Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Do we people have to think whether it isnt safety for women to work in night shifts?
Answers:
Why would it be less safe for a woman than it is for a man?
Depends if your a hooker or not?
Back in 1981 I was supervising 27 Asian ladies doing night shift in a service station restaurant and they seemed quite happy
Why isn't it safe?
Hey ...watch it ...I work night shift and I love working night shift and yes.it's safe and it has been safe for the past 17 years.
Times are changing, changing fast, changing drastically: women are safe everywhere, at all times, these days, as they know how to look after themselves! Else, they won't be out there doing the shifts!
It's fine, I work graveyard. No problem for me... other than trying to stay awake!
Well, the politically correct answer would be that women can do anything that men can do. Excuse me while I control my laughter....... a woman chooses to work at night then that's her choice, but yes there is an increased danger for a woman working at night. After all, when is the last time you heard of a man being raped? It's ridiculous to say that women and men are the same. There are jobs that require physical strength that the MAJORITY of women just don't possess. The physical requirements of many jobs have been lowered so that women can pass them. If you are passed out in a building and a fire fighter comes up the stairs, do you want a 6 foot 2 inch man carrying you downstairs, or a 5 foot 5 inch woman that weighs about 120 pounds trying to throw you over her shoulder? There are many jobs that women are better qualified to handle than men, when did we decide that there are NO jobs that men can handle better than women?
It is bitter, but true, that still India doesn't achieved freedom as Mr. Gandhi told once, "when a women can travel alone in the night, that day India attain her real Independence".*
as present scenario...atmosphere for women very bad.but life is hard has to work to survive...so just woman can make sure that they be safe.
Its their problem, why do you worry.
Those who have fears may sleep back home and those who don't are welcome to join the gang
Change ur way of thinking with the world
50:50
Do we now just forget Kriss Donald or are there those with long memories?
This was an exceptionaly bad case, the worst I can think of in UK history in terms of cruelty. I am irked when many turn on you as if you are doing something wrong mentioning it. I think we have a duty not to forget.
Answers:
i wont forget, just like ill remember Tim Ap Rhys Price, Phillip Lawrence and many more who have been victims of racial violence from ethnic minority groups
dguhklzetyhxfh fh xfj xffgn vn chvgffdfg
It was sick, just like any murder carried out through the hatred of some one simply because of the colour their skin may be.
For once Pitman I have to agree. I recall this case of the poor lad and I was so shocked when I first heard about it .I believe it was 2004/5 that it happened.
Just highlights that crimes like these are not to be tolerated regardless of colour.Hatred hold no barrier and can effect anyone regardless of colour and religious beliefs.
Edit* Did I get the thumbs down from you pitman? Sorry piltdown man.
That was indeed horrific and absolutely abominoble - I sincerely hope all involved spent a long long time behind bars.
That the victim was white and his attackers Asian should not matter in terms of how the crime is perceived - ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who is a victim of such a brutal crime deserves remembering, whilst ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who commits such an offence equally deserves to have their liberty taken away.
Let's not use this death - or any other - as a political football; they are all tragedies and their attackers are all vile .
i won't forget that day.i was in that area when it happened so it truly frightens me that i was so near to somethng like this.
it was an appauling case of cruelty that should never ever be forgotten!
it was not seen as a racist murder at first which really appauled me because if kriss donald had been black it would be seen as racist
Answers:
i wont forget, just like ill remember Tim Ap Rhys Price, Phillip Lawrence and many more who have been victims of racial violence from ethnic minority groups
dguhklzetyhxfh fh xfj xffgn vn chvgffdfg
It was sick, just like any murder carried out through the hatred of some one simply because of the colour their skin may be.
For once Pitman I have to agree. I recall this case of the poor lad and I was so shocked when I first heard about it .I believe it was 2004/5 that it happened.
Just highlights that crimes like these are not to be tolerated regardless of colour.Hatred hold no barrier and can effect anyone regardless of colour and religious beliefs.
Edit* Did I get the thumbs down from you pitman? Sorry piltdown man.
That was indeed horrific and absolutely abominoble - I sincerely hope all involved spent a long long time behind bars.
That the victim was white and his attackers Asian should not matter in terms of how the crime is perceived - ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who is a victim of such a brutal crime deserves remembering, whilst ANYONE of ANY BACKGROUND who commits such an offence equally deserves to have their liberty taken away.
Let's not use this death - or any other - as a political football; they are all tragedies and their attackers are all vile .
i won't forget that day.i was in that area when it happened so it truly frightens me that i was so near to somethng like this.
it was an appauling case of cruelty that should never ever be forgotten!
it was not seen as a racist murder at first which really appauled me because if kriss donald had been black it would be seen as racist
Do we need better gun laws?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070619/ap_o...
Answers:
More and more gun laws are not going to be respected or obeyed by criminals
No.
less guns
No. Gun control is being able to hit your target.
And when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
hell no. think about this genious .
when you ban guns do you think that the criminals are gonna give theirs up?
crime will really be bad then
Yes, we need better gun laws.
By 'better,' of course, I mean fewer and less restrictive laws...
No guns = No killings? U scare me, being that dim witted. Yes, we need better gun laws, such as concealed carry permits in all states, an longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Should we ban cars? More people die in car accidents annually than from guns, so why not? Because, like guns, cars dont kill people, certain people using and misusing them do. Keep guns availble to those who want them legally.
No, our gun laws are fine. Most of Europe has been turned into sheep, afraid of guns and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Not so in rural USA!
No guns = no killing?
So people stabbed, beaten, stomped, burned, smothered, and/or poisoned to death are not really dead because they weren't shot?
No. We need better laws that prohibit people with mental illnesses to purchase gun(s).
Yes.
While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun.
Every year, thousands of people die from gun injury, either accidental or intentional. Many of the well known cases in this country, from Columbine to Stockton to the latest at Virginia Tech, as well as various murders and crimes, involved guns that are inappropriately used. In the case of Virginia Tech, the very lax gun control law allowed the what-would-be mass murderer to obtain the weapons and ammos that he needed. Could he have gotten it other way? Sure. However, it would certainly be more troublesome for him to obtain the weapons he needed, and that may be the time difference to either get the help he needed or arrest him.
While it is true that hunters need guns, property owners with valuables need guns, professionals of law and order needed their own guns, and various other people needed guns, there is no need of selling gun to people like a college student with mental history. While right to bear arm and concealed arm deters some crime, having a huge number of the population owning weapons do not. That just allows those who are not properly trained or who are not stable mentally to use and abuse it.
Better gun control laws do not prohibit gun ownership by private citizens. They would allow a selection of better educated gun owners and a safer society.
yess !! more in big cities. like Toronto. also make more strong laws.also for people that are immgrants and commite serious crimes. to be deported and never entry to Canada again. is time to clean this society !!! also stop those that came from EEUU. and bring arms with them. we need a mayor secure bords.
Look at what the genius above me wrote...
"While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun."
Need? Screw you. I can't choose to have one? My right to bear arms is valid only if I have a reason you see fit.
Bue YES, we do need better gun laws. And by better, I'm talking like the majority of the crowd here. Better means streamlined, and LESS restrictions.
Yes - if you mean less restrictive gun laws
20,000 laws not enough?? Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So, by passing law 20,0001 is going to make the criminal think that they shouldn't break another law? It doesn't work.
Answers:
More and more gun laws are not going to be respected or obeyed by criminals
No.
less guns
No. Gun control is being able to hit your target.
And when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns!
hell no. think about this genious .
when you ban guns do you think that the criminals are gonna give theirs up?
crime will really be bad then
Yes, we need better gun laws.
By 'better,' of course, I mean fewer and less restrictive laws...
No guns = No killings? U scare me, being that dim witted. Yes, we need better gun laws, such as concealed carry permits in all states, an longer jail terms for those who use guns in the commission of a crime. Should we ban cars? More people die in car accidents annually than from guns, so why not? Because, like guns, cars dont kill people, certain people using and misusing them do. Keep guns availble to those who want them legally.
No, our gun laws are fine. Most of Europe has been turned into sheep, afraid of guns and the responsibility that goes along with it.
Not so in rural USA!
No guns = no killing?
So people stabbed, beaten, stomped, burned, smothered, and/or poisoned to death are not really dead because they weren't shot?
No. We need better laws that prohibit people with mental illnesses to purchase gun(s).
Yes.
While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun.
Every year, thousands of people die from gun injury, either accidental or intentional. Many of the well known cases in this country, from Columbine to Stockton to the latest at Virginia Tech, as well as various murders and crimes, involved guns that are inappropriately used. In the case of Virginia Tech, the very lax gun control law allowed the what-would-be mass murderer to obtain the weapons and ammos that he needed. Could he have gotten it other way? Sure. However, it would certainly be more troublesome for him to obtain the weapons he needed, and that may be the time difference to either get the help he needed or arrest him.
While it is true that hunters need guns, property owners with valuables need guns, professionals of law and order needed their own guns, and various other people needed guns, there is no need of selling gun to people like a college student with mental history. While right to bear arm and concealed arm deters some crime, having a huge number of the population owning weapons do not. That just allows those who are not properly trained or who are not stable mentally to use and abuse it.
Better gun control laws do not prohibit gun ownership by private citizens. They would allow a selection of better educated gun owners and a safer society.
yess !! more in big cities. like Toronto. also make more strong laws.also for people that are immgrants and commite serious crimes. to be deported and never entry to Canada again. is time to clean this society !!! also stop those that came from EEUU. and bring arms with them. we need a mayor secure bords.
Look at what the genius above me wrote...
"While the ability to bear arm is constitutional and very important to this nation's past and present, there are way too many people with guns, many of them do not need to have any gun."
Need? Screw you. I can't choose to have one? My right to bear arms is valid only if I have a reason you see fit.
Bue YES, we do need better gun laws. And by better, I'm talking like the majority of the crowd here. Better means streamlined, and LESS restrictions.
Yes - if you mean less restrictive gun laws
20,000 laws not enough?? Criminals are criminals because they break the law. So, by passing law 20,0001 is going to make the criminal think that they shouldn't break another law? It doesn't work.
Do we morally have the right to turn our backs on undocumented immigrants?
