Would that be zero?
Please stop your knee from jerking! Your response seems emotional, almost hysterical.
Rather, the USCCB, no matter who makes the pronouncements, is far too affected by the societal winds of change. A tragic and horrendous mass murder by a lunatic in Las Vegas. A call for national unity, calm and prayer? Maybe, but the drumbeat continued: “Gun control” as if a physical solution to a spiritual problem was the answer. Is that not the “do something disease”? It certainly seems to be theology by crisis.
One newly appointed Cardinal - a Cardinal! mind you - stated after President Trump announced his refugee policy that we were “entering into a dark moment in American history” AYKM? What, the re-institution of slavery? Star chamber trials? Storm troopers marching on America? No. This was as the leftist riots and burning were occurring.
It seems that there is a lot of hysteria blowing about.
I would say rather they come a lot from Catholics, for whom authority is derived through apostolic succession. And it is not just liberal causes we can appeal to them on. There many issues strongly opposed by liberals they address.
This is a Catholic website. Most of us will support the Church. I am not saying that all would have to agree with what every bishop says on every point, but to dismiss the USCCB out of hand is not Catholic at all. One may see a better way to go on any point. That is not only valid but helpful, as long as it is consistent with social justice: preferential option for the poor, support of families, stopping abortion, etc.
For those who love our Church and respect our Pope and our appointed clergy leaders, an accusation of mass corruption of the whole lot of them is a huge deal, not one to accepted casually.
I agree that speaking the fullness of the Gospel is important. and, its up
to all Christians to do so, albeit good Catholics can only speak the
fullness of the Gospel. Those who don’t do it will likely be judged on it.
Yet, I think of the saints such as St. Martin de Tours and a Queen or
princess saint from Europe who had a vision of Jesus as the poor.
“they will always be with us”… Is that to mean spiritually or physically
If you mean we should eliminate the income tax, I’m with you
You need to read the code. They don’t define it. They only define income tax as a tax on income, but don’t define income–only gross income. It’s a circular thing. You can’t define a word with the word you are trying to define. I’ve been there, done that for so long I’m tired of it. If you disagree, I’ll tell you where you can go to cash in big time on your argument. But I’m not interested.
You’re part way there. There really isn’t an income tax anyway. At least not one that we are required by any law to pay. Those who refuse are not violating any laws and those who enforce so called “income tax laws” are punishing people for violating non-existent laws. But just so you know, NO, I’m not a tax protester in that sense. I file and pay like most people. Not because I feel I’m morally or legally obligated to, but because I live in the real world and know that if I don’t, I’ll end up on the losing end of the argument, even though I might be on the right moral and legal side. The government doesn’t care what the law is, nor do they play by their own rules, and it’s more important to me to pay the extortion and keep my home and family than to be a tax protester who may or may not survive the battle. I have a lot of battles to fight and this is not the hill I wish to die on.
And before we get into arguing the legality of income taxes, just to let you know, I’m not interested. I have argued this so many times in the past that I’m weary of it. I know I’m right. You won’t convince me otherwise, no matter what you throw at me. Cased closed.
If you want to take it up where you can put your money where your mouth is, I can show you how you can make a ton of cash if you can prove me wrong. If hundreds of thousands of dollars interests you, anyway . . .
Finally, I’m not saying you, personally. You might agree with me, you might not. This is for anyone who feels that income tax laws are legal or moral.
What you circled is not “black letter” law. It is a title. Titles have no weight in the law.
I advise you rethink your position.
Our new Bishop here was installed on April 15th. How many of you think dates are significant?
I’m an accountant specializing in taxation; so, I’ve read quite a bit of it. Taxable income is defined in the regs quite clearly - all of it. All of your income is subject to taxation.
The rest of the regs go on to discribe income the government has decided to exempt, modify, reduce, or when to recognize that revenue.
This isn’t an argument; I want you to have a clear understanding of the facts so that, if you choose, you can have an intelligent discussion on your beliefs with someone else. When you say that there is no definition of income tax or taxable income you sound less intelligent than you are and many will simply not hear the rest of what you have to say because of that.
But, regs are not law.
Why does that not surprise me?
That’s called lying with statistics
A high tax state will look better because their other tax revenue will overshadow what they receive from the Feds.
Where the Feds either own a lot of land or have personnel based obfuscates the comparison. We can’t afford to put large military bases and their people along the NE corridor and the Feds actually own/manage much of the land in Wy, Montana and other western states.
Which is against the law.
“Americans are rightfully frustrated with the complexity of the 74,608-page-long federal tax code.” http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/look-at-how-many-pages-are-in-the-federal-tax-code/article/2563032
Isn’t this bill titled “Tax Reform Act 2017”? Like our tax code, cancer is a disease of uncontrolled cell division. How does one manage a cancer in their body? One shrinks the cancer in all ways possible.
Some group will fight each deduction, exemption, credit, or other contrivance in the code that is removed crying, “not fair.” So, increase the standard deduction for all and eliminate the special tax relief given to only some. (I know, the special interests will still want both.) Remembering that, thanks to the fiscal discipline of our congressional representatives, we are over $18 trillion in debt, so compensating the special interests is limited; we can only afford to increase the standard deduction by a factor of 2. We cannot make everyone happy. But we can make the majority of tax payers happier with a simplified code. Begin to shrink the cancer and stop its growth.
On each reform initiative in the tax reform bill, one might measure the number of pages in the tax code that, if passed, this initiative deletes. The more pages deleted, the better the initiative.
not at all. the worst is 41% and new york is 33%.
the feds should get out of the entitlement program and let the states to administer as they see fit.
we are all paying twice. they need to cut their spending and reduce their taxes,
from your article new york is forth highest in grants
The feds also provide $53.1 billion in grants to New York and its local governments, the report, which is fourth highest on a per capita basis among all states. Federal aid makes up about a third of the total state budget.
supposedly social security and Medicare are insurance programs where you will one day receive a return on your investment.