Private Social Media Platform

Truth: Restaurants are informing us that servers no longer get to "cash-out " their credit card tips at the end of shift. The restaurant owner/ manager tallies the credit receipts & the tips get taxed & applied to the servers' payroll check every week/ 2 weeks. A lot of restaurants have already gone this direction. So with that being said, TIP YOUR SERVER IN CASH $ if you can . With so many people paying by credit card many servers are going home empty-handed at the end of their shift . 'Just something to think about entering this holiday season

Just in case you want to look it up.
Olk v. United States, 536 F2d 876 (1975):
"Tips are gifts and therefore are not taxable."

This is a suit to obtain a refund of federal income taxes. The issue is whether monies, called "tokes" in the relevant trade, received by the taxpayer, a craps dealer employed by Las Vegas casinos, constitute taxable income or gifts within the meaning of section 102(a), INT. REV. CODE of 1954. The taxpayer insists "tokes" are non-taxable gifts. If he is right, he is entitled to the refund for which this suit was brought. The trial court in a trial without a jury held that "tokes" were gifts. The Government appealed and we reverse and hold that "tokes" are taxable income.
https://www.anylaw.com/.../06-01-1976/dojYP2YBTlTomsSBoRJB

Try actually reading the case.

The[n] go find out what a "taxpayer" is.

Dale Eastman A taxpayer is a 14th Amendment citizen.
according to 26 CFR § 1.1-1(c)
If you are not also "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" then you cannot be a taxpayer.

You don't know what you don't know.
Answer these questions.
https://synapticsparks.info/tax/OpenQuestionnaire.html

Dale Eastman I quote the 14th Amendment and cite a tax regulation that uses the exact same language. Then you tell me I'm ignorant.
I'm familiar with tax arguments. I have not filed a tax return in 24 years.
What part makes me ignorant?

WRONG!
26 U.S. Code § 7701 - Definitions
(a) When used in this title, where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—
(14) Taxpayer
The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.

The revenue laws are a code or system in regulation of tax assessment and collection. They relate to taxpayers and not to nontaxpayers. The latter are without their scope. No procedure is prescribed for nontaxpayers, and no attempt is made to annul any of their rights and remedies in due course of law. With them Congress does not assume to deal, and they are neither the subject nor object of revenue laws.
Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922)

FN3.
The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or narrow sense contemplated by the Internal Revenue Code and means a person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his own personal income tax. (See Section 7701(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.) A "nontaxpayer" is a person who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.
Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. v. U.S.,
470 F. 2d 585 (1972)

History
Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.
http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Dale Eastman So what?
Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?

➽ Why do you assume that restaurant servers are taxpayers?

I don't. The original post points out that the restaurant owners do.

➽ What makes restaurant servers completely subject to federal jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment?

Most of the significant history of the 14th Amendment appears in the text of Original Intent's citizenship treatise. However, one historical fact is not included because it was presumed during the construction of the treatise that every American knows that the 14th Amendment was created to nullify the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 404 (1856).

Oddly, while the nullification of the Dred Scott decision is universally acknowledged as the reason the 14th Amendment was thought necessary, some ill-informed and/or illogical expositors attempt to use the Dred case as their rationale to turn the true meaning of the Amendment on its head. Fortunately, the words of Chief Justice Taney (author of the Dred decision) are unmistakably clear.
http://originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php

Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my
liberty; every contract, every condition of a contract, which
has in view the alienation or suspension of liberty, is null:
the slave, when he plants his foot upon the soil of liberty, at
that moment becomes a free man. When society seizes a
malefactor and deprives him of his liberty, it is a case of
legitimate defence: whoever violates the social compact by
the commission of a crime declares himself a public enemy;
in attacking the liberty of others, he compels them to take
away his own. Liberty is the original condition of man; to
renounce liberty is to renounce the nature of man: after that,
how could we perform the acts of man?

And yet, in spite of
these wonderful prerogatives which savour of the eternal
and the infinite, they have never found the origin of
property; the doctors still disagree. On one point only are
they in harmony: namely, that the validity of the right of
property depends upon the authenticity of its origin. But this
harmony is their condemnation. Why have they
acknowledged the right before settling the question of
origin?

The right of
occupation, or of the
first occupant, is that
which results from the actual, physical, real possession of a
thing. I occupy a piece of land; the presumption is, that I am
the proprietor, until the contrary is proved. We know that
originally such a right cannot be legitimate unless it is
reciprocal; the jurists say as much.

That
which belongs to each is not that which each
may possess,
but that which each
has a right to possess. Now, what have
we a right to possess? That which is required for our labour
and consumption;

Edinburgh professor when he added:
“A right to life implies a right to the necessary means of
life; and that justice, which forbids the taking away the life
of an innocent man, forbids no less the taking from him the
necessary means of life. He has the same right to defend the
one as the other. To hinder another man’s innocent labour,
or to deprive him of the fruit of it, is an injustice of the same
kind, and has the same effect as to put him in fetters or in
prison, and is equally a just object of resentment.”

Man
needs to labour in order to live; consequently, he needs
tools to work with and materials to work upon. His need to
produce constitutes his right to produce. Now, this right is
guaranteed him by his fellows, with whom he makes an
agreement to that effect. One hundred thousand men settle
in a large country like France with no inhabitants: each man
has a right to 1/100,000 of the land. If the number of
possessors increases, each one’s portion diminishes in
consequence;

Pothier seems to think that property, like royalty, exists by
divine right. He traces back its origin to God himself—
ab
Jove principium.

Men lived in a state of
communism; whether positive or negative it matters little.
Then there was no property, not even private possession.
The genesis and growth of possession gradually forcing
people to labour for their support, they agreed either
formally or tacitly,—it makes no difference which,—that the
worker should be sole proprietor of the fruit of his labour;
that is, they simply declared the fact that thereafter none
could live without working. It necessarily followed that, to
obtain equality of products, there must be equality of
labour; and that, to obtain equality of labour, there must be
equality of facilities for labour. Whoever without labour got
possession, by force or by strategy, of another’s means of
subsistence, destroyed equality, and placed himself above
or outside of the law. Whoever monopolised the means of
production on the ground of greater industry, also destroyed
equality. Equality being then the expression of right,
whoever violated it was
unjust.

Thomas Sowell @ThomasSowell
I have never understood why it is "greed" to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.

To feel entitled to not pay back into the very system that enables your wealth is like feeling entitled by the freedom they risk everything for to disrespect the military that defends your way of life. This is supposed to be a self-sustaining 'system' that lifts all boats, not a ponzi scheme.

Obviously your suggestion would generate less waste. But it could also generate horrific byproducts that the waste-savings would by no means make up for.

I said it *could* generate horrific byproducts, I didn't say it would. But it's easy to imagine the problems.

That said, here's my problem with dug-in political factions: each position that is not motivated purely by greed is a theory of what could make things better for everyone, not a method guaranteed to be better for everyone.

Nobody can know what will certainly work. We found out that communism falls short of what its idealists aspired to because of elements in human nature that were not factored into the method.

Any theory of organization is subject to unforeseeables and thus non-easily reversible tragedies of the commons.

Thus, the only reasonable discussions of these matters are philosophical, i.e., where we discuss them as though we don't have a dog in the race (even though we may and inevitably do).

But this 'certainty' that one's favorite alternative system will be better than a current system known to have flaws is, out the gate, the presentation of theory as *fact*, so naturally becomes easily suspect as motivated by greed rather than ideals.

When speculating on the potential of an idealized ideological maneuver, it is unbecoming of the philosophical method to sound-off as a zealot rather than an inquiring skeptic, for literally *none* of us are clairvoyant, and thus can 'know' what would be most fair and bring the most happiness for sure.

Certainly complex topics reduced to memes is the least philosophocal way to approach ideological ideas.

Dale Eastman answer: mutual protection from tragedies of the commons where each person acting in their own otherwise reasonable self-interest will degrade an aspect of the commons for everyone unless obligated to conform to regulations.

How is that service to be paid for?

Dale Eastman it *is* paid for by taxation as far as I know. How it *should* be paid for may be debated. What do you think?

➽ What do you think?

I think you and I have a collision of ideology(ies).

How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.

➽ How it *should* be paid for may be debated.

Yes, please. Let us discuss this issue of how protecting the commons should be protected and paid for.
(I appreciate that you are aware of the Tragedy of the Commons.)

I am also aware that any sidewalk or road in any village, town, city, megalopolis, or state are the commons. I think the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of all these different commons will need examination.

This segues to Where did those calling themselves the state get a Right-to-Rule and a Right-to-Initiate violence?

What if nobody wants this "service"?

Dale Eastman you wrote: //How does calling it "taxation make it not theft? I am assuming that I correctly determined your implied understanding that taxation is theft. Else why would you question how it should be paid for with other methods? Please correct me if I am wrong.//

I'm not sure we have a conflict, but words might be getting in the way. I did not say it should or shouldn't be paid with other methods besides taxation, I only said that's how it is paid currently, and I also said that how it should be paid could be debated.

I agree with Proudhon that property is theft. But, given we permit property, then we are thus ensconced within a kleptocracy and our discussion proceeds under the paradigm of what 'should' happen within a kleptocracy. This is much more complicated that talking about what should happen in a truly free anarchic society.

If you are advocating for no property, then the pardigm shifts and we would agree that both taxation and property are theft. If you are advocating for property (which is theft from the commons) but not for taxes (which you regard as theft from its rightful earners), then you may be in a sorites purgatory contemplating the boundary between good theft and bad theft.

I have just downloaded his book of the same name.

Source: https://dn790005.ca.archive.org/0/items/property-is-theft-a-pierre-joseph-proudhon-anthology/Property%20Is%20Theft%21_%20A%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudh%20-%20Pierre-Joseph%20Proudhon.pdf

1300 pages. I will get back to you once I understand Proudhon's definition of property. Using that to give me an idea as to what you might mean & intend by using the word property.

I'm also tagging my Georgia acquaintance in case he's interested in the convo.

Voting won't fix the system.

poor red hats dont want everyone voting so they make up fraud issues, unfortunately the Republicans are the only ones that have been actively trying to cheat.

I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?

Dale Eastman I'd like to agree, but I see way more effort by the Democrats to help the average American. I only see the right trying to help the rich and their corporations.

I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?

Dale Eastman I was talking to Jack Spencer, he seems like another red hat. This group is dominated by ignorant red hats.

You have accused me of being a red hat in the past...
I'll ask again, what evidence do you rely on to claim I'm a red hat?
Am I supposed to pretend you didn't write this, "he seems like another red hat."
At this moment in time there are only the three of us. "Another red hat implies more than one. Are you calling yourself a red hat?

Dale Eastman I was commenting to Jack, like I said. If I called you a red hat before it must have been cause you were sounding like one.

Thank you for your partial answer. Because you perceived I sounded like one is not evidence.
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a red hat?
What, specifically, are the traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a blue hat?

Dale Eastman Dude, if you dont know by now about the MAGA red hat cult, that forgives everything a crooked con man says or does without question, than you've not been keeping up.

There are no blue hats, thats silly.

Red/blue Hats... Red/blue M&Ms... You still don't comprehend what I have been telling you.

Dale Eastman You dont seem to comprehend what I've been telling you.

You're telling me that you are a VOTARD.

Dear Candidate [and stupid Votard],

I have some questions I would like you to answer.

As an officeholder in a government office, elected candidate gets the authority to do governmental things.
1. Admit or deny?

One of those governmental things is the authority to "govern."
2. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-govern."
3. Admit or deny?

"To govern" is "to control."
3. Admit or deny?

"To control" is "to rule."
4. Admit or deny?

"Authority to govern" is a "right-to-rule."
5. Admit or deny?

The government office the elected candidate holds delegates to the elected candidate, a "right-to-govern", a "right-to-control", and a "right-to-rule".
6. Admit or deny?

That office was delegated the rights to govern, control, and rule.
7. Admit or deny?

The words of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution are:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
8. Admit or deny?

The Constitution alleges its authority came from "We the People."
9. Admit or deny?

The identified group called "We the People" can ONLY include all the people then living at the time of the ordination and establishment (September 17, 1787).
10. Admit or deny?

All government office rights to govern, control, and rule, was delegated from "We the People" existing in September 1787 by means of the United State's Constitution.
11. Admit or deny?

These words are contained in the U.S. Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
12. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning another human.
13. Admit or deny?

"Created equal" means no human was created owning a right-to-rule another human.
14. Admit or deny?

A human with no right-to-rule can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to a third human.
15. Admit or deny?

Elected candidates for public (government) offices are humans.
16. Admit or deny?

Voters are humans.
17. Admit or deny?

No voter has a right-to-rule any other human.
18. Admit or deny?

Therefore voting can NOT delegate a right-to-rule to any candidates for public (government) offices
19. Admit or deny?

Dale Eastman Wrong, I think I said I was and want to vote third party, I just owe it to America to try and keep Trump out of the White house. Hes already spelled out his agenda, and if thats not bad enough theres project 2025, which everyone should be really really afraid of. If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

➽ If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

Please present your evidence to support your claim.

Dale Eastman Please use your brain to figure this out.

Its not terribly difficult.

I asked you a question about your posted bull shit. Something I always do when Idjits make false claims.

➽ If you dont vote against Trump you're voting for him.

Please present your evidence to support your claim.

Dale Eastman I'll repeat, try thinking about it, I dont answer dumb questions.
Are you sure you're not a red hat?

question noun
❶ A sentence, phrase, or gesture that seeks information through a reply.
❷ A subject or point that is under discussion or open to controversy.
"the question of whether a new school should be built."
❸  A matter of concern or difficulty; a problem.
"This is not a question of too little money."
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition • More at Wordnik

You're posting bull shit. I am seeking information about your posted bull shit.

Quote from: June 1 @ 22:12 ➽ Dale Eastman You dont seem to comprehend what I've been telling you.

In three words I can sum up what you have been saying for longer than in just this thread. "Orange man bad."

➽ Are you sure you're not a red hat?

I can not answer your question without an unequivocal definition so I know exactly what you are asking me. I won't know if I am within your question's specific definition until you actually present YOUR definition of what a red hat is? I want articulate details of the specific traits, properties, attributes, characteristics & elements of a red hat?