MN Stix: winner, Losthorizontal Doofus of the Day Award

[Famspear]

I'm sorry, I can't resist. User MN Stix at losthorizons deserves his own thread for the nonsensical blather in this thread:

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1299

As I and others have noted in another thread, MN Stix blathers on and on about "value" -- blissfully ignorant of the point that gain, for federal income tax purposes, is not determined by subtracting the current "value" of an item.

MN Stix, if you are going to accuse others of stupidity, you had better be right. You are wrong, and worse, you are arrogant in your astonishingly expansive stupidity. You see, [David Mamet mode = on] Daniel B. Evans is a tax law expert, and you're nothing. Nice guy? Go home and play with your kids. You wanna play tax expert? Then shut up and learn something. You know nothing. [David Mamet mode = off].

MN Stix, you flunked your own Grey Poupon test.

[Famspear]

An example of MX Stix Logic:

Absolutely absurd! Labor has a value of 0 dollars and everything is therefore profit? Allow me to hold my a** until I finish laughing!

To receive Profit, one must start with something of value. As demonstrated, if I place 20 dollars into an account, I have an initial value...$20. If that account goes up in value due to interest in the amount of $5, the account now has $25 in it. I have gained 5 dollars for doing nothing.

To say that labor has 0 value is absurd.

http://www.losthorizons.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=1299

And of course, neither Daniel B. Evans nor the tax law says that labor has zero value.

MN Stix now runs completely off the rails and into the weeds of irrelevancy:

Since I must contribute my labor to get the money,f how do I profit? Well, if I agreed with my boss that my labor has a value $20 per hour, that is your value...$20 per hour. If I get my weekly check at $800, then $800 divided by 40hrs = $20 per hour for labor, how could anyone suggest a profit?

Ummm. Cause you now have $800 you didn't have before, maybe? Oh, but for MN Stix, the idea that you are $800 richer is "absurd". Get a load of this:

A better look at this absurd notion [see? I told ya! - Famspear] is as it says...If I start with my labor as being worth $0, how would I obtain pay at the end of the work week?

Stixee-poo, who gives a flying f*** whether you started the week with your labor being worth zero? You worked a week, and now you have $800 you didn't have before. Can you say S-T-U-U-U-U-U-U-P-I-D?? Do we have to put your picture in the dictionary next to that word for you to get it??

That is, labor = $0 X 40 hrs worked = 0 pay at the end of the week. That does not hold water AT ALL!

No s***! Hey, nutball is this the economics they're teaching you in school now? This is it? This is how you compute your income from compensation for personal services?

He goes on:

$0 per hour as agreed for labor? So, $0 X 40hrs worked = $0, then my boss decides that at the end of the week he will GIFT me $800...now we have a profit! That is NOT the way it works ladies and gentleman, at least not in my case.

I got news for you, Einstein: That's exactly how it works in your case. Except it ain't a "gift." It's compensation for the personal services you rendered.

The problem with determining profit from labor is that there is only one way to do it. $20 X 40 hrs worked = $900 paid. Now, as we can plainly see, I have gained $100 above what I labored for. $100 is my gross profit from my investment of labor.

So, this is what passes for tax law "analysis" at losthorizons....

[Famspear]

Considering how tenuous the grasp of basic economics we find with respect to MN ("Einstein") Stix, I can see why he's having trouble with tax law.

So, Einstein, if we agree that your labor has a value of $800 and that's what I pay you, you have zero profit? Zero gain? And if we agree that your labor has a value of $800 and I end up paying you $900, your gain or profit is only $100?

Hey, Einstein, if you and I agree that your labor is worth $5,000 a month and I agree to pay you $5,000 for a month's work, and then you work a month and I pay you nothing and skip town, why don't you deduct the $5,000 as a loss on your federal income tax return? Let me know how that turns out.

[Imalawman]

This is a topic that we keep revisiting. Value vs. basis is a concept that seems to really give TPs a fit. You're taxed based on the amount of "value" i.e. amount realized you've received in excess of your basis in an item. So, in a sense the IRS cares about value (only in sense of the value of the amount realized), but you're not taxed on the relative values, but whether you have received an amount of value above your basis in the property. With the exception of debt, you must pay tax in order to get basis or an increase in basis. Thus you if you found a baseball card worth $100, your immediate basis is 0. I think everyone would agree with that. If you then exchanged that card immediately for cash, your tax due would be the amount realized ($100) minus your basis ($0) for a taxable gain of $100.

So far so good, right? Now, let's say you pay tax immediately on that baseball card worth $100. Now your taxable basis is $100. You then exchange the card for $100 cash. Amount Realized (100) minus ($100) equals taxable gain of $0. All transaction essentially work like this. Think about it. Will there ever be a transaction where the two items being exchanged aren't of equal value? Why the hell else would you exchange something? (Ok, excluding non-arm's length transaction) Under the TP thought process no exchanges would ever be taxable.

Now to labor. YES, your pay reflect the value of the services you have provided. When you get paid there has been an equal exchange of value (hopefully). However, you must once again, do the calculation - Amount realized ($100 let's say) minus the BASIS of your labor. This means the dollar amount that you paid tax on in respect to your labor. But such a concept is ridiculous. Since you have not paid any taxes in respect of your labor, you have $0 basis in your labor. Thus, the equation is AR-AB=$100 taxable gain.

It really is that simple.

[Famspear]

This is a topic that we keep revisiting [ . . . .]

Also, this illustrates a recurring theme among tax protesters: Make up your own imaginary rule, then reject the statutes and case law that do not comport with that rule, then pretend that your rule is the "real" law.

The mess that MN Stix made of himself is easy to laugh at. The joy I get from reading stuff like this reminds me of why I visit the losthorizons forum so often. For days, sometimes, it can go and on with the same old boring stuff, as these clowns try to reinforce each other's delusions -- but then every once in a while you find real hilarity with gems like these.

[Famspear]

This is a topic that we keep revisiting. Value vs. basis is a concept that seems to really give TPs a fit.

Partly, it is as though they really can't really "see" the word "basis" when they read it. When they see the word "basis," I think they must unconsciously replace it with the term "current fair market value."

MN Stix seems to labor under the delusion that "basis" is something that can apply to your personal "labor," and then he deludes himself to think that the amount of basis in your labor is determined by an agreement between you and your employer, etc. -- simply "agreeing" that because your labor has a current fair market value of $XX, that $XX must ALSO be your "basis" in that labor. This is completely in line with the recurrent narcissism we see among many of these people; they "believe" that making up their own rule somehow makes that rule "real."

One working definition of Narcissism is: a mental disorder characterized by the delusional belief that oneself is omnipotent. If you believe you are all-powerful, then I guess you believe you can make up rules of law and that when you make up those rules, they somehow become "real."

[Gregg]

Further down in the same post quoted above, he goes on about some nonsensical thought train that if he gets paid $20 for an hour at one job, then goes to a second job, he can't get paid again, as, according to his in depth analysis of something Dan wrote, he has already been paid for his labor and selling it again would be selling something he doesn't have anymore. I had to read it twice to get it, but it looks to me that he fails to realize that when you sell your labor by the hour, every hour you get to bill it again. Kensei is still my favorite, but MN Stix is still an entertaining read most of the time.