Maximum role of Government?

[MoonShadow]

I didn't see the above posts. Darn! I was hoping to be the first to point out his overly smug assertion.

LOL!  You both made an assumption that I didn't assert, and then based your own smug assertion on the one that I didn't make!

[1713542703]

1713542703

[1713542703]

1713542703

[1713542703]

1713542703

[MoonShadow]

It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons.

Arguing is fine and dandy but what if Catholics started pointing guns and arresting Mormons? I think that's the real issue here. I couldn't care less if these statists agreed with me. I just want them to stop trying to rob me at gunpoint.

I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers.

I'd be interested to see some references to back that claim of yours. And just as a side note, I'd like to be sure it wasn't some rogue religious nut who wasn't out of his mind or gone "off the reservation". What I mean exactly is this, has either the church/religious organization, as a general case, believed that it was within their rights to use force against non-believers. Say like the leaders, their writings, and other similar supporting documentation. Last I checked they were fairly benign pacifiers. Are these their basic belief system? Do they specifically advocate violence against nonmembers, etc.?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_War

Despite this, the confrontation was not bloodless. At the height of the tensions, on September 11, 1857, more than 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas, Missouri and other states, including unarmed men, women and children, were killed in remote southwestern Utah by a group of local Mormon militiamen. They first claimed that the migrants were killed by Native Americans. This event was later called the Mountain Meadows massacre and the motives behind the incident remain a mystery.

The "Aiken Massacre" took place the following month. In October 1857, Mormons arrested six Californians traveling through Utah and charged them with being spies for the US Army. They were released, but later murdered and robbed of their stock and $25,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

Granted, a bit lopsided as far as the examples go, but if the Mormons had the history, population and worldwide influences that the RCC did, they likely would have done the same crap.

[patvarilly]

 But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.

No, it's not.

That's what your mom said last night?

  Otherwise, my claim stands.

No, it doesn't.  Your example is so far away from what I just stated it the reality that it's not even in the same tax code.  I never said that Kentucky taxes the federal return.

Wow, you're thick beyond belief.  I'd at least have expected a "thank you" for saving you from overpaying taxes, given your recorded anti-tax stance.  Let me highlight for you the parts where it's clear that we're all talking about Kentucky supposedly double-taxing your state tax refund:

I've got some really bad news for you.  I'm taxed each year on the amount of my tax return check from the previous year by the state of Kentucky.  By some legaleze magic, they don't consider it double taxation.  The only way to avoid it is to owe the state each year, which is very difficult to do.

Well, then I've got some really good news for you (or bad, as you wish): you've been overpaying your taxes.  Here's how it works:  at the federal level, you only need to report a *taxable* state and local income tax refund (line 10 of Form 1040) if you itemized your deductions for the previous year (page 21 of the instructions: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040gi.pdf).  If you itemized and claimed a deduction for state income tax, reporting the refund in line 10 is equivalent to reducing the amount of deduction you claimed the previous year.  So at the federal level, it works as I claimed, and all is well.

At the Kentucky level, if you have to report a federally taxable state income tax refund on line 10 (so that it adds to your Federal Adjusted Gross Income), then you get to deduct it from your Kentucky Adjusted Gross Income by writing the same amount in line 9 of Schedule M (http://www.revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/3B102252-D017-420C-9CEF-7B7DB2B5FAF2/0/ScheduleMFillin10_Final_0003.pdf), so that you don't pay Kentucky state taxes on it again (CLARIFYING EDIT: "it" = "state income tax refund").  So no double taxation there either.

But don't take my word for it, here's a CPA at bankrate.com on the issue: http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/tax_adviser/20070215_state_tax_refund_a1.asp

Now, you live there and I don't (I'm just reading the instructions carefully, which seem pretty clear and reasonable to me).  But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.  Otherwise, my claim stands.

But hey, what do I know...  If it makes feel smug that you've "won", just keep paying those taxes you think you owe.  I'm sure every one of your fellow state residents thanks you very much.

[FredericBastiat]

Those events were, as far as I know, unguided and leaderless murderers. There are no specific instances that the mormon church ever advocated the taking of lives, or property in that conflict. That is not their belief system. Never has, never will be.

I consider your example that of a bunch of rogue crazies. Now, not having been there, I can't say who started what when, or how much of this "war" or fight was in self defense.

Notwithstanding, it has never been the position of the LDS church to advocate violence against non-members which appears to be your premise. If you can provide evidence that the leaders of the church at that time (meadows massacre) specifically handed down orders to murder and plunder then I'd like to see it.

Additionally, I'm certain that had it been avoidable, the church leaders would have made it so. Everything I've ever read about them indicates to me that they advocate openness, freedom, peace, tranquility and free will. Prove otherwise. Don't pick scurrilous unrelated events that are disconnected from the basic belief system they teach.

I again ask you to provide documentation that verifies that the LDS church specifically advocates violence and coercion against non-members, not remote groups of purported members in good standing committing heinous acts of violence. A huge stretch at best.

The scriptures and the laws of man can help guide people to do the right thing, it doesn't make them do it.

[MoonShadow]

But hey, what do I know...  If it makes feel smug that you've "won", just keep paying those taxes you think you owe.  I'm sure every one of your fellow state residents thanks you very much.

Whatever you say, buddy.  I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice.  The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.  Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system!  Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund.  I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS.

[myrkul]

 But if I'm wrong, the burden's on you to show me why you think you're being double-taxed here.

No, it's not.

That's what your mom said last night?

Classy. Didn't take long for that belly-button gem to show itself.

[ascent]

The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.

That's not really what you said. You said that your tax refund (presumably your federal) is double taxed by Kentucky. Now you're saying that your state refund is added into your (federal?) return. If the latter, this is normal, as we have been saying, if you itemized your deductions, and thus did not pay tax on the amount withheld by Kentucky.

Whatever the case, you're switching your story now.

[MoonShadow]

Those events were, as far as I know, unguided and leaderless murderers. There are no specific instances that the mormon church ever advocated the taking of lives, or property in that conflict. That is not their belief system. Never has, never will be.

I consider your example that of a bunch or rogue crazies. Now, not having been there I can't say who started what when, or how much of this "war" or fight was in self defense.

I know of no religious order that would openly support the 'crazies' after the fact, but it's an unavoidable historical reality that crazies do gain positions of authority in any major religious structure.  When that happens, crazy crap happens.  You will not find any Catholics that support the events related to the Inquisition either.

Notwithstanding, it has never been the position of the LDS church to advocate violence against non-members which appears to be your premise.

That's not my premise.  My premise is that religious organizations have a history of attracting zealots.  I know of no exception to this rule.

 If you can provide evidence that the leaders of the church at that time (meadows massacre) specifically handed down orders to murder and plunder then I'd like to see it.

There is some evidence that such orders were actually given, but not conclusive evidence.  Even so, the people who gave those orders were still people, and would be disowned by the LDS today anway.  Like I said, you will not find a Catholic in favor of the Inquisition either.

Additionally, I'm certain that had it been avoidable, the church leaders would have made it so. Everything I've ever read about them indicates to me that they advocate openness, freedom, peace, tranquility and free will.

For the most part, so does the Koran.  And even the Hindu have a habit of killing each other over religious differences.

 Prove otherwise.

I don't need to prove otherwise.  I have not claimed that the LDS, as a religion, is violent.  All that I have claimed is that it has a history of violent conflict, which it does just like every other religion on Earth that is older than two generations.  The Utah War is only one example of this, as they moved to Utah because they lost a war in Missouri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1838_Mormon_War) and then in Illinois (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Mormon_War#The_.22Mormon_War_in_Illinois.22_and_the_Mormon_Exodus).  You can make the argument that the Mormons were fighting for self-defense, but not that they didn't fight.  Religious beliefs don't kill people, people kill people over religious beliefs.  The last thing that one should ever do is present evidence contrary to the belief system of a zealot with a firearm, the coganative dissonance can be murder.

Don't pick scurrilous unrelated events that are disconnected from the basic belief system they teach.

Why not?  They are historical facts.  I didn't misrepresent them in any way.  If you made an assumption about the meaning, it's your own doing.

[MoonShadow]

The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.

That's not really what you said. You said that your tax refund (presumably your federal)

No, not my federal.  My state refund is taxed again by my state.

 is double taxed by Kentucky. Now you're saying that your state refund is added into your (federal?) return.

You statists really do have reading comprehension issues, don't you?

 If the latter, this is normal, as we have been saying, if you itemized your deductions, and thus did not pay tax on the amount withheld by Kentucky.

Whatever the case, you're switching your story now.

No, I'm not.

[patvarilly]

Whatever you say, buddy.  I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice.  The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.  Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system!  Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund.  I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS.

This a nation of laws, not men, and I showed you clearly where in the instructions it details how to properly report your state income tax refund so that you don't get "double-taxed".  That's why I asked you that if you believed I was incorrect, that you show me where in the instructions it explains why, despite the earlier indication, you *do* have to pay taxes on your refund twice.  Go read them, they're long but they're not as complicated as your tax lawyer wants you to think.  If you want to be angry for being "forced" to do something by no one, I can't stop you, but I can't take you seriously either.  Me, if I were you, I'd hire a new tax lawyer.

P.S.: It behooves you to see the light: you can file amended tax returns for previous years to correct your mistakes, and you'll get refunded for whatever extra tax you paid.

[patvarilly]

That's what your mom said last night?

Classy. Didn't take long for that belly-button gem to show itself.

Hint: The question mark denotes sarcasm.  [double hint: so does the word "hint"]

[MoonShadow]

Whatever you say, buddy.  I think that I'm going to continue to listen to my tax lawyer, not some guy on an internet forum for my tax advice.  The root facts are, every year I have to include my previous years tax refund from Kentucky onto the current year's income, and the state auditors don't consider that double taxation.  Double taxation is actually illegal after all, so it would have to be considered something else by the legal system!  Added to that, I can't change my state tax withholding ratio in order to reduce that refund.  I would have to reduce my federal witholding in order to reduce my state withholding, and doing so would get me sideways with the federal IRS.

This a nation of laws, not men, and I showed you clearly where in the instructions it details how to properly report your state income tax refund so that you don't get "double-taxed".  That's why I asked you that if you believed I was incorrect, that you show me where in the instructions it explains why, despite the earlier indication, you *do* have to pay taxes on your refund twice.  Go read them, they're long but they're not as complicated as your tax lawyer wants you to think.  If you want to be angry for being "forced" to do something by no one, I can't stop you, but I can't take you seriously either.  Me, if I were you, I'd hire a new tax lawyer.

P.S.: It behooves you to see the light: you can file amended tax returns for previous years to correct your mistakes, and you'll get refunded for whatever extra tax you paid.

Those were references to federal tax law, were they not?  What possible reason would I have to read them?  Would they override state tax laws?  If they did, wouldn't someone have pointed that out to the Kentucky Department of Revenue by now?  I'm not going to look up the KRS references to give you, but I've done it before, because I thought it was bs when I got hit with it two decades ago.  Sadly, it is bs, but it's bs they can get away with.  They send me a (state equivalent) of a W4 every year, with only my prior year's (state) tax return amount upon it, and instructions that it must be included as income in line such n such on the state tax form.

[myrkul]

That's what your mom said last night?

Classy. Didn't take long for that belly-button gem to show itself.

Hint: The question mark denotes sarcasm.  [double hint: so does the word "hint"]

Hint: Sarcasm doesn't make you any less of a troll.

[patvarilly]

Those were references to federal tax law, were they not?  What possible reason would I have to read them?  Would they override state tax laws?

Fine, technically I only linked to the Schedule M tax form and not the instructions.  So here, take a look at page 17 of the instructions for Kentucky (http://revenue.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/90295300-F236-470C-B516-06DE790EC7EA/0/42A740S11.pdf):

"Subtractions from Federal Adjusted Gross Income

Line 7—Enter the amount of taxable state income tax refund or credit reported on your federal return and included as income on Form 740, page 1, Line 5."

Please, please read the instructions for line 10 of IRS Form 1040, lines 5, 8 and 9 of KY Form 740 and line 7 of KY Schedule M.  Then either think them through or tell me why I'm wrong (I'll be reasonable! If you convince me, I'll concede and heap praises on you!  Really, I will, you'll have taught me something I should definitely know about how state & federal taxes work).

[FredericBastiat]

I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers.

Why not?  They are historical facts.  I didn't misrepresent them in any way.  If you made an assumption about the meaning, it's your own doing.

Your exact quote was, "I chose those two denominations intentionally, because they both have a history of using force against non-believers." Point in fact, everybody believes differently than everybody else. Granted there are similarities, but we should all take responsibility for our own acts, not make attributions and apply labels to groups of people. It's disingenuous at best. If anything, it mostly breeds gossip and foments argumentativeness.

To say the least, it's one of the more leading insinuations I've read here of late. If all I can take you at is your word, then that is the one I take issue with. You're implying these two denominations use force against non-believers. Last I checked that would be a non sequitur. It would be equivalent to me saying, I killed my neighbor who has grey hair, is 50 years old, and is short. Does this mean I, and any association/denomination/group I ascribe to, also have a prediliction to killing grey-haired middle-aged short men? And therefore, via inference, I and thru association others, who believe similarly, have a bigoted bias towards killing that stereotype also? An accomplice to a crime by association? Whatever...

No doubt the Meadows Massacre happened. Some portion of that skirmish probably was comprised of self-defense while the majority was murder. Little of it had to do with the other party being of a different faith. The mormons feared more persecution. Something they had dealt with for decades. In fact, just about everywhere they went. It was the biggest reason they ended up in Utah. They were rejected (hunted in some places) wherever they were. You could say they were a bit sensitive. They just had several of their beloved leaders murdered.

Your implication is that if you're a Mormon, you use force against non-believers. How else would one read that? The fact that those lives they took were not of their own faith is mostly irrelevant. In fact, we can't exactly say that we knew what faith they belonged. The premise was they were military sent from the US Government to quell a Mormon rebellion. A fact the "members" mistook for a untruth.

[myrkul]

Please, please read the instructions for line 10 of IRS Form 1040, lines 5, 8 and 9 of KY Form 740 and line 7 of KY Schedule M.  Then either think them through or tell me why I'm wrong (I'll be reasonable! If you convince me, I'll concede and heap praises on you!  Really, I will, you'll have taught me something I should definitely know about how state & federal taxes work).

Take your tax gibberish elsewhere, please. If you're that focused on proving MoonShadow wrong, make a new thread.

[AyeYo]

While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.

The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors.

No, it doesn't.  This is why we had the financial crisis, because no one knew the kind of shit that was going on behind closed doors until it started affecting people that weren't behind those doors.  There will always be an information disparity, because no matter how widespread internet usage becomes, you still someone on the inside leaking that information to the outside.  It is those people (wikileaks informants come to find) we depend on for real information, not the internet.

[MoonShadow]

While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.

The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors.

No, it doesn't.  This is why we had the financial crisis, because no one knew the kind of shit that was going on behind closed doors until it started affecting people that weren't behind those doors.  There will always be an information disparity, because no matter how widespread internet usage becomes, you still someone on the inside leaking that information to the outside.  It is those people (wikileaks informants come to find) we depend on for real information, not the internet.

First off, not everyone was unaware of the issues that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.  I, for one, was not surprised by the crisis at all, only the details. 

Second, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  What do you think that a 'live web cam' is, if it does not let you see what is happening behind closed doors?  Do Internet strippers work on the streetcorner?

[AyeYo]

While I agree in part, the internet will never give you the one thing you most need to know: what goes on beyond closed doors.

The greatest irony of that statement, is that most of what the Internet does is show other people what goes on behind closed doors.

No, it doesn't.  This is why we had the financial crisis, because no one knew the kind of shit that was going on behind closed doors until it started affecting people that weren't behind those doors.  There will always be an information disparity, because no matter how widespread internet usage becomes, you still someone on the inside leaking that information to the outside.  It is those people (wikileaks informants come to find) we depend on for real information, not the internet.

First off, not everyone was unaware of the issues that led to the financial crisis of 2007-2008.  I, for one, was not surprised by the crisis at all, only the details. 

Second, you suffer from a terminal lack of imagination.  What do you think that a 'live web cam' is, if it does not let you see what is happening behind closed doors?  Do Internet strippers work on the streetcorner?

1. I wasn't the least bit surprised either, but no one knew the details and the it's the details that mattered and the knowledge of which could have prevented it.

2. Yea, because a porn site that makes money by letting people see what goes on behind closed doors and a corporation that makes money by keeping secret what goes on behind closes doors are like... exactly the same thing. 

[JA37]

Have a look at the Nordic Power Market which used to be a monopoly, then deregulated, and prices went through the roof.

Did you consider how much tax money was no longer being spent on subsidizing that industry?
Did you consider the real costs of producing electricity?

No, of course not. You only looked at the number on the bill.

Also, didn't you argue that deregulation and competition would lower the price for the consumers? How come that didn't happen? Monopoly gave the lowest prices. I suppose the market just wasn't free enough, right? It's not like your theory isn't always right?