Administration's new tax proposal

1 view
Skip to first unread message

HeyBub

unread,
May 12, 2009, 8:14:23 AM5/12/09
to
"Recipients of real estate rental income that make payments of $600 or more
to a service provider (such as a plumber or accountant) in the course of
earning rental income would be required to send an information return
(generally, Form 1099-MISC) to the IRS and to the service provider.
Exceptions would be made for particularly burdensome situations, such as for
taxpayers (including members of the military) who rent their principal
residence on a temporary basis, or for those who receive only small amounts
of rental income. The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning
after December 31, 2009, and would raise about $3 billion through 2019."

Of course, not only will this create bureaucratic hassles for small
landlords, but it will significantly raise the costs of hiring local
tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
business."

http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/05/audacity-of-tax-as-bad-as-you-thought.html


Smitty Two

unread,
May 12, 2009, 11:17:36 AM5/12/09
to
In article <ePGdnXhdt8a89ZTX...@earthlink.com>,
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

> local
> tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
> business.

You mean, they'll suddenly be reminded that they aren't exempt from
paying their fair share of taxes. Sounds good to me.

RickH

unread,
May 12, 2009, 11:40:21 AM5/12/09
to
> http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/05/audacity-of-tax-as-bad-as-you-t...


There will never be a shortage of "classified ad" handymen working for
cash. But there are benefits for the owner to write up a 1099 in that
the owner will now be able to fully deduct that cost as a payroll
expense. Getting the cash handymans SSN or taxID number might be
problematic, in this case the handyman will just take a pass on the
job. The service provider will have to include the 1099 as regular
income. I think the landlord can get out of this by incorporating as
a S corp, and simply paying the service providers invoice as a normal
expense. I'm an S corp computer consultant, I simply invoice my
clients and have not gotten a 1099 for at least 10 years. It sounds
like the govt is trying to eliminate all invoice transactions. Next
time I call my HVAC guy to come replace my aging AC compressor I'll
have to see if he actually gives up his taxID number to me and accepts
the 1099 I send to the govt.

Will there be enforcement if the provider refuses disclosure of taxID
or SSN (needed to file a 1099)? What is the recourse for the
landowner if this happens? Another form that "turns in" the service
provider? Could get ugly when the govt places itself directly between
business/customer relationship. Previously all onus was on the
service provider to report all invoiced income.

Message has been deleted

Pat

unread,
May 12, 2009, 11:59:37 AM5/12/09
to

By issuing a 1099 that does not make it a payroll transaction. If so,
you would have to withhold taxes, pay social security, etc. It is
just a regular expense where you issue a 1099.

The landlord forming a corp would not get around the issue. The corp
still files a 1099. But if the service provider (such as you as a
consultant or plumber) forms a corp, then you get around the issue
because you don't file 1099s for payments to corporations. Therefore
if The Geek Squad squad fixes your computer, you don't need to issue a
1099 but if the Geek Down The Street fixes it, then you do (if it's
over $600).

The same rule also applies to vendors who use EINs instead of SSNs.

This has been a requirement for most (all?) businesses for a really
long time. I'm self employed and get them all of the time.

There is no recourse for the buyer if the person does not disclose the
SSN. You are supposed to collect it first. If the don't give it,
then you don't buy from them. You use the W-9 to obtain it
http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

There are disclosure rules for some instances. For example if you
involved in a HUD-funded project and need to fill out the Applicant/
Recipient Disclosure/Update Form (yes, that's really the name), you
must provide a EIN if you have one, but you do not have to provide a
SSN for security reasons.

George

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:09:54 PM5/12/09
to
I think this is a good reason to eliminate all of those taxes (including
payroll taxes) and tax collection systems and replace them with a sales
tax. The sales tax would have similar exemptions as say my state where
food you prepare and basic clothing are exempt.

