MM usually profitable. 11/12 months if you're smaller or only dealing in a few markets
Any profitable trading strategies that are green every month?
- Thread starter keroppi
- Start date
%%
Good points.
And lets look @ one of the better ones, better by many measures. I remember this one, it was in IBD as an good IPO
Pays a very good dividend also.
From its IPO of $23, market maker VIRT had a nice uptrend to $37 \ to $15 + back up to $38.
Stock market is an unusual business in the way it can claw back profits.
But their volume per day has an estimated 100% estimate chance of a weekly profit;
Knight Capital did also, so 100% chance is not a prediction
And making enough profit to pay a good dividend + Knight Capital could be helpful.
How much are you willing to pay?
I may be interested in selling mine for the right price. It works best for NQ and it's an intraday swing reversal strategy. So far it has an extremely high winrate and high risk/reward ratio if followed correctly. (Not bs'ing.)
I can also record trade videos and do live alerts to get a better picture of how this setup works in action.
Last edited:
Good argument. I am very interested in this last line. Is it possible you've described a situation where there is no clear line as to what they can take, whenever Congress wants to take it? I mean, apart from taking it via inflation. The civil asset forfeiture fiasco over the past decades, i think, illustrates what happens when the government is given one inch that is not clearly demarcated with a red line. Supposedly to go after drug infested mafiosos, now every state, in cooperation with the feds, has turned this into highway robbery on anyone and everyone.
But getting back on point, i don't think you mentioned whom the code actually says is liable. It's not at all clear that it is anyone and everyone at all times everywhere. Why did the congress of 1916? limit liability to those persons described by Bannister?
I did my research pre-Bannister and remember something more about who was liable being limited to residents of territories of the Federal Government that they actually own and control, such as D.C., Puerto Rico, and Guam. The IRS itself, if i recall, is incorporated out of Puerto Rico. I thought it was probable i was not even a US citizen, per the code, having not been born in any of these territories.
Another consideration at that time was the fifth amendment. There is a harsh warning on any tax return form, where you sign it, which threatens all kinds of penalties under perjury if the return contains any errors. The problem is they will come after you whether an error is intentional or just a mistake. The fifth amendment assures us that we cannot be required to testify against, or incriminate ourselves, which is what each tax return requires us to do. A very probable scenario given the complexity of the code.
Keep it simple, just do Kucoin
If I felt it were worthwhile, I'd invest the time to disabuse people like Bannister of their sincere but incorrect views about liable, fifth amendment arguments, etc. But even if we grant for the sake of argument that everything he claims is correct, it doesn't matter because a society requires the three government functions listed, which need to be funded by taxation. We actually want to pay taxes for the three functions; they're quite valuable. The proper scope of gov-provided services is a legitimate debate, and arguably should be far less, but that's not what Bannister is arguing.
Re: the side topics:
- I haven't read deeply about it, but 'civil forfeiture' strikes me as a violation of due process and an unconstitutional shift of the burden of proof. I think some states have outlawed it. The supreme court has ruled on various aspects of it and has tightened it a bit, but not enough.
- The IRS is not incorporated. It's an agency within Treasury.
- The fifth amendment stems from the magna carta and becomes available to a person during a hearing, investigation, or even just an interview with the gov about one's alleged criminal activity. It's not a protection that is forfeited by signing a 1040 tax form, nor a protection that somehow extends to relieving a person from accurately reporting his income on a 1040. The IRS code is overly complex, thus a risk of inadvertent error, but that's what a CPA or turbotax are for. The IRS does not treat innocent mistakes or errors as criminal offenses, and even the potential fine for such is often waived. Deliberate tax evasion is a different matter.
Last edited:
Thanks for the tip. I'm awaiting review now on ID. Looks very similar to Bybit. Up to 10x margin on spot starting at 5x. 100x on futures. Looks like .10% trade fee for both maker and taker, with 20% discount for using Kucoin's own coin. Rich API.
Sounds like what Bannister is describing is a botched beginning, and not just the dubious ratification of the 16th amendment. And now, it might be a little too embarrassing for Congress to rectify it so they are letting Bannister and maybe 1% of the population go on this, rather than say, oh, BTW, all those taxes you paid since 1942? Voluntary. Yah, completely voluntary. As in, really really voluntary. I remember doing research on that term, and if memory serves, it was indeed right there, in the code. If enough people caught on, i suppose Congress would face the embarrassment and properly extend the code to anyone, anywhere, anytime for anything. Most people who are punished by the IRS are filers. You might be surprised what the stats are on non-filers. This stance has enabled me to be apolitical most adult life, a real blessing. It reduced a lot of angst and frustration i was feeling at the time, having reduced skin in that game. And in keeping with this principled position, i declined to receive any of the covid checks. Paying taxes through inflation now.
One of the things people will do to nail this down is they write their Congressman about it, just explaining what's up. They will probably not respond, but it does establish a record that is evidence in court, if ever the IRS brought one there. Probably every Congressman knows about this, because of that.
Last edited:
I mispoke about incorporation. A better word might be instantiated. Treasury, yes, but which Treasury?
According to the 2017 Public Notice that i'm linking to, the IRS was instantiated by a Congressionally, and/or Presidentially unauthorized signature of G.M. Humphrey, Secretary of Treasury, in 1953, exercising authority as Trustee of Puerto Rican Trust #62, operating as Secretary of Treasury, Puerto Rico, and continuing to operate as such.
The IRS is a name change from the formerly Bureau of Internal Revenue, which is somehow conflated with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, which apparently was not established by Congress, or was shot down by the Supreme Court in 1935, and, if it wasn't offshore before, was moved offshore with G.M. Humphrey, to have authority to collect taxes in all Federal territories (District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, etc.), but remains a foreign entity with respect to the "several States", lacking registration to do business in the several States.
IRS EXPOSED: IRS IS A PRIVATELY OWNED PUERTO RICAN TRUST – Private Side Solutions
So the iRS is a lot like Binance, offshore, and lacking registration to do business within the several States.
Last edited:
What Bannister claims is incorrect, as determined in a half dozen cases in the relevant case law, but even if we were to grant for the sake of argument that all of his claims are correct, it doesn't matter for the reasons stated. ...unless one prefers that we do not collect taxes, have a weak military as a result, and that we're all speaking German post-WWII and giving each other the stiff arm wave at stadium events. ...or unless one prefers that we do not collect taxes, have weak police and court functions as a result, and live in lawless shit hole conditions like venezuela.
Bannister appears sincere, but to be honest his reading comprehension of the relevant law and IRS docs is somewhere below even a casual reading by a college freshman. I read his 94 page paper. In his examples from the IRS docs of 'voluntary,' he tries to infer the meaning from common parlance, but to do so he drops the context. To put the IRS' use of the word 'voluntary' into context: parking meters depend on 'voluntary compliance.' There's not a police officer standing next to each meter enforcing payment. Yet, the law provides for enforced compliance via a parking ticket and if necessary impounding the vehicle. One can sometimes get away with parking fee evasion, but the relatively few times one gets caught tend to cost more than the "savings" from evasion.
Congress gave the Treasury the power to enforce the income tax laws through involuntary collection. They can and do put a lean on an evader's house, garnish his wages, and even imprison him. Congress is not embarrassed by this and sending a letter of contention to one's congressman has no effect.
The IRS does not quietly hold a view that paying tax is voluntary and reluctantly allow non-filers to get away with it. To the contrary, on their website they directly address this contention and state: "The requirement to file an income tax return is not voluntary and is clearly set forth in Treasury Reg. 1.6011-1(a) and Internal Revenue Code 6011(a)."
The IRS actively audits about 1% each year and prosecutes evaders. A filed return can only be audited within 3 years of filing; whereas the IRS has no such time limit on a non-filed return.
The IRS recently issued a statement: "The IRS has always considered high income non-filers a priority, but earlier in 2020 we shifted a considerable amount of resources, especially in our collection activities, to address the problem more aggressively."
Banister initially won a 2005 case that charged conspiracy related to work he did for clients, but he lost on appeal:
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2017/12/06/16-15813.pdf
On August 27, 2008, the US Tax Court ruled that Banister was liable for federal income taxes and penalties for failure to file his 2002 federal income tax return:
Banister v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2008-201, CCH Dec. 57,522(M), docket no. 1356-06 (Aug. 27, 2008).
He lost again in 2016:
https://casetext.com/case/banister-v-commr
He has never won a failure to file case. He now pays his taxes.
Last edited: