Talk:Tax protester/Archive 6

Commentary on article
Dear fellow editors: On 5 October 2006 an anonymous editor at IP 216.81.197.249 inserted the following commentary in the article page:


 * Note: Whomever wrote this is obviously biased against any attempt to hold the US Government accountable to the Constitution, and/or loves paying taxes to no end!

If it's OK to do this, I removed the coding and moved the text of the comment here to the talk (discussion) page, so the editor's comments can be seen more readily. Yours, Famspear 15:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Enigmatic material moved from article, for discussion
The following enigmatic material has been moved from the article, for discussion:


 * The supreme court has ruled numerous times that an individual's argument is frivolous. Reasons for this include an obtuse perspective of the law, and the attempt to argue the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment. This is frivolous because the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the income tax from an indirect excise tax to a direct tax, and thus its ratification is immaterial within this topic. An excise tax in relation to the equivocal definition of 'income' in the Sixteenth Amendment, has been legally defined innumerable times by the supreme court, in addition to that, in the Corporate Excise Tax Act of 1909. Which, incidentally, remains legally binding to this very day. As a consequence, the self-assessment forms become optional. Although it is up to the individual to prove that they are receiving no corporate excise. Individuals are found guilty of tax evasion and even imprisoned because of their lack of understanding for the law.''True laws of the American income tax.

Yours, Famspear 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's unclear what is meant by the phrase "an individual's argument is frivolous." Which argument? Which individual? The statement that the Sixteenth Amendment did not change the income tax from an indirect tax to a direct tax is correct; however, the connection between that statement and the statement that the "ratification is immaterial within this topic" is unclear.

The meaning of the phrase "the equivocal definition of 'income' in the Sixteenth Amendment" is unclear as there is no definition (equivocal or otherwise) of income in the Sixteenth Amendment at all.

It is correct to say that the U.S. Supreme Court has defined "income" in various court decisions. The reference to the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 is enigmatic -- is this possibly a reference to the Merchants' Loan case?

The statement that "the self-assessment forms become optional" might be a reference to the Federal income tax forms. There is nothing "optional," however, about the legal duties to file returns and pay taxes -- and to use the forms prescribed the IRS for that purpose.

The verbiage "Although it is up to the individual to prove that they are receiving no corporate excise," aside from not being a grammatical sentence, is nonsensical. This might be an attempt to state the incorrect, frivolous "income means only corporate profits" argument. Clarification is needed.

The statement that "Individuals are found guilty of tax evasion and even imprisoned because of their lack of understanding for the law" might be true in some particular case. Under the Cheek doctrine, an honest, good faith belief that one is not violating the tax law based on a misunderstanding of the tax law is a valid defense with respect to the element of "willfulness" in a tax evasion prosecution, even though that belief is irrational and not objectively reasonable. However, that doesn't mean that someone hasn't been wrongly convicted somewhere -- for example, because a jury simply refused to believe that a defendant had a good faith belief. Any comments, anyone? Famspear 04:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Readers: I also note that the removed verbiage ends with a link to the "usa-the-republic.com" web site, ironically referred to as "True laws of the American income tax." What a joke. That web site is not, as a general proposition, a reliable, proper source for an encyclopedia article on the tax law or any kind of law. Here's an example of some of the stuff found on that web site:


 * The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States government. It is true that not only can it NOT be found in Title 31 U.S.C., but it is nowhere to be found in the entirety of Title 5 U.S.C.

This kind of nonsense has already been exposed here in Wikipedia. See Tax protester constitutional arguments and Tax protester statutory arguments. In addition to being mentioned at least 170 times in the Internal Revenue Code itself, this U.S. government agency (in this case, the Treasury Department bureau known as "Internal Revenue Service") is specifically mentioned several times in titles 31 and 5 of the United States Code. See, for example:



























This is the kind of stuff that passes for "legal" research or knowledge on the internet. Wikipedia is unfortunately a frequent target of this kind of material. Yours, Famspear 05:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Tax protest merging into this page
I've discovered there's a separate stub article called Tax protest. It doesn't contain much, if any, material in addition to this article, except perhaps some (unsourced) statements linking some tax protesters to white supremacists. But I'd thought I'd post the merge templates before just turning it into a redirect, as there might be something I missed. Anyone see something useful in that article? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Wow, I didn't know it was there, either. In my opinion, there is virtually nothing of substance in the article Tax protest that isn't already found in one or more of the following: Tax protester; Tax protester history; Tax protester arguments; Tax protester constitutional arguments; Tax protester statutory arguments; Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Yours, Famspear 04:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... merge it Drew1369 16:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Support - Merge Morphh (talk) 17:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed Tax protest to a redirect to this page (Tax protester). The tag's been up for a week, and Tax protest was a stub to begin with. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 04:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move. — Mets501 (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
The following move request deals with this article ("Tax protester") as well as related articles listed below, all of which deal exclusively or almost exclusively about these phenomena in the United States and should be titled accordingly. (See also: WP:BIAS) —  AjaxSmack    06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Tax protester → Tax protest in the United States
 * Tax protester history → Tax protester history in the United States
 * Tax protester arguments → Tax protester arguments in the United States
 * Tax protester constitutional arguments → Tax protester constitutional arguments in the United States
 * Tax protester statutory arguments → Tax protester statutory arguments in the United States
 * Tax protester conspiracy arguments → Tax protester conspiracy arguments in the United States
 * Tax resistance → Tax resistance in the United States
 * Conscientious objection to military taxation → Conscientious objection to military taxation in the United States
 * Tax revolt → Tax revolt in the United States

Survey
Add "# Support" or "# Oppose" in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~

Survey - Support votes

 * 1) Support as nominator.  —   AjaxSmack    06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, Tax protester conspiracy arguments. Morphh (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - Tax protester arguments, Tax protester constitutional arguments, Tax protester statutory arguments, Tax protester conspiracy arguments, other articles oppose. nirvana2013 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Oppose - Tax resistance is not exclusively a US phenomena. Mahatma Gandhi was not a US citizen, for example. If articles like tax resistance are US centric, then they require editing not moving. Start US sub-articles if you like, but no article move. nirvana2013 09:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Start US sub-articles if you like" -- that is what this move will accomplish. It will preserve the edit histories and talk pages with the US specific articles while freeing up the generic titles for non-geographically biased overview articles.  See also comments below.    —   AjaxSmack    06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)   05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - Tax protester, Tax resistance, Tax revolt, Conscientious objection to military taxation, Weak Oppose - Tax protester history. Morphh (talk) 13:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose If there is comparable tax protest elsewhere, expand the articles until they need to be divided; if there isn't. leave them at the simplest name that describes the content. Don't dismabiguate unnecesarily out of political correctness. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose This is a weak "oppose." Yours, Famspear 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. If someone would like to expand on the phenomenon in other countries, they are more than welcome to do so, and split off parts of the article that are country-centric later. SnowFire 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In these cases, however, entire articles are about the US and the edit histories and talk pages should remain with the US specific articles. See also comments below.    —   AjaxSmack    06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)   05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose - I would prefer that the articles be expanded or improved to give a more international focus, rather than it have their titles changed, particularly Tax resistance and Conscientious objection to military taxation.

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments

Tax resistance is widespread; consider anachoresis. Tax protest of the sort discussed in these articles requires a binding written Consitution, unamendable by revenue legislation, which can be read to forbid some widespread taxes; it also requires a court system which is (at least in the hopes of the protesters) capable of striking down the tax. This set of circumstances may well be rare outside the United States.

But my point above remains: whether or not these are peculiarly American phenomena, we don't need to, and shouldn't, disambiguate until we have parallel articles. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, "United States" in the title is not intended to disambiguate but to be a description of the article subject as with Separation of powers under the United States Constitution, Overseas expansion of the United States, United States invasion of Panama, 99th United States Congress, or United States Intelligence Community none of which disambiguate.


 * Although some of these topics could apply outside of the US (e.g., tax resistance, tax protester), these articles have nothing about the general concept except a single-sentence dictionary definition at the beginning (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary).


 * Nirvana2013 suggested above starting US sub-articles but 99+% of the content is already about the US and the edit history and talk pages would be lost. And it is a stretch to have any generalized definition of some of the topics (e.g., Tax protester constitutional arguments).


 * These are very good articles but their US-centrism goes beyond bias; their titles are inaccurate and should be moved. If they are moved, new non-geogrpahically biased overview articles at the generic titles could be created to further describe the concepts in general terms.   —   AjaxSmack    06:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)   05:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not follow that. By this logic, any article about something that occurs only in the United States, whether Senatorial courtesy or Snail darter, would have to say so in the title (as opposed to the intro, as they do). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear fellow editors: The titles of these articles are not only accurate but fairly precise. Obviously, a title (such as "tax protester constitutional arguments") that does not even mention geography cannot be "geographically biased." I concur with editor Pmanderson/Septentrionalis: "we don't need to, and shouldn't, disambiguate until we have parallel articles."


