Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 12:48 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 12:24 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have already debunked your claims for those other sources. You have, yet again, quote-mined and misrepresented what they state.

We know who debunked who because you ran with your tail between your legs from my challenge to hire a tax professional to settle the matter.

You are delusional. That never happened.

Quote:NOW, you show even MORE desperation because you obviously realize you were dead wrong all along, and now you're backpeddling taking MY position and claiming you proved me wrong. Pathetic. Fortunately we have a written record. In your earlier claims you quoted this from the IRS:

You are delusional. That never happened. I have not backpedaled on anything.

Quote:
Quote:A barter exchange is an organization with members who contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to exchange property or services. The term does not include arrangements that provide solely for the informal exchange of similar services on a noncommercial basis.

And write underneath it, in post #23 you wrote this:

(20-05-2014 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not about private exchanges.

And you repeatedly stated bartering was only taxable if it was done as part of a formal barter exchange.

Your reading comprehension is abominable. Look at that in context - I didn't say 'barter exchanges', I said exchanges, as in goods and services.
And this is more of your insane revisionism of discussions.

Quote: I pointed to link after link after link proving that it is STILL taxable when it's done privately, one-on-one. Now you've backed off on that and instead claim you're arguing that only 'commercial' barters are taxed. Well no shit. Read my scenario #2. I followed up that the parties in question are a gardener and a teacher. I did this deliberately because the IRS rules are completely crystal clear that if the service you perform is what you normally do for work, it IS a commercial transaction and IS taxable.

And you are wrong - your links did not show that, and I proved that with your own links.

Quote:Now, a separate question to show that even this isn't logical is to ask you why, if I'm unemployed, with no profession, and I mow one sick neighbor's lawn for a barter, it's ok, and I'm given a pass for being non-commercial. But, as I repeat this beneficial voluntary exchange enough so that I can say I'm a gardener, why does the nature change just because I got good at what I do? Why should I have to pay a penalty for being good at something, but not when I'm bad?

Regardless, I hate going here because this has nothing to do with the point of my OP. I already edited my OP to remove any reference to the IRS and tax code specifically to prevent you from derailing my OP with these silly tangents, and try to get back to the point which was asking if liberals were able to answer questions about their beliefs. But you stubbornly refuse, and the answer remains "No, none of you are willing to answer questions about your beliefs".

Silly tangents? You're an idiot - it is the central point of your whole stupid question. Your question is completely meaningless if the IRS isn't party 'c'.

That's how you meant it from the get-go.

Quote:So who is creating a trollercoaster? I asked you (collectively) questions, I asked for your opinion, and all I get are pages and pages of distractions.

Your OP is a stupid, meaningless question unless it's about taxation. You know it, I know it, and everyone reading this thread knows it.

You have had your ass handed to you. The only troll-like being here is you.

Quote:So, can we get off this trollercoaster. Will you EVER answer the questions I raised so we can better understand your position? Or you just want to keep derailing my post with these irrelevant side-shows?

You are a moron. Do you really think that anyone doesn't see right through your desperate attempt to avoid admitting you have been wrong by creating this revisionist version of the argument?

If anyone agrees with you, they sure haven't spoken up.

You are a shameless liar.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Chas's post
20-05-2014, 01:19 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why would he?
I did respond. As always. When you think through your positions you have the luxury of being able to respond.

Uh huh, right. You? Think? Laughat


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  He thinks I'm a club wielding, knuckle dragging, fascist, authoritarian slave-master because I think the EPA is a good idea and we ought to publicly fund firefighters with taxes. Drinking Beverage
No, I think that because you send people with weapons to haul off by force anybody who does things you don't like.

Nope. You keep saying that, even after repeated being told to stop lying and misrepresenting things.


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And because, when I ask you to justify your position in general terms, like why do a and b need to buy from c the right to do something in private between themselves?

When have you ever asked me to justify anything? You've done nothing but spew a tirade against what you think I represent, and never actually payed attention to what I've actually said. You're so busy arguing with your personal delusions, you haven't actually asked my to justify anything; you've just attacked what you think I'm trying to argue for.


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  When it's in general terms like that you completely fall on your face, and simply come up with examples where you think your knuckle-dragging accomplished good. And what do you have to say when I point all the times your knuckle-dragging caused devastation? Like prohibition, the war on drugs, the forced liquidation of all-electric mass transit, a monetary policy that we all libertarians warned you in advance would wipe out the middle class and concentrate all the wealth (which it did), endless wars that we keep warning you accomplish only bad, an income tax and welfare system where people living at the poverty level take home LESS money the harder they work, etc., etc., etc.

Misrepresentation stacked upon misrepresentation, lies, slander, and a ton of false analogies. You seem to think that repeating the same bullshit over and over again makes it true. It does not.


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  What do you say to ANY of those? <crickets>

Fuck you.

Your position on firefighters? The evidence you profited up in defense showed that you were completely oblivious to the fact that private firefighters still get paid by public funds generated by taxes on the public. FAIL.

You seem entirely oblivious to the public social security in Switzerland that all citizens must pay into to support. Actually you've lied about that country so much I am entirely convinced that you claiming to live there is 100% bullshit, just something you like to throw around for false legitimacy while lying in defense of your delusions.

You never explained how even less regulation would have prevented the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion.

You've never brought up Prohibition or the War on Drug until now, both of which I oppose (not that you'd know that, because you're too busy arguing with yourself to pay attention to what I or anybody else actually says).

You misrepresented the history, and the cause of the demise, of the proto-electric mass-transit system.

You claimed that Robber Barons get a pass because they give us a few libraries and Universities, and then made wild claims about how all of the top Universities were founded by business tycoons; only to have history of Harvard and MIT throw in your face to show everyone how full of shit you are.


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  How many times have I brought up the monetary policy, shown the predictions from 200 years ago showing the inequality that would result, showed the charts proving it DID happen just as predicted?

Not to me. But it doesn't surprise me that you can't remember who you are arguing with, because most of the time it's just yourself.


(20-05-2014 12:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  You're response as always is to ignore it and simply say "no, my knuggle[sic] dragging neanderthal ways are all good because the EPA limits smog."

Misrepresentation again, which is funny coming from the guy who equates support of said EPA to slavery. Go drink some bleach you delusional fucktard.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 01:40 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 11:34 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... The rules are very, very clear.

No, they aren't clear, let alone very clear, and most assuredly not very very clear. The tax court's existence and the tens of thousands of attorneys and CPAs engaged to interpret and comply with tax laws and argue their interpretation in all courts, not just the tax court, make absurd any claim that tax law is clear. The tax collection agencies themselves fully acknowledge the murkiness of the law in their proviso that advice or decisions rendered by any of their agents are never final and can always be overridden by some other agent.

I don't condone a murky tax law; murkiness breeds non-compliance and distrust. On the other hand it furnishes rewarding careers to tens of thousands of people navigating that murkiness.

All the travail in this thread over what a gnat's eyelash worth of tax code means or doesn't mean is misspent energy. It means what the last tax agent says it means, until another agent says different - and what you or I think it means is meaningless.

What isn't meaningless is the spirit of taxation: we're all accountable for the cost of living in a governed society. How that burden gets apportioned is just a detail. A detail worth hashing out in the courts and legislature - but a detail nonetheless.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Airportkid's post
20-05-2014, 01:51 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  And this is more of your insane revisionism of discussions.

The post is clear. You clear did say that private barters, or exchanges, were not taxable. However this is a waste of time. You're obviously not saying that now, so we're finally in agreement that, yes, if a gardner offers to mow his neighbors lawn, while his neighbor, a teacher, offers to tutor his son, that IS a barter. If the gardner and teacher want to sit at home and do nothing, that's fine. They don't owe anybody anything for that. But if they want to do each other a favor and trader their professional services, they must pay a 3rd party for the right.

(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Silly tangents? You're an idiot - it is the central point of your whole stupid question. Your question is completely meaningless if the IRS isn't party 'c'.

I guess abstract concepts are beyond you. So if I say "Do I have the right to hit you in the face?" that's a fair question. But, if I say "Does a have a right to b in the face?" then for you it's now meaning because you can't decide unless you know who a and b are?

(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your OP is a stupid, meaningless question unless it's about taxation.

If so, you would have either (a) answered the questions and showed me obvious the answers were and thus how stupid the questions were, or (b) said nothing. The fact that you keep investing the time to chase rabbit holes PROVES it IS a good question. You do NOT have a logical explanation for why when I mow my neighbors my lawn it's a private matter until I get good enough at it that one could call it a career (ie a commercial) and then suddenly I have to pay someone else for the privilege of doing what I used to be able to do for free. You CANNOT explain why it's good to have an income tax system so that for people living at poverty level, the harder the work the LESS they take home. You CANNOT explain why it's good to tax, and therefore discourage, good works, like when 2 people get off their lazy asses and do something good for each other instead of just watching TV.

These ARE good, tough questions precisely because you run from them. And that says a lot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:16 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 02:21 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  When have you ever asked me to justify anything? You've done nothing but spew a tirade against what you think I represent, and never actually payed attention to what I've actually said. You're so busy arguing with your personal delusions, you haven't actually asked my to justify anything; you've just attacked what you think I'm trying to argue for.

Huh? Read the OP. What is it? It's a series of questions I've been begging you to answer. I'm pleading you with you to share you're opinion. I will ask again: "PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN MY OP. I WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINION. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK." How can you reply like you did above given what's happening now?

(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your position on firefighters? The evidence you profited up in defense showed that you were completely oblivious to the fact that private firefighters still get paid by public funds generated by taxes on the public. FAIL.

I never said otherwise. I said that because the fire fighters were motivated by a profit, to deliver a better service at a lower price, they innovated. You acknowledged that perhaps the government-run fire departments should copy their innovations. But you run from the obvious question: Out of all the thousands of fire departments in the US, how come it's only the minuscule handful that are privatized that are pioneering these innovations which you think the rest should follow? And then, after admitting that the private fire departments did a service by showing the public ones how to run more efficiently, your conclusion is we should get rid of all the private fire departments and have only public ones, thus ensuring there will never be any further innovations. Why are you attacking the one tiny minority that is doing the most to advance the field for the rest!?

(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You never explained how even less regulation would have prevented the West Texas fertilizer plant explosion.

I have a million times. You don't like the answer so you choose to block it out. IF the government did not grant the owners of the Texas fertilizer plant full, blanket immunity from any liability for their actions so long as they follow certain regulations and pay tiny $30 fines, then, without a corporate umbrella, the owners would have had to be much more careful since they would PERSONALLY be responsible for the destruction they did to that poor town. BECAUSE of your regulation and granting them an umbrella of immunity, they cannot be held accountable. The town has dead bodies and massive destruction, the townfolk cannot get compensated for their losses, and the owners of the fertilizer plant get to hop in their private jet and fly to a new town to start all over again. That is the system you're defending. The regulation and corporate umbrellas are by and for the business owners. It benefits them that, even though they're humans like the rest of us, they're given a piece of paper, articles of incorporation, which grants them superhuman powers so they are no longer responsible for their actions--that meaningless piece of paper is responsible--not the human beings making the decisions. They just need to negotiate with (ie pay off) your regulators. They only trick lemming voters into thinking it's for their best interest.

(20-05-2014 01:19 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  You claimed that Robber Barons get a pass because they give us a few libraries and Universities, and then made wild claims about how all of the top Universities were founded by business tycoons; only to have history of Harvard and MIT throw in your face to show everyone how full of shit you are.

I'm not surprised that you didn't watch Friedman's video. He so thoroughly shot down that absurd myth using logic and reason. As he pointed out, if the era of robber barons was one of an oppressive aristocracy exploiting the masses, then why were millions and millions of people leaving their homes and families behind to huddle into overcrowded boats and head for Ellis Island where a statue of liberty awaited them promising 'Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free'. If it was all a scam and they were coming to a life of oppression, maybe you could have tricked a few early arrivers. But they wouldn't have been telling their families back in other countries that had strict government regulation and no "robber barons" to abandon everything and come.

