The IRS is lying to you. The supreme Court has maintained from 1916 (1) to 2024 (2) that the income tax is an excise, not a direct tax. The IRS says that it's a direct tax (3) even though they quietly acknowledge their own website is not the rule of law (4). Links in 🧵
@Bitcoinator19@Bitcoin_ator@calculusphile This is always a bad analogy. The PIN goes through a central point of control and brute force attacks will be blocked after a few failed attempts.
Bitcoin doesn't require anyone know you are trying to brute force and attempts can't be stopped.
These kinds of arguments are better at the admin level than the court level. The thing is they never make the assertion on their own. They have a document with a W2 or 1099 signed under penalty of perjury by someone else that says this is privileged, taxable, gross income. That's the evidence they'll use to hang you. Too many people try to argue that the IRS or the courts are wrong, when really it's the evidence that's wrong. If the evidence is accepted as is, the feds have met their burden of proof and will ignore all other arguments.
Are you running a local model? Would be interested to see how ... I tried to set something up and even found a couple devs to tune it for me but it's still problematic and I'm not sure how to improve it.
But also there's a lot of lawyering that has to do with mastering the administrative process over being right in the argument itself.
Almost done editing my third book, Money is a Promise.
My favorite way to read is on paper, so when the book is close to complete I order a single printed copy and just scribble notes on the pages. Then I go back and edit. Then I'll send out a couple copies for others to review.
It's an interesting process and I'm learning to appreciate all the annoying things I used to hate about getting papers correct in school 🤣
@sickdotdev This asshole is just trying to make off your misfortune. If you give me $10 and your RTX - any model - I will safely recycle them for you in an environmentally friendly way.
I was just at a conference of some interesting grey market medical research and learned a lot of things, even things about cancer that are generally accepted by mainstream science. But treatments and even research is restricted by government, controlled by big pharma.
The people building the AI aren't really the people who will solve the problem. It's the same people who are already going in the right direction that will use it for that. But they still don't have the resources to best big pharma. And AI won't likely dedicate their resources to fight that legal battle.
There's a lot of grey area on stuff because the laws are vague in many ways and the court rulings aren't always conclusive for the direct question. In fact some lawyers have tried to bring the specific question about the meaning of united States and courts refused to even rule on it.
But this is a good measure - ask if the income tax is a direct tax or an indirect or excuse tax. The supreme court clearly rules it's an excise or indirect in 1916, 1918 and 2024. But all the AIs and the IRS insist that it's a direct tax authorized by the 16th amendment, but that's a complete lie.
When I tell it to read these cases and explain, they usually end up saying something like "well, it's called a direct tax because it's paid directly to the government". but the constitution speaks about direct taxes being apportioned and that never had anything to do with being paid directly to the govt. It had to do with the subject of the tax, and the AI can't make that distinction.
As far as sections 1, 61 and some of the others. Note that they all say taxable income. That's IRS talk. They assume all income is taxable, or rather gross income (taxable income is gross income after deductions). They qualify this with CFE codes but those are agency written regulations and have no authority to alter the law itself, they must coincide with the law. So the law says gross income but under what jurisdiction? Especially if it's an excise?
Think of this example. You go to a restaurant and you go to the bathroom. A sign says "all employees must wash hands before returning to work". You work across the street. Is that sign for you? Of course not. It's for employees of the restaurant. Not because of what it says but because the restaurant has no authority to tell you to wash your hands before leaving their restaurant and going to work. But they don't need to explicitly say "all employees of this restaurant."
Now with all that in mind, judges and IRS agents can be just as corrupt and ignorant of the law as any dumb street cop. But I have seen a lot of really weird cases where the DOJ and IRS cite cases that are completely irrelevant to their point, only because a judge mumbled a personal opinion unrelated to the ruling.
So ... It's a really complicated issue, and it's not a matter of just finding an AI smart enough to get it right.