Elwood, your question wasn't relevant to the discussion. If a dealer only makes one single cash transaction in a year then refuses to report it, that dealer is committing tax fraud. Please tell everyone what the percentage of cash transactions has to do with the issue? But since you want an answer to your irrelevant question so badly, let me answer you. It totally depends on the dealers, some do a huge business in cash while some are primarily retail with mostly credit card and check sales. So remind me again what this proves?
Perry Hall writes: >>>Iwog---Your definition of socialism sounded more like the definition of communism (government control of the means of production). Socialism, as commonly understood today, is the redistribution of wealth by the government by stealing from those who have wealth (confiscation of income throught high taxes} and giving to those without wealth (social welfare programs). Only one political party advocates this practice.<<<
You either use english or you don't. MY definition of socialism is the ENGLISH definition, what language do you speak??? Have you read the book 1984 by George Orwell? Do you realize that taking an emotionally charged word like Socialism, then labelling a political party with it is propeganda and designed to inspire hatred? Would you allow me to call the Republicans Nazis because I believe they are pushing the country closer to a totalitarian government? No of course not you would whine and scream like a little girl. As I stated before, I find it INCREDIBLE that I can prove beyond a resonable doubt that liberals in this country DO NOT ADVOCATE SOCIALISM yet some of you are so intellectually corrupt that you will continue to use it because raising the level of hatred torwards your fellow Americans suits your purpose. I am disgusted and will NEVER sink to your level.
>>>Actually the California State Legislature is too busy trying to get drivers licenses for illegal immigrants rather than doing anything useful. <<<
I agree that this is a stupid idea and don't support it, however it is totally outside the topic of this conversation. Let me just say that Bush's plan to expand illegal imigration is far more dangerous than driver's licenses.
>>>Iwog, I do not care how dictionary.com defines socialism. Taking from the better-off and giving to the poor is socialism. <<<
Then you don't care about honesty and will say anything that suits your purpose. Welcome to the Republican party.
>>>You can dress it up and slice & dice it as much as you want, but taxing me and giving that money to people in the form of food stamps IS socialism.<<<
Also false. We are talking about the english definition of a word here, NOT your personal opinion on what the word SHOULD mean. Are the conservatives on this board going to contine this idiotic argument or finally grow up and learn the fricken language?
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
As far as socialism goes California isn't even close. It isn't even that liberal. That is a big misconception of people that live outside of the state, blame hollywood/press. Go to Washington, Oregon or New England if you want real liberalism.
Yeh it shows as a blue state in the presidential election. But most of counties with populations less than 500K went red. More land area was red than blue. That makes me feel good. I know where to live. Alas its the total vote that counts.
I predict that as the hispanic population ages and/or get more wealthy they will naturally transition to more conservative values which closer matches their religious beliefs. California will once agian be red. California is not a liberal lock as some ignorant believe. (of both parties)
<< <i>Elwood, your question wasn't relevant to the discussion. >>
iwog You were the one that brought up the cash transaction issue not me. I was just responding to your accusation. You painted every dealer with a broad brush, I called you on it and now you are back peddling. Here's a couple of your quotes:
<< <i>I know for an absolute fact that tax fraud is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in the industry. >>
<< <i>but to his friends and fellow dealers it's ALL off the books and you know it! >>
My point was that it is not as widespread as you made it sound. I was personally offended by your statements and will tell you that I report all my salesprofits and losses to the IRS. And I know many others that do the same.
<< <i>I've bought and sold thousands of coins and I know for an absolute fact that most dealers hide buy/sell transactions and cover up cash profits. >>
Have you reported all the gains you've had on the thousands of transactions you've done to the IRS????
That's what the Republicans are pushing for. Just look at the estate tax repeal. The Republicans would rather tax someone making $35,000 a year than a dead guy worth 20 billion dollars.
You ain't seen nothing yet, stay tuned!
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Coyncollector: or we could just let everyone earn what they earn rather than taxing employed people for so that unemployed people can keep getting their checks. When people call in to get their gas turned on, we have to ask their place of employment. You would be amazed at the percentage that reply "I get me a little check every month."
<< <i>Would you allow me to call the Republicans Nazis because I believe they are pushing the country closer to a totalitarian government? >>
Help yourself.
