Income and Trade

[indago]

Paulitics posted:

I busted my ass to trade my work to someone for $5,000 which we both agreed was an equal trade, and the government milks me for their share, calling it "income".

No, you milked yourself when you sent to the government a form declaring that what you had received for your work was income and swore to it under the penalties of perjury. You don't give the government much choice when you do this but to accept what you had declared as fact.

I am reminded of a discussion that I had with a young dairy farmer a few years back. There were several persons present in the room at the time. The discussion turned to a form that he filed with the government at the end of the year. I asked him if he declared, on the form, that he purchased seed and fertilizer for his fields. He said that he did. I asked him if he had purchased any new equipment; he noted that he had purchased a new diesel tractor, and that he was depreciating it over a period of time, and that he declared this depreciation on the form. I asked him if he filed on the form his costs for his milking equipment, and other farm implements. He said yes. I asked him about other expenses concerning his farm, and he declared that he had listed them all on the form that he had sent to the federal government. I asked him if he declared on the form the money that he received in the marketplace for the farm products that he sold. He said that he did. Then, I asked him if he worked on the farm. He said yes. I asked him if his wife worked on the farm. He said yes to this. I asked him if he had any children. He said that he did have, and that they all had their chores to do on the farm. I asked him if he declared on the form the value of all of their labor. He thought for a moment, and then declared that he did not; that there was no place on the form for this. I asked him if he signed the form, declaring that the information that was contained therein was accurate, under the penalties of perjury. He thought about that, and said yes. I then said to him, "Let me get this clear in my mind. You file a form with the government in which you declare that you purchased seed for planting; fertilizer for the fields; a new tractor for plowing and other work on the farm; milking equipment, and other farm implements; fuel for the tractor; and that you sold the farm products in the marketplace; realized a profit; and that you operated this farm without any labor; and you swore to this under the penalties of perjury." He looked at me for a long, hard moment, thinking about what I had just said, and declared, "Yes, I guess that's what I did." The silence was deafening in the room.



-

 

[Ravi]

Paulitics posted:

No, you milked yourself when you sent to the government a form declaring that what you had received for your work was income and swore to it under the penalties of perjury. You don't give the government much choice when you do this but to accept what you had declared as fact.

I am reminded of a discussion that I had with a young dairy farmer a few years back. There were several persons present in the room at the time. The discussion turned to a form that he filed with the government at the end of the year. I asked him if he declared, on the form, that he purchased seed and fertilizer for his fields. He said that he did. I asked him if he had purchased any new equipment; he noted that he had purchased a new diesel tractor, and that he was depreciating it over a period of time, and that he declared this depreciation on the form. I asked him if he filed on the form his costs for his milking equipment, and other farm implements. He said yes. I asked him about other expenses concerning his farm, and he declared that he had listed them all on the form that he had sent to the federal government. I asked him if he declared on the form the money that he received in the marketplace for the farm products that he sold. He said that he did. Then, I asked him if he worked on the farm. He said yes. I asked him if his wife worked on the farm. He said yes to this. I asked him if he had any children. He said that he did have, and that they all had their chores to do on the farm. I asked him if he declared on the form the value of all of their labor. He thought for a moment, and then declared that he did not; that there was no place on the form for this. I asked him if he signed the form, declaring that the information that was contained therein was accurate, under the penalties of perjury. He thought about that, and said yes. I then said to him, "Let me get this clear in my mind. You file a form with the government in which you declare that you purchased seed for planting; fertilizer for the fields; a new tractor for plowing and other work on the farm; milking equipment, and other farm implements; fuel for the tractor; and that you sold the farm products in the marketplace; realized a profit; and that you operated this farm without any labor; and you swore to this under the penalties of perjury." He looked at me for a long, hard moment, thinking about what I had just said, and declared, "Yes, I guess that's what I did." The silence was deafening in the room.


-

All he needs to do is incorporate himself then he is free to pay himself, his wife, and his children a salary, which is a write-off for the business. Of course, their salaries then become personal income.

 

[Care4all]

It is not true. Wesley Snipes being a prime example.

Income is ONLY defined as profit for Business. Personal Income is not defined as profit.

Actually YOU ARE WRONG....income IS NOT defined in the Irs code....don't you think their should be a definition of income in the irs code?

 

[manifold]

Actually YOU ARE WRONG....income IS NOT defined in the Irs code....don't you think their should be a definition of income in the irs code?

What form you filling out?

Mine (1040) defines taxable income in rather excruciating detail.

 

[Ravi]

Actually YOU ARE WRONG....income IS NOT defined in the Irs code....don't you think their should be a definition of income in the irs code?

According to this article, it is:

As for the various types of income, they are also thoroughly defined in the tax law (and on the IRS Web site). There is wage income, interest and dividend income, capital gains, alimony, rental income, lottery winnings -- you get the idea. And there's a place for each and every one of them on your Form 1040 tax return.

By 1913, Congress gave it one more shot, and the states ratified the Sixteenth Amendment, which says:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7151524/

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt posted:

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES.

Wrong, it is clear in section 8 Article I and it is even more clearin Amendment 16. The ONLY limit on the Government is that any tax or duty or revenue scheme must be UNIFORM through out the several States.

I have posted the section once already, shall I post it again?

 

[Paulie]

I still haven't seen anyone explain how money that is traded for labor is "income". Some of you keep posting links to wiki articles, or vague wording in tax laws.

If I give up something that I'll never get back (wear and tear on my body, tools, music production equipment, etc...my time, my energy, etc...), and I get a certain amount of agreed upon money in return, both parties equally lost and subsequently gained. There was no income. Something went out, and something of equal value came back in, which nullifies anything being "income". If someone walks up to me and gives me 10 free dollars, that was income. If I tightened their bicycle seat with my wrench, and they gave me 10 dollars for it, that wasn't income.

I'm well aware of what the IRS claims is law, and what the 16th amendment SEEMS to claim, but I'm not asking any of you to post links to something I've already read ad nauseum.

Explain in your own words why labor traded for money should be considered income.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I still haven't seen anyone explain how money that is traded for labor is "income". Some of you keep posting links to wiki articles, or vague wording in tax laws.

If I give up something that I'll never get back (wear and tear on my body, tools, music production equipment, etc...my time, my energy, etc...), and I get a certain amount of agreed upon money in return, both parties equally lost and subsequently gained. There was no income. Something went out, and something of equal value came back in, which nullifies anything being "income". If someone walks up to me and gives me 10 free dollars, that was income. If I tightened their bicycle seat with my wrench, and they gave me 10 dollars for it, that wasn't income.

I'm well aware of what the IRS claims is law, and what the 16th amendment SEEMS to claim, but I'm not asking any of you to post links to something I've already read ad nauseum.

Explain in your own words why labor traded for money should be considered income.

Because "we the people" gave the Government that power and have never agreed to take it away. You are aware there was absolutely no need for the 16th Amendment? Article I section 8 already gives to the Federal Government the power to tax ANYTHING at all.

 

[Ravi]

I still haven't seen anyone explain how money that is traded for labor is "income". Some of you keep posting links to wiki articles, or vague wording in tax laws.

If I give up something that I'll never get back (wear and tear on my body, tools, music production equipment, etc...my time, my energy, etc...), and I get a certain amount of agreed upon money in return, both parties equally lost and subsequently gained. There was no income. Something went out, and something of equal value came back in, which nullifies anything being "income". If someone walks up to me and gives me 10 free dollars, that was income. If I tightened their bicycle seat with my wrench, and they gave me 10 dollars for it, that wasn't income.

I'm well aware of what the IRS claims is law, and what the 16th amendment SEEMS to claim, but I'm not asking any of you to post links to something I've already read ad nauseum.

Explain in your own words why labor traded for money should be considered income.

If you fix your neighbor's roof, the fair market value of your labor is 5,000. He is supposed to 1099 you for this amount. If he turns around and builds you a deck, the fair market value of his labor is 5,000. You are supposed to 1099 him for this. What appears to be a swap to you is actually income according to the IRS and you are both obligated to pay income tax on it.

 

[Paulie]

Because "we the people" gave the Government that power and have never agreed to take it away. You are aware there was absolutely no need for the 16th Amendment? Article I section 8 already gives to the Federal Government the power to tax ANYTHING at all.

Well, "me the PERSON", is challenging the justification. With good argument I think, too. If a couple million people could get behind the idea collectively, and vote the bastards out that think it's ok to take our money from us when we traded something of equal value for it, then we'd be getting somewhere.

I'm not trying to debate what the government has the power to do. I'm debating why they should or should not have that power to begin with. So far, you're not making a case. You're defending the government because of some written words.

What do YOU think about the situation? Do you think it's fair to take money from you that you traded your labor, skills, equipment usage and wear and tear, etc. for?

 

[Paulie]

If you fix your neighbor's roof, the fair market value of your labor is 5,000. He is supposed to 1099 you for this amount. If he turns around and builds you a deck, the fair market value of his labor is 5,000. You are supposed to 1099 him for this. What appears to be a swap to you is actually income according to the IRS and you are both obligated to pay income tax on it.

You're doing the same thing RGS is doing. I know what the IRS says. I want to know how others feel about it personally. Should the IRS have justification to tax us on an equal trade of labor? If I gave someone $5,000 worth of labor, and they traded me $5,000 worth of THEIR labor, neither of us earned any income. We both lost and subsequently gained an equal amount. They cancel each other out.

How do YOU feel about it?

 

[Ravi]

You're doing the same thing RGS is doing. I know what the IRS says. I want to know how others feel about it personally. Should the IRS have justification to tax us on an equal trade of labor? If I gave someone $5,000 worth of labor, and they traded me $5,000 worth of THEIR labor, neither of us earned any income. We both lost and subsequently gained an equal amount. They cancel each other out.

How do YOU feel about it?

I'm okay with it.

I'm kind of chuckling over it, though. IMO, people do this every day (without informing the IRS) and most of them are the same ones crying about illegals not paying taxes. And yet they have no problem not paying taxes.

 

[manifold]

Explain in your own words why labor traded for money should be considered income.

Because if it isn't, that would open up one massive loophole in the tax system whereby nobody would ever pay income tax again. But still, I do understand your point. And maybe this is a good argument in favor of eliminating income tax altogether and replacing it with a consumption tax.

Just a thought.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, "me the PERSON", is challenging the justification. With good argument I think, too. If a couple million people could get behind the idea collectively, and vote the bastards out that think it's ok to take our money from us when we traded something of equal value for it, then we'd be getting somewhere.

I'm not trying to debate what the government has the power to do. I'm debating why they should or should not have that power to begin with. So far, you're not making a case. You're defending the government because of some written words.

What do YOU think about the situation? Do you think it's fair to take money from you that you traded your labor, skills, equipment usage and wear and tear, etc. for?

Already answered in the other thread. And more importantly the VERY FACT "we the people" do NOT vote the "bastards" out and change the tax codes is proof that a majority agree with the premise of Income Tax. When the Government goes to far the people DO speak through the ballot and sometimes just threatening to so does the trick.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Because if it isn't, that would open up one massive loophole in the tax system whereby nobody would ever pay income tax again. But still, I do understand your point. And maybe this is a good argument in favor of eliminating income tax altogether and replacing it with a consumption tax.

Just a thought.

You are aware that the same argument can be made as to why it is "fair" or "reasonable" to tax items purchased?

 

[Paulie]

Because if it isn't, that would open up one massive loophole in the tax system whereby nobody would ever pay income tax again. But still, I do understand your point. And maybe this is a good argument in favor of eliminating income tax altogether and replacing it with a consumption tax.

Just a thought.

Thank you. But yes, people would still pay income tax. Capital gains are income, and I am not arguing against the taxation on them.

I just don't believe wages are income, that's all. To me, income would require me not giving anything away of value.

And yes, the consumption tax is certainly a great start. I'd much rather cut spending to levels where NEITHER tax would be necessary. We did of course live that way for 137 years, it's not impossible. Central banking and fiat currency require a large taxation, because money being printed out of thin air to fund irresponsible spending requires extra revenue to support the habit.

 

[indago]

RetiredGySgt posted: "The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all."

I, then, posted: "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES."

RetiredGySgt, then, posted: "Wrong, it is clear in section 8 Article I and it is even more clearin Amendment 16. The ONLY limit on the Government is that any tax or duty or revenue scheme must be UNIFORM through out the several States."

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the sixteenth amendment federal income tax was an excise tax, in the indirect tax category, and was not a direct tax, and that the sixteenth amendment conferred no new taxing powers upon the government. There was no dissent in this opinion.

These were Supreme Court Justices, the Chief Justice writing the opinion, all learned men writing opinions recorded for posterity, history, and all the world to see.

I don't see the name RetiredGySgt anywhere as having published anything remotely connected to a thesis on law, or politics for that matter, except for some droppings now and then on a message board in cyberspace.

I'll put my money on those who wrote the opinion of the Court.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

RetiredGySgt posted: "The Constitution does not limit what the Government can tax at all."

I, then, posted: "FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS NEVER GRANTED THE POWER TO LAY A DIRECT TAX UPON THE INHABITANTS OF THE STATES."

RetiredGySgt, then, posted: "Wrong, it is clear in section 8 Article I and it is even more clearin Amendment 16. The ONLY limit on the Government is that any tax or duty or revenue scheme must be UNIFORM through out the several States."

The Supreme Court of the United States wrote that the sixteenth amendment federal income tax was an excise tax, in the indirect tax category, and was not a direct tax, and that the sixteenth amendment conferred no new taxing powers upon the government. There was no dissent in this opinion.

These were Supreme Court Justices, the Chief Justice writing the opinion, all learned men writing opinions recorded for posterity, history, and all the world to see.

I don't see the name RetiredGySgt anywhere as having published anything remotely connected to a thesis on law, or politics for that matter, except for some droppings now and then on a message board in cyberspace.

I'll put my money on those who wrote the opinion of the Court.

Sure thing genius, go ahead don't pay your taxes cause it isn't legal. Make a big stink about it and see what happens.

 

[Paulie]

Sure thing genius, go ahead don't pay your taxes cause it isn't legal. Make a big stink about it and see what happens.

Excellent response.

Even though he said nothing about not paying his taxes, let's just assume he doesn't and ONLY make a statement about THAT, rather than address the actual points made during discussion.

This is why you are BORING to chat with, RGS.

You're basic position on everything in the world is "This is what the law says, this is what my rights are, and I'm cool with EVERYTHING unless a liberal gets their way".

You're the perfect sheep.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Excellent response.

Even though he said nothing about not paying his taxes, let's just assume he doesn't and ONLY make a statement about THAT, rather than address the actual points made during discussion.

This is why you are BORING to chat with, RGS.

You're basic position on everything in the world is "This is what the law says, this is what my rights are, and I'm cool with EVERYTHING unless a liberal gets their way".

You're the perfect sheep.

You are playing games.

You keep claiming because YOU don't like the law it is not just. You keep claiming if we would all just vote them out, it would change.

And there in is the rub. WE do not vote them out because WE do not agree with you. Ohh wait I forgot your defense on that is we are all just lemmings afraid to vote them out.

Ya that is a good defense alright.

The Government has every right to tax anything they want, The People gave them that power and we continue to agree with it by NOT voting them out and changing it.