Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 01:59 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 01:46 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your scenario might fit if you changed it to.

A neighbor with a landscaping business helped his sickly neighbor and started maintaining his lawn through that. Then the neighbor who was a teacher or had a tudor service started tutoring the other guys son freely. That's a business involved barter exchange that's different from your loose scenario.

Even in this case it would have to be through their respective businesses before the IRS would care. If it is on their own time rather that in an official capacity there is no need to declare.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  @Im_Ryan,

What is it going to take to get past this really obvious diversion and get back to the questions in my OP?

If I post a message in one of the many tax advice forums and ask if a barter between 2 individuals is taxable and they confirm that it is (which is obvious and undisputed) can we let go of this distraction and get back to the questions in my OP which challenge liberals to explain the moral justification for income tax?

Apparently it's disputable since you're the only one here that thinks that. Honestly, I don't see where your claim is coming from. This is also not a distraction, you used this as proof of your OP. If you cannot prove your OP then what's the use of discussing it?

(19-05-2014 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Chas, Cjlr, et al attack me for being smug on this subject, but when I present a genuine, legitimate, thought-provoking question challenging my ideological opponents' beliefs, and they run and cling to any distraction to avoid the question at hand, how can I not be smug?

The only thing I've seen is you confuse the terms "commercial" and "non-commercial". This is not challenging nor thought provoking and makes you look like a fool.

(19-05-2014 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Even _IF_ you and most liberals feel the tax laws which criminalize the barter in my scenario #2 are wrong, that's a moot point. Probably all liberals would agree that scenarios #3 and on should be criminalized. The point of my questions is to get liberals to stop and think about what's the difference between scenario #2 and #3, since they're effectively the same. Why is one criminal and the other not? ANY voluntary exchange between individuals is a GOOD thing because both people think they are better off for it. So why, at some point, if you do many good things (ie lots of voluntary exchanges) it becomes criminal if you don't let a 3rd party take a cut? Why should we have a system that punishes and discourages good behavior?

No point in discussing if your examples cannot happen (hence the discussion of the content of the IRS page you provided).

(19-05-2014 01:01 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If liberals are unwilling to even consider such basic questions about the nature of income tax, then how will we ever get to the REALLY important topics, like all the harm it does? I've already provided links proving that for those near the poverty line they take home LESS money the more they work because of the income tax and welfare system which traps them in poverty, and that for everybody earning between $10,000 and $40,000/year, the effective tax rate on the next dollar earned is actually 82% (combining income tax and phasing out of tax credits), so that even someone earning a respectable $20/hour gross, will only take home $3.20/hour for each additional hour he works. People may not think about this. But it teaches society that hard work does NOT pay, and that if you're living at the poverty level, the answer is not hard work but rather government redistribution. But if we can't even have a rational debate about the fundamental fairness of an income tax, how can we debate whether it does more harm than good?

Your generalizations of liberals comes off as extremely arrogant by the way. Give me a real life example similar to your claims, and then I will consider it. That shouldn't be difficult if the system is so messed up as you claim.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Im_Ryan's post
19-05-2014, 02:53 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 01:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your whole premise is wrong, including scenario #3.

The IRS doesn't give a fuck about any of those. It only cares about commercial bartering.

So there is no harm being done.

First, #3 clearly is a felony. People can and do go to jail all the time for not reporting transactions like that. Your just looking for a way out of addressing the issue to say the IRS only cares about "commercial bartering". First, that's not what the laws. I agree the IRS doesn't enforce the law and gives you a pass if you help your dying neighbor mow his lawn while he tutors your son. But, if you really cared about the government and the rule of law, then don't you have a problem with a law that officially criminalizes good behavior and law enforcement just ignores it? What you're saying is that we should our own discretion to decide which laws we need to observe and which we don't, and that in cases like my scenario #2, we just break the law anyway because it's a stupid law and nobody's going to enforce it. Since, with that system, everybody has carte blance to break any law they want, and government no longer enforces a clear rule of law, but rather just what law enforcement considers "bad", can't you see that THIS is undermining government and laws? If laws were clear and only criminalized bad behavior and thus could be enforced objectively across the board, don't you think would it be easier to have a population of law-abiding systems following the rule, instead of a system of 'user your own judgement'?

Regardless, even this is still a tangent. You still haven't addressed the questions in my OP. At what point does a barter, which you agree is legal and a private matter, turn into a commercial enterprise that requires regulation and arrest of anybody who doesn't report his activity? If I do one barter a day, is that ok? What about 2? What about 10? At what point does the nature of the transaction change, and why?

Also, think about what you're saying about a barter exchange.... You just admitted that in my scenario #2, where 2 people occasionally barter is a good thing. It's a good deed. So if we get together and for a group whose sole mission is to facilitate and perpetuate these good deeds, why does the nature change? Why is doing 1 or 2 good deeds in a haphazard casual manner fine and well. But if people get together and systematically start doing lots of good deeds, suddenly the nature changes and they should be thrown in jail if they're not paying for the privilege of doing good deeds? Why is 1 random good deed good, but lots of well organized good deeds is bad? What is the logic and reason for this?

You keep saying we libertarians are so smug. But this is why. Try to come up with questions, like the one in my OP, that I will run from like this, unable to explain using logic and reason? The difference is that when I was hit with questions, like those in the OP, which could not be answered logically, I realized something was wrong with my ideology, that it wasn't based on reason and logic. And kept searching until I found one that was. Now, even if my ideology is based on reason and logic and yours isn't, that doesn't mean yours is necessarily worse. Lots of things, like art and love, aren't based on logic and reason. But then just come out and admit that there is no logic or reason behind the system you're advocating, but that it just feels right and fair to you. That's fine, and a valid response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 02:56 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 01:59 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Even in this case it would have to be through their respective businesses before the IRS would care. If it is on their own time rather that in an official capacity there is no need to declare.

So you're encouraging people to break the law because the law is so silly that enforces of the law wouldn't care to enforce it? And when does this exchange become a 'business'? If I mow one neighbor's lawn in a barter you indicate that it's not a business. How many lawns do I have to mow before it turns into a business, and why, and why does the nature of the transaction change so that it goes from being a good deed to something that people have to pay someone else for the privilege of doing, or go to jail?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Apparently it's disputable since you're the only one here that thinks that. Honestly, I don't see where your claim is coming from. This is also not a distraction, you used this as proof of your OP. If you cannot prove your OP then what's the use of discussing it?

Prove my OP? My OP is asking questions about a hypothetical situation. I'm just asking liberals to answer some basic questions that challenge their ideology. Note that nobody is willing to do that.

(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  The only thing I've seen is you confuse the terms "commercial" and "non-commercial". This is not challenging nor thought provoking and makes you look like a fool.

I'm not confusing them. Read that IRS link again. Non-commercial barters must STILL be reported on form 1040. All it says if it's part of a commercial barter you must ALSO file form 1099-B. Even if it's non-commercial, you STILL go to jail for failing a false 1040.

(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  No point in discussing if your examples cannot happen (hence the discussion of the content of the IRS page you provided).

Of course, the whole point of a hypothetical is to test examples which may or may not happen in real life. Even if you live in a country where barters are not taxable, why does that mean you can't answer the questions? The questions challenge liberals assumptions about the nature of their beloved income tax. So, any open-minded liberal willing to challenge his assumptions should be happy to answer hypothetical.

This is why I keep saying that libertarianism is based on the scientific method vs. today's liberalism which is a religion. Remember Einstein's hypothetical about an observer and a clock travelling at the speed of light? Did his fellow physicists attack him for this saying a clock cannot travel at the speed of light? Of course not. Even an outrageous hypothetical is useful. If you keep trying to find a reason not to answer a hypothetical, imo, that just means you don't have an open mind.

(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Your generalizations of liberals comes off as extremely arrogant by the way. Give me a real life example similar to your claims, and then I will consider it. That shouldn't be difficult if the system is so messed up as you claim.

Ok, here's a real life example. Back when I was 18 and fresh out of high school (sadly a long time ago) I _DID_ join a barter network. A group of 30 or so of us met for breakfast once a week. I offered computer training. There was a dentist who cleaned my teeth. A carpet cleaner, and so on. No cash changed hands, and nothing was reported. Today, however, those unreported barter clubs are illegal in the US. So, again, I will ask, why, if I exchange my computer services for dental services with a neighbor I casually met over the fence is that ok and a good deed, but if I do it often with a dentist I met over breakfast, suddenly it becomes criminal? Why is occasional, random good deeds ok, but systematic and frequent good deeds is not? Real life example. Will you answer the questions now?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 04:39 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Im_Ryan, Revenant77x, Chas,

Thanks for helping me tighten my questions to make it harder to find excuses to avoid answering them. I just updated my OP and removed any reference to tax law to try to eliminate any possible excuse for not answering the questions. If you can find more excuses for not answer the questions, I'll keep updating the OP until we agree there's no logical reason for not answering the questions. Deal? Smile

And, BTW, if you have any questions to challenge my belief system, please present them. I promise not to evade them, but to answer them as directly as I possibly can.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 04:40 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 02:53 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 01:23 PM)Chas Wrote:  Your whole premise is wrong, including scenario #3.

The IRS doesn't give a fuck about any of those. It only cares about commercial bartering.

So there is no harm being done.

First, #3 clearly is a felony. People can and do go to jail all the time for not reporting transactions like that. Your just looking for a way out of addressing the issue to say the IRS only cares about "commercial bartering". First, that's not what the laws. I agree the IRS doesn't enforce the law and gives you a pass if you help your dying neighbor mow his lawn while he tutors your son. But, if you really cared about the government and the rule of law, then don't you have a problem with a law that officially criminalizes good behavior and law enforcement just ignores it? What you're saying is that we should our own discretion to decide which laws we need to observe and which we don't, and that in cases like my scenario #2, we just break the law anyway because it's a stupid law and nobody's going to enforce it. Since, with that system, everybody has carte blance to break any law they want, and government no longer enforces a clear rule of law, but rather just what law enforcement considers "bad", can't you see that THIS is undermining government and laws? If laws were clear and only criminalized bad behavior and thus could be enforced objectively across the board, don't you think would it be easier to have a population of law-abiding systems following the rule, instead of a system of 'user your own judgement'?

You are wrong. Your reading comprehension is poor. The IRS site spells this out clearly.

I'm beginning to agree with others that you are actually not sane. No sane person can hold out against clear evidence the way you do. You are delusional.

Quote:Regardless, even this is still a tangent. You still haven't addressed the questions in my OP. At what point does a barter, which you agree is legal and a private matter, turn into a commercial enterprise that requires regulation and arrest of anybody who doesn't report his activity? If I do one barter a day, is that ok? What about 2? What about 10? At what point does the nature of the transaction change, and why?

Of course I have addressed your OP: it is crock of shit because you do not understand the law.

Quote:Also, think about what you're saying about a barter exchange.... You just admitted that in my scenario #2, where 2 people occasionally barter is a good thing. It's a good deed.

Please show where I did that. You can't, because I didn't.

Quote:So if we get together and for a group whose sole mission is to facilitate and perpetuate these good deeds, why does the nature change? Why is doing 1 or 2 good deeds in a haphazard casual manner fine and well. But if people get together and systematically start doing lots of good deeds, suddenly the nature changes and they should be thrown in jail if they're not paying for the privilege of doing good deeds? Why is 1 random good deed good, but lots of well organized good deeds is bad? What is the logic and reason for this?
[quote]

You have a non-argument. Do you not understand the difference between commercial and non-commercial?

[quote]
You keep saying we libertarians are so smug.
[quote]

Again, you are making shit up. Where did I ever say that?

[quote]

But this is why. Try to come up with questions, like the one in my OP, that I will run from like this, unable to explain using logic and reason? The difference is that when I was hit with questions, like those in the OP, which could not be answered logically, I realized something was wrong with my ideology, that it wasn't based on reason and logic. And kept searching until I found one that was.
[quote]

You keep coming up with questions based on misinformation, misunderstanding, and outright propaganda. Your argument in this thread is ridiculous.

[quote]
Now, even if my ideology is based on reason and logic and yours isn't, that doesn't mean yours is necessarily worse. Lots of things, like art and love, aren't based on logic and reason. But then just come out and admit that there is no logic or reason behind the system you're advocating, but that it just feels right and fair to you. That's fine, and a valid response.

What system am I advocating? Again, you are just making shit up.

You are suffering from a mental disorder.

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
19-05-2014, 04:49 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Apparently it's disputable since you're the only one here that thinks that. Honestly, I don't see where your claim is coming from. This is also not a distraction, you used this as proof of your OP. If you cannot prove your OP then what's the use of discussing it?

Prove my OP? My OP is asking questions about a hypothetical situation. I'm just asking liberals to answer some basic questions that challenge their ideology. Note that nobody is willing to do that.

Your questions a re nonsense because the law does not say what you claim it says.

Quote:
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  The only thing I've seen is you confuse the terms "commercial" and "non-commercial". This is not challenging nor thought provoking and makes you look like a fool.

I'm not confusing them. Read that IRS link again. Non-commercial barters must STILL be reported on form 1040. All it says if it's part of a commercial barter you must ALSO file form 1099-B. Even if it's non-commercial, you STILL go to jail for failing a false 1040.

No, it must be reported on Schedule C, which is used only by a business. There is no requirement to report it if is is not commercial.

Quote:
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  No point in discussing if your examples cannot happen (hence the discussion of the content of the IRS page you provided).

Of course, the whole point of a hypothetical is to test examples which may or may not happen in real life. Even if you live in a country where barters are not taxable, why does that mean you can't answer the questions? The questions challenge liberals assumptions about the nature of their beloved income tax. So, any open-minded liberal willing to challenge his assumptions should be happy to answer hypothetical.

This is why I keep saying that libertarianism is based on the scientific method vs. today's liberalism which is a religion. Remember Einstein's hypothetical about an observer and a clock travelling at the speed of light? Did his fellow physicists attack him for this saying a clock cannot travel at the speed of light? Of course not. Even an outrageous hypothetical is useful. If you keep trying to find a reason not to answer a hypothetical, imo, that just means you don't have an open mind.

It is not scientific to make up hypothetical examples which can't possibly happen because they're based on impossibilities. So, there's that.

Quote:
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Your generalizations of liberals comes off as extremely arrogant by the way. Give me a real life example similar to your claims, and then I will consider it. That shouldn't be difficult if the system is so messed up as you claim.

Ok, here's a real life example. Back when I was 18 and fresh out of high school (sadly a long time ago) I _DID_ join a barter network. A group of 30 or so of us met for breakfast once a week. I offered computer training. There was a dentist who cleaned my teeth. A carpet cleaner, and so on. No cash changed hands, and nothing was reported. Today, however, those unreported barter clubs are illegal in the US. So, again, I will ask, why, if I exchange my computer services for dental services with a neighbor I casually met over the fence is that ok and a good deed, but if I do it often with a dentist I met over breakfast, suddenly it becomes criminal? Why is occasional, random good deeds ok, but systematic and frequent good deeds is not? Real life example. Will you answer the questions now?

You were trading professional services.

Here's one for you. If everyone in a small neighborhood got together to trade yard chores, babysitting, rides to the doctor, guess what?
That's legal, no reporting necessary. No businesses are involved, it is entirely non-commercial.

No men with guns will show up to coerce them into emptying their pockets for those agents of the big, bad government.

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, 04:49 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Apparently it's disputable since you're the only one here that thinks that. Honestly, I don't see where your claim is coming from. This is also not a distraction, you used this as proof of your OP. If you cannot prove your OP then what's the use of discussing it?

Prove my OP? My OP is asking questions about a hypothetical situation. I'm just asking liberals to answer some basic questions that challenge their ideology. Note that nobody is willing to do that.

Hypothetical questions should be in the realm of possibility, your hypotheticals are not. Hence why you are constantly being mocked and made a fool.

(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  The only thing I've seen is you confuse the terms "commercial" and "non-commercial". This is not challenging nor thought provoking and makes you look like a fool.

I'm not confusing them. Read that IRS link again. Non-commercial barters must STILL be reported on form 1040. All it says if it's part of a commercial barter you must ALSO file form 1099-B. Even if it's non-commercial, you STILL go to jail for failing a false 1040.

I already went through that with you, would you rather me color code it? Would that help more? Is English your second language? Once again, honest question.
I've read through the link for the 5th time now. If you are referring to this passage:
Quote:If you receive income from bartering, you may be required to make estimated tax payments. Refer to Form 1040-ES (PDF), Estimated Tax for Individuals, for more information.

Then that is also misquoted as that is for internet bartering AND the definition of barter exchange still applies:
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.
*Please note I color coded it for you.

(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  No point in discussing if your examples cannot happen (hence the discussion of the content of the IRS page you provided).

Of course, the whole point of a hypothetical is to test examples which may or may not happen in real life. Even if you live in a country where barters are not taxable, why does that mean you can't answer the questions? The questions challenge liberals assumptions about the nature of their beloved income tax. So, any open-minded liberal willing to challenge his assumptions should be happy to answer hypothetical.

Disingenuous questions don't do anything but further a flawed way of thinking.

(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  This is why I keep saying that libertarianism is based on the scientific method vs. today's liberalism which is a religion. Remember Einstein's hypothetical about an observer and a clock travelling at the speed of light? Did his fellow physicists attack him for this saying a clock cannot travel at the speed of light? Of course not. Even an outrageous hypothetical is useful. If you keep trying to find a reason not to answer a hypothetical, imo, that just means you don't have an open mind.

Outrageous is still in the realm of possibility.

(19-05-2014 03:11 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 02:38 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Your generalizations of liberals comes off as extremely arrogant by the way. Give me a real life example similar to your claims, and then I will consider it. That shouldn't be difficult if the system is so messed up as you claim.

Ok, here's a real life example. Back when I was 18 and fresh out of high school (sadly a long time ago) I _DID_ join a barter network. A group of 30 or so of us met for breakfast once a week. I offered computer training. There was a dentist who cleaned my teeth. A carpet cleaner, and so on. No cash changed hands, and nothing was reported. Today, however, those unreported barter clubs are illegal in the US. So, again, I will ask, why, if I exchange my computer services for dental services with a neighbor I casually met over the fence is that ok and a good deed, but if I do it often with a dentist I met over breakfast, suddenly it becomes criminal? Why is occasional, random good deeds ok, but systematic and frequent good deeds is not? Real life example. Will you answer the questions now?

Because you do not rely on random acts of kindness for survival.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 04:56 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 04:39 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Im_Ryan, Revenant77x, Chas,

Thanks for helping me tighten my questions to make it harder to find excuses to avoid answering them. I just updated my OP and removed any reference to tax law to try to eliminate any possible excuse for not answering the questions. If you can find more excuses for not answer the questions, I'll keep updating the OP until we agree there's no logical reason for not answering the questions. Deal? Smile

And, BTW, if you have any questions to challenge my belief system, please present them. I promise not to evade them, but to answer them as directly as I possibly can.

Altering it that way is dishonest. You make a mockery of the discussion.

But it is still bullshit. Why would anyone think there was a need to report something to some unspecified "3rd party"?

Your post is now disingenuous because you sill mean the IRS, you still mean the law regarding barter, because the questions make absolutely no sense otherwise.

They're still bullshit, and you are still a lying cunt.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: