Jump to content
AceMan

Why should I pay taxes ?

Recommended Posts

 

No, the reason you are coerced to file is that you work for corporations, and you have a social security number. Once you file that w4, you're in their system - a "volunteer."

 

The only way to not "volunteer" is to be self-employed.

i am self employed and coerced bro...i am coerced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

No, the reason you are coerced to file is that you work for corporations, and you have a social security number. Once you file that w4, you're in their system - a "volunteer."

 

The only way to not "volunteer" is to be self-employed.

 

 

Then you might have been voting for the wrong people. Reagan raised your taxes. So did Bush senior. Clinton lowered them I believe.

 

 

Good for you, now you are seeing the way things really are.

 

I am waiting for some dumbass to chime in on how unions save them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There's no if. It simply is.

 

And so have you.

 

 

If that's an attempt to critique the court decisions I pasted, then you're going to need to try going with a full sentence, son.

 

 

You just got a half dozen court cases shoved up your ass and down your throat. Did they meet in the middle and vaporize each other?

So...."employed and coming in...'' has some other obscure meaning other then wages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, I am studying real estate...

 

$ 300,000 a year is easy, it is achievable to make a million or more a year...

 

Why the f)uck should I pay a red cent in taxes, for a country that hates the idea that I rose from the poor, and studied a field where such pay is possible ?

 

 

 

I got news for ya...

 

f)uck you !

 

 

 

You're not doing a damn thing for me now, and you never have and you also, never will...

 

so I got news for ya... f)uck you, and your "code of ethics" for making money, that never worked.

 

Im going to make money, and you Anti-Capitalist stupid motherf)uckers can go blow your dads !

 

 

btw, there is nothing unethical about being a real estate agent, you're not qualified to participate in a real estate transaction without the assistance of a broker and an agent...

 

nobody but a real estate professional like a broker or an agent is..

 

 

if you think you are, and you don't have a degree, you're a f)ucking moron, is what you are, an egotistical f*ggot !

 

 

so why should I pay a red cent for your "social programs" ?

I hate to tell you this but I've been buying selling my own property for years without the aid of a licensed agent. The entire real industry is a created entidy, They've made the process so complicated that most sellers and buyers think they need an agent, If they only knew all they need is a good mortgage man!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i am self employed and coerced bro...i am coerced

 

Quit coercing yourself.

 

I'm gonna call you and chat with you about this stuff. I was self-employed for years and never paid a penny in federal income tax. I bought a home and had a mortgage. There were spots in there when I worked a w4 job to supplement my income, and I filed ON THAT "income" rather than fight. The rest, I continued to stay mum about.

 

Anything on a W2 or a 1099, you gotta claim or risk criminal charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to tell you this but I've been buying selling my own property for years without the aid of a licensed agent. The entire real industry is a created entidy, They've made the process so complicated that most sellers and buyers think they need an agent, If they only knew all they need is a good mortgage man!

 

There ya go, know the mortgage broker or have a financial statement stouter than a wedding peter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So...."employed and coming in...'' has some other obscure meaning other then wages?

 

I still have no idea what you think you're hanging your hat on. Quote a full sentence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Quit coercing yourself.

 

I'm gonna call you and chat with you about this stuff. I was self-employed for years and never paid a penny in federal income tax. I bought a home and had a mortgage. There were spots in there when I worked a w4 job to supplement my income, and I filed ON THAT "income" rather than fight. The rest, I continued to stay mum about.

 

Anything on a W2 or a 1099, you gotta claim or risk criminal charges.

i dont know where my phone is

 

i dont know where my phone is

i found it...dial away

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still have no idea what you think you're hanging your hat on. Quote a full sentence.

I'm hanging my hat on what you yourself posted. here it is again:

 

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]

 

I highlighted in red. Sheesh......

 

Bottom line....wages = income son.....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a lighter note:

 

 

The local bar was so sure that its bartender was the strongest man around that they offered a standing $1000 bet. The bartender would squeeze a lemon until all the juice ran into a glass, and hand the lemon to a patron. Anyone who could squeeze one more drop of juice out would win the money.

Many people had tried.... over time: weightlifters, longshoremen, etc., but nobody could do it. One day, this scrawny little fellow came into the bar, wearing thick glasses and a polyester suit, and said in a small voice, "I'd like to try the bet."

After the laughter had died down, the bartender said, "OK"; grabbed the lemon; and squeezed away. Then he handed the wrinkled remains of the rind to the little fellow. But the Crowd's laughter turned to total silence.... as the man clenched his little fist around the lemon.... and six drops fell into the glass.
...
As the crowd cheered, the bartender paid the $1000, and asked the little man: "What do you do for a living? Are you a lumberjack, a weight-lifter, or what?"
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.


