Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-05-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:11 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  You gonna respond to my post or no?

Why would he? Frank doesn't deal with reality, he likes to argue with hypotheticals and cram his opponents into ideological boxes of his own imagining so that he can yell at them with his pre-packaged talking points.

He thinks I'm a club wielding, knuckle dragging, fascist, authoritarian slave-master because I think the EPA is a good idea and we ought to publicly fund firefighters with taxes. Drinking Beverage

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:20 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)sporehux Wrote:  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

Please don't tell me all you guys have lost the ability to read plain English. At the top it clearly says that "you must include in your income, at the time received, the fair market value of property or services you receive in bartering" on form 1040, schedule c. Later on it says barter exchanges have to ALSO report this on a 1099-B if they do more than 100 transactions. You, Chas, IM_Ryan, keep insisting that somehow is saying "That thing we said earlier about reporting all barters on 1040 sch c, we didn't mean. Ignore it." That is NOT what it says. I'll again make the same offer to you as to Chas and IM_Ryan. If a licensed tax professional provides a statement proving which side is wrong, will you accept it and admit that whichever side is wrong must be very closed-minded and dogmatic to continually misread such a simple statement?

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)sporehux Wrote:  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.

So then if I mow my sick neighbor's lawn for free, then I too have hurt society, albeit on a smaller scale, because were it not for my act of charity the neighbor might have hired a professional gardener who would have paid tax. Correct? So, when your neighbor is sick and you help, you should feel guilty about doing so because you're actually hurting hospitals and schools?

(19-05-2014 11:02 PM)sporehux Wrote:  I hate tax but if its dealt fair, it makes the society you want to live in.

Well is the system fair? Isn't that EXCELLENT video you provided proof positive that it is NOT working? Doesn't it substantiate what I've been screaming from the roof tops that the current monetary system is undeniably a massive tax on the poor and middle class, and a transfer of wealth to the top? Haven't I shown links where Thomas Jefferson 200 years ago warned that this monetary system would do that? Haven't I shown graphs with the US's historical inequality (gini) which prove unequivocally that Jefferson was right; inequality was getting less and less, the middle class were gaining ground, and the trend reversed in PRECISELY the year that we changed the system to the one Jefferson warned us would create massive inequality? So who REALLY cares about the plight of inequality and the poor? The forward thinking progressive who analysis the current system and readily admits it's deeply flawed and has been causing this disaster? Or the other side that's refusing to admit that their policies are to blame and insist on clinging to the traditional system they've always believed in and are unwilling to answer even basic questions that challenge their belief system? (like in my OP)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:28 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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?

I have already debunked your claims for those other sources. You have, yet again, quote-mined and misrepresented what they state.

So, there's that.

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, 08:29 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-05-2014 08:04 AM)frankksj Wrote:  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?

I have already debunked your claims for those other sources. You have, yet again, quote-mined and misrepresented what they state.

So, there's that.

Well if he didn't quote mine and lie what would he have to rail against?

(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
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
20-05-2014, 08:30 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
Quote:Why would he? Frank doesn't deal with reality, he likes to argue with hypotheticals and cram his opponents into ideological boxes of his own imagining so that he can yell at them with his pre-packaged talking points.

He thinks I'm a club wielding, knuckle dragging, fascist, authoritarian slave-master because I think the EPA is a good idea and we ought to publicly fund firefighters with taxes. Coffeedrinker

I dunno bro, paying firefighters with taxpayer money... that's a pretty extreme position to hold... Dodgy

Quote:that the current monetary system is undeniably a massive tax on the poor and middle class, and a transfer of wealth to the top?

Last time I checked Gates sold operating software and gaming consoles to make his billions, not collect tax revenue.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 08:54 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:30 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  
Quote:Why would he? Frank doesn't deal with reality, he likes to argue with hypotheticals and cram his opponents into ideological boxes of his own imagining so that he can yell at them with his pre-packaged talking points.

He thinks I'm a club wielding, knuckle dragging, fascist, authoritarian slave-master because I think the EPA is a good idea and we ought to publicly fund firefighters with taxes. Coffeedrinker

I dunno bro, paying firefighters with taxpayer money... that's a pretty extreme position to hold... Dodgy


I was listening to Lous CK, his Live at the Beacon Theater special, when this bit came up that reminded me of frank...


"I have a lot of beliefs, and I live by none of them; that's just the way I am. They're just my beliefs, I just like believing them! I just like that part. They're my little 'believees', they make me feel good about who I am! But if they get in the way of a thing I want or I want to jack-off or something I fucking do that." -Louis CK




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
20-05-2014, 08:55 AM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 12:07 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  Because everyone benefits (either directly or indirectly) they must pay.
Thus income tax.

Hold on. We're all in agreement they must pay. The question is how do you pay. You say “THUS income tax.” You can't take something we agree on and say THUS something we don't agree on. The whole point of this is o debate that.

(20-05-2014 12:07 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  If you want to talk about rights, it is my right to live in a well educated, safe, healthy society.

Now, we're getting to the good philosophical part. Classic liberals divide rights between 'negative', meaning the right to be free to leave, free to speak your mind, and free to be left alone if you want. Vs. “positive” rights, which is the right to force other other people to do things you want them to. There is a clear black & white difference. Everything you listed is a positive right. But positive rights are very problematic. You just said it is YOUR RIGHT to live in a healthy society. Do gay men have a much higher risk of catching certain diseases, like HIV? Unquestionably. Therefore, based on your assertion of positive rights, you unquestionably have the right to use force against gay men since they are violating your rights. And the right wing jesus-freaks would whole-heartedly agree to you. And when you assert positive rights like you did, there is no logic or reason to say what's a valid positive right and what isn't. So I can draw the line anywhere. You think it's your right to force people to be 'healthy' even if it's against their will, well maybe it's my right to force people to be promiscuous against their will. For thousands of years, whenever positive rights are allowed, people keep moving the line of what's acceptable more and more and you end up with tyranny.

Assume I am a religious nut job who thought modern education was bullocks and we should stick to our bibles. Just like you you said you have the right to live in a well educated society, what if I say I have the right to live in uneducated society. If you're right, then if I choose not to college and become well educated, then I have violated your rights, correct? Should I be imprisoned? But if you DO college then you have violated my right to live in an educated society. Can I have you thrown in prison?

See you're taking purely subjective opinions that cannot be substantiated with logic and reason and merely asserting them to be true. They're not. They're your opinions. All positive rights are opinions. Negative rights, however, age of enlightenment philosophers were able to justify with logic and reason.

(20-05-2014 12:07 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  "But Muffs, this could all be done via property tax... BUT this is less fair. Not everyone owns property

Huh? You think property taxes are not paid on every piece of property, whether you own or rent? If you have a house and rent out 2 rooms, do you get an exemption for those 2 rooms because somebody else lives there? Of course not, you still have to pay, and it gets built into the rent they pay you. Property tax is completely unavoidable, and thus MORE fair. Everybody tried to avoids taxes. With income tax that's done by refusing to work, or if you're rich, complex tax schemes that in many cases means you pay no tax at all. Same if you're self-employed. While people who are salaried employees see their taxes deducted automatically. So in the end, the burden is not borne fairly or equally. How is that fair? A property tax which EVERYBODY must pay, whether you own a huge mansion, rent a studio, or live with your parents. Property tax is ALWAYS paid, and since it's inescapable, it's also easy to enforce—nobody goes to jail for not paying property taxes. And property taxes CAN be made progressive, based on the value/size of your home. If you pay for your roads/schools/etc. through property tax EVERYBODY in your community must pay their fair share. With income tax, however, I could move into your community, live in a big huge mansion, drive exotic cars, and pay no taxes. You're telling me that's more fair?

Lastly, look at the efficiency. Everytime the subject of income taxes comes up people list all the useful things you get from taxes: roads, schools, etc. But, in the US, none of those things are paid for with federal income taxes. The US DOES also have a property tax scheme, and the property taxes are so much more efficient that all those valuable things you mention are paid for through state & local taxes. What do you get from your federal income taxes? Not social security and medicare, they have their own taxes. Look at what's funded by federal income taxes in the US..... WAR! There's a few useless bureaucracies in there too, and a very small handful of actual services, like baggage screening, faa, etc. But the lion's share is WAR.

So in the US, if an American doesn't pay his federal income taxes, he's ostracized as a freeloader, driving on roads and going to schools and not paying for them. Wrong! There are no freeloaders because all those things of value are paid for by property taxes, and everybody pays property taxes. If he doesn't pay his federal income taxes that just means he's not funding a machine that slaughters millions of people in senseless wars to pillage and plunder.

(20-05-2014 12:07 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  So, you can't have a private sector dominated economy where the state owns nothing and no tax.

I never said otherwise.

(20-05-2014 12:07 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  tl;dr: Suck it up, stop breaching my rights and pay your damn tax.

I do. And I pay my property taxes willingly because they do good things and it is part of being a good citizen in society. BUT, I only pay federal income taxes because there's a gun pointed to my head. I believe they're immoral, that money goes to fund killing and I'm ashamed to be a part of it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 12:02 PM (This post was last modified: 20-05-2014 12:28 PM by frankksj.)
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why would he?

I did respond. As always. When you think through your positions you have the luxury of being able to respond.

(20-05-2014 08:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  He thinks I'm a club wielding, knuckle dragging, fascist, authoritarian slave-master because I think the EPA is a good idea and we ought to publicly fund firefighters with taxes. Drinking Beverage

No, I think that because you send people with weapons to haul off by force anybody who does things you don't like. And because, when I ask you to justify your position in general terms, like why do a and b need to buy from c the right to do something in private between themselves? When it's in general terms like that you completely fall on your face, and simply come up with examples where you think your knuckle-dragging accomplished good. And what do you have to say when I point all the times your knuckle-dragging caused devastation? Like prohibition, the war on drugs, the forced liquidation of all-electric mass transit, a monetary policy that we all libertarians warned you in advance would wipe out the middle class and concentrate all the wealth (which it did), endless wars that we keep warning you accomplish only bad, an income tax and welfare system where people living at the poverty level take home LESS money the harder they work, etc., etc., etc.

What do you say to ANY of those? <crickets> How many times have I brought up the monetary policy, shown the predictions from 200 years ago showing the inequality that would result, showed the charts proving it DID happen just as predicted? You're response as always is to ignore it and simply say "no, my knuggle dragging neanderthal ways are all good because the EPA limits smog."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 12:05 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:30 AM)earmuffs Wrote:  I dunno bro, paying firefighters with taxpayer money... that's a pretty extreme position to hold... Dodgy

Did you see what I __ACTUALLY__ wrote? It was that when fire fighting is outsourced to a private sector that has a profit motive to increase efficiency and improve service, like in Scottsdale, the cost to fight fires went down and the quality of services went up, as proven here. Therefore, I concluded it makes to challenge the assumption that the only way to fight fires is with a government-run institution.

Now, compare what I actually wrote, which is pragmatic, reasonable, logical, and well-supported vs. the mis-characterization your quote above?

If what I said is extreme, why not quote what I ACTUALLY said, instead of making up strawmen?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-05-2014, 12:24 PM
RE: Any liberals capable of defending income tax laws?
(20-05-2014 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have already debunked your claims for those other sources. You have, yet again, quote-mined and misrepresented what they state.

We know who debunked who because you ran with your tail between your legs from my challenge to hire a tax professional to settle the matter.

NOW, you show even MORE desperation because you obviously realize you were dead wrong all along, and now you're backpeddling taking MY position and claiming you proved me wrong. Pathetic. Fortunately we have a written record. In your earlier claims you quoted this from the IRS:

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 write underneath it, in post #23 you wrote this:

(20-05-2014 08:28 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is not about private exchanges.

And you repeatedly stated bartering was only taxable if it was done as part of a formal barter exchange. I pointed to link after link after link proving that it is STILL taxable when it's done privately, one-on-one. Now you've backed off on that and instead claim you're arguing that only 'commercial' barters are taxed. Well no shit. Read my scenario #2. I followed up that the parties in question are a gardener and a teacher. I did this deliberately because the IRS rules are completely crystal clear that if the service you perform is what you normally do for work, it IS a commercial transaction and IS taxable.

Now, a separate question to show that even this isn't logical is to ask you why, if I'm unemployed, with no profession, and I mow one sick neighbor's lawn for a barter, it's ok, and I'm given a pass for being non-commercial. But, as I repeat this beneficial voluntary exchange enough so that I can say I'm a gardener, why does the nature change just because I got good at what I do? Why should I have to pay a penalty for being good at something, but not when I'm bad?

Regardless, I hate going here because this has nothing to do with the point of my OP. I already edited my OP to remove any reference to the IRS and tax code specifically to prevent you from derailing my OP with these silly tangents, and try to get back to the point which was asking if liberals were able to answer questions about their beliefs. But you stubbornly refuse, and the answer remains "No, none of you are willing to answer questions about your beliefs".

So who is creating a trollercoaster? I asked you (collectively) questions, I asked for your opinion, and all I get are pages and pages of distractions.

IM_Ryan did try to answer a few of them, which I thanked him for, but then when I asked a few more questions to clarify his answers, he said it was all a waste of time. If you're confident in your beliefs and feel you're winning a debate, you are NEVER going to say "it's a waste of time to express my opinion and answer questions". Earmuffs did provide a thoughtful reply, although they didn't actually answer my questions.

And you and Cjlr, nothing but insults. You continue to accuse me of not respecting your opinions, but then when I asked you simple questions about them, you refuse to answer.

So, can we get off this trollercoaster. Will you EVER answer the questions I raised so we can better understand your position? Or you just want to keep derailing my post with these irrelevant side-shows?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: