America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

Depending upon a person's Filing Status and number of children, the Federal Earned Income Credit (EIC) gets phased out beginning when one's income exceeds $10k-$20k, and is fully phased out once a person's income exceeds approx $45k-$50k, so I imagine that @ryzno isn't eligible for the full EIC.

If his filing status was single with only one child, the EIC would be fully phased out with income of $42,000. If his filing status was married-filing-joint with one child, he might still be eligible for a tax credit of approx. $400

That's a good point on the phase-out, I didn't realize EIC ramps down the way it does. Though being self-employed he gets to take 7% right off of his income because of SS. So his AGI is actually $39k. State income tax also comes off. This is also assuming pretty much a worst case scenario for him tax-wise - but you're right that EIC would be less than I calculated. I've never gotten to count it so I wouldn't know.

 

[ryzno]

Depending upon a person's Filing Status and number of children, the Federal Earned Income Credit (EIC) gets phased out beginning when one's income exceeds $10k-$20k, and is fully phased out once a person's income exceeds approx $45k-$50k, so I imagine that @ryzno isn't eligible for the full EIC.

If his filing status was single with only one child, the EIC would be fully phased out with income of $42,000. If his filing status was married-filing-joint with one child, he might still be eligible for a tax credit of approx. $400

That's a good point on the phase-out, I didn't realize EIC ramps down the way it does. Though being self-employed he gets to take 7% right off of his income because of SS. So his AGI is actually $39k. State income tax also comes off. This is also assuming pretty much a worst case scenario for him tax-wise - but you're right that EIC would be less than I calculated. I've never gotten to count it so I wouldn't know.

I do pay state also. I'm also curious how I can pay 7% into my SS, I don't have to pay SS or medicaid/care right now. Currently I'm looking at about $6k fed and state. Y'all have me questioning if I need to look around for another tax advisor. I was advised not to file for a LLC due to size. One old work van(0 employees)...

Anyways, this is the exact reason we don't get married. She does not want her taxes to cancel out mine. So she claims him and gets roughly what y'all are saying so she can get her taxes back. And she does not want to be responsible for my tax burden if something happened.

 

[Danoff]

I do pay state also. I'm also curious how I can pay 7% into my SS, I don't have to pay SS or medicaid/care right now. Currently I'm looking at about $6k fed and state. Y'all have me questioning if I need to look around for another tax advisor. I was advised not to file for a LLC due to size. One old work van(0 employees)...

Anyways, this is the exact reason we don't get married. She does not want her taxes to cancel out mine. So she claims him and gets roughly what y'all are saying so she can get her taxes back. And she does not want to be responsible for my tax burden if something happened.

So you can't claim your kid? That's rough. How do you not have to pay SS? I filed as an LLC with my company and it was just me.

 

[ryzno]

I don't file as an LLC, all invoices are paid in my name. What she gets back goes into the "pot". I do agree though. It would help overall.

 

[GTsail]

I do pay state also. I'm also curious how I can pay 7% into my SS, I don't have to pay SS or medicaid/care right now. Currently I'm looking at about $6k fed and state. Y'all have me questioning if I need to look around for another tax advisor. I was advised not to file for a LLC due to size. One old work van(0 employees)...

From what you've posted, you are paying into the Federal Social Security Fund and should be eligible to receive SS benefits when you retire. Its why your Federal tax bill seems so high

You should be paying approx. 15.3% on your net self-employment earnings, so if your self-employed earnings were $42k you would pay SE tax of $5,900

The 15.3% rate is double the normal rate (7.65%) that W-2 employees see on their paychecks

 

[Danoff]

The 15.3% rate is double the normal rate (7.65%) that W-2 employees see on their paychecks

...yet it is the rate that everyone pays.

It's also really unclear whether we should consider SS as a part of the federal tax bill. If the "lock box" notions of paying for your own benefits are to be believed, it's not a tax but forced savings for yourself. Obviously there's another story, but the notion is that this money is taken from you not as a tax but for your own good in retirement.

 

[Formula1269]

 

[Danoff]

The only one I like on that list is "reforming the criminal justice system", and that's just because it's too vague to be stupid.

 

[Swagger897]

Left - promises that will most likely never happen
Right - Jokes that Jimmy Fallon is going to use



Oh, and nice job leaving the source on the bottom right of that. Shows no bias whatsoever.

 

[ukfan758]

Left - promises that will most likely never happen
Right - Jokes that Jimmy Fallon is going to use



Oh, and nice job leaving the source on the bottom right of that. Shows no bias whatsoever.

The cherry picking is extremely obvious too.

 

[Danoff]

Regarding Bush, Blair, and Gulf War II

They orchestrated a war of aggression.

Nope. It's not any more aggression to unseat Saddam than it is to arrest a murderer. It's not aggression to consider a cease fire treaty nullified when one side violates it.

On violation of gulf war 1. Lets look at it from outside the box, Why did US UK or whoever was involved have the right to invade another country in the first place? who made them judge jury and executioner?

The invasion of Kuwait.

As you said the US can enforce it's treaties but what I mean is after they are enforced and the enemy (lets call them) hit back why are people so surprised.

I thought we were talking about justification not surprise.

Hitler had no right to invade Poland and at the cost of millions of lives he was put back in his place I would have thought lessons might have be learned.

Me too. The lesson is do not invade your neighbor, which is why we went to war with Iraq in the first place.

Ok as I said Saddam was a bad egg and when he was gone his own police and army fell apart and it was common knowledge this would happen.

Actually it really wasn't. He was sitting on top for a long time, and many Iraqi people believed the US could not overcome the Iraqi forces.

So why even if it took a few years didn't the so called world police infiltrate and take out Saddam instead of a full scale war?

We didn't want to leave the country in chaos and allow another bloodthirsty dictator to take his place. That part didn't work out all that well, but we were justified in trying.

 

[justin credible]

Regarding Bush, Blair, and Gulf War II



Nope. It's not any more aggression to unseat Saddam than it is to arrest a murderer. It's not aggression to consider a cease fire treaty nullified when one side violates it.

Do believe Saddam and his few leading generals could have been taken out (assassinated) instead of a full scale war where innocent people Iraqis US UK soldiers lose their lives to rid the world of him?

 

[Danoff]

Do believe Saddam and his few leading generals could have been taken out (assassinated) instead of a full scale war where innocent people Iraqis US UK soldiers lose their lives to rid the world of him?

See above where I responded to that bit.

 

[Vegard]

It's not any more aggression to unseat Saddam than it is to arrest a murderer.

Perhaps if that murderer is outside your jurisdiction. Anyway, we were discussing the invasion, not just the removal of Saddam.

It's not aggression to consider a cease fire treaty nullified when one side violates it.

Are you proposing that the US and its allies had the authority to enforce the consequence of the nullification of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, even if the UN was against the invasion?

 

[Danoff]

Perhaps if that murderer is outside your jurisdiction.

Still wouldn't make it aggression. You don't have to be a law enforcement officer to legitimately protect the rights of others.

Anyway, we were discussing the invasion, not just the removal of Saddam.

A nation loses sovereignty to the extent that it does not enforce human rights.

Are you proposing that the US and its allies had the authority to enforce the consequence of the nullification of United Nations Security Council resolution 687, even if the UN was against the invasion?

Yes.

Bob and John sign an agreement with Joe that Joe will pay them $100 in exchange for lawn mowing. Bob and John mow the lawn. Joe refuses to pay. Bob doesn't care and doesn't want to sue. John wants the money. John is owed the money.

 

[Formula1269]

 

[justin credible]

Regarding Bush, Blair, and Gulf War II



Nope. It's not any more aggression to unseat Saddam than it is to arrest a murderer. It's not aggression to consider a cease fire treaty nullified when one side violates it.



The invasion of Kuwait. I think were crossing wires here. Yes Kuwait was the reason. My question is why do the US and the UK take it as they have to lead the world to invade anywhere be it the place they are invading are wrong or right in there doings?

It was 1937 when the US/British oil company found oil in Kuwait and if that company was still going and had the right to the oil all agreed with the Kuwait government which is doubtful as most of Kuwait's leaders were answering to Basra who made the decisions a lot of the time. I may be wrong the company and it's right's might have still been valid which is a reason for invasion to rid Kuwait of Iraq if it is then my theory is wrong and I will admit so as I do when I am wrong. I cannot find any proof of US /UK still having rights to this oil which is why I don't understand why US/UK troops had the right to invade.
In my theory of they had no right to invade in the first place the treaties between the countries were null and void in my eyes no more that a bully threatening to beat you up each day if you don't hand over your lunch money I see the treaties as.
So I don't think especially with the UN giving a NO vote unlike the first Iraq war that any invasion should have taken place. And to invade is no different than Iraq invading Kuwait in the first place.

 

[Vegard]

Still wouldn't make it aggression. You don't have to be a law enforcement officer to legitimately protect the rights of others.

Legitimately, as in; according to law?

A nation loses sovereignty to the extent that it does not enforce human rights.

Source required.

Also, are you referring to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Who enforces that?

 

[Danoff]

The invasion of Kuwait. I think were crossing wires here. Yes Kuwait was the reason. My question is why do the US and the UK take it as they have to lead the world to invade anywhere be it the place they are invading are wrong or right in there doings?

It was 1937 when the US/British oil company found oil in Kuwait and if that company was still going and had the right to the oil all agreed with the Kuwait government which is doubtful as most of Kuwait's leaders were answering to Basra who made the decisions a lot of the time. I may be wrong the company and it's right's might have still been valid which is a reason for invasion to rid Kuwait of Iraq if it is then my theory is wrong and I will admit so as I do when I am wrong. I cannot find any proof of US /UK still having rights to this oil which is why I don't understand why US/UK troops had the right to invade.
In my theory of they had no right to invade in the first place the treaties between the countries were null and void in my eyes no more that a bully threatening to beat you up each day if you don't hand over your lunch money I see the treaties as.
So I don't think especially with the UN giving a NO vote unlike the first Iraq war that any invasion should have taken place. And to invade is no different than Iraq invading Kuwait in the first place.

Uh no.

Iraq invades Kuwait (this is kinda like one country trying to murder or mug another country). The US defends Kuwait (anyone can defend anyone else's rights). The reason the US is justified in defending that country is because it was being invaded unjustly. Why would the US choose to do this? Any number of reasons, none of which are important. The important part is were we justified, and the answer is yes.

By not living up to the cease fire terms following Gulf War I, Iraq puts itself defacto back into a state of war. The UN decides not to act, but that doesn't stop a "coalition of the willing" from acting based on their own assessment of their interests. The justification, once again, is a separable discussion from the motivation. I do hate that people confuse the two, as motivation can never justify your actions.

Legitimately, as in; according to law?

According to some law, and according to objective principles of human rights.

Source required.

Source = Danoff. The only legitimate function of government is the defense of human rights. This means to the extent that government fails to do so, it loses legitimacy.

Also, are you referring to the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

No, that list is ridiculous.

Who enforces that?

Anyone can enforce human rights (as I have mentioned several times now).

 

[Vegard]

human rights

human rights

human rights

I think it's best if you explain what you mean by human rights.

 

[Danoff]

I think it's best if you explain what you mean by human rights.

Discussed at length in the human rights thread. Freedom from the initiation of force is what I mean.

 

[Vegard]

Freedom from the initiation of force is what I mean.

And that was Bush and Blair's motive for the invasion? To save the Iraqi people from Saddam?

 

[justin credible]

Uh no.

Iraq invades Kuwait (this is kinda like one country trying to murder or mug another country). The US defends Kuwait (anyone can defend anyone else's rights). The reason the US is justified in defending that country is because it was being invaded unjustly. Why would the US choose to do this? Any number of reasons, none of which are important. The important part is were we justified, and the answer is yes. So by jumping in and defending Kuwait the US puts all it's nation at risk from terror attacks, And the idiots like Britain who followed the US have now got the same threat.
I put my family first in everything they are my number 1 and to know it is highly unlikely a terrorist will strike where I live I am not happy that it is a possibility because of US UK and who ever else jumped on board with all this lets go be world police façade.
I asked the question why the US and the UK why not Iceland OR Portugal No one knows for sure I believe it was just for the oil but up to today I ask myself was it justified and I still answer no it did more damage than good regardless if it was Iceland or Portugal which led the invasion

By not living up to the cease fire terms following Gulf War I, Iraq puts itself defacto back into a state of war. The UN decides not to act, but that doesn't stop a "coalition of the willing" from acting based on their own assessment of their interests. The justification, once again, is a separable discussion from the motivation. I do hate that people confuse the two, as motivation can never justify your actions.

There is no justification just motivation by Bush and Blair to shout behave world or we will bomb you to flex their biceps and all under the façade of Iraq has WMD and is not playing ball with the guys who asked to search Iraq for the WMD.
Iraq hadn't followed the treaty since the day it was made, Clinton showed concerns but didn't call for war only Bush jnr to flex his muscles and signed up Blair the clown to hold his hand.
I think this is where we don't see eye to eye "coalition of the willing" to me it was an unjustified mistake which has put the western world in jeopardy not some heroic war to make the world a better place hence the willing turned out to be the you silly bunch of Muppets what have you done brigade.
I wonder if the UN voted no as it knew what would follow if an invasion took place.
Will read this thread later as I have to go get some milk before the shop shuts. Can't be getting up in the morning without a brew.👍

 

[Danoff]

And that was Bush and Blair's motive for the invasion? To save the Iraqi people from Saddam?

It doesn't matter. The motive can never supply the justification.

So by jumping in and defending Kuwait the US puts all it's nation at risk from terror attacks, And the idiots like Britain who followed the US have now got the same threat.
I put my family first in everything they are my number 1 and to know it is highly unlikely a terrorist will strike where I live I am not happy that it is a possibility because of US UK and who ever else jumped on board with all this lets go be world police façade.
I asked the question why the US and the UK why not Iceland OR Portugal No one knows for sure I believe it was just for the oil but up to today I ask myself was it justified and I still answer no it did more damage than good regardless if it was Iceland or Portugal which led the invasion

You can never answer a question of "is it justified" by answering "it did more damage than good". The ends do not justify the means, ever. The beginnings justify the means.

There is no justification just motivation by Bush and Blair to shout behave world or we will bomb you to flex their biceps and all under the façade of Iraq has WMD and is not playing ball with the guys who asked to search Iraq for the WMD.

I gave you the justification, you didn't argue.

Iraq hadn't followed the treaty since the day it was made, Clinton showed concerns but didn't call for war only Bush jnr to flex his muscles and signed up Blair the clown to hold his hand.

We're not obliged to take every action we're justified in taking. The justification can exist and we can ignore it until we have motivation.

I think this is where we don't see eye to eye

"coalition of the willing" to me it was an unjustified mistake which has put the western world in jeopardy not some heroic war to make the world a better place hence the willing turned out to be the you silly bunch of Muppets what have you done brigade.

The ends do not justify the means, and they don't render the means unjust either.

 

[justin credible]

It doesn't matter. The motive can never supply the justification.



You can never answer a question of "is it justified" by answering "it did more damage than good". The ends do not justify the means, ever. The beginnings justify the means. Ah I am with you now so under the rules of failing to adhere to the treaty there was justification to continue war, I get that now. The thing I don't get is why go to war when the Iraq 2 episode I believe could have been sorted diplomatically and anyone with vision beyond the next hour could see it would be a disaster in the long run.
So yes I am agreeing with you now on the justification was there but that justification carried so much of a risk it was unjust to invade, if that makes sense. I struggle getting my thoughts down into words in case you may not of noticed







We're not obliged to take every action we're justified in taking. The justification can exist and we can ignore it until we have motivation. Was the motivation Bush's ego as Clinton tried a diplomatic solution on things which I believe were slowly gathering momentum until he got how can I say it caught with his pants down?

 

[Danoff]

Ah I am with you now so under the rules of failing to adhere to the treaty there was justification to continue war, I get that now. The thing I don't get is why go to war when the Iraq 2 episode I believe could have been sorted diplomatically and anyone with vision beyond the next hour could see it would be a disaster in the long run.
So yes I am agreeing with you now on the justification was there but that justification carried so much of a risk it was unjust to invade, if that makes sense. I struggle getting my thoughts down into words in case you may not of noticed

It's fine for you to second-guess whether or not the war was a good idea, but that's not the same thing as claiming it was unjustified or that Bush is guilty of war crimes. Maybe you think it wasn't smart, or that the motivations were not strong enough - that's more of a matter of opinion.

Was the motivation Bush's ego as Clinton tried a diplomatic solution on things which I believe were slowly gathering momentum until he got how can I say it caught with his pants down?

I don't know. I truly think that the motivation was to bring democracy to the region so that we could fight terrorism with government structure and freedom instead of fighting it with guns. Whether or not it was a good idea or well executed, I think that's where it started.

 

[justin credible]

It's fine for you to second-guess whether or not the war was a good idea, but that's not the same thing as claiming it was unjustified or that Bush is guilty of war crimes. Maybe you think it wasn't smart, or that the motivations were not strong enough - that's more of a matter of opinion.

I agree with you on that but I still think under Bush and Blair's say so innocent Iraqis were murdered, now we can say that's the dark side of war but when Saddam killed his own people he believed he was at war with those who tried to ruin his regime right or wrong and was justified in his actions, he was hung for his sins.
My meaning is there were different approaches which could have been tried before invasion, Bush and Blair didn't exercise the choices they had so by failing to try a different route and bombing innocent people in the name of trying get to the bad ones they are guilty of murder a war crime. The police wouldn't open fire in to a crowd in Times Square to try and hit one guy who has just murdered someone. Our troops did under Bush and Blair's say so and that in my eyes is murder when innocents are dying. And the buck stops with the boss.
Troops sent a missile into a restaurant as they thought Saddams family were in there they didn't give a hoot about the innocent people who were in the location or in the restaurant, a lot of deaths happened which makes me think hang on it's Saddam and his sons they were after why not wait until they left the restaurant get a positive ID then carry out a controlled execution. No consideration for human life and murdering innocents is a crime.


I think Saddam was a difficult man to get through to in a diplomatic sense but if there is a glint of light keep chipping away until success is achieved. Invading there country only makes things worse even if there is legit justification. In a sense it was unjustified as invasion took place to soon before every avenue was exhausted.

And it was a bloody terrible idea from start to finish.

Going to bed now its midnight here, good night thanks for the debate catch you all soon.




I don't know. I truly think that the motivation was to bring democracy to the region so that we could fight terrorism with government structure and freedom instead of fighting it with guns. Whether or not it was a good idea or well executed, I think that's where it started.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with you on that but I still think under Bush and Blair's say so innocent Iraqis were murdered, now we can say that's the dark side of war but when Saddam killed his own people he believed he was at war with those who tried to ruin his regime right or wrong and was justified in his actions, he was hung for his sins.
My meaning is there were different approaches which could have been tried before invasion, Bush and Blair didn't exercise the choices they had so by failing to try a different route and bombing innocent people in the name of trying get to the bad ones they are guilty of murder a war crime. The police wouldn't open fire in to a crowd in Times Square to try and hit one guy who has just murdered someone. Our troops did under Bush and Blair's say so and that in my eyes is murder when innocents are dying. And the buck stops with the boss.
Troops sent a missile into a restaurant as they thought Saddams family were in there they didn't give a hoot about the innocent people who were in the location or in the restaurant, a lot of deaths happened which makes me think hang on it's Saddam and his sons they were after why not wait until they left the restaurant get a positive ID then carry out a controlled execution. No consideration for human life and murdering innocents is a crime.


I think Saddam was a difficult man to get through to in a diplomatic sense but if there is a glint of light keep chipping away until success is achieved. Invading there country only makes things worse even if there is legit justification. In a sense it was unjustified as invasion took place to soon before every avenue was exhausted.

And it was a bloody terrible idea from start to finish.

There were a lot of attempts at peace before we went to war, it was not a quick transition - Saddam did a lot of posturing. Casualties of war fall under various descriptions depending on the severity of negligence or intent behind their deaths. Someone who types the wrong coordinates and gets a school blown up instead of a military target (assuming those aren't the same thing, which is no longer a safe assumption) is not guilty of murder, but of accidental death. I think you're grasping at the last possible straw if you're trying to tie every casualty regardless of how it occurred to the highest authority.

 

[justin credible]

There were a lot of attempts at peace before we went to war, it was not a quick transition - Saddam did a lot of posturing. Casualties of war fall under various descriptions depending on the severity of negligence or intent behind their deaths. Someone who types the wrong coordinates and gets a school blown up instead of a military target (assuming those aren't the same thing, which is no longer a safe assumption) is not guilty of murder, but of accidental death. I think you're grasping at the last possible straw if you're trying to tie every casualty regardless of how it occurred to the highest authority.

Not trying to grasp at straws at all. Innocent people died under an attack by forces who were under the rule of two war mongers. Accidental death is how you put it I bet the families of the bereaved don't see it that way. They like I believe they were murdered by armed forces.
It is manslaughter if someone kills someone and didn't mean to still a crime. Exactly the same as soldiers who were convicted of murder when they just shot dead innocent people and the witnesses had the balls to report it as the dead were doing nothing wrong but being an Iraqi. A crime and rightly so they were charged. What's the difference apart from how you word there crime innocent people were killed.
Bush and Blair were the leaders they have to accept responsibility of innocents being killed in so called accidental deaths call it murder manslaughter what ever the people are still dead and no one is responsible as it's a war zone? no way some one needs to be responsible and each death should be looked in to what why and when and when the findings prove negligence by US or UK forces then the leaders should answer to that. And we all know they would be found negligent.
We have agreed on there was justification even if invasion was premature in my eyes.
Every casualty you wrote each one of those is someone's life being extinguished for what? Troops not doing there job correct and causing death to innocents is wrong and when things go wrong the buck stops with the gaffers Bush and Blair.
This is the problem with war and arrogant leaders they view peoples deaths as casualties of war an accident and don't feel a shred of guilt because they were only Iraqis. Yet when troops are killed they get every sympathy going.
Join the army see the world murder people and risk getting murdered yourself and don't worry if you kill innocent people it can go down as casualties of war and you and your leader get off scott free.
Bush and Blair should stand trial on every innocent death they caused by invading Iraq just because it was war it doesn't mean they should be let off for their crimes. If leaders were held responsible for there wrong doings in war they might think twice before employing troops when a diplomatic solution is still possible.
And cutting down on wars is only a good thing.

 

[BobK]

Bush and Blair should stand trial on every innocent death they caused by invading Iraq just because it was war it doesn't mean they should be let off for their crimes. If leaders were held responsible for there wrong doings in war they might think twice before employing troops when a diplomatic solution is still possible.

Why single out Bush and Blair? By your logic, every leader of every nation that's ever fought a war (for whatever reason) should be on trial for murder.