The iPhone is doomed, and Spain as well

PJH

@PJH said:
More than 50% of my gross income.

Employees don't pay income tax. The company they work for pays it. You don't own a single cent of that 50%.

Companies don't pay tax. People do.

Seriously. To quote from that last:

The burden of taxes supposedly levied on companies is borne either by investors, workers or consumers. So while it might be popular to make firms pay more, it’s actually just a way of stealthily taxing these people, ensuring nobody really understands who is picking up the bill.

Perhaps you are confusing "collecting the taxes on behalf of the employee before it hits their pay packet and handing it to the government" with "companies paying taxes" but the latter really isn't true.

dhromed

@PJH said:

Companies don't pay tax. People do.

I'm going to chew on that for a bit.

dkf

@dhromed said:

@PJH said:
Companies don't pay tax. People do.

I'm going to chew on that for a bit.

Don't bother. You'll just get more dyspeptic.

flabdablet

@PJH said:

You're simply not reading what I wrote along side them.

Of course I'm reading what you wrote alongside them. Then I'm noting the fact that the sources you quoted don't support the conclusions you draw from them. So far, you have done nothing to dispel the impression that you are an ill-informed, reactionary Daily Mail drone without anything even slightly useful to say on matters of public policy.

@dhromed said:

All I can do is study the folks in charge and vote.
Which I forgot to do last time, so fuck me. My preferred party didn't win anyway. And got a leadership crisis a few months later because their charismatic leader said Screw you guys, I'm going home. That was fun!

Even if you DO vote and they DO win, they probably won't do anything they promised anyway. Meh indeed :D

flabdablet

@PJH said:

Companies don't pay tax. People do.

Seriously. To quote from that last:
The burden of taxes supposedly levied on companies is borne either by investors, workers or consumers. So while it might be popular to make firms pay more, it’s actually just a way of stealthily taxing these people, ensuring nobody really understands who is picking up the bill.

If you find that argument convincing, consistency demands that you agree that employees don't pay income tax, because the burden of income taxes supposedly levied on individuals is borne by their employers.

In fact both arguments are wrong. Taxes are paid by the entity they're assessed against. Money flowing into any given entity to cover the cost of taxation flowing out is no longer taxation. Consistent disagreement with this principle requires that you trace the path of every penny taken in tax from any entity all the way upstream through the economy until you see it emerge either from the taxing government as a benefit, or from the central bank that issued it, in which case you're forced to the bizarre and useless conclusion that all tax is ultimately paid either by the central bank or by the state itself.

PJH

Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...
@flabdablet said:

consistency demands that you agree that employees don't pay income tax, because the burden of income taxes supposedly levied on individuals is borne by their employers.

No, it doesn't actually, but we'll let you have your little fantasy for a paragraph longer...
@flabdablet said:

all tax is ultimately paid either by the central bank or by the state itself.

This, gentlemen, is why I'm refusing to play with this idiot. He'll get through the whole lot eventually (sooner rather than later I'm guessing.)

I'll let you all get back to your normal viewing....

flabdablet

@boomzilla said:

@dhromed said:
@flabdablet said:
That's why a basic income should be something every citizen receives as of right.

I can't tell if you're sarcastic.

Given his posting history, I don't think so. I guess he missed the brief discussion of this on the BAD IDEAS THREAD:

@boomzilla said:
AU$30,000 guaranteed income

This one is particularly amusing. The author is pretty clueless, and so are many commenters. Some of the useful idiots try to flesh out how such a scheme would work to get undesirable jobs completed, and end up recreating some combination of feudal villeins and Maoist Cultural Revolution like that was a good thing.
The level of self absorption and cluelessness of supporters of such a thing is just mind blowing. @TFA said:
"Imagine the creativity, innovation and enterprise that would be unleashed if every citizen were guaranteed a living. Universal income provides the material basis for a fuller development of human potential."

I suppose it could work if we could survive on robot slave labor or Start Trek like replicators that worked. I encourage BIEN supporters to hold their breaths in anticipation.

I see lots of disparaging scoffing there, but I don't see an actual argument. You appear to be assuming that the economy would grind to a halt if taking a shitty job were a matter for the free market (i.e. a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of money for labour) rather than one of coercion by circumstance (i.e. the only way for a relatively unskilled individual to afford food and shelter). Why?

flabdablet

@PJH said:

This, gentlemen, is why I'm refusing to play with this idiot. He'll get through the whole lot eventually (sooner rather than later I'm guessing.)

Once again, I question your ability to understand the sources you misrepresent. Reductio ad absurdum is not a fallacy.

flabdablet

@PJH said:

Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better filter.

boomzilla

@flabdablet said:

I see lots of disparaging scoffing there, but I don't see an actual argument. You appear to be assuming that the economy would grind to a halt if taking a shitty job were a matter for the free market (i.e. a mutually beneficial voluntary exchange of money for labour) rather than one of coercion by circumstance (i.e. the only way for a relatively unskilled individual to afford food and shelter). Why?

The way you've presented this is a non sequitur if you meant it to apply to a guaranteed income scheme and its ramifications. There were many arguments pointing out the consequences of the proposal. I see you scoffing at the arguments, but not arguing against them. I agree that changing the subject away from something indefensible that you've advocated is probably a good strategy for you. But I'll bite...

So, you're talking about a relatively unskilled individual and someone who needs something done that doesn't require much skill (let's say it's cleaning durowin's workplace's lavatories). And so the unskilled guy wants to eat and have some place to eat. And so the two parties agree that the unskilled guy will clean up after the monkeys that work with durowin and in exchange he'll get some money to buy food and rent a room. Both parties got something they wanted and are better off after the exchange.

I guess you're upset that the janitor couldn't be a Playboy photographer or something? Seriously, what is your argument, aside from using the scary phrase, "coercion by circumstance." Don't we all do our jobs for that reason? I'm sure we could all find something else that's more fun to do (maybe not the Playboy photographer) if circumstances weren't coercing us into prostituting our labor out for Cheetos and Steam subscriptions.

error

@flabdablet said:

@PJH said:
Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better filter.

Why bother with parse and match when you can use querySelectorAll?

dhromed

@flabdablet said:

in which case you're forced to the bizarre and useless conclusion that all tax is ultimately paid either by the central bank or by the state itself.

Well duh, it's circles of money. That's not much of a surprise. Money doesn't have identity, though, so you can't "trace a penny" and you can't state that all money eventually comes back to its starting point. All you can do is map money flows, and lo, it's a messy web.

flabdablet

@dhromed said:

Money doesn't have identity, though, so you can't "trace a penny"

Quite so. Which is exactly why it makes no sense at all to claim that the tax assessed against an entity is in fact paid not by that entity but by some collection of others.

Lorne Kates

@joe.edwards said:

@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better filter.

Why bother with parse and match when you can use querySelectorAll?

Do NOT fucking critisize! I gave this script a 5 star review because it is PERFECT! DO NOT QUESTION ME!!!

boomzilla

@flabdablet said:

@dhromed said:
Money doesn't have identity, though, so you can't "trace a penny"

Quite so. Which is exactly why it makes no sense at all to claim that the tax assessed against an entity is in fact paid not by that entity but by some collection of others.

Ignoramus, educate thyself!

@Walter Williams said:

There's an entire subject area in economics, known as tax incidence, that investigates who bears the burden of a tax. It turns out that the burden of a tax is not necessarily borne by the party or entity upon whom it is levied. For example, if a sales tax is levied on a cigarette retailer, the retailer does not bear the full burden of the tax. Part of it will be shifted forward to customers in the form of higher product prices. The exact amount of the shifting depends upon market supply and demand conditions.

...
In 1980, Joseph Stiglitz, now a Nobel laureate, said that workers share the highest corporate tax burden in the form of lower wages. A number of economic studies, including that of the Congressional Budget Office, show that workers bear anywhere from 45 to 75 percent of the corporate tax burden. Adding to the burden is the fact that capital has the kind of mobility that labor doesn't. Corporate capital can flee to other countries easily, but workers cannot.

By all means, keep playing the pedantic dickweed card and tracing which bank account supplies the tax payment. I guess your circumstances have coerced you into defending bad ideas.

error

Some state and federal costs get directly passed on to customers in the form of Cost Recovery Fees.

Ben L.

@joe.edwards said:

Some state and federal costs get directly passed on to customers in the form of Cost Recovery Fees.

"Cost Recovery Fees" sounds like lawyer-speak for "lol u pay owr bilz"

flabdablet

@joe.edwards said:

@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better filter.

Why bother with parse and match when you can use querySelectorAll?

querySelectorAll returns a collection of leaves; I want to select branches.

function ignore(names){
	if(typeof names == 'string') names = [names];
	names.forEach(function(name){
		Array.prototype.slice.apply(document.querySelectorAll("li.ForumPostUserName a")).forEach(function(a){
			if(a.textContent != name) return;
			while(!a.classList.contains('ForumPostArea')) a = a.parentNode;
			a.parentNode.removeChild(a);
		});
	});
}

(Don't worry, I don't write real code like this)

Edit: I think I'm leaving an empty li behind. You may want to change that last statement to a.parentNode.parentNode.removeChild(a);

Ronald

@Lorne Kates said:

@joe.edwards said:
@flabdablet said:
@PJH said:
Opps, one slipped through. Rules must need tweaking...

Here's a nickel, kid. Get yourself a better filter.

Why bother with parse and match when you can use querySelectorAll?

Do NOT fucking critisize! I gave this script a 5 star review because it is PERFECT! DO NOT QUESTION ME!!!

That script is broken! It prevents people from seeing their own posts! At least that's what it does for me. Now I can't read my own replies and be amazed by how clever and funny I am (especially compared to the black guy with a clown costume).

Ben L.

@Donald McRonald said:

(especially compared to the black guy with a clown costume).

Pretty sure that's a turtle.

error

@Ben L. said:

@Donald McRonald said:
(especially compared to the black guy with a clown costume).

Pretty sure that's a turtle.

Wow, it's a schooner!

morbiuswilters

@flabdablet said:

In fact both arguments are wrong. Taxes are paid by the entity they're assessed against. Money flowing into any given entity to cover the cost of taxation flowing out is no longer taxation. Consistent disagreement with this principle requires that you trace the path of every penny taken in tax from any entity all the way upstream through the economy until you see it emerge either from the taxing government as a benefit, or from the central bank that issued it, in which case you're forced to the bizarre and useless conclusion that all tax is ultimately paid either by the central bank or by the state itself.

No, you really don't understand how taxation works, I'm afraid. First, I hope you aren't so stupid that you can't see that, for example, businesses don't pay taxes--that taxes are simply passed on to people who buy from or work for the business.

You're somewhat correct in noting that income taxes paid by individuals get passed on to their employer, although only somewhat--a highly-compensated employee can do this, because the value he brings to the company is such that he can simply demand a higher salary. However, lower-compensated employees don't bring as much value and therefore do not have the same leverage. Taxes are ultimately paid by the people or companies who are least able to offset taxation with increased revenue. In other words, taxes are mostly paid by the lower- and middle-classes.

All you are attempting to do by levying taxes on high incomes is to distort reality; the value of a person's labor or a company's products is what it is. My labor is not valued in absolute terms, but in terms relative to that of everyone else who is selling their labor. You can distort things enough to convince yourself you are taxing the rich, but most of the effects are felt by the poor. This is a well-trod economic ground. Only partisan hacks or the woefully ignorant do not realize this.

Ronald

@morbiuswilters said:

I hope you aren't so stupid that you can't see that, for example, businesses don't pay taxes--that taxes are simply passed on to people who buy from or work for the business.

This applies mostly to retail or local services. e.g. if your customers are in a different country then the taxes you pay are not passed on to them, unless you consider that taxes are hidden in the price you charge, which makes the entire discussion pointless.

morbiuswilters

@flabdablet said:

if they can't steal peacefully from the state, they'll steal violently from their neighbours instead.

Let them. They will be shot dead and the problem will be solved.

@flabdablet said:

I'm sorry to hear from you that arseholes outnumber good people where you live, but it's a matter of verifiable fact that this is not the case everywhere.

[citation needed]

@flabdablet said:

I don't believe that there is an economic solution to this problem, because at its root the problem is not economic but social, cultural and intergenerational.

Of course it's social, cultural and intergenerational. The problem is that you see cutting off benefits as only an economic fix, whereas it's primarily for reforming the culture.

@flabdablet said:

To my way of thinking, the aggregate amount of spending and/or regulation is almost completely irrelevant.

Then you're completely ignoring the fact that quantity is a quality all its own. Big government is inherently dangerous and evil. Show me a large government that's been accountable to anyone. Look at the horror powerful governments have wrought, from the British Empire, to Nazi Germany, the USSR, China, the modern EU and modern US.

@flabdablet said:

Public policy is inherently complex, one-size-fits-all prescriptions very nearly always cause more problems than they solve, and no policy option ought to be ruled out simply because it involves regulating or taxing something.

You're doing your favorite thing, attacking straw men. Nobody said they were against all taxation or regulation, did they? But we aren't talking about taxing or regulating some things. We live in a world where the vast, vast majority of things are taxed and regulated. You're not talking about squeezing an extra pound sterling out of the clenched fists of Victorian bankers so you can buy Tiny Tim some shoes. Your'e talking about working and middle class people (you know, the people you pretend to care about) giving 40, 50, 60, maybe 70% of their labor to an out-of-control government. That is fucking insanity.

@flabdablet said:

What do we want? Gradual change! When do we want it? In due course!

I would be glad with gradual rollback of government, but it's not going to happen. At this point, what is going to happen (at least in the EU and US) is either a final power-grab so governments can consolidate their power during the collapses they've brought about, or all-out collapse. Either way, it's going to be much worse than what would have happened if we'd spent sensibly.

@flabdablet said:

It would also be good if smart people spent more time discussing things reasonably amongst themselves than engaging in pissing contests.

Why? No offense, but what do you think it's going to accomplish? Even if one of us did change the other's mind (and how likely is that?) what good will that do? We're thousands of miles apart, in separate countries on separate continents. And even if we weren't, nothing we do is going to change things. The power elite (the politically-connected rich and the rich-connected politicians) don't give two shits what you think, even when you agree with them. Do you think Barack Obama doesn't know how many millions of people are suffering due to the welfare state? He's not enough of a moron to be a true believer. The welfare system is expressly designed by these people to give themselves more power. When it's fucking people over, that is working as far as they're concerned.

morbiuswilters

@Ronald said:

@morbiuswilters said:
I hope you aren't so stupid that you can't see that, for example, businesses don't pay taxes--that taxes are simply passed on to people who buy from or work for the business.

This applies mostly to retail or local services. e.g. if your customers are in a different country then the taxes you pay are not passed on to them, unless you consider that taxes are hidden in the price you charge, which makes the entire discussion pointless.

Of course that's what is meant. Do you think Ginni Rometty* goes home and eats Cup of Noodle so she can afford IBM's taxes? Or do you think they just tack that shit onto the licensing fees for the Ugandan orphanages they've tricked into buying Notes?

(*I seriously had to look that up. Because who the fuck even pays attention to what goes on at IBM any more?)

Ronald

@morbiuswilters said:

Do you think Ginni Rometty* goes home and eats Cup of Noodle so she can afford IBM's taxes? Or do you think they just tack that shit onto the licensing fees for the Ugandan orphanages they've tricked into buying Notes?

(*I seriously had to look that up. Because who the fuck even pays attention to what goes on at IBM any more?)

Rometty is older and less trendy than the Yahoo bitch but she got serious skills, not just clout. A true IBMer, not an opportunistic board jumper.

boomzilla

@Ronald said:

That script is broken! It prevents people from seeing their own posts! At least that's what it does for me. Now I can't read my own replies and be amazed by how clever and funny I am (especially compared to the black guy with a clown costume).

Hmm....sounds like the newest manifestation of gamification on TDWTF. Get plonked by flabdablet!

@boomzilla said:

@Ronald said:
That script is broken! It prevents people from seeing their own posts! At least that's what it does for me. Now I can't read my own replies and be amazed by how clever and funny I am (especially compared to the black guy with a clown costume).

Hmm....sounds like the newest manifestation of gamification on TDWTF. Get plonked by flabdablet!

Getting plonked sounds more fun then it is.

flabdablet

@KillaCoda said:

Getting plonked sounds more fun then it is.

Beats getting pistol-whipped by the mighty penis of Science.

Snooder

@dhromed said:

@PJH said:
More than 50% of my gross income.

Employees don't pay income tax. The company they work for pays it. You don't own a single cent of that 50%.

That's not even close to true. At least not in the US. And if you think that's true, you may be in for a rude awakening when the IRS comes calling.

locallunatic

@Snooder said:

@dhromed said:

Employees don't pay income tax. The company they work for pays it. You don't own a single cent of that 50%.

That's not even close to true. At least not in the US.

Depends on how you look at it. I could see someone saying that the withholding on your paycheck is just paying the taxes ahead of time and that it wasn't yours in the first place (maybe saying the company was paying it cause they kept hold of it and forwarded it on for you). OK it's a really big stretch, but I could see looking at it that way.

boomzilla

@locallunatic said:

Depends on how you look at it. I could see someone saying that the withholding on your paycheck is just paying the taxes ahead of time and that it wasn't yours in the first place (maybe saying the company was paying it cause they kept hold of it and forwarded it on for you). OK it's a really big stretch, but I could see looking at it that way.

If it's not my income, then why do I have to pay tax on it?

Snooder

@locallunatic said:

@Snooder said:
@dhromed said:

Employees don't pay income tax. The company they work for pays it. You don't own a single cent of that 50%.

That's not even close to true. At least not in the US.

Depends on how you look at it. I could see someone saying that the withholding on your paycheck is just paying the taxes ahead of time and that it wasn't yours in the first place (maybe saying the company was paying it cause they kept hold of it and forwarded it on for you). OK it's a really big stretch, but I could see looking at it that way.

Sure, except that payroll taxes != income taxes. You don't only owe tax on your salary from your employer. You owe tax on every piece of income you get from whatever source it is (except certain well defined exceptions).

error

@Snooder said:

You owe tax on every piece of income you get from whatever source it is (except certain well defined exceptions).

You even owe taxes for money gained illegally. They convicted Al Capone for tax evasion.

FrostCat

@Ben L. said:

@joe.edwards said:
Some state and federal costs get directly passed on to customers in the form of Cost Recovery Fees.

"Cost Recovery Fees" sounds like lawyer-speak for "lol u pay owr bilz"

That's because it clearly is.

HardwareGeek

@joe.edwards said:

You even owe taxes for money gained illegally. They convicted Al Capone for tax evasion.

One of my dogs is named after Al Capone. The breeder named him; I have no idea why.

Snooder

@joe.edwards said:

@Snooder said:
You owe tax on every piece of income you get from whatever source it is (except certain well defined exceptions).

You even owe taxes for money gained illegally. They convicted Al Capone for tax evasion.

Heh, I remember some pretty funny stories from a tax course about the various things that the government considers income, and therefore tax worthy. There were a few stories like someone buying a dresser at a garage sale and finding a couple hundred grand stuffed inside. My favorite though, was the guy who was living rent-free at his employer's mansion. There was an implication that the reason he had such a cosy relationship was because he was a 'comely' young man, and she was a middle aged widow. There's nothing like reading a judge basically call some dude a gigolo. And yes, he had to pay the tax on the money he wasn't paying in rent.

Ronald

@Snooder said:

@joe.edwards said:
@Snooder said:
You owe tax on every piece of income you get from whatever source it is (except certain well defined exceptions).

You even owe taxes for money gained illegally. They convicted Al Capone for tax evasion.

Heh, I remember some pretty funny stories from a tax course about the various things that the government considers income, and therefore tax worthy. There were a few stories like someone buying a dresser at a garage sale and finding a couple hundred grand stuffed inside. My favorite though, was the guy who was living rent-free at his employer's mansion. There was an implication that the reason he had such a cosy relationship was because he was a 'comely' young man, and she was a middle aged widow. There's nothing like reading a judge basically call some dude a gigolo. And yes, he had to pay the tax on the money he wasn't paying in rent.

People believe that because numbers are involved tax laws are very accurate, but in large part things are based on an arbitrary decision made by civil servants. If they think that according to what other similar business owners made you should have made $1,000,000 and not the lousy $600,000 you put in your form, they may very well decide to tax you on $1,000,000. If they decide that because you are a contractor with a single client you are in fact a hidden employee, they may hit both with payroll taxes and various other penalties. If they decide that the phone you are provided with by your company is probably used only 25% of the time for business, they may tax you on the value of 75% of the phone bill as a fringe benefit.

There is only one way to avoid taxes completely, and it will all be explained in my book coming out this Fall at Barnes & Noble.*

* no there is no book

morbiuswilters

@Ronald said:

@morbiuswilters said:
Do you think Ginni Rometty* goes home and eats Cup of Noodle so she can afford IBM's taxes? Or do you think they just tack that shit onto the licensing fees for the Ugandan orphanages they've tricked into buying Notes?

(*I seriously had to look that up. Because who the fuck even pays attention to what goes on at IBM any more?)

Rometty is older and less trendy than the Yahoo bitch but she got serious skills, not just clout. A true IBMer, not an opportunistic board jumper.

I don't know who either one of them is, and I don't care. Yahoo! is a joke and IBM is nearly one.

morbiuswilters

@Snooder said:

Sure, except that payroll taxes != income taxes.

Sure they are. They're assessed as a percentage of income. The only difference is some of them are capped.

@Snooder said:

You don't only owe tax on your salary from your employer. You owe tax on every piece of income you get from whatever source it is (except certain well defined exceptions).

Ok. How is that at all relevant to what he said?

Ronald

@morbiuswilters said:

@Ronald said:
@morbiuswilters said:
Do you think Ginni Rometty* goes home and eats Cup of Noodle so she can afford IBM's taxes? Or do you think they just tack that shit onto the licensing fees for the Ugandan orphanages they've tricked into buying Notes?

(*I seriously had to look that up. Because who the fuck even pays attention to what goes on at IBM any more?)

Rometty is older and less trendy than the Yahoo bitch but she got serious skills, not just clout. A true IBMer, not an opportunistic board jumper.

I don't know who either one of them is, and I don't care. Yahoo! is a joke and IBM is nearly one.

IBM

Yahoo

flabdablet

@morbiuswilters said:

@flabdablet said:
It would also be good if smart people spent more time discussing things reasonably amongst themselves than engaging in pissing contests.

Why? No offense, but what do you think it's going to accomplish? Even if one of us did change the other's mind (and how likely is that?) what good will that do? We're thousands of miles apart, in separate countries on separate continents. And even if we weren't, nothing we do is going to change things. The power elite (the politically-connected rich and the rich-connected politicians) don't give two shits what you think, even when you agree with them. Do you think Barack Obama doesn't know how many millions of people are suffering due to the welfare state? He's not enough of a moron to be a true believer. The welfare system is expressly designed by these people to give themselves more power. When it's fucking people over, that is working as far as they're concerned.

This permanent overclass you posit is a fascinating idea, and I would be interested in your answers to a number of questions about it.

Who can join?
What drives those who want to?
How do they go about it?
What is expected of members by (a) members (b) non-members?
What are the consequences of failure to meet those expectations?
How does the existence of such an overclass benefit (a) members (b) non-members (c) society as a whole?

Snooder

@Ronald said:

People believe that because numbers are involved tax laws are very accurate, but in large part things are based on an arbitrary decision made by civil servants. If they think that according to what other similar business owners made you should have made $1,000,000 and not the lousy $600,000 you put in your form, they may very well decide to tax you on $1,000,000. If they decide that because you are a contractor with a single client you are in fact a hidden employee, they may hit both with payroll taxes and various other penalties. If they decide that the phone you are provided with by your company is probably used only 25% of the time for business, they may tax you on the value of 75% of the phone bill as a fringe benefit.

There is only one way to avoid taxes completely, and it will all be explained in my book coming out this Fall at Barnes & Noble.*

* no there is no book

Nah, it's not that arbitrary. There's a basic rule of thumb involved, "if you think you found the magic secret to avoid paying all taxes, you haven't." My professors liked to refer to this as "Pigs get fat, hogs get slaughtered." So you can use some loopholes, and maneuver your taxes down a bit, but if you take it too far, even if you are technically correct, the IRS will bone you, and no judge is going to let you slide on it.

boomzilla

@Snooder said:

So you can use some loopholes, and maneuver your taxes down a bit, but if you take it too far, even if you are technically correct, the IRS will bone you, and no judge is going to let you slide on it.

It helps their cause that tax court considers you guilty until proven innocent.

dhromed

@flabdablet said:

a number of questions

I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions, otherwise no answer is going to make sense.

flabdablet

@dhromed said:

I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions

Genuine interest in Morbs's point of view. Yours and boomzilla's too, if you'd care to weigh in.

PJH

@dhromed said:

@flabdablet said:
a number of questions

I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions, otherwise no answer is going to make sense.

Probably wants to engage in another pissing contest.

dhromed

@flabdablet said:

@dhromed said:
I would first love to understand why you're asking these questions

Genuine interest in Morbs's point of view. Yours and boomzilla's too, if you'd care to weigh in.

The answer to all those questions is "money", alternatively, "money and power".

But the answer to lots of other questions is also "money", so I'm still not sure what your goal is.