You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

[Farmer Giles]

Since the last 2 of our "conversations" have been shut down, it seems a good time to open up another thread, about How Stupid You Really Are. This is turning out to quite a fun game, and Everyone's Invited Even If You Aren't Actually Stupid. (The stupids know who they are). All is Forgiven, let the next round begin!

Meanwhile I'll work on the first real post, more on the subject of 'income'. I was reviewing some of the material and I want to take up the debate on certain points that have been brought up. Let's see if any of you are actually not Stupid and can simply respond with an answer that addresses the subject of a post.

[Farmer Giles]

Glenshaw is interesting because it defines how one obtains income after all: by accession. which has got to be different than succession.

WTF? Who gives a sh*t whether income is derived or accrued by succession, cessation, accession, procession, profession, confession, or conversation? It doesn't matter. If you increase your wealth by any means its taxable unless it's specifically excluded by the tax code.

I am a little curious why F.G. thinks the IFRS definition of income is important to the average individual. I am also curious as to why he emphasized the portion of the definition by placing it in bold type and if he believes it is supposed to have any extra significance.

[Farmer Giles]

Who gives a sh*t whether income is derived or accrued by succession, cessation, accession, procession, profession, confession, or conversation? It doesn't matter. If you increase your wealth by any means its taxable unless it's specifically excluded by the tax code.

so as you can see it's important to note that all this can only be based on an "increase of wealth". A lot of idiots out there think that its somehow against the law to "not owe taxes".

and that increase, is actually defined in Glenshaw. It is described as an "accession to wealth". So for those who have asked what do the courts think well here is an answer.

Meanwhile that standard accounting 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."

is right along as well with this "increase" or accession to wealth as defined by Glenshaw. So the accountant, which is the IRS, sees ALL full accessions to wealth as potential income, but applying the standard of discounting the original participation. This is different from 'basis-cost'; a lot of property in fact gets acquired without cost, like inheritance or gifts. The original equity contribution is WHAT YOU ALREADY HAD.

The tax law clearly seems to recognize this by excluding credit/debt, forfeit/collateral, secured transactions, insurance compensation from income altogether. because the structure of these transactions is always an even-exchange. Not by some clemency over types of income but because the structures themselves are more secure, literally.

And so we get to this idea of economic structures. A clear example is when I improve a house and enjoy market pressure too but instead of selling it I mortgage it to the bank for 100% ltv. Ive got my money, for sure; but its a loan. And literally if I let the bank just take the title and forfeit the collateral the whole transaction will end as an even exchange.

Well right there youve got a model for tax-free economics. Any trade or business can be conducted under these structures. lets remember share participation, and equity bonding.

Point being that Capitalism is Doomed and the deformed minions of fakeocracy will perish in its collapse.

[Doktor Avalanche]

Prove it.

[Famspear]

so as you can see it's important to note that all this can only be based on an "increase of wealth". A lot of idiots out there think that its somehow against the law to "not owe taxes".

No, that's incorrect. Nobody thinks it is somehow against the law to "not owe taxes."

........and that increase, is actually defined in Glenshaw. It is described as an "accession to wealth". So for those who have asked what do the courts think well here is an answer.

We'll be the judge of whether the answer you provide is correct.

Meanwhile that standard accounting 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."

is right along as well with this "increase" or accession to wealth as defined by Glenshaw. So the accountant, which is the IRS, sees ALL full accessions to wealth as potential income, but applying the standard of discounting the original participation. This is different from 'basis-cost'; a lot of property in fact gets acquired without cost, like inheritance or gifts. The original equity contribution is WHAT YOU ALREADY HAD.

Wrong. The financial accounting model you have quoted is not "different" from "basis-cost" -- at least not in the sense in which it appears you are thinking (although, it's hard to tell, since you don't seem to be very clear on what you're "thinking").

The phrase "other than those relating to contributions from equity participants" refers to contributions to an enterprise by its owners. Contributions to an enterprise by its owners -- as owners -- are not treated as revenue ("income" if you like) of the enterprise.