Iwog, you might actually be surprised to find out that dictionary.com is not the final authority on the English language. I suggest you reread 1984 as well--"newspeak" had nothing to do with emotionally charged words, but rather creating a language where there were no words for dissent.
Edited to add:
<< <i>Just look at the estate tax repeal. The Republicans would rather tax someone making $35,000 a year than a dead guy worth 20 billion >>
If estate taxes remained, then that $35,000 a year person would be double taxed just as much as the dead guy. You are saying we should have estate taxes for wealthy people but not for less wealthy people. May I call you Comrade Janus?
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< I know for an absolute fact that tax fraud is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in the industry. >>
You may not believe this but there are several studies going on right now which are already showing that non reporting is much, much more pervasive among coin collectors than coin dealers. Coin collectors will be hearing more about this down the road.
But the efforts to curtail this will be to eventually create new regulations aimed at the coin dealers to force them to report all coin collectors who make sales to them which will then have to report their coin sales.
This will be similar to the largely successful regulations the Internal Revenue Service finally implemented about 10 years ago to force waiters and waitresses to begin reporting tips after 50 years of failure in getting waiters and waitresses to report even a small portion of their tips.
ddink: The Internal Revenue Service made it mandatory for restaurants to report on form 8027 a minimum of a low percentage (usually 8%) of sales that waiters and waitresses must voluntarily report as tips through the form 941/W-2 reporting forms or else the employer will have to "impute" such minimum amount among all waiters and waitresses and even cooks and helpers unless the employer can demonstrate (which means make application for a lower rate) the reason for a lower rate.
In effect, if the waitresses and waitress try to claim that they had little or no tips then the IRS figured out a way to force such reporting by hitting the pocketbook of the employer. In effect by making the employer and employees adversaries, much more reporting of income began.
Such form 8027 is due when all other payroll tax forms are due (mostly January 31 of each year).
>>>Iwog, you might actually be surprised to find out that dictionary.com is not the final authority on the English language. I suggest you reread 1984 as well--"newspeak" had nothing to do with emotionally charged words, but rather creating a language where there were no words for dissent. <<<
I was citing Webster's, not dictionary.com. That's your first mistake.
Your second mistake is claiming that a very negative an emotionally charged term can be used for whatever you want it for. The reason I don't refer to Republicans as Nazis is because it's FALSE and I refuse to drop to such a childish level of intellectual dishonesty. Likewise refering to Democrats/liberals as socialist is ALSO false as I have demostrated with a simple dictionary defintion. Those who do so are either dishonest or ignorant. Which are you?
You either speak english or you don't. Welfare is not socialism in fact it has nothing to do with a socialist government. But lets be very honest here, the true reason that people throw the word around is because they hope to generate fear and hatred. Please look up the word propeganda.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
Re: socialism; of course the liberals are not pushing for "socialism" in its pure form. But liberals are very "kind" people and want to help those who do not work or cannot work. Obviously they "help" them by taxing everyone including the working poor, middle class and rich and transferring the money to them. The problem develops that those who do not work eventually feel they are "entitled" to such help and eventually creates a disincentive to work. Too many years of this "kindness" gets closer and closer to the "look and feel" of socialism. Examples: medicare, medicaid, earned income credit, public assistance of over 5,000, yes over 5,000 different kinds.
Of course, some liberals for years have called conservatives fascists and mean spirited against the poor since the conservatives always advocated less public assistance and less government.
Then the shouting match begins, some Conservatives and Republicans who have long advocated helping the disabled and those who cannot work began to call the liberals socialists in return since they felt that only the disabled and senior citizens was entitled to long term government assistance.
Where is gets interesting is that Republicans who for so long have favored balanced budgets and less spending and the Democrats who favored more spending and budget deficits have in some ways switched roles to some degree and now Republicans have been pushing for tax cuts without a plan to cut spending to eliminate the deficit which was not the fault of anyone up to 2003 except for the unfortunate events of 9/11/2001. The Dems have been fighting back by now demanding a balanced budget and less military spending.
The strange thing is that regardless of who is right, the roles have reversed. Added to this is that Republicans have long favored less government and now have shifted gears for more government via Homeland Security, etc. The Democrats who for so long wanted more government (via government services, etc.) has slowly moderated their stance.
In many ways, there is a polarization of views between Republicans and Democrats. Name calling and acrimony seems to be more and more apparent. The moderates on both sides have tried to appeal to both sides with minimal success.
Hopefully we can cut out this acrimony here and in Washington, DC and get back to consensus building.
<< <i>You either speak english or you don't. Welfare is not socialism in fact it has nothing to do with a socialist government. But lets be very honest here, the true reason that people throw the word around is because they hope to generate fear and hatred. Please look up the word propeganda. >>
Hmm, even you might have some trouble finding that word too?
Of course it is. The government takes from the workers and gives to the non-workers. In a collective state, the government takes all the businesses from the owners and gives the product of these businesses equally to everyone. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I fail to see a difference.
Call me dishonest and/or ignorant if it makes you feel better, though. And take a blood pressure pill
EDIT: clarity
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Welfare has nothing to do with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.", even if that WAS the definition of socialism which it obviously is not.
Welfare programs are designed to provide a minimun standard of life and nothing more. There is nothing in our system of government or economy that prohibits an individual from gaining obscene levels of wealth in relation to the lower classes, and once again American liberals do NOT oppose or challenge this in any way. But the lies continue don't they. You're attributing the marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." to people who have never advocated it because you are what....dishonest?? Would you advocate letting a child starve while Bill gates is counting his 48 billion dollars? Of course you wouldn't because YOU advocate welfare too don't you!! You just want to dictate the terms, while at the same time you call people who have a slightly different opinion socialist.
Pathetic. Once again I am disgusted.
"...reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Stephen Colbert
True, welfare is not socialism in its pure form but the concept of welfare is borrowed/modified/blended from the practices of the Roman Empire when it had to keep the populace from rebelling in Rome by feeding them bread and entertaining them with activities in the Coliseum with the collective practices of the Soviet Union in providing a minimum standard of living for all citizens.
<< <i>Welfare has nothing to do with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." >>
You take the money of people who work and give it to people who don't. I'm sure you are smart enough to "get" the comparison.
I would rather Bill Gates count his money than have some socialist liberal take it from him and give it to people who feel that they are entitled not to work and to receive handouts all their lives. If you stepped out of your ivory palace you would be amazed! At the gas company I work for, customers call in all the time in the winter because we give out the phone numbers of federal assistance agencies that pay low-income (or no-income) gas bills with YOUR tax money. These people call in and if I tell them that an agency has not yet made a payment, they get hostile and start yelling "They pay my gas bill every year! What's taking them so long this month?!"
I agree that charity is a great thing, and Bill Gates SHOULD be giving some (actually MOST) of his 48 billion to help people that are truly in need. But if he chooses not to, it's his decision. The government has no right to forcefully take it from him (in the form of taxes) and give it away (in the form of welfare). Forcefully taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not Robin Hood. It's socialism.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
<< <i>Would you advocate letting a child starve while Bill gates is counting his 48 billion dollars? Of course you wouldn't because YOU advocate welfare too don't you!! >>
Preventing starvation of children because their parents are too lazy to work is the job of charities, not governments.
I heard they were making a French version of Medal of Honor. I wonder how many hotkeys it'll have for "surrender."
Comments
Perry Hall writes: >>>Iwog---Your definition of socialism sounded more like the definition of communism (government control of the means of production). Socialism, as commonly understood today, is the redistribution of wealth by the government by stealing from those who have wealth (confiscation of income throught high taxes} and giving to those without wealth (social welfare programs). Only one political party advocates this practice.<<<
You either use english or you don't. MY definition of socialism is the ENGLISH definition, what language do you speak??? Have you read the book 1984 by George Orwell? Do you realize that taking an emotionally charged word like Socialism, then labelling a political party with it is propeganda and designed to inspire hatred? Would you allow me to call the Republicans Nazis because I believe they are pushing the country closer to a totalitarian government? No of course not you would whine and scream like a little girl. As I stated before, I find it INCREDIBLE that I can prove beyond a resonable doubt that liberals in this country DO NOT ADVOCATE SOCIALISM yet some of you are so intellectually corrupt that you will continue to use it because raising the level of hatred torwards your fellow Americans suits your purpose. I am disgusted and will NEVER sink to your level.
>>>Actually the California State Legislature is too busy trying to get drivers licenses for illegal immigrants rather than doing anything useful. <<<
I agree that this is a stupid idea and don't support it, however it is totally outside the topic of this conversation. Let me just say that Bush's plan to expand illegal imigration is far more dangerous than driver's licenses.
