Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 1:03 AM
20 online now:
DrJones*, edge (2 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3456Next
Author Topic:   Who Owes Income Taxes?
jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 16 of 80 (184557)
02-11-2005 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by kjsimons
02-11-2005 10:48 AM


Re: We the People
Correct. That is the clause that was most often used as the basis for complaints. When it was amended under XVI the challenge moved to whether the ratification was handled properly or not. That went all the way to SOCTUS and the ratification was upheld. So from that, I see little hope of not paying income tax.

Wouldn't mind seeing a reduction though.;)


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by kjsimons, posted 02-11-2005 10:48 AM kjsimons has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by kjsimons, posted 02-11-2005 11:04 AM jar has not yet responded
 Message 18 by sfs, posted 02-11-2005 11:38 AM jar has not yet responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 17 of 80 (184560)
02-11-2005 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-11-2005 10:58 AM


Re: We the People
Wouldn't mind seeing a reduction though.

LOL! Me neither! I hope congress remembers to increase the AMT deductions. The tempory fix they made to it expires after the 2006 tax year. If you get hit by that, it's a hefty tax increase!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-11-2005 10:58 AM jar has not yet responded

sfs
Member (Idle past 696 days)
Posts: 464
From: Cambridge, MA USA
Joined: 08-27-2003


Message 18 of 80 (184574)
02-11-2005 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by jar
02-11-2005 10:58 AM


Re: We the People
quote:
Wouldn't mind seeing a reduction though.

I would. The Federal deficit is already a large problem -- I don't want to leave an even worse mess for my kids to clean up.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by jar, posted 02-11-2005 10:58 AM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by kjsimons, posted 02-11-2005 11:46 AM sfs has not yet responded

  
kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 19 of 80 (184577)
02-11-2005 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by sfs
02-11-2005 11:38 AM


Re: We the People
Well how about we have a reduction in wars so that we can have a reduction in taxes! ;)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by sfs, posted 02-11-2005 11:38 AM sfs has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 80 (184583)
02-11-2005 12:20 PM


Nice to see the Red state guys hankerin' for a tax cut when their states are the ones that recieve, generally, the highest amount of federal money per tax dollar collected in their state.

Good job, guys. Maybe we can have a tax cut when your states quit freeloading off the Blue states.


Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by kjsimons, posted 02-11-2005 12:28 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 22 by jar, posted 02-11-2005 12:46 PM crashfrog has responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 21 of 80 (184585)
02-11-2005 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 12:20 PM


Hey! My part of the state, Orlando, was blue, really, honestly!!!! :D
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 12:20 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30979
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 22 of 80 (184592)
02-11-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 12:20 PM


Have you forgotten this picture?


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 12:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 12:53 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 24 by kjsimons, posted 02-11-2005 12:59 PM jar has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 80 (184594)
02-11-2005 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
02-11-2005 12:46 PM


Yeah that map pretty much sums up the seething hatred I still feel for all you red state clowns handing Bush a mandate to torture, to pillage, and to gut our government's solvency and hand the proceeds to Wall Street. Good job on that, assholes. Of course, I can't wait to hear you reply, in the years to come "but we didn't know! We didn't know a vote for Bush was a vote for torture!" Bullshit. We only told you, over and over again, during the election. But you were too busy counting bullet holes on John Kerry's swift boat to pay attention.

Goddamn. I'm still angry. What is it going to take to get you Republicans to wake up? George Bush thinks that you've released him from any sort of accountability for anything he's done, ever. He's said so. What do you think the next four years have in store?

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-11-2005 12:57 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 02-11-2005 12:46 PM jar has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2005 1:47 PM crashfrog has responded

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 667
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003


Message 24 of 80 (184595)
02-11-2005 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by jar
02-11-2005 12:46 PM


Another version of the new map!

Thanks to ImageShack for Free Image Hosting

This message has been edited by kjsimons, 02-11-2005 13:02 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by jar, posted 02-11-2005 12:46 PM jar has not yet responded

truthlover
Member (Idle past 2221 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 25 of 80 (184601)
02-11-2005 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 12:53 PM


Hmm. I think I want to try jumping in on a political topic.

We didn't know a vote for Bush was a vote for torture

I think I'd be willing to bet the farm that I'm not going to experience any torture over the next four years. I think you're being a little hysterical.

George Bush thinks that you've released him from any sort of accountability for anything he's done, ever. He's said so. What do you think the next four years have in store?

More of the same as the last four years without quite as large an increase in spending. (I think when I looked it was about 33% over those first four years.) Obviously, there were a lot of people who were okay with the first four years.

to gut our government's solvency and hand the proceeds to Wall Street.

If we're going to gut our government's solvency, it might be a good idea to hand it to Wall Street. That's where the proceeds get increased the most, and that's where the most taxes are paid.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 12:53 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 2:20 PM truthlover has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 80 (184606)
02-11-2005 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by truthlover
02-11-2005 1:47 PM


I think I'd be willing to bet the farm that I'm not going to experience any torture over the next four years. I think you're being a little hysterical.

Hysterical?

You do realize that, under tacit approval from the top levels of government, our military tortured at least 8 people to death?

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that torture was only bad if it happened to people we knew.

More of the same as the last four years without quite as large an increase in spending.

So, you haven't read the new budget, then? The one that counts on billions in revenue from ANWAR drilling? One problem with that - drilling ANWAR is currently prohibited by law, and not likely to change.

This too is the budget that doesn't actually include any budget expenditures for our operations in Afghanistan or Iraq, which could amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.

Obviously, there were a lot of people who were okay with the first four years.

Actually, when you look at the President's approval ratings, they've rarely been over 50%. So, obviously, you're wrong. There weren't that many people who approved of how things have been going. There were, on the other hand, an enormous amount of people whom the GOP lie machine scared into voting against Kerry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by truthlover, posted 02-11-2005 1:47 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-12-2005 12:04 AM crashfrog has responded
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 02-13-2005 12:20 PM crashfrog has responded

tsig
Member (Idle past 1071 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 27 of 80 (184615)
02-11-2005 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by TheLiteralist
02-10-2005 4:17 AM


Re: we're easily fooled is the point
The point, if people will choose to discuss this topic, will eventually be, not taxes so much, but the amazing degree (and how easily) to which we, the public, can be fooled by propaganda when we trust, unquestioningly, those who appear to have "authority".

People who can send me to jail have authority, no question about it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-10-2005 4:17 AM TheLiteralist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 11:40 PM tsig has responded

  
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 80 (184670)
02-11-2005 10:18 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Rrhain
02-10-2005 5:07 AM


Re: Yes, you have to pay income tax
Rrhain,

Because you need to file a 1040...

Are you sure? How do you know this?

it is pretty much obvious where you report your income earned while in the US. It is, after all, a US tax return and the very first section after the demographic information is labeled in big, huge letters: "Income." All of lines 7 through 22 are "Income."

So, the booklet doesn't need to mention domestic income because it is "obvious" that I am required to report it?

Page 12 of your instructions tells you who has to file the return. It also says, "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return. U.S. citizens who lived in or had income from a U.S. possession should see Pub. 570."

Okay, this emphasizes that income from a U.S. possession requires one to refer to Pub. 570. Taxpayers (those to whom this booklet applies), need to look at the charts. I believe that the tax law DOES impose a tax on income earned from U.S. possessions, but such income is subject to special rules (I think), and, thus, those earning such income are directed to Pub. 570. But this says nothing of an American’s DOMESTIC INCOME!

Chart A mentions:

"Gross income means all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services that is not exempt from tax, including any income from sources outside the United States (even if you may exclude part or all of it).”--emphasis mine

What income is “exempt from tax?” Is domestic income of Americans exempt from tax? Why doesn’t the booklet ever specifically mention the domestic income of Americans? Once again, it DOES specifically mention income from OUTSIDE the United States.

So it would seem that "income" is, indeed, defined in the instructions. You did read the instructions, didn't you? They go through every single line of the return, explaining what it is you need to enter. All of them taken together represent "Income."

The question is still, “What income is “exempt from tax?” This booklet is very clear that I must report all forms of income from foreign sources (except under special circumstances). It is clear that I must look to Pub. 570 if I have income from U.S. possessions. What is NOT CLEAR is what Americans should with their DOMESTIC income.

You assume that domestic income of Americans is taxable. I wonder if the tax law supports this assumption.

Finally, we hope (and I believe) that this booklet is based on the tax laws, which define these terms. I actually should not utterly rely upon these booklets to determine whether the tax laws impose taxes upon my income. I was merely pointing out some odd qualities in the booklet that make me wonder what the law says. This booklet, of course, doesn’t carry the same weight as the law.

--TheLit


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Rrhain, posted 02-10-2005 5:07 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2005 3:43 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 80 (184673)
02-11-2005 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by crashfrog
02-10-2005 11:01 AM


Re: we're easily fooled is the point
CF,

But the US government does have authority. They have real authority. They're the very definition of "the authorities."

So, are there no limits on the government's authority? Is it impossible for our government to act like it has authority over matters it does not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2005 11:01 AM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2005 1:41 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 80 (184674)
02-11-2005 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by tsig
02-11-2005 3:09 PM


Re: we're easily fooled is the point
Hi DHA,

People who can send me to jail have authority, no question about it.

Funny. Your profile indicates that you are from the USA. Based on this statement, though, I feel it is more likely that you reside in North Korea or China or some similar country.

Obviously you are not aware of things like the 4th and 5th amendments of the Constitution.

Fourth Amendment

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Of course, popular TV programming usually makes it appear that for police to need to obtain proper warrants impedes justice. Odd, no? But, then, it is absolutely impossible that our government influences popular media in order to propagandize the American public! It's happened in other countries, sure, but there is no way it could happen here!

Also, this amendment is actually saying that a policeman cannot MAKE you present your driver's license or any other documents to him unless he first presents you with a proper warrant issued upon probable cause (that a crime has been committed) and supported by Oath (i.e., someone swears that they saw you commit a crime) or affirmation. Do you feel like you have a choice when a cop asks to see your driver's license?

FifthAmendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

What? Police can't hold you for questioning about crimes unless they first obtain an indictment against you from a Grand Jury (except in certain circumstances like war)? The law can't seize your property without the due process of law?

Wow! Restrictions on police activity? Imagine that!

Of course, if you live in some totalitarian country that doesn't have a Constitution like ours, well that's a different story, but this government is BY, OF and FOR the PEOPLE (or so I thought).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by tsig, posted 02-11-2005 3:09 PM tsig has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by tsig, posted 02-12-2005 1:12 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 02-13-2005 12:34 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2005 4:19 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Prev1
2
3456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019