User talk:TaxCracker

TaxCracker, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TaxCracker! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

22:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wage

Dear TaxCracker: In the article entitled Wage, the terms "wage" and "wages" would have essentially the same general every day meaning. The term "wages" is generally just an inflected form of the term "wage" - both in every day speech AND in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code.

The definition of the term "wages" as used in section 3401 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code applies to certain provisions of that Code -- namely, sections 3401 through 3406, relating to collection of U.S. federal income tax at the source. However, even in sections 3401 through 3406, the Code does not distinguish between "wage" and "wages." The terms are not given separate legal meanings.

Because the section 3401 definition is so extensive, it is certainly possible that the term "wage" as generally used by the average person who speaks or writes English might (for example) in a particular instance be more restrictive than the term "wages" as used in section 3401, but that is not our concern. Also, that is not the same as saying that "wage" (as used in the Wikipedia article) and "wages" are two different things for purposes of the article. They are not two different things.

Further, the term "wage" also appears in the Code, in the heading for subsection (c) of section 3402 (in the phrase "Wage Bracket Withholding)", yet under the law the term "wage" does not mean anything different from the term "wages" as used in sections 3401 through 3406. Indeed, you will notice that the term "wages" is found in the rest of subsection (c) of section 3402. The two inflected forms are used interchangeably. Famspear (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Now, let's look at this statement:

Unlike "wages", a wage does not produce gain, as their [sic] is only a fair exchange of agreed value between the employer and the employee, the parties under the wage rate agreement.

That is nonsensical. It is nonsensical from an economic standpoint, a financial standpoint, and an accounting standpoint. That is a nonsense argument often made by American tax protesters. It's goofy. Gain is not measured by comparing the value of what is given up and the value of what is received in a transaction. Indeed, if it were, then very few transactions could ever reflect a gain (or a loss for that matter). In an ordinary arm's length transaction, the value of what you receive and the value of what you give up are essentially ALWAYS the same values, by definition. For example, this basic concept is embodied in the definition of "fair market value."

Gain is measured by the excess of the value of what you receive over the amount of cost you incurred to obtain that item (with a lot of exceptions I won't go into now).

For example, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes, if you work as an employee for someone and you receive $100 as compensation (before deducting taxes, etc.), your gain, your gross income, is $100. Your tax basis in the labor you performed is zero. The personal, living and family expenses you incurred and paid are neither deductible for Federal income tax purposes nor includible in some sort of "basis" in your "labor." Famspear (talk) 03:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in U.S. Federal income tax cases, the courts have repeatedly stated that trying to make a similar argument -- that because there is a fair exchange of equal value, a wage is not taxable -- can result in the imposition of a monetary penalty on the person for making a frivolous argument. Famspear (talk) 03:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Much of the commentary I removed from the article violates the Wikipedia rules, WP:NOR and WP:V. The commentary is prohibited and largely unsourced Original Research and, as noted above, is simply incorrect in some cases. Famspear (talk) 04:25, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No edit warring

Your recent editing history at Wage shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Famspear (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]