Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-20-2019 12:22 PM
33 online now:
Aussie, Coragyps, Diomedes, edge, Faith, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, Tanypteryx (10 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Happy Birthday: Percy
Post Volume:
Total: 851,627 Year: 6,664/19,786 Month: 1,205/1,581 Week: 27/393 Day: 10/17 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Who Owes Income Taxes?
TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 80 (184675)
02-12-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 2:20 PM


CF,

It is my understanding that the Constitution requires that Congress formally declare war on a nation before we attack it. It is also my understanding that no such declaration was made in the case of Iraq, yet Congress "authorized" Bush to make war (what?). That would make Congress, Bush, and popular media (did Tom Brokaw or Dan Rather or PBS repeatedly decry the unconstitutional actions of Congress and the President?) complicit in sidestepping our country's Constitution. I do not take this lightly.

I am enraged by Bush's crimes. I doubt Kerry would have been any better, though. Kerry has said nothing of the greater atrocity that the Congress, of which he was part at the time, did not declare war but somehow "authorized" Bush to commit these atrocities. So, either Kerry (and most of the other Congressman) are completely ignorant of the Constitution (not too complex of a document) or they don't respect it or they hate it. Either way, the whole lot of them have failed in their oath to defend the Constitution and ought all to be removed and possibly jailed. (Bush would maybe need to be jailed for other things as well--the torture, for instance).

But don't you feel much safer now that Bush has established "Fatherland Securi...uh...I mean "Homeland Security?"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 2:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2005 1:45 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 02-15-2005 4:11 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

tsig
Member (Idle past 1044 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 32 of 80 (184676)
02-12-2005 1:12 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheLiteralist
02-11-2005 11:40 PM


Re: we're easily fooled is the point
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).

people go to jail all the time for tax evasion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 11:40 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 80 (184678)
02-12-2005 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by TheLiteralist
02-11-2005 11:04 PM


Is it impossible for our government to act like it has authority over matters it does not?

Yes, it's impossible. By which I mean, there's no difference between the government acting like it has authority and the government having authority. It is, however, possible for the government to exert authority over matters it is barred from doing so by the US Constitution. This is obviously not something we should allow it to do, though I'm not certain what our recourse would be if it did.

They do have the guns, and the mechanisms of authority. Like the man said political power comes out of the barrel of a gun.

This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-12-2005 01:48 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 11:04 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 80 (184679)
02-12-2005 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by TheLiteralist
02-12-2005 12:04 AM


But don't you feel much safer now that Bush has established "Fatherland Securi...uh...I mean "Homeland Security?"

Heh, not especially, no. In fact I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard of his plan. Homeland Security? Wasn't it Hitler who first coined that term, "Homeland"? Isn't that how all those dystopian-future science fiction novels start? With a shadowy government organization called "homeland security"?

Could he have picked a name with more totalitarian overtones? I doubt it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-12-2005 12:04 AM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by tsig, posted 02-12-2005 6:38 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

tsig
Member (Idle past 1044 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 35 of 80 (184685)
02-12-2005 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by crashfrog
02-12-2005 1:45 AM


Heh, not especially, no. In fact I couldn't believe my ears when I first heard of his plan. Homeland Security? Wasn't it Hitler who first coined that term, "Homeland"? Isn't that how all those dystopian-future science fiction novels start? With a shadowy government organization called "homeland security"?

Could he have picked a name with more totalitarian overtones? I doubt it

Now you know why I quit reading sci-fi, it all started happening, exept for the ones were there was free sex.

Wev'e had shadowy government agencies since WWII, CIA, NSA the list is endless.

We never seem to never get off a war footing. WWII, cold war, korean war, vietnam war, ect ect ect.

This message has been edited by DHA, 02-12-2005 06:39 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2005 1:45 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 80 (184879)
02-13-2005 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by crashfrog
02-11-2005 2:20 PM


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

My apologies. I read, " handing Bush a mandate to torture, to pillage, and to gut our government's solvency and hand the proceeds to Wall Street," and I understood it as "torture...our government's solvency," and I thought it was rather extreme wording for budget problems. That's why I said hysterical. I see now I read the sentence completely wrong.

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

The reason you or I know about any of that is because there are people, even in top levels of government, who care to put a stop to it.

So, you haven't read the new budget, then? The one that counts on billions in revenue from ANWAR drilling?

We'll see how it turns out. I would be surprised if he repeats the 33% increase the 2nd term. Unfortunately, my internet connection is real unreliable at this moment, and I can't seem to get the stats on the budget at the moment.

I’ll bet he even pulls off reducing the budget deficit by ½, like he says he’s going to. (Let me add, I’m not impressed by that. Clinton did finally balance the budget, and it seems quite unwise to have unbalanced it again.)

There were, on the other hand, an enormous amount of people whom the GOP lie machine scared into voting against Kerry.

I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that Kerry's stiffness and lack of charisma had at least as much to do with his loss as any swift boat issues, and lie machines are owned and used by both political parties.

Actually, when you look at the President's approval ratings, they've rarely been over 50%. So, obviously, you're wrong.

I'm not wrong. 50% of the United States is a lot of people.

I was pointing to his election win, anyway, meaning only that enough people were okay with the first four years to elect him to a second four years.

P.S. I wrote this a couple days ago, but my internet connection wasn't working right, and I haven't been available to put this up till today.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by crashfrog, posted 02-11-2005 2:20 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 1:45 PM truthlover has responded

truthlover
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 37 of 80 (184885)
02-13-2005 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by TheLiteralist
02-11-2005 11:40 PM


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

This is true, except...

Everything changes when it comes to driving. You have the right not to present a driver's license, as long as you don't drive.

That may be right or wrong, but it's a totally separate issue from the fourth amendment.

What? Police can't hold you for questioning about crimes unless they first obtain an indictment against you from a Grand Jury

That amendment says capital crime, or similar infamous crime.

Also "held to answer" does not, to me, appear to mean "hold you for questioning," despite the similarity of the wording. I think "held to answer," in the context, means "forced to answer," and while police may make efforts to get around that, the US is really pretty good about making sure criminals know they don't have to answer in any criminal case, not just capital ones.

If it means that a person cannot be arrested and held for questioning, then I want to throw the amendment out as a stupid and dangerous restriction on police activity. I want murder suspects (remember, we're talking about capital crimes here) to be detained and not let go to escape. I think the huge majority of the rest of us do, too.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 11:40 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-13-2005 1:14 PM truthlover has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 80 (184890)
02-13-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by truthlover
02-13-2005 12:34 PM


Also "held to answer" does not, to me, appear to mean "hold you for questioning," despite the similarity of the wording. I think "held to answer," in the context, means "forced to answer," and while police may make efforts to get around that, the US is really pretty good about making sure criminals know they don't have to answer in any criminal case, not just capital ones.

Actually, in the context of usage at the time it was written "Held to answer" refers to the act of charging someone with a crime. It's saying that you cannot be placed on trial without the issue passing a lower level test of going through a Grand Jury to determine if there is even enough evidence for charges to be placed.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by truthlover, posted 02-13-2005 12:34 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2005 8:18 AM jar has responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 80 (184895)
02-13-2005 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by truthlover
02-13-2005 12:20 PM


The reason you or I know about any of that is because there are people, even in top levels of government, who care to put a stop to it.

And yet the reason that no stop hs yet been put to it is because a slight majority of Americans don't seem to give a damn, and make no mistake, the Bush Administration clearly considers that "the accountability moment" for torture, a moment which has passed.

I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that Kerry's stiffness and lack of charisma

You say those things like they're fact, but I found Kerry neither stiff nor uncharismatic. In fact I repeatedly observed him display far more poise and confidence than the petulant, "its hard work!", whining figure Bush became during the election.

I was pointing to his election win, anyway, meaning only that enough people were okay with the first four years to elect him to a second four years.

And yet, when literally that question is put to the American people, a majority assert that no, they weren't ok with the first four years.

So why did the American people appear to elect a president that they didn't like much in the first go-around?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 02-13-2005 12:20 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2005 8:16 AM crashfrog has responded

truthlover
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 40 of 80 (185056)
02-14-2005 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by crashfrog
02-13-2005 1:45 PM


the Bush Administration clearly considers that "the accountability moment" for torture, a moment which has passed.

This doesn't seem true to me. Of course, all I really have to go on is interviews and news items. It's not like I'm an insider or something. What I hear off the radio tends more towards conservative than liberal (I hear both), yet even the more conservative side I hear cares about what we're doing.

You say those things like they're fact, but I found Kerry neither stiff nor uncharismatic.

This struck me as odd, since what I said was, "I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that..." I'm not sure why you said I say those things like they're fact.

I did not see Bush even once during the campaign, so I can't comment on how he conducted it. I saw Kerry on TV a couple times. I have close friends who watched one of the debates. Bush didn't win them over as much as Kerry turned them off.

So why did the American people appear to elect a president that they didn't like much in the first go-around?

The answer looks obvious to me. They weren't confident Kerry would be better.

Of course, that has to be tempered with the fact that some percentage, maybe 35-40%(?), are going to vote Republican no matter what, and some similar percentage will vote Democrat no matter what, so we're only talking about those votes in the middle.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by crashfrog, posted 02-13-2005 1:45 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 02-14-2005 1:49 PM truthlover has responded
 Message 54 by nator, posted 02-27-2005 10:20 AM truthlover has responded

truthlover
Member (Idle past 2195 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 41 of 80 (185057)
02-14-2005 8:18 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
02-13-2005 1:14 PM


Actually, in the context of usage at the time it was written "Held to answer" refers to the act of charging someone with a crime.

Thank you. Do you mind me asking how you know this?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 02-13-2005 1:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-14-2005 12:27 PM truthlover has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30941
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 80 (185115)
02-14-2005 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by truthlover
02-14-2005 8:18 AM


Thank you. Do you mind me asking how you know this?

Sure, and a great question.

One reason is that I am lucky enough to be a really old fart that grew up in the mid-Atlantic states at a time when the term was still in common usage. It was not at all unusual to be told "You'll have to answer for that!" when I made minor transgressions.

To 'answer for' always referred to sanctioning and punishment. It was not a reference to questioning, it was a promise of a rather severe whopping.

The section referred to is yet another protection found in our Constitution. It was a limiting act saying that you could not be tried for major crimes, particularly those that normally carried the ultimate sanction, death, without first convincing a body of citizens that there actually was a crime and that there was actually enough evidence to at the least suspect that you were the perpetrator. It was a major change from the then existing system where someone of Nobility or Position could have someone tried simply on an accusation. It was one of the first barriers to conviction from authority.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2005 8:18 AM truthlover has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Chiroptera, posted 02-14-2005 12:55 PM jar has not yet responded

Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6563
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 43 of 80 (185134)
02-14-2005 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
02-14-2005 12:27 PM


quote:
It was not at all unusual to be told "You'll have to answer for that!" when I made minor transgressions.

I'm surprised to hear that this expression is becoming rare these days, but, as I think about it, I guess it's true that I don't really hear or see it in the most contemporary material.

Hey! Maybe I'm an old fart too!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 02-14-2005 12:27 PM jar has not yet responded

crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 80 (185153)
02-14-2005 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by truthlover
02-14-2005 8:16 AM


This doesn't seem true to me.

Here's John Yoo, counsel to the President and author of the legal brief that argued that the CIA and other organizations are exempt from restrictions on behaviors we would consider torture, as quoted in a piece by Jane Mayer:

quote:
[Yoo] went on to suggest that President Bush’s victory in the 2004 election, along with the relatively mild challenge to Gonzales mounted by the Democrats in Congress, was "proof that the debate is over." He said, "The issue is dying out. The public has had its referendum."

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?050214fa_fact6

Here's the President, directly:

quote:
We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 election.

Now, he was speaking of his Iraq policy (which a majority of Americans don't support), but its pretty obvious that he and his staff are applying that rationale to literally every issue. The "accountability moment" has passed for this administration; a 3% victory in the election is taken as a mandate to do whatever they like.

This struck me as odd, since what I said was, "I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that..." I'm not sure why you said I say those things like they're fact.

Because you said them like they were fact. Here's your exact words:

quote:
I can't speak for all of America, but it seems to me that Kerry's stiffness and lack of charisma had at least as much to do with his loss as any swift boat issues, and lie machines are owned and used by both political parties.

You didn't say "it seemed to me that Kerry was stiff and lacked charisma", you said that it seemed to you those attributes were responsible for his loss. I don't see any qualification in that statement that suggested he possessed those attributes only in your view, or anything like that.

You asserted that he was stiff and uncharismatic as though it were fact; what you qualified was that those attributes were responsible for his loss.

They weren't confident Kerry would be better.

And why do you suppose that would be, given that his record in the Senate in regards to defense and the military represents a superior qualification to anything the Bush administration had to offer? Why do you suppose it was that Bush couldn't run on his own record? I mean, the only Bush campaign ad I ever saw that was about Bush's record as president was the one where he hugged the girl.

You can keep acting like the American people made a reasonable choice, but the polls indicate that just isn't so. A whole lot of people voted against their own better judgement, against the facts, against every indication that a second Bush term would be bad news. We're going to have to figure out why millions of people voted against their own interests while they knew they were doing so. It sounds crazy, but the fact that a majority of the American people elected a president that only a minority actually approved of is crazy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2005 8:16 AM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by crashfrog, posted 02-17-2005 5:14 PM crashfrog has not yet responded
 Message 49 by truthlover, posted 02-17-2005 6:01 PM crashfrog has responded

Rrhain
Member (Idle past 8 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 45 of 80 (185430)
02-15-2005 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by TheLiteralist
02-11-2005 10:18 PM


Re: Yes, you have to pay income tax
TheLiteralist responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Because you need to file a 1040...

Are you sure? How do you know this?


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? As I directly asked you, you did read the instructions, did you not? What do you think "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return" means?

They mail the thing to you every year.

quote:
quote:
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."

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


Logical error. You are taking an answer to one question and applying it to another. You did not ask who has to file an income tax. You asked what "income" was. My answer was to the latter, not the former.

The "obvious" part is that the definition of "income" is the section marked "Income."

Now, as for who has to file an income tax return, that is mentioned in the instructions that did read, did you not? For the third time: "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."

quote:
quote:
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.


(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? Are you incapable of reading the first sentence? What do you think "Use Chart A, B, or C to see if you must file a return" means?

Why did you ignore the very first sentence?

Be specific.

quote:
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!

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you? What do you think the big section labeled "Income" means? What do you think "must file a return" means? If you must file a return and that return includes a section labeled in big, bold letters, "Income," then one has to wonder why you are having such trouble with the concept.

And since the instructions that you did read says explicitly what the general concept of "income" is (namely "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)") one has to wonder why you are having such a problem with it.

quote:
What income is “exempt from tax?”

Read your tax documentation and find out. Fill out the return, following the instructions that have been provided, and find out.

You seem to be expecting that the instructions should provide you a complete list at the very beginning of every single possible thing that could be considered "exempt from tax." That is impossible because it will depend upon the type of income. So rather than put them all in the instructions for the 1040, they put them in the instructions for the other schedules where you declare the income and demonstrate that it is exempt from tax.

To be direct about it, they don't include the instructions for Schedule D (for example) in the instructions for the 1040. That's because not everybody will file a Schedule D. If you follow the instructions for the 1040, you will determine if you need to file a Schedule D, too, and then you will acquire a Schedule D and the instructions for it which will have more definitions.

That said, you did read the instructions, didn't you? Instructions for line 8b:

Line 8b
Tax-Exempt Interest
If you received any tax-exempt interest,
such as from municipal bonds, report it on
line 8b. Include any exempt-interest divi-
dends from a mutual fund or other regu-
lated investment company. Do not include
interest earned on your IRA or Coverdell
education savings account.

Now, what do you think "tax-exempt interest" means? It's interest that is exempt from taxes. Not all interest will be exempt from taxes, of course, but if you received any, and the documentation you received from the institution that provided you the tax-exempt interest will tell you, then you report it here.

quote:
Is domestic income of Americans exempt from tax?

Logical error: You are attempting to make a group out of distinct entities. "Domestic income" is too broad of a term. It encompasses a whole range of income such as earnings, dividends, and interest. The point behind the phrase "domestic income" is that it is domestic income and not foreign. Since not all income, no matter where it comes from, is subject to tax, your question is nonsensical. Some domestic income of Americans is exempt from tax. Some of it is not. Check the documentation you received from the institution that provided you the income for details on whether or not it is tax-exempt.

You did read the instructions and the documentation, didn't you?

quote:
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.

(*blink!*)

You did not just say that, did you?

What do you think the big section marked "Income" in bold letters encompassing lines 7 to 22 is?

quote:
You assume that domestic income of Americans is taxable.

No, it is not an assumption. It is a declaration. You did read the instructions, did you not? What do you think the big section marked "Income" in bold letters encompassing lines 7 to 22 of the return are in reference to?

You seem to be upset that the lines do not use the word "domestic" as if that somehow lets you off the hook. Since the lines in the form continually refer to "total," how would "domestic" income manage to be excluded from that? What do you think "total" means?

quote:
Finally, we hope (and I believe) that this booklet is based on the tax laws, which define these terms.

And they do. You have been shown where they do. The instructions are filled with examples of what you are looking for.

You did read the instructions, didn't you?

quote:
I was merely pointing out some odd qualities in the booklet that make me wonder what the law says.

But there is nothing odd in the booklet.

You did read it before you posted, didn't you?


Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by TheLiteralist, posted 02-11-2005 10:18 PM TheLiteralist has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019