I recently read an answer where someone used the Bible as a basis for why undocumented aliens should not be allowed here, stating that they are sinning by breaking our immigration laws. It seems to me, if we use the Bible in this debate, then we must look at the story of the Good Samaritan. We also must remember that Jesus was a sojourner in many places where he was legally not to be. He told us to "love thy neighbor as thyself" and "what you do to the least of them you do to me". He didn't tell us to love our neighbors from a distance or only if they are in the same socio-economic level.
And as for building walls, look at what happened in Jericho and Babel!
We are all God's children. We share many faiths, colors, and cultures, but ultimately we are of one family. So again I ask, how can we turn our backs on the least of us?
Answers:
No, we don't.
I read the title of your question and every point you make went instantly through my head before I read the extra stuff! So I agree with you - good samaritan, etc.
As for them being sinners because of breaking our laws, Christ wasn't exactly known for his condemnation of "sinners" was he! Look at the Magdalene, and the man on the cross beside him, etc.
Compassion is where I get off every time. And as for using the bible as an argument (for anything, really!), Christianity's stance on anything should only ever boil down to Christ-like behaviour.
"What would Jesus do" should be the deciding factor!
By "undocumented immigrants" I'm sure you mean illegal aliens. Criminals.
No we MUST NOT turn our back on them. We have to find each and every one of them and force them to leave the country forever.
We need to pass laws that puts ANYONE who hires an ILLEGAL alien in prison on the first offence and no possibility of parole. Five years for each illegal hired would be deserving. We need to expand the law to imprison anyone who admits an illegal into a school, or a hospital. We need to pay a reward to whistleblowers who turn those people in. Then we need to build a BIG wall on the southern border and charge illegals $5000 just for the privilege of LEAVING the country.
I don't understand about this entire thing with supporting illegal immigrants ? who really cares? Illegal immigrants aren't doing anything but using U S taxpayer money to support them and offering cheap labor in return..
Come into the country legally and pay your taxes and you will live the American dream .
That is all very good but you should face the facts. The illegals are helping to eliminate the middle class by accepting jobs at low wages. They are draining our heath care system, the schools, and many are criminals. Is is wonderful to be altruistic but the reality is that they are hurting every aspect of this country and making life harder for poor Americans. Let's take care of our own first before we worry about those that committed a crime to get in the U.S.
While I appreciate your position, here's the difference: the man who had been beaten and robbed on the road didn't break into the Good Samaritan's house and make him help him.
We should be helping these people improve their conditions in Mexico, but they shouldn't steal from us. Using this logic, we should tell all the HIV-positive Africans to come invade our country as well.
Forcing me to pay higher taxes to help these criminals isn't Christian. No one has ever felt the hand of Christ through a government program.
As Christians, we should voluntarily help these people improve their lives and know Jesus, in their homelands.
Yes, Not everyone in the USA is religious and fallows the bible. ILLEGAL immigrants broke the LAW.
Not everyone believes in your god. Stop pushing it down everyone's throats.
Ok, as a minister I have an obligation to respond to this. We are a nation of laws and we are a people of laws. We are obliged to follow the laws that are set up by the government because God is the one who raises up and tears down governments. Now with regard to illegal immigration, we have 12 million plus people who do not follow our laws, they came here because they did not want to wait, they also broke in and now demand services because they broke the law that we set up. That is tantamount to someone breaking into your house and telling you that your responsible to feed them. It does not come down to love, it comes down to personal responsibility, if you want to come here then you need to do it legally just like everyone else.
Easy. Its not our job to support people who scoff at the law. The numbers don't lie. Illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources, and threaten the very existence of the country as our forefathers envisioned.
How can you justify someone sneaking into this country, and then getting all angry when we try to stop it from happening?
If you want to wave you Mexican flag, stay in Mexico.
If you want to be an American, there is a process through which you may do so. We simply cannot allow unfettered access to this country and its resources any longer. It is not a religous debate, but a debate for the well being of our country and future generations.
The welcome mat should be out for those who truly desire to work hard, and better themselves, and blend into the American society. The door should be slammed shut, however on those who are looking for a free ride.
I'll tell you how...When we can't put a good meal in front of our children at night because our jobs are being taken by illegals who will work for next to nothing. When our neighborhoods that we paid good money to put our families in are being turned into trash because of the way they choose to live in filth. When the schools make our children hold back so that they can focus their attention on the kids who do not know English. When LEGAL AMERICAN women who honestly need it, can't get governmental financial help to clothe her kids and give them what they need because the ILLEGAL spanish overflow our social services departments to take what is there.
I am all for "The Melting Pot" and mixing characters in our country...but if they can't do it legally and honestly, they need to get the hell out.
Because the government doesn't go by the bible it goes by the laws that have already been written. The law says you can't stay in the U.S. unless you are a citizen and that citizenship has to be earned if you are an immigrant. Those "undocumented immigrants" are not citizens therefor they are here illegally and most have not bothered to TRY to earn their citizenship.
absolutely not!! i have not studied the bible, but , having a christian upbringing, i seem to recall a particular beatitude saying "blessed are you who show mercy" i think we need to cosider this. whether or not coming here was the morally right decision, we have responsibility to these people. some are risking their lives to come here, instead of condemning them for trying to make their lives better,shouldnt we be welcoming them?? and to the people who disagree,all i have to say is this:we should be helping them in their own countries, so they have other options of escaping a life of poverty or discrimination
there has to be a compromise. they aren't coming here to hurt citizens and many pay taxes.
if you pay taxes, don't break any of out laws (except for being here), and learn english you deserve amnesty.
a joke for catholics:
god gave the souls of dead babies amnesty out of purgatory, why can't you give the illegals some amnesty too?
There are such things as laws of the land as well. When
we start enforcing the laws and fining the abetting factories,
we'll be on the road to getting this mess straightened out.
There's nothing saying we can't make provisions within the
system for migrant workers -- in tthat case the employer
would pay no less than minimum rate and any other
cost that a legit employer pays. NO amnesty.
And as for building walls, look at what happened in Jericho and Babel!
We are all God's children. We share many faiths, colors, and cultures, but ultimately we are of one family. So again I ask, how can we turn our backs on the least of us?
Answers:
No, we don't.
I read the title of your question and every point you make went instantly through my head before I read the extra stuff! So I agree with you - good samaritan, etc.
As for them being sinners because of breaking our laws, Christ wasn't exactly known for his condemnation of "sinners" was he! Look at the Magdalene, and the man on the cross beside him, etc.
Compassion is where I get off every time. And as for using the bible as an argument (for anything, really!), Christianity's stance on anything should only ever boil down to Christ-like behaviour.
"What would Jesus do" should be the deciding factor!
By "undocumented immigrants" I'm sure you mean illegal aliens. Criminals.
No we MUST NOT turn our back on them. We have to find each and every one of them and force them to leave the country forever.
We need to pass laws that puts ANYONE who hires an ILLEGAL alien in prison on the first offence and no possibility of parole. Five years for each illegal hired would be deserving. We need to expand the law to imprison anyone who admits an illegal into a school, or a hospital. We need to pay a reward to whistleblowers who turn those people in. Then we need to build a BIG wall on the southern border and charge illegals $5000 just for the privilege of LEAVING the country.
I don't understand about this entire thing with supporting illegal immigrants ? who really cares? Illegal immigrants aren't doing anything but using U S taxpayer money to support them and offering cheap labor in return..
Come into the country legally and pay your taxes and you will live the American dream .
That is all very good but you should face the facts. The illegals are helping to eliminate the middle class by accepting jobs at low wages. They are draining our heath care system, the schools, and many are criminals. Is is wonderful to be altruistic but the reality is that they are hurting every aspect of this country and making life harder for poor Americans. Let's take care of our own first before we worry about those that committed a crime to get in the U.S.
While I appreciate your position, here's the difference: the man who had been beaten and robbed on the road didn't break into the Good Samaritan's house and make him help him.
We should be helping these people improve their conditions in Mexico, but they shouldn't steal from us. Using this logic, we should tell all the HIV-positive Africans to come invade our country as well.
Forcing me to pay higher taxes to help these criminals isn't Christian. No one has ever felt the hand of Christ through a government program.
As Christians, we should voluntarily help these people improve their lives and know Jesus, in their homelands.
Yes, Not everyone in the USA is religious and fallows the bible. ILLEGAL immigrants broke the LAW.
Not everyone believes in your god. Stop pushing it down everyone's throats.
Ok, as a minister I have an obligation to respond to this. We are a nation of laws and we are a people of laws. We are obliged to follow the laws that are set up by the government because God is the one who raises up and tears down governments. Now with regard to illegal immigration, we have 12 million plus people who do not follow our laws, they came here because they did not want to wait, they also broke in and now demand services because they broke the law that we set up. That is tantamount to someone breaking into your house and telling you that your responsible to feed them. It does not come down to love, it comes down to personal responsibility, if you want to come here then you need to do it legally just like everyone else.
Easy. Its not our job to support people who scoff at the law. The numbers don't lie. Illegal immigrants are a drain on our resources, and threaten the very existence of the country as our forefathers envisioned.
How can you justify someone sneaking into this country, and then getting all angry when we try to stop it from happening?
If you want to wave you Mexican flag, stay in Mexico.
If you want to be an American, there is a process through which you may do so. We simply cannot allow unfettered access to this country and its resources any longer. It is not a religous debate, but a debate for the well being of our country and future generations.
The welcome mat should be out for those who truly desire to work hard, and better themselves, and blend into the American society. The door should be slammed shut, however on those who are looking for a free ride.
I'll tell you how...When we can't put a good meal in front of our children at night because our jobs are being taken by illegals who will work for next to nothing. When our neighborhoods that we paid good money to put our families in are being turned into trash because of the way they choose to live in filth. When the schools make our children hold back so that they can focus their attention on the kids who do not know English. When LEGAL AMERICAN women who honestly need it, can't get governmental financial help to clothe her kids and give them what they need because the ILLEGAL spanish overflow our social services departments to take what is there.
I am all for "The Melting Pot" and mixing characters in our country...but if they can't do it legally and honestly, they need to get the hell out.
Because the government doesn't go by the bible it goes by the laws that have already been written. The law says you can't stay in the U.S. unless you are a citizen and that citizenship has to be earned if you are an immigrant. Those "undocumented immigrants" are not citizens therefor they are here illegally and most have not bothered to TRY to earn their citizenship.
absolutely not!! i have not studied the bible, but , having a christian upbringing, i seem to recall a particular beatitude saying "blessed are you who show mercy" i think we need to cosider this. whether or not coming here was the morally right decision, we have responsibility to these people. some are risking their lives to come here, instead of condemning them for trying to make their lives better,shouldnt we be welcoming them?? and to the people who disagree,all i have to say is this:we should be helping them in their own countries, so they have other options of escaping a life of poverty or discrimination
there has to be a compromise. they aren't coming here to hurt citizens and many pay taxes.
if you pay taxes, don't break any of out laws (except for being here), and learn english you deserve amnesty.
a joke for catholics:
god gave the souls of dead babies amnesty out of purgatory, why can't you give the illegals some amnesty too?
There are such things as laws of the land as well. When
we start enforcing the laws and fining the abetting factories,
we'll be on the road to getting this mess straightened out.
There's nothing saying we can't make provisions within the
system for migrant workers -- in tthat case the employer
would pay no less than minimum rate and any other
cost that a legit employer pays. NO amnesty.
Do we legally have to pay income taxes?
I recently watched a movie called freedom to facism, this movie claims that "legally" we do not have to pay taxes. I know about the 16th amendment but that does not apply to people earning a regular wage. What do you guys think? I would like to know where it specifically states we have to pay income taxes.
Answers:
only two sure things in life. death and taxes
i once watched a movie where a man could put on a cape and fly. guess what? didn't work for me!!
dont pay your taxes and find out. it wont be fun.
duh
Check out the Internal Revenue Code.
OH YAEHHHHHH ! ! !
Great documentary. every american needs to watch that!
yes
16th amendment??
Yes.
And, clearly, you don't know about the 16th Amendment. Here it is:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Using the scientific model, you be the test subject. You buy stuff at a store and refuse to pay the STATE tax, then work all year, and then don't pay your Federal tax. Report back to see if anyone notices.
My guess is that if there wasn't a law to pay taxes, a lot more people wouldn't.
hahaha. try that with the government. yes you have to pay taxes.
There are not specifically stated taxes or taxation rates in documents like The Bill of Rights or the US Constitution... but the federal government reserves the right to tax wages to provide services to the public. The federal, state, and local governments all reserve the right to tax wages earned to provide for education, infrastructure, social services, etc. The current rate of income taxation falls around 22% of your wages when you factor in all the state, federal and local taxes you pay (give or take depending on area of course).
Did you know that during the cold war, income taxes were somewhere around 70% of your wages? The federal government can raise or lower tax rates as it sees fit... and if you don't believe that... don't pay them! If you want to be arrested for tax evasion and pay even more money, that is your choice!
To my knowledge, the only people exempt from income tax are those on wellfare or collecting social security, and the president of the united states. Obviously those are not taxed, because Welfare and Social Security are government money... and that would be kind of stupid for the government to tax themselves. The President of the US does not have to pay income tax because i mean... come on, rookie NFL players who sit the bench make more money than the Prez... doesn't the dude deserve some kind of a perk?
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO TAX! The 16th Amendment says it clear as day... and beyond that its in one of the millions of adendums and bills that are passed daily about how taxation works. Taxation is not against the constitution... and without it you would be living in a third world country in a little hut and catching your food with a wooden spear. This is a stupid arguement!
Bullshit it doesnt go toward services... 40% of all tax revenue by the FED goes to education. Why dont you take an ECONOMICS class?
The Libertarian Argument has been made and even executed on a number of occasions by a number of brave souls. Unfortunately, time and time again, the argument is not upheld by the courts.
See the provided source.
even if we didn't, i wouldn't mess with the IRS. those guys will come take your home, car, land, pets, whatever, and laugh while they do it.
Hmmm..have you been to that nice public library lately or taken a long drive on that freeway that just added a few more lanes to each side? Hey, isn't it wonderful that the local high school built a new gym and thank God for the free clinic where Maggie was able to get treatment for her sudden illness. Good thing, because Maggie's parents are in hard times now and another bill would have just put them over the edge. And what about the wonderful state and national parks, they sure are a treasure.
Just some examples here and there are infinate examples similar to what I have highlighted here. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE FUNDS COME FROM TO MAINTAIN THESE THINGS??
Oh, did I hear you say "taxes?"
Additional Comment to your additional comment:
Can you provide a source that states that ALL of our income taxes go to paying interest on the National Debt? I want to see it.
I'm originally from Missouri and you have to SHOW ME!
And besides, the general term of taxes was used here. I would think that would include ALL taxes whether it be Federal, State, County, City or even Sales tax.
You need to re-read the 16th amendment. Then check the IRS laws.
Then go for a year without paying taxes and see what happens. If you have the patience, read through the website shown below.
TITLE 26 %26gt; Subtitle A %26gt; CHAPTER 1 %26gt; Subchapter A %26gt; PART I %26gt; 搂
搂 1. Tax imposed
The 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The movie is wrong. Plenty of people have argued its claims before the courts and lost. Remember, the 16th Amendment was passed AFTER the Supreme Court initially struck down the first attempt at an income tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes the government to collect taxes on income. Income includes wages, interest, investments, rental payments, etc.
The specidic statutes passed by Congress are found in Title 26 of the United States Code.
Answers:
only two sure things in life. death and taxes
i once watched a movie where a man could put on a cape and fly. guess what? didn't work for me!!
dont pay your taxes and find out. it wont be fun.
duh
Check out the Internal Revenue Code.
OH YAEHHHHHH ! ! !
Great documentary. every american needs to watch that!
yes
16th amendment??
Yes.
And, clearly, you don't know about the 16th Amendment. Here it is:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
Using the scientific model, you be the test subject. You buy stuff at a store and refuse to pay the STATE tax, then work all year, and then don't pay your Federal tax. Report back to see if anyone notices.
My guess is that if there wasn't a law to pay taxes, a lot more people wouldn't.
hahaha. try that with the government. yes you have to pay taxes.
There are not specifically stated taxes or taxation rates in documents like The Bill of Rights or the US Constitution... but the federal government reserves the right to tax wages to provide services to the public. The federal, state, and local governments all reserve the right to tax wages earned to provide for education, infrastructure, social services, etc. The current rate of income taxation falls around 22% of your wages when you factor in all the state, federal and local taxes you pay (give or take depending on area of course).
Did you know that during the cold war, income taxes were somewhere around 70% of your wages? The federal government can raise or lower tax rates as it sees fit... and if you don't believe that... don't pay them! If you want to be arrested for tax evasion and pay even more money, that is your choice!
To my knowledge, the only people exempt from income tax are those on wellfare or collecting social security, and the president of the united states. Obviously those are not taxed, because Welfare and Social Security are government money... and that would be kind of stupid for the government to tax themselves. The President of the US does not have to pay income tax because i mean... come on, rookie NFL players who sit the bench make more money than the Prez... doesn't the dude deserve some kind of a perk?
THE CONSTITUTION GIVES THE GOVERNMENT THE RIGHT TO TAX! The 16th Amendment says it clear as day... and beyond that its in one of the millions of adendums and bills that are passed daily about how taxation works. Taxation is not against the constitution... and without it you would be living in a third world country in a little hut and catching your food with a wooden spear. This is a stupid arguement!
Bullshit it doesnt go toward services... 40% of all tax revenue by the FED goes to education. Why dont you take an ECONOMICS class?
The Libertarian Argument has been made and even executed on a number of occasions by a number of brave souls. Unfortunately, time and time again, the argument is not upheld by the courts.
See the provided source.
even if we didn't, i wouldn't mess with the IRS. those guys will come take your home, car, land, pets, whatever, and laugh while they do it.
Hmmm..have you been to that nice public library lately or taken a long drive on that freeway that just added a few more lanes to each side? Hey, isn't it wonderful that the local high school built a new gym and thank God for the free clinic where Maggie was able to get treatment for her sudden illness. Good thing, because Maggie's parents are in hard times now and another bill would have just put them over the edge. And what about the wonderful state and national parks, they sure are a treasure.
Just some examples here and there are infinate examples similar to what I have highlighted here. WHERE DO YOU THINK THE FUNDS COME FROM TO MAINTAIN THESE THINGS??
Oh, did I hear you say "taxes?"
Additional Comment to your additional comment:
Can you provide a source that states that ALL of our income taxes go to paying interest on the National Debt? I want to see it.
I'm originally from Missouri and you have to SHOW ME!
And besides, the general term of taxes was used here. I would think that would include ALL taxes whether it be Federal, State, County, City or even Sales tax.
You need to re-read the 16th amendment. Then check the IRS laws.
Then go for a year without paying taxes and see what happens. If you have the patience, read through the website shown below.
TITLE 26 %26gt; Subtitle A %26gt; CHAPTER 1 %26gt; Subchapter A %26gt; PART I %26gt; 搂
搂 1. Tax imposed
The 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."
The movie is wrong. Plenty of people have argued its claims before the courts and lost. Remember, the 16th Amendment was passed AFTER the Supreme Court initially struck down the first attempt at an income tax. The 16th Amendment authorizes the government to collect taxes on income. Income includes wages, interest, investments, rental payments, etc.
The specidic statutes passed by Congress are found in Title 26 of the United States Code.
Do we have to take candy machine out of city hall because of blind people. I live in tn.?
we use the candy machine to pay for our water cooler. now we are told that because of federal law we are going to have to remove it because its not blind people friendly. I've worked here for 22 years and do not recall seeing a blind person in the section of the building where the machine is. thanks
Answers:
uh i feel bad for a blind person but come on can't they ask someone for a snickers.
no you dont have to remove it just make the numbers that are pressed on the machine to get the candy out blind pwople friendly by putting the bumpy letters on them that they can read. thats all you have to do
No. The Americans with Disibilities Act does not require the removal of the machine.
could you trade it in for a model that is blind-friendly? I think in buildings (especially government ones) that is has to be handicap happy. The candy machine seems a little excessive, though. how can they miss something they could never really do? then again, i am thankfully not blind.
isn't bureaucracy wonderful? i bet the mayor has a friend who owns a vending machine company, get a newer fancy model in there asap.
Hire an illegal alien to stand there and explain it for the blind person. Though you may have to hire a translator too, but you'll still have cool water.
I think it's just a lame way to get so called unhealthy food out of the building. Having a Candy Machine in any hallway would NOT Bother a Blind person. They Can Not See It. And 2nd they either have a seeing eye dog or a cane to guide them along.
This is just another example of politial correctness gone amuck. Put it in a spot where a blind person would never find it anyway.
Answers:
uh i feel bad for a blind person but come on can't they ask someone for a snickers.
no you dont have to remove it just make the numbers that are pressed on the machine to get the candy out blind pwople friendly by putting the bumpy letters on them that they can read. thats all you have to do
No. The Americans with Disibilities Act does not require the removal of the machine.
could you trade it in for a model that is blind-friendly? I think in buildings (especially government ones) that is has to be handicap happy. The candy machine seems a little excessive, though. how can they miss something they could never really do? then again, i am thankfully not blind.
isn't bureaucracy wonderful? i bet the mayor has a friend who owns a vending machine company, get a newer fancy model in there asap.
Hire an illegal alien to stand there and explain it for the blind person. Though you may have to hire a translator too, but you'll still have cool water.
I think it's just a lame way to get so called unhealthy food out of the building. Having a Candy Machine in any hallway would NOT Bother a Blind person. They Can Not See It. And 2nd they either have a seeing eye dog or a cane to guide them along.
This is just another example of politial correctness gone amuck. Put it in a spot where a blind person would never find it anyway.
Do we have to keep paying child support past 18 yrs old?
My stepson turned 18 in March. He did not finish high school, he is taking night classes to get his diploma, (or so we are told) He works under the table during the day and still lives with his mother. Child support was never court ordered, we just pay each week, do we have to keep paying now that he is 18? They will be moving out of state in about a month. We live in Massachusetts. Thank you
Answers:
NO!
No.
If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.
i am pretty sure you don't have to sense he is legally an adult now and should be supporting himself. if you want to give him cash to help him out, that's up to you. but you can't go to jail or anything now.
Once he is 18 he is an adult and therefore he no longer is entitled to child support.
No. Child support is only there is a child!
**Though you may want to still help your child complete his educational goals.
as long as its not court ordered then no... you didnt even have to pay from day 1
it depends on how much back support is owed
No you do not have to pay current support past the age of 18, unless it is court ordered, the child is attending school full time, or you have back support due. If you owe support from previous years then you must continue paying until the back support is paid off. If you are current then you should be done.
If he is not a full time student then it should not be nessessary. If it was not court ordered then for sure there will be no problem.
If it's not court ordered - you never had to pay "technically" though ethically you did.
However - the kid's 18 and old enough to get his crap together and start standing on his own two feet.
Sounds like the parent that was taking care of him wasn't keeping much discipline on the child - which led to him not finishing school properly.
without a court order, you never had to pay it at all. If the court had ordered it, the court could have had it end at 18 or later depending on circumstances.
If he is now 18, is not disabled, and can't prove that he is still enrolled in classes (regular high school clases, whether day or night, not GED), then no. He is now an adult.
%26lt;%26lt;If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.%26gt;%26gt;
This poster is incorrect. It is only through HIGH SCHOOL unless disabled. Some individual states include college, but that is not widespread (nor should be) and typically determined on a case to case basis.
Great job, BTW, to have continued to support the child all this time without a court order. It's a shame more people don't get along to be able to determine themselves what is best. What I would recommend though, is if he is indeed going to night classes, to cover him at least through what would have been his graduation in June since the law usually states 18 or finished high school. Some kids just don't do well in the day school environment and just getting them finished is a good thing!
My mom received child support for me until I was 19, but I had to be in some sort of schooling. So to tell you the truth Im not sure since its not court ordered and you reside in MA, im in CA.
First off, you need to ask a lawyer this question. Don't forget that using the defense of "...but they told me on FreeLawAnswer.com ..." won't look too good in front of a judge.
It's hard to believe that child support was never ordered, especially in an ultra-liberal state like Massachusetts.
Having said all that, however...if it were me, I wouldn't pay child support once the boy turned 18 if he'd already dropped out of public school.
If the child continues school after 18, yes until they finish their education.
if he is not a full time student and child support was not court ordered,and he is working then ,maybe you should reduce his payments.i would check into the laws where you are at.
You are not responsible for child support after the age of 18 unless there is a court order that says so. You didn't even HAVE to pay it before the age of 18 unless it was court ordered. But its nice that he did pay it.
no definetly not but you should help your son if you have the money
Hey Parent,
No, your done with the payments. No matter if the kid is done with school or not, your responsibilities are satisfied as far as the legal aspect goes. If you want to help the mother out if the child still lives at home, that's on you. Good Luck, your free
If child support was never court ordered, you never "had" to pay it in the first place. You certainly do not have to continue now the the boy is an adult.
Was never court ordered? WTF?
Depending on the state, and I don't know about MA, you may have to pay until he finishes college, even if that's at age 25! None of my kids finished at 22 like most kids do.
I live in Maryland, but our state law is that as long as a child is in school the non-custodial parent must pay support until the age of the child's 19th birthday. Just look up the child support laws in your state it should tell you.
First of all you had better read this well.
If the child support is not COURT ORDERED you spouse is a damn fool.
Now, if you're still reading, here is why. the ex can go back to court and file now and at a minimum, if your husband can't prove each and every payment, the court can order support for the last 18 years then the court can order retroactive child support beginning at birth.
The state of Massachusetts allows for interest to be charged on late child support payments, retroactive support, and adjudicated arrears at a rate of 12% annually. Depending upon payments received, obligors might not be assessed interest or might be eligible to apply for a waiver under certain circumstances. (M.G.L. c.119A, s6(a) 830 CMR s119A.6.1)
I would suggest you ask the mother for proof that the child is attending school and agree to pay the support until a date when he is supposed to graduate or does graduate or no longer than his 19th birthday.
In the agreement, the mother is to sign an affidavit of completion stipulating that child support has been paid regularly by the non-custodial parent and will be completed on the date agreed.
This is why it is NEVER a good idea to do a 'self-help' solution.
No, I don't think you do.
Answers:
NO!
No.
If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.
i am pretty sure you don't have to sense he is legally an adult now and should be supporting himself. if you want to give him cash to help him out, that's up to you. but you can't go to jail or anything now.
Once he is 18 he is an adult and therefore he no longer is entitled to child support.
No. Child support is only there is a child!
**Though you may want to still help your child complete his educational goals.
as long as its not court ordered then no... you didnt even have to pay from day 1
it depends on how much back support is owed
No you do not have to pay current support past the age of 18, unless it is court ordered, the child is attending school full time, or you have back support due. If you owe support from previous years then you must continue paying until the back support is paid off. If you are current then you should be done.
If he is not a full time student then it should not be nessessary. If it was not court ordered then for sure there will be no problem.
If it's not court ordered - you never had to pay "technically" though ethically you did.
However - the kid's 18 and old enough to get his crap together and start standing on his own two feet.
Sounds like the parent that was taking care of him wasn't keeping much discipline on the child - which led to him not finishing school properly.
without a court order, you never had to pay it at all. If the court had ordered it, the court could have had it end at 18 or later depending on circumstances.
If he is now 18, is not disabled, and can't prove that he is still enrolled in classes (regular high school clases, whether day or night, not GED), then no. He is now an adult.
%26lt;%26lt;If he remains in school and can prove it, you're responsible until the age of twenty one.%26gt;%26gt;
This poster is incorrect. It is only through HIGH SCHOOL unless disabled. Some individual states include college, but that is not widespread (nor should be) and typically determined on a case to case basis.
Great job, BTW, to have continued to support the child all this time without a court order. It's a shame more people don't get along to be able to determine themselves what is best. What I would recommend though, is if he is indeed going to night classes, to cover him at least through what would have been his graduation in June since the law usually states 18 or finished high school. Some kids just don't do well in the day school environment and just getting them finished is a good thing!
My mom received child support for me until I was 19, but I had to be in some sort of schooling. So to tell you the truth Im not sure since its not court ordered and you reside in MA, im in CA.
First off, you need to ask a lawyer this question. Don't forget that using the defense of "...but they told me on FreeLawAnswer.com ..." won't look too good in front of a judge.
It's hard to believe that child support was never ordered, especially in an ultra-liberal state like Massachusetts.
Having said all that, however...if it were me, I wouldn't pay child support once the boy turned 18 if he'd already dropped out of public school.
If the child continues school after 18, yes until they finish their education.
if he is not a full time student and child support was not court ordered,and he is working then ,maybe you should reduce his payments.i would check into the laws where you are at.
You are not responsible for child support after the age of 18 unless there is a court order that says so. You didn't even HAVE to pay it before the age of 18 unless it was court ordered. But its nice that he did pay it.
no definetly not but you should help your son if you have the money
Hey Parent,
No, your done with the payments. No matter if the kid is done with school or not, your responsibilities are satisfied as far as the legal aspect goes. If you want to help the mother out if the child still lives at home, that's on you. Good Luck, your free
If child support was never court ordered, you never "had" to pay it in the first place. You certainly do not have to continue now the the boy is an adult.
Was never court ordered? WTF?
Depending on the state, and I don't know about MA, you may have to pay until he finishes college, even if that's at age 25! None of my kids finished at 22 like most kids do.
I live in Maryland, but our state law is that as long as a child is in school the non-custodial parent must pay support until the age of the child's 19th birthday. Just look up the child support laws in your state it should tell you.
First of all you had better read this well.
If the child support is not COURT ORDERED you spouse is a damn fool.
Now, if you're still reading, here is why. the ex can go back to court and file now and at a minimum, if your husband can't prove each and every payment, the court can order support for the last 18 years then the court can order retroactive child support beginning at birth.
The state of Massachusetts allows for interest to be charged on late child support payments, retroactive support, and adjudicated arrears at a rate of 12% annually. Depending upon payments received, obligors might not be assessed interest or might be eligible to apply for a waiver under certain circumstances. (M.G.L. c.119A, s6(a) 830 CMR s119A.6.1)
I would suggest you ask the mother for proof that the child is attending school and agree to pay the support until a date when he is supposed to graduate or does graduate or no longer than his 19th birthday.
In the agreement, the mother is to sign an affidavit of completion stipulating that child support has been paid regularly by the non-custodial parent and will be completed on the date agreed.
This is why it is NEVER a good idea to do a 'self-help' solution.
No, I don't think you do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)