CriticalFumble.net Forums  

Go Back   CriticalFumble.net Forums > CriticalFumble.net Community Forums > Gamers: Ethics & Religion

Gamers: Ethics & Religion Discussion of ethics and religion and what place they have around the gaming table. The point of this forum is to give space to all the ethical stuff that is or is not relevant that gamers insist on talking about anyway. Also much discussion of real-world issues including religion and politics. THIS FORUM IS NOT FOR THE THIN-SKINNED! You have been warned.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 12-10-2017, 03:45 PM
Windhaven's Avatar
Windhaven Windhaven is offline
Resident Wizard
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 8,647
Windhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlord
Default

Your version of "fairly explicit" is to wave your hands and wail madly.

The question is very clear: Who, business or individual, pays taxes twice on the same income or inheritance? How does that happen?

Your response? To handwave and wail some more.

Come on, there is someone, some entity, that pays twice or there isn't. I'm asking you to name or describe them, and you either can or you can't.

If there isn't, if you can't or won't, then the "Double tax" claim is a fraud. Put up or shut up.
__________________
The Paladin and the Assassin perform the same function. The only difference is, one of them blames god for it.

As a permit holder, one of your goals should be to never have a law named after you

"Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword!"
"Tell you what. You, me, dark alley. You bring the pen."
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 12-10-2017, 04:09 PM
Archaelos's Avatar
Archaelos Archaelos is offline
Ninja Hyena
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Frozen North
Posts: 10,935
Archaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windhaven View Post
Your version of "fairly explicit" is to wave your hands and wail madly.
I quoted you. If you were wailing and flailing, hardly my problem.

Quote:
The question is very clear: Who, business or individual, pays taxes twice on the same income or inheritance? How does that happen?
I've made no such assertion.

Quote:
If there isn't, if you can't or won't, then the "Double tax" claim is a fraud. Put up or shut up.
The principle is contra-applicable. Argall's wrongness in no way excuses your wrongness.

You don't understand income or taxation.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 12-10-2017, 04:31 PM
David Argall David Argall is offline
Bona fide Fumbler
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: La Puente, CA
Posts: 7,088
David Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlord
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaelos View Post
It wasn't just "casual"; it was wrong. Period. You're conflating business and personal taxation in a way that is sloppy, unhelpful, misinformed, and misguided. When in a policy discussion, you could at least try to be in the ballpark of correct definitions.

You aren't, and your defense is "big deal".

Your definitions are so sloppy as to render this a meaningless question.
As I have noted before, Saying somebody is wrong is not a sufficient answer. [Now maybe if you were a teacher wanting to teach him how to think and reason, and so wanted him to learn how to solve such problems himself..., but our purpose is to find the correct answer, not find the right way to find it. We may well want that too, but only if we have to. It is much faster to use the right method than to discover it.] You need to point out the correct answer and/or explain why the wrong answer is wrong. Just saying he is wrong invites an answer of "no, you are wrong. .. No, you are... you are, you are... You just can't reach a conclusion.
__________________
Yours for less government



David Argall
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 12-10-2017, 04:48 PM
Archaelos's Avatar
Archaelos Archaelos is offline
Ninja Hyena
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Frozen North
Posts: 10,935
Archaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
As I have noted before, Saying somebody is wrong is not a sufficient answer.
The burden of proof remains on the person making the positive assertion.

This has been explained to you many times.

I'm appalled at your inability to learn.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 12-10-2017, 08:01 PM
David Argall David Argall is offline
Bona fide Fumbler
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: La Puente, CA
Posts: 7,088
David Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlord
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Archaelos View Post
The burden of proof remains on the person making the positive assertion.
"Positive", like "negative" and most other words has a variety of meanings, one of which is "negative". And that is the meaning that applies here.
Our starting question is "is there a difference between A & B? [or in this case, between Windhaven position and Archaelos position] to which the possible answers are "positive, I detect a difference" or "negative, I find no difference". By saying "wrong", you are taking the positive position and saying there is a difference. So the burden of proof is yours.
We have already seen that accepting "wrong" as a complete answer can lead to stalemate if the other speaker just says "wrong" back. This is another way of saying that. The positive statement is that "there is a difference." Saying it in negative form ["wrong"] does not change that. By saying "wrong" you are making the positive assertion that there is a flaw in Windhaven's position, and you have the burden of proving there is such a flaw.]
__________________
Yours for less government



David Argall
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 12-10-2017, 08:25 PM
Archaelos's Avatar
Archaelos Archaelos is offline
Ninja Hyena
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Frozen North
Posts: 10,935
Archaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
"Positive", like "negative" and most other words has a variety of meanings, one of which is "negative".
Can someone translate this for me? It exceeds my residual bullshit interpreter allowance.

Quote:
And that is the meaning that applies here.
No, it isn't. I'm certain when I said Windbag had made a positive assertion, I did not intend for it to say "negative".

Quote:
Our starting question is "is there a difference between A & B?
Who asked that question? I didn't ask that question. As far as I can tell, no one asked that question.

Quote:
We have already seen that accepting "wrong" as a complete answer can lead to stalemate if the other speaker just says "wrong" back. This is another way of saying that. The positive statement is that "there is a difference." Saying it in negative form ["wrong"] does not change that. By saying "wrong" you are making the positive assertion that there is a flaw in Windhaven's position, and you have the burden of proving there is such a flaw.]


You have got to be fucking kidding me.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 12-10-2017, 08:32 PM
David Argall David Argall is offline
Bona fide Fumbler
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: La Puente, CA
Posts: 7,088
David Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlordDavid Argall is an evil overlord
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windhaven View Post
The question is very clear: Who, business or individual, pays taxes twice on the same income or inheritance? How does that happen?
Already done, but we can do it again.
You own a business. You are the only owner, and employee for that matter. Wanting to be sure how much money it is making, you incorporate and all money comes from or to a company checking account. At the end of the year the business has made $10,000 and pays taxes of $2000. Alternately, you don't bother to incorporate and your own checking account has $10,000 in it and you pay $2000 in taxes.
But now you decide the business checking account is too large, and you take out $5000 and put it into your personal account. Under your change-hands theory, you now have $5000 of "income" and owe $1000 in additional taxes. But if you had not incorporated, you would not have to pay any additional taxes.
Same person, same income, but you are double taxed and must pay the government twice on the same income. How is that justified? Other than by the greed of the government?
__________________
Yours for less government



David Argall
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 12-10-2017, 09:48 PM
Archaelos's Avatar
Archaelos Archaelos is offline
Ninja Hyena
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Frozen North
Posts: 10,935
Archaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Fire your accountant. He's either a moron or he's robbing you blind. (Or both.)

There is no normal set of circumstances where the situation you describe below would work as you describe.


Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
Already done, but we can do it again.
You own a business. You are the only owner, and employee for that matter. Wanting to be sure how much money it is making, you incorporate and all money comes from or to a company checking account. At the end of the year the business has made $10,000 and pays taxes of $2000. Alternately, you don't bother to incorporate and your own checking account has $10,000 in it and you pay $2000 in taxes.
But now you decide the business checking account is too large, and you take out $5000 and put it into your personal account. Under your change-hands theory, you now have $5000 of "income" and owe $1000 in additional taxes. But if you had not incorporated, you would not have to pay any additional taxes.
Same person, same income, but you are double taxed and must pay the government twice on the same income. How is that justified? Other than by the greed of the government?
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 12-10-2017, 10:30 PM
Windhaven's Avatar
Windhaven Windhaven is offline
Resident Wizard
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Long Beach CA
Posts: 8,647
Windhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlordWindhaven is an evil overlord
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David Argall View Post
Already done, but we can do it again.
You own a business. You are the only owner, and employee for that matter.
As of this point, the business is you, doing business under another name.

Quote:
Wanting to be sure how much money it is making, you incorporate and all money comes from or to a company checking account. At the end of the year the business has made $10,000 and pays taxes of $2000.
And the business is now no longer "you". When it incorporates it becomes, legally speaking, a separate entity. As a separate entity, it pays separate taxes.

Quote:
But now you decide the business checking account is too large, and you take out $5000 and put it into your personal account. Under your change-hands theory, you now have $5000 of "income" and owe $1000 in additional taxes. But if you had not incorporated, you would not have to pay any additional taxes.
Absolutely correct. The corporation owned the money, and now you do.

Quote:
Same person, same income, but you are double taxed and must pay the government twice on the same income. How is that justified? Other than by the greed of the government?
Wrong, and this is the common failure in comprehension.

It's not the "same person"

The moment you incorporate the business, it's money and your money are distinct. You're now talking about two "people", while in your unincorporated version there was only one.

The company isn't you, legally speaking. It's a separate entity. The money it takes in is its money, its income, not yours. That new "person" (which is how the law treats it, for tax purposes), has an income, and has to pay taxes on it.

When you get paid, or when you transfer funds to your personal account, it's your money. It just changed hands. And when that happens, you have to pay taxes on it.

It paid, then you pay. Separate legal entities, separate tax payments.

Nobody paid twice.
__________________
The Paladin and the Assassin perform the same function. The only difference is, one of them blames god for it.

As a permit holder, one of your goals should be to never have a law named after you

"Remember, the pen is mightier than the sword!"
"Tell you what. You, me, dark alley. You bring the pen."
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 12-10-2017, 10:43 PM
Archaelos's Avatar
Archaelos Archaelos is offline
Ninja Hyena
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: The Great Frozen North
Posts: 10,935
Archaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond reputeArchaelos has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Windhaven View Post
And the business is now no longer "you". When it incorporates it becomes, legally speaking, a separate entity. As a separate entity, it pays separate taxes.
Not in the scenario DA described. He's wrong, but so are you, you fucking moron.

Quote:
Absolutely correct. The corporation owned the money, and now you do.
This is painful.

Quote:
Wrong, and this is the common failure in comprehension.
Irony, thy name is Windhaven.

Quote:
The money it takes in is its money, its income, not yours. That new "person" (which is how the law treats it, for tax purposes), has an income, and has to pay taxes on it.
Is your accountant the same bad accountant as DA's? Because, seriously, you're getting screwed. And not in the good way.

Quote:
When you get paid, or when you transfer funds to your personal account, it's your money. It just changed hands. And when that happens, you have to pay taxes on it.
Allow me to recommend you not to transfer money from a corporate account to your own account without significantly better understanding of corporations, ownership, and taxation. Consult your lawyer first. Then, after finding a reputable accountant, consult them as well.

Quote:
It paid, then you pay.
ARGH UGH NO FUCK YOU THIS ISNT HOW IT WORKS
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright on all original post text belongs to the poster.