You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

[Randall]

You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

Your grammar skills in your title provides evidence of a certain level of stupidity.

[Famspear]

David, take your meds.

I get it Famspear;

You are lazy.

Yes, I am lazy. Well, my wife says I'm lazy.

And no, David, you definitely don't "get it."

[Lambkin]

Did Larken Rose even present a defense based on 861 during the trial? I thought he wimped out and pulled a Cheek but I admit these cases are starting to blur together. They all seem to have something in common... if only I could put my finger on it.

[Famspear]

Now, back to Farmer Giles.....

Farmer Giles, we await, with bated breath, your next attempt at brilliance. Come on, Farmer Giles, I gave you an example of a fact pattern -- the "house and loan" scenario described earlier in this thread -- where the fair market value of the house is equal to the principal on the loan at the time the bank takes the house back -- meaning that there is an even exchange of value -- and yet income is deemed to be realized by the borrower for federal income tax purposes.

Have you figured out why this is the case? If you really know the tax law, then you have enough information to figure it out.

Come on Farmer Giles! Rise and shine, Einstein! Show us how smart you are!

[bmielke]

Come on Farmer Giles! Rise and shine, Einstein! Show us how smart you are!

Einstein is rollimg over in his grave right now.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

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.

bmielke, by your definition you might be ignorant, but you're not stupid. Ignorance can be fixed through education but stupidity is terminal.

[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.

bmielke, by your definition you might be ignorant, but you're not stupid. Ignorance can be fixed through education but stupidity is terminal.

Thanks, I am glad I don't have a terminal disease...

[silversopp]

Now, back to Farmer Giles.....

Farmer Giles, we await, with bated breath, your next attempt at brilliance. Come on, Farmer Giles, I gave you an example of a fact pattern -- the "house and loan" scenario described earlier in this thread -- where the fair market value of the house is equal to the principal on the loan at the time the bank takes the house back -- meaning that there is an even exchange of value -- and yet income is deemed to be realized by the borrower for federal income tax purposes.

In the interest of expediency, I've taken the liberty of replying for Farmer Giles. I've taken the above paragraph written by Famspear, translated it into Japanese, and then translated that back into English. The response is as follows:

As for me example of factual pattern " It gave; House and loan" Fair market price of the house the scenario where is first described with the principal of the loan and this thread of the bank where it is equal at that time at the value present place because of federal income tax measure it is thought that it is actualized by the borrower takes the house which means the fact that it is exchange of earnings.

Let's wait and see how close I am to Farmer's actual response.

[LPC]

Did Larken Rose even present a defense based on 861 during the trial? I thought he wimped out and pulled a Cheek but I admit these cases are starting to blur together.

Rose testified to the jury about his understanding of section 861 and the meaning of "taxable income" in order to demonstrate that he had a good faith (mis)understanding of the law that negated "willfullness." However, I don't think he ever moved to dismiss the indictment, or moved for a directed verdict, on the grounds that he had no "taxable income" within the meaning of section 861.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Thanks, I am glad I don't have a terminal disease...

"Son, you just need a healthy dose of learnin'."

[Prof]

I thought I might take one of your paragraphs, admittedly at random, and discuss the same with you. Since you seen to think all regular posters at Quatloos are "terrorists," I thought my background information might clarify some things about me. First, I hold a college degree in History and an MA in American History. I earned a law degree on the GI Bill (which is to say, I am ex-Army) and a master of laws -- also on the GI Bill. I was a history teacher on the college level and taught at 2 law schools as a full-time faculty member, earning the rank of Professor before doing other things. For the last 22 or 21 years, I have been a full-time lawyer and am licensed in Texas and the District of Columbia and 10 or so federal districts and two federal circuits. I am not a tax lawyer, although I frequently litigate against the IRS. I am a bankruptcy and UCC lawyer, by the way. I am also an unrepentant, somewhat left-leaning Democrat.

Now that you know a little about me, let's look at the statement I selected at random:

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

There are a number of issues raised in this quote. The first is context, since the quote appears to be taken from a discussion of the gift tax. I am sorry, but I do not understand the context of the quote in relation to your statments; I could not find the source of the quote, either.

As to the statment about "proving" things in court and the collapse of the system, you seem to ignore that one of the things that happens in American life is that almost everyone loves to go to court -- and the system, including the tax system, hasn't collapsed yet. There are literally thousands of Tax Court and Federal District Court opinions challenging the IRS and its interpretation of the IRC.

Then, you switch to a critique of the taxation of income, which you first argue reflects a prewar model of industrial captitalism -- but, since you cite to Marx and Dickens, you must mean (I think) pre-Civil War (the American Civil War), for Marx's Manifesto and Dickens' David Copperfield, for examples, were bothwritten around 1850. The US did have an income tax during the Civil War, of course, but it did not have much of an industrial economy by that date. So, again, the context is what I am missing. If you are talking about the post-Civil War income tax acts and the 16th Amendment, then you are talking about a period that is either pre-Spanish American War or Pre-WWI.

I don't understand your comments in the context of those dates. There is no strong Progressive Movement in the US until long after the Civil War and Dickens. That movement had become more powerful by the time of the 16th Amendment, however. Again, context is everything. Note, however, that the Income Tax Amendment was proposed by a Republican President, William Howard Taft.

To continue, you seem to think that a tax on income was imposed because "income" was evil? What historical basis in the US do you have for this proposition. I know of none, but you may. Please elucidate.

I think it very clear, from the contemporary debates, that the income tax was proposed to shift the burden of a regressive federal tax system -- imports/tariffs imposed on goods from abroad fall harder on those less wealthy than upon the wealthy just as sales taxes fall harder on the poor than on the rich. However, what you and others who make this argument ignore is that wealth in an industrial economy is derived from income -- whereas in a pre-industrial economy, wealth is based upon acquisition of land or other possessions, including cattle, sheep, etc. In a largely subsistance economy, ownership of land -- the means of production -- grants power and wealth. See, e.g., medieval Europe or the share-cropping system of the post-American Civil War South. By 1900, industrialization had created a class of workers with regular paychecks, from bankers to bakers, especially in the Northeast. Their representatives wanted to shift the taxation system from tariffs to salaries, because of fairness, not because "income is bad."

You seem to think that Marxist ideology, or even Fabian Socialism, had some impact on political thought in the US during the period in which the 16th Amendment was passed. I do not think so. I know of no historical evidence for such a position. If I am incorrect, could you please show me your evidence.

The IRC, as it presently exists, reaches out to touch the most common method of wealth creation and the largest pool of wealth, which is income -- ordinary income, captial gains income, and the like. Most Americans -- the very vast majority of Americans -- are wage earners, not subsistence farmers. Further, large numbers of Americans derive income from stock dividends, trades, or liquidations and many get income from other "passive" investments.

What would you tax in order to generate income for governmental services? Texas, for example, taxes sales and assets, real and (in the case of businesses) personal. It also has a franchise tax for business entities and various fees. It does not tax incomes. The lack of an income tax may make the state attractive to some folks, but Texas lags behind other states in the delivery of services, so there is a trade off. Also, taxation of assets places a burden on both productive and not productive assets. In a recession, an empty warehouse is as subject to taxation as it was when it was full of stored goods. A poor person pays a greater percentage of his income in sales tax than does a well-to-do person. In fact, the Texas total tax burden is actually about the same as many states with an income tax component. Of course, there are high tax states, like Mass. or CA or NY.

Further, on an average house in Texas, the ad valorem/real estate tax can be almost as much as the house payment. (My house is paid for and I still owe about $800 a month to the county taxing authorities -- school, college, city, county itself).

Finally, since most wealth in the US is generated in the form of income or from wise investment of income into income producing assets, why would you assert that the IRC is designed to force people to forego income?

Please explain.

(Incidentally, in this post, I have attempted to be as polite and informative as possible. I have posted questions for you before -- e.g., where does the admiralty stuff come from -- and you haven't answered. I posted, in response to your arguments about driver's licenses, a Texas Appeals Court case directly in point. Your reply was: "the three points he argued were inane and offbase. its the typical fake court case that is used to muddy the waters. stick to the statutes." Your reponse, dismissive as it was, ignored JRB, who had posted concerning the statues. This time, rather, than dismiss or ignore, please attempt to respond rather than seeking a reason to avoid discussion of your own posting.)

[Parvati]

Come on Farmer Giles! Rise and shine, Einstein! Show us how smart you are!

Einstein is rollimg over in his grave right now.

Poor guy's probably spinning fast enough to generate electricity.

[Farmer Giles]

Prove it.

go back and read everything again, and this time pay attention. If you have a responsive answer or question post away.

[bmielke]

Prove it.

go back and read everything again, and this time pay attention. If you have a responsive answer or question post away.

Why on earth would he waste his time?

[Farmer Giles]

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

well of course. The bank is the intermediary. They do give a fair consideration for the service of accounting, and a share of the equity accrues to them thereby. When the shares are redeemed everyone receives his part. this is not gross income, because everyone already had what he received. A dissolution of a very temporary partnership.

[Farmer Giles]

Prove it.

go back and read everything again, and this time pay attention. If you have a responsive answer or question post away.

Why on earth would he waste his time?

I have no idea. He managed to show up on the thread as have you, so I'l give you the same suggestion: go back, read again, and take some thought on the matter. If you have a question or responsive answer post away.

This method seems to be working as I am enjoying Famspears considered message.

If the game's no fun, why are you here? I dont know why you'd waste the time.

[bmielke]

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

well of course. The bank is the intermediary. They do give a fair consideration for the service of accounting, and a share of the equity accrues to them thereby. When the shares are redeemed everyone receives his part. this is not gross income, because everyone already had what he received. A dissolution of a very temporary partnership.

Isn;t there someplace else on the net, you two can get together and talk your gibberish? Like Sooey?

[bmielke]

I have no idea. He managed to show up on the thread as have you, so I'l give you the same suggestion: go back, read again, and take some thought on the matter. If you have a question or responsive answer post away.

This method seems to be working as I am enjoying Famspears considered message.

If the game's no fun, why are you here? I dont know why you'd waste the time.

I have read most of your crap. Frankly for a while I thought you were someone with legitmate questions to be answered. I have come to realize that no matter what answer you get here, the answer floating around in your own head will be the one you stick with, so now I am no longer trying to post to change your mind, rather just to answer you.

You want a substantive question?

How many lives have you ruined with the gibberish you are spouting?

[Prof]

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

well of course. The bank is the intermediary. They do give a fair consideration for the service of accounting, and a share of the equity accrues to them thereby. When the shares are redeemed everyone receives his part. this is not gross income, because everyone already had what he received. A dissolution of a very temporary partnership.

The Credit River decision is a silly piece of myth. Even without the "back story,"
this is a decision of a court not of record (JP court) binding on no one but the parties and is not very binding on them, because all such JP cases are appealed de novo-- which means that the parties start over again, from scratch. The defendant, Daly, was later disbarred. No court of record has ever followed the rationale of the opinion.

Credit River gets cited all of the time by folks who have little or no understanding of how the court system works, much less about how the world of banking and finance works.

[Farmer Giles]

Now, back to Farmer Giles.....

Farmer Giles, we await, with bated breath, your next attempt at brilliance. Come on, Farmer Giles, I gave you an example of a fact pattern -- the "house and loan" scenario described earlier in this thread -- where the fair market value of the house is equal to the principal on the loan at the time the bank takes the house back -- meaning that there is an even exchange of value -- and yet income is deemed to be realized by the borrower for federal income tax purposes.

Have you figured out why this is the case? If you really know the tax law, then you have enough information to figure it out.

Come on Farmer Giles! Rise and shine, Einstein! Show us how smart you are!

Relax, I dont live on the internet. I'll get to it. I'm just glad someone finally posted something decent. I see one from "Prof" too, that needs a good answer.