 * Until we have information to the contrary, we assume that the tax protester phenomenon is peculiar to the United States. As the tax protester phenomenon is only a part of a larger concept such as "tax resistance" (which of course may well be a multi-national phenomenon), we don't need to specifically say "United States" in the title of each article, any more than we would state in an article on The Alamo that the subject is a "United States" phenomenon. We don't title that article "The Alamo in the United States" merely because there might be an "alamo" in another country.


 * Obviously, the legal concept of "separation of powers" is found in many countries. Many countries have engaged in "overseas expansion." I believe that more than one country has "invaded Panama" (e.g., both the USA and Spain). Many countries have an "intelligence community" (a group of intelligence agencies). And more than one country probably uses the term "Congress" to apply to a political or other body (even in the U.S., the term "congress" may be used for a variety of organizations). In the event that we later locate information that the term "tax protester" is used in a substantial way in other countries to describe some phenomena in those other countries, we can deal with the situation at that time, in my opinion.


 * By contrast, "tax resistance" is a more worthy candidate for a title like "tax resistance in the United States" than are the various articles on "tax protest." Yours, Famspear 18:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-script: I note that The Alamo does in fact link to a disambig page, as there are identified, specific multiple uses for the term, such as the movie "The Alamo," and so on. Also, I now notice that I read the list too quickly, and that "Tax resistance" actually is on the list. Perhaps I should modify my vote to the extent that "Tax Resistance" is not limited to the USA as a phenomenon. Famspear 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In the articles that I listed for Support, I believe these are fairly complete articles specific to the U.S. I don't expect someone looking at these articles would add content from another country. Using Famspear's example, it would be like adding the "Alamo" details of another country to the main Alamo article. It is clear that the Alamo article is specific, even though it does not state so in the title. If I wanted to write about the "Alamo" from another country, I would create a new article with a specific title. I don't agree with all the suggestions, opposing the less specific articles for the reasons stated by many. I'm looking at the article and thinking - Does it make sense to take this content and put it all under a sub-topic of "United States" and create other country headers? With the articles that I supported, my thought was "no". This move would also require new articles to be created with the generic title (currently held by the article) and basic topic content with a summary style for the U.S (a split with talk preservation may be the better description). This easily allows other countries to add content to the generic page without feeling like their interfering with a country specific article. As the other countries grow content, they in turn can split their content to a sub-article. The intent is to allow for other countries to expand this topic data. I think the best way to do this is to move some of these articles rather then keeping them and expecting people to expand an already detailed country specific article to include a minor global addition. Morphh   (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is a real problem, someone will add an "In other countries" section; if no one has, it's not yet a problem. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I likely wouldn't on a very detailed well written article such as the ones discussed. I expect the reason these articles are currently U.S. biased is probably for that reason.  It is more likely someone would expand a generic article already formated for a global view.   Morphh   (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Definition
Common use of the term - I'm not sure if there is another term for this but "Tax protester" is also used in the media to define an individual that participates in a protest or rally in regard to taxes even if the group does not deny the obligation to pay a tax. For example, this FairTax rally in Orlando Image:Orlandotaxrallypic1.jpg and similar one in Atlanta was stated in the media to be tax protestors.[www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1674560/posts] These groups do not deny the obligation to pay nor do they defy tax collection. Such groups want tax policy change and take peaceful group action to promote change and awareness. Should this common misuse of this term in popular culture be defined in the article? Morphh  (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Morphh: Yeah, or should the article say that it's just an alternative use of the term? Also, even the courts used to use the term to describe people who did not deny the obligation to pay the tax, but were just people protesting government policies, such as the Vietnam War. I forget where it is, but I believe it's in a footnote in Tax protester history. Yours, Famspear 04:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Enigmatic language
A new user has inserted the following unsourced, non-neutral verbiage in the article:


 * There have been supreme court rulings that state that the Income Tax is unconstitutional however the IRS has claimed that the supreme court's rulings are "inaplicable". THAT is ilogical [sic].

In the past, there have indeed been Supreme Court cases where the Court ruled certain very old versions of Federal income tax statutes to be unconstitutional -- for example, the 1895 Pollock case, as covered in various Wikipedia articles, interpreting an 1894 statute. The verbiage above, however, is misleading, and the IRS is actually correct. Except for the Murphy decision from the year 2006 (a decision, by the way, that was later vacated), which was not a Supreme Court case, there has been no Federal court decision ruling that the income tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the current tax code, is unconstitutional. Even in the Murphy case, the court did not rule the income tax itself unconstitutional.

The most recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on tax protester arguments under the 1954/1986 Code is the famous case of Cheek v. United States -- also covered here in Wikipedia. In Cheek, the Supreme Court stated:


 * Claims that some of the provisions of the tax code are unconstitutional are submissions of a different order. They do not arise from innocent mistakes caused by the complexity of the Internal Revenue Code. Rather, they reveal full knowledge of the provisions at issue and a studied conclusion, however wrong, that those provisions are invalid and unenforceable. Thus, in this case, Cheek paid his taxes for years, but after attending various seminars and based on his own study, he concluded that the income tax laws could not constitutionally require him to pay a tax.

The Supreme Court in Cheek continued:


 * We do not believe that Congress contemplated that such a taxpayer, without risking criminal prosecution, could ignore the duties imposed upon him by the Internal Revenue Code and refuse to utilize the mechanisms provided by Congress to present his claims of invalidity to the courts and to abide by their decisions. There is no doubt that Cheek, from year to year, was free to pay the tax that the law purported to require, file for a refund and, if denied, present his claims of invalidity, constitutional or otherwise, to the courts. See 26 U.S.C. 7422. Also, without paying the tax, he could have challenged claims of tax deficiencies in the Tax Court, 6213, with the right to appeal to a higher court if unsuccessful. 7482(a)(1). Cheek took neither course in some years, and, when he did, was unwilling to accept the outcome. As we see it, he is in no position to claim that his good-faith belief about the validity of the Internal Revenue Code negates willfulness or provides a defense to criminal prosecution under 7201 and 7203. Of course, Cheek was free in this very case to present his claims of invalidity and have them adjudicated, but, like defendants in criminal cases in other contexts who "willfully" refuse to comply with the duties placed upon them by the law, he must take the risk of being wrong.

Cheek, 498 U.S. at 205-206 (footnote omitted; emphasis added). The tax protester, Mr. Cheek, was ultimately convicted and went to prison.

The Supreme Court rulings from the late 1800s and from the period prior to World War II -- that various income tax statutes in the past were unconstitutional -- are indeed legally inapplicable to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Generally, those rulings have been overturned by Constitutional amendment or have been overruled by the Supreme Court itself. Yours, Famspear 14:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Definition change
I question the change of definition of tax protester made in this edit. It changed from "an individual who denies the obligation to pay a tax (for which the government has determined that person is liable)" --> "an individual who does not pay a tax for which a government body has determined that person is liable". I find that they imply two very different things and I feel the first is more accurate. The second sounds much more like a tax evasion or tax resister. The term of protester seems to only imply that they protest the tax but may not define that they refused to pay it. If the current definition is accurate in some strict legal sense, then I suggest we define the common usage first and then follow with the more legal interpretation. The common usage is just the protesting of a tax imposed or protesting for a tax structure change. In a stricter sense, it could describe someone who denies the obligation to pay a tax (but do pay it) and with the current definition (if correct) would imply in the strictest sense, that they actually refused to pay the tax. On a similar note... the lead starts off "In United States tax administration". Not quite the worldly view. Are we making this a U.S. article or is it still to represent tax protesting in general? Morphh  (talk) 23:02, 05 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with editor Morphh, and I have changed the definition back to the first one. Actually, this change had somehow slipped by me. Yours, Famspear 02:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: On the question of USA versus world view as raised by editor Morphh, I still have not had a chance to research the use of the term "tax protester" in countries other than the USA. I'm wondering if anyone knows of something about similar activities regarding tax laws in other countries. I'm going to make a semi-educated guess and say that the way the term is used in the USA is possibly unique. I'm not sure how we should approach this in the article, though. (A lot of help I am tonight!) Famspear 02:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Do we know of other terms that other countries use? Tax protesting as a concept certainly is not a U.S. issue.  Perhaps we could pose the question on WikiProject Taxation to some of our foreign friends.  France has to have a term for this as many times as they've gone through the tax revolt ringer.   Morphh   (talk) 12:51, 06 May 2007 (UTC)

Link I found useful
After watching the 'zeitgeist' movie, I decided to spent a little time online to try and determine for myself what parts of it were true, and which are false. On looking into the tax part, I came across this page:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsiegel/Personal/taxes/F2F.htm

It is written by Jonathan R. Siegel, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, whom I would assume most people would accept as a reliable source. I found it most interesting. My apologies if this is already covered in the many tax protester articles, I did not have time to read them all, and after reading Professor Siegels articles, that was basically enough to convince me that the vast majority of the arguments people are using are false. Champion sound remix 01:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Professor Siegel is an excellent source. And 100% of tax protester arguments have been ruled incorrect in court, which is an astonishing record when you consider that tax protester arguments began in earnest in reported court decisions in the mid-1970s (only a handful before 1975), and the batting average for tax protester arguments is exactly 0.0000, at least as of Monday, August 20. Yours, Famspear 01:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not taking any particular side, I have a question.
Putting aside the moral and legal bias for a moment, because the axiom that the beauty of argument is that "an argument need not be correct but need only not be wrong" leads me to conclude that is going on here. I am reminded, after reading this article and its discussion, of a convincing argument that tobacco is safe because nicotine does not cause cancer. Instead, of prudently refuting the message and facts, no solid points are debated, or worse you (both sides) "Shoot the messenger." I also know that many of you have a vested interest in the ultimate outcome, that is to be expected, so I will avoid that line of questions for now. Putting aside the point of what is legitimate for a moment, my question is simply this: What factor(s) would make a tax illegitimate? N0 D1C4 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear User NO D1C4: I can't speak for anyone else, but as this talk page is about ways to improve the article, I'll respond to your theoretical question on your talk page. Yours, Famspear 01:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I expected this response from someone with your history. My question thought broad was not necessary vague. A spark of creativity or any answer meriting future discussion would have sufficed. It’s not a hard question, it is on topic, and if answered may help to bring about some consensus so communication, courtesy and consideration can resume. Though I don't hold it against you, I am sorry you missed just have simple this question was. Though in a way, there is your answer, not in what you said, but what you avoid. Also, I ignore most messages to my talk page because I prefer a more pubic forum. Please refrain from replying there, unless it’s off topic. N0 D1C4 03:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of us have a "vested interest" in the outcome, beyond the fact that on the one hand we'd all like to not have to pay taxes, and on the other, we'd like the country not to fall into anarchy or disrepair. I happen to be an intellectual property attorney, and would love to be exempt from taxation. But I've studied tax, and I'm aware that I have to pay it. So, what would make a tax illegitimate? Well, if Congress set the tax rate for my bracket at 25%, and a tax collector decided to assess me 30%, that would be illegitimate. If Congress were to pass legislation abolishing the income tax (which it certainly has the power to do) then an attempt to collect it would be illegitimate. If the President tried to seize property to pay the government's bills without Congress having acted, that would be illegitimate as well. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

To address your other comments, N0 D1C4: How is "communication, courtesy and consideration" missing from this talk page? What is Famspear "avoiding" by not responding on this talk page? What "history" of his are you referring to that makes you "expect this response"? And for that matter, what "consensus" are you looking for? — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 03:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear NO D1C4: Wow, why the anger? This talk page is generally intended for discussion of ways to improve this particular article. That's why I responded on your talk page instead of here. We are not here to discuss the jurisprudence of taxation except as it relates to ways to improve this particular article.


 * With all due respect, if you want a spark of creativity, visit an art museum. And with all due respect, consensus was established here long ago. And please comment on the material, not on your fellow editors (e.g., the commentary "I expected this response from someone with your history"). You may want to review the Wikipedia policy on personal attacks, and the policy on civility.


 * I have not "missed have [sic; how] simple this question was." I intentionally responded to your question on your talk page in precisely the way I did. And the rest of us are not here to answer your philosophical questions to your personal satisfaction.


 * The statement that you do "ignore most messages" to your talk page because you "prefer a more pubic forum" is interesting, as you have no prior history of ever having received any such messages. You are a new user with your first posting earlier this month, and I am the first person ever to post a message on your talk page -- and that happened earlier this evening.


 * Now, let's look at this verbiage:


 * Putting aside the point of what is legitimate for a moment, my question is simply this: What factor(s) would make a tax illegitimate?


 * What I was driving at on your talk page was that it might not be beneficial to "put aside the point of what is legitimate" in order to ask what factor would make something "illegitimate" -- unless we agree on what is "legitimate." Do we agree? Very possibly, yes. But there's no way to know if we "put aside the point."


 * Wikipedia works on a concept of consensus. Good luck. Yours, Famspear 04:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

BD2412 thank you for your reply I will keep your response in mind. My follow up would have been (and it is rhetorical at this point), what was it that gives rise to tax protests? Was it economic, personal or both? Furthermore, Might a persons disposition factor into these previous responses of illegitimacy or was there an overriding social element or directive. In short if was going to use deductive and explicit reasoning to trim down the article to a neutral and objective view. Scientifically these are quantifiable or quantifiable today, so I was working on some citations that might use your responses to select appropriate information. I didn't want a “vanilla vs. chocolate debate” or a “my dictionary said this” situation, unfortunately "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." -Benjamin Franklin N0 D1C4 07:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You refer to something being "quantifiable". Could you please quantify it? This talk page isn't the place for a moral debate about the meaning of "tax protest"—it is for a discussion of ways to improve this article. If there is something you don't like about this article—that you think makes it non-neutral and non-objective—please describe what it is. — Mateo SA (talk | contribs) 12:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)