Today, the US, for example, is begging people to come. The US offers EB-5 visas to anybody who, like those millions in the robber baron era, are willing to come and start a business. Once they employ 10 people, they get citizenship. The State Departments goal is to get 20,000 takers/year, but they usually only get a few hundred. During the robber baron era over 12 million came! Read about how the rest of the world saw this "robber-baron-era" as the land of opportunity, the chance for a better life, the French even sent the Statue of Liberty to celebrate it. This was when the American Dream, the house with a picket fence, was born, when everybody through hard work could get ahead. Thus it is ABSURD when liberals say it was an oppressive era of tyrants and that today's system, where as poor people work harder they have LESS to live on, is so much better. Nothing tells you about a system than how people vote with their feet.

Now, will you PLEASE answer the questions in my OP? I promise NOT to criticize your answers. Any follow up will ONLY be in the form of questions asking for clarification. This is supposed to be a forum to exchange idea, not just throw insults at each other. OK?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:19 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 02:26 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 01:40 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 11:34 AM)frankksj Wrote:  ... The rules are very, very clear.

No, they aren't clear

Of course I agree the tax code is a murky mess. But the one thing I referred to that IS clear is that bartering goods and services is taxable. The only ambiguity is when exchanging acts of kindness become commercial barters, but it is crystal clear that once they do, they ARE taxable.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:21 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:40 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  No, they aren't clear

Of course I agree the tax code is a murky mess. But the one thing I referred to that IS clear is that bartering goods and services is taxable. The only ambiguity is when private exchanges become commercial barters, but it is crystal clear that once they do, they ARE taxable.

What is your objection to this ?, would you like taxes raised elsewhere to offset tax-free commercial barter ?

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 01:51 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  And this is more of your insane revisionism of discussions.

The post is clear. You clear did say that private barters, or exchanges, were not taxable. However this is a waste of time. You're obviously not saying that now, so we're finally in agreement that, yes, if a gardner offers to mow his neighbors lawn, while his neighbor, a teacher, offers to tutor his son, that IS a barter. If the gardner and teacher want to sit at home and do nothing, that's fine. They don't owe anybody anything for that. But if they want to do each other a favor and trader their professional services, they must pay a 3rd party for the right.

I am not saying anything different from what I've said all along. The problem seems to be that the IRS uses the phrase "barter exchange" to define a particular activity:
"A barter exchange is an organization with members who contract with each other (or with the barter exchange) to exchange property or services."

So maybe there is a confusion of terms. I have said all along, and all of the IRS and other references support it, that the IRS differentiates between barter between businesses and barter between private individuals. The former is taxable, the latter not.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Silly tangents? You're an idiot - it is the central point of your whole stupid question. Your question is completely meaningless if the IRS isn't party 'c'.

I guess abstract concepts are beyond you. So if I say "Do I have the right to hit you in the face?" that's a fair question. But, if I say "Does a have a right to b in the face?" then for you it's now meaning because you can't decide unless you know who a and b are?

You specifically started the discussion with barter as the subject. Now you have tried to change it to some amorphous question.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 12:48 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your OP is a stupid, meaningless question unless it's about taxation.

If so, you would have either (a) answered the questions and showed me obvious the answers were and thus how stupid the questions were, or (b) said nothing.

Before you so dishonestly changed your OP, I answered the question. The answer was, and is, that you were wrong about the taxes on private transactions and that rendered you question meaningless.
When you removed the basis of your question, it wasn't worth answering.

Quote:The fact that you keep investing the time to chase rabbit holes PROVES it IS a good question. You do NOT have a logical explanation for why when I mow my neighbors my lawn it's a private matter until I get good enough at it that one could call it a career (ie a commercial) and then suddenly I have to pay someone else for the privilege of doing what I used to be able to do for free. You CANNOT explain why it's good to have an income tax system so that for people living at poverty level, the harder the work the LESS they take home. You CANNOT explain why it's good to tax, and therefore discourage, good works, like when 2 people get off their lazy asses and do something good for each other instead of just watching TV.

These ARE good, tough questions precisely because you run from them. And that says a lot.

Oh, bullshit. I have stuck to answering your original question because you were wrong and won't admit it.

Your changed question is so unattached to any reality as to be silly.

Whatever credibility you had left here is now completely gone. You have show that you not only can't admit error, you lie to cover it up.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 02:33 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:19 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 01:40 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  No, they aren't clear

Of course I agree the tax code is a murky mess. But the one thing I referred to that IS clear is that bartering goods and services is taxable. The only ambiguity is when exchanging acts of kindness become commercial barters, but it is crystal clear that once they do, they ARE taxable.

It is hardly ambiguous if you actually read the references.

Private, individual barter is not taxable. Barter by a business is.

If your business is mowing lawns and you receive something for mowing a lawn, that is taxable.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
20-05-2014, 02:47 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 02:21 PM)sporehux Wrote:  What is your objection to this ?, would you like taxes raised elsewhere to offset tax-free commercial barter ?

In my OP I'm not objecting to or recommending anything. Just asking questions to challenge people's ideas. I have stated in other threads I do strongly object to income tax because (a) taxing anything discourages what is taxed, and historic tax rates vs income prove unequivocally that taxing being productive and working hard causes people to stop doing it, (b) it's a system where as poor people work harder they take home LESS because of the income tax and phasing out of tax credits, © everybody making between $10k and $40k/year pays on average 82% on every next dollar earned, so someone making a respectable $20/hour only gets $3.20 for future hours, (d) income tax is easy to avoid so enforcement requires draconian efforts and violent responses, (e) many still manage to avoid income taxes so the burden is very unevenly spread even within high income groups, (f) it's a barbaric, immoral system of might makes right whenever a and b do something they have to pay c for the privilege whether or not they get anything from c in return only because c has a gun, (g) you can't income taxes very progressive because then those who earn the most just leave, (h) it's just foolish in general to punish good behavior.

Instead, the logical thing is to have taxation and the services they provide as closely coupled as possible so taxpayers can clearly see what government is costing and what they're getting in return, and since a system competition works infinitely better than a single monopoly, taxation should be at the state/local level so the jurisdictions are competing with each other to innovate and provide the best service at the best price, and that since taxing anything discourages that activity, tax things that are bad for society and certainly not acts of kindness! The local authorities should use consumption taxes with a focus on tobacco, gasoline and other things that harm society, and the bulk should come from property taxes. Property taxes are unavoidable--everybody has no possibility to evade. You can't take an acre of land and hide it in a Swiss bank account. So big brother doesn't need to listen in on our phone calls and read our emails like the IRS does (see Snowden's disclosure about the NSA giving this to the IRS without a warrant). So we can enjoy privacy, and nobody goes to jail for not paying property taxes. And it gives poor people a real chance to make a better life, teaching society that hard work DOES pay off. You can have 0 (or even negative) property taxes for those who have no property and live in poverty to provide them assistance. But, if they earn $10/hour, for every hour they work they get the maximum possible reward--the full $10/hour. If they're living in a small, crowded apartment they already have a strong incentive to move up to a bigger place despite the increased property tax. But by rewarding hard work you give them a path to break out of poverty and move on.

Besides, all the useful things we get from government, like schools, roads, bridges, etc. all come from property taxes anyway. US federal income taxes primarily go to one thing: WAR. So if the US would simply pull-back from those 700 or so overseas bases, like England did when it let go of it's empire, and just close a handful of the most bloated bureaucracies that do more than good, the federal gov't wouldn't need income taxes anyway. They only fuel a tyrannical system that has a long history of overturning peaceful democracies to prop up dictators, and fabricating wild claims to justify marauding and pillaging. (Chomsky's Hegemony or Survival is a good recap).

So I'm not anti-government or even anti-tax. I've said many times I'd rather pay MORE taxes overall if it's in the form of property taxes where the tax revenue actually does some instead of income taxes that just fund empire-building and war.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: