If you stop and think about it, your definition doesn’t make any sense at all. As you point out, most people realize that in the scenario you laid out, both parties do have income in the form of a barter exchange, as silly an example as it was.
Also, nobody else thinks that income “implies you are getting monies for free, or on a risk free investment”. Something like “payment received for goods or services, or from rent or investments” is how the rest of us define income.
This is a transaction which can be assigned an American dollar value … therefore it is taxable as income, per the 16[sup]th[/sup] Amendment. Brewing up and bottling some beer and which you drink yourself, well, there’s no transaction, thus no income tax.
Of course specific things may have specific rules … it costs 50¢ per vote in Oregon which can really add up fast if you like voting as often as I do.
If you create a work of art and some appraiser says it’s worth a million dollars you do not have a million dollars of taxable income unless you sell it for that much. It’s the same with growing crops, or making anything yourself. On the other hand you could take your house and do enough improvements on it to increase it’s value and then you could subject to higher real estate taxes based on it’s value. A tax on real estate is a tax on your assets though, not on your income.
Ah, well, I’m not privy to what “everyone else thinks” - I can’t read minds, nor do I assume the ability to draw such conclusions out of the air because it might suit a point.
However, my example is not silly at all. What is the implied meaning of "income"? The reason why the word is deceptive when applied to trade is that it only describes ½ of the transaction. If I go to work for an employer - I am trading my time and talent for whatever he or she is offering. This is the "out going" that I provide. The "in coming" is what I receive for my service.
Sure, it’s taxable if you actually believe in the validity of the 16th Amendment. Some smart bankers got most of the world by the balls with this little bit of legislation…
It doesn’t matter what you or any other lay person thinks about the meaning of income. For real and practical purposes, the definition of income has been established by the courts (including the US Supreme Court) to mean a very precise thing, including bartering.
Of course, you’re free to define “income” any way you wish – but your definition is wrong and can potentially lead to serious consequences with the IRS.
And . . . of course I should have expetected this. No reason to continue this conversation then. :rolleyes:
Yes, well governments are notorious for defining or redefining things to suit the interests of those in power, and for their own benefits. My definition makes real and practical sense, the government's definition is lopsided and suits those who advocate financial slavery.
Serious consequences with the IRS? Who cares. America was born on rebellion against the money masters and any who wish to enslave us. Whether that be a an external nation or forces from within.
You don’t need to read any minds. Visit dictionary.com. If that’s too brief, take an intro to business class at your local community college. They’ll cover income during week one.
It’s silly because it is unquestionably taxable back scratching income and you were trying to make some kind of point about… well I don’t think anyone can tell what point you were trying to make. It was silly.
Income is the payment received for goods or services. The out is the service and the in is your income. There’s not a shred of deception involved.
Ah, yes, the money masters who wish to enslave us. Please go on :rolleyes:
I think part of the confusion is because of Wickard wherein growing your own wheat for your own use was considered commerce*.
*Well, not exactly, the problem was that it is lack of commerce and thus under government scrutiny.
Remember that in that case, the program at issue established quotas for the growing of wheat, with penalties for exceeding. The Court ruled that crops grown for personal use counted toward the quota.
So to get back to the OP, whether or not the government could tax your personal-use crop as income, it certainly could assign you a quota and impose a financial penalty for going above it.
The bartering part – uh, is there a minimum dollar value at which it becomes of interest to the IRS? Because other wise I’d guess that just about every person does some bartering without reporting it.
Betty drives Mary’s kids to school along with her own, Mary babysits for Betty’s kids once or twice a month.
John lends his weed whacker to Bill. Bill lets John use his chain saw.
Or one I have long experience of: I have quite a large blueberry patch. My next door neighbor grows lots of tomatoes. We share with each other freely, and no one keeps count of exactly how much of what went which way.
Is this really considered taxable income?
Technically, you’re already paying a tax on your cabbage patch - it’s called the land tax. It includes the value of whatever is grown or could conceivably be grown on said land (and, in fact, used to be paid in produce way back when).
That’s right, you’re getting taxed on *potential *pints of strawberries !
If the goods and services are tit-for-tat and there is a reckoning kept of who owes who what, then I would say that would be taxable. If you go to the dentist and offer to pay him with lawn service for a year, you both have income. If the dentist is your father who lives with you and you would have provided that lawn service anyway because that’s one of the things that you do, then no commercial activity took place.
If no one is keeping track of what is going each way, they would probably be considered gifts. As long as the fair market value of the gifts given by one person to any other individual is less than (currently) $14,000 a year, there are no tax implications. (Any amount over $14,000 you will need to file a gift tax return stating how much of your lifetime exclusion you used up in the year giving gifts exceeding $14,000 per person.) It’s probably fair to say that the fair value of most services exchanged casually with friends is well under that amount.
There are lots of things that you are supposed to do, but most people don’t, and the income is difficult to trace so the risk of not reporting is low. Some people were using bartering to avoid taxation, which the government didn’t like.
You have to file a return if your business income is >$400, but this doesn’t really apply here as you likely have income from other sources, and a lack of a W2 or 1099 does not mean that you are not supposed to report it.
Lending personal property is not the same as bartering. In this case you are not offering your own services.
May I suggest that everyone stop arguing with Stravinsk. Read this if you want to know where he’s coming from.
Something there is that doesn’t love a W2
You can just tell the IRS
There where it is we do not need the W2:
He is all tomato and I am blueberry patch.
My blueberries will never get across
And eat the tomatoes on his vines, I tell him.
Good to hear I needn’t fear the IRS coming after me for, oh, maybe 30 tomatoes a year. 
But not counting lending the use of items as barter strikes me as strange. Items/services are sort of interchangeable, aren’t they? There are business that sell services, the ownership of items, and the temporary use of items and I’m sure they’re all taxable… So shouldn’t using any assortment of services/items/usage on either side of a deal all be treated the same?
You mean the thinly veiled antisemitism wasn’t enough for you ?