Lostheads have picked up the "Carrington Auomotive" hoax

[Gregg]

There is a fictional account of an employee meeting making the viral conspiracy/sovereign/general nutbag urban legend circuit, about Carrington Automotive. Anyhow, go read it if you want it's not unfunny, they've been having a little love fest over it even after they discovered it was not an ACTUAL transcript etc...

And just as an aside at how far gone some of these people are, buried a bit down in the midst of poster "Nationwide"s little mental masturbation is this gem...

Question: What's this public credit of the US talk?
Answer: Just something I've learned from David Merrill (active on http://www.suijurisclub.net). We'll be using public credit of the US vs. the private credit of the Federal Reserve. Public credit v. private credit. There's anecdotal evidence to suggest that use of the private credit of the Federal Reserve creates the obligation for a return of INCOME tax. So it's just an attempt to cover the bases.
Also, the book They Own It All (Including You!) argues that the use of FRNs creates the federal connection; the obligation to pay an Income Tax. And even that banks are the instrumentalities of Congress and that by endorsing a check you yourself have become a bank! Not saying I buy it all.
Incidentally, this may not be necessary. Say the use of FRNs DID create the federal connection, the nexus. If it ever came to court, we would hold the neutral position - SAY YOU Mr IRS/DOJ. What creates the obligation? Where's the taxable activity? You have alleged but provided no proof. For them to admit in open court that use of private credit of the Federal Reserve is INCOME would be to reveal the whole scam - it'd let the cat out of the bag. They wouldn't do it. Therefore I like my chances in court.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Ain't the 'net grand?

[dr poormouth]

Link to Carrington Automotive "transcript" - for those, like myself, who have not run across it before.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2317898/posts

[Judge Roy Bean]

A more realistic story is a simple phone conversation - paraphrasing a relative here:

Applicant (Mike): "Hi, John, thanks for taking my call."

Manager (John): "Sure, Mike."

Applicant (Mike): "Have they gotten closer to setting a start date?"

Manager (John): "Sorry man, not yet. Nobody want's to pull the trigger right now."

Applicant (Mike): "Wow. That's not good news."

Manager (John): "Yea, I know."

Applicant (Mike): "Is there anything I need to do?"

Manager (John): "Uh uh. No. We're still in a holding pattern."

Applicant (Mike): "Damn. That's not good news."

Manager (John): "There's not a lot of good news to go around."

Applicant (Mike): "Are you guys hiring at all?"

Manager (John): "Part time."

Applicant (Mike): "What in?"

Manager (John): "The help desk. First line."

Applicant (Mike): "Really?"

Manager (John): "Yea. But no benefits. And you're way over qualified."

Applicant (Mike): "Damn."

Manager (John): "Wish I had better news."

Applicant (Mike): "I thought we were further along. I mean, you know after two interviews and the test ..."

Manager (John): "I hear you. And it's not just you, Mike. I've got two other guys in the same situation. Believe me, it's not you. Arnie still thinks you're his first choice. We're all in the same boat. Nobody gets hired unless the boss gives the word."

Applicant (Mike): "Damn. What's he waiting on?"

Manager (John): "He's waiting just like all our customers are waiting. Nobody's going to take a chance. Everybody's scared to gamble on hiring people. The rules are changing. Would you put money on the table when the house is making up the rules?"

Applicant (Mike): "No shit."

Manager (John): "Yea. Hang in there. I'll call you if something changes."

Applicant (Mike): "Thanks, man."

Welcome to the real world of uncertainty.

[Imalawman]

In their world then, no one is allowed any business expenses? He says "taxable income" and then starts talking about how he needs to use the money for business expenses and such. Its just so stupid it makes me angry.

[Duke2Earl]

In their world then, no one is allowed any business expenses? He says "taxable income" and then starts talking about how he needs to use the money for business expenses and such. Its just so stupid it makes me angry.

Yes, it is stupid. He is making his $500+K a year and of course he is entitled by God to continue making $500+K a year. If taxes go up and he makes "only" say, $475+K a year... well, he's going to take it out on his employees... because he can. And it's because he works so hard and is entitled to $500+K a year... like his employees don't work hard.... probably 2 jobs for some of them to simply put food on the table. But, of course the only function those employees have in life is to make sure he continues to be entitled to make $500+K every year and more as well.

[LPC]

In their world then, no one is allowed any business expenses? He says "taxable income" and then starts talking about how he needs to use the money for business expenses and such. Its just so stupid it makes me angry.

What bumfuzzled me was the lack of any economic logic, and the idea that higher income taxes will lead him to hire fewer people, or lay off the ones he already has.

If he's running a real business and not a charity, and he knows what he's doing, then his employees are contributing to the bottom line. Fire employees and you've got fewer goods to sell or fewer services to provide, so your gross goes down, and your profits go down.

So this guy's "solution" to higher income taxes is to earn less money?

It makes no sense.

[Imalawman]

In their world then, no one is allowed any business expenses? He says "taxable income" and then starts talking about how he needs to use the money for business expenses and such. Its just so stupid it makes me angry.

What bumfuzzled me was the lack of any economic logic, and the idea that higher income taxes will lead him to hire fewer people, or lay off the ones he already has.

If he's running a real business and not a charity, and he knows what he's doing, then his employees are contributing to the bottom line. Fire employees and you've got fewer goods to sell or fewer services to provide, so your gross goes down, and your profits go down.

So this guy's "solution" to higher income taxes is to earn less money?

It makes no sense.

Yes, that too. But I'm talking about the notion that he claims that he "really isn't making $500K". He's saying, "look, it looks like a lot, but I have business expenses, research and development, etc...etc.." but then keeps on talking about his taxable income being $500K. If $500K really is his taxable income, then he really is making $750,000 gross (or more). The whole thing just has never made sense to me.

[Gregg]

I saw that, the expenses and stuff he's whining about are all BEFORE the $500K he took home....