Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 11. (Read 28705 times)

Bitched slapped with reality again.  He's got to be more careful making these claims...

I've bolded your statement to draw attention to it. You mention nothing about rules and order.

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.  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.

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

No, it wouldn't.  If your order and rules are voluntary, they're useless.

I'm in total agreement with you there.

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.

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.

I'd wager that you don't think that your political ideologies are "fringe".

Yes, I am.  As are you.  And thus, this ongoing political "conversation" is mostly a waste of time for both of us.  Both sides are pretty sure of themselves.  It's like trying to argue religious doctrine on a forum frequented by both Catholics and Mormons. 

You are entitled to your brand of fringe politics and the blinders you think it's ideology entitles you to wear.

Just because you consider your arguments in high regard, doesn't mean that I consider them worth responding to.

We have had plenty of excellent arguments. And in fact, the more excellent they are, the more they're ignored.

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.

But voluntary unification would still meet your requirements.

We'll table this until I can put eyes on a refund check. If I am indeed incorrect, I'll freely admit it.

This is actually one of the better arguments for your 'benevolent statism' position.  And, speaking historicly, it's true.  The Internet has been systematicly undermining the 'leverage' of superior data gathering long held by large organizations for centuries.  We are all already in uncharted territory, and continue down this same path with each passing day.  Bitcoin is just one piece in that great puzzle, but it's already true that a person transplanted from 1980 couldn't have predicted the reality of 2011.  Twelve year old girls regularly get a new cell phone for their birthday, although not necessarily their first cell phone.  Furthermore, cell phones are only called such for historic reasons, as talking upon them is just one application of the tiny & portable computers with multiple built-in digital radios, all of which have bitrates that would have cost a fortune for a wired connection in 1980.  If that person from 1980 was even aware of the Internet, what the average middle class fourth grader has access to would have still floored him.  If he was an academic, Wikipedia would have made him fear for his tenure; and if he was a member of the military officer's core, Google Earth would have scared the crap out of him even after learning about the complete collapse of the Soviet Union.

If it's voluntary then it's not a government.  That's like having optional no smoking signs. 

Uh, what??  I know that you *want* this statement to be true to fuel your rabid taxman-the-oppressor fantasies, but it's just nonsense.

A federal income tax refund is simply money that you overpaid the government during the year that it's giving back, it's not taxable income.  The only situation I can think of where your statement even remotely has a kernel of truth is if you claim a deduction on your federal income taxes due to paying state taxes, and then the state sees you overpaid them and sends you a refund check.  *That* refund is taxable, essentially because you claimed too much of a deduction for it to begin with, and now you're adjusting that deduction down (and if you claimed the standard deduction instead of itemizing, then it's not taxable):

http://taxes.about.com/od/income/qt/taxable_refunds.htm

This may be the one time I actually agree with something you say. The only stipulation I would add is that it should be voluntary.