From: Mike Lorrey (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Tue Feb 12 2002 - 17:03:13 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
> > Well, yes, of course. Not that I like it, but this is an entirely
> > rational argument to make, because if you kept that amount of cash
> > outside of a bank account, then you must be trying to hide it from the
> > government for some reason. At the very least you are trying to evade
> > tax laws, at worst you are engaging in illicit trade.
> > It is also rational to assume that if you got that amount of cash
> > legitimately, you should be able to demonstrate with receipt records who
> > you got it from and for what... at which point you'll be asked to pay
> > taxes on it... of course, the fact that many businesses deal in far
> > greater sums every day has no bearing... a legitimate business is
> > assumed to keep the sort of records that would show how the money was
> > earned ;)
> Sorry, Mike,but your narrow world-view here is a bit detached from
> reality. I, and many other professional and semi-pro poker players
> I know, routinely carry large amounts of cash into and out of casinos,
> and we don't get receipts for every transaction. Many cash merchants
> carry large amounts as well (though they tend to have better records).
Yes, but do you report your poker winnings as income? Under the law, you
are supposed to report winnings as income.
> And besides, isn't hiding income from the government a marvellous
> life-affirming expression of libertarian values?
Yes it is. I am simply following the government logic to its rational
conclusion. It does hang together. I don't like it, and I try to do my
best to pay as little in taxes as possible (hey, I'll have no income tax
to pay for 2001!). If someone can actually prove in public, and have it
hang together in court, that income taxes are not mandatory, I'm all for
it. However, for those who accept the statist mindset, you either accept
it all or suffer the consequences.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 13:37:39 MST