[Kon-Peki]

> Yes absolutely I’m definitely suggesting that!

Now we have a serious conundrum. If words can only have a single meaning regardless of context, surely we need some sort of centralized authority to manage this authoritative dictionary. Who should that be?

[alchemist1e9]

The answer to your conundrum is trivial as hopefully you know and your comment was made in sarcasm. However given the serious brain rot civilization id experiencing, for those who don’t understand the sarcasm, I’ll explain.

Unconditional free speech solves it. The IRS can call it want they want and I can say they are idiots and evil. As long as we are allowed to speak truth then there is hope.

The ministry of truth will bring nothing but death and destruction. You are forewarned.

[Kon-Peki]

I wasn't being sarcastic at all. When the IRS classifies some things as earned and others as unearned, they are using the definitions of those words as provided by Congress in the law that was passed.

We have the liberty to assign whatever meaning we want to words, but at the same time we need to come to agreements on what those words mean to be able to communicate effectively. In the US, laws almost always have a table of word definitions at the beginning. Some of them are longer than the actual law!

It's almost paradoxical to rail against the IRS text as socialist propaganda. You are imposing your definition of "earned" on everyone, but the US government is saying "you will use the English language however you wish, but just to be clear, when you read this law (and only when you read this law) this is how to interpret the words"

I think we agree with each other quite a bit :)