going to buy a new laptop for sure
going to buy a new laptop for sure
http://www.fairtax.org Just one more reason to support it.Originally Posted by Tyche
This isn't a reason to support the so-called "fair" tax.Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD
This is, however, a good reason to anticipate future tax burden and under-pay rather than over-pay.
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/1...y771457ba1.jpg
if you know what I mean
GET IT? ASS?! GET IT??
I get nadadidn't work for the majority of the year and the times I did I was paid in cash
My mother is loosely considering a trip to Italy or backpacking in Europe. I would probably go do that if it went down.
Otherwise, I don't file taxes my mom does it for me so... lah!
Going straight into savings if I get anything back at all.
good response lolOriginally Posted by aurik
CC debt payment![]()
I'm going to pay off my credit card so I can put a nice new TV on it. lol
Thank goodness it's only like a $500 balance I have left, probably less by tax return time.
Probably credit card after I pay off my parking tickets...fuck trying to park an SUV in Center City Philadelphia...and fuck the baseball off-season. =(
Needless to say that, selling my WoW/FFXI accounts (to friends) all have helped with the bills.
Heh, speaking of parking in Philadelphia, there's a new show on A&E called "Parking Wars" that follows around the PPA (Philadelphia Parking Authority)...damn, that city gives out a SHITLOAD of tickets.Originally Posted by Lockecole7
http://www.aetv.com/parking-wars/
taking 3 months off work and just training for my next fight.
Um, under the Fairtax you wouldn't overpay, so why is overpaying on income taxes not a reason to support the Fairtax?Originally Posted by aurik
Because of the plethora of problems that the so-called "fair" tax would bring with it?Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD
Like what? When our country operated under a similar system until the 16th amendment there weren't any.Originally Posted by aurik
[quote=SwampdonkeyPLD][quote=aurik]Like what? When our country operated under a similar system until the 16th amendment there weren't any.[/quote:132u6exr]Originally Posted by SwampdonkeyPLD
Except that the 16th amendment isn't the source of the gov't power to levy taxes. We went over this already.
It's the source of the governments power to levy taxes on income. I've never stated thats what allows the government to levy taxes in general, just the power to levy taxes on income.
Wrong. The government could always levy income taxes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v. ... 6_Trust_Co.
"Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429,[1] aff'd on reh'g, 158 U.S. 601[2] (1895) was an important United States Supreme Court case in which the court ruled that a particular type of income tax—specifically, a tax on income derived from property—was a direct tax under the United States Constitution, and consequently had to be levied in proportion to each state's population."
The Supreme Court found that prior to the 16th amendment, direct taxes (for example, income tax) could be levied, but only if in apportioned by each state's population.
The 16th amendment removed this constraint, but did not affect the government's power to actually levy income taxes.
Here's another resource for you to enlighten yourself with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushaber_ ... c_Railroad
"In Brushaber the Court noted that even before the Sixteenth Amendment was passed, the Congress had authority to tax income."
You're telling me...it's almost literally IMPOSSIBLE to park legally without paying absurd amounts of money in one way or another. I even have a parking permit, and even that only helps the situation some. I've had $90 parking tickets because the PPA asshole decided to charge me for 3 offences, when there were 5 cars parked exactly the same way. (sometimes its just understood that some streets people park partially on the curbs, double park on occasion etc.) Sometimes short of walking for 5-10mins from my spot I just risk it...you're almost forced to park illegally to be anywhere within walking distance.Originally Posted by Norelco
I'm not sure if I understand this right. The supreme court in the first case stated that in order for a tax to not be a direct tax it has to be apportioned according to a states population? (That's the reason they said the tax was unconstitutional right?) Then it was alright to tax income? I think they basically said the same thing in the second case?Originally Posted by aurik
So what I'm getting from this is that the 16th amendment allowed the government to tax incomes without them having having to do with a states population?
Regardless, avoiding overpaying, why is that not a reason to support the Fairtax?