The little fellow quietly replied: "I work for the IRS."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm hanging my hat on what you yourself posted. here it is again:

 

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]

 

I highlighted in red. Sheesh......

 

Bottom line....wages = income son.....

 

 

 

Seriously? That is what you got from that?

 

Read it again, son. The verb "employed" is attached to the noun "capital," NOT to the noun citizen. It says that gains from the investment of CAPITAL, however that CAPITAL was employed, are considered income.

 

I rather expected more, to be honest.

 

Do be quick in admitting your error, at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Seriously? That is what you got from that?

 

Read it again, son. The verb "employed" is attached to the noun "capital," NOT to the noun citizen. It says that gains from the investment of CAPITAL, however that CAPITAL was employed, are considered income.

 

I rather expected more, to be honest.

 

Do be quick in admitting your error, at least.

See the business definiion of INCOME I posted earlier in the thread...

 

It makes no sense not to call wages income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the business definiion of INCOME I posted earlier in the thread...

 

I makes no sense not to call wages income.

See the court cases I posted. As a legal matter - which is what we are debating - it makes no sense to use a business definition. You misinterpreted the legal decision - please recant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggest you take this one step further, write a letter to the IRS and tell them what you think, go on son, be a man and tell mr big brother that you are going to stand up to them LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See the court cases I posted. As a legal matter - which is what we are debating - it makes no sense to use a business definition. You misinterpreted the legal decision - please recant.

Then millions of scholars, economics, and of course politicians got it wrong too.

I'll wait for them to recant......

 

In the mean time, ask anyone you know if wages = income. Then get back to us....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, I am studying real estate...

 

$ 300,000 a year is easy, it is achievable to make a million or more a year...

 

Why the f)uck should I pay a red cent in taxes, for a country that hates the idea that I rose from the poor, and studied a field where such pay is possible ?

 

 

 

I got news for ya...

 

f)uck you !

 

 

 

You're not doing a damn thing for me now, and you never have and you also, never will...

 

so I got news for ya... f)uck you, and your "code of ethics" for making money, that never worked.

 

Im going to make money, and you Anti-Capitalist stupid motherf)uckers can go blow your dads !

 

 

btw, there is nothing unethical about being a real estate agent, you're not qualified to participate in a real estate transaction without the assistance of a broker and an agent...

 

nobody but a real estate professional like a broker or an agent is..

 

 

if you think you are, and you don't have a degree, you're a f)ucking moron, is what you are, an egotistical f*ggot !

 

 

so why should I pay a red cent for your "social programs" ?

Correct, why should ANY of us pay taxes when illegal aliens and most of barry's dimocratic cabinet don't? Why should we? barry and manchelle made millions last year and only paid an effective rate of 18.4% Hell, the bottom 50% of this country pay NO taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then millions of scholars, economics, and of course politicians got it wrong too.

I'll wait for them to recant......

 

In the mean time, ask anyone you know if wages = income. Then get back to us....

 

The old appeal to authority fallacy.

 

Somehow you are unable to even ADDRESS the court cases I cited, so you go all retard, claiming to be personally acquainted with, and know the minds of, "MILLIONS" of scholars, "economics" (WTF?), and politicians...

 

So, the court cases - they went in your mouth and your ass and met in the middle and evaporated each other?

 

In the mean time, ask anyone you know if wages = income.

 

Retard, "anyone I know" does not matter. The SCOTUS matters.

 

Idiot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You beg to differ?

 

Differ with the courts, son.

From where did you copy and paste this? Did you even read the cases first? I think not.

"Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and, in such connection, gain means profit... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal." - [staples v. U.S., 21 F Supp 737 U.S. Dist. Ct. ED PA, 1937]

For example, the bits above from Staples v. United States, 21 F. Supp. 737 - Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania 1937 are either cherry-picked or completely fabricated.
"In United States v. Boston & Providence R. R. Corporation the matter is referred to purely by way of obiter dictum, and in none of them is the question discussed whether the value of a building erected by a tenant under the circumstances here disclosed is income within the meaning of the Sixteenth Amendment." Notice the sentence stops with the word "Amendment", rather than continuing on? In fact, notice the word "income" is near the end of a sentence, and not the capitalized beginning of a sentence.
In fact, "and the Revenue Act means, gain" is not in the text at all. "Revenue Act" is mentioned four times in the brief, but not once followed by "means", and not by "means, gain".
The word "connection" is not in the text at all. Neither is "gain means profit". And so on.
In fact, this case was not about employment wages at all, but rather about real improvements made to a leased property, and the fight over paid income tax.
And that's just the first of these so-called relevant cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You're an idiot. Anyone who gets a paycheck has at least 20% taken right off the top, moron.

So, at least 20% of the ( working taxpayer provided ) money that supports non working liberal parasites is taken off the top of their welfare check. Why doesn't that sound right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

employed and coming in

 

To understand what Judge Maris was getting at, you'd have to read it in context, rather than the bits picked out.

 

The Sixteenth Amendment authorizes the taxation without apportionment of "incomes, from whatever source derived." Income has been defined as "the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined," Stratton's Independence v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 34 S.Ct. 136, 140, 58 L.Ed. 285, "including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital," Doyle v. Mitchell Bros. Co., 247 U.S. 179, 38 S.Ct. 467, 62 L.Ed. 1054; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 40 S.Ct. 189, 193, 64 L.Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570. The gain is, however, not taxable until it is realized. North American Oil Consol. v. Burnet, 286 U.S. 417, 52 S.Ct. 613, 76 L.Ed. 1197. Furthermore, a gain from capital must be derived from it, not merely accruing to it.Eisner v. Macomber, supra. In the case just cited Mr. Justice Pitney, after quoting the foregoing definition, said, 252 U. S. 189, at page 207, 40 S.Ct. 189, 193, 64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A.L.R. 1570:

"Brief as it is, it indicates the characteristic and distinguishing attribute of income essential for a correct solution of the present controversy. The government, although basing its argument upon the definition as quoted, placed chief emphasis upon the word `gain,' which was extended to include a variety of meanings; while the significance of the next three words was either overlooked or misconceived. `Derived — from — capital'; `the gain — derived — from — capital,' etc. Here we have the essential matter: not a gain accruing to capital; not a growth or increment of value in the investment; but a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or employed, and coming in, being `derived' — that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal — that is income derived from property. Nothing else answers the description.

"The same fundamental conception is clearly set forth in the Sixteenth Amendment — `incomes, from whatever source derived' — the essential thought being expressed with a conciseness and lucidity entirely in harmony with the form and style of the Constitution."

In the light of this authoritative definition I have reached the conclusion that the value of a building erected by a tenant on his own initiative and without any obligation to do so, which by reason of its being annexed to the freehold becomes the property of the landlord, is not income of the landlord until the land is sold or otherwise disposed of. I am not passing upon the question whether the value of such a building would be taxable income to the landlord if erected by the tenant pursuant to a definite obligation to do so contained in the lease. In such a case it might well be argued that the increased value of the leased premises represented an additional rental to the landlord which was reserved by him and agreed upon when the lease was executed. Such is not this case, however.

In the present case it seems clear to me that the value of the building permanently added to the land by the tenant was at the most, in the words of Mr. Justice Pitney, but "a gain accruing to capital, * * * a growth or increment of value in the investment." It was not "something of exchangeable value, proceeding from the property, severed from the capital, * * * and coming in, being `derived,' that is, received or drawn by the recipient (the taxpayer) for his separate use, benefit and disposal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"There is a clear distinction between `profit' and `wages', or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit', as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment -- a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor." [Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955)] -

Oliver v. Halstead, 196 Va. 992 - Va: Supreme Court 1955 was making the distinction between a contract for profit and a contract for employment.

 

It is irrelevant to this discussion, better suited to a discussion about for-profit v. nonprofit.

 

"The claim that salaries, wages, and conpensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support, either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Department, which either prescribed or permits that compensations for personal services not be taxed as a entirety and not be returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that, by the language of the Act, it is not salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits, and income derived from salaries, wages, or compensation for personal services."

- [Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111 (1930)] -

 

Lucas v. Earl

Although the above is presented as a direct quote, it is not (see link). This case has nothing to do with this topic, but rather whether the husband should be taxed for the whole, or share half and half with his wife.

 

"... whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under Section 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income ... Congress has taxed income not compensation."

- [Conner v. U.S., 303 F Supp. 1187 (1969)]

Link to brief? I could find two more modern ConnOr v. U.S., but no ConnEr v. U.S., and none for 1969. The only mention of this "case", was in the copy/paste from blogs and forums.

 

Edwards (vs) Keith, 231 F110, 113 (1916)

Stated: "The phraseology of form 1040 is somewhat obscure .... But it matters little what it does mean; the statute and the statute alone determines what is income to be taxed. It taxes only income "derived" from many different sources; one does not "derive income" by rendering services and charging for them... IRS cannot enlarge the scope of the statute."

Link? I couldn't find the brief, although it was mentioned as a booklet to purchase or quoted in other places, none of which gave the brief's text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just like there are laws against non-doctors being paid money for medical care

:)

 

 

f)uck you !

No, fuhk you!

 

Double fuhk you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As you know, I am studying real estate...

 

$ 300,000 a year is easy, it is achievable to make a million or more a year...

 

Why the f)uck should I pay a red cent in taxes, for a country that hates the idea that I rose from the poor, and studied a field where such pay is possible ?

 

 

 

I got news for ya...

 

f)uck you !

 

 

 

You're not doing a damn thing for me now, and you never have and you also, never will...

