You're hung up on Peter Hendrickson's mantra about "everything that comes in," aren't you? Hendrickson falsely implies that the government contends that "everything that comes in" is income.Farmer Giles wrote:getting paid provides me with an equity position in a check, which i'm glad you brought up, because the next transaction when i deposit at the bank will be an even-exchange too. perhaps you'd like to categorize that as income as well? Is the change I receive from a purchase at the store income? It "came-in", didn't it? It has an accounted concept.CaptainKickback wrote:see, thats where you distort the IRC itself. "Items" are not Income. Items are Items. The law says: "item income". That is, income realized from these items. Like, "salary income". The income that is found within these items.silversopp wrote:
Regardless of what forms have been signed, my net worth is increasing - is it not? Do we agree that each pay check I receive increases my net worth? - While it may increase your net worth, for purposes of taxation, it is considered earned income (or any of its related synonyms) as opposed to unearned income, such as capitasl gains, dividends, interest and such.
You have falsely read what's right in front of you; there is no tax on transactional structures, whether we call a payment "compensation" "wages" or anything else. The tax is on income DERIVED from those items, actually ALL INCOME from WHATEVER source derived, INCLUDING these items. they don't necessarily generate ANY INCOME, just for being an item.
Obviously you are owed money by the company; clearly you have invested or lent your efforts to that enterprise and they owe you money now. Any court would agree. You are a stakeholder. - No, you are just owed the money, a stakeholder would be more along the lines of a person who owns stock in the company, who has an equity position. As an employee, you are more akin to a creditor to the corporation, which includes bondholders and anyone else expecting a payment from the company.
Its the same thing, bond or equity, i'm a stakeholder. in fact the best way to see it is "bonded equity".
getting paid by a company provides you with no equity position whatsoever and it is earned income for tax purposes.
VIRTUALLY ALL TRANSACTIONS INVOLVE EVEN EXCHANGES OF VALUE, FELLA. The mere fact that the exchange is an EVEN EXCHANGE OF VALUE does not mean you haven't realized INCOME. You need to take a basic accounting course.
When you buy six dollars worth of groceries at the store and you hand the clerk a ten dollar bill, you get six dollars worth of groceries and four dollars in change. The reason you don't have taxable income here is that YOU HAVEN'T REALIZED ANY INCOME.
By contrast, suppose you go to work for someone when you have zero money in your pocket. If you work for one day and the guy pays you $100 at the end of the day, you now have $100 more than you had before you started. You have realized income of $100. This is not rocket science. The fact that what you "gave up" (your labor, if you will) was "worth" the $100 -- the fact that there is an "even exchange of value" -- is a separate issue. Under the tax law, you have realized $100 of income. I'm sorry, but that's it.
No, he doesn't. He's not confused. You are.You show the common malaise of the confused businessman
That's more gibberish, Farmer.........i hear especially these arguments coming from people who have invested everything in the assumption that administrative concepts are real... The System divides the brain in its left and right hemispheres so we can't think straight anymore.
No, that's not what he's saying. If you work for free, there is no income, and therefore no income tax. You are taxed on the realization of the income, not on the fact that you "worked." Again, this is not rocket science, fella.What you are really saying is there's a tax on working, which there is not. The tax here is always framed in reference to INCOME.
Yes, it did. It increased your net worth. In my example, your net worth increased by $100.Getting paid by the company did NOT increase any net worth.
That's correct -- an increase is required for there to be any income. Income is an economic concept. Before, you didn't have the $100, and after the work, you do have the $100.An INCREASE is required for there to be any income, remember? I'm being told the tax defintion for income is somehow different from the financial definition, but so far i haven't seen any.
Nobody said that the tax law definition of income is different from the financial accounting definition of income. What we are saying is that you are barking up the wrong tree by quoting the financial accounting definition, AND we are saying that you don't even understand the financial accounting definition. EVEN UNDER THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTING DEFINITION YOU QUOTED, YOU WOULD HAVE INCOME THAT WOULD BE TAXABLE TO YOU. You don't understand what you are reading, Giles.