You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

[Famspear]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You show the common malaise of the confused businessman

No, he doesn't. He's not confused. You are.

........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.

That's more gibberish, Farmer.

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.

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.

Getting paid by the company did NOT increase any net worth.

Yes, it did. It increased your net worth. In my example, your net worth increased by $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.

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.

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.

[The Operative]

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.

Nonsense. Getting paid does not provide you with an "equity" position in a check. When you get paid, you are receiving compensation for services that you provided to your employer. Once you receive the compensation from your employer, it is that transaction where taxes are applied because that is income.

When you deposit the check in the bank, it isn't an even exchange. It isn't an exchange at all. When you received the check from your employer, you received income. At that moment, the money is yours. Putting the money in the bank does not result in you receiving more income. However, if the bank pays you interest on money that you have in the account, that interest is income.

The money you receive as change at a store is not income either. When you buy a product that is priced at $4.49 and you hand the clerk a $5 bill, the $5 was yours and the portion of that $5 that exceeds the price of the product you are purchasing is still yours. That $0.51 did not go out and it is not coming back in. When you leave the store with the $4.49 product and the $0.51, you did not have a gain and you did not have a loss.

You show the common malaise of the confused businessman, 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.

The only one confused here is you. Yes, we know that you can't think straight.

What you are really saying is there's a tax on working, which there is not.

No, we are not saying that.

The tax here is always framed in reference to INCOME.

Right, and every court that has heard the matter has said that WAGES ARE INCOME. Did you read that? WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME.

Getting paid by the company did NOT increase any net worth.

It is payday. At the beginning of the day, your net worth is $1. At the end of the day, you receive a $500 check. Guess what? Your net worth has just increased. If you spend the entire $500, your net worth will go back to $1, but that does not matter, because you received money that increased your net worth and you were able to purchase things with that money. When you received that money, it was income because WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME.

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.

Again, it has been explained to you. You are just too thick to see it.

[Farmer Giles]

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.

The fact that a notax model exists means any trade or business could be conducted along these lines. It only takes one out.

Leaving us to doubt very highly all those convictions and judgements, was it really just an assumption that one thing and not another exists. If it comes down to an otherwise equal possibility then the odds are automatically in favor of the defendant and you must acquit.

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.

rather than drawing this out I'll let you explain the big mystery and save some board space. Tell us about the difference between "realized" and "recognized" and what kind of income this really is. Give us all the additional information. Just lay out by a concise description whatever you've got to positively say. Explain why it makes a difference between "recourse" and "nonrecourse" loans.

And notice that I did not say whether you would incur a federal income tax

yes you did, Ive quoted you at the top of the post.

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).

Well provide it already. I was warned about these “secret spells” on another thread, I can’t imagine what they might be. So go ahead and show the tax consequences to a secured transaction like the ones you’ve already posted. ‘Splain us Famspear!

[Farmer Giles]

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.

How about when I buy $6 worth of money and hand the client a receipt for a $10 bill with 4 in change? Should i send him a 1099 for the money I paid him? I say, 'money' because it doesnt matter if we use any money at all, it depends on 'fair-market value'.


I going to have to start skipping points made to me because I just can't keep up with it all, i've lost track by now. Post it again if it's important. I don't know why anyone would think their droolings are interesting to any reader, and there are a lot of people who are certainly interested in the discourse of this thread.

[Farmer Giles]

Getting paid does not provide you with an "equity" position in a check.

then it's a bad check.

When you get paid, you are receiving compensation for services that you provided to your employer. Once you receive the compensation from your employer, it is that transaction where taxes are applied because that is income.

when i get paid, i am receiving money. this is the point of the exercise here, maybe you didn't realize it, but you have completely jumped to a conclusion that you know anything about a given transaction. People pay and get paid all the time for any or no reason.

of course you're mad i won't play by your rules. I WILL NOT. This isn't "tax accounting course" time, this is Econ 102. I dont care much what happens when there IS income, because my main objective is to avoid it like AIDS Plauge and VD. It's a bad thing.

When you deposit the check in the bank, it isn't an even exchange. It isn't an exchange at all.

it goddamn well better be! I want my money back eventually. And they will give me a receipt. Yes there is an exchange. The banks own books reflect a draw from one account and a credit to another. Any other smart ideas?

When you received the check from your employer, you received income.

prove it.

Putting the money in the bank does not result in you receiving more income.

yes, because its an even-exchange. Otherwise, i did accede to some new wealth, I have a new deposit-credit...my net worth must be questioned again...but it's the same as before, so no increase is registered.

The money you receive as change at a store is not income either.

we figured that out. Now apply the lesson to other analogous situations.

every court that has heard the matter has said that WAGES ARE INCOME. Did you read that? WAGES ARE INCOME.

post a good example for reference. Every time someone here says they’ve “got a court case”, it never seems to say what the poster implies.

Income includes items but itsn’t limited to them. Which came first, the Income or the Items? Which is bigger, and which is smaller? You tell me to go to school but this is kindergarten.

It is payday. At the beginning of the day, your net worth is $1. At the end of the day, you receive a $500 check. Guess what? Your net worth has just increased.

We do an accounting “add” to my schedule but we also debit the loss of equity. I got paid $500 because I exchanged an asset accumulated from my workings for $500. That is my original equity contribution. See, you speak false when you say my net worth was only $1 at the beginning of the day, because that’s not true. I was already owed, that is, i already owned an asset worth $500. So it becomes a capital-even transaction.

Again, it has been explained to you. You are just too thick to see it.

Who’s thick?

[David Merrill]

Quatlosers are thick. You think that by proving them stupid they will admit to it?

I liked the Qualuders though. That was good.

[Farmer Giles]

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.

There is no contrast, no difference. this is another example how the difference between financial and tax accounting actually helps me get away from income. Because I realized a net growth BEFORE I realized any possible income. Like I said before, I already had it. I worked and that created the result. The result is that I share an equity out there. So just redeeming or swapping makes an even-exchange. Financially. I had growth before I had any tax consideration. But Financially, we would never exclude time effort energy etc from the calculation. So while I may have done well today, I have spent my time and that costs, obviously. You'd have to be pretty stupid to try and convince anyone they hadn't just worked a day and directly created the "take-home value" . That is a fundamental of economy, time.

Tax accounting apparently attaches at the moment there is an accession. This is Glenshaw.

[Farmer Giles]

Quatlosers are thick. You think that by proving them stupid they will admit to it?

I liked the Qualuders though. That was good.

I think that by proving them Stupid they DO admit to it.

But it's otherwise been a good thread, and instructive. these challenges polish the material, and make connections for a lot of readers. There are many guests!

[Famspear]

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.

How about when I buy $6 worth of money and hand the client a receipt for a $10 bill with 4 in change? Should i send him a 1099 for the money I paid him? I say, 'money' because it doesnt matter if we use any money at all, it depends on 'fair-market value'.


I going to have to start skipping points made to me because I just can't keep up with it all, i've lost track by now. Post it again if it's important. I don't know why anyone would think their droolings are interesting to any reader, and there are a lot of people who are certainly interested in the discourse of this thread.

It's your drooling, Giles. You're the one who brought up the example of making change at the store. I responded to what you wrote.

Why would you think you should send someone a 1099 in the situation you described? And why ask the question? I'm not sure whether you really are too stupid to understand this, or whether you're just faking stupidity.

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.

There is no contrast, no difference. this is another example how the difference between financial and tax accounting actually helps me get away from income. Because I realized a net growth BEFORE I realized any possible income. Like I said before, I already had it. I worked and that created the result. The result is that I share an equity out there. So just redeeming or swapping makes an evev-exchange. Financially. I had growth before I had any tax consideration. But Financially, we would never exclude time effort energy etc from the calculation. So while I may have done well today, I have spent my time and that costs, obviously. You'd have to be pretty stupid to try and convince anyone they hadn't just worked a day and directly created the "take-home value" . That is a fundamental of economy, time.

Tax accounting apparently attaches at the moment there is an accession. This is Glenshaw.

Except for your last two sentences, your post is gibberish. It's word salad, Farmer Giles.

[Prof]

Assume that I concede that the exchange of labor for wages paid by an employer is an even exchange, on which there can, by definition, be neither profit nor loss.

Would this assumption make transfer of funds from the employer or labor purchaser to me not taxable under the IRC?

If so, then how do you explain, for example:

§ 3402. Income tax collected at source
(a) Requirement of withholding
(1) In general
Except as otherwise provided in this section, every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables or computational procedures prescribed by the Secretary. Any tables or procedures prescribed under this paragraph shall—
(A) apply with respect to the amount of wages paid during such periods as the Secretary may prescribe, and
(B) be in such form, and provide for such amounts to be deducted and withheld, as the Secretary determines to be most appropriate to carry out the purposes of this chapter and to reflect the provisions of chapter 1 applicable to such periods.

Just curious.

You never did finish responding to my last post, by the way.

[Famspear]

Farmer Giles wrote:

Well provide it already. I was warned about these “secret spells” on another thread, I can’t imagine what they might be. So go ahead and show the tax consequences to a secured transaction like the ones you’ve already posted. ‘Splain us Famspear!

Why should I post the answer right now? If we were stupid, and you were smart, YOU WOULD KNOW THE ANSWER, Giles.

Do you know the answer to my hypo regarding the house and the secured debt? Come on Giles, show us you're not a phony. Explain the answer.

[The Operative]

Getting paid does not provide you with an "equity" position in a check.

then it's a bad check.

You really are dense.

When you get paid, you are receiving compensation for services that you provided to your employer. Once you receive the compensation from your employer, it is that transaction where taxes are applied because that is income.

when i get paid, i am receiving money. this is the point of the exercise here, maybe you didn't realize it, but you have completely jumped to a conclusion that you know anything about a given transaction. People pay and get paid all the time for any or no reason.

No, I did not jump to a conclusion. It is your simple inability to read. However, I'll rephrase for the incredibly dense...

When you get paid for the services or work that you performed for your employer, that is compensation. That compensation is gross income.

of course you're mad i won't play by your rules. I WILL NOT. This isn't "tax accounting course" time, this is Econ 102. I dont care much what happens when there IS income, because my main objective is to avoid it like AIDS Plauge and VD. It's a bad thing.

No, I am not mad because you won't play by my rules. First, they are not my rules. It is the LAW. Under the law, WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME. WAGES ARE INCOME.

When you deposit the check in the bank, it isn't an even exchange. It isn't an exchange at all.

it goddamn well better be! I want my money back eventually. And they will give me a receipt. Yes there is an exchange. The banks own books reflect a draw from one account and a credit to another. Any other smart ideas?

It is irrelevant whether you consider it an exchange or not. The amount deposited is still yours. The transaction that mattered for income tax purposes is when you receive compensation from your employer for any work or services that you performed.

When you received the check from your employer, you received income.

prove it.

Don't have to. It has been explained to you a dozen times already. Just because you do not understand how the world works doesn't mean that we are wrong.

<SNIP EXCESS BLATHERING>

every court that has heard the matter has said that WAGES ARE INCOME. Did you read that? WAGES ARE INCOME.

post a good example for reference. Every time someone here says they’ve “got a court case”, it never seems to say what the poster implies.

Here is just one of many...Coleman v. Commissioner, 791 F.2d 68 (7th Cir. 1986) You can read it at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -1202.html

Income includes items but itsn’t limited to them. Which came first, the Income or the Items? Which is bigger, and which is smaller? You tell me to go to school but this is kindergarten.

It is payday. At the beginning of the day, your net worth is $1. At the end of the day, you receive a $500 check. Guess what? Your net worth has just increased.

We do an accounting “add” to my schedule but we also debit the loss of equity. I got paid $500 because I exchanged an asset accumulated from my workings for $500. That is my original equity contribution. See, you speak false when you say my net worth was only $1 at the beginning of the day, because that’s not true. I was already owed, that is, i already owned an asset worth $500. So it becomes a capital-even transaction.

That is the problem. Your labor does not constitute an equal exchange. The courts have also explained this. See Casper v. Commissioner, 805 F.2d 902, 906 (10th Cir. 1986). You can read it at http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F ... -1857.html

Again, it has been explained to you. You are just too thick to see it.

Who’s thick?

Obviously, it is you.

[David Merrill]

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.

You might expect somewhere in that background we might find a doctrine of innocent until proven guilty.

And exceptions to the hearsay rule too.

But you will be Quatlosers because that is who you all are.

It is payday. At the beginning of the day, your net worth is $1. At the end of the day, you receive a $500 check. Guess what? Your net worth has just increased.

That is not true. For an honest day's work, you are out exactly $500 worth of goods and services.

[Trippy]

You Are Stupid. And I will Prove it.

{YAWN}

Next troll, please?

[Nikki]

99

[Nikki]

100 Good night, Gracie.

[Farmer Giles]

As to the statement 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.

If the IRC didnt say what it says there’d be a problem. Its precisely because Americans are so litigious that this would not stand, it’d be too obvious! But what I mean is the Code has to be lawful andlegal, which I figure it generally is. So it had to be carefully constructed not to take in the untakeable without giving away the reason why. Apparently this works because for a century now, around the world, people have become with these totally false concepts about how anythng works togetether.

There is a great episode of “My Name is Earl”, if you know it, where in order to “make up for past wrongs” he decides to run out and ‘pay some taxes’. He goes to the office window, and just tries to hand over some money. The clerk says, “where’s the bill?”... this is what people don’t get out there.

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

By prewar I meant “pre World War 2”. After the war was a triumph for Socialism. The last capitalist generation was the baby Boomers and near kin, since then life has become very institutional and organized. A writre in Europe recently used the term, “telematic economy’, which is a far better description of the current trends. People ask these sorts of questions,
“ oh, but who’s going to pay for it?” like I was proposing something new. All of this already exists and has been built into the system since it was first proposed by Marx. I say “first proposed” because of course the proposition is as old as the hills ; he is a good reference to America and the current times.

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.

How could it not? Marx and all the rest are taught to this day in every University. The Communist Manifesto is a business model, and we have adopted it everywhere. It is very popular. There has always been a Progressive movement in one form or another and wasn’t the “Progressive Party” around and advocating for these taxes long before the 20th century? Meanwhile they didnt get popularized ‘til the 2nd World War, which is where pretty much everyone sees things now, from the result of that episode. It’s coming to a close, though, the final date is Dec 25 2012. (so they say)

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.

That every Progressive force out there called for it’s implementation. Not every force; Henry George understood the silliness of the whole proposition and was very popular for a while.

All taxes fall on government grants or privileges. There is hardly any other way to do it. without random plunder. And it has nothing to do with “funding operations” per se, like it was just some unfortunate public need. Those properties belong to the government, or to the Public, as it were. Whether it’s a King or a democracy, they are going to get taxed.

It’s very similar to a utility meter...only you’ve got two tubes lined up next to each other, both delivering the same power... which one do you think I’ll choose to tap? Whatever purpose al these modalities serve, it’s been blown so far out of proportion the system probably will chnage dramaticaly in te near future. Hopefully as everything becomes more electronic and verifiable it will be more clear what is “in” and what is “out”. As long as the system relies on paperwork its prone to human error, including the massive hallucinations that most people experience at one point or another. I know because I’ve been there myself, been very, very deluded before...

...the most common method of wealth creation and the largest pool of wealth, which is income -- not subsistence farmers.

I know, and it’s a voluntary business models. I can propose several alternatives. This is why I sustain that possibly income is the natural result of bad human relationships, like “employment”. Everybody knows that jobs are bogus, and the last thing anyone wants to do is “work”. Work is like treading mud in a field, and goping nowhere. What counts is progress, getting closer to a desired result. Thats not even true either, what counts is the harmony generated by our choices.

Employment is an old, antiquainted way of getting anything done. I’ve aleways been better off with share-redmption, just in terms of human relationships and productivity. Employment is only good for Big Industry (which is mostly gone in America today) and Big Business (which is going).

Further, large numbers of Americans derive income from stock dividends, trades, or liquidations and many get income from other "passive" investments.

Yet if they were to borrow against those investments would there be a tax consequence? I don’t think so. And if the collateral was forfeit it should be the same as with a mortgage foreclosure.

What would you tax in order to generate income for governmental services

Sorry, that’s the kind of Newsweek/Time Magazine/Social Studies question they drown us with back in school. I dont tax anyone. The State does. The State will continue to do so regardless of who’s in charge. They will generaly find themselves restricted to attachable jurisdictions, otherwise everything is completely random and there will be no commerce or productivity. This got figured out a long time ago and so we have the development of civilization. I am very thankful to have been alive in a country with the tradition of America, that enshrines Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, where people just get that on a basic, decent level.

Further, on an average house in Texas, the ad valorem/real estate tax can be almost as much as the house payment.