>>>Iwog, I do not care how dictionary.com defines socialism. Taking from the better-off and giving to the poor is socialism. <<<
Then you don't care about honesty and will say anything that suits your purpose. Welcome to the Republican party.
>>>You can dress it up and slice & dice it as much as you want, but taxing me and giving that money to people in the form of food stamps IS socialism.<<<
Also false. We are talking about the english definition of a word here, NOT your personal opinion on what the word SHOULD mean. Are the conservatives on this board going to contine this idiotic argument or finally grow up and learn the fricken language?
That is a big misconception of people that live outside of the state, blame hollywood/press.
Go to Washington, Oregon or New England if you want real liberalism.
Yeh it shows as a blue state in the presidential election.
But most of counties with populations less than 500K went red.
More land area was red than blue. That makes me feel good. I know where to live.
Alas its the total vote that counts.
I predict that as the hispanic population ages and/or get more wealthy they will naturally transition to more conservative values which closer matches their religious beliefs. California will once agian be red. California is not a liberal lock as some ignorant believe. (of both parties)
<< <i>Elwood, your question wasn't relevant to the discussion. >>
iwog
You were the one that brought up the cash transaction issue not me. I was just responding to your accusation.
You painted every dealer with a broad brush, I called you on it and now you are back peddling.
Here's a couple of your quotes:
<< <i>I know for an absolute fact that tax fraud is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in the industry. >>
<< <i>but to his friends and fellow dealers it's ALL off the books and you know it! >>
My point was that it is not as widespread as you made it sound. I was personally offended by your statements and will tell you that I report all my salesprofits and losses to the IRS. And I know many others that do the same.
<< <i>I've bought and sold thousands of coins and I know for an absolute fact that most dealers hide buy/sell transactions and cover up cash profits. >>
Have you reported all the gains you've had on the thousands of transactions you've done to the IRS????
You ain't seen nothing yet, stay tuned!
<< <i>Would you allow me to call the Republicans Nazis because I believe they are pushing the country closer to a totalitarian government? >>
Help yourself.
Iwog, you might actually be surprised to find out that dictionary.com is not the final authority on the English language. I suggest you reread 1984 as well--"newspeak" had nothing to do with emotionally charged words, but rather creating a language where there were no words for dissent.
Edited to add:
<< <i>Just look at the estate tax repeal. The Republicans would rather tax someone making $35,000 a year than a dead guy worth 20 billion >>
If estate taxes remained, then that $35,000 a year person would be double taxed just as much as the dead guy. You are saying we should have estate taxes for wealthy people but not for less wealthy people. May I call you Comrade Janus?
<< I know for an absolute fact that tax fraud is STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE in the industry. >>
You may not believe this but there are several studies going on right now which are already showing that non reporting is much, much more pervasive among coin collectors than coin dealers. Coin collectors will be hearing more about this down the road.
But the efforts to curtail this will be to eventually create new regulations aimed at the coin dealers to force them to report all coin collectors who make sales to them which will then have to report their coin sales.
This will be similar to the largely successful regulations the Internal Revenue Service finally implemented about 10 years ago to force waiters and waitresses to begin reporting tips after 50 years of failure in getting waiters and waitresses to report even a small portion of their tips.
In years to come, the screws will be tightened.
Next, comments on "socialism."
Tom
Coin's for sale/trade.
Tom Pilitowski
US Rare Coin Investments
800-624-1870
In effect, if the waitresses and waitress try to claim that they had little or no tips then the IRS figured out a way to force such reporting by hitting the pocketbook of the employer. In effect by making the employer and employees adversaries, much more reporting of income began.
Such form 8027 is due when all other payroll tax forms are due (mostly January 31 of each year).
Here is suchIRS form 8027
I was citing Webster's, not dictionary.com. That's your first mistake.
Your second mistake is claiming that a very negative an emotionally charged term can be used for whatever you want it for. The reason I don't refer to Republicans as Nazis is because it's FALSE and I refuse to drop to such a childish level of intellectual dishonesty. Likewise refering to Democrats/liberals as socialist is ALSO false as I have demostrated with a simple dictionary defintion. Those who do so are either dishonest or ignorant. Which are you?
You either speak english or you don't. Welfare is not socialism in fact it has nothing to do with a socialist government. But lets be very honest here, the true reason that people throw the word around is because they hope to generate fear and hatred. Please look up the word propeganda.
Of course, some liberals for years have called conservatives fascists and mean spirited against the poor since the conservatives always advocated less public assistance and less government.
Then the shouting match begins, some Conservatives and Republicans who have long advocated helping the disabled and those who cannot work began to call the liberals socialists in return since they felt that only the disabled and senior citizens was entitled to long term government assistance.
Where is gets interesting is that Republicans who for so long have favored balanced budgets and less spending and the Democrats who favored more spending and budget deficits have in some ways switched roles to some degree and now Republicans have been pushing for tax cuts without a plan to cut spending to eliminate the deficit which was not the fault of anyone up to 2003 except for the unfortunate events of 9/11/2001. The Dems have been fighting back by now demanding a balanced budget and less military spending.
The strange thing is that regardless of who is right, the roles have reversed. Added to this is that Republicans have long favored less government and now have shifted gears for more government via Homeland Security, etc. The Democrats who for so long wanted more government (via government services, etc.) has slowly moderated their stance.
In many ways, there is a polarization of views between Republicans and Democrats. Name calling and acrimony seems to be more and more apparent. The moderates on both sides have tried to appeal to both sides with minimal success.
Hopefully we can cut out this acrimony here and in Washington, DC and get back to consensus building.
<< <i>You either speak english or you don't. Welfare is not socialism in fact it has nothing to do with a socialist government. But lets be very honest here, the true reason that people throw the word around is because they hope to generate fear and hatred. Please look up the word propeganda. >>
Hmm, even you might have some trouble finding that word too?
Iwog....have you or have you not reported these thousands of transactions on your income tax return????
<< <i>Welfare is not socialism >>
Of course it is. The government takes from the workers and gives to the non-workers. In a collective state, the government takes all the businesses from the owners and gives the product of these businesses equally to everyone. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." I fail to see a difference.
Call me dishonest and/or ignorant if it makes you feel better, though. And take a blood pressure pill
EDIT: clarity
Welfare programs are designed to provide a minimun standard of life and nothing more. There is nothing in our system of government or economy that prohibits an individual from gaining obscene levels of wealth in relation to the lower classes, and once again American liberals do NOT oppose or challenge this in any way. But the lies continue don't they. You're attributing the marxist slogan "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." to people who have never advocated it because you are what....dishonest?? Would you advocate letting a child starve while Bill gates is counting his 48 billion dollars? Of course you wouldn't because YOU advocate welfare too don't you!! You just want to dictate the terms, while at the same time you call people who have a slightly different opinion socialist.
Pathetic. Once again I am disgusted.
Sorry, looks like we hijacked this thread.
Socialist Leads U.S. Senate Race in Vt.
True, welfare is not socialism in its pure form but the concept of welfare is borrowed/modified/blended from the practices of the Roman Empire when it had to keep the populace from rebelling in Rome by feeding them bread and entertaining them with activities in the Coliseum with the collective practices of the Soviet Union in providing a minimum standard of living for all citizens.
Adolf Hitler
<< <i>Welfare has nothing to do with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." >>
You take the money of people who work and give it to people who don't. I'm sure you are smart enough to "get" the comparison.
I would rather Bill Gates count his money than have some socialist liberal take it from him and give it to people who feel that they are entitled not to work and to receive handouts all their lives. If you stepped out of your ivory palace you would be amazed! At the gas company I work for, customers call in all the time in the winter because we give out the phone numbers of federal assistance agencies that pay low-income (or no-income) gas bills with YOUR tax money. These people call in and if I tell them that an agency has not yet made a payment, they get hostile and start yelling "They pay my gas bill every year! What's taking them so long this month?!"
I agree that charity is a great thing, and Bill Gates SHOULD be giving some (actually MOST) of his 48 billion to help people that are truly in need. But if he chooses not to, it's his decision. The government has no right to forcefully take it from him (in the form of taxes) and give it away (in the form of welfare). Forcefully taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not Robin Hood. It's socialism.
<< <i>Would you advocate letting a child starve while Bill gates is counting his 48 billion dollars? Of course you wouldn't because YOU advocate welfare too don't you!! >>
Preventing starvation of children because their parents are too lazy to work is the job of charities, not governments.