I somehow doubt you are in the same utterly clueless state.Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:22 am Sad to say, I am from the same state as Jamie0331. ...
![Snicker :snicker:](./images/smilies/icon_snicker.gif)
I somehow doubt you are in the same utterly clueless state.Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 2:22 am Sad to say, I am from the same state as Jamie0331. ...
denial about having to pay taxes?
Really? Damn. You mean they moved it from Capitol Hill since I got my JD there? I know that was a long time ago, but I think I would have heard.
Did you actually read that draft article, Jamie? I find that hard to believe. Because, if you had actually read it - assuming, of course, that you can read - you would have been interested to learn that the author isn't discussing wages. Indeed, the author - like anyone with the least knowledge of the law - views it as an axiom that wages are taxed:You’re going to tell me that they are talking gibberish also. You know the laws. Email them and set them straight. Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub
Read that last sentence a few times.Prof. John R. Brooks wrote:increases in wealth are just as much income as wages or the gain from sales
...
Other ways include measuring the market value of the output itself (e.g., child care) and valuing the labor based on the wages paid for similar work
...
Among the items that appear in every one of the income concepts are wages, business income, income from property (other than realized gains), and taxable interest and dividends.
Don't overlook the personal attacks. They are so very effective in getting those of logical minds to realize they're being dense
There is one thing.
Jamie0331 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 6:24 pm Should the IRS no their own laws if they are to enforce them?
Robert Bernhoft, Banister’s attorney, said his client was acquitted because the government did not prove he intended to defraud. Observers said a crucial moment of the trial occurred when defense attorneys intensely questioned Banister’s former supervisor at IRS, Robert Gorini, and he was unable to cite any U.S. law that required Banister to pay income taxes.
http://www.bernhoftlaw.com/major-cases/joseph-banister/
Good grief.Jamie0331 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:16 pm So black’s law is nonsense? The problem is that you cannot spin it around to mean something that it is not. There is no such thing as taxable wages, it is taxable income that is derived from wages. Clearly you are not as dumb as I first thought. Calling black’s law nonsense is nonsense. You are involved in something to do with the taxing system. I am thinking work related. You are very fast to respond. What is your job? Does your job have anything to with detouring people away from the truth of the income tax? Because there is no such thing as the wage tax. All you do is spin the facts and avoid them. The time you put into this BS is very interesting. You keep avoiding the facts with stupid nonsense. Why?
No, Jamie -- I am going to tell you that what YOU are writing is gibberish. You are throwing together factoids from laws and court decisions into a word salad with absolutely NO legal validity, and garnished liberally with cherry-picking.Jamie0331 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 11:51 am Next you are going to tell me that John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts are not from MA. And the Battle of Bunker Hill was not in MA either. Also the Revolutionary War did not involve taxes. Moreover you’re going to say. The term income is defined nowhere in Title 26 of the US Code, which is the law that relates to the "income" tax. The term "income" has repeatedly been held by the courts to indicate "gain on capital" and not receipts is not true.
If you know the laws, then Georgetown University Law Center. Georgetown is in the State of MA. You’re going to tell me that they are talking gibberish also. You know the laws. Email them and set them straight. Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW.
https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/ ... ext=facpub
Black's Law (the book) is not nonsense.Jamie0331 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 5:16 pm So black’s law is nonsense? The problem is that you cannot spin it around to mean something that it is not. There is no such thing as taxable wages, it is taxable income that is derived from wages. Clearly you are not as dumb as I first thought. Calling black’s law nonsense is nonsense. You are involved in something to do with the taxing system. I am thinking work related. You are very fast to respond. What is your job? Does your job have anything to with detouring people away from the truth of the income tax? Because there is no such thing as the wage tax. All you do is spin the facts and avoid them. The time you put into this BS is very interesting. You keep avoiding the facts with stupid nonsense. Why?
The real question is: can Jamie somehow avoid a penalty on the play? Unsportsman-like conduct and delay of game are possibilities. For some reason, "puck over glass" also comes to mind.Pottapaug1938 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 14, 2018 8:53 pm You're engaging in a battle of wits with educated professionals, Jamie; and you are completely unarmed. As one Bay Stater to another -- it's time to call it a day, here. You're up against the Patriots; you are losing by a score of 78-0; and you have the ball on your own 1-foot-line, with 2 seconds left in the fourth quarter. You aren't even in field goal range.