Skip to main content

The Earned vs The Unearned: An IRS Fiction

Much confusion surrounds the subjects of earned and unearned income in the United States. 

Of course, this confusion was deliberately manufactured by the men behind the curtain to conceal the true intentions of all involved: to justify the fleecing of more people by still more means. 



For the purposes of income taxes in the United States, the federal government distinguishes between forms of income that are “earned” and others that are “unearned.” 

“Earned” income includes wages, salaries, tips, and other taxable employee compensation, which are subject to deductions and, in most cases, a lower tax rate. 

“Unearned” income, on the other hand, includes interest from savings accounts, bond interest, alimony, and dividends from stock, which are typically subject to one’s marginal tax rate. 

The primary distinction drawn between “earned” and “unearned” income is a manufactured one between forms just as easily classified as “active” and “passive”, respectively. 

In their attempt to discredit the latter, which is their primary intention, they expose their philosophical ignorance and, with it, a modus operandi anathema to truth. 

Let’s consider a worker named Frank who produces widgets out of a small factory. 

Frank leverages land, labor and capital for the production of widgets, which he sells to his customers at a nominal cost. 

At the end of the day, Frank normally nets around $150 for his efforts. 

So far, so good, at least according to the IRS, which classifies his compensation as “earned” income. 

Well, how could it possibly not be? 

After all, Frank poured his own blood, sweat and tears into each of those widgets, so he surely earned every bit of it. 

Now, that very next day, Frank decides that he wants to prepare for his future, so he takes that $150 of “earned” income and invests in another company that supplies parts to his factory and others across the globe. 

Frank accomplishes this through the medium of stock, which enables his $150 of “earned” income to become the “earned” income of still another worker, George, for the parts supplier. 

At this point, that same $150 has transitioned from the original customer to Frank, and then to George, as “earned” income. 

George then takes that $150 of “earned” income and, with the benefit of his own land, labor and capital, manages his own nominal return, a fraction of which returns to Frank in the form of a “dividend” to reward him for assuming the risk and, of course, earning the capital in the first place. 

This is precisely where the IRS intervenes to characterize the dividend as “unearned” income, but, as we’ll see in just a moment, they are woefully mistaken in the use of this adjective. 

First, Frank could have done any number of things with his $150: he could have spent it on a pair of designer sunglasses, a night of cocktails, or a new pair of headphones. 

Frank very well could have splurged on an impulse purchase, but he wisely considered his future and invested in a promising company with an appealing value proposition. 

This investment did not come without risk, and it would have been altogether impossible without having earned the income in the first place. 

Just as a bank teller or financial advisor “earns” income through the management of capital, so too does the private income-earner add value as a shrewd custodian of his funds. 

Beyond the enormous risks and opportunity costs associated with investing, there are virtually limitless alternatives to any investment. 

Intelligent investors must do their due diligence in weighing their options, and considering the inherent risks, before investing. 

Interestingly enough, under specific employment circumstances, this very task qualifies as work, the basis of “earned” income, but in the management of one’s own finances, it’s apparently nothing more than a favor to oneself and the tax collector. 

Despite the broadly-circulated claims by the IRS, there is no meaningful difference between “earned” and “unearned” income. 

These classifications were constructed to con the public into accepting one form of income as more legitimate than the other, which would subject the “less legitimate” form to greater penalty. 

Conveniently for the men behind the curtain, the abstract nature (and even “privileged” appearance) of investing has empowered their con while the obedient public hurriedly acquiesces to appear hip to the rules or to simply avoid sounding stupid in the company of others who’ve accepted or warmly embraced it all by now.

As it turns out, there are only two forms of "unearned" income: those by trickery and those by theft.

For these and other high crimes, the hypocritical IRS ought to be Public Enemy No. 1, but as long as they're writing the rules and the public so eagerly accepts them, their piracy will continue unfettered, albeit with the pronounced "authority" to do so. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes