67 total posts
(Page 1 of 3)
Are they saying you're guilty or just changing the rules?
Can you see any difference between these 2 statements?
Under the plan, companies would not be able to write off domestic expenses for generating profits abroad.
Americans would have to prove they were not breaking U.S. tax laws by sending money to banks that don't cooperate with tax officials.
Do they have to show income from banks that do cooperate with tax officials?
How would you, as a depositor know if your bank was cooperating?
Keep your money in a bank that doesn't cooperate with tax officials.
When they audit you aren't you trying to prove you're not guilty? (so what's new)
North of the border they ask us this question.
Did you own or hold foreign property at any time in 2008 with a total cost of more than
CAN$100,000? (see the "Foreign income" section in the guide for details) . . . . . . . . . .
As a Canadian resident, you have to report your income from all sources both inside and outside Canada.
I put a check mark in the NO Box.
I don't feel like they found me guilty of a crime.
they ask the same question here.
I think that should be challenged in court. It's not the government's business to know where you keep your money. Should they have a question of "Do you keep your money at home in a safe"? Of course not. It's not their money and it's none of their business. If I had money in an overseas account I'd still mark it NO, because I that question has no right to exist on a tax form. I don't care how many judges pervert the constitution. It's part of a person being secure in what is their own as the courts should be protecting the citizens according to the constitution. If they think someone is making money in some foreign country, then prove it! If they can't, then sit down and shut up about it.
If they think someone is making money i
If they think someone is making money in some foreign country,
What if someone is hiding it in another country?
Make a profit in America, don't declare the income, put the money in another country.
Companies/corporations are doing it, civilians are doing it.
Do they want to know where you keep it or how you earned it?
They ask the question, you respond, they investigate.
Called an audit.
Not found guilty until they make you pay or send you to jail.
How come they won't let you leave the country with $50 Large in your pocket?
Who do you think the money belongs to?
what they are saying...
...is they want the law and courts to presume you are a tax cheater if you have an offshore account until you prove otherwise to them. They want to place the burden of proof of your innocence upon you, rather than the time honored American legal tradition and constitutional presumption of innocence requiring the government to prove your guilt, if it exists. THAT is the problem here. They could easily prohibit funds being kept in offshore banks if they wanted, but that's not what they are doing.
They could easily prohibit funds
They could easily prohibit funds being kept in offshore banks if they wanted
How, by taking away the right you claim to keep your money where you want?
maybe you are too young to remember
but in my lifetime there were no reports from banks to the government on funds held by any American unless it was by a court order. Then they put in the reporting on Savings accts interest with 1099 forms, then they added any transactions that exceeded $10K had to be reported, and now they've added any transactions for even lesser amount, I think about $3K because the govt "claimed" multiples of transactions under $10k were being done to not get reported. We need to roll back the clock, restore our freedoms, stand up for what our forefathers believed in, and make it a court order before the government has access to "our papers" which is what our bank accounts are, and exactly what our forefathers who wrote the constitution intended by such wording. Americans who don't feel that way and no longer believe in the freedoms we should have ought to put a ring in their nose so they can be lead around even easier by those who continue to erode their freedoms, they are already slaves within their own minds.
they are already slaves within their own minds.
I recall that it was because "the terrorists" were transferring money.
So long ago the government was accusing you of being a terrorist.
It went on before that...
It went on before the current terrorist worry. In the early 1980's I had to fill out a form when I withdrew over 10k in cash from a bank account.
PS RE: too young to remember
or too old to remember
That was in place long before terrorism
The 1099s were put in place because people weren't declaring interest income on their income taxes. The $10000 item was to prevent blatant money laundrying by organized crime. This was being done openingly through certain banks.
The real shame of it is, IMO,
that so many people are fed up with a tax system so full of negative incentives that hiding money from the government is felt to be necessary. Higher taxes can become the penalty for achievement. Just how stupid an idea is that?
I know where you can hide SOME of your money
I can't deposit more than a million??
What shall I do with all the rest of it?
RE: What shall I do with all the rest of it?
I can hide $5000/year in a Tax Free Savings Account in Canada for you.
I only charge 1% not 2% like those nasty people in the link I provided
Every little bit helps.
I appreciate the offer but
saving money is no longer allowed in the US. We must buy stuff even if we don't need or want it. Having anything left in one's pockets at the end of the day other than debit receipts is un-American.
I thought this was going to be a thread about detaining people without letting them speak to a lawyer, etc. for interminable periods of time, and that by "Administration" you meant the last one.
Detaining people without letting them speak to a lawyer, etc
You mean like FDR did with German POWs?
Or there was...
Or there was the military tribunal that led to the execution of 6 potential saboteurs with the Operation Pastorius situation. A web article on it says in part:
"Nevertheless, the only concern of the US government was in reassuring its citizens and sending a powerful message to the Nazis. Since the men hadn?t actually committed any crime, a normal court could sentence them to at most a few years in prison?or even acquit them entirely. To President Roosevelt, this was unacceptable. In a memorandum sent to Attorney General Biddle, he wrote: 'Surely they are as guilty as it is possible to be and it seems to me that the death penalty is almost obligatory.' A military tribunal, he felt, was the only way to ensure this outcome. 'I won?t give them up,' he told Biddle, 'I won?t hand them over to any United States marshal armed with a writ of habeas corpus.'".
No, like FDR did with Japanese-Americans
Not soldiers, not "enemy combatants," just people with the wrong ancestry. And the fact that FDR did it doesn't justify anyone else doing it.
Are terrorists "just people with the wrong ancestry"?
Hmmmm. A strange way of looking at it.
But I was referring to German soldiers held prisoner. They had no lawyers, no trials, no rights. No one thought that was strange or wrong.
Of course you meant to include....
....the word "alleged," especially when referring to American citizens (e.g. Jose Padilla), right?
We ARE in a war, whether you believe it or not. I'm on America's side? How about you?
RE: I'm on America's side
I'm on America's side..
....which is why I believe in protecting the Bill of Rights, since it's the foundation upon which this great country is built. How about you?
I don't think the Bill of Rights was under attack..
in this case.
Except by Padilla, of course.
So if someone in the federal government...
....were to decide that you, Ed Hannigan, were a threat, and lock you up and deny you your right to an attorney and due process (by keeping you confined without trial for years), you'd be OK with that?
If there was evidence of a threat?
I am not a jihadist. I have not undergone training in Al Quaeda camps in Afghanistan.
I think your outrage is misplaced.
RE: If there was evidence of a threat?
How does the person in custody know what/if there is evidence?
They put you in jail, don't tell you what they think, ask you what you know, don't give you access to a lawyer.
What recourse do you have?
I think your trust is misplaced.
You wouldn't know...
....because they would also deny you your right to know what the evidence against you is.
So are you OK with that? Your personal knowledge of your innocence doesn't really matter.
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 3)