| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Shameless Avenger
   |
Posted - 2008.03.13 12:09:00 -
[1]
If you are on active duty (not participating on an actual conflict) do you have to pay taxes?
Lets say that you are from Iowa. You signed and you are now on active duty in... lets say... California. Do you have to pay taxes in California?
What happens if you change bases all the time and move around a lot?
Is the same rule if you live off base?
What if you have a wife back in Iowa and she is working?
Or what if you are stationed in another country, like Cuba?
|
Toasted Trucker
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 12:20:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Toasted Trucker on 13/03/2008 12:27:33
You can pay the taxes in the state you enlisted in or the state you are currently living in.
i still pay taxes for connecticut but, im stationed in south carolina. just go to the finance office to change your state of residence.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 13:49:00 -
[3]
Already answered above but note that there is NO avoiding taxes. There is no job where the IRS tells you to not bother. A grandma living on nothing but Social Security pays taxes. The President of the United States pays taxes.
Think of it as a roundabout way to get you to buy your own bullets. 
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Rutefly
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 13:52:00 -
[4]
I saw somewhere that the us never really legally agreed on an income tax. Can anyone clearify this ?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 14:28:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Rutefly
I saw somewhere that the us never really legally agreed on an income tax. Can anyone clearify this ?
There are a pile of anti-tax nutters out there who make this claim on dubious grounds. One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court even before the 16th Amendment was ratified.
Then some say the 16th Amendment was not properly ratified. Because of an oversight Ohio was not technically a state in 1911 when the Amendment went through. It was not till 150 years after Ohio thought it was a state that they found the error on its 150th anniversary in 1953. Congress passed a joint resolution admitting Ohio as a state retroactive to 1803. But no the tax evaders jumped in citing that the Constitution explicitly prohibits making an "ex post facto" law which means they cannot "retroactively" admit Ohio as a state from 1803 in 1953. They can only make it a state in 1953 forward. As such the 16th Amendment was not appropriately ratified (they also say President Taft who was born in Ohio and could not legally introduce the Amendment since he was not a natural-born citizen of the United States which the Constitution requires to be president).
The US Supreme Court rejected these arguments in Porth v. Brodrick although frankly they did not really address the Ohio argument and was just sorta saying, "We all pay taxes, get used to it and stop bugging us about it". While that may not be acceptable to many that is the last word on it. Period. there is no higher court to appeal to (legally). The only way a SCOTUS decision can be undone is for Congress to modify the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on that one.
In short, evade taxes at your peril. The IRS WILL come after you and put you in jail.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Wendat Huron
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 15:34:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Wendat Huron on 13/03/2008 15:35:48
Why again do serfs pay taxes? Seems to me like a double screwjob.
These forums are FUBAR, upgrade this decade! |
Toasted Trucker
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:14:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Wendat Huron
Edited by: Wendat Huron on 13/03/2008 15:35:48
Why again do serfs pay taxes? Seems to me like a double screwjob.
sorry you comment reminded me of this 
|
Ch Tang
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:21:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Wendat Huron
Edited by: Wendat Huron on 13/03/2008 15:35:48
Why again do serfs pay taxes? Seems to me like a double screwjob.
Good one. If a person has to work to make a living, they are a slave.
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:30:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Rutefly
I saw somewhere that the us never really legally agreed on an income tax. Can anyone clearify this ?
I'm still baffled how they can levy tax in a country where their currency is unconstitutional tbh.
Whatever happened to dollars having to be made of gold or silver? That their worth must be based only on the inherent value of the coin itself?
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:37:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Sephra Star on 13/03/2008 16:38:19
The Money Masters - How International Bankers Gained Control of America
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936
If by chance you have managed to aquire better than an 8th grade education you might be more inclined to take the time to educate yourself on reality. This link may help lead you there. Read them all if you dare. Then "beaware" the TAVISTOCK (beaware = beware + aware)
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/contents.htm#media
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Avon
Whatever happened to dollars having to be made of gold or silver? That their worth must be based only on the inherent value of the coin itself?
What is unconstitutional about the US currency? That's a new one.
As for the currency based on gold that was stopped by President Nixon and for good reason...it makes no sense anymore. There quite literally is not enough gold in the world to even cover all the money in the US much less the world.
You can of course go buy gold if you want to so it sort of works the same if for some reason you prefer to have gold on hand. But the currency is not premised on a country's stock of gold (I do not think a government issued currency remains anywhere in the world that is backed by gold reserves).
