• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

People aren't too smart.

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#1
Was reading a post and the comments on FB about how 6.5 million people paid the Obamacare fine last year.

Someone replied that you didn't have to pay the fine and the only way to collect the fine was if you were getting a refund so stop getting a refund.

One comment went something like, "it must be nice to be so wealthy you dont need your 3000 refund from the gov but some of us are struggling and count on that money"

Do people really not know how to adjust their paycheck so they don't overpay on their taxes? I can't remember ever getting more than a couple hundred back in any years. Just never made sense to give the Government an interest free load to use all year.
 

Mujahideen

Black Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
9,682
Likes
16,419
Location
America!
#2

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,171
Likes
4,631
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#3
darn, I have not got a refund in? eleven years and I have paid not taxes either. and, none to or from the state.

I have been just bartering my way through life these last 15/16 years. Sure there was employment but farm labor is not taxable here in Oregon and of course there is no overtime but hey the hours average out.

Anyway, who gets $3,000 back anyway? Oh, my girlfriend does, I used to be gassed if I got $700 back. So, I always wondered what the IRS was going to do to me when they caught me and tried to apply that mandate? Sure would have been a show stopper.
 

keef

Пальто Crude
Platinum Bling
Joined
Nov 11, 2011
Messages
5,404
Likes
4,456
Location
here
#5
There is 'stupidity' and then there is 'ignorance'.

There is hope for stupid people. The ignorant? No. It ain't happening.

The Prophet George Carlin ranted best on this topic:


Basically, SP's are too F N stupid to know they are stupid and wear their ignorance with pride, i.e. Hubris.

Ok, enough chit chat. Where's the party???? :racoon:
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#6
Was reading a post and the comments on FB about how 6.5 million people paid the Obamacare fine last year.

Someone replied that you didn't have to pay the fine and the only way to collect the fine was if you were getting a refund so stop getting a refund.

One comment went something like, "it must be nice to be so wealthy you dont need your 3000 refund from the gov but some of us are struggling and count on that money"

Do people really not know how to adjust their paycheck so they don't overpay on their taxes? I can't remember ever getting more than a couple hundred back in any years. Just never made sense to give the Government an interest free load to use all year.
Most don't understand anything about income taxes. For most, it works on fear and intimidation, so they never question it.
...and by the way, it's "too" not "to". lol (your title)


My cpa didn't tell me this... I'm glad I didn't pay yet.
That's because cpa is in the business of making sure you pay. Ie: he doesn't care that there are no penalties for not paying it. In his eyes it says pay, so pay you will.
 

917601

Mother Lode Found
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
11,323
Likes
9,364
#8
In a past job I worked, I knew people who did not file or pay income taxes for a decade or more. They were only " caught" when they finally filed. One pal, never filed for 10 years, but he did elect to have taxes taken by our employer....when he did finally file, he was audited and hired a tax lawyer, the ruling : since taxes were taken out he was not fined anything despite him not filing for 10 years. His lawyer fee was $1200.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#9
In a past job I worked, I knew people who did not file or pay income taxes for a decade or more. They were only " caught" when they finally filed. One pal, never filed for 10 years, but he did elect to have taxes taken by our employer....when he did finally file, he was audited and hired a tax lawyer, the ruling : since taxes were taken out he was not fined anything despite him not filing for 10 years. His lawyer fee was $1200.
If he was still having money taken out, he probably paid way more than $1200 because they got to keep any refund owed to him for those years.
 

andial

((( member )))
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
10,578
Likes
10,961
#13
Was reading a post and the comments on FB about how 6.5 million people paid the Obamacare fine last year.

Someone replied that you didn't have to pay the fine and the only way to collect the fine was if you were getting a refund so stop getting a refund.

One comment went something like, "it must be nice to be so wealthy you dont need your 3000 refund from the gov but some of us are struggling and count on that money"

Do people really not know how to adjust their paycheck so they don't overpay on their taxes? I can't remember ever getting more than a couple hundred back in any years. Just never made sense to give the Government an interest free load to use all year.
Forget it Cigarlover, even some people here don't get it.
 
Last edited:

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,171
Likes
4,631
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#14
In a past job I worked, I knew people who did not file or pay income taxes for a decade or more. They were only " caught" when they finally filed. One pal, never filed for 10 years, but he did elect to have taxes taken by our employer....when he did finally file, he was audited and hired a tax lawyer, the ruling : since taxes were taken out he was not fined anything despite him not filing for 10 years. His lawyer fee was $1200.
And, there ya go. $1200 is about 6 hours of office work.
 

hammerhead

Not just a screen name
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
4,251
Likes
4,128
Location
On a speck of dust
#15
Income, schmimcome. There were years I would get 8 grand from the eye-are-s just for having kids in college. Being poor has it's advantages. But, like 2016 I ended up having to pay but that doesn't happen often.
 

michael59

heads up-butts down
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2014
Messages
8,171
Likes
4,631
Location
on the low side of corporate Oregon
#16
Income, schmimcome. There were years I would get 8 grand from the eye-are-s just for having kids in college. Being poor has it's advantages. But, like 2016 I ended up having to pay but that doesn't happen often.
Damm guy. 2day my friend was telling me how his sister told him how many of her OFF-SPRING (grands) were in collage....he told me he told her that his had good paying jobs.

And from the few I have met: Yes they do well.
 

Agavegirl1

Silver Miner
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
957
Likes
1,864
Location
Somewhere in the midwest
#17
Ahem, a little about tax refunds and not filing. I am at the "cabin so don't have access to detailed amounts but here goes.

1. If you do not file a tax return, the IRS prepares a mock return for you based on all information reported to them on forms W2 and 1099. They assume single filing status, standard deduction and no credits. If you owe no money based on this, they ignore you. If you do and the cost of collection exceeds the amount you owe they MAY ignore you for a while. If you owe, you get a letter, sometimes years later.

2. There are at least 3 refundable credits available to individual taxpayers which many rely on. The biggest is the Earned Income Tax Credit. Even if you withhold nothing, people file to get this. Depending on income and family size, it can be worth in excess of $12,000 and is a direct redistribution of tax monies.

There are also refundable credits for child care expenses and education expenses. Refundable means they are paid directly to you after your tax liability is satisfied. They can be used to offset your ACA penalty as well as self employment tax with the rest just given to you.
 

BarnacleBob

GIM Founding Member & Mod.
Founding Member
Site Mgr
Site Supporter
Joined
Oct 15, 2012
Messages
9,590
Likes
11,433
Location
Ten-Oh-Cee
#18
Are wages derived from labor OR are wages derived from wagering? Geez, someone using 26 USC please define "income?" Awww, forget about it!
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#20
Are wages derived from labor OR are wages derived from wagering? Geez, someone using 26 USC please define "income?" Awww, forget about it!
You'd have better luck asking for proof of Santa Claus because the IRC neglects to define the word income. The very thing they are taxing is not defined.
...and that'd be like the motor vehicle code neglecting to define the term "motor vehicle".


However, there is a "good" reason for that Bob. The reason is that they want everyone to just assume that "income" means money that one receives for any reason. Ie: your money is in-coming. lol
...and they'd really like it if you got with the program, Bob. lol
 

Agavegirl1

Silver Miner
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
957
Likes
1,864
Location
Somewhere in the midwest
#21
Are wages derived from labor OR are wages derived from wagering? Geez, someone using 26 USC please define "income?" Awww, forget about it!
The IRS defines "income" as all income from all sources worldwide that is not expressly exempted by law, code or tax treaty. Wagering income is income and wagering losses may be deducted only up to the amount of income derived. Unless, you are a professional gambler which comes with some pretty strict rules and definitions.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#22
The IRS defines "income" as all income from all sources worldwide that is not expressly exempted by law, code or tax treaty.
That doesn't actually define the word "income" though. That would be the same as defining a "car" as anything that looks like a car.
Ie: you can't define a word by using the word being defined to define the word.
 

Agavegirl1

Silver Miner
Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
957
Likes
1,864
Location
Somewhere in the midwest
#23
That doesn't actually define the word "income" though. That would be the same as defining a "car" as anything that looks like a car.
Ie: you can't define a word by using the word being defined to define the word.
That is the point. Every dollar you receive for any reason anywhere in the world is "income" to the IRS unless you can point out in the code, a law or treaty that it isn't. If you sell something, barter something pretty much any transaction, that is income and you are supposed to prove it was personal property and there was no gain to you on the transaction. In other words unlike property of equal fair market value was exchanged with no gain or loss to either party. Or, you sold personal property for money at its fair market value and the cost of the property less depreciation is the amount you got. Otherwise there is a gain or loss to you. Exceptions apply to garage sales if you are not in the business of flea market sales etc. There are monetary limits.

In essence. Someone gives you money. It is income. Now prove it isn't.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#24
That is the point. Every dollar you receive for any reason anywhere in the world is "income" to the IRS unless you can point out in the code,
No, that'd be their definition of gross income.
Edited to add: @Agavegirl1 ...and "net income" is the amount after deductions. However, what I am asking is, what is the Codes definition of just "income"? You know, on its own without any other words attached to it that alter the definition of the word itself.
Ie: the thing thing presumably being taxed.
What is it, per the Code? Not defining the word "income" would be tantamount to Title 18 not defining the words "alcohol", "tobacco", "firearms" or "explosives".
...and it most definitely (and clearly) defines those things, as those things are what Title 18 is about.
Title 16 is about something that has no exact definition within the Code of what that thing is.
IMHO, it is written that way as a means to intentionally confuse the issue.



If you sell something, barter something pretty much any transaction, that is income and you are supposed to prove it was personal property and there was no gain to you on the transaction.
My labor is my personal property, so money exchanged for an equal value of labor would not be "income".


Also, their definition as you proclaim it to be destroys the concept of one having the Right to use their own life, liberty and property to support themselves.
Or do we not have the Right to support ourselves? Rights can't be taxed.
 
Last edited:

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#26
This was a slope I didn't plan on going down LOL.
The SC has answered the income question numerous time. First in the Polk decision where it was declared unconstitutional because it wasn't apportioned according to the constitution.
So then they passed the 16th which the Gov and IRS said gave them the power for a direct tax on your money exchanged for labor, but in another SC case on the 16th the courts said that "the 16th gave congress no new powers of taxation that they didn't already possess."
The SC has consistently defined income as ‘income’ may be defined as the gains derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined"

Let me preface the rest of this by saying you will not win these arguments in court. I have looked at numerous cases and the lower courts just ignore the SC.. Then the SC says they refuse to take on any cases related to the income tax so you are stuck with lower court rulings even though they are wrong..

And here's where the lower courts are wrong. If you look at the definition of income you notice that little word in there. It "Derived"
Derived: to receive or obtain from a source or origin

So, if you save your money over the years and invest 10,000 in the stock market and make 10% for the year. You have derived 1000 in profits or gains from the source. The source being 10,000. Legal taxation.
If you own a company and have employees and you pay them 20.00 an hr and bill them out at 60.00 an hr. You have derived 40.00 an hr profit from their labor. Minus other expenses of course.

Now it's fairly well known that the government can not convert a right into a priviledge via fees or taxation. There is no greater right than the freedom to work and earn a living by whatever means possible. In the early days of the US, this is the reason so many immigrants came to this country. You had the freedom to work and keep your money. Burn it in whatever way you want or save it and invest it or start a business with it. Once you had "Capital" to work with the earning on the capital became taxable.

In the past you have heard me say that direct taxation of the people is where the Gov took control in this country. Before that the people had the power because they decided if the wars were just or the Gov should expand its powers ect and only the people could fund that. Once the 16th and federal reserve act went into effect the power was transferred and the Gov could spend at will and just borrow from the fed...
Of course with holding didn't come about until WW2 with the special war tax to get people accustomed to having a with holding from their pay. After that they went for the new deal and the SS tax and it was down hill from there.

You can look up the quotes I posted above to find the SC cases. its been awhile and they all kinda get jumbled in my head when I don't refresh every now and then.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#27
No, that'd be their definition of gross income.


My labor is my personal property, so money exchanged for an equal value of labor would not be "income".


Also, their definition as you proclaim it to be destroys the concept of one having the Right to use their own life, liberty and property to support themselves.
Or do we not have the Right to support ourselves? Rights can't be taxed.
Your right but you cant win it in court. Court just ignores that fact. Its been tried..

The only major case that ever won is Tom Cryer. The attorney from La who passed away a few years back. He won because he knew every SC decision on the matter by heart and the jry believed him. There also isnt a liability clause in that section making anyone liable for an income tax.
Any other tax has a liability clause attached to it like (If you are involved in the sale of alcohol you are liable for a whatever% tax"
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#28
U.S. V. LLOYD R. LONG
The following article is reprinted from the December 1993 edition of Free Enterprise Society News, 300 W. Shaw Ave. #205, Clovis, Calif. 93612:

"A not guilty verdict came in the Eastern District of Tennessee in the case of U.S. v. Lloyd R. Long, #CR-1-93-91. The verdict came on October 15th, 1993.
This was an amazing case involving the income tax. A Chattanooga jury agreed with the argument by Long that the income tax is actually an excise tax and only applies to certain classes of people.

Nationally prominent attorney Lowell Becraft, of Huntsville Alabama, assisted by attorney Russell J. Leonard of Sewanee, Tennessee, defended Lloyd R. Long of Decherd, Tennessee. Long was charged with willful failure to file income tax returns for 1989 and 1990.

In presenting the case for the IRS, the government, represented by assistant US attorney Curtis Collier assisted by special agent Michael Geasley of the IRS, declared that Long had grossed income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year, and that he willfully failed to file income tax returns.

The defense admitted that Long had an income in excess of $49,000.00 for each year in question, and that he did not file a return. He then proceeded to prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not liable for an income tax, nor was he required by law to file.

Defense testimony showed a case titled Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad wherein it was the unanimous decision of the US Supreme Court that the 16th amendment did not give Congress any new power to tax any new subjects; it merely tried to simplify the way in which the tax was imposed. It also showed that the income tax was in fact an excise tax on corporate privileges and privileged occupations. The defense then brought out a case entitled Flint v. Stone Tracy wherein an excise tax was defined as a tax being laid upon the manufacture, sale and consumption of commodities within the country; upon licenses to pursue certain occupations; and upon corporate privileges.

Mr. Long's attorneys also brought out a case entitled Simms v. Arehns, wherein the court ruled that the income tax was neither a property tax nor a tax upon occupations of common right, but was an excise tax.

The defense then brought out a case entitled Redfield v. Fisher, wherein the court ruled that the individual, unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the mere privilege of existing, but that the individual's right to live and own property was a natural right upon which an excise cannot be imposed. Defense also pointed to a couple of studies done by the Congressional Research Service that shows the income tax is an excise.

Next, defense pointed out that in Tennessee Supreme Court case Jack Cole v. Commissioner the court ruled that citizens are entitled by right to income or earnings and that right could not be taxed as a privilege. In another Tennessee Supreme Court case Corn v. Fort the court ruled that individuals have the right to combine their activities as partnerships; and that this is a natural right independent and antecedent of government.

The prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute any of these cases cited, or the conclusions of the courts.

Defense brought out in testimony the fact that nowhere in the entire IRS Code was anyone actually made liable for the income tax. They showed that in the IRS's own privacy act notice only three sections were cited, and that none of these sections made anyone liable for the tax. They also proved that this was not an oversight by showing that the alcohol tax was worded so clearly that no one could misinterpret who was liable for the alcohol tax.

Prosecution did not challenge or attempt to refute this point, nor were they able to show a statute that made anyone liable for the income tax.

Defense then presented the mission statement of the IRS stating that the income tax relied upon voluntary compliance, and a statement from the head of the alcohol and tobacco tax division of the IRS which in essence showed that the income tax is 100% voluntary, as opposed to the alcohol tax, which is 100% mandatory.

