Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 08:37 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 09:10 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 07:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 06:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Note how I asked you to give me a SPECIFIC formula to determine when I go from being an individual who just mows other people's lawns in barters (and doesn't pay tax) to a gardener who still just mows other people's lawns in barters and DOES pay tax. What's the formula, please? If I mow 3 lawns/week am I an individual or a gardener? What about 5? 10? What is this magic formula you claim to have that makes it not a gray area? I'm STILL waiting.

Your inability to understand simple declarative sentences is astounding.

Try reading it again. A plumber is one who has a plumbing business.
I gave you the specific formula, you are just too blind to see it.

Chas, give up. You're just going around in circles deeper and deeper. I asked you when you go from just doing something to having a business. _I_ gave you a very specific clear-cut definition: it becomes a business when you file for a c corp, s corp, llc, partnership, dba or similar entity. If you do it without any of those, then it's not a business.

But that obvious and clear definition doesn't work for you because I've already proven to you that even if you have none of those things you STILL are taxed on barters. So I ask you then to give me YOUR clear definition of what make a business. And all I get is ridiculous circular expressions that "A plumber is one who has a plumbing business." Do you seriously have no idea what a business is, and no clue how to describe one? Or you're just pretending because you don't want to concede the point that barter transactions are taxable whether you have a business or not?

And why do you keep us stuck on this stupid rathole? I asked you for your opinion on specific questions and you're just playing word games.

I asked you good questions. Like why, for example, you think an income tax system is fairer than a property tax given that property tax is inescapable--everybody who uses the government services must pay, and freeloading is not possible--and it can as progressive as you want. You can't hide your Malibu beach house in a Swiss bank. But with an income tax, since you're not taxing something tangible, but rather an activity, making it VERY easy to avoid. I mentioned, for example, the UK billionaire who didn't want to pay income tax. If instead of income taxes, he paid the same amount in property taxes, you'd still be scream he's cheating society because he MUST pay an income tax. So he plays by your rules and remains a tax-free non-resident status by sleeping on his private jet while it flies over international waters before returning since UK residency rules count how many nights at midnight you're in the UK. Thus he lives in the UK tax free. According to your beloved income tax system, doing so he is now right with the law. He is no longer cheating hospitals and schools. His duty to society is now paid in full. And he's paying his fair even though he pays nothing, while his maids still pay tax. And what did it take for him to be a good-standing person under the law? Nothing other than to burn a bunch of jet fuel and contribute to global warming. Under your system, that is what it took to redeem his debt to society. I ask you to explain why you are defending this system and you just play silly word games.

I'm only more convinced that the reason is the one I wrote to earmuffs in my last past.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:21 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Are you going to respond to my post or not?

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 09:22 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 09:38 PM by Chas.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 07:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your inability to understand simple declarative sentences is astounding.

Try reading it again. A plumber is one who has a plumbing business.
I gave you the specific formula, you are just too blind to see it.

Chas, give up. You're just going around in circles deeper and deeper. I asked you when you go from just doing something to having a business. _I_ gave you a very specific clear-cut definition: it becomes a business when you file for a c corp, s corp, llc, partnership, dba or similar entity. If you do it without any of those, then it's not a business.

Look, you dumb fuck, I quoted what the IRS says is a business. Do you not know what a 'sole proprietorship' is?

Quote:But that obvious and clear definition doesn't work for you because I've already proven to you that even if you have none of those things you STILL are taxed on barters. So I ask you then to give me YOUR clear definition of what make a business. And all I get is ridiculous circular expressions that "A plumber is one who has a plumbing business." Do you seriously have no idea what a business is, and no clue how to describe one? Or you're just pretending because you don't want to concede the point that barter transactions are taxable whether you have a business or not?

You are terminally stupid. A plumber is one who makes a living doing plumbing whether it is a corporation, a partenership, or a sole proprietor. 'DBA' is not a type of business, it is simply the operating name of a company.

Quote:And why do you keep us stuck on this stupid rathole? I asked you for your opinion on specific questions and you're just playing word games.

It is not a rathole - it was the basis of your opening argument.

Quote:I asked you good questions. Like why, for example, you think an income tax system is fairer than a property tax given that property tax is inescapable--everybody who uses the government services must pay, and freeloading is not possible--and it can as progressive as you want.

Hold that delusion bus right there. Where did I say that? You are a delusional twat.

Quote: You can't hide your Malibu beach house in a Swiss bank. But with an income tax, since you're not taxing something tangible, but rather an activity, making it VERY easy to avoid. I mentioned, for example, the UK billionaire who didn't want to pay income tax. If instead of income taxes, he paid the same amount in property taxes, you'd still be scream he's cheating society because he MUST pay an income tax. So he plays by your rules and remains a tax-free non-resident status by sleeping on his private jet while it flies over international waters before returning since UK residency rules count how many nights at midnight you're in the UK. Thus he lives in the UK tax free. According to your beloved income tax system, doing so he is now right with the law. He is no longer cheating hospitals and schools. His duty to society is now paid in full. And he's paying his fair even though he pays nothing, while his maids still pay tax. And what did it take for him to be a good-standing person under the law? Nothing other than to burn a bunch of jet fuel and contribute to global warming. Under your system, that is what it took to redeem his debt to society. I ask you to explain why you are defending this system and you just play silly word games.

None of that has anything to do with this discussion - it's just you squirming around trying to deflect. I have not addressed any other issue and won't until this is settled.

Quote:I'm only more convinced that the reason is the one I wrote to earmuffs in my last past.

Whatever.

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, 09:35 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:23 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Once the corporate veil is dropped by the court, it is no longer 'regulators' that have anything to say it is the courts.

WTF? But the courts cannot just arbitrarily drop the corporate veil. There are strict rules. If the owners follow the rules (ie the regulations) then the court CANNOT pierce the corporate veil. So, YES, it _IS_ your beloved regulations that grant today's 'robber barons' immunity from prosecution.

It's ridiculous to say that once the corporate veil is dropped the regulations don't apply, knowing fully that it's those regulations that determine when the corporate veil can be dropped.

Here's another subject that you don't understand. You think you do, but you don't.

You remind me of Kevin Kline's character in A Fish Called Wanda.

Because, yes, the court can pierce the corporate veil - and they are the only party that can.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your ignorance is astounding. Workers rarely had any place to go.

You mean "psychically" no where to go, because they were held in bondage as slaves? Or nowhere to go because nobody else was offering them a better job? Workers conditions could only improve when workers DID have another place to go, and that only happens when you have a business-friendly climate that needs workers.

Again, you're using ridiculous circular references. I say that full employment created the environment for improved working conditions. You say 'no' the fact that they had other job opportunities is what improved their working conditions. They are the same thing.

And, no, never happened. I didn't say that.
Go read about the labor movement and how unions were especially needed when there really was only one employer available - think mines, railroads, company towns.

Quote:
(20-05-2014 07:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, you're not. It wasn't 'the economy', it was the social immobility, repression, religion, and more.

That's pathetic. Social mobility only happens when you have a thriving business-friendly climate. How much social mobility was there in state-run economies, like the Soviet Union? And what about highly progressive income taxes, like what if all income over the poverty line is taxed at 99%? Those things make social mobility impossible. As far as repression and religion, YES, that is exactly what I'm talking about. Those other countries had governments that initiated force upon the citizens repressively enforcing the will of the religious majority on all minorities. Only the libertarian countries that flipped it around and defended minorities from the majority experienced the surge.

Social mobility was nearly impossible in stratified European societies of that era.

Your historical knowledge is just shit.

Quote:I agree with you on Ann Coulter. But you understand she is on YOUR side of the debate, right?

No, she's not on my side. It's the words, dummy - they apply to you and to her equally.

Quote:I'm arguing for negative rights. Both you and Coulter for positive.

Fuck you. You have no understanding of what I am arguing.

Quote:I'm arguing government should defend minorities from the majority. Both you and Coulter argue the opposite.

Fuck you. You have no understanding of what I am arguing.

Quote:I'm arguing that every individual has the right to liberty, to make his own decisions of his own free will, without threats of violence or coercion. You and Coulter both fight this.

Fuck you. You have no understanding of what I am arguing.

Quote:We could go on and list everything that I disagree with you on, and in every case, Ann Coulter is on YOUR side of the issue. So you are going to tell me she must not be so crazy after all?

Fuck you. You have no understanding of what I am arguing.

You keep telling people what they believe and what they think. Fuck you, you delusional twat.

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, 10:05 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have not addressed any other issue and won't until this is settled.

Chas, don't admit defeat so blatantly. It's obvious that the ball is in your court. We left it that you said it is NOT a gray area at what point a man who barters mowing lawns goes from doing it as an individual to a business. I've asked you over and over to tell me what method you use to make that distinction that is not a subjective "gray area". You refuse. On this particular issue, which is meaningless trivia anyway, I am in an idle pattern waiting you for to answer. So when I try to go back to a relevant subject at hand and ask you a question, you say you won't go there until this issue is settled, fully aware that this issue is blocked until you answer what defines a business.

My position hasn't ever changed. A "business" is when you create a separate legal entity (corp, llc, partnership) or register a dba. For me, what is a business is crystal clear. But this doesn't help you since, for this silly trivial tax detail you're so hung up on, the IRS is clear that barters are taxable even if you do not have a business in the literal sense, but become taxable when it's being done 'commercially', which IS a subjective, gray area with no clear rules. Mowing one neighbor's lawn with a portal lawnmower for a barter, probably not 'commercial'. Mowing 30 neighbors' lawns with a big riding mower for barters, definitely 'commercial'. With no clear, hard demarcation in between. It's a silly, irrelevant side point that has nothing to do with the core issue I'm trying discuss. But you're clinging to it desperately and refuse to move on to the deep stuff where you'll get even more mired. I suspect your strategy is to assume I'll tire of this trollercoaster and eventually stop responding, and then you can say "See, he went running away from my post. What a loser. I rule!" And, it's a good strategy. I really am ready to just say 'fuck it', these people are incapable of a productive debate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 10:14 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Here's another subject that you don't understand...Because, yes, the court can pierce the corporate veil - and they are the only party that can.

If you weren't in so far over your head you'd have the freedom to copy/paste what I actually said and criticize my ACTUAL words, not attack your silly strawmen. I actually wrote: "the courts cannot just arbitrarily drop the corporate veil. There are strict rules." See, you pretend that I said courts cannot pierce the corporate veil, when, in fact, that's just that strawman you're fucking. I actually said the exact opposite. But you can't attack what I actually said because it is 100% factual, and here's a source.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 11:14 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 09:22 PM)Chas Wrote:  I have not addressed any other issue and won't until this is settled.

Chas, don't admit defeat so blatantly. It's obvious that the ball is in your court. We left it that you said it is NOT a gray area at what point a man who barters mowing lawns goes from doing it as an individual to a business. I've asked you over and over to tell me what method you use to make that distinction that is not a subjective "gray area". You refuse. On this particular issue, which is meaningless trivia anyway, I am in an idle pattern waiting you for to answer. So when I try to go back to a relevant subject at hand and ask you a question, you say you won't go there until this issue is settled, fully aware that this issue is blocked until you answer what defines a business.

I gave the IRS definition, you aren't paying attention.

Quote:My position hasn't ever changed. A "business" is when you create a separate legal entity (corp, llc, partnership) or register a dba.
For me, what is a business is crystal clear.

And like several other things that are clear to you, you are not correct.

A sole proprietor is someone who owns an unincorporated business by himself or herself. That person files a Schedule C for reporting income or loss from a business.
IRS Wrote:Use Schedule C (Form 1040) to report income or loss from a business you operated or
a profession you practiced as a sole proprietor. An activity qualifies as a business if
your primary purpose for engaging in the activity is for income or profit and you are
involved in the activity with continuity and regularity. For example, a sporadic activity
or a hobby does not qualify as a business.

Quote:But this doesn't help you since, for this silly trivial tax detail you're so hung up on, the IRS is clear that barters are taxable even if you do not have a business in the literal sense, but become taxable when it's being done 'commercially', which IS a subjective, gray area with no clear rules.

It is always taxable when done by a business, which includes sole proprietorship or contractor. That seems to be the part you're missing.

Individuals who are not engaged in a business activity are not liable for tax on barter. Clearly, if all you do is barter, the IRS may consider that your business, and possibly class you a 'barter exchange'.

"Tom Glynn, assistant to the IRS Commissioner in Washington, has said that the IRS doesn't tax "neighbors doing favors for each other"; he said that he would not expect us to report a favor in which we tend our friend's lawn and he paints our house in exchange."

Quote: Mowing one neighbor's lawn with a portal lawnmower for a barter, probably not 'commercial'. Mowing 30 neighbors' lawns with a big riding mower for barters, definitely 'commercial'.

Nope. From the IRS instructions for Form 1099b:
"Barter Exchanges
A barter exchange is any person or organization with
members or clients that contract with each other (or with
the barter exchange) to jointly trade or barter property or
services. The term does not include arrangements that
provide solely for the informal exchange of similar
services on a noncommercial basis."

Quote:With no clear, hard demarcation in between. It's a silly, irrelevant side point that has nothing to do with the core issue I'm trying discuss. But you're clinging to it desperately and refuse to move on to the deep stuff where you'll get even more mired. I suspect your strategy is to assume I'll tire of this trollercoaster and eventually stop responding, and then you can say "See, he went running away from my post. What a loser. I rule!" And, it's a good strategy. I really am ready to just say 'fuck it', these people are incapable of a productive debate.

Fine, fuck it. You are not capable of honest discussion.

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
21-05-2014, 09:53 AM (This post was last modified: 21-05-2014 10:56 AM by cjlr.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  It's a silly, irrelevant side point that has nothing to do with the core issue I'm trying discuss.

That must be why you brought it up and belaboured it, then.

(20-05-2014 10:05 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But you're clinging to it desperately and refuse to move on to the deep stuff where you'll get even more mired. I suspect your strategy is to assume I'll tire of this trollercoaster and eventually stop responding, and then you can say "See, he went running away from my post. What a loser. I rule!" And, it's a good strategy. I really am ready to just say 'fuck it', these people are incapable of a productive debate.

It's beyond adorable that your blindingly uncritical lack of self-awareness extends so far.

You are the chess-playing pigeon, my special friend. The world would be a better place if you abandoned all fatuous pretense of actual discussion, such a thing being self-evidently entirely beyond your limited means.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
21-05-2014, 10:34 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 10:14 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 09:35 PM)Chas Wrote:  Here's another subject that you don't understand...Because, yes, the court can pierce the corporate veil - and they are the only party that can.

If you weren't in so far over your head you'd have the freedom to copy/paste what I actually said and criticize my ACTUAL words, not attack your silly strawmen. I actually wrote: "the courts cannot just arbitrarily drop the corporate veil. There are strict rules." See, you pretend that I said courts cannot pierce the corporate veil, when, in fact, that's just that strawman you're fucking. I actually said the exact opposite. But you can't attack what I actually said because it is 100% factual, and here's a source.

What you said was:
Quote:WTF? But the courts cannot just arbitrarily drop the corporate veil. There are strict rules. If the owners follow the rules (ie the regulations) then the court CANNOT pierce the corporate veil. So, YES, it _IS_ your beloved regulations that grant today's 'robber barons' immunity from prosecution.

It's ridiculous to say that once the corporate veil is dropped the regulations don't apply, knowing fully that it's those regulations that determine when the corporate veil can be dropped.

I didn't say arbitrarily, I said in the case of malfeasance. So, there's that.

What 'regulations' are you talking about? If the court determines that there is sufficient cause, that means the court determined that rules were broken by the corporation.

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
21-05-2014, 10:39 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
To pay for drones, which can kill you, when you threaten others.

[Image: RPYH95t.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: