pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET on sat 14 aug 04
a question as may interest Bonnie...
Hi Kathy, Bonnie, Steve or anyone interested...or anyone as
is hep on tax-law or the like...
Kathy, I'd mentioned, and then you asked...
(me, earlier) > > Let's say each of them are charging the
same price. Each
pays the
> > other the stated price, (which being a wash, no money
would need to
> > change hands, but, should someone insist, one hands the
other x
> > federalreservenotes, and the other then hands them the
same amount of
> > federalreservenotes, or they each hand eachother
x-number of
> > federalreservenotes at the same time...) then, each
gets (or gives
> > the other, ) a receipt, and each dutifully enters into
their books,
> > the 'income' they recieved in the transaction.
(Kathy)> Isn't that one of the things Enron is accused of
doing --
but without
> the charitable intent? A kind of "ricochet"?
No, it is not...not in any way whatsoever.
If memory serve ( and I have not watched tee vee or read the
papers in many years now, but,)
...'enron' lied about income being higher than it was, lied
about assets against which they borrowed money, and lied
about assets to inflate the value of their stock, then,
calculatedly sold
their stock for a higher sale price than it would have
merited if it had been honstly represented, and...kept the
money, the profits, or proceeds from those sales, paid
themselves enormous bonuses and raises and saleries...in
some instances, embezzled it outright, and
were rebuked to some mild degree or other, for their
transgressions...but...still played golf with the president
and cabinet members and senators and so on, and still
sloshed hi-balls with
them and had 'attaboyz' and smirks at the 'club'...
But anyway...
Instead...
Lets try this:
It is an excercise in thought...
Every time you buy or sell something, there is an exchange
in which
money is traded for goods or services.
Money is now-a-days, an intrinsicly valueless token, which
we agree to symbolically posess, a stable value expressed in
terms of dollars.
It is a kind of universal, all purpose barter medium, which
was elected originally, and retained, for the logistical
convenience of being light weight and for requireing less
room
to carry than various other commodities or goods
might be.
It allows a higher concentration of value to be accomidated
in a smaller space, than say so many hundred bushels of Corn
might need, or Timber, or Hogs, or whatever...
Barter is goods or services for goods or services, yes?
Barter is considered, or may be considered, as income the
same as money is, yes?
So, either way, in almost every transaction, someone is, or
can be, construed
to have recieved income, yet, usually, the one recieving the
money is considered to be the one recieving income, and not
the one recieving the goods or services for which money was
traded.
Even though in a barter transaction of goods or services,
being traded
for other goods or services, one
or possibly both parties are construed to have recieved
income.
Curious, yes?
I think so...
Are you with me here so far?
The question then is this:
If in a barter situation, both parties may under law, be
considered to have recieved income, (or what, pray tell, is
the criteria for establishing who recieved income and who
did not, when goods or services are traded?) - why is it
that
in situations where money is the barter medium for
transactions involveing goods or services, why is the party
who recieved the goods or services not found to have
recieved income? While the party who recieved the money, is
construed to have received income?
What then is the actual, legal, or other workable definition
of 'income'? It is NOT only 'money'...although money is
usually part of it...
This may be more subtle than readily supposed by our habits
of thought and reference, or, of how those habits have been
guided...so do take your time please!
Love,
Phil
el ve
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kathy Forer"
> On Aug 13, 2004, at 3:19 PM, pdp1@EARTHLINK.NET wrote:
>
>
> --
> Kathy Forer
| |
|