Farmer, there is no such thing as you, as a living person, making an "equity contribution" to yourself as a living person. You can make an equity contribution to ExxonMobil by buying some of its shares. You cannot make an equity contribution in this sense to yourself. Why? Because you cannot "own" yourself. Why can you not "own" yourself? Because "you" and "yourself" are one and the same.

Ownership is a "property" concept. In the narrow sense in which we are using these terms, you can own a house or a car or a pencil or a copyright. But you cannot own yourself, and you cannot make "equity contributions" to yourself. Thus, you cannot, by realizing "income" make a tax-free equity contribution to "yourself."

I would suggest that you take some courses in accounting. You are confused by the terminology.

Now, let's look at gifts. Yes, gifts are acquired by the donee without any cost incurred by the donee (with exceptions for things like "partial gifts" not material to our present discussion). And an item received by you as a gift (i.e., without any cost being incurred by you) WOULD BE FULLY TAXABLE TO YOU under Internal Revenue Code section 61 -- were it not for another Code section that makes the receipt of the gift non-taxable (i.e., section 102).

Further, under the tax law, you as the transferee (donee) would have ZERO basis in the property you receive by gift -- were it not for a specific Code provision that allows you to take the transferor's (donor's) basis (section 1015).

The tax law clearly seems to recognize this by excluding credit/debt, forfeit/collateral, secured transactions, insurance compensation from income altogether. because the structure of these transactions is always an even-exchange. Not by some clemency over types of income but because the structures themselves are more secure, literally.

And so we get to this idea of economic structures. A clear example is when I improve a house and enjoy market pressure too but instead of selling it I mortgage it to the bank for 100% ltv. Ive got my money, for sure; but its a loan. And literally if I let the bank just take the title and forfeit the collateral the whole transaction will end as an even exchange.

Well right there youve got a model for tax-free economics. Any trade or business can be conducted under these structures. lets remember share participation, and equity bonding.

No, that's not a model for tax-free economics. You are spouting more gibberish.

For a cash receipts and disbursements method individual: If you perform services for someone else and you are compensated for that, the gross amount of the compensation you receive or constructively receive is includible in your gross income for the year of receipt/constructive receipt, under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, except as otherwise excluded by some other law, such as sections 101 through 140.

Farmer, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You don't know what you're talking about. I know you believe strongly that you do, but you're wrong.

[Famspear]

Oh, by the way, Farmer, let's get some things straight about "stupidity."

I have a thorough understanding of financial accounting concepts. You do not. That does not mean that you're stupid, though.

I have a thorough understanding of tax accounting concepts. You do not. That also does not mean that you're stupid.

When I say I have a thorough understanding of financial and tax accounting concepts, I am being neither presumptuous nor arrogant.

You are presumptuous and arrogant to imply, as you have, that you understand these concepts better than many of the regular Quatloos posters here. To come here and pontificate about these things is stupidity on your part.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Famspear - remember the adage of expending effort at teaching a pig to sing.

It would be better if a thing once trampled into the dust of nonsense couldn't be reassembled or regurgitated by narcissistic opportunists. As the 'net proliferates we can only expect to see the ignorant stumble along on the same nonsensical paths.

[Farmer Giles]

so as you can see it's important to note that all this can only be based on an "increase of wealth". A lot of idiots out there think that its somehow against the law to "not owe taxes".

No, that's incorrect. Nobody thinks it is somehow against the law to "not owe taxes."

a lot of people do. many, many people in fact. Personal 1st hand witness time and again. everyone assumes you're guilty, because they are.

The financial accounting model you have quoted is not "different" from "basis-cost" -- at least not in the sense in which it appears you are thinking (although, it's hard to tell, since you don't seem to be very clear on what you're "thinking").

The phrase "other than those relating to contributions from equity participants" refers to contributions to an enterprise by its owners. Contributions to an enterprise by its owners -- as owners -- are not treated as revenue ("income" if you like) of the enterprise.

Farmer, there is no such thing as you, as a living person, making an "equity contribution" to yourself as a living person. You can make an equity contribution to ExxonMobil by buying some of its shares. You cannot make an equity contribution in this sense to yourself. Why? Because you cannot "own" yourself. Why can you not "own" yourself? Because "you" and "yourself" are one and the same.

Ownership is a "property" concept. In the narrow sense in which we are using these terms, you can own a house or a car or a pencil or a copyright. But you cannot own yourself, and you cannot make "equity contributions" to yourself. Thus, you cannot, by realizing "income" make a tax-free equity contribution to "yourself."

Having been on this a while now, I've already seen the run-around. I know, labor and time are not deductible. But my own property is. And so, in you setting up this typical STRAWMAN
(a diversion off on a tangent to avoid answering the question-) we can see how the populist rabble was right all along; there is a Strawman out there, and he's called an "individual estate". So yes, I can and do contribute to my personal net worth, just as I might to the gods of Exxon. And it only took me one paragraph to say this.

I would suggest that you take some courses in accounting. You are confused by the terminology.

isnt that the point of accounting? to confuse with terminlogy?

Now, let's look at gifts. Yes, gifts are acquired by the donee without any cost incurred by the donee (with exceptions for things like "partial gifts" not material to our present discussion). And an item received by you as a gift (i.e., without any cost being incurred by you) WOULD BE FULLY TAXABLE TO YOU under Internal Revenue Code section 61 -- were it not for another Code section that makes the receipt of the gift non-taxable (i.e., section 102).

Further, under the tax law, you as the transferee (donee) would have ZERO basis in the property you receive by gift -- were it not for a specific Code provision that allows you to take the transferor's (donor's) basis (section 1015).

it can't be any other way and the Code acknowledges this here. Imagine if someone was forced to prove all this in Court, the system would have collapsed years ago. Its primarily designed for a prewar model of industrial capitalism, think Charles Dickens...and Marx. Income tax, a plank of the Communist Manifesto, is designed to soak up the inequities of society, which generate any income at all. Income is a bad thing, which is why it is taxed. What the tax code is telling us is to get out of wrong and do right! then we wont have any income and we'll be free of this just penalty.

The tax law clearly seems to recognize this by excluding credit/debt, forfeit/collateral, secured transactions, insurance compensation from income altogether. because the structure of these transactions is always an even-exchange. Not by some clemency over types of income but because the structures themselves are more secure, literally.

And so we get to this idea of economic structures. A clear example is when I improve a house and enjoy market pressure too but instead of selling it I mortgage it to the bank for 100% ltv. Ive got my money, for sure; but its a loan. And literally if I let the bank just take the title and forfeit the collateral the whole transaction will end as an even exchange.

Well right there youve got a model for tax-free economics. Any trade or business can be conducted under these structures. lets remember share participation, and equity bonding.

No, that's not a model for tax-free economics. You are spouting more gibberish.

That is a non responsive answer. Thank you for admitting that the actual transaction about the house outlined above has no tax consequence and results in an even exchange.

I'm going to assume you can do better than that.

For a cash receipts and disbursements method individual: If you perform services for someone else and you are compensated for that, the gross amount of the compensation you receive or constructively receive is includible in your gross income for the year of receipt/constructive receipt, under section 61 of the Internal Revenue Code, except as otherwise excluded by some other law, such as sections 101 through 140.

I WILL NOT STRUCTURE MY TRANSACTION TO SUIT YOU. Answer the question: what is the tax consequence to this transaction? Here's one from the last debate:

in my grocery store we spend all our inventory... we spend it all on purchasing money from the customers.

In your grocery we can just bond the whole business, and I'll credit you for the value. Then I'll sell the inventory like a normal operation, and everything will be an even-exchange.

It is inadmissible to respond: "you can't do that". I already did it, read the premise. I can read, write and do 'rithmatic and any paperwork outlining a contractual relationship is easy to craft. I can literally write down what I have posted as the clauses. How does the law as interpreted by the courts view this scenario?

[Famspear]

a lot of people do. many, many people in fact. Personal 1st hand witness time and again. everyone assumes you're guilty, because they are.

No. Owing taxes is not, in and of itself, a question of being "guilty." I see this rhetoric from you people all the time - confusing the assertion that you owe tax with an assertion that you are somehow "guilty" of something. You are engaging in projection -- you "feel" that because you owe tax, you must be "guilty." But you don't like that feeling. So, you project that feeling onto other people. When someone else asserts that you "owe tax," you "think" that what this person means is that you are "guilty."

You may also be engaging in something called "transference." That is, you had a parent figure when you were a child who taught you concepts like "obligation" and "duty." This parent figure also taught you the concept of "guilt." Somewhere along the way, two things happened. First, you confused the concepts of "obligation" (or "owing") something and the concept of "guilt." And second, you never completely resolved some aspect of your relationship with your parent figure to your satisfaction. Now that you are grown, you are engaging in an inappropriate repetition, in the present, of some aspect of that relationship you had with the parent figure in the past. You are transferring your feelings about that parent figure to either a present day person or a present day concept, such as an Authority Figure. You may even think of the tax law itself as the Authority Figure (I don't know). These feelings, and this inappropriate repetition, may not be fulling conscious on your part.

Having been on this a while now, I've already seen the run-around. I know, labor and time are not deductible. But my own property is. And so, in you setting up this typical STRAWMAN
(a diversion off on a tangent to avoid answering the question-) we can see how the populist rabble was right all along; there is a Strawman out there, and he's called an "individual estate". So yes, I can and do contribute to my personal net worth, just as I might to the gods of Exxon. And it only took me one paragraph to say this.

No. You have not seen the "run-around," because there is no "run-around."

No. You cannot contribute to your personal net worth "just as you might to the gods of Exxon" -- not in the way I described above.

isnt that the point of accounting? to confuse with terminlogy?

No. And I would suggest that you leave the sarcasm, such as it is, to me. I'm can be much better at it than you can.

Referring to the treatment of gifts, you said:

it can't be any other way and the Code acknowledges this here.

Wrong. Congress could repeal section 102 tomorrow. If section 102 were repealed, then gifts you receive would be taxable to you under section 61.

Imagine if someone was forced to prove all this in Court, the system would have collapsed years ago.

It's unclear what you mean by "all this." What is it that you think would cause the collapse of some "system" if someone were forced to prove "all this" (whatever it is you're talking about)?

Income is a bad thing, which is why it is taxed. What the tax code is telling us is to get out of wrong and do right! then we wont have any income and we'll be free of this just penalty.

See my earlier comments about your confusion over the concepts of "owing tax" and being "guilty."

That is a non responsive answer. Thank you for admitting that the actual transaction about the house outlined above has no tax consequence and results in an even exchange.

No, stating that your statement is gibberish is not "non-responsive." And I haven't even addressed the "house" transaction, so I haven't "admitted" anything. This illustrates another attribute of many of you people. You try to give the impression that other people are obligated to answer your questions and address your concerns to your satisfaction, and that declining to do so somehow constitutes an "admission." You are wrong. Further, you don't believe that yourself.

How do we know this? Because you don't reciprocate. You don't feel obligated to answer our points.

Your "hey you've just admitted" rhetoric is just that: rhetoric.

And so we get to this idea of economic structures. A clear example is when I improve a house and enjoy market pressure too but instead of selling it I mortgage it to the bank for 100% ltv. Ive got my money, for sure; but its a loan. And literally if I let the bank just take the title and forfeit the collateral the whole transaction will end as an even exchange.

No, not exactly. The receipt of the loan proceeds is a non-taxable event -- because it is not an "income" event. You don't realize "income" under the Federal income tax law when the amount of the loan proceeds equals the amount you are legally obligated to pay back. And if you let the bank take the house, you will realize income (for federal income tax purposes) equal to the excess, if any, of the amount realized on the disposition of the house over your basis in that house. Notice that I said "realized," not "recognized." Notice also that I said "income" without saying what kind of income. And notice that I did not say whether you would incur a federal income tax.

Let's suppose that this is a house you bought and used for investment (i.e., you never lived in the house yourself; you just rented it out to tenants). Let's suppose you bought the house with 100% financing. Original cost is equal to the amount you borrowed. Let's suppose that the house was always worth exactly the amount of the principal on the debt -- and you never paid down on the debt (except for the interest expense, which we'll just say you deducted as you paid it). Let's assume, as well, that the debt was what we call recourse debt (you had personal liability on the debt).

If the bank takes the house back at fair market value equal to the debt, you now have "realized" income. You may or may not have "recognized" income, and you may or may not have a federal tax liability. (Notice that I did not say what kind of income.)

Do you know why you have "realized" income here? And do you know what additional information you would need to tell how much? Do you know what additional information you would need to tell you whether the income is also "recognized" by you?

Now change the facts. Assume that the debt is non-recourse (you have no personal liability). You now have realized a particular kind of income called a GAIN FROM THE DISPOSITION of an asset. Not only that, but you have "recognized" that gain. And you may even owe a tax (depending on other factors not given in the example).

Remember, in all these situations, on the facts I gave you, the fair market value of the property and the principal of the debt were equal in amount. That is, there was an "even exchange" (in the sense in which I believe you use the term). I am telling you that YOU ARE RIGHT that there is an even exchange of value, and I am telling you that there is nevertheless SOME SORT OF INCOME being "realized" by YOU under the Internal Revenue Code in these fact patterns (though there may or may not be a tax, depending on information not yet provided).

OK, Einstein, here's your chance to shine. Explain exactly why this is the case.

[David Merrill]

I can explain it. The bank never gives any consideration.


http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P1.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P2.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P3.jpg
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/images/suitors/P4.jpg

[Joey Smith]

Point being that Capitalism is Doomed and the deformed minions of fakeocracy will perish in its collapse.

You are a little late -- Khrushchev said this circa. 1950 and Hal Lindsey predicted a financial apocalypse . . . . . by 1990.

[Famspear]

I can explain it. The bank never gives any consideration.

David, for heaven's sake, take your medication.

[Famspear]

In fairness to Farmer Giles, I should point out that tax protesters/tax deniers and other wackos are probably not the only people who look upon federal income taxation as a "punishment" for realizing income. Indeed, the idea that people who receive large amounts of income should be taxed more heavily (more specifically, at higher marginal rates) than those who receive low income sometimes seems (to me, at least) to be associated with the idea that the higher income person should pay more because making high income is somehow less morally justifiable than making low income.

I personally don't have a strong problem with taxing higher levels of income at somewhat higher marginal rates (within reason, I guess) than the rates imposed on the lower levels, but I don't "feel" that making high income is somehow "less moral" than making low income.

However, I sense that Farmer Giles' idea that taxation of income is somehow intended by the framers of the law as a "penalty" for receiving income may well be a function of his own psychological makeup. I could be wrong.

[LPC]

Meanwhile I'll work on the first real post,

I'm going to ignore this fake post, and all the fake posts that went before it, and wait for the first real one.

[The Operative]

Farmer,

The only thing that you are proving is your own stupidity. Everything you have presented has been answered. Just because you don't see that does not mean that we are avoiding the question. To the contrary, we point out that you are wrong and attempt to explain it to you and you either ignore the answer or try to reword your question in attempt to claim that we didn't answer it. Here is the simple answer:

WE ARE RIGHT.

YOU ARE WRONG.

[Imalawman]

Yawn.

[David Merrill]

The Income Tax is a punishment indeed - a fee. It is the price of private credit from the Fed. For realizing the benefits of the Fed's private credit one is obligated to file a Return of that Income.

Here you see it in the first sentence.

Remedy link

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose, are authorized.

Federal reserve notes are only issued to Federal reserve banks. If you do not want to be an agent obligated to perform by filing a return on that private credit:

They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand...

You redeem lawful money.


Video about remedy.

1984 Freedom League Article

If you want to ignore the remedy that has been written into the Fed Act since 1913, you are really stupid!!


Regards,

David Merrill.

Yawn.

This post is for you then!

[Famspear]

David, take your meds.

[David Merrill]

David, take your meds.

I get it Famspear;

You are lazy.

[bmielke]

I'll it admit it I am stupid.

Not because I lack the ability to learn, but because I am 24 years old, and lack the education and expierence of many here.

FG, maybe you should humble yourself a little bit.

Also from a previous thread:

Do you know what a Blunderbus is? It doesn't really matter what kind of shot you are, that was it's design, anyon can pick one up and use it effectively.