Practical Advice For Newbies II

[Harvester]

Wondering why everyone's trying to pull you apart like a piece of fresh meat? Wondering what sort of odd antechamber of hell you've found? Allow me to enlighten.

QUATLOOS is inhabited mostly by members of the legal & financial professions. Ostensibly, they appear to report on, expose, and poke fun of various scams. The true purpose (& great irony) of the site however, is to protect & defend the largest scam in known history. That is, the Income Tax scam as collected by the IRS. A nation with an elastic (fiat) currency needs a method to extract or 'siphon off' excess money to keep inflation in check. For this, the tax works perfectly & deceptively sucks away the wealth of the nation. It works hand in hand with the Federal Reserve system, a private international banking cartel, answerable to no one. Who's behind these scams? Well, that's for you to figure out.

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.
~Mayer Amschel Rothschild

Quatloosians, aka Quatlosers, run the gamut from hardcore veterans like Famspear & LPC all the way to beginners who actually believe the professional liars, who say that we all have "taxable income" and all must "pay your fair share." These social predators use all the tricks to redirect the curious back into the taxpayer pen. These include the known logical fallacies http://www.logicalfallacies.info like Ad Hominem, Straw Man, Misconstrue, Redirect, etc. and a few more thrown in for full measure. They're quite humorous to watch really, bereft, mostly liars, some pathological, perhaps even psychopathic http://www.sott.net/articles/show/205485-I-Psychopath but of course, like the IRS, quite harmless when one is armed with the law and the facts. (this is a plan of forgiveness so Quatlosers won't be officially prosecuted).

The Income Tax is a legal, Constitutional tax applying only to those in the federal zone and those with "income" as described in the Revenue Acts. "Income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code (hiding something?) and is certainly not "all that comes in" says the Supreme Court. Most Americans have been bamboozled into paying a tax they never owed. And yes, this means Pete Hendrickson is correct. Never has anyone so succinctly & successfully described the scam as Pete, and why, of course, he & his CtC book are the Quatlosers chief target.
http://losthorizons.com

[The Operative]

Opening a second thread with the same nonsense that you used in a previous thread only illustrates that you do not learn. No court, or anybody, that matters will agree with your ridiculous statements. The tax laws, as they are enforced by the IRS, are legal and constitutional. Arguments to the contrary are usually frivolous and without merit.

If anyone is contemplating not paying taxes or other types of evasion, consider the following...

There are only four results that can occur if a person decides to follow idiotic tax protester theories:

1. Person does not pay taxes. IRS does not notice or determines the amount is too small to bother. Nothing happens to person and they get to live out their life enjoying benefits that everyone else is paying for. THIS IS RARE.

2. Person does not pay taxes. IRS eventually notices and proceeds to assess penalties and interest to encourage the person to pay what is owed. If the person does not, the IRS can legally levy bank accounts, place liens on property, or even foreclose on property owned by the person. This is much more common.

3. Person does not pay taxes. IRS decides to recommend to the DOJ that criminal charges are pursued. Person luckily is able to convince a jury they were too stupid to know that they had to pay taxes and are acquitted. IRS can legally proceed with all actions described in #2 above.

4. Person does not pay taxes. IRS decides to recommend to the DOJ that criminal charges are pursued. The person is convicted of various tax related charges and spends time in prison. The IRS continues with the civil actions described in #2 above.

Since there are only four results and three of them are bad, does anyone except the delusional believe it is a good idea to not pay taxes? BTW, all of the actions above taken by the IRS and DOJ are legal and Constitutional.

[webhick]

Havester, don't double-post. If you want to continue a locked thread, pick it up where you left off.

[.]

QUATLOOS is inhabited mostly by members of the legal profession.

Ignoring the rest of his nonsense, this loser can't even get his first "fact" right.

There are perhaps a dozen or so active posters who are attorneys.

There are at least two dozen active posters who are not attorneys (not including the miscellaneous delusional morons who wander in and out of here like Harvester and Van Pelt.)

QEDumbass

[Nikki]

Harvester is probably confused


about the demographics of Quatloosia since almost every citizen and resident is more informed about both the law and the inner workings of government at all levels than he is.

He thereby makes the great mental leap (stumbling over his toes) to the conclusion that everyone must be an attorney.

[LPC]

Opening a second thread with the same nonsense that you used in a previous thread only illustrates that you do not learn.

It also illustrates that he really has no answer to my challenge to point to something in my FAQ that is incorrect or misleading.

[silversopp]

I still haven't heard of any governor's resigned due to whatever the heck you and Van Pelt cooked up.

How's that going Harvester? Care to comment on why they didn't resign according to the timeline you set forth?

[Joe Dirt]

I still haven't heard of any governor's resigned due to whatever the heck you and Van Pelt cooked up.

How's that going Harvester? Care to comment on why they didn't resign according to the timeline you set forth?

I think that the governors of the various states have got this figured out... they wrote REFUSED FOR CAUSEon the face of the letter, signed with a thumbprint, recordated it with their clerk and then flushed it...

[Gregg]

Harvester -

On this board, out of the regular contributors not using a screen name beginning with David, there are:

Attorneys (including at least one tax attorney who has fought the IRS and won), CPAs, one PhD level Economist, CFPs, financial planning professionals, and even an ex-banker or two.

And yet you place far greater faith in people who have zero knowledge and education in the tax, legal, financial planning, banking or economics fields.

Brilliant. Just brilliant on your part, following those who are a permanent underclass and premanently broke from following the advice of a slow witted scam artist(s). You can do that if you want, just don't expect any sympathy from us. Well, don't expect any sympathy from me, as I will just point and laugh at you.

Don't know if I am the Phd Economist mentioned or not, as I actually work for Ford outside my degree, but I do have a Phd in Economics, as well as one in International Business...FWIW

[ASITStands]

Don't know if I am the Phd Economist mentioned or not, as I actually work for Ford outside my degree, but I do have a Phd in Economics, as well as one in International Business...FWIW

And, I'm just an ordinary fellow (carpenter, truck driver) who stumbled into my view of things by simply putting two-and-two together and coming up with four instead of five.

I started by trying to "prove" the arguments of tax protesters/tax deniers and found that I couldn't do that, so I ended up "debunking" most of the things thrown at me until I found myself understanding the reality of tax law and court procedure better than most.

Still ain't skilled in law, but I understand a lot better than those fighting reason to prove they don't owe an income tax. After all, the motive is trying to prove they don't owe anything.

For what it's worth, Dan's FAQ helped me a bunch, and even if you begin by disagreeing, it's an education trying to debunk what he's written or trying to support your favorite theory.

'Harvester' and those like him simply lack the knowledge to stand toe-to-toe with him.

[LPC]

I'm beginning to think that we should ban Harvester. Not because he's annoying or offensive, but because he's boring and increasingly lacks any entertainment value.

[Gregg]

Don't know if I am the Phd Economist mentioned or not, as I actually work for Ford outside my degree, but I do have a Phd in Economics, as well as one in International Business...FWIW

And, I'm just an ordinary fellow (carpenter, truck driver) who stumbled into my view of things by simply putting two-and-two together and coming up with four instead of five.

I started by trying to "prove" the arguments of tax protesters/tax deniers and found that I couldn't do that, so I ended up "debunking" most of the things thrown at me until I found myself understanding the reality of tax law and court procedure better than most.

Still ain't skilled in law, but I understand a lot better than those fighting reason to prove they don't owe an income tax. After all, the motive is trying to prove they don't owe anything.

For what it's worth, Dan's FAQ helped me a bunch, and even if you begin by disagreeing, it's an education trying to debunk what he's written or trying to support your favorite theory.

'Harvester' and those like him simply lack the knowledge to stand toe-to-toe with him.

For all that, I would personally still listen to your thoughts on tax matters related to the TD anyhow, as I would a High School Drop out who proved to my satisfaction here and on other places that he did indeed know what he was talking about. Even with minor mistakes easily corrected by the rest of the readers here, because I trust several of you to be more adept at the day to day proceess than am I, the last time I saw most of it was honestly the day I sat for the Uniform CPA Exam, under a wall sized mural of I swear Corporal Max Klinger....

[Gregg]

I'm beginning to think that we should ban Harvester. Not because he's annoying or offensive, but because he's boring and increasingly lacks any entertainment value.

I have no idea.....

[Harvester]

In 1964, three kids plan a little experiment. Larry hides his 10 dollar bills in a mattress, Harvey hides his roll of quarters ($10) in a mattress, and Danny gets his Momma to invest his $10 in a savings account paying 4.50% (prime rate of the day) fixed compounded annually. Today, 46 years later, they compare results. Who is ahead?

[Pottapaug1938]

In 1964, three kids plan a little experiment. Larry hides his 10 dollar bills in a mattress, Harvey hides his roll of quarters ($10) in a mattress, and Danny gets his Momma to invest his $10 in a savings account paying 4.50% (prime rate of the day) fixed compounded annually. Today, 46 years later, they compare results. Who is ahead?

The butler.

Seriously -- someone did a survey, a few years back, imagining three people. One put his or her money in a safe and kept it there; one invested the same amount of money in high-grade bonds, and one invested the money in growth stocks. During ANY ten-year period in our nation's history, even including the Great Depression, the investor in common stocks came out ahead. So, Harvester, you need to add a fourth kid -- one who invested his $10 in a stock mutual fund, and then shifted his money into a brokerage account when it got big enough.

BTW -- precious metals funds have never outperformed stock funds, over the long term. Yes, gold and silver are at all-time highs; but whether or not we are in a precious metals bubble remains to be seen. Wait until our economy gets back on track, and then see what happens.

[Harvester]

LPC, I'm laying the groundwork that will expose your fraud. Do you find that uncomfortable?

ANSWER: Larry has $10, Danny has $75.74, and Harvey's silver quarters are now worth $132 (in silver alone). Yes Pottapaug, a stock investor may have beaten them all but you're missing the point. Considering inflation, Larry has 1/7th of what he began with. Danny's $75 will buy about what it did originally; after inflation he really didn't make any money, he needed a 4.5% return just to stay even. Someone has ripped them off. Someone has debased our currency. Where did this hidden tax of inflation come from? Once you understand THE MONEY SCAM we can move on to it's twin brother - the IRS' tax scam.

SOUND MONEY
The winner in the above example held sound money, real money, in the form of silver. It kept its buying power. It has intrinsic value that cannot be stolen from us by government (the issuer of fiat money) while we sleep. Early Americans & the Founding Fathers knew all about the dangers of paper money having experienced it with the 'Continental' that hyper-inflated to near worthlessness. At Jefferson's urging in 1785 Congress adopted the Spanish silver dollar, 8 reales, called pieces of eight (similar to the thaler) as the official monetary unit of the United States. Two years later Congress defines the dollar as 371.25 grains of fine silver. Also note that from 1789 until 1912 $1 buys a steak dinner for two. Yes that's 123 years of no inflation*. Look at an inflation graph - it's a flat line except for a couple blips during wartime.

CENTRAL BANKING RETURNS
About the turn of the century, the so-called 'robber barons' & bankers were raking in $ hand over fist. Their monopolistic tactics were taking over competitors, causing boom/bust cycles & economic panics. To grasp the kind of wealth we're talking here, look at their opulent 30+ room mansions along the cliffwalk in Newport RI; then remember these were just their summer homes. As some of that wealth could not have been made without the governments' protective TARIFF (which brought in little in taxes, compared with what it allowed the barons to make), there began some public outcry for these rich people to 'pay up.' At about the same time in 1910, Sen. Aldrich, and banking insiders Andrew, Vanderlip, Davison, Norton, Strong, & Paul Warburg, meet in secret on Jekyll Island to author a banking bill. Woodrow Wilson, who had campaigned on anti-central bank platform, signs that bill into law in 1913, handing over the US monetary system to a private banking cartel of 12 banks deceptively known as the Federal Reserve System. This marked the beginning of THE MONEY SCAM in America. Of course the bankers/barons didn't want their wealth taxed but finally compromised on a sufficiently vague 16th amendment declared ratified the same year. Income at the time generally meant 'unearned income' or interest income and the amendment was sold to the public as getting the rich to "pay their share." In no way was it to tax the average working mans salary or wage.* Phil Hart's CONSTITUTIONAL INCOME is a great resource here as He gives a thorough analysis of the Congressional Record & newspapers of the day to conclude that The People or Congress did not intend to tax the average workman's pay via the 16th Amendment (our grandparents weren't morons). Evans and the IRS would have us believe otherwise. By 1936 only 3.9% of the population filed returns.*

[Famspear]

.......Income at the time [the year 1913] generally meant 'unearned income' or interest income and the amendment was sold to the public as getting the rich to "pay their share."

Baloney. If "income" in 1913 had not included earnings by an individual in a non-federally privileged activity, why is it that no one objected to having to pay tax on those earnings? Why, in the 1920s and 1930s, do we see ZERO court cases where people came in and said "Hey, wait a minute, income does not include my earnings for my labor"?

The few people who did owe federal income tax in the 1920s and 1930s did so because their income level exceeded the statutory threshold below which the income was not taxed (essentially, the same as today - generally, you don't pay income tax on the income below the sum of your personal exemption amount and standard deduction amount). These people, who did owe and pay income tax, tended to be people with relatively high incomes.

Now, Harvester, do you really think that the people of that period with high incomes simply paid tax on income they thought was not taxable? Don't you think the high income people in the 1920s and 1930s could afford tax lawyers and accountants to advise them? If income in that period was understood to mean only unearned income or interest income, then why didn't anyone object -- especially the relatively high income earners in the private sector?

Don't just blurt out a guess. Think before you answer, Harvester.

[The Operative]

LPC, I'm laying the groundwork that will expose your fraud. Do you find that uncomfortable?

ANSWER: Larry has $10, Danny has $75.74, and Harvey's silver quarters are now worth $132 (in silver alone). Yes Pottapaug, a stock investor may have beaten them all but you're missing the point. Considering inflation, Larry has 1/7th of what he began with. Danny's $75 will buy about what it did originally; after inflation he really didn't make any money, he needed a 4.5% return just to stay even. Someone has ripped them off. Someone has debased our currency. Where did this hidden tax of inflation come from? Once you understand THE MONEY SCAM we can move on to it's twin brother - the IRS' tax scam.
<SNIP LARGELY INACCURATE NONSENSE>

Gold bugs might actually be amusing if they weren't so stupid.

Stock investments over the long term far out perform investing in gold, even if inflation is accounted for. Two people in 1975, both with $10,000. One person invests the $10,000 in GE at $38.63 per share. The other person invests his $10,000 in gold at $175 per ounce. At first glance, a person might think the gold investor won because gold is currently approximately $1,120 per ounce and GE is trading at $18.52. However, the person who invested in GE wins because GE stock paid dividends and split a few times over the last 35 years.

The person who invested in gold bought a little more than 57 ounces. I'll be generous and say he bought 58. Today, his $10,000 investment is worth approx. $64,960. Since inflation has caused the purchasing power of the dollar to erode a bit, $10,000 in 1975 would be equal to approximately $40,300 in today's dollars. In this aspect, Harvester is correct in saying that gold maintained it value because he can buy a little more with the 58 ounces of gold today than he could in 1975.

Now let's look at the person who purchased GE. For his $10,000 investment he purchased approximately 258 shares of GE stock. By reinvesting dividends and accounting for stock splits, that person would have approximately 38,000 shares today. Those 38,000 shares would be worth approximately $700,000 in today's dollars. So, who was the smarter investor?

EDIT: Let's assume the investor in GE got paid his dividends instead of reinvesting them. GE had four stock splits over the past 35 years. One 3:1 split and three 2:1 splits. This means the investor has 6,192 shares of stock. At $18.52 per share, his account is worth approximately $114,000. So, he got to spend some of his investment over the intervening years, unlike the gold investor and he still has a higher value.

How about if the person invested in Coca-Cola? The $10,000 would have purchased 150 shares. By reinvesting dividends and accounting for stock splits, that person would have 18,868 shares today with an account worth approximately $1 million in today's dollars. Who was the smarter investor?

[Harvester]

Operative, now imagine that $10k GE investment denominated in gold, not dollars that depreciate. You missed the point; investments denominated in fiat dollars are losing 4 to 10% a year (official stats are fudged) to inflation, which America did not have for a hundred twenty some odd years.

Why, in the 1920s and 1930s, do we see ZERO court cases where people came in and said "Hey, wait a minute, income does not include my earnings for my labor"?

There are no court cases precisely because "income (for Income Tax purposes) does not include earnings from labor" and the working people were not assessing themselves as having received income.

These people, who did owe and pay income tax, tended to be people with relatively high incomes.

I agree, but let's not confuse terms. Everyday income (all the money I made) is very different from "income" in the Revenue Acts.

Now, Harvester, do you really think that the people of that period with high incomes simply paid tax on income they thought was not taxable? Don't you think the high income people in the 1920s and 1930s could afford tax lawyers and accountants to advise them?

No, and Yes.

If income in that period was understood to mean only unearned income or interest income, then why didn't anyone object -- especially the relatively high income earners in the private sector?

Well I'm sure they did object, but they were a minority for starters. And those who really knew the score, or were pulled aside with "hey it's OK to support this, it only taxes your investments in national banks /corporations, it's just an excise on income encompassed by the Revenue Act," knew it was no big deal.

[Brandybuck]

I'm not a goldbug, but a free banking fan, so I may be biased against those full reserve dudes. Anyway, the basic premise of a goldbug is that gold has a fixed value. That's not strictly true, but let's assume it for the purposes of this exercise. Tautologically, if gold does not increase in value, then gold does not increase in value. Thus making it a crappy investment.

Assume that you save 10% of your income (as in wages, salaries and tips) each year over your working career of forty five years, and you will have saved enough value to last you... wait for it... an average of only four and a half years! Retire at age 65 and you'll be dead broke at 70!