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 16:57:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Sephra Star on 13/03/2008 16:58:50
President John F.Kennedy,
The Federal Reserve
And Executive Order 11110
On June 4, 1963, a little known attempt was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.
A week after signing the Executive Order into law he was Assassinated. His executive order would have undermined the Globalists New World Order by wresting their strangulation of the United States Government from them by taking away their power to create another great depression as they had done in the past.
The only reason Gold is used as a standard is that Globalists (NWO) have the market cornered on it and there is far less gold than silver. "He who has the gold makes the rules", but only so long as gold is coveted above silver.
There is no reason not to use silver as a global standard other than the simple fact that it would in effect redistribute wealth to a vast segment of people throughout the world and promote freedom and independence which would hinder the NWO's fascist dictatorial corporatist one world government that is being instituted.
http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/executiveorder11110.htm
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
But the currency is not premised on a country's stock of gold (I do not think a government issued currency remains anywhere in the world that is backed by gold reserves).
But that is exactly what Jefferson was afraid of.
He was absolutely against the US adopting a Fiat currency, exactly because it gave banks, or possibly the government, the power to financially enslave the people.
He saw that money had to have an inherent worth in order to prevent an economy of debt.
The founding fathers weren't a bunch of idiots milling about looking to create a nation. They understood very well the things which were "wrong" in other countries in the world, and set out to build a nation which would avoid those things.
A dollar bill, for example, is not worth anything at all. It is good only to pay a debt, and there is a subtle but important difference between that and actually having wealth.
 Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 17:46:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Avon
But that is exactly what Jefferson was afraid of.
He was absolutely against the US adopting a Fiat currency, exactly because it gave banks, or possibly the government, the power to financially enslave the people.
He saw that money had to have an inherent worth in order to prevent an economy of debt.
That was fine when the total population of the United States was around 3 million people. Now we have 600 million people with a GDP of over $13 trillion. All the gold in the world (that has been mined) is estimated to be worth around $4 trillion. Heck, cash deposits (and in people's pockets) in the United States outstrips that. The government quite literally cannot back the total wealth of the country with gold as there is not near enough gold to be had. Not to mention all the issues you get with a fluctuating value of gold, speculation on gold, lack of control over the economy when on a gold standard and so on leaves it a non-starter.
I hear you about Jefferson and some of what he was warning against is indeed happening. I just do not see the gold standard as a better, much less viable, alternative these days.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Avon
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:17:00 -
[15]
I think you are missing the point.
The current US economy would be impossible if the currency had not become a fiat one.
The US economy is one of debt, not worth.
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Eve-Online: The Text Adventure |
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:20:00 -
[16]
Bear in mind the BANKSTERS including the Federal Reserve operate on what is called fractional reserves. Meaning they are permitted to PRINT x10 times their actual worth.
In effect for every 10 dollars they have they can print 90 dollars in worthless paper to lend out and charge 20 percent interest on that.
Sad fact is they do the same thing for governments when they print up cash in exchange for a government bond which "we the people" have to pay interest on in the form of taxes.
President Andrew Jackson got rid of this practice and put back that power in the hands of the United States Treasury. That was where the term Green Back came from.
The cool thing about doing it that way is that the government is not forced to pay interest on the money they print themselves and hence there is no need to tax "we the people" to pay it back.
Therein lies the essence of theft and as long as private banks control the printing of a national currency they in effect control our government.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:39:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Avon
I think you are missing the point.
The current US economy would be impossible if the currency had not become a fiat one.
The US economy is one of debt, not worth.
Yes and no.
While certainly there is a very serious debt issue in the United States (one which we are just starting to have to pay for and looks to be painful) what I cited was the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). GDP is a measure of the value of all goods and services produced by a given country. It is not debt, it is actual production of goods and services. That alone is waaaaay past the value of all the gold in all the world just for the US alone. Add in the rest of the world on top and it is just not a useful standard to abide by any longer.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 18:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Sephra Star
Bear in mind the BANKSTERS including the Federal Reserve operate on what is called fractional reserves. Meaning they are permitted to PRINT x10 times their actual worth.
In effect for every 10 dollars they have they can print 90 dollars in worthless paper to lend out and charge 20 percent interest on that.
They *can* do this but they don't. Doing so is a short trip to stagflation and the collapse of the economy. Some countries in the past tried this and devalued their currency to worthlessness. Indeed the former USSR Ruble was literally worthless outside of the USSR because they literally printed money as they needed it. If you visited the Soviet government set an arbitrary exchange rate. When you left and tried to exchange back for dollars (or whatever) you were told to take a hike...go wallpaper your house with Rubles as it is likely cheaper than wallpaper. They wanted the dollar (or pound or whatever) and could buy stuff with that. IIRC when McDonalds looked to setup stores in the Soviet Union they negotiated a barter system for vodka. Essentially they traded what they made in sales for train loads of vodka then sold the vodka elsewhere to make their money because the Ruble used to buy a Big Mac was worthless.
In short, printing money willy-nilly is a bad idea and they full well know it and won't do it except in minimal amounts as one means to control the economy.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 19:47:00 -
[19]
The reason the ruble was so devalued was because Russia refused to allow the NWO and their Banksters to control their government by proxy the way it had been done in Europe and America.
In fact the entire cold war it could be argued was nothing more than a proxy war instigated by the Banksters to force Russia to join the NWO which is exactly what Gorbachev agreed to. An historic fact.
Those same banksters were responsable for both world wars to further their agenda for global domination. They are also responsable for the genocides of whole populations in Africa and elsewhere in order to clear the land of indigenous people to get at their resources.
That does not begin to take into account the 100's of millions of lives lost in the innumerable civil wars and revolutions that were instigated by them in the smaller countries all over the globe.
You want to defend the actions of mass murderers go right ahead, but at least call them what they are.
Simply put they are a bunch of genocidal satanic cultists who regard human beings as cattle.
GEORGE CARLIN: LIFE IS WORTH LOSING (HBO)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:16:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Sephra Star
The reason the ruble was so devalued was because Russia refused to allow the NWO and their Banksters to control their government by proxy the way it had been done in Europe and America.
Good grief.
Look, this is basic Econ 101 stuff. Printing money at will causes inflation. Imagine we used leaves as currency. Because they, quite literally, grow on trees you'd find a peanut would cost as much as a small forest. If you make your paper currency essentially as easy to get as leaves because you are just churning them off of printing presses then they have roughly the value of a leaf (which is to say no value).
Yes people and governments have done all sorts of evil things to each other to make more money and protect their own self interests. Welcome to the human race. Nevertheless that does not change simple economic realities of which printing money as fast as you can is one.
If anything those with money would prefer a tighter money supply which makes each dollar they hold even more valuable.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 20:23:00 -
[21]
Read up on just how well the Green Back did in America after President Jackson eradicated the sewage of the Banksters from control of America's monetary system.
We did quite well for over 70 years until the Banksters manipulated America into a Civil War and forced Lincoln to accept economic slavery in return for European aid.
A fiscally conservative government does not print money at will. It carefully balances the increase in the monetary supply to maintain a balance in society to facilitate trade.
Banksters on the other hand tighten their grip on the flow of money to strangle a society into depression in order to Blackmail a country to go to war.
I'll take President Andrew Jacksons Greenback policy over the Federal Reserve Scam; thank you.
We would all be better off.
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:02:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 13/03/2008 21:06:55
Edited by: Imperator Jora''h on 13/03/2008 21:03:15
Originally by: Sephra Star
We are printing money at will now by issueing Bonds to the Banksters. The difference between the way we do it now and the way it would be done if we were printing our own currency is the interest we would not have to pay.
By your own argument the only difference is if we printed our own money we would owe less in the long run and have less inflation. The bonus of course would be that none of this would even be an issue because we would not have been manipulated into a war in Iraq by the Banksters to need all this inflationary printing of loans by the privately owned Federal Reserve.
The inflation is there either way it is done. It is just less costly (no interest) if you print your own currency.
Eh? Do you really believe your own rhetoric or just having fun? I can't decide.
Bonds are a completely normal investment. Note the word investment. How many people have $100,000 to buy a house on hand? Most don't and would be old people if they waited till they saved enough to write a check. So you borrow money. When you borrow money you pay the person you borrowed it from (interest). Same as if I paid you to borrow your car for a week. I am paying for the use of something that you cannot use while I have it. Bonds are the same thing. It is the government borrowing money to do something today which it will pay back later with interest.
As a "thing" it is quite normal and understandable and not evil in and of itself. If the government did not spend more than it collected it would not need to issue bonds either but sadly most governments are spend thrifts and operate at a deficit (although they may still use bonds as a means to moderate the economy even if they did not actually need to borrow money).
If they just "printed" money rather than borrowing it they would ruin the economy in short order. The currency would be devalued to almost nothing, inflation would take off. Some inflation is normal and even healthy but not 25, 50, 100% inflation rates and such things have happened in countries who tried what you suggested. The policy is ruinous and not because of evil banksters but because it is a simple fact of how it works like 2+2=4...just no way around it.
--------------------------------------------------
"Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
------ |
Rialtor
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 21:33:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Good grief.
Look, this is basic Econ 101 stuff. Printing money at will causes inflation. Imagine we used leaves as currency. Because they, quite literally, grow on trees you'd find a peanut would cost as much as a small forest. If you make your paper currency essentially as easy to get as leaves because you are just churning them off of printing presses then they have roughly the value of a leaf (which is to say no value).
Yes people and governments have done all sorts of evil things to each other to make more money and protect their own self interests. Welcome to the human race. Nevertheless that does not change simple economic realities of which printing money as fast as you can is one.
If anything those with money would prefer a tighter money supply which makes each dollar they hold even more valuable.
You bring up gold, but that's one of many acceptable standards. Or even a combination of multiple standards. The only reason people mention the 'Gold Standard' is because that's what they know. The idea of a standard is just the notion of having a hard asset behind your currency.
Natural resources obviously have a certain appeal since "they don't grow on trees". But there's all sorts of hard assets: Diamonds, Platinum, Gold, Silver, etc. Also, it doesn't have to be a 1:1 ratio. That ratio can be subject to change based on drastic deflation.
This does 2 things, it turns your Prisoner's Dilemna into an Assurance game. You remove the notion of "Trusting the Dollar" from the game as it's easily exchanged for a hard commodity. It's an easy concept for anyone to understand, so it's transparent and you don't need some private bankers speaking in private meetings deciding on the status of money in the US, and really the world.
One issue that can arise from standards is that your hard asset of choice may one day be cost effectively replicated. In that instance you just need a new standard. But I don't know if it would ever be feasible to make 1 lb of gold with less than 1 lb of gold's value, Isn't alchemy disproven ;).
If you actually look at the history of 1: how the fed came to be or 2: why the standard was elminated in 1970 you'd be like "wtf".
---- sig ----
Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world... Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. |
Ammoina
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:12:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
... One being that a tax on wages is forbidden by the US Constitution. This was explicitly tossed out by the US Supreme Court even before the 16th Amendment was ratified.
... The only way a SCOTUS decision can be undone is for Congress to modify the Constitution. Don't hold your breath on that one. ...
Right so. Constitution forbids a tax on wages. Supreme Court tosses it out so that we could be taxed on our wages. Only way to undo the decisions of the Supreme Court is to pass a constitutional amendment... which the Supreme Court can go ahead and toss out.
In other words the courts decided we should be taxed, and to hell with the constitution.
|
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:19:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ammoina
In other words the courts decided we should be taxed, and to hell with the constitution.
They even get to decide on our President now by taking away a states right to recount its own vote in the prooven face of massive fraud.
|
Ammoina
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:24:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Sephra Star
They even get to decide on our President now by taking away a states right to recount its own vote in the prooven face of massive fraud.
Please don't mis-interpret my post as agreeing with you. You're just off the deep end.
|
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:30:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Ammoina
You're just off the deep end.
I prefer the deep end where I can swim to the shallows most people waid in.
|
Ammoina
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:38:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Ammoina on 13/03/2008 22:38:28
Originally by: Sephra Star
I prefer the deep end where I can swim to the shallows most people waid in.
Trouble is you're drowning, not swimming.
|
Sephra Star
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 22:52:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ammoina
Edited by: Ammoina on 13/03/2008 22:38:28
Originally by: Sephra Star
I prefer the deep end where I can swim to the shallows most people waid in.
Trouble is you're drowning, not swimming.
Your just jelous cause you can't swim and I can.
Besides that I'm a dolphin and your just a human.
http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=26192898
|
Mtthias Clemi
|
Posted - 2008.03.13 23:03:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Mtthias Clemi on 13/03/2008 23:02:57
Is a Bankster someone who is a bank manager and is also a gangster?
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |