When you interact with a politician/bureaucrat, you are well advised to assume everything they say is a lie. This way if they do say something that resembles the truth, you can enjoy a pleasant surprise and probably use it against them.
This latest Call of Shame, though short, has some classic bureaucrat diversion tactics. If you are being attacked and want to stand up to them to limit the damage the predator is seeking to do to you, then it’s worth the time to learn and recognize their dirty tactics.
Projection. This is a classic lie used by bureaucrats to take the spotlight off their lack of evidence. It’s easy; when you get hit with a question you can’t answer or say something embarrassing, you falsely accuse the other guy of getting upset. Now the bureaucrat has an excuse for not dealing with you and his accomplices will accept it without question.
The IRS agent in this call wastes no time doing this. He continues to refer to Mark as a “taxpayer” after we already discussed not doing that because there was no evidence to support the accusation. What’s nice is this agent admits calling people “taxpayer” is a reflexive action. So I commend him on this little bit of honesty.
Falsely claiming asking questions is debating. This is a typical lie from bureaucrats. You ask a question and because they have no facts to support their arguments, they lie saying, “I’m not going to debate you!” In this call, I did not get to quote from the Princess Bride as I usually do because the agent hung up so fast.
When you are questioning a bureaucrat and here the “I’m not going to debate you” crap, call them on it, say, “Who are you talking to?” Point out that you only asked a question, you’re only asking a question regarding the facts their argument is based. The agent is lying and acting in bad faith.
I’ve gotten this inane retort so many times, from so many different types of bureaucrats, from so many different “states” and “countries” that you’d think a memo was sent out instructing these parasites on how to avoid tough questions.
And for those who think I’m being hypercritical, let’s change the context and see if such lies are tolerated across the board.
Imagine you’re a witness being questioned in court and the prosecutor asks, “Where were you on the night of Aug 13, 2014?” I answer with, “I’m not going to debate with you!” Do I really need to explain that is not a good faith answer?
The reason the agent has to lie is because he’s insisting Mark is a “taxpayer” with “taxable income” while admitting that being able to determine jurisdiction is “not within [his] purview.” If you cannot determine jurisdiction, then you cannot determine one is a “taxpayer” and has “taxable income.” The agent recognized the corner he backed into, so instead of being honest and putting a hold on the account or abating the matter for a lack of jurisdiction, he takes the crook’s way out. Like the cowards bureaucrats are, the agent hangs up. Because forcing people to pay you means never having to be honest and responsible.
What the agent wanted to get away with is putting the cart before the horse and then ignore the horse completely. I can only speculate that they say it because they assume we are so stupid we don’t know the difference between asking a question and debating. The fact they are immune from any responsibility certainly explains why they so brazenly lie to us.
So if you ask a bureaucrat a question and they refuse to answer and lie claiming they are not going to “debate” or argue with you, then quote Inigo Montoya.
Then ask them the question again. Stay focused, because at the least, you’ll expose the agent as the lying criminal he/she is.