Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 10:43 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:28 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:06 AM)frankksj Wrote:  The IRS makes bartering with your dying neighbor and not reporting it and paying them for it a felony crime, punishable by several years in jail. AND the IRS offers a financial reward to tipsters who turn in their neighbor.

Same system the Soviets used. You catch your neighbor reading a western book, turn him over to the police, he's hauled off to the gulags, and you get a reward.

Really? I've never heard of this, but okay. I'll go with it, can you give me an example of this? A news article or anything of the sort?

It's not controversial. Here's a link on the IRS's site.. A barter between 2 private individuals, like in the scenario in my OP, must be reported to the government. If you willfully refuse to report the barter, and pay the IRS a fee for the privilege of mowing your neighbor's lawn, it is felony tax evasion.

Regardless, are you saying that barters, like my scenario #2 should be legal, and not require the parties to pay a tax on the privilege for helping each other out? If so, what if I scale it up? I mow one neighbor's lawn in exchange for tutoring my son. Another neighbor's lawn in exchange for some home cooked meals. Another one's lawn in exchange for some furniture he made. And so on. What if I get all the things I need through such peaceful voluntary barters, and continue to refuse to report it and pay for it? Is that now a crime? If so, at what point did it become a crime? Why would it be ok to do it for 1 neighbor, but not 2?

If you find it uncomfortable to answer such basic questions that challenge your assumptions, is it not possible there's a flaw in your assumptions?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 10:51 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 08:17 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Location and service. Is A and B doing this act in areaa or though infrastructure C established/maintained? Then there's reason for compensation to continue the pathway.

This is also a silly tactic because it's those on my side of the debate that are arguing that the use of infrastructure and the compensation for that use should be tightly coupled. We're the ones arguing that taxation should be local and direct, like property taxes, so that everybody who is using a certain bridge, for example, pays taxes for its use and nobody freeloads.

It's actually the liberals who are trying to de-couple use of infrastructure from the payment of it. For example, if your parents were US citizens, and thus you are too, but you were born in Brazil and spent your whole life in Brazil and never set foot on US soil or used any US infrastructure, you STILL have to pay for that infrastructure for life since US taxes are based on citizenship and where you were born and have no correlation with where you live and what infrastructure you use.

Thus it's a disingenuous red herring to bring up that a & b have to (rightly so) pay c for c's infrastructure, while at the same time arguing that a & b should also have to pay c even if they don't use c's infrastructure. The bottom line is the REAL justification for this system is that c has a gun and wants a & b to pay him. But the defenders of the system don't want to come right out and admit it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 10:56 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  It's not controversial. Here's a link on the IRS's site.. A barter between 2 private individuals, like in the scenario in my OP, must be reported to the government. If you willfully refuse to report the barter, and pay the IRS a fee for the privilege of mowing your neighbor's lawn, it is felony tax evasion.

No, that IRS rule does not say what you claim.

IRS Wrote:Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber exchanging plumbing services for the dental services of a dentist. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering.

Generally, you report this income on Form 1040, Schedule C (PDF), Profit or Loss from Business or Form 1040, Schedule C-EZ (PDF), Net Profit from Business. If you failed to report this income, correct your return by filing a Form 1040X (PDF). Refer to Topic 308 for information on filing an amended return.

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.

It is not about private exchanges.

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
19-05-2014, 10:58 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:28 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Really? I've never heard of this, but okay. I'll go with it, can you give me an example of this? A news article or anything of the sort?

It's not controversial. Here's a link on the IRS's site.. A barter between 2 private individuals, like in the scenario in my OP, must be reported to the government. If you willfully refuse to report the barter, and pay the IRS a fee for the privilege of mowing your neighbor's lawn, it is felony tax evasion.

Once again, the link you provided is for a business model. Not being a good citizen and helping the old lady across the street.

(19-05-2014 10:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  Regardless, are you saying that barters, like my scenario #2 should be legal, and not require the parties to pay a tax on the privilege for helping each other out? If so, what if I scale it up? I mow one neighbor's lawn in exchange for tutoring my son. Another neighbor's lawn in exchange for some home cooked meals. Another one's lawn in exchange for some furniture he made. And so on. What if I get all the things I need through such peaceful voluntary barters, and continue to refuse to report it and pay for it? Is that now a crime? If so, at what point did it become a crime? Why would it be ok to do it for 1 neighbor, but not 2?

I'm no expert on the subject (admittedly), but in my opinion, your first example is being a good citizen, but later it looks more like a way to make living. I would see that as a good reason.

(19-05-2014 10:43 AM)frankksj Wrote:  If you find it uncomfortable to answer such basic questions that challenge your assumptions, is it not possible there's a flaw in your assumptions?

Please refrain from generalizing me when you have no idea who I am, what I stand for nor my personal beliefs. I do not recall ever conversing with you, though I've read your posts, and I do not talk politics or government issues (for the most part) because it is not my strong suit. I'd much rather listen and learn from example. It is in this case I felt I needed to post because I find your examples extremely biased and disproportionate to real life.
You have failed to give me an example of how me falling to report myself helping my dying neighbor would land me in jail or anything close. To mimic your style of response:
If you can't answer such a basic request, is it not possible there's a flaw in your assumptions?

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Im_Ryan's post
19-05-2014, 11:04 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, that IRS rule does not say what you claim... It is not about private exchanges.

Sorry, Chas. Please re-read the IRS's own rules. It is clear and unambiguous:

Quote:"Bartering occurs when you exchange goods or services without exchanging money. An example of bartering is a plumber exchanging plumbing services for the dental services of a dentist. You must include in gross income in the year of receipt the fair market value of goods or services received from bartering.

They even gave a crystal clear example of exchanging plumbing and dental services. That's unquestionably a private exchange, just like exchanging lawn mowing and tutoring in my example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:12 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Once again, the link you provided is for a business model. Not being a good citizen and helping the old lady across the street.

Read my reply to Chas. The IRS rules are VERY clear that they apply to the scenario I gave.

(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  I'm no expert on the subject (admittedly), but in my opinion, your first example is being a good citizen, but later it looks more like a way to make living. I would see that as a good reason.

Exactly. And my question is where do you draw the line? And why draw the line? Every voluntary exchange between 2 individuals is being a good citizen. If I mow my neighbor's lawn and he tutors my son, it's only because we both see it as a win-win, we're both doing something positive for the other. If my neighbor barters with a dentist to get his teeth cleaned, whatever they use as a medium of exchange, whether it's my neighbor's tutoring schools or a $100 bill, either way, they're both doing it because they both feel it's a win-win that leaves them both in a better position. So why does this become a crime?

To me, it's a crime only when force is used. When a forces b to give up something by force because whatever a is offering in exchange (if anything) in b's opinion is not worth it and will leave him worse of. THEN, I have a problem with it.

So my question to liberals is why demonize the peaceful, voluntary exchanges which leave both parties better off, but defend exchanges by force where one side wins and the other loses?

(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  You have failed to give me an example of how me falling to report myself helping my dying neighbor would land me in jail or anything close. To mimic your style of response:
If you can't answer such a basic request, is it not possible there's a flaw in your assumptions?

Yes, I did answer it, as clear as day. See again my response to Chas. The IRS gives a very specific example of a plumber and a dentist that is no different from the example I gave you. There's no difference between you being a gardener offering to mow your dying neighbor's lawn vs. you being a plumber offering to fix your dying neighbor's leaky toilet. Either way, the IRS rules are clear and unambiguous. Report it, pay the IRS what it deems is appropriate for the privilege, or go to jail.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:23 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 11:12 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Once again, the link you provided is for a business model. Not being a good citizen and helping the old lady across the street.

Read my reply to Chas. The IRS rules are VERY clear that they apply to the scenario I gave.

(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  I'm no expert on the subject (admittedly), but in my opinion, your first example is being a good citizen, but later it looks more like a way to make living. I would see that as a good reason.

Exactly. And my question is where do you draw the line? And why draw the line? Every voluntary exchange between 2 individuals is being a good citizen. If I mow my neighbor's lawn and he tutors my son, it's only because we both see it as a win-win, we're both doing something positive for the other. If my neighbor barters with a dentist to get his teeth cleaned, whatever they use as a medium of exchange, whether it's my neighbor's tutoring schools or a $100 bill, either way, they're both doing it because they both feel it's a win-win that leaves them both in a better position. So why does this become a crime?

To me, it's a crime only when force is used. When a forces b to give up something by force because whatever a is offering in exchange (if anything) in b's opinion is not worth it and will leave him worse of. THEN, I have a problem with it.

So my question to liberals is why demonize the peaceful, voluntary exchanges which leave both parties better off, but defend exchanges by force where one side wins and the other loses?

(19-05-2014 10:58 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  You have failed to give me an example of how me falling to report myself helping my dying neighbor would land me in jail or anything close. To mimic your style of response:
If you can't answer such a basic request, is it not possible there's a flaw in your assumptions?

Yes, I did answer it, as clear as day. See again my response to Chas. The IRS gives a very specific example of a plumber and a dentist that is no different from the example I gave you. There's no difference between you being a gardener offering to mow your dying neighbor's lawn vs. you being a plumber offering to fix your dying neighbor's leaky toilet. Either way, the IRS rules are clear and unambiguous. Report it, pay the IRS what it deems is appropriate for the privilege, or go to jail.

You're right, the rules are very clear. You quoted the first paragraph of the article, let me show you the third:

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.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Im_Ryan's post
19-05-2014, 11:27 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 09:09 AM)bbeljefe Wrote:  The argument for anarchism is not one rooted in a desire to be a free rider. It is rooted in a desire to have the option to use (and thus pay) for services voluntarily rather than being forced to pay for services one may not use at the point of a gun.

That's actually a very interesting distinction.

Tell me, how would one go about constructing a system to administer that, which would be in line with anarchist ideals about the extent of government intervention, at the same time as being more cost-effective than simply having taxation?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Elcarch's post
19-05-2014, 11:34 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 11:23 AM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  You're right, the rules are very clear. You quoted the first paragraph of the article, let me show you the third:

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.

Come on. You must be trying REALLY hard NOT to understand it. It says the "TERM" (barter exchange) does not apply to noncommercial barters. It doesn't say noncommercial barters aren't taxable--the first paragraph makes it very clear that they are. It doesn't say "forget everything we just wrote in the first paragraph, we didn't mean it". No, all it says is that if do the barter on a larger scale, then IN ADDITION to paying taxes it, the barter exchange must ALSO file additional forms.

The rules are very, very clear.

Here's a case in point. Right now I'm staying in latin america. There's a homeless man I regularly pass while walking my dog, and he LOVES my dog, and my dog goes crazy over him. So, I offered a barter. I buy him lunch each day, and he takes my dog on a long walk each morning. All of us are better off. My dog is happy. I get to spend more time arguing politics in this forum. The homeless man gets a good meal every day. However, in the US, this _IS_ a crime. It's ok to give the homeless man just some food, although if you're the recipient of a large amount of charity you must report it. However, if we bartered like this and didn't report it, we are both committing a felony. The only way to be clear of the law is to either (a) both of us pay for the privilege of helping each other out, or (b) don't do anything for each other. There is no question that is the system and the way the laws work. They are crystal clear. I am asking for the moral justification for the system.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:48 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 11:27 AM)Elcarch Wrote:  That's actually a very interesting distinction.

Tell me, how would one go about constructing a system to administer that, which would be in line with anarchist ideals about the extent of government intervention, at the same time as being more cost-effective than simply having taxation?

First, taxation is the most NON-cost-effective solution. Whenever someone is forced to pay for products and services whether they are a good value or not, inevitably they are a bad value. I just had this debate with EvolutionKills in another thread when he said "What about firefighters?" And I pointed to this showing that some cities HAVE privatized fire-fighting and they get better services for a LOWER price.

This is only logical, because humans are risk:reward calculators. The greater the reward, the more risk we take. When there is no reward, we take no risk. All the steps that the private fire-fighting companies took that so dramatically improved efficiency involved risk. It involved trying new techniques that hadn't been done before, and thus introduced a risk of failure. They took the risk because there was a reward, a profit motive, that came from innovating and doing a better job of fighting fires for a lower cost. With a government-run fire fighting department, there is no reward for taking risks to increase efficiency. If you're the civil servant who put your neck out and it succeeded, best case you'll get a pat on the back and maybe a plaque. But if you try to skim some of that extra profit that you made by reducing overhead, you go to jail for corruption. That is why the US 99.99% of the fire fighting departments that are government-owned did not pioneer the innovation. And only the very tiny handful that are privately owned, like Scottsdale, were the ones innovating and trying new things. So what if _ALL_ the fire departments were private, and all of them were competing to offer the best product at the best price, and all of them were innovating and trying new things? I'm convinced we'd all have less fires and pay much less.

In my book, nothing good comes out of forcing a to buy something from b against his will, because the only reason force is necessary is if b is offering a bad, overpriced service. You're much better to keep everything voluntary so that if b wants a to pay for something, he has to provide a good value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: