Damus

Recent Notes

Scott Dedels · 1w
Is Trump not the final grifter boss?
corndalorian · 2w
https://blossom.primal.net/a4fd2e0970ae7d4796b2d9d075337fc99231c59fda4bf5f7f28deb1e868feb3a.jpg
The Stacker Monster profile picture
if you DCA'd since the ETFs were launched, you're underwater now.

top to top, bitcoin didn't even double in price this cycle.

from 2021 to today, you'd have been better off holding t-bills, silver, gold, s&p, etc.

some ppl DCA, some ppl have their entire net worths in bitcoin, and a 45% drop in purchasing power is a bitch. period.

sorry, we can try to say the grapes are sour, but no one is buying it.
corndalorian · 2w
Sir this is a meme. Laugh and move on 😂
Clayton · 2w
No we do have a lot of purchasing power because we work hard, make money, live below our means, and save in bitcoin. If you did that in fiat you would also rich. But you are not incentivized to do t...
The Stacker Monster profile picture
Prior to bitcoin plenty of people worked hard, made money, lived below their means and saved money.

Even today in a world where bitcoin is 16 years old, most wealthy people who do the above and are objectively rich have 0 bitcoin.

Don't confuse the bubble we are in with the big picture. There are billions of people in the world. I doubt 10 million people hold self custody bitcoin with over $10,000 of purchasing power.
1
Clayton · 2w
You’re missing the point. An individual who lives below their means and saves the rest for the future will always be wealthier than people who spend everything they make. Bitcoin incentivizes that lifestyle by lowering your time preference.
Clayton · 2w
No we do have a lot of purchasing power because we work hard, make money, live below our means, and save in bitcoin. If you did that in fiat you would also rich. But you are not incentivized to do that because of inflation.
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
I'm keeping my reply concise: Section 7701(a)(9) does not list the 50 States by name and the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that there can be no taxation based on implication in tax laws.
The Stacker Monster profile picture
I don't doubt what you're saying is true.

The constitution also says we have a bunch of rights, that in practice, we do not have any more.

At the end of the day, laws are pieces of paper and the thugs with the guns will decide who goes to jail and who doesn't. If you haven't figured out we have 2 different justice systems in America yet, I don't know what it will take.
1
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
I'm aware laws are abstract. Arms project the power.
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
That one student must've missed a key point. Your concerns are noted nonetheless, I know you mean well. https://blossom.primal.net/df3aa6b2a86bbd96db42f19f350fd2d33ab67e672321adf8f1a436c8ced9f3a0.png
The Stacker Monster profile picture
https://www.goldinglawyers.com/tax-evasion-felony-misdemeanor/


RC 7201 Evasion
“Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

As provided by the DOJ Criminal Tax Manual

“Tax evasion” is a shorthand phrase that many people use for all manner of tax fraud. But the charge of tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201, is not necessarily the best one to bring against individuals defrauding the IRS.

Defendants frequently seek to exploit the fact that, in order to establish the crime of tax evasion, the government must prove the existence of a tax due and owing and willfulness. Prosecutors therefore should consider other charges, such as conspiring to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. § 371; filing false returns, 26 U.S.C. § 7206; or endeavoring to obstruct the IRS, 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a), as alternatives or supplements to the charge of tax evasion.

https://www.jdavidtaxlaw.com/blog/can-you-go-to-jail-for-not-paying-taxes/
1
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
I'm keeping my reply concise: Section 7701(a)(9) does not list the 50 States by name and the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly stated that there can be no taxation based on implication in tax laws.
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
That one student must've missed a key point. Your concerns are noted nonetheless, I know you mean well. https://blossom.primal.net/df3aa6b2a86bbd96db42f19f350fd2d33ab67e672321adf8f1a436c8ced9f3a0.png
Orange🍊Man👤 · 2w
It's legitimate.