Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-05-2014, 10:20 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:10 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  [Image: classic-simpsons-cat-lady.gif]

[Image: tumblr_inline_n344s6qHx51qzns6v.gif]

Exactly.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-05-2014, 11:02 PM (This post was last modified: 19-05-2014 11:27 PM by sporehux.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 09:29 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(19-05-2014 09:00 PM)sporehux Wrote:  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.

Please clarify.

Scenario #1: If all the coffee and sugar company do not produce anything (ie no coffee and sugar are being made), so they don't barter anything, don't sell anything, don't trade anything, then they owe society nothing, right? They owe no debt to the community, hospitals, schools for doing nothing, correct?

Scenario #2: Now, let's assume that, as you propose, they DO grow a billion tonnes of sugar and swap it for a million tonnes of coffee, but don't pay any income tax. Now they obviously had to create thousands of jobs to pay workers to make the coffee and sugar, and instead of letting the land go to waste, they put it to productive use. And now there's coffee and sugar on the market for consumers to buy and, even though no income tax was paid, it still generates sales tax. And thousands of more workers are employed in the coffee shops selling all this coffee and sugar.

So how exactly are they hurting the community and hospitals and schools with scenario #2 and not with scenario #1 since with scenario #2, although they're not paying income taxes, they still are doing a lot of good creating jobs and providing us goods that make our lives more enjoyable. Please, be specific, and explain the mechanism why, when you move from scenario #1 to scenario #2, hospitals and schools get hurt. And please, no distraction saying the hospital and school would be better off still with scenario #3 where both sides pay income tax. I'm not debating that--it's a red herring. All I'm debating is your assertion that scenario #2 hurts society, but scenario #1 does not.

IRS Publication 525
Barter exchanges, both online and in person, need to be reported on Form 1099-B, unless they occur through a barter exchange with less than 100 transactions during the year


The current taxable income estimates are used by a government to plan projects: If a company/individual started to not pay for an ingredient in their goods/services, then the community services are scaled back or cuts are made elsewhere.
A company/individual can claim back tax spent based on their income and profitability, so in some cases its parity.
If public services require X amount to be maintained and expanded, then taxing profitable companies as they trade goods/services is preferable to increasing the tax rates for everyone.
Bartering can and is being exploited with janitors paying more tax to run your community services then the company they clean shit for.

If a company engages in barter trade at the expense of competition in their industry, then the industry has to follow suit to be competitive.

Also http://www.investopedia.com/financial-ed...ering.aspx is part of the reason we have this: trillions of dollars worth of goods/services bartered between the rich.

I hate tax but if its dealt fair, it makes the society you want to live in.




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
20-05-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Tax, and why we have it.
An explanation by Muffs

Tax, what is tax? We all pay it, it's considered a fact of life but what really is tax (you have to imagine me saying all this in my documentary voice)?

Tax, as defined by Google[1], is "a compulsory contribution to state revenue".
Tax is used by the government to pay for shit.
Police? Government pays for it. How does the government pay for it? Tax.
Military? Government pays for it. How does the government pay for it? Tax.
Healthcare? Tax.
Prisons? Tax.
Firefighters? Tax.
Street lighting? Tax.
Emergency relief? Tax.
etc.. etc.. etc..

So why do we have to pay tax?
We have to pay tax because we all must contribute to the above mentioned things in order to keep society running smoothly (as possible).
Why must we all contribute?
Because we all live in whatever particular society.
I live in New Zealand so I must pay New Zealand tax and in return I benefit from New Zealand firefighters, police force etc.. etc.. etc..

We can't determine who uses how much Police force or how much education (we know how much education people, but we can't work out how much education benefits each individual. ie: You need a doctor, that doctor had to be educated, his education helps you) a person uses or how much military a person uses etc.. and so everyone must pay because everyone benefits.
Even if you don't benefit directly (ie: your house doesn't burn down) you benefit indirectly from living in a safe, well educated (etc.. etc..) country.

Because everyone benefits (either directly or indirectly) they must pay.
Thus income tax.
Income tax ensures that everyone pays tax and thus pays for services they use (either directly or indirectly).

If you want to talk about rights, it is my right to live in a well educated, safe, healthy society. When someone doesn't pay their tax they are refuses to pay for those things and thus hindering my rights.
"But Muffs, what about his rights?"
His rights are the same as mine. He has the right to live in an educated, safe, healthy society and if someone wasn't paying tax they'd be breaching his rights.
"no no Muffs, I mean what about his rights to not get carted away at gunpoint"
Well Frank, he is breaching my (and everyone else's) rights and so he is punished ("carted off at gunpoint").
"But Muffs, that isn't fair"
Yes it is Frank. If someone commits a crime, kills, steals, whatever, they are "carted off at gunpoint" because they breached someone else's rights (to not be killed, have their shit stolen etc..).

See where I'm saying?

"But Muffs, this could all be done via property tax"
(I think you mean by property tax you mean "rates", a tax property owners pay to whoever each year)
Yes it could, it could also be done via GST (goods and service tax).
BUT this is less fair. Not everyone owns property (my flatmates for example rent but both have full time jobs), yet those people still benefit from police, fire department etc.. etc... And people spend more than others (thus spend more gst) BUT again, they still use the same amount of fire department, police force etc.. than if they spent less (or more).

Income tax is the absolute fairest tax system when it comes to paying for things like Police, Military, education etc.. and why it is absolutely necessary to exist.

BUT, you need it in association with other tax. (ie: Gst, corporate tax, business tax etc..) because those other forms of tax are fair in the sense that they pay for what that person/thing pay them for.
ie: Alcohol is heavily taxed. This is because alcohol causes a lot of social problems, crime, drink driving, health etc.. Same with smoking.
Corporate tax is fair because corporations are protected (militarily as well as police and fire department etc..) by the state and benefit from a healthy, educated society.


The tax system uses Income tax with a variety of other forms of tax to result in a fair tax system that ensures everyone pays their fair share.

The only alternative to a tax system is no tax system where a country is resource rich and the state mines/harvests/produces/etc.. a product (ie: oil) and sells off that product to pay for everything the country needs.

So, you can't have a private sector dominated economy where the state owns nothing and no tax. You either have a private sector dominated country (pretty much all western countries) and tax OR a state run country (ie: UAE) that is rich in resources and is willing to produce those resources and sell them to the world in order to bring in wealth and have no tax system.

tl;dr: Suck it up, stop breaching my rights and pay your damn tax.


[1] http://www.google.com

[Image: oscar.png]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like earmuffs's post
20-05-2014, 01:31 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
WTF is this "liberal" shit? So, in your view, "liberals" -- whatever THAT is supposed to be -- are responsible for every tax that every government in every country on this planet enacts? Who the fuck are you? And can you get any more delusional and parochial?

Sweet Mother of Fuck.......

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
[+] 4 users Like Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
20-05-2014, 01:37 AM
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
"Liberals" is redneck shorthand for "people who don't agree with me" or "things didn't go the way I want; must be the liberal conspiracy"

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
20-05-2014, 02:10 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Wow, frank can't limit his misreprentaion of reality to just one thread?

Color me surprised... Dodgy

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 02:11 AM
Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Your color is blue.

Mmbaba dee, baba dah.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
20-05-2014, 04:10 AM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 04:18 AM by Chas.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 08:35 PM)frankksj Wrote:  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."

And from that same article:
"The IRS starts with a down-home definition. Bartering is trading one product or service for another, whether informally and one-on-one or with multiple parties in a commercial setting. "

Quote: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."

And from that same article:
"According to Scott Estill, a former senior IRS trial attorney and the author of "Tax This! An Insider's Guide To Standing Up To The IRS," casual exchanges between non-commercial parties for similar services is usually not taxable. Offering to cut a neighbor's grass while they are on vacation in exchange for the same, for example, won't trigger a tax consequence (the key to this that you are both non-business parties, and the value is nearly identical.)."

Quote: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.
Wrong. Half the barter was commercial, half not.

The very first sentence of that article:
"Exchanging goods and services with another business owner -- bartering -- is a common practice, and can make excellent sense in today's economy, but the IRS is warning that "barter dollars" are equal to "real dollars" for tax purposes."

And, as for reporting:
"...a Form 1099 must be provided only for payments that are made in the course of a trade or business."
Quote: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.

Yet another example of your incompetence at checking sources and lack of reading comprehension.

You're not good at this. Drinking Beverage

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
[+] 3 users Like Chas's post
20-05-2014, 08:04 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 10:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  you cannot read a simple document.... I literally fucking color coded the damn thing for you and you still don't get it.

I will make the same offer to you as I did to Chas. We both agree it's a simple document that is very clear. It seems we both agree that in the first paragraph it says unequivocally that ALL barters must be reported and a tax paid.

The part we disagree on is later on the page when it says that if you form a barter exchange you must ALSO file a form 1099, it says this:

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

And you are insistent that sentence in red, referring to the barter exchange which has to file a 1099 in addition to paying a tax on bartering, overrides the first sentence and states that bartering is non-taxable unless it is done as part of a barter exchange, on a commercial basis.

So I'll make the same offer to you I did to Chas. I will post in any tax-advice forum, even the ones where you to have a licensed tax professional, this question, asking if bartering such as my scenario #2 requires us to pay a tax in order to do the barter. Do you agree that whichever one of us is vindicated should then post an apology in this thread for being so closed-minded that we actually fooled ourselves into thinking that very simple and obvious sentence said something very different from what it did? I'm willing to do this, put up or shut up. Are you? If you REALLY have convinced yourself that's what the IRS rule says, SURELY you'd embrace this opportunity since I'm offering to do all the work and it would publicly vindicate yourself and prove that I am twist even basic facts to further my agenda. The ONLY possible reason you would decline my offer as Chas did is if deep down you actually DO know that you're wrong, but you're simply too dogmatic and set in your ways to admit it. So what'll it be?

(19-05-2014 10:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  The fact is you cannot come up with a single example of your proposed hypothetical questions

Yes, I've copied/pasted examples many examples. Heck even the aforemented page on the IRS site uses the EXACT SAME example--the only difference is in their instead of a gardener mowing lawns, and a tutor teaching a child, it's a plumber fixing pipes and a dentist cleaning teeth. It's EXACTLY the same--only the names and professions were changed.

(19-05-2014 10:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  you are disingenuous while asking questions

That's ridiculous. If I was disingenuous, then I wouldn't care what the answer is. The fact that I've been investing crazy amounts of time trying to get any of you to answer the questions proves that I really DID present questions I want you to answer. This is just a cop-out to avoid answering them.

(19-05-2014 10:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  you've misquoted me in your last reply to me (final straw) and you come off as an arrogant prick.

If I had misquoted you, you'd have copied/pasted to show me. You didn't. So we know it's not true. If I come off as an arrogant prick, it's only because I'm very confident in my belief system. And the reason is because whenever I have a debate like this and I ask my ideological opponents basic questions that challenge their beliefs, they run for cover and refuse to answer. Or they suddenly pretend like they can't understand plain English (like the aforementioned color coded quote). And when I challenge them to similarly pose questions to me which my belief system doesn't have a good answer for, they scamper off with their tail between their legs. Believe me, if you were in my shoes and this just kept happening over and over you'd be very confident in your belief system too. However, that's not the same as being arrogant, the belief that you are more important than others. Throughout my posts I've always made self-deprecating remarks and said that my opinions are no more valid than anybody else's and that's precisely why I do not have the right to force my beliefs on anybody else. To me, the arrogant ones are those who guns and violence to force others to do things their way, ESPECIALLY when they are unwilling to answer basic questions about their beliefs.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:11 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
You gonna respond to my post or no?

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