User talk:Libertyfelix

It has been established by consensus that tax protester rhetoric, unsupported by court cases, should not be treated as if it were fact. Please do not add such material to Wikipedia articles, except in articles on tax protester arguments. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Arthur, I was not included in this alleged consensus and my correspondence with the IRS seems to be in conflict with such consensus. Incidentally, I am not a tax protester. Sorry if this threatens your line of work/income stream. Mark Gailey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Libertyfelix (talk • contribs) on 2 November 2008


 * Well, please dispute the consensus, then. I believe it's at Talk:Tax protester/Request for comment.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:25, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Libertyfelix: Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! You may want to review Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially those on Verifiability, Neutral Point of View, No Original Research, and No Personal Attacks. Please refrain from making comments about other editors (e.g., the comment about Arthur Rubin above). In Wikipedia, your own "correspondence with the IRS" is not a valid basis for making contributions to Wikipedia articles. The Wikipedia rule on Verifiability requires that you find reliable, previously published third party sources for your contributions to Wikipedia. In general, your personal "knowledge" does not qualify. Inserting material based on your "correspondence with the IRS" also violates the rule on No Original Research.


 * As a new user to Wikipedia, you are bound by previously determined consensus. The fact that you were not included in the consensus is not material.


 * The article edit you made also violates the rule on Neutral Point of View. Wikipedia itself cannot "take sides" on issues like this.


 * Getting back to the rule on personal attacks, statements like "Sorry if this threatens your line of work/income stream" are out of bounds. Wikipedia rules also require that you Assume Good Faith in dealing with other editors. The quoted comment appears to violate both the Assume Good Faith Rule and the No Personal Attacks rule.


 * In short, Wikipedia is not a proper forum for inserting your views about federal income tax or other issues. And Wikipedia works under a concept of consensus, whereby all editors work together. I encourage you to review the policies and guidelines. Happy editing! Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

PS: Dear Libertyfelix - For the record, this is the material you inserted in the article Tax protester history:


 * . . . .or a member of the Tax Honesty Movement, who maintains that the black-letter law -- the law as written and as intended -- does not impose a tax on him or make him liable to file personal income tax forms. Tax Honesty is a concept that is resisted more vigorously than the income tax itself, and for good reason, for if the general public is ever allowed to believe that 2 + 2 = 4, then people would realize that they have an absolute right to keep 100 percent of their income, and their purchases of government goods and services would not be compelled by coercion.

The term "Tax Honesty Movement" is a euphemism created by tax protesters for their "movement" because tax protesters began objecting to the use of the term "tax protester" -- because of its negative connotations. There was a discussion about this some years ago here in Wikipedia.

Tax protester activity is in large part criminal activity. As of this date, after over 30 years of litigation on probably hundreds of tax protester arguments, not one single tax protester argument has ever been ruled to be valid in any federal court anywhere. No exceptions. Not even once.

U.S. Federal law does indeed impose a federal income tax on essentially all U.S. citizens regardless of where they are located. The law also imposes the tax on all U.S. residents -- whether citizens or not. And the law also imposes the tax even on certain non-resident aliens in limited circumstances where they have certain U.S. source income.

The argument that a U.S. citizen or resident has "an absolute right to keep 100 percent of their income" -- as an argument against the legal validity of the U.S. federal income tax, is without merit and is legally frivolous. A person could be fined for even raising such an argument in a federal court. I would have to check, but it's possible a person could actually be subject to a $5,000 penalty for even raising the argument on a federal income tax return. Yours, Famspear (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, once I get started, I can't stop. Libertyfelix, I notice that you referenced "Mark Yannone" in your edit (although there is no reference to Yannone in the material), here:. Mark Yannone's web site has been riddled with tax protester rhetoric for a long, long time, and he himself appears to endorse the nonsense. He is definitely not a reliable source for anything related to the topic of U.S. federal taxation. Yours, Famspear (talk) 02:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)