Talk:Income tax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve tax-related articles to a feature-quality standard.
Assessment ratings and other indicators given below are used by the Project in prioritizing and managing its workload.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-priority on the Project's priority scale.
After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's comments page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses.
More information...
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
Top rated as top-importance on the assessment scale
To-do list for Income tax: edit · history · watch · refresh
Archive
Archives
/Archive 1

Contents


[edit] Unsourced commentary moved to talk page

I moved the following commentary from the article to here:

The US Supreme Court ruled that the 16th amendment conferred no new powers of taxation to the US government. Therefor, if the income tax was unconstitutional before the 16th, it was also after the 16th. Also, IRS Tax Code does not list the income as a mandatory tax which you are liable for, it is not listed in the table of taxes you are liable for, and there is not penalty listed for not paying it. It is actually a voulentary tax for individuals. If you have any doubt of this, read IRS form 1040 (the income tax filing form, and it lists the IRS tax code sections in the privacy statemet which are relevant to the income tax, then read the IRS tax code. Also, contact the IRS, a tax attorney, or your local political representative.)


Non-neutral, unverified. Stay tuned. Famspear 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-script: Dear anonymous user at IP 75.72.81.229: The arguments in the above commentary, (which was posted by IP 75.72.81.229), have been covered over and over here in Wikipedia. Please read all talk (discussion) pages.

It is correct to say that the U.S. Supreme Court and other Federal courts have stated, over and over, that the Amendment conferred no new powers of taxation. However, the statement that "if income tax was unconstitutional before the 16th, it was also after the 16th" is, from a legal standpoint, nonsensical.

Regarding the IRS Tax Code, there is no such thing as a tax that is not "mandatory." There is no such thing as a "table of taxes you are liable for" -- taxes are not listed that way in the statute.

The whole voluntary - not voluntary argument has already been covered and explained.

The privacy statement in the Form 1040 instruction booklet is also irrelevant. Please read the relevant articles.

Contacting the IRS, a tax attorney, or your local political representative will almost surely yield the correct answer -- which is that the U.S. Federal income tax is constitutional and is being applied correctly.

Have a nice day. Famspear 18:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Post-post script: Rather than repeat all the reasons why the commentary by IP 75.72.81.229 is incorrect (aside from violating the Wikipedia guidelines of verifiability, neutral POV, and no original research), please refer to: Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments, and other tax-related Wikipedia articles. Yours, Famspear 19:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)



It is utterly apparent your objection is not to the usage of words you sought criticism upon, but it’s substance. Your objection is Non-Neutral.

You gave no references in your objections. Please revise your objection.

Whoa! What a touch of subtlety to suggest sweeping it under the rug of “protestor conspiracy.” That's a bit of leap, my friend.

And no, it hasn’t been covered and explained. Tilde, Tilde, Ssauble 15:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not the place to cover and explain it. Please see the articles referenced above by Famspear. Morphh (talk) 15:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


Way to be nonbiased!! (sarcastically speaking). If you are giving all of the details, then the law for income taxes should be explained in this article. Explain to us exactly how income taxes are Constitutional. If you cannot supply us with the law, than both sides should be covered and we shouldn't be refered to other articles. FFF 20:48, 22 March 2007

This is not true.

The often misquoted Brushaber case is what you stand on. however read it. It clearly tests the 16th and finds that it is void under all circumstances. 240 US 1 69.245.136.69 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP69.245.136.69: You are quite incorrect. The Court in Brushaber upheld the income tax. The Court did NOT "test the 16th [amendment]" and find that the amendment "is void." There is no such thing as a court of law finding a Constitutional amendment "void." YOU need to read the Brushaber case. The Court upheld the constitutionality of the Federal income tax in that case. Mr. Frank Brushaber LOST the case. The text is available for all to read on the internet at www.findlaw.com. This has been covered over and over and over again here in Wikipedia.
There is no such thing as a court of law finding a constitutional amendment "void." The concept is legally nonsensical. Many tax protesters began attacking the Sixteenth Amendment, most of the cases beginning about 60 or 70 years after it was ratified. In every single case, the courts have upheld the amendment. Yours, Famspear 09:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive

I have archived this talk page. GameKeeper 08:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

This article needs a good image to stimulate interest. I have quickly knocked up a graph Image:Income Taxes By County.svg based on http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,2340,en_2649_34533_1942460_1_1_1_1,00.html table 1.2. Average % income taxes by County.

