Conquer Club

Rmoney and Taxes

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Woodruff on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:16 pm

Night Strike wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:Dude, I stomped on that line of rhetoric the last time you brought it up in this very thread. Drop it, you're making yourself look stupid.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176256&p=3849746


So in other words people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government, if they decide to even invest in the first place. What's the point of taking the risk of losing your investment when 40% or more of your earnings are turned over to the government?


Did that make sense when you typed it, or do you actually believe that less profit is worse than no profit?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby thegreekdog on Tue Sep 25, 2012 8:27 pm

GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby patrickaa317 on Tue Sep 25, 2012 9:17 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.


If the way to make these equal would be to lower ordinary income rates drastically and only slightly raise capital gain rates, I'd be on board with you. If you are just going to increase capital gains rates, I would vehemently oppose it.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:30 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.


If the way to make these equal would be to lower ordinary income rates drastically and only slightly raise capital gain rates, I'd be on board with you. If you are just going to increase capital gains rates, I would vehemently oppose it.


I would prefer your idea. I would also note that higher capital gains rates do not necessarily equate to more tax revenue.

It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Night Strike on Wed Sep 26, 2012 6:45 am

thegreekdog wrote:It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.


Yep, if the government can prove that they can be responsible with the money we already turn over to them, then we can debate the best way to actually pay down our outstanding debts (instead of perpetually adding to them).
Image
User avatar
Major Night Strike
 
Posts: 8512
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 2:52 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Neoteny on Wed Sep 26, 2012 8:26 am

thegreekdog wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.


If the way to make these equal would be to lower ordinary income rates drastically and only slightly raise capital gain rates, I'd be on board with you. If you are just going to increase capital gains rates, I would vehemently oppose it.


I would prefer your idea. I would also note that higher capital gains rates do not necessarily equate to more tax revenue.

It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.


That's sort of dishonest, but I'm going to assume that was unintentional. I reckon Night Strike agreeing with you might tip you off.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:01 am

Neoteny wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.


If the way to make these equal would be to lower ordinary income rates drastically and only slightly raise capital gain rates, I'd be on board with you. If you are just going to increase capital gains rates, I would vehemently oppose it.


I would prefer your idea. I would also note that higher capital gains rates do not necessarily equate to more tax revenue.

It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.


That's sort of dishonest, but I'm going to assume that was unintentional. I reckon Night Strike agreeing with you might tip you off.


I'm not sure what was dishonest about it.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 26, 2012 9:55 am

Neoteny wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
I would prefer your idea. I would also note that higher capital gains rates do not necessarily equate to more tax revenue.

It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.


That's sort of dishonest, but I'm going to assume that was unintentional. I reckon Night Strike agreeing with you might tip you off.


Well, that's pretty much what's going on.


Why expect politicians to drastically cut programs if they can simply increase taxes and (enter the non-TGD zone:) continue borrowing money at extremely low interest rates, thanks to yours truly, the Fed?

The only way to deal with the long-term problems of government spending is to reduce it and (lol) somehow implement structural reform (on Medicaid/Medicare), etc.
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Woodruff on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:22 am

thegreekdog wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:
GreecePwns wrote:I didn't assume anything. Your comment says this:

"people should hope that their stocks do poorly (barely profitable) lest their gains get turned over to the government"

When you consider that capital gains is tax paid on the selling of shares in a company (not dividends paid while owning the stock), and that investors make money by the rise of their investment's value, why would anyone wish for their investment's to not rise in value as much as possible?

Your comment makes absolutely no sense. No one ever wishes for their investment to go bad. Ever. You're being very out of touch here.


I actually think that capital gains rates should be the same as ordinary income rates. I think I'm in the minority of conservatives (or Libertarians) in that regard.


If the way to make these equal would be to lower ordinary income rates drastically and only slightly raise capital gain rates, I'd be on board with you. If you are just going to increase capital gains rates, I would vehemently oppose it.


I would prefer your idea. I would also note that higher capital gains rates do not necessarily equate to more tax revenue.

It's funny, but there's sort of a chicken and egg thing going on here. From my point of view, I think the way to balance the federal budget is to first cut spending and then, if necessary, raise taxes. From others' point of view, they think the way to balance the federal budget is to first raise taxes, then cut spending. The assumption from my point of view is that the taxes are already high enough and the assumption on the other side is that taxes aren't high enough.


My feeling is we should do both. It seems like a significant enough situation that such action is warranted.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Neoteny on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:27 am

Well, I'm not really talking about politicians (after all, they are all the same, amirite?), nor am I interested in getting into Libertarian/underpants gnome economics (here's a chicken and egg scenario for you: which came first, wanting to pay less taxes or the economic concept wherein instituting that "I wanna" conveniently magicks the economy into perfect working order?). Greek seemed to be discussing personal ideas so I'm going to stick to that level.

Greek took his ideas of the economy and just reversed them, in a textbook example of othering. He wants reduced taxes, therefore others want increased taxes. This is somewhat amusing since it doesn't really even mesh with the scenario earlier in his post. His goal is actually reduced taxes; from the tgd perspective, other people actually just want increased spending. The taxes are just a means to that end, much like cuts are a means to reduce taxes. If government could do what they do and reduce taxes without cuts, Greek would probably be ok with that (assuming no crazy deficits or what have you are created). I'm sure this issue stems in its entirety from trying to reduce complex ideas into bizarre chicken and egg parables (the sort of dishonesty NS intentionally strives to achieve), which is why my initial response was so simple and one-offish.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 26, 2012 11:59 am

Neoteny wrote:Well, I'm not really talking about politicians (after all, they are all the same, amirite?), nor am I interested in getting into Libertarian/underpants gnome economics (here's a chicken and egg scenario for you: which came first, wanting to pay less taxes or the economic concept wherein instituting that "I wanna" conveniently magicks the economy into perfect working order?). Greek seemed to be discussing personal ideas so I'm going to stick to that level.

Greek took his ideas of the economy and just reversed them, in a textbook example of othering. He wants reduced taxes, therefore others want increased taxes. This is somewhat amusing since it doesn't really even mesh with the scenario earlier in his post. His goal is actually reduced taxes; from the tgd perspective, other people actually just want increased spending. The taxes are just a means to that end, much like cuts are a means to reduce taxes. If government could do what they do and reduce taxes without cuts, Greek would probably be ok with that (assuming no crazy deficits or what have you are created). I'm sure this issue stems in its entirety from trying to reduce complex ideas into bizarre chicken and egg parables (the sort of dishonesty NS intentionally strives to achieve), which is why my initial response was so simple and one-offish.


Oh, I see. Yeah, I don't follow the chicken-egg parable.



To critique your second paragraph, it can't be true that reduced taxes would follow from spending cuts. The government would simply incur less of a deficit; therefore, it would have to borrow less money per year. I'm not sure what exactly TGD's perspective on this is, and this criticism may not be against your view in particular, but I felt the need to point something about spending, taxes, and deficits.

(Deficit spending, i.e. borrowing money to make up for the difference between one's revenue and expenditures, has been roughly $1 trillion per year for the past four years. The budget cuts so far have been in the 10s of billions, maybe less than $50bn on an annual basis).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 26, 2012 12:49 pm

Neoteny wrote:Well, I'm not really talking about politicians (after all, they are all the same, amirite?), nor am I interested in getting into Libertarian/underpants gnome economics (here's a chicken and egg scenario for you: which came first, wanting to pay less taxes or the economic concept wherein instituting that "I wanna" conveniently magicks the economy into perfect working order?). Greek seemed to be discussing personal ideas so I'm going to stick to that level.

Greek took his ideas of the economy and just reversed them, in a textbook example of othering. He wants reduced taxes, therefore others want increased taxes. This is somewhat amusing since it doesn't really even mesh with the scenario earlier in his post. His goal is actually reduced taxes; from the tgd perspective, other people actually just want increased spending. The taxes are just a means to that end, much like cuts are a means to reduce taxes. If government could do what they do and reduce taxes without cuts, Greek would probably be ok with that (assuming no crazy deficits or what have you are created). I'm sure this issue stems in its entirety from trying to reduce complex ideas into bizarre chicken and egg parables (the sort of dishonesty NS intentionally strives to achieve), which is why my initial response was so simple and one-offish.


What? I probably wasn't clear, but that's not what I meant at all. I actually did mean this from a practical perspective. If I was dictator-for-life (or had some sort of mind control powers), I would not do anything with taxes at all right now. I would merely cut spending as much as possible to ensure a surplus in a given year and begin to pay down the national debt.

There are two ways to balance a budget (and they can be combined): (1) Cut spending; (2) Raise taxes; (3) Do both. You could certainly do both. My argument and personal opinion is that we should not just raise taxes and we should not do both. Most Democrats want to either only raise taxes or cut spending and raise taxes (or do nothing). Most Republicans want to only cut spending (or do nothing).

My chicken-and-egg parable is this: What came first? Increased spending above tax revenues or tax cuts resulting in tax revenues below spending? It's probably impossible to answer. But, generally speaking, when I spend money I must have it first. I know the government doesn't work that way and I know that's a simplistic view. So the government can continue down the path it's on and even raise taxes on the wealthy and it will not balance the budget and will not solve the long-term debt problems. Cuts are necessary. And cuts should be the first thing that's looked at, not increasing the tax revenue.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Neoteny on Wed Sep 26, 2012 1:57 pm

I don't think either party, and most individuals, really wants to raise taxes. Dems just know that the deep cuts many crazies want to be made aren't feasible, so increasing revenue needs to be a factor. Any Dem or liberal mouthpiece these days will still say they want cuts; there's plenty of stuff to cut. But whatever, I think I see what you were going for now: hating on people looking for a simple fix that caters to party fundamentalists.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Sep 26, 2012 2:01 pm

Neoteny wrote:I don't think either party, and most individuals, really wants to raise taxes. Dems just know that the deep cuts many crazies want to be made aren't feasible, so increasing revenue needs to be a factor. Any Dem or liberal mouthpiece these days will still say they want cuts; there's plenty of stuff to cut. But whatever, I think I see what you were going for now: hating on people looking for a simple fix that caters to party fundamentalists.


Basically. Party fundamentalists on both sides don't want to cut their own shit. And yeah, no one really wants to raise taxes (because it's politically unpopular), but the Democrats and the president are sure making all indications that they want to raise taxes. I'm not suggesting they are any worse than Republicans. If Will Romney is elected it will be interesting to see what the Republicans are going to do. Because they ain't balancing the budget without cutting expenditures on the precious military. And it will be interesting if Barry O is elected because we get to see whether he's going to bump the capital gains tax rate, tax rates on everyone, tax rates on the "ordinary income" rich, or none. My prediction is none.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class thegreekdog
 
Posts: 7246
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Ace Rimmer on Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:13 pm

patrickaa317 wrote: And explain the discrepancies in his birth certificate filing and the discrepancy in his social security number.


I haven't seen this before. Are you saying that his SSN doesn't match with a HI number? or something else?
User avatar
Lieutenant Ace Rimmer
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Ace Rimmer on Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:14 pm

Phatscotty wrote: Do you believe that there is a reason why Obama has his College Records SEALED? Do you have any ideas as to what that reason is? What are some of the possible reasons a person would take the action to SEAL their past?



There is a ton of stuff I wrote in college that was one or more of the following: a) complete bullshit to finish an assignment, b) complete bullshit not necessarily agreeing with my personal beliefs in order to better match the professor's views and get a better grade, and c) something that I believed fervently in then that I would love to distance myself from now, because my beliefs have changed.
User avatar
Lieutenant Ace Rimmer
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby AndyDufresne on Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:21 pm

Phatscotty wrote: Do you believe that there is a reason why Obama has his College Records SEALED? Do you have any ideas as to what that reason is? What are some of the possible reasons a person would take the action to SEAL their past?


While doing some super-sleuthing, I found something from Obama's sealed past:

...he wasn't born at all. Dun dun dun.


--Andy
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class AndyDufresne
 
Posts: 24935
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 8:22 pm
Location: A Banana Palm in Zihuatanejo

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby patrickaa317 on Wed Sep 26, 2012 3:49 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote: And explain the discrepancies in his birth certificate filing and the discrepancy in his social security number.


I haven't seen this before. Are you saying that his SSN doesn't match with a HI number? or something else?


Correct. There will probably be a lot of crazy conspiracy crap if you search it, so filter out all the extreme blogs and stuff to get to the meat and potatoes.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Woodruff on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:13 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
Phatscotty wrote: Do you believe that there is a reason why Obama has his College Records SEALED? Do you have any ideas as to what that reason is? What are some of the possible reasons a person would take the action to SEAL their past?



There is a ton of stuff I wrote in college that was one or more of the following: a) complete bullshit to finish an assignment, b) complete bullshit not necessarily agreeing with my personal beliefs in order to better match the professor's views and get a better grade, and c) something that I believed fervently in then that I would love to distance myself from now, because my beliefs have changed.


SOROS!!!!!

or is it...PROGRESSIVES!!!! these days?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
User avatar
Corporal 1st Class Woodruff
 
Posts: 5093
Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:15 am

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Sep 26, 2012 7:43 pm

thegreekdog wrote:
Neoteny wrote:I don't think either party, and most individuals, really wants to raise taxes. Dems just know that the deep cuts many crazies want to be made aren't feasible, so increasing revenue needs to be a factor. Any Dem or liberal mouthpiece these days will still say they want cuts; there's plenty of stuff to cut. But whatever, I think I see what you were going for now: hating on people looking for a simple fix that caters to party fundamentalists.


Basically. Party fundamentalists on both sides don't want to cut their own shit. And yeah, no one really wants to raise taxes (because it's politically unpopular), but the Democrats and the president are sure making all indications that they want to raise taxes. I'm not suggesting they are any worse than Republicans. If Will Romney is elected it will be interesting to see what the Republicans are going to do. Because they ain't balancing the budget without cutting expenditures on the precious military. And it will be interesting if Barry O is elected because we get to see whether he's going to bump the capital gains tax rate, tax rates on everyone, tax rates on the "ordinary income" rich, or none. My prediction is none.


With interest rates set so low, the costs of borrowing for the government will be very cheap, so why raise taxes or cut spending when the politicians can simply continue the relatively cheaper route of deficit spending? Their incentives aren't aligned to taking the necessary cuts and/or increased taxes to balance the budget, so I'm tending to your prediction. (One exception: if they do something, it'll be very minor. I'd be surprised if the Barry O admin would let the tax cuts expire on Jan 1 and risk an economic recession).

I can't claim with 100% certainty that the Federal Reserve and enough politicians coordinate to cheapen the costs of borrowing, but regardless it's very convenient!
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Ace Rimmer on Thu Sep 27, 2012 7:46 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote: And explain the discrepancies in his birth certificate filing and the discrepancy in his social security number.


I haven't seen this before. Are you saying that his SSN doesn't match with a HI number? or something else?


Correct. There will probably be a lot of crazy conspiracy crap if you search it, so filter out all the extreme blogs and stuff to get to the meat and potatoes.


Means absolutely nothing.

My parents were hippies, I was born in Baltimore (I have a MD birth certificate) but my parents didn't want to get me a SSN (fairly certain it wasn't required at that time). I got one in PA when I was at least 1-1/2, so my SSN is a PA number. I know I was at least that old because my baby sister's SSN is the next one after mine because we got them at the same time.
User avatar
Lieutenant Ace Rimmer
 
Posts: 1911
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby patrickaa317 on Thu Sep 27, 2012 6:37 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote:
Ace Rimmer wrote:
patrickaa317 wrote: And explain the discrepancies in his birth certificate filing and the discrepancy in his social security number.


I haven't seen this before. Are you saying that his SSN doesn't match with a HI number? or something else?


Correct. There will probably be a lot of crazy conspiracy crap if you search it, so filter out all the extreme blogs and stuff to get to the meat and potatoes.


Means absolutely nothing.

My parents were hippies, I was born in Baltimore (I have a MD birth certificate) but my parents didn't want to get me a SSN (fairly certain it wasn't required at that time). I got one in PA when I was at least 1-1/2, so my SSN is a PA number. I know I was at least that old because my baby sister's SSN is the next one after mine because we got them at the same time.


I know you don't have to get one right when you are born however I don't believe he was ever in Connecticut that early in life, especially to get a SSN number there.
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:03 am

Don't know if this will fuel the conspiracy nuts, or debunk them, but I have a US SSN, and have never been a citizen.

Having a US SSN is neither proof nor disproof of being American.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby patrickaa317 on Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:43 am

Symmetry wrote:Don't know if this will fuel the conspiracy nuts, or debunk them, but I have a US SSN, and have never been a citizen.

Having a US SSN is neither proof nor disproof of being American.


Hey, you are correct on that! =D> =D>
taking a break from cc, will be back sometime in the future.
User avatar
Sergeant patrickaa317
 
Posts: 2269
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 5:10 pm

Re: Rmoney and Taxes

Postby Symmetry on Fri Sep 28, 2012 11:50 am

patrickaa317 wrote:
Symmetry wrote:Don't know if this will fuel the conspiracy nuts, or debunk them, but I have a US SSN, and have never been a citizen.

Having a US SSN is neither proof nor disproof of being American.


Hey, you are correct on that! =D> =D>


Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a...

Sorry, I have to wait a while for that idiom to be correct. I'm in my wrong period, and, of course, there's the time difference. The UK is a year ahead.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
User avatar
Sergeant Symmetry
 
Posts: 9255
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 5:49 am

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users