions the legitimacy of the U.S. income tax laws, in spite the possibility of heavy fines and long prison terms, is reason enough to include both Tax Protestor and Tax Honesty in Wikipedia. We do not have "protestors" or "truth seekers" involved with any of the hundreds of other taxes imposed by Congress. There are no protests or doubts of the legitimacy of excises on gasoline, liquor or air fares, for instance. Those laws are clearly written and easily understood. The mind numbing complexity of the tangle lawmakers have created in Title 26 implies a desire to deceive rather than enlighten.

It would not contribute to the search for truth to eliminate one heading or to incorporate it under the other. If they were to be merged, it should be under a truly neutral heading like "U.S. Income Tax History." Otherwise Wikipedia should not be bullied by strongly held opinion in favor of censoring one POV. KEEP TAX HONESTY AS A HEADING. —This unsigned comment was added by Hxoboyle (talk • contribs)(user's only edit) . .

  • Like it or not, this group is composed of persons long defined as tax protesters. I'm really baffled by those who think "Tax protester" is a POV term, as "protester" is not inherently negative. If the main article were instead called "Tax liars" or "Tax idiots" then I would also argue for movement to a neutral title - but many groups have proudly borne the label of protester - consider "Civil rights protesters", who also refused to abide by laws which they rightly believed were unconstitutional and illegally enforced. BD2412 T 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP AS IS

I cannot fathom how others consider this POV. The article lays out the facts that define the term "Tax Honesty Movement" without injecting the opinion of the original author. Whether or not you agree with the goals of the movement, the article does the job of defining the movement to those people who have heard the term and wish to find out what it means. I could detect no attempt at swaying the reader to a particular POV.

Ironically, it seems that BD2412 would like to see it deleted because it offends his POV. Do I really need to point out that that is hardly reason to delete it? --Scratchman 21:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Scratchman's only edit. My "POV" is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, i.e. not the place to attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong. Posting tax protester theories under the heading of "Tax Honesty" is such an attempt. BD2412 T 21:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • "Scratchman's only edit". I am not fully initiated into Wikipedia's culture, but I assume BD2412 is inferring that my opinion should be ignored because I have only posted one edit. Please tell me I am wrong.
    • I agree with you, BD2412, that Wikipedia is not a soapbox - which is why your contention that this article is somehow an "attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong" is a mystery to me. No matter how many times I read it, I cannot find within its passages an attempt to do anything other than define/explain what the term "Tax Honesty Movement" means. If someone thought, "Hmm, what is the Tax Honesty Movement?", this article would answer the question concisely and without injecting any particular POV of whether the movement is good or bad, right or wrong.--Scratchman 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC) aka Neil D. Rosenthal
    • If it swims like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. When BD2412 states: "Posting tax protester theories under the heading of "Tax Honesty" is such an attempt." "(to attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong.)" he is posting his personal opinion POV that the article itself somehow is an "attempt to convince the world that certain views are right or wrong."
    • What IF Arguendo, the Tax Honesty Movement is correct in their views? IF, (the big if), IF the Tax Honesty Movement is correct, what does that say about BD2412's attempts at censorship? Because IF the Tax Honesty Movement is correct, what BD2412 IS attempting to do is censorship based upon BD2412's then incorrect personal beliefs.
    • I should have taken a snapshot of the Tax_Honesty_Movement page prior to somebody editing it. I have taken a snapshot of the page as of the time of my composing this post. If you still insist that the article be removed in its present form, then you are definitely pushing a personal opinion POV. Though I don't like the paring down of the article, I myself can live with it. Others Tax Honesty Members may have disagreement with it.
    • Even if the article stays just as it is right now, I still want that discussion/debate with Mr. Famspear after the 17th and Mr. 2412 is also invited. I have an idea as to a more suitable forum for said discussion... If you can handle the government checking your posts five or more times per day. Posted: 20:59 EDT by Dale Eastman.
      • You know, if you want a snapshot of the article before it was edited, it's here - better hurry, tho, as it is liable to be deleted soon. BD2412 T 01:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Thank you. Got it.- DE.
    • KEEP! Mr. BD2412, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone. Even those who refuse to share your personal views.
    • Show us the law. It seems that Wikipedia has a "law" called the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. As an admin, you are bound to follow the Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators. This article DOES NOT qualify for deletion as described in Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Therefore, one must use the criteria found in Wikipedia:Deletion policy. I demand that you show us EXACTLY which item(s) from the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" (notice the use of the word "may" in the title) that you believe apply to this article. ALL OF THE ISSUES you have raised thus far have solutions in the table "Problems that DON'T require deletion." You might be shocked to find that deletion is not a solution listed in the second table. Also, I expect and demand that you will follow the guidelines and policies set forth at Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators which states in part:
    • == Deciding whether to delete ==
      1. Whether a "rough consensus" has been achieved (see below)
      2. Use common sense and respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants.
      3. As a general rule, don't delete pages you nominate for deletion. Let someone else do it.
      4. When in doubt, don't delete.
    • You may also wish to review these:
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy
    • Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#When_you_wonder_what_to_do
    • Please list the item(s) found in the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" in Wikipedia:Deletion policy before you direct anyone to delete or merge this article. If such decision is made, I demand formal notice here and the opportunity to seek mediation and/or arbitration in this matter before any substantive change is made.
    • I thank you for your swift attention during this very busy tax terrorism season! --Dicktater 06:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
      • While you're reviewing these Wikipedia guidelines, you may want to refer to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppets are bad, which states that "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments." As you can see, the question of deletion is out of my hands - it will be made by a closing administrator, who will likely discount the votes cast by anons and brand new users, particularly where most of those anons and new users appear to be part of the group that they are claiming should have an article. I have no control over whether you get notice or mediation, but I would point out to you that Wikipedia is not a government agency, but a private company, and has no obligation to provide due process. You have already had the opportunity to be heard in this forum, and our deletion process is pretty clear that once five days have passed, an admin may close this AfD and delete the article if that represents the consensus of established Wikipedians. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Mr. BD2412, Ouch! Please review Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers! Is there any reason you left out the last two lines of the paragraph from Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Sockpuppets are bad? The entire paragraph reads:
          • "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process."
        • I pray that the closing admin will consider "verifiable facts and evidence" in making a decision and post an opinion based on such. BTW: Any reason you have not shown this discussion, as I previously requested of you, which problem listed in the table "Problems that MAY require deletion" in the article Wikipedia:Deletion_policy that you believe apply to the Tax Honesty Movement article. This "newbie" (I am not a sockpuppet!) is requesting clarification from you, the admin who initiated the deletion process. Please, show me the "law"!
      • Also, please clarify for me a statement you made in your previous post. Is the Wikipedia Foundation a private company, or is it a private or public non-profit foundation? There is no question as to your bias. False statements, however, diminish your credibility.--Dicktater 19:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I quoted the portion of the rule that is relevant to this discussion. Please show me the law that says that "a private or public non-profit foundation" can not also be a private company, and must instead be a government entity required to provide you with notice and an opportunity to mediate before material on its website can be changed. BD2412 T 19:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

KEEP IT AS IS. There is an enormous amount of misinformation about the Tax Honesty Movement. Members of the Tax Honesty Movement and those known as tax protestors are two groups that do not overlap by definition. The former advocates administration of the tax law as written by Congress and as adjudicated by the US Supreme Court, and the latter objects to the tax and/or the law as currently administered, regardless of how it is written or adjudicated by any court. When the day comes that the decision to keep an entry like "Tax Honesty Movement" turns on the effect of revealing the truth and uncovering a lie, then the integrity of Wikipedia will have vanished with its value. - Mark Yannone

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.