krj wrote:

Larry wrote:

Dave wrote in news:10umr2l9lgv1dmc7am4epn7ed0psl3h02s@
4ax.com:

http://docs.law.gwu.edu/facweb/jsieg.../IncomeTax.htm


"26 U.S.C. § 61 [G]ross income means all income from whatever source
derived, including (but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;"

The point EXACTLY. INCOME has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAGES....
IT DOESN'T SAY WAGES....IT SAYS INCOME FROM PROFITS!




Larry


A wage is a compensation which workers receive in exchange for their
labor. Same as 1 "compensation for services".


Larry contradicted his own point of view. This branch of the thread is
dead.

And I won't be asking Larry for help with my taxes.

RW Salnick wrote:
Larry inscribed in red ink for all to know:
RW Salnick wrote in news:ep8tbu$v5j$1
@gnus01.u.washington.edu:


Maybe it is just SouthernBigOil that got the message.



Sunoco? Sun Oil was from Pennsylvania, last time I checked...(c;

Gas is cheaper in Charleston because we are a gas dump from the
ships. I like to take those buying Exxon or Shell down to the Hess
Oil storage place to show them all the different oil company trucks
lined up at 4AM to put the same Hess gas in all the tanks...at higher
prices, of course...

Larry

Then, as Seattle is the "dump" point for all the Alaskan crude, we
should have the same thing here... Instead, the sign right outside my
window still says $2.79 this morning

bob
s/v Eolian
Seattle
Problem is that you get Alaskan "crude". Charleston gets refined product
krj

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:01:10 -0500, Larry said:

[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including
(but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;"

The point EXACTLY. INCOME has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAGES....
IT DOESN'T SAY WAGES....IT SAYS INCOME FROM PROFITS!

Hate to burst your bubble, Larry, but wages are compensation for
services--the first item mentioned.

Naturally. The lawyers who wrote it didn't include "wages," "labor," or
"salary" for the simple reason that they had never heard those words before.
But they *would* have included them if they had ever heard about them.

"KLC Lewis" wrote in message
et...

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 00:01:10 -0500, Larry said:

[G]ross income means all income from whatever source derived, including
(but not limited to) the following items:
(1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe
benefits, and similar items;
(2) Gross income derived from business;
(3) Gains derived from dealings in property;
(4) Interest;
(5) Rents;
(6) Royalties;
(7) Dividends;"

The point EXACTLY. INCOME has NOTHING TO DO WITH WAGES....
IT DOESN'T SAY WAGES....IT SAYS INCOME FROM PROFITS!

Hate to burst your bubble, Larry, but wages are compensation for
services--the first item mentioned.

Naturally. The lawyers who wrote it didn't include "wages," "labor," or
"salary" for the simple reason that they had never heard those words
before. But they *would* have included them if they had ever heard about
them.


Item #2 is particularly amusing: "Gross income means all income derived
from...Gross income derived from business."

Yeah. Exactly. lol

"Dave" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 10:02:31 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Item #2 is particularly amusing: "Gross income means all income derived
from...Gross income derived from business."

Guess you should have spent some of those 10 years studying grammar. The
proper formulation of the language, as shortened, would be "[G]ross income
means all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited
to) ... Gross income derived from business

Guess you should have spent your life studying the proper form of a
definition: One cannot define a word by restating that word. My editing of
the quoted material did not make any difference to the flaw to which I was
drawing attention.

Are you always such an insulting boor?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:05:55 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:

Are you always such an insulting boor?

Not at all if I'm dealing with someone with half a brain.

Of course. If you can't challenge the argument, insult the person.

End of line.

KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:05:55 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:


Are you always such an insulting boor?

Not at all if I'm dealing with someone with half a brain.


Of course. If you can't challenge the argument, insult the person.

End of line.

I didn't take it that way at all.

It sounds to me that Dave can only deal with people with half a brain.
Since you seem to have quite a bit more than that, he's probably having
a little trouble relating.

But then maybe I'm applying more logic to his statement than is justified.

"xorbit" wrote in message
...
KLC Lewis wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
...

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:05:55 -0600, "KLC Lewis"
said:


Are you always such an insulting boor?

Not at all if I'm dealing with someone with half a brain.


Of course. If you can't challenge the argument, insult the person.

End of line.

I didn't take it that way at all.

It sounds to me that Dave can only deal with people with half a brain.
Since you seem to have quite a bit more than that, he's probably having a
little trouble relating.

But then maybe I'm applying more logic to his statement than is justified.


Ha! Thanks, xorbit. lol

Dave wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 18:21:02 -0600, xorbit said:


I didn't take it that way at all.

It sounds to me that Dave can only deal with people with half a brain.


Hey, that comment isn't even third class sophistry, but I see it's
sufficient to amuse Karin.

You're right. You're original message to which I responded didn't rate
third-class sophostry. I apologize for giving you too much credit.