Common Misconceptions ABout W2G & Wins on Taxes
Quote: rudeboyoiI doubt very many people would be willing to voluntarily fund a war to invade another country however.
I would gladly support it financially if they would allow me to become emperor.
Quote: bigfoot66Quote: Dalex64this wikipedia article describes it all better than I could.
In particular, see the 'social contract' bit to see discussion about the "contract" that I was talking about. Under "What it Means to be A Citizen" it enumerates basic things about this social contract - rights and responsibilities of citizens and their government.
You can look up the legal definition of citizenship yourself.
So this is somebody's idea of why I ought to do what the government says. It is not in fact, a contract, it is an idea. A contract can only be valid if it is freely entered into, I never agreed to anything outlined in the social contract stuff and I strongly object to it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. How can someone enter an agreement where one party gets to define all the terms? This cannot be a contract. It is slavery.
"Social Contract" is to Contract as Rape is to Love.
Also, you did not offer the legal definition of a citizen so I will. The classical formulation is that a citizen is someone who owes allegiance in exchange for protection. Do you believe this describes your relationship with the state?
I reject that simplistic definition of citizen.
Quote: bigfoot66Ugh. I have a love/hate relationship with Steph but he is right here.
Yah. He messed up when he was talking about Eric garner.
Quote: Dalex64When you are talking about avoiding having income reported on a W2-G so that you don't have to report gambling income, you are talking about tax evasion.
Back to the topic at hand, this is not precisely correct, Dale. The Government only allows you to offset your wins with losses if you Itemize Deductions. First, this is a patently unequal and unfair regulation which should be challenged by gamblers AND casinos. If I put $5000 into a slot machine and then on the last $1 hit for $2000, I lost $3000. I won nothing and requiring me to come up with a bunch of other deductions in other aspects of my life so I can itemize and zero out the winnings with gambling losses is ridiculous.
If this causes someone to want to play table games or lower limits because they don't want to have a paper trail, that is not tax evasion. If you end the year up, you report it, if you don't, you had a net of Zero and you don't. I would gladly accept a W2-G every time I walked into a casino if it meant I could offset all wins with any and all losses. Because I can't, I keep track of my own wins and losses and stay away from W2-Gs.
It doesn't matter what is fair.
The government only cares how much you are up for the year if you itemize. Otherwise they want to know how much you won.
If you under-report your gambling income, you are evading taxes.
Once more, it doesn't matter if it is fair.
For everyone's reference, here is handy relevant info from the IRS
Quote: Dalex64W2g's won't help you itemize.
It doesn't matter what is fair.
The government only cares how much you are up for the year if you itemize. Otherwise they want to know how much you won.
If you under-report your gambling income, you are evading taxes.
Once more, it doesn't matter if it is fair.
I threw the "fair" thing in there, but that's not the crux of my point.
If you play a Slot Machine exactly as I said, (Put in $5000 and win $2000 on your last $1) the Government expects you to pay taxes on that $2000 if you don't itemize.
If the same thing happens at a table, you start with $5000, go down to your last chip and get back up to $2000, you have the EXACT same amount of money, and the Government wants NOTHING, because your "session" was a loss. It is NOT tax evasion to say you lost -$3000 there, even if you do not itemize. You had NO WINNINGS. So the OP said he was going to stick to tables and low-limits, and you said that was so he could evade taxes. That conclusion is flawed. Maybe he wants to have a better chance of NOT evading taxes if he happens to lose in the session. In one example, you have to pay taxes on that jackpot 100% of the time, win or lose. In the other, you only pay if you walk out a winner. Not tax evasion.
Quote: Dalex64
I reject that simplistic definition of citizen.
Well I am not surprised that you choose your own definitions of words but unfortunately as adults we do not have that luxury.
Instead of linking to a multi page Wikipedia article why don't you offer a definition of the term since you reject the classical definition.
Quote: cclub79I threw the "fair" thing in there, but that's not the crux of my point.
If you play a Slot Machine exactly as I said, (Put in $5000 and win $2000 on your last $1) the Government expects you to pay taxes on that $2000 if you don't itemize.
If the same thing happens at a table, you start with $5000, go down to your last chip and get back up to $2000, you have the EXACT same amount of money, and the Government wants NOTHING, because your "session" was a loss. It is NOT tax evasion to say you lost -$3000 there, even if you do not itemize. You had NO WINNINGS. So the OP said he was going to stick to tables and low-limits, and you said that was so he could evade taxes. That conclusion is flawed. Maybe he wants to have a better chance of NOT evading taxes if he happens to lose in the session. In one example, you have to pay taxes on that jackpot 100% of the time, win or lose. In the other, you only pay if you walk out a winner. Not tax evasion.
This is not the government's stance. They say you must declare all winnings.
Quote: cclub79I threw the "fair" thing in there, but that's not the crux of my point.
If you play a Slot Machine exactly as I said, (Put in $5000 and win $2000 on your last $1) the Government expects you to pay taxes on that $2000 if you don't itemize.
If the same thing happens at a table, you start with $5000, go down to your last chip and get back up to $2000, you have the EXACT same amount of money, and the Government wants NOTHING, because your "session" was a loss. It is NOT tax evasion to say you lost -$3000 there, even if you do not itemize. You had NO WINNINGS. So the OP said he was going to stick to tables and low-limits, and you said that was so he could evade taxes. That conclusion is flawed. Maybe he wants to have a better chance of NOT evading taxes if he happens to lose in the session. In one example, you have to pay taxes on that jackpot 100% of the time, win or lose. In the other, you only pay if you walk out a winner. Not tax evasion.
Fair enough. There are several tax related threads going on right now. I didn't see anything in this thread up until my first post that would support my position that this is about tax evasion.
Quote: bigfoot66This is not the government's stance. They say you must declare all winnings.
There are no winnings in Situation #2, thus nothing to declare. Which is why the OP said he was going to stay away from games that generate a W2-G. Because then you have to declare winnings that weren't even winnings, a la Situation #1.
Quote: bigfoot66Well I am not surprised that you choose your own definitions of words but unfortunately as adults we do not have that luxury.
Instead of linking to a multi page Wikipedia article why don't you offer a definition of the term since you reject the classical definition.
Are you insinuating that I am not an adult?
What is the source of the definition that you are- wait for it- chosing?
I see no reason to type in portions of wikipedia articles when all you need to do is click on a link and either use the search function of your browser or page down a few times.
If you would page down a bit, you will see a section detailing the rights and responsibilities of citizens.
There is nothing in there stating what you must do for your government, or in return what your government must do for you.
Seems to be a perfectly good choice for a definition of citizen to me. I would think there would be a heck of an edit war if that were not also a general consensus.
It is conceivable to think that the US can preserve her sovereignty without a military. I find it naive to believe that you don't benefit from the legitimate functions of government not all of which can be financed with a user-fee model. You can't sell me national defense because you can't exclude me if I don't pay. Maybe you can share your vision of anarchy and why it would be preferable to the world that I enjoy.Quote: rudeboyoiNo idea because we don't have a national defense. We have a national offense. I doubt very many people would be willing to voluntarily fund a war to invade another country however.
Quote: JimRockfordIt is conceivable to think that the US can preserve her sovereignty without a military. I find it naive to believe that you don't benefit from the legitimate functions of government not all of which can be financed with a user-fee model. You can't sell me national defense because you can't exclude me if I don't pay. Maybe you can share your vision of anarchy and why it would be preferable to the world that I enjoy.
No function of any government can be legitimate. It's all based on coercion. Defending against an invasion is a very different concept than playing the offensive invading another country. One is moral. One is not. It's easy to play defense. Chop up the all the military gear across the country. If we get invaded the people can take up arms. The idea though is to end the state everywhere so war won't be necessary. It's only governments that go to war because they're the only ones that can afford to invade another country by stealing the wealth of their own citizenry. End the state. End war.
Quote: Dalex64Are you insinuating that I am not an adult?
What is the source of the definition that you are- wait for it- chosing?
I see no reason to type in portions of wikipedia articles when all you need to do is click on a link and either use the search function of your browser or page down a few times.
If you would page down a bit, you will see a section detailing the rights and responsibilities of citizens.
There is nothing in there stating what you must do for your government, or in return what your government must do for you.
Seems to be a perfectly good choice for a definition of citizen to me. I would think there would be a heck of an edit war if that were not also a general consensus.
This conversation is boring.
You think its ok for one group of people to steal money from the rest of us under threat of prison and use it to kill foreigners. I have a different understanding of what constitutes moral behavior.
Quote: rudeboyoiNo function of any government can be legitimate. It's all based on coercion. Defending against an invasion is a very different concept than playing the offensive invading another country. One is moral. One is not. It's easy to play defense. Chop up the all the military gear across the country. If we get invaded the people can take up arms. The idea though is to end the state everywhere so war won't be necessary. It's only governments that go to war because they're the only ones that can afford to invade another country by stealing the wealth of their own citizenry. End the state. End war.
National defense is a tough question for a voluntaryist because it is the ultimate free rider problem. That said, I don't think that it is a real long term problem. It would pose some difficulties in a transition period but war is dependent on the existence of government. It is difficult to imagine a scenario where a private citizen would raise an army and attack his neighbors.
So what some of you are saying, I would have to report garage sales incomes, getting gifts from family and friends and selling a car I was giving years ago from someone, etc. Bull crap. 100% bull crap. I run several businesses and have been audited by the IRS and state a few times. You do what you believe is right, you defend it, square them in the eye. If they can prove other wise you get a CP2000 letter and then you have a chance to respond. You respond and state your case. If they still don't agree you take it to appeal. If not, you sit down with them and your tax person.
