i dont have to pay cause i dont feel like it

[The Operative]

There is evidence that the ancient Egyptians knew this concept. Also, a key concept of modern accounting was written about 500 years ago in Italy.

it's artificial. its not a direct object. so show how this artifice attaches...you can't, or won't. mostly by random assumptions. "oh, but it says here on the form that you... but it's in the computer!" its the fetishisation of technology. all your terms and whatnot are useful in their context; but trying to find some javacode out on the beach is a logical error, and fails to state a controversy. it assumes that javacode is talking about things of natural description.

More nonsense. The simple fact is that NO ONE WHO MATTERS will ever agree with your inane interpretation. You are wrong. Instead of trying to learn how things really work, you fade back into word-salad mode.

[Randall]

When SFBFKADMVP realizes you've taken his random word generator his motor scooter is going to sue your *ss for at least 27gazillion dollars.

[Imalawman]

So go ahead Farmer Giles, continue your doomed and sad little quest to grub for a few extra crumbs, you provide me with a bit of entertainment between work, looking after investments and dealing with my real estate holdings. Now dance for us monkey. DANCE!!

hehehe

Yeah, people who go off this deep into la la land really have mental issues. I think its apparent that this guy also has some mental issues as well. But its not quite to the level of SFBAKADVP, so maybe he's not a totally worthless pustule.

[silversopp]

So what I'm really missing here is some more scholastic brainwashing?

If you're going to use certain words, you should know what they mean. You don't seem to understand much about the business world.

But I dont have these problems, in my grocery store we spend all our inventory... we spend it all on purchasing money from the customers.

Seriously, sit in on an accounting class or two. You'll learn a lot and it could be free. You should be able to explain the difference between revenue and profits for starters.

Why are you so scared to learn basic accounting?

"lending efforts" is a common phrase from the English language. If after all your alleged schooling, you still never heard of it, no more classes are going to help.

Then you should have no trouble explaining how you would loan out your effort. I'm really interested in the terms of that loan. Go for it!

[silversopp]

it's artificial. its not a direct object. so show how this artifice attaches...you can't, or won't. mostly by random assumptions. "oh, but it says here on the form that you... but it's in the computer!" its the fetishisation of technology. all your terms and whatnot are useful in their context; but trying to find some javacode out on the beach is a logical error, and fails to state a controversy. it assumes that javacode is talking about things of natural description.

I think that Farmer Giles may have had coherent paragraph here. But it looks like the paragraph was put through English -> Japanese translating software and then through a different Japanese -> English translator. At this point, it's entirely impossible to put that paragraph back into English.

On second thought, maybe Farmer Giles wrote all of that himself. In which case, Accounting classes would be too far out of his reach. I think he may need to start with basic English courses.

[Evil Squirrel Overlord]

I want the time back I spent reading this thread. I am dumber for the experience.

[Farmer Giles]

I want the time back I spent reading this thread. I am dumber for the experience.

dont come back, and no lurking.

[bmielke]

I want the time back I spent reading this thread. I am dumber for the experience.

dont come back, and no lurking.

FG is turning into a Douchebag.

[Farmer Giles]

I thought you said you were going away? Leave! Put me on the Ignore List, and make sure I stay there!

[bmielke]

I thought you said you were going away? Leave! Put me on the Ignore List, and make sure I stay there!

I have gone away, or have I? You may never know

[Farmer Giles]

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

This all comes down to the fallacy of popular delusions, that administrative concepts can be 'seen' and 'touched'.

You cannot lend services in that manner. How are you going to retrieve the work you performed at a later date? Once the work is performed, it is done. The effort expended is gone forever and is now a part of the product that was created. The business cannot simply take the product apart and restore that effort back to you. The only thing they can do is to compensate you with money or something else of value. Once you expend the labor and receive compensation, YOU HAVE INCOME. Nothing you say will change that fact. Nobody that matters will agree with your silly theory.

no, I will have income if there is a point of departure. Think, a schedule...for the voyage. it goes right back to the Medevial Law-Merchant and all those leagues and treaties. No coincidence the IRS forms are "schedules".

I will retrieve my work by taking out my share of the improved collateral. Capital share redemption is revenue-neutral. I lent my efforts, and I got a share of the eqity to hold for security. If they dont pay back my loan, they forfeit the collateral.

Its noteworthy that on the local real estate transfer tax form there is always an exemption for "secured transactions". All aproaches to the tax question are solved by staying in a secured transaction, which is sufficient to conduct any business or trade at all.

The government taxes speculation, ie gambling. Thats the maritime tontine contract, or bottomry. it may be that we already have our common-law guarantee from the very much extant First Judiciary Act of 1789, because tax crimes are tried in an Article 3 court. But I really dont know and if I had to face a persecution I would appeal for the "exclusive original cognizance' of the Unites States and the common-law remedy. maybe this has been abrogated by statutes, or maybe not. I hear of many strange happenings in tax prosecutions, but I wouldnt know. If there was some better forum that was harder for the government to prosecute or force them to drop the case anyone would want that.

Like all the indictments that simply state. "defendant was required to file". Is that some kind of implicit assumption that sneaks by because no one understands this? If I was accused of what is only a private belief or unauthorized conclusion you can be sure I'd keep at that point til I got a proper answer on the record. And if they refuse then its not the common law remedy I'm guaranteed. yes they will answer questions and establish each and every particular to be tried. No presumptions. Show the contract. Show the attachment.

[The Operative]

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

This all comes down to the fallacy of popular delusions, that administrative concepts can be 'seen' and 'touched'.

You cannot lend services in that manner. How are you going to retrieve the work you performed at a later date? Once the work is performed, it is done. The effort expended is gone forever and is now a part of the product that was created. The business cannot simply take the product apart and restore that effort back to you. The only thing they can do is to compensate you with money or something else of value. Once you expend the labor and receive compensation, YOU HAVE INCOME. Nothing you say will change that fact. Nobody that matters will agree with your silly theory.

no, I will have income if there is a point of departure. Think, a schedule...for the voyage. it goes right back to the Medevial Law-Merchant and all those leagues and treaties. No coincidence the IRS forms are "schedules".

Nonsense. No one that matters will ever agree with that silly premise.

I will retrieve my work by taking out my share of the improved collateral. Capital share redemption is revenue-neutral. I lent my efforts, and I got a share of the eqity to hold for security. If they dont pay back my loan, they forfeit the collateral.

More nonsense. No one that matters will ever agree with that.

Its noteworthy that on the local real estate transfer tax form there is always an exemption for "secured transactions". All aproaches to the tax question are solved by staying in a secured transaction, which is sufficient to conduct any business or trade at all.

Even more nonsense compounded by the fact that you do not understand what you are attempting to talk about.

The government taxes speculation, ie gambling. Thats the maritime tontine contract, or bottomry. it may be that we already have our common-law guarantee from the very much extant First Judiciary Act of 1789, because tax crimes are tried in an Article 3 court. But I really dont know and if I had to face a persecution I would appeal for the "exclusive original cognizance' of the Unites States and the common-law remedy. maybe this has been abrogated by statutes, or maybe not. I hear of many strange happenings in tax prosecutions, but I wouldnt know. If there was some better forum that was harder for the government to prosecute or force them to drop the case anyone would want that.

Now you are drifting towards word salad mode again.

Like all the indictments that simply state. "defendant was required to file". Is that some kind of implicit assumption that sneaks by because no one understands this? If I was accused of what is only a private belief or unauthorized conclusion you can be sure I'd keep at that point til I got a proper answer on the record. And if they refuse then its not the common law remedy I'm guaranteed. yes they will answer questions and establish each and every particular to be tried. No presumptions. Show the contract. Show the attachment.

And now it is sovereignoramous gibberish.

[Farmer Giles]

I can see by the continued non-answers you dont have one. No, I will not structure my transaction the way you wish. You cannot prove any tax consequence so you have nothing to say. Not interested in your college courses, Ive already got 20 years super-duper doctorate study and practice of the liberal arts, music, construction, agriculture, law, economics, finance, business, history,anthropology and languages, including total Spanish fluency written and spoken ... Ive argued cases in Spain in that language and won because yes, just like here Ive studied that legal code.

You are a phony and a charlatan.

[.]

The foregoing set of posts makes an almost irrefutable case that Van Pelt is no longer the king of word-salad.

[The Operative]

I can see by the continued non-answers you dont have one. No, I will not structure my transaction the way you wish. You cannot prove any tax consequence so you have nothing to say. Not interested in your college courses, Ive already got 20 years super-duper doctorate study and practice of the liberal arts, music, construction, agriculture, law, economics, finance, business, history,anthropology and languages, including total Spanish fluency written and spoken ... Ive argued cases in Spain in that language and won because yes, just like here Ive studied that legal code.

You are a phony and a charlatan.

Baloney. I have told you the way things work in the real world, not in Farmer Giles la-la land. Every person, court, or any other legal authority that matters agrees with me and not with you. If you "won" some case somewhere, you better provide a citation to the case so it can be verified. Otherwise, no one here will believe you, except for maybe Van Pelt. The only phonies and charlatans here are you and Van Pelt.

[LPC]

If an owner of a business invests additional money or other items of value into the business, THAT money is not income. However, if the business uses that money to purchase materials which the business uses to create a product which is subsequently sold, the amount for which the product is sold, less the cost of the materials, labor, and overhead, is income.

theyre both the same thing. or I can characterize the transaction in the fiscally neutral way, as investment. maybe the grocery store should 1099 you for the groceries you just bought, since you sold them some money.

anything can be structured, its just conceptual. "If I did this" and "If I did that". none of this really happens except on paper. thats why income doesnt depend on being sales or wages or whatever, its ALL income from ANY source derived, INCLUDING such items.

FG is one of the lunatics who believe that you can change the legal results for something just be giving it a different name, as though calling a tail a leg makes it a leg.

In a later posting:

Since it seems to be agreed that borrowing and lending are excluded from income, any economy can be viewed in those terms. I'll just lend efforts instead of render services.

You cannot lend services in that manner. How are you going to retrieve the work you performed at a later date? Once the work is performed, it is done. The effort expended is gone forever and is now a part of the product that was created. The business cannot simply take the product apart and restore that effort back to you. The only thing they can do is to compensate you with money or something else of value. Once you expend the labor and receive compensation, YOU HAVE INCOME. Nothing you say will change that fact.

I will retrieve my work by taking out my share of the improved collateral. Capital share redemption is revenue-neutral. I lent my efforts, and I got a share of the eqity to hold for security. If they dont pay back my loan, they forfeit the collateral.

FG believes that, if he simply changes the words "working for pay" into "lending work for collateral," then he suddenly has no income. He believes that words are magic, and that he can change reality simply by changing the words.

Of course, exchanging labor for an equity interest, such as corporate stock, *IS* income, because it's an exchange of labor for property, but let's not confuse him with details (or reality).

[Red Cedar PM]

Hey Farmer - let me make this as brutally clear as possible, so that you can understand it. Grixit said it best a few months ago and as I have added to my signature.

forget terms like "wages", "income", "derived from", "received", etc. If you did something, and got paid for it, you owe tax.

It really doesn't get much simpler than that.

[grixit]

Woah! This is so unexpected. I mean, it's an honor just to be nominated and with such fine performers as LPC, Evil Squirrel Overlord, Captain Kickback and Webhick in the running, i was sure i wouldn't get it. Ah, i'd like to thank my agent, my hairstylist, my holistic cat groomer, and Bruce Springstein. Also, the Dr Pepper Corporation, which provides endless inspiration, 2 liters at a time. And of course i musn't forget all the little people, the thousands of tax protestors who've eagerly gone to jail over the years to help me polish my observations. And to those who haven't gone to jail yet, keep it up, you too can make it!

[David Merrill]

obviously. so theres evasion, or some more legal remedy.

im starting here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income

The International Accounting Standards Board uses this definition:

"Income is increases in economic benefits during the accounting period in the form of inflows or enhancements of assets or decreases of liabilities that result in increases in equity, other than those relating to contributions from equity participants."

taxes are returns due to a 3rd party (the government). every tax i can think of out there is ad valorem, and indirect.

heres how I know where to identify income:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission ... w_Glass_Co.


and I learned all this on SuiJuris!

That, and $3.50, will get you a grande caramel macchiato at Starbucks.

I know, I know, my 8 years of formal education (post high school) dealing with taxation, LL.M in tax, and years of actual practice mean nothing, right? I couldn't possible know more about taxes then someone who researched on wikipedia.

I get so tired of morons trying to talk about the tax law as if they somehow can discover a loophole that no professional in the history of the Earth has been able to uncover. How can someone really be that delusional.

Here is the remedy pre-1933:





Here is how it looks today:




Published copy.

[Nikki]

And the beat goes on ...

Perhaps some day, David will actually post something which confirms his claims of "remedy."

More likely, pigs will fly.