Subject:
|
Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 21 Dec 1999 05:12:51 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
607 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jasper Janssen writes:
> I notice you don't bother to address any of the actual points, though.
You want me to cosign your view on banks and usary? Not I. The fact that the
world banks are playing an increasingly elaborate shell game of "where's the
digital money" does nothing but disgust me.
Unless you are yourself a bank owner, I really find it hard to understand why
you defend banking practices so much. What they do is essentially criminal in
the United States except that they are allowed to do it by law -- Title 12 of
the Federal Codes. If you try do what the banks do without the consent of the
government (i.e. charge interest), you are in serious trouble and would likely
be prosecuted under RICO (Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,
or something very close to this).
But like Frederic Bastiat before me, I call it plunder whether its legalized
or not. Don't ask me to justify thievery even if it DOES have benefits -- I
am just not that mercenary.
If you want to read a justification for a stable monetary system, read the
letters between George Washington and the Marquis de Lafayette -- which I
alluded to when I mentioned the Articles of Confederation. As I recall,
Washington too, was surprised at the positive effects of a stable monetary
system.
If you want to talk about paying taxes on the proceeds from lego auctions, I
can see a lot of reasons why such profits may not be real or taxable. The
definitions in the United States for "gross income" are really a thing for
experts and the truly bored -- they are excrutiatingly tedious and serpentine
pieces of code to have to read through. And again, I assert that tax laws are
purposely confusing in order to conceal a much simpler truth -- that many
things are not properly taxed under an "income tax" no matter what the code
says.
If you wanted a list of Court decisions concerning taxes that go in favor of
my views, no problem -- but surely you must realize that numerous such cases
exist. The one that seems to be most on point here is Brushaber v. Union
Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493 (1915), where it states:
"We are of opnion, however, that the confusion is not inherent, but rather
arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto
unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which,
although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment
applicable to all other direct taxes. And the far-reaching effect of this
ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTION will be made clear by generalizing the many contentions
advanced in argument to support it..."(pp. 10-12)[ALL CAPS ADDED FOR EMPHASIS]
But the long and short of it is that we are still laboring under
the "erroneous assumption" that there is such a quasi-direct tax allowed by
the Sixteenth Amendment. But assuming it, and everyone bowing low to it,
still doesn't make it so...
-- Richard
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) Nitpick: Usury. (...) Because moneylending is as close as anything can get to being the one thing that makes this world possible. Do you know how many more times there is "virtual" money compared to real-world assets? Where do you think Intel, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Taxes from Lego auctions?
|
| (...) Didn't I mention that the topic had drifted way away from toy auctions and into taxes in general? Or did you just not read anything I wrote? (...) I notice you don't bother to address any of the actual points, though. Jasper (25 years ago, 20-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
56 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