 

so I got news for ya... f)uck you, and your "code of ethics" for making money, that never worked.

 

Im going to make money, and you Anti-Capitalist stupid motherf)uckers can go blow your dads !

 

 

btw, there is nothing unethical about being a real estate agent, you're not qualified to participate in a real estate transaction without the assistance of a broker and an agent...

 

nobody but a real estate professional like a broker or an agent is..

 

 

if you think you are, and you don't have a degree, you're a f)ucking moron, is what you are, an egotistical f*ggot !

 

 

so why should I pay a red cent for your "social programs" ?

 

You do not have to pay income tax (Federal) if you do not wish to pay them. Merely get a minimum wage job and you're golden.

 

But if you wish to take more out of the economy, circa $300 grand, then you have to put some back into it.

 

The choice is yours, godbless America. Ain't it great?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone making $300 grand or more has accountants and tax lawyers who work diligently to reduce the taxable income. People who believe the wealthy will pay for the liberal agenda are mistaken. The wealthy pay the least amount they legally can. Good for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


No holds barred chat

  • Hey kfools.. does this help? 


  • By Vegas

    Liberals are going to hell.


  • grgle



  • Where’s at @slideman?


  • Hola


  • I know this one, this new chat thing. I've seen it called the "shoutbox" among other things in my past. Very hard to hide from the chat box. The question is asked, there's no time to go search what other folks think, this is real time. Only seconds should be between chat box replies. This one is made for me. In the chat box one has to be quick on their feet with stuff at the ready. This chat box is the worst nightmare of anyone trying to deal with ol' teach. 


  • By pmurT

    hey @teacher that sounds like too much work for me LOL I need that useless thing called *time* in order to authenticate facts and truths which get posted by deceitful Dems


  • What does the red number refer to? currently, on my screen it says 2

     


  • Where does it say 2?


  • So. In the chat....if you tag a member the text afterwards should be a private message. 


  • How do? I'm teacher. If I'm online and the powers that be can figure out how to make it immediately apparent to me that whatever I've said here has been replied to I'm gonna show up right quick and kick some teeth in. It's the chat box, all this is new and scary. I know this gig. This starts now. 



  • Hey kfools, did you lose your securtiy cert? On my browser it is saying your site is not secure?


  • Mine too. I'm looking into it.


  • Mine too. 


  • I thought it was my location.. 


  • Just gave to renew the security cert. No big deal I'll do it tonight


  • OK thanks

     



  • Happy Anniversary, America... on your Civil Union.


  • All lives matter.


  • Double post deleted.


  • By teacher

    Scroll the other way for a while and you'll see me saying that these days the chat box ain't gonna work as one has to be quick on one's feet. The question is posed, there ain't no stinkin time for ya'll to refer to your betters for the answer, ya'll don't understand these things, this political debate, ya'll don't have the answer at hand, ya'll haven't thought this through, ya'll ain't ready for the next question I'll ask,  ya'll can't handle the pace that a bloke such as I can bring it in the chat box, ya'll can't handle this format.

     

    This one is made for me. 


  • By teacher

    Being offended does not make one correct. 


  • By teacher

    Some few days before the next election Mr. Fools is gonna pin my horse thread. it's gonna be horrible, I shall endevour every day to bring some some fresh. 

     

    I still own this cat box.


  • By teacher

    "I'm coming to you for ask a quick favor."


  • By teacher

    "Anyone that places a color in front of their name is racist." That one is not mine, got it from another member. 


  • Where’s all the hot bitches? 


  • By teacher

    Kidding me? 


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    How do I get rid of this chatroom box?


  • By nuckin futz

    Get me out of Chatbox!


  • By jefftec

    The chatbox stays expanded and is a nuisance blocking screen images. What setting is there to control/collapse chatbox?


  • By kfools

    Just click the no holds barred to collapse it.


  • By XavierOnassis

    diddle dee dee


  • By teacher

    Like Jesse Ventura said to all that would not take a chew in the movie "Predator." LF.org is a political debate forum. This chatbox just ups the opportunity to go at it. Ya'll have your political views, seems to me that ya'll should have thought these things out and be ready to battle. 


  • By teacher

    Is real time political debate a thing ya'll hide from? What do you morons do if you happen to run into some one with opposing political views on the street? 


  • By teacher

    I've never ran into anyone, in real life,  that said Obama lied. I run into folks that tell me Trump lies. I'm at work. I didn't bring it up. I don't reply, I'm representing a company. Not my place. 


  • By teacher

    Lookie there, all I have to do is get out and come back. Why is it that liberals, when they have a company man before them decide they that is the time they go off? Why would ya'll put a company man into that position? 


  • By teacher

    Chatbox is mine. 


You don't have permission to chat in this chatroom
×
×
  • Create New...