If this is considered suitable I will make it prettier, ie add titles and labels keys. FYI the 4 bars for each county represent % income paid in taxation based of 67%,100%,133% and 167% of average income. I had used a stacked bar graph but unfortunately the Netherlands % income for 100% average wage is less than that of 67% average wage which could not be represented in this way. GameKeeper 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice! - I wonder if it is necessary to have all four bars though. Maybe we should just pick one like 100% and state it below the chart. As it is now, the image may be difficult to read due to size and this could help. We could add another bar based on table 11.1 (Corporate income taxes). Morphh (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree, 4 bars does look cluttered. 100% is the obvious choice to retain. I am not sure if adding a bar for corperation tax would make it look cluttered again. I'll try both soon. GameKeeper 10:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
New version qith 2 bars one for corperate one for personal uploaded Image:Income Taxes By County.svg, you may need to refresh you browser to see new version. I like this more , cleaner and more relevant to income tax as it shows both types. If we are agreed about basic data and graph format I will clean it up next and add titles etc. GameKeeper 16:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
This looks great! You got my vote. Morphh (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the nudge. I have uploaded what I have got at present GameKeeper 20:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately there seems to be a bug in it. Norway is not displayed until you zoom right into picture. I'll see if I can work out why and correct. Annoyingly the SVG works fine for me on my local machine GameKeeper 22:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Odd - Since your tweaking on it... See if you can get a tighter crop on it - looks like the right, left, and bottom have a bit of extra transparency and whitespace. Might also want to see what the title text would look like as one line (or perhaps two). The tighter you can make it, the larger the chart will look (and thus look better). Don't take that as a critique - I think the image looks great! Just figured since your tweaking it, we could see if these other changes might make it look that much better. Morphh (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I think I have cracked the Norway problem, I don't see it with firefox or IE anymore. Tightened the crop and put the title on a single line. Criticism is appreciated when it is constructive. GameKeeper 20:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I have a bone to pick with this graph. For most people this is not a very accurate reference on how much personal tax is paid per country. Based on what I know about tax rates in several European countries, this graph seemed completely wrong. It wasn't until I downloaded the excel spreadsheet that I realised the figures used are inclusive of Employer social security contributions and then it started to make sense. Perhaps there should be a note explaining how the figures are derived? Or even better, perhaps there should be a separate graph showing only the tax and SSC paid by the employee. --JamesTheNumberless 13:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Good point - I'll add this to the image caption. If we have a source that adds employer payroll tax contributions, this would be a good supplemental or replacement image. Morphh (talk) 14:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Morph you have it the wrong way round. The personnal income tax graph does include SSC payments (see the referenced data table 1.2 footnote). The reason for this is that it is a graph of 'income taxes' which are all taxes calulated on income. Many countries have a tax they call 'income tax' and in additon taxes that may be called different things, such as SSC contributions, these are still classified as income taxes. I have added a note to the graph and changed your note on the page. I don't think excluding the SSC payments would make this of more use, in my opinion this is just a method of disguising the total tax cost of employment. To have a good comparision to another country it should be included. GameKeeper 15:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Opps - I guess I should have taken a closer look at the data before making the change. Thanks. I had misunderstood the comment and I agree that the information should be included as it shows a more accurate tax burden. Morphh (talk) 16:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that separating income tax from social security contributions would just lead to more confusion, however, I maintain that there is encyclopaedic value in showing the percentage paid by the employee against the percentage paid by the employer. In many countries, the employee pays far less tax than here in the UK, however, this is often because the employer is paying a lot more. Consequently this makes the UK business more competitive as it can offer higher gross salaries at the same actual cost of employment. --JamesTheNumberless 15:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is generally accepted that employer portions of payroll taxes come directly out of would be salaries to employees. So I'm not sure the ratio would would make much difference, although the perception would be so. It is more a tax shuffle to hide the tax burden then anything. I don't disagree that such is important to specify. I think that distinction is discussed on the articles regarding those particular taxes. I'm sure we can find a place to briefly mention it in this article. Morphh (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

This article needs a criticism section. Morphh (talk) 03:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA drive

I think this article was greatly improved during the Taxation Collaboration of the Month. I think if we take care of the tasks in the todo list, we should be good to submit this for Peer Review and then for GA. Morphh (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I had a go with an auto review tool. The results are here Talk:Income tax/autoPR GameKeeper 21:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Paul Conners commentary

A user named Paul Conners has been repeatedly inserting the following material at the top of the article:

This article is loaded up with all the predictable BULLSHIT that keeps many lawyers and accountants in business.
The phrase "Income Tax" is a government promulgated semantical phrase which practically speaking means "Living Tax". "Income Tax" is a tax citizens pay for simply "maintaining their life by pursuing sustenance and shelter by having otherwise lawful employment". It is a clear assault on every American's supposedly unqualified "Right To Life". Yet "Income Tax" is somehow spoken of here in this article as if it was bestowed upon the American public by some spontaneous act of the creator. Where is it properly articulated that "income tax" is any different than "slavery by stealthy means"? This article speaks of "income tax" as a concept that has existed since the dawn of time. Why not just tax an American citizen for every heartbeat they have "Heartbeat Tax", or every breath they take "Breathing Tax"? It really is not that much different if you think about it. "Income Tax" is nothing but a "legalized" assault on the American citizens by the government. There are ways to finance necessary government services without taxing a citizens' pursuit of sustenance and shelter through lawful labor. But I guess those ways would not allow the government to weazel it's way into every nook and cranny of our lives. So those methods are not prefered by our power hungry government.

Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research. Wikipedia is not a proper forum for venting your personal views. Please observe Wikipedia policies & guidelines. Yours, Famspear 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked from editing for 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy as a result of the repeated abuse of editing privileges. Morphh (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)