Mr. Long stated that in 1989 he knew that the income tax was in fact an excise tax; and that he was not enjoying any corporation; and that income or earnings from the exercise of common right could not be taxed as an excise or otherwise; and that nowhere in the IRS Code was he made liable for the tax; and that the income tax was voluntary. Long then stated he was so intimidated by the IRS that he filed and paid his voluntary assessment.

He then began a series of letters to the IRS explaining that he had no licenses or privileges issued to him by the federal government. He asked for direct answers to simple questions, such as "Am I required to file federal income tax returns?"; and "Am I liable for federal income taxes?" The IRS never gave a direct answer to any questions. Instead they inferred and insinuated and extrapolated and beat around the bush, and generally avoided answering. So Mr. Long testified that he decided to stop volunteering.

The IRS brought in 2 expert witnesses. Both were actually IRS employees who had received training as professional witnesses. Upon cross-examination by Attorney Becraft, one witness, a Ms. Jeu, stated that a secret code known only to the IRS, and encoded on Mr. Long's permanent record, showed that the IRS knew that he was not required to mail or file a return. Ms. Jeu made every effort to avoid this admission to the point that she was beginning to frustrate the jury. The other witness, upon cross-examination by Becraft gave testimony that conflicted with the Privacy Act notice.

The government also attempted to institute "guilt by association" in that they claimed Mr. Long had known and relied upon persons of questionable character. They argued that the writers of some of the books he read and people he knew had been convicted of tax-related charges in the past and were in fact criminals.

Long responded that just because a person had been convicted of a crime by a court, did not invalidate everything said. To illustrate his point, he pointed out that apostle Paul was a murderer, but that by the grace of God he became the greatest of the Apostles. Mr. Long added that he did not rely on anything that he did not personally check out thoroughly.

In summation Attorney Larry Becraft reminded them that Galileo was imprisoned for holding a belief that conflicted with one which everyone else knew as a fact; and that Columbus, acting on a belief which conflicted with what everyone else knew as a fact, discovered something no one else thought existed.

The jury agreed with the defense. By finding Mr. Long "Not Guilty" on all counts they have ventured into history as preservers of freedom.

A Chattanooga TV Station quoted a government spokesman as saying that this case will change the way the IRS will handle such cases in the future. They indicated that they will be less likely to prosecute if a jury isn't going to decide in their favor.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#30
http://thetruthnews.info/THEMEMORANDUM.pdf

The memorandum basically lays out Tom Cryers case. Its an interesting read and one of the most complete documents ever written on the subject of taxation. In my opinion it is a must read for every American and should be required learning before your graduate from high school and go out into the real world.
 

Thecrensh

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,513
Likes
5,135
#31
From the initial comment in the thread, I'm not so sure that it's a matter of people being "stupid"...I think the tax codes and forms are written in such a convoluted manner that people don't really fully understand what they are doing when they adjust their W-4. I did it (incorrectly) one year and had to pay the IRS $6000. Unfortunately, I didn't have that laying around so had to do a payment plan (I was married and my ex wife blew through money like a hooker blows through meth). Last year I paid the IRS $9....talk about perfect.

**EDIT**

I still have no effing clue exactly how to manage my W-4...
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#32
From the initial comment in the thread, I'm not so sure that it's a matter of people being "stupid"...I think the tax codes and forms are written in such a convoluted manner that people don't really fully understand what they are doing
So in other words, the law is invalid because a law has to be able to be understood by those it applies to. As it stands now, it's mostly interpreted as, you has to do it and quit asking questions already!
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#33
From the initial comment in the thread, I'm not so sure that it's a matter of people being "stupid"...I think the tax codes and forms are written in such a convoluted manner that people don't really fully understand what they are doing when they adjust their W-4. I did it (incorrectly) one year and had to pay the IRS $6000. Unfortunately, I didn't have that laying around so had to do a payment plan (I was married and my ex wife blew through money like a hooker blows through meth). Last year I paid the IRS $9....talk about perfect.

**EDIT**

I still have no effing clue exactly how to manage my W-4...
if you only paid 9.00 I'd say you figured it out pretty well.
 

Cigarlover

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
3,569
Likes
5,830
#35
This story caught my eye awhile back. A Raushenburg that couldn't be sold was assessed a 41 million tax liability.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/tax-assessment-for-rauschenberg-art-work-shows-federal-tax-excesses
Insanity at its finest.
feds say you cant sell it. so you put value at 0. Irs says nope its worth 60 mil. so you donate it and then Irs says its worth 0 so no tax deduction.
Since they paid 471 million in estate taxes I would say they could have probably paid an attorney to fight this. I'm a little surprised they didn't have a family trust with that size estate as well. Or maybe they did and this was the assets outside of the trust but you would think the art would be in the trust..
Not a problem I will ever have.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#36
Insanity at its finest.
feds say you cant sell it. so you put value at 0. Irs says nope its worth 60 mil. so you donate it and then Irs says its worth 0 so no tax deduction.
IMHO, the intent was to get the item out of private hands.
...and is another example of the law meaning whatever the gov needs it to mean at the time. Ie: law of necessity.
 

gringott

Killed then Resurrected
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
14,929
Likes
19,507
Location
You can't get there from here.
#38
I didn't file for a few years. They came at me when I did file. I explained I had no records, they were all destroyed during a river crossing in Guatemala, I worked overseas for room and board, no cash. They harassed me for many years, following me from Germany to California to Panama to Kentucky, about a decade of harassment, finally they came back at me and said they weren't "actively" perusing me any longer, but the case remains open. That was about 2001. Haven't heard anything since. Obviously, every year I filed to the letter yet they made up problems during the harassment decade, that I had to deal with. They did come up with some work I did the first year [about a month or so] in the States and made me file for that, they owed me money but of course they didn't have to pay. In the end, other than mental anguish of being harassed, I had no problem. Never went to court or anything like that. It was all amazing to me that they bothered with me, I made small potatoes look big.
Once I flew into Chicago after being in the mideast for a couple of years [during this non filing period], the Customs aholes strip searched me for money, I had about 45 cents or so US and a little [under $20 worth] of Egyptian and Israeli money. I told them, hey, if my brother wasn't out there waiting for me, I would be walking from the airport. They didn't trust me lol. Me and the FedGov had a love hate relationship.

Also, this all happened during the early 80's, the laws about overseas income, expats, etc, were different back then.
 

edsl48

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,760
Likes
2,888
#39
Ahem, a little about tax refunds and not filing. I am at the "cabin so don't have access to detailed amounts but here goes.

1. If you do not file a tax return, the IRS prepares a mock return for you based on all information reported to them on forms W2 and 1099. They assume single filing status, standard deduction and no credits. If you owe no money based on this, they ignore you. If you do and the cost of collection exceeds the amount you owe they MAY ignore you for a while. If you owe, you get a letter, sometimes years later.

2. There are at least 3 refundable credits available to individual taxpayers which many rely on. The biggest is the Earned Income Tax Credit. Even if you withhold nothing, people file to get this. Depending on income and family size, it can be worth in excess of $12,000 and is a direct redistribution of tax monies.

There are also refundable credits for child care expenses and education expenses. Refundable means they are paid directly to you after your tax liability is satisfied. They can be used to offset your ACA penalty as well as self employment tax with the rest just given to you.
Some very good points showing another hidden welfare handout that is not counted as income when determining welfare benefits. The qualifying people always seems to know what to make to get the maximum EIC too because very many seem to hit the sweet spot for the most credits. I swear when I hear the "we have to help the poor" types coming around they have no idea how much so called "assistance" these so called poor get.
 

Joe King

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
6,290
Likes
6,422
Location
Instant Gratification Land
#40
Some very good points showing another hidden welfare handout that is not counted as income when determining welfare benefits. The qualifying people always seems to know what to make to get the maximum EIC too because very many seem to hit the sweet spot for the most credits.
Exactly. Those gaining benefit are not going to intentionally cut themselves out of getting something. They know exactly where the line is that maximizes their free lunch.
...and they are getting a free lunch because those earning in excess of $80,000 already pay about 97% of all income taxes collected, while those earning less than that only have to pay the other 3%. How is that, in any conceivable way, fair? Yet the call goes out from dumb ignorant people to screw the "rich" even more because they want more free sh!t.