Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 05:07 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scenario #1: My neighbor had a heart attack and can't maintain his beloved yard anymore, so I offer to mow his lawn until he gets better.

Q: Does a 3rd party have a right to demand that I report this activity to them? If so, why is it not a private matter between my neighbor and myself?

Q: Should my neighbor or I have to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of helping a neighbor in need?

No and no.

(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scenario #2: After a few weeks my neighbor feels bad that I'm always helping him and he does nothing in return, so he offers to tutor my son while I'm doing his yard.

Q: Now that 2 neighbors are in need and doing good deeds for each other as a barter does that change whether or not we have to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of helping each other?

Q: What if the 3rd party who is demanding we pay him for the privilege of doing favors for each other is more than 1 person? What if it's 10 people? Or 10 million people? At what point does the 3rd party have the right to demand my neighbor and I pay him for the privilege of doing good deeds for each other?

Q: What if this arrangement with my neighbor and I helping each other works out so well that we start inviting other neighbors to join and we start all doing good deeds for each other as a barter, like a barter club? At what point does the 3rd party have the right to demand we pay for the privilege of doing good things for each other? Is it ok if it's just 1 or 2 doing occasional and random good deeds, but it becomes a legal matter if more people organize to do lots of good deeds for each other in a more systematic way? Why would that change anything?

Q: Why is it good for society to discourage these kinds of actions of kindness? I may very well be inclined to help my neighbor out of the kindness of my heart, but if I have to pay a 3rd party every time I do it and risk going to jail if I don't properly document it, forget it, I'll just stay home and play Nintendo. If we're not willing to pay a 3rd party for the privilege of mowing my neighbor's lawn and tutoring my son, then our only options are (a) do nothing and watch my neighbor suffer, or (b) break the law and risk going to jail. Why is that better for society, and how did society benefit by putting up a barrier that resulted in my neighbor having an overgrown yard and my son flunking school?

1. No
2. No, it doesn't.
3. Yes, in my opinion, it's when you can start making a living/gaining property/goods/etc. You are becoming a business, but instead of cash you use trades. Why should you not be taxed while a cash business is?
4. It is not good, which is why it doesn't happen in the first place. You do not need to report yourself helping a sick neighbor, little old lady cross the street, etc...

(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scenario #3: After a few more weeks my neighbor's health deteriorates further and he no longer has the energy to tutor my son. So, instead of tutoring my son directly, he gives me something of value that I can give to another tutor.

Q: Why is this fundamentally different than scenario #2? Does it make a difference if that thing of value is, say, a piece of art vs. a $20 bill?

If that thing of value is knowledge, say, what areas your son is struggling in to better help the new teacher, then it is no different and you do not need to report it. If it is something of value, like a math book, then I believe you should since it is no longer a personal issue, but now public and you are getting another business involved.

(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scenario #4: Same as #3, my neighbor gives me something of value (a $20 bill) each time I mow his lawn, but instead of immediately giving it to a tutor, I stuff it away in a mattress until there's enough to send my son to boarding school.

Q: Why does this become such a more serious offense than #3?

That's a lot of mowing. But because it is now a personal service, and you are using to make a living.

(18-05-2014 04:46 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Scenario #5: Instead of storing it in a mattress for safekeeping, I store it in a Swiss bank vault for safekeeping.

Q: What is it about #5 that is so much worse than #4 that it is this treated as one of the most heinous crimes that can result in more extreme punishment and jail time even than rape?

Q: In which of those scenarios does a 3rd party have a right to be informed of the transaction and be able to stipulate what we will have to pay if we engage in this activity?
Q: If the justification is that this is for the greater good and benefits “society”, since society is merely a group of individuals, and my neighbor and I are also a group of individuals, why should one group of individuals have the right to force another group to sacrifice their liberty for the sake of the former?

1. I don't know about worse than rape, but I would say because its easier to hide money and cheat on your taxes. Also because you are robbing society. You put that money in a bank and it invests in other businesses, helping the economy. By excluding yourself from this practice you are hurting that method, and if enough people do this, will break the method.
2. Read previous answers.
3. You are part of this society. Don't like it? Then you and your neighbor can get the fuck out and move to Somalia. I'm sure you two can help each other plenty there.


There you go, answered your OP. Wanna get to your point?

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:02 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Altering it that way is dishonest. You make a mockery of the discussion. You are still a lying cunt.

You complained that you couldn't answer the question because it referenced a specific tax issue. So I fix it to make it easier for you to answer, removing any specific references so it's purely neutral and hypothetical, and then you say it's "dishonest" and I'm "a lying cunt" even though in my OP now I make absolutely no claims whatsoever. I merely ask liberals for their opinion on a hypothetical sutation, and that makes me a "lying cunt". Hmmmm...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:09 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 04:49 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
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.

Thank you for color-coding it. Now please go back and re-read it, because it's crystal clear. It says in the first paragraph that ALL barter (commercial or not) must be reported on form 1040. Then in the last paragraph is that a "barter exchange" must also file form 1099. And it says the term "barter exchange" does not apply to noncommercial barter, so you don't need to file 1099. But it is STILL taxable and is a crime not to report it on the form 1040. The first paragraph is crystal clear and unambiguous. The 3rd paragraph just specifies ADDITIONAL requirements (1099) for a commercial barter.

I've pointed this out many, many, many times. It's as clear as can be, but you just don't want to admit it. But how about this offer. If I post the question whether non-commercial barter is taxable in a tax-specific forum, and the specific example in my scenario, and give you the link, and licensed tax experts respond that it IS taxable, will you go on the record now and agree to apologize for refusing to accept this?

(19-05-2014 04:49 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  Because you do not rely on random acts of kindness for survival.

That's why I was asking the questions. Why does it matter if the act is random or methodical? Random is good, but methodical is bad? Why does it matter it's done for survival or for pleasure? Doing something for pleasure is good, but doing the same thing for survival is bad? I'm asking question to challenge your assumptions.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:54 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 08:01 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Thank you for answering the questions. Now it gets more productive.

(19-05-2014 05:07 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  3. Yes, in my opinion, it's when you can start making a living/gaining property/goods/etc. You are becoming a business, but instead of cash you use trades.

Ok, so you stated that if it's 2 neighbors bartering services (lawn mowing for tutoring) no 3rd party has a right to require us to pay them for the privilege. So how many barters does it take before you define it as 'making a living', and why does that matter? Since you agree that it's a good thing when 2 neighbors help each other with this kind of a barter, why is it only a good thing that we can do without paying a 3rd party if we do it occasionally and at random, but becomes something else once do it regularly and methodically so that we'll go to jail if we don't pay a 3rd party for the privilege of voluntarily exchanging our services? If 1 good act is good, 2 good acts is twice as good, how does 3 good acts suddenly become bad and we've committed a crime if we do these 3 good acts without paying a 3rd party to authorize our acts?

(19-05-2014 05:07 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  because you are robbing society

But if I'm robbing society when I do regularly and systematically do these voluntary exchanges, then am I not also robbing society to a lesser degree when I do them occasionally, like in scenario #2? Do you really feel that if I mow my neighbors lawn and he tutors my son we are robbing society a little bit? What is society? Is it not just a group of people, and my neighbor and I are a part of that group? So, if the net result is that, instead of sitting and watching tv, we both do something productive that leaves society a better place, with a mowed lawn and an educated son, how is that robbing society, instead of making society better, since we are society? And, you're saying that if we stop this exchange and just sit at home, watch tv, do nothing but contribute to global warming by converting oxygen into carbon dioxide, collect welfare, and my neighbor's lawn becomes overgrown and my son flunks school, then we are no longer robbing society, even though we're unquestionably leaving society worse off? Why is doing something that makes society better considered "robbing society" but doing something that makes society worse is not?

(19-05-2014 05:07 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  You are part of this society. Don't like it? Then you and your neighbor can get the fuck out and move to Somalia. I'm sure you two can help each other plenty there.

Can you clarify the logic and reason why if my neighbor and I are sitting around doing nothing, living off welfare, and making society worse, then we are welcome to stay. But if we're actually doing something productive, helping each other, and leaving a society a better place, then we need to get the fuck out. Why? What, SPECIFIC, harm does society suffer by me mowing his lawn and tutoring my son that it does not suffer when we sit at home and do nothing?

If you endorse a system where people that harm a given society are welcome to stay and those that leave society a better place are told to fuck off, is it really a mystery why there's so much crime, drug use, poverty and unemployment in that society?

(19-05-2014 05:07 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  There you go, answered your OP. Wanna get to your point?

The point is, in my opinion, income tax is dumb, dumb, dumb. It penalizes and discourages good works. For example, everybody agrees that investing in communities is good. But go to taxpolicy.org and download the historic income tax rate that applies to investors (ie long term capital gain) and compare that to the actual amount of investing that occurred. What happened? Without fail, over the past 40 years, every single time the government raised the income tax rates, tax revenues FELL by an equal amount because investors simply stopped working. And, without exception, every time the income tax rates were lowered, tax revenues went UP by an equal amount as investors started working again, doing what we all agree is good deeds. Put them on a chart. The income tax rate and tax revenue are mirror opposites; one goes up, the other goes down. So what is the logic behind all the calls to raise the income tax rate on them given that the historic record is clear it will result in the government having LESS tax revenue, and people will stop investing in businesses which support our standard of living?

I've also pointed out how for those living on the poverty level the effective tax rate on the next dollar they earn is actually > 100%, when you factor in both income tax and the phasing out of tax credits. So why is it good for society to have a system where, if you're poor, the more you work, the LESS you have to live off? And, with incomes from $10,000/year all the way to $40,000/year, the effective tax rate is 82%, so even if you make a respectable $20/hour now, any extra hours you work only net you $3.20. Why is it good to have a system that discourages hard work like that, and teaches people that the harder they work the less they will have?

So the point of these questions is to demonstrate that there is no logic and reason behind the system. It is counterproductive and very bad society. Places that tax consumption and property do better than places that tax income because whatever you tax you discourage and it's just plain stupid to discourage working hard and reward sitting at home and doing nothing. Liberals say we libertarians are insane for saying we should abolish income tax and just have local property taxes instead. But from my point of view, we just think this stuff through, we're willing to question the doctrines that we're all taught as children, be it that a talking snake is responsible for all the bad in the world, or that income tax is good for society. They say we're smug and arrogant. But what do you expect when we ask such basic questions challenging liberals core beliefs, and the response is to call us "fucking cunts", and we can't get them to answer the questions using logic and reason. And when we ask them to give us questions to challenge our beliefs, they can't seem to come up with anything we don't answer directly.

So would you be so kind as to continue the productive exchange and reply again with your answers? And, if you get to the point where you've dug yourself into a hole and cannot come up with answers anymore, will you concede that just maybe you haven't thought this through?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 07:55 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 07:02 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 04:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Altering it that way is dishonest. You make a mockery of the discussion. You are still a lying cunt.

You complained that you couldn't answer the question because it referenced a specific tax issue. So I fix it to make it easier for you to answer, removing any specific references so it's purely neutral and hypothetical, and then you say it's "dishonest" and I'm "a lying cunt" even though in my OP now I make absolutely no claims whatsoever. I merely ask liberals for their opinion on a hypothetical sutation, and that makes me a "lying cunt". Hmmmm...

No, you stupid twat. Altering the post is dishonest.

If you want to alter the question, make a new post.

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, 07:58 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Fox News ?

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
[+] 3 users Like sporehux's post
19-05-2014, 08:00 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 07:09 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 04:49 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  *Please note I color coded it for you.

Thank you for color-coding it. Now please go back and re-read it, because it's crystal clear. It says in the first paragraph that ALL barter (commercial or not) must be reported on form 1040. Then in the last paragraph is that a "barter exchange" must also file form 1099. And it says the term "barter exchange" does not apply to noncommercial barter, so you don't need to file 1099. But it is STILL taxable and is a crime not to report it on the form 1040. The first paragraph is crystal clear and unambiguous. The 3rd paragraph just specifies ADDITIONAL requirements (1099) for a commercial barter.


And every time you repeat it, you are just as wrong. It is not reportable income if it is not commercial.

You have now dug yourself a hole so deep that you are unlikely to ever get out.

Quote:I've pointed this out many, many, many times. It's as clear as can be, but you just don't want to admit it. But how about this offer. If I post the question whether non-commercial barter is taxable in a tax-specific forum, and the specific example in my scenario, and give you the link, and licensed tax experts respond that it IS taxable, will you go on the record now and agree to apologize for refusing to accept this?

Not unless that tax forum is the IRS.

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
19-05-2014, 08:35 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 08:00 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:It's as clear as can be, but you just don't want to admit it. But how about this offer. If I post the question whether non-commercial barter is taxable in a tax-specific forum, and the specific example in my scenario, and give you the link, and licensed tax experts respond that it IS taxable, will you go on the record now and agree to apologize for refusing to accept this?

Not unless that tax forum is the IRS.

Now which one of us has dug himself into a hole when I offer to get a written opinion from a licensed tax preparer and you say you won't accept it unless you see in the IRS's own forum, fully aware that (how convenient) the IRS doesn't have a forum. And not only is the IRS site crystal clear, just google "is barter taxable" and you'll find:

Forbes: Even quotes an IRS mailing to tax lawyers that explained that "Bartering is trading one product or service for another, whether informally and one-on-one or with multiple parties in a commercial setting... You name the swap, the IRS wants to tax it.... Wherever it arises, it is income to both sides, just like cash, according to the IRS. That means each side must report the fair market value of the item or services received on their tax returns."

How Stuff Works: "If you barter goods, you won't have to deal with a pesky sales tax, and if you labor for food, you don't pay income tax, right? Wrong.... The IRS taxes barter transactions in dollars and cents, even though no money changes hands. "

Investopedia: "What's a Barter? Simply put, bartering is an exchange of goods or services that have equal value; cash may or may not be added to the exchange to even out the trade. Both individuals and companies can barter, and you may decide to do the trade independently, or through one of several reputable barter and exchange companies.... Is Bartering Taxable? It sure is."

Bizfilings: "IRS cautions bartering transactions are taxable." And they even give a specific example of an accountant and a mechanic doing a non-commercial barter.

Keep doing the list of google results. EVERY SINGLE ONE affirms that I've said, that bartering, whether done commercially, or as a private informal transaction between 2 individuals, MUST be reported and a tax must be paid.

You accuse of me being delusional for thinking I'm "winning" these debates, and claiming that I misrepresent facts. This thread is a perfect case in point. The facts could not be more clear. The IRS's language is crystal clear. Every source you can find on the internet says exactly the same, and all of us have no trouble understanding the IRS's very simple language. But, even something that is SOOO simple that the IRS sums it up in one short 2 sentence paragraph with no fancy words, you STILL pull a Cjlr and pretend you can't understand what the words mean, and fabricate your own fantasy meanings.

Now if you do this for something is SO crystal clear-cut and simple, imagine when we debate complex issues, like the demise of public transportation. If you can twist a simple 2 sentence paragraph beyond recognition, imagine what you can do with a hundred-page article!

Why are we libertarians so confident in our beliefs? Because we don't do this. Sure I've misspoken in my posts, but when you point out, I admit it and change my message. You, on the other hand, no matter how clear it is that you're wrong, just dig in more and more and as the pressure start building you just spew out profanities but NEVER admit that you're wrong. Not even on this simple issue of whether barters are taxable, which isn't a core issue to the liberal beliefs. It's an inconsequential piece of trivia that does nothing to support nor discredit either of our positions. If you cling so desperately to meaningless trivia and can't admit you're wrong, imagine what it would take to get you to admit you're wrong about something that actually mattered and was core to your beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 08:52 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 09:00 PM by cjlr.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 08:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But, even something that is SOOO simple that the IRS sums it up in one short 2 sentence paragraph with no fancy words, you STILL pull a Cjlr and pretend you can't understand what the words mean, and fabricate your own fantasy meanings.

Protip: no, that never happened.

That's where the "delusional" epithet comes in, by the way. When you refer to things which didn't happen.

For those playing along at home:
"That definition is insufficient" "I do not understand that definition"

That's some top form disingenuousness, there, friend.

(19-05-2014 08:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  If you cling so desperately to meaningless trivia and can't admit you're wrong, imagine what it would take to get you to admit you're wrong about something that actually mattered and was core to your beliefs?

Do you know what psychological projection is?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
19-05-2014, 09:00 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Two commercial entities bartering goods/services to avoid a million dollars in tax, hurts the community, hospitals/schools/roads etc.

1 billion tonnes of sugar swapped for a million tonnes of coffee is a little different then a neighbour borrowing sugar for their coffee FFS.

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