[edit] Karl Marx on income tax

I am removing the Karl Marx quote. It has been added to 'principles'. My reasons for doing so are: i) There is no particular connection between the fact that progressive income tax was mentioned by Marx and the principle of income tax or progressive income tax; ii) the previous text mentions that it was supported by economists of different ideologies, and it appears POV to mention only one of them; iii) Marx was far from the only economist or first economist to suggest progressive income tax, and hence no compelling reason to quote him over any other (or at least more substantiation needed); iv) regardless of the above, quoting Marx is similar to some usages of an (implied) ad hominem argument ("Marx supported income tax, and he was a communist. Are you a communist?"). Did Hitler support progressive income tax? I have no idea, but quoting one of the most controversial figures of the last 200 years (Marx) seems an attempt to establish guilt by association. Or to put another way, Lenin was an advocate of electricity grids - quoting him over, say, Edison on electric transmission is stealth POV. (Apologies if I have misused in any way the strict philosophical definition of ad hominem)--Gregalton 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Update: another user deleted before I did, and I support his reasons (and conciseness in expressing them). Marx is not particularly relevant here, and it should be discussed on this talk page before being inserted again.--Gregalton 08:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to re-affirm the fact that I support your position. It seems that someone wants to give the impression that income tax is communistic - which is ironic when you consider the fact that communist states had no income taxes. -- Nikodemos 08:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
      • i) The reason for the quote is that it shows support for the previous statement different ideologies. It is relevant and in context.
      • ii) Agreed it would be better to supply more citations, or perhaps a direct citation of 'supported by economists of different ideologies', that is a reason to add not delete info.
      • iii) Agreed. We have a quote from Marx here, better to replace than delete, if anyone can find a better one.
      • iv) The argument "Marx supported income tax, and he was a communist. Are you a communist?" is just a bad argument. Guilt by association is a bad argument. there is no reason to remove text because it supports this argument when the itself argument is bad! GameKeeper 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I conclude, it would be best if another citation can be found, showing support by different ideologies, but until that time the Marx citation is better than none. I'll try to find a better citation later. GameKeeper 08:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, although I still disagree. My point on (iv) was that this is the implied/inferred argument. It is, of course, a bad argument: my point is that it will be read by some that Marx was the primary or an important advocate if that is the only quote; inclusion of a quote from Marx (particularly if alone) is POV, irrespective of the merits or deficiencies of Marx's analysis. A quote from, say, Kenneth Arrow would not have similar connotations, so I think this quote should stay off until it can be NPOV - in this specific case, deletion is better until more balanced quotes can be found. Until such time as there is a better quote to balance - or some compelling reason to quote Marx - please leave it off. Personally, I do not see the need to provide quotes at all; the statement that 'economists of different ideologies support' is neutral and non-controversial (and on your point (i), does not really need support, unless in the context of a longer section) - "dueling quotes" will be controversial.--Gregalton 08:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with GameKeeper on this one. He was the father of a political philosophy. Such would not be dueling quotes if you added other significant political ideologies. A negative attitude toward communism, socialism, or Karl Marx is not inherent and instantly POV. I'd argue that many of the political philosophies of the western world are greatly influenced by Karl Marx's work and a hybrid of socialism / capitalism. I see your argument though - I'll look for others to include. Morphh (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, we can agree to disagree on this one - I think it is inherently POV for most people (although which POV is ambiguous, some would argue positive, some negative). I would propose deleting, however, on another basis: the quote does not demonstrate in any way that Karl Marx was a noted thinker on income tax, nor prominent in decisions to implement), simply that he supported/predicted it.--Gregalton 14:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
The point, I believe, is that Marx is a highly polarizing figure. Very few people have a neutral opinion about Marx - the vast majority either strongly support or strongly oppose him. Thus, associating Marx with something (other than Marxism, of course) is very likely to generate a stealth POV. For another similar example, imagine what would happen if someone quoted the Bible in support of taxation (which can be done, by the way - I can find the relevant verse for you). -- Nikodemos 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree entirely with Nikodemos - there are few neutral opinions about Marx (not knowing which POV a reader will have does not mean it is NPOV). And I still see no compelling link between Marx and income tax other than that he mentioned it in a book of rather sweeping nature.--Gregalton 18:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
This problem would no longer exist if we reworded or found an alternative. Immedidately after However, the idea of a progressive income tax has garnered support from economists and political scientists of many different ideologies. , something like :-
citations for both of these can be lifted from Progressive tax, where the quotes exist too. It would be a bit excessive to include both quotes in this article. I think these two examples demonstate the breadth of support for progressive income tax which is what the article needs at that point. GameKeeper 19:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
What? A quote from a red like Adam Smith ;) ? I think a line like you have proposed without the full quotes (just refs) is a lot more reasonable. I'd suggest the wording "ideologies, from Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations to Karl Marx in the Communist Manifesto." Assuming the quotes are not too off. Thanks for the suggestion.--Gregalton 19:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and made the edit. Thanks. -- Nikodemos 07:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] uk tax update

uk taxation needs updating re budget —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.159.16.219 (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Canada - top marginal rate