Texas is a great state to get real estate, because not only they tax high the value, keeping its sale price low (hint hint thats why Texas is cheaper...) but you dont have to actually pay the taxes as long as the place is occupied. Yes, I can cite that, I read it striaght out of the applicable statutes that are webbed online.

Now the only EFFICIENT tax, if you ask me, is right there in Texas, which seems to have fully incorporated the principles laid out by Henry George. Because all that “surplus value”, which naturally accrues to the State, (they don’t derive it, they already have it to), will find it’s way into the value of land parcels, if al other restrictions are loosed.


“Surplus Value” is from Marx, and it’s talking about RENT. It helps to know another language...in Spanish “income” is RENTA, “rent”. All this stuff is about RENT. And all RENT by definition belongs to the State. You only get RENT by holding a grant or franchise from the State. Its the value that accrues to its holder from monopoly. That I arbitrarily hold a piece of land gives me a great power over those who wish to actually use it. And this in fact, is the basis for all h great fortunes, rents derived from monopolys. Its very rentable (“profitable”) to sell illegal narcotics because the extreme monopoly over them has driven the price up to the sky.

So yes Marx, and the Progressives, and the Fabains, and whoever else, all atacked the special –privileges and accumulations of the rentier class... yes the word in english is from the french, it’s rentier.

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?

You can choose to stay in “income” but the tax and attendant responsibilities, especially the criminal ones, ought to motivate anyone who wasn’t actually doing better (but far worse, more likely) to get the hell out of INCOME!

So now, after a long road, most have somehow been drawn into this complicated and dangerous way of business and trade, not for any real gain, but by inertia fear miseducation conditioning and all the other attacks on their psyche. Meanwhile they pay the penalty. Is it worth it?

[Joe Dirt]

Auto-WOOOOOOOSH

please keep the toilet noises off the thread. shut the door at least!

Farttttttttttttt.... gack, belch and retch.

Farmer, most of us know the difference between bullshit, magic mushrooms and ice cream. Which of these are you high on tonight??

[Joe Dirt]

Quatlosers are thick. You think that by proving them stupid they will admit to it?

I liked the Qualuders though. That was good.

\

This coming from a pig-ignorant, mamma-hitting, piece of degenerate, mentally ill trash that doesn't have two nickels to rub together and sucks hard on the government tit to get by when he can't peddle his useless, stupid shi*t to people even dumber than himself.

If anything you said were even half way true, you would be living in a big house in a fancy community instead of living in your mamma's basement and mooching and abusing her, as you tool around on a scooter.

And if we are so f*cking stupid, how come we have houses and cars and money in the bank, stable jobs, and normal lives while people like you and Farmer Giles are grubbing for nickels, living the cr*ppy little lives you oh so richly deserve, all while whining and yelping like the little b*tches you are because no one wants to play by the imaginary rules you thing everyone should play by so only you benefit.

Farmer Giles, DVMP and others cut from the same bolt of cloth should consider themselves god-d*mned fortunate they live in the USA, because in most countries, especially the totalitarian ones, you would be locked up forever, or would have already been executed.

You want to know what is wrong with your life, look in a mirror long and hard, because all the failures in your life have had one common denominator, YOU!!

Tell you what Farmer Giles, you keep playing by your imaginary horsesh*t logic, that has absolutely no standing in the courts and lets see where each other is in 10 years time. Based on prior cases, you will still be a dead broke, lying, conniving, weaselly, whining little loser without d*ck to your name, except debts, penalties, fines and possible some jail time. On the other hand, all of use that you call stupid, will have more money and be leading even more enjoyable and productive lives than we lead right now.

Captain, I knew you'd get on the deck with somethin' good about these suckweasel, spineless s**it sniffing sc*mb@g$.... you outdid yourself!!!! My compliments.

[Farmer Giles]

Why would you think you should send someone a 1099 in the situation you described? And why ask the question? I'm not sure whether you really are too stupid to understand this, or whether you're just faking stupidity.

By your logic I should send a 1099 to those who "received grocery income", which is how it must be regarded if we 1099 other even-exchanges like equity redemption. My groceries are an equitable redemption on the money I have paid and my money is an equitable redemption of the groceries I have paid.

Except for your last two sentences, your post is gibberish. It's word salad, Farmer Giles.

i'm still waiting for all those "secret spells" and 'special informations' you promised us.