The source I have found for top marginal rate in Canada [1] gives a top rate of 48.64%, not the 50% cited here. I will substitute unless there is a reference that supports what the text currently has ("many provinces have top marginal tax rates over 50%).--Gregalton 08:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I checked too. The reference cited is misleading, though. Ontario, for example, is described as having a top marginal tax rate of 11.16%. But there's actually a surtax on top of that, that maxes out at 20%+36% of the tax previously calculated; so that corresponds to a tax rate of 11.16 + (.2 + .36)*11.6 = 17.4%
Ontario health insurance is an interesting problem as well. The price you pay is an increasing function of income, but it's stepped: if you plot dollars paid vs. income, then it's a bunch of plateaus, with steep lines connecting them. If your income falls on the steep line, then your marginal tax rate is very high, and then it drops again once you're on the plateau. God only knows why they did that; in any case, that payment maxes out, so it doesn't affect the top marginal tax rate. Our hypothetical high-earner is already paying the maximum, and the maximum doesn't change if he earns a dollar more.
I changed it from "exceeds 50% in many provinces" to "approaches 50% in some provinces," which I think is true. 24.91.135.162 08:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
To be clear, I mean the reference cited in the article. The reference that you cite here appears to account for the surtax correctly. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.91.135.162 (talk) 08:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Income tax: direct versus indirect

An anonymous user changed the intro to read that an income tax is a "direct tax." My reversion of this edit was inadvertently denoted as a "minor" edit, and it is not a minor edit. As explained in various Wikipedia articles, some income taxes (particularly in the United States) have been considered direct taxes and others have been considered indirect taxes. Further, the terms "direct tax" and "indirect tax" have more than one technical meaning (even within a given country). The direct-indirect dichotomy is very complex. Further, we probably should keep the article international in scope. So, I would argue that we do not want to categorically say that an income tax is either a direct tax or an indirect tax. The technical distinctions are already explained in detail in various relevant articles. Yours, Famspear 15:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Another editor re-inserted the link to the article on direct tax, so that this article incorrectly stated that an "income tax is a direct tax." I reverted. Saying that an income tax is a direct tax is like making the categorical statement that "a Chevrolet is a Lumina." Some Chevrolets are not Luminas. Indeed, some Chevrolets are not cars at all, but are trucks. The flat statement that an income tax is a "direct tax" could be correct only if all income taxes were direct taxes -- which they are not. Further, as already explained, the terms "direct tax" and "indirect tax" have more than one meaning, which may not only vary from one country to the next but also may vary within one country. To say that an income tax is a direct tax is not only incorrect, it is meaningless. Famspear 15:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contradictions in the list with other articles

These four lists need attention to be synchronized:

Discuss here Talk:Tax_rates_around_the_world#Contradictions_in_the_list_with_other_articles Alinor 18:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion about "Critique of income tax" section.

The middle five paragraphs of the section advocating a tax on the gross incomes of corporations seem inappropriate to the article for several reasons and I believe they should be deleted/modified. They read to me as POV and/or Original Research. Even if the many [citation needed] fields were filled with legitimate sources, giving this theory five paragraphs in a section that contains only seven paragraphs, gives it undue weight. Even the last paragraph, which appears to critique the previous five, does little to mitigate this.

These paragraphs appear to me to be a fringe theory and perhaps should be removed or at least merely summed up in a paragraph or two. I have no personal expertise on this topic, only an interest, and I am a great admirer of Famspear and Morphh, as well as other contributors, so I of course bow to your expertise.

Thank you for your attention.

SunsHand 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Good catch, and I have deleted that text. When you see something like this, be bold and edit it. If you edit that part (or other articles), the citation flags often have a date. If the date is older than a month or two, it's reasonable to delete as unverified. Welcome to Wikipedia.--Gregalton 05:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with SunsHand and Gregalton; based on a quick read, the material appeared to be pretty much unsourced. Famspear 06:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. It was my first Wiki-post and I will be less hesitant in the future.

SunsHand 22:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Income tax in Uruguay

Income tax is back in Uruguay, according to this page: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d82c1f02-27fc-11dc-80da-000b5df10621.html Antipoeten 22:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disruptive edits on tax protester material regarding Tom Cryer

Dear user at IP82.95.194.23: Please stop adding tax protester material regarding "Tom Cryer" (for which there is a separate article) and repeatedly reverting other editors. The material you are inserting is false and, more importantly, is not neutral and not properly sourced.

Also, please explain your edits at the time you make them by providing a description in the edit summary box. You should also consider discussing your edits on this talk page or on the talk page for the Cryer article.

It appears that you have violated the 3 revert rule, which may be considered disruptive editing. Please review Wikipedia guidelines and strive to work for consensus with other editors. Yours, Famspear 17:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added another warning to the talk page for the user at IP82.95.194.23. Famspear 20:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Violation of edit warring rule and the 3 revert rule continues by user at IP82.95.194.23, with an eighth reversion (8th reversion occurred after posting of warning template on user's talk page -- technically, the third warning). User has now reverted four different editors in less than 12 hours, without making any response on talk pages or providing any explanation in edit summary boxes. Famspear 22:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment(s) by editor :

The Memorandum

(Pdf - 109 pages); filed in support of his Motion to Dismiss Evasion Charges Filed against him in:

United States versus Tommy K. Cryer D.J. - case 06-50164-01

Case closed at July 11th 2007 and is a precedent setting case for others to come

Attorney Tom K. Cryer District Judge (Court Louisiana for 34 years)

Indepth Info : The Memorandum

Short Info : Video Tom K.Cryer

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.148 (talk • contribs) (on 12 August 2007)

It's clearly not precedent-setting. It's a jury verdict. The court rejected all the tax protester arguments. If they had accepted one, that might be precedent-setting. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP208.65.153.251: I hate to be the one to break the news to you, but the only precedent set in the Cryer case was precedent against Cryer's tax protester arguments. That is documented in the article Tom Cryer. A jury verdict is not a "ruling" and therefore is not a "precedent." In fact, had the court ruled in Cryer's favor on his "legal" arguments, there would have been no "not guilty" verdict by the jury -- indeed, there would have been no jury verdict at all. The judge would have simply thrown the case out. Cryer ended up winning an acquittal -- but that was based on a jury verdict after the court ruled against Cryer on his arguments that "wages are not taxable," etc. The article on Cryer includes citations to the actual documents where the court ruled against Cryer, with the entry numbers on the court docket, dates, and case number. Famspear 14:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Mister Famspear maybe you better look for a real job ? {{subst:82.95.194.23|21:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)}}

Dear anonymous editor at IP82.95.194.23: I already have a real job making big bucks. I notice that you are linking to the "synaptic sparks" web site, of all places. You will also notice that the operator of that web site tried to tangle with me about the meaning of the tax law in the spring of 2006. Here's what happened to him:

[2]. He has never responded to that post. Si tu n'es pas un avocat, evites un disputation avec un avocat au sujet de la loi. Famspear 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Question of Income Tax Liability

Would someone mind telling me what law makes the average American liable for or subject to income tax for revenue purposes? If a supporting regulation exists, can you cite that too? Will you please provide reference links so I can read them for myself?

And will you please explain why the income tax page does not address the matter of substantive regulations, and laws that make normal folks liable for income taxes? That seems to me a critically important point to illuminate, particularly in the US income tax article.

--BobHurt 17:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I should first note that this article is about the general concept of an income tax and how income taxes are applied worldwide, not specifically about the income tax in the United States (see Income tax in the United States for U.S.-specific info). The reason this article does not address "substantive regulations" and the laws that impose income taxes is that adding that much detail for the 20 countries that are specifically addressed in this article would quickly make the article too large to use.
The law that imposes the income tax on individuals in the U.S. is Sec. 1 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C. § 1—click the "§ 1" link to go to the text of that law). The page at this link lists the regulations promulgated under Sec. 1, in addition to other regulations (the regulations under Section 1 on that page are §1.1-2, §1.1-3, §1.1(h)-1, and §1.1(i)-1t ).
The article Income tax in the United States does address the law that makes "normal people" liable for income taxes: it mentions Sec. 1 right in the introductory paragraph. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Internal Revenue Code though is not a Law —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.109.22.148 (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And the Earth is not a planet, right? The Internal Revenue Code is a statute enacted by Congress. Famspear 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Earth is a planet but not al planets are Earth

IRS code could be lawful but eventually being lawful does not mean being The Law or Constitution —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.194.23 (talk • contribs) (1 September 2007)

I see your point, and am convinced: The Law being lawful eventually does not mean that Constitution is what Code being is.
Thank you! — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 15:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
  1. This section is not a comment against this article, and should be immediately removed, archived, or sent to another talk page.
  2. The anon's comments are totally wrong, as usual.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor Mateo SA and I have tried to humor these people, but I don't disagree with editor Arthur Rubin; we should keep this talk page on point. Famspear 16:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] sth from nothing

if you find an old gold bar and decide to keep it, what is suppoed to happen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.24 (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on critique

I attempted to make a change to the income tax article but it was undone. I might not have worded things exactly correct but the main emphasis I was trying to make was the disparity in taxation when it is done on a business versus on an individual.

To my knowledge there are no gross revenue taxes that apply to most businesses (I could be wrong here but think your run of the mill company). Yet individuals have to pay income tax on their gross revenue. This seems completely unfair as it does not allow for the deduction of expenses for existing like business have for existing. I think the income tax article should view the income tax in this frame.

One or more of you will probably say that that is a non-neutral POV on the income tax but the current view is not neutral either. It is an endorsement of the status quo that we have with the income tax. A POV that was framed many years ago and is so common place today that people see consider it as neutral rather than illegitimate.

I merely think that the income tax article should reflect this double standard and make it more pronounced so those who view this page will actually give some thought to the double standard rather than never think about the double standards of the status quo.

P.S. What is with the sourcing requirements? Maybe this is addresses somewhere else, I honestly haven't looked, but what is to stop me from publishing an ebook or a white paper on a web site and sourcing that versus just making a statement on a wikipedia page?

[Robert Francis IP 72.209.12.250] 15:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor: I'm the one who undid the commentary. Your commentary is good commentary ("good" in the sense that I happen to agree with it, of course). You are absolutely correct, if you're talking about the U.S. Federal income tax on compensation for personal services by an individual. There is essentially no deduction allowed for the individual's personal living expense (cost of food, cost of a place to live, cost of gasoline to get to work, that sort of thing). There are a few arguable exceptions to that general statement, but your basic critique is absolutely sound in my opinion.
The problem with your commentary is that it appears to be just that -- your commentary -- and not a previously published critique from a reliable, third party.
And, to answer your question about a self-published ebook, etc. -- yes, I have seen at least one editor simply copy and paste from his own web site. That tactic was shot down by other editors, as an improper attempt at an "end run" around the Wikipedia prohibition on "original research." I'll try to add some links to your own talk page on Original Research -- what it is and why it's prohibited. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment

A request for comment has been opened on the general topic of tax protester theories, and whether the articles that address them are NPOV. bd2412 T 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment reminder

Just a reminder that I have proposed to call for a conclusion to this discussion on tax protester rhetoric on February 6. If anyone has anything more to add to the discussion, speak now! bd2412 T 16:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bobhurt, BobHurt, and using the talk page as a "complaint against government"

Bobhurt and his sock puppet BobHurt have been blocked. See [3] and [4]

While of course everyone should assume WP:GOODFAITH, Bob has stated his only reason for posting these things was as a complaint against the government.

You can complaint [sic] against government (if you do it the right way) at Wikipedia. I have written lots of complaints at the US income tax discussion pages, and much of the content is still there.

[5]

Since this material was not WP:GOODFAITH, it ought be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.39.221.157 (talk) 20:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)