Since all other taxes would be eliminated the weasel politicians
wouldn't be able to nick everyone $10 on their cellphone etc. All of the
taxes would now be in one place and since people wouldn't treat their
net income as "what they make" because they would be paid what they make
lots of people will turn American idol off and pay attention to what the
politicians are doing if they are required to pay say a 40% sales tax.

RickH

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:14:52 PM5/12/09
to
> then you don't buy from them.  You use the W-9 to obtain ithttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

>
> There are disclosure rules for some instances.  For example if you
> involved in a HUD-funded project and need to fill out the Applicant/
> Recipient Disclosure/Update Form (yes, that's really the name), you
> must provide a EIN if you have one, but you do not have to provide a
> SSN for security reasons.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


This is why I have an accountant, one F'ed up tax code.

The Daring Dufas

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:20:39 PM5/12/09
to

No, it means there will be a lot of fake invoices
given out for repair work and a lot of fake tax ID
numbers. Of course the IRS will go after the small
landlord and waste more taxpayer dollars. It's not
unusual for the government to spend $100,000.00 to
go after $100.00. More nonsense from the BeeHO
administration.

TDD

The Daring Dufas

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:35:28 PM5/12/09
to
gfre...@aol.com wrote:

> On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:40:21 -0700 (PDT), RickH
> <pass...@windcrestsoftware.com> wrote:
>
>> There will never be a shortage of "classified ad" handymen working for
>> cash. But there are benefits for the owner to write up a 1099 in that
>> the owner will now be able to fully deduct that cost as a payroll
>> expense. Getting the cash handymans SSN or taxID number might be
>> problematic, in this case the handyman will just take a pass on the
>> job. The service provider will have to include the 1099 as regular
>> income. I think the landlord can get out of this by incorporating as
>> a S corp, and simply paying the service providers invoice as a normal
>> expense. I'm an S corp computer consultant, I simply invoice my
>> clients and have not gotten a 1099 for at least 10 years. It sounds
>> like the govt is trying to eliminate all invoice transactions. Next
>> time I call my HVAC guy to come replace my aging AC compressor I'll
>> have to see if he actually gives up his taxID number to me and accepts
>> the 1099 I send to the govt.
>>
>> Will there be enforcement if the provider refuses disclosure of taxID
>> or SSN (needed to file a 1099)? What is the recourse for the
>> landowner if this happens? Another form that "turns in" the service
>> provider? Could get ugly when the govt places itself directly between
>> business/customer relationship. Previously all onus was on the
>> service provider to report all invoiced income.
>
> I suspect, if this is really a cash guy, he will just give you a bogus
> SS#, much like the illegal aliens.
> What it really means is the bookkeeping just went up for everyone.
> When I was a SP I invoiced all of my business but my customers did not
> have to file anything. I assume they still deducted the expense on
> their schedule C and that drives the provider to include it in their
> income, just in case the IRS actually follows up on it.
> The 1099misc allows the computer to do most of the grunt work.
> Now that computer hardware is up to the task, I expect "cash" will be
> tracked somehow. Even if they can't actually see the cash transaction
> they can see the shadow of the money.

Keep all invoices under $600.00 and use multiple
names, easy. Believe me scamming the government
is an art practiced by many. As I've explained
to any number of people over the years, " If a
small business owner paid the government everything
it demanded, there would be noting left." It's a
matter of survival and "Atlas Shrugged" may actually
happen with the present Commie administration taking
control of everything.

TDD

George

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:35:40 PM5/12/09
to

So are you saying if they object to paying taxes it is OK to be a tax
cheat? I happen to think the way to address that is to turn off American
idol, pay attention and fire anyone on election day who has wasted our
money and refuse to hire others who wish to do so. People who voted yes
for the current politicians because they were going to do everything for
them need to realize that means they need to pay for the "free stuff"
the government will give them.

RickH

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:41:16 PM5/12/09
to
On May 12, 10:59 am, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote:
> then you don't buy from them.  You use the W-9 to obtain ithttp://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf

>
> There are disclosure rules for some instances.  For example if you
> involved in a HUD-funded project and need to fill out the Applicant/
> Recipient Disclosure/Update Form (yes, that's really the name), you
> must provide a EIN if you have one, but you do not have to provide a
> SSN for security reasons.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


So the Geek Down The Street just tells me "yeah I'm incorporated" and
the transaction is completed as usual, after all the guy did have a
yellow pages ad. The onus is still on the landowner to actively "find
out" if they need to file a 1099? The whole thing looks like it will
have very low compliance.

The Daring Dufas

unread,
May 12, 2009, 12:47:47 PM5/12/09
to

A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
would take control away from politicians, which is
why most politicians are against it.

TDD

Dan Lanciani

unread,
May 12, 2009, 3:11:29 PM5/12/09
to

| So the Geek Down The Street just tells me "yeah I'm incorporated" and
| the transaction is completed as usual, after all the guy did have a
| yellow pages ad. The onus is still on the landowner to actively "find
| out" if they need to file a 1099?

Maybe, but then this has always been the case for people making payments
in the course of their business. I generally assume that if I make the
check out to "Company, Inc." and the payee is able to cash/deposit it
they are incorporated. Of course, with this change somebody needs to
argue that renting is indeed a business and they should get rid of all
those silly passive loss limitations. :)

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

BobR

unread,
May 12, 2009, 4:49:16 PM5/12/09
to
On May 12, 10:17 am, Smitty Two <prestwh...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> In article <ePGdnXhdt8a89ZTXnZ2dnUVZ_oidn...@earthlink.com>,

Right, and next thing the government will force you to do is provide
that same 1099 for every waitress you delt with everytime you go out
to eat. Can't let them get away without paying taxes on that tip
income.

BobR

unread,
May 12, 2009, 4:55:34 PM5/12/09
to
> have very low compliance.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

The compliance level will be equal to the compliance level of the
Obama administration, most of which have had issues with taxes
including the Treasury Secty. Its just another why for the government
to track your every action. It is little more than the government
forcing you to tattle on those you do business with because they can't
force compliance from the individual taxpayer.

Message has been deleted

Frank

unread,
May 12, 2009, 6:27:54 PM5/12/09
to

I'm in the same boat with S corp consulting and do get some 1099-MISC's.
They're not required if they pay you less than $600.

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1099msc.pdf

Couple of my clients have been remiss on them and I've never gotten one
from Europe. That's not to say I don't pay taxes.

I read once that the tax work in this country exceeded automobile
manufacture. This is because of all the govmint nitshit ;(

BRUCE

unread,
May 12, 2009, 6:56:54 PM5/12/09
to
the costs of hiring local tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they
no longer work in a "cash business."

And why shouldn't they have to pay taxes like we do??

Pat

unread,
May 12, 2009, 7:16:14 PM5/12/09
to

I don't think that doing taxes takes all that long. I do mine own
plus those of two friends. They both have "real jobs" and it takes
about half an hour for one (including getting the coffee pot going)
and about 45 minutes for the other.

Mine take longer because I have 2 businesses and 2 rentals through
LLCs, plus my wife's job. Mine take a few hours but not too bad.
Tallying up the mileage is the longest single thing.

Frank

unread,
May 12, 2009, 8:37:46 PM5/12/09
to

I still think if you count individuals time, the tens of thousands of
tax accountants and peripheral stuff like computer programs there is
more effort in the US economy to doing taxes than making cars.

With Turbotax, my actual tax preparation takes about 2-3 hours but then
there is time on calculating and sending quarterly payments, franchise
tax and the minutia of gathering and assembling tax records. Add
additional time for getting caught in an audit.

You know if you're in business you spend half your time doing your
business and the other half complying with stuff that makes you no money.

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 12, 2009, 9:12:00 PM5/12/09
to
Tradesmen collect taxes from the customer. They pay taxes
when they buy materials.

It doesn't sound to me like the new change will mean
tradesmen will "pay taxes like us". Sounds like they will be
forced to collect taxes FROM us.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"BRUCE" <BAK...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14078-4A0...@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...

BobR

unread,
May 12, 2009, 9:57:44 PM5/12/09
to

They absolutely should pay taxes just like the rest of us. The real
issue is why we are to be forced to report to the government on our
purchases from each and every contractor or tradesman that we use.
That is forcing additional fees on us to report to the government on
what someone else earns. That entails a substantial amount of
additional time and expense to obtain and maintain the information as
well as send the reports to both the tradesman and the government.
Just another straw on the back of business.

HeyBub

unread,
May 12, 2009, 10:04:07 PM5/12/09
to
The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
> would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
> would take control away from politicians, which is
> why most politicians are against it.
>

What's fair for one is thought to be unfair to another. One proposal is the
"flat" tax.

I have a better proposal that everybody can get behind.

I propose a "flat-flat tax." Here's how it works. Assume the national budget
is $3 trillion and
that there are 300 million folks in the country. Each person, then, is
responsible for $10,000. That's their tax. Period. End of discussion.

There are problems associated with this plan, I admit. For example, what
about the poor person who doesn't HAVE $10,000?

Well, he could contribute one unit of blood platelets per month and get a
$1,000 credit toward the current tax year - sort of like withholding.

But, you say, what about the poor single mother who has four kids under the
age of six? We can't drain FIVE units of blood from her each month and
certainly we aren't going to vampire the toddlers! Absolutely correct. She's
responsible for the taxes on her children, but we can't take that much
blood. It would be silly to even contemplate such. What she CAN contribute
is a kidney. A kidney is worth about $100,000 on the open market. That, plus
the platelets, would mean her family's taxes would be paid for about three
years.

Now I know what you're thinking. After three years, what? Do we take her
OTHER kidney? No, silly person... we insist she donate a cornea. That should
be good for another three or four years, by which time her litter will be
off having babies of their own and her tax liability would fall back to the
normal range. In the event the kids aren't out having babies or selling
crack, we then fall back to liver aliquots or bone marrow.

This plan has several subordinate benefits. First it discourages having
children on the dole, cause momma has to have her teeth extracted for
transplantation. Secondly, it encourages marital fidelity since a two-income
family can better afford the taxes.

Absent approval of the foregoing, the "fairest" tax is the
"anti-progressive" tax. That is, rich people should pay a smaller percentage
of their income than the lower classes since they use fewer government
services. The well-to-do should pay SOMETHING - after all they do benefit
from the protection our military affords and they do drive (or are
chauffeured) on public roads. But they don't (generally) use public
hospitals, public schools, or get free treatment for VD. They don't use
public libraries or public parks (they have their own). No, the rich don't
use a proportionate amount of public services, so they should pay only what
their class consumes.

As an aside, I sent both these ideas to George McGovern back when he was
running for president. Just like all politicians, he didn't even deign to
respond. One day I'll tell you my plan for integrating the schools. He
evidently didn't like that plan either. Bad McGovern.

Ed Pawlowski

unread,
May 12, 2009, 10:07:23 PM5/12/09
to

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message
news:ePGdnXhdt8a89ZTX...@earthlink.com...

> "Recipients of real estate rental income that make payments of $600 or
> more to a service provider (such as a plumber or accountant) in the course
> of earning rental income would be required to send an information return
> (generally, Form 1099-MISC) to the IRS and to the service provider.

There will be a lot of contracts for $599


HeyBub

unread,
May 12, 2009, 10:13:33 PM5/12/09
to
The Daring Dufas wrote:
>
> Keep all invoices under $600.00 and use multiple
> names, easy. Believe me scamming the government
> is an art practiced by many. As I've explained
> to any number of people over the years, " If a
> small business owner paid the government everything
> it demanded, there would be noting left." It's a
> matter of survival and "Atlas Shrugged" may actually
> happen with the present Commie administration taking
> control of everything.
>

I was once offered an investment in a sand pit. It didn't make any money,
but the tax ramifications were awsome. In a nutshell:

* You sell the sand, a truck-load at a time.
* As the sand is sold you get to depreciate the asset (the available sand).
A significant tax write-off.
* Ultimately the sand is all gone, and you're left with a big honkin' hole
in the ground.
* You sell dumping rights for construction waste (tree stumps, concrete,
etc.), by the cubic yard.
* Then you depreciate a completely different asset (the hole).
* Ultimately you use up that asset (the hole gets full), then you cover the
top with dirt and a little topsoil and sell the acreage to a developer for
low-cost housing.

You never made any profit on the sand or the dumping but you get huge tax
breaks on the transactions.


Dan Lanciani

unread,
May 13, 2009, 12:07:13 AM5/13/09
to
In article <1poj05dop8vhm7crg...@4ax.com>, gfre...@aol.com writes:

| On 12 May 2009 19:11:29 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| >| So the Geek Down The Street just tells me "yeah I'm incorporated" and
| >| the transaction is completed as usual, after all the guy did have a
| >| yellow pages ad. The onus is still on the landowner to actively "find
| >| out" if they need to file a 1099?
| >
| >Maybe, but then this has always been the case for people making payments
| >in the course of their business. I generally assume that if I make the
| >check out to "Company, Inc." and the payee is able to cash/deposit it
| >they are incorporated. Of course, with this change somebody needs to
| >argue that renting is indeed a business and they should get rid of all
| >those silly passive loss limitations. :)
|
|
| There are plenty of check cashing places that will cash any check that
| clears the "instant EFT" machine they have. They just want a piece of
| the action.

That would be annoying since I don't authorize any third-party EFT debits
on my account; however, I think there would be time to send the 1099 while
I decided whether to dispute the debit. :) Seriously, if this were a
problem the best solution would probably be to get a business account
to pay for business services. Unlike consumer accounts business accounts
can be set up to reject EFT debits so you don't have to dispute them after
the fact. To date the only ones I've found playing these EFT games are the
banks themselves, some utilities, and an insurance company.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Ed Pawlowski

unread,
May 13, 2009, 6:06:18 AM5/13/09
to

"Dan Lanciani" <ddl@danlan.*com> wrote in message

> the fact. To date the only ones I've found playing these EFT games are
> the
> banks themselves, some utilities, and an insurance company.

How about some supermarkets, loan/finance companies, and businesses, large
and small. It is becoming very popular and is readily available. Expect to
see a lot of it soon.


Han

unread,
May 13, 2009, 7:00:52 AM5/13/09
to
The Daring Dufas <the-dari...@stinky.net> wrote in news:guc97h$qo6$4
@news.motzarella.org:

> A simple tax like "The Fair Tax" that's being touted
> would eliminate all the nonsense that goes on but it
> would take control away from politicians, which is
> why most politicians are against it.
>

I still think that taxpayer compliance with the law is paramount. The
paperwork is bothersome, but if too many people just cash a check or take
$$ as payment for services without paying tax, it means that salaried
people take the brunt of paying taxes, and the cheats go free. That's not
fair, the taxing method is immaterial.

If "Fair Tax" means cutting out loopholes then I'm all for it. Take away
exceptions, credits for this and that is fine with me.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Han

unread,
May 13, 2009, 7:04:38 AM5/13/09
to
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in
news:ONudnYAFgIYEt5fX...@earthlink.com:

Flat tax is nonsense as described. Tax rates are fine - zero tax on the
first so much, 15% on the next so much, etc. Perhaps a credit (negative
tax) for real poor people. But certainly a good tax on "rich" people, or
blood sucking (fill in).

But no exceptions this or exceptions that. No accounting gimmicks
allowed.

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 13, 2009, 7:07:33 AM5/13/09
to
Supposing there is a contractor who does cash business. And
another one who pays taxes. Here's how the two scenarios
play out:

Contractor one. Cash business. Charges $100 for the job. He
uses the money to buy highly taxed fuel for his truck, and
then stops on the way home to buy food for his family. He
stops by the department store to buy some toys for his kids,
and supports local business. Your job is done the next day.

Contractor two. Pays his taxes. He can't do the job for
$100. He has to charge $130. Part of the extra money goes to
pay the book keeper at the office, who fills out all the
government forms. He pays income tax on the money that he
takes home, which means that about $30 ou tof the $100 you
paid him goes to the state and fed. And then he "pays
taxes" by charging you $10.40 in sales tax, which the state
requires. He turns that money over to government. Which
means that your $100 job is now up to $140.40. There is an
insurance surcharge, and a government paper work handling
surcharge. So, the job is up to about $160 now. Meantime,
the local department store is laying off workers, becuase
Mr. Contractor isn't buying toys and videos for his kids any
more. So much of the job is going to pay taxes.

The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
office.

I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
your job.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message
news:fd7a7823-7ecb-402d...@e23g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Kurt Ullman

unread,
May 13, 2009, 7:28:07 AM5/13/09
to
In article <gue9pd$s0q$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

>
> The state hires two more code enforcement workers, whose job
> it is to call Mr. Contractor into the office, and go over
> his books. Now, there will be a 5 day delay before he can
> start the job. Because he and his book keeper will be in the
> audit office. Meantime, your roof is leaking, and a lot of
> stuff is water damaged while the contractor is in the audit
> office.
>
> I hope you feel better, knowing that the contractor pays his
> fair share. By the way, he pays it by adding to the cost of
> your job.

Of course I am also paying an added cost for Contractor 1 because
someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying. And Contractor 1
puts the job off for 3 to 5 while he serves time for tax evasion or has
to up the cost of the job to pay for penalties and interest to keep his
butt out of jail. I feel much better for the guy who is paying the taxes.
Of course, this is a debate completely separate from whether the
taxes themselves are a good thing.

--
"Distracting a politician from governing
is like distracting a bear from eating your baby."

--PJ O'Rourke

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 13, 2009, 8:34:07 AM5/13/09
to

Of course I am also paying an added cost for
Contractor 1 because
someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying.

CY: I disagree. I know of no department that says "Well,
Contractor 1 should have collected $72 in taxes from that
consumer, so we'll have to increase the other guys taxes
that much". My view is that government expands faster than
the rate of tax increase. So, I do what I can to encourage
people to pay less taxes.

And Contractor 1
puts the job off for 3 to 5 while he serves time for tax
evasion or has
to up the cost of the job to pay for penalties and interest
to keep his
butt out of jail. I feel much better for the guy who is
paying the taxes.

CY: No problem. Find a different contractor.

Of course, this is a debate completely separate from
whether the
taxes themselves are a good thing.

CY: We could add the "good thing" discussion, if you wish.


Kurt Ullman

unread,
May 13, 2009, 9:00:05 AM5/13/09
to
In article <gueeo2$3jh$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Of course I am also paying an added cost for
> Contractor 1 because
> someone has to make up the taxes that he ain't paying.
>
> CY: I disagree. I know of no department that says "Well,
> Contractor 1 should have collected $72 in taxes from that
> consumer, so we'll have to increase the other guys taxes
> that much". My view is that government expands faster than
> the rate of tax increase. So, I do what I can to encourage
> people to pay less taxes.
>

All of them do exactly that in practice and in theory. They
base their alleged budgets on what they think is coming in. To the
extent that others don't pay, the shortfall has to be made up somewhere
and that is through higher taxes (or more money printed which is
essentially the same thing). As you pointed out, you are advocating the
punishment of the person who person who obeys the law.
Just out of personal curiosity (real honest question). How do you
feel about illegal aliens being used by contractors?

> Of course, this is a debate completely separate from
> whether the
> taxes themselves are a good thing.
>
> CY: We could add the "good thing" discussion, if you wish.

I was trying my best to avoid it, which is why I separated it (g).

Smitty Two

unread,
May 13, 2009, 10:29:35 AM5/13/09
to
In article <gue9pd$s0q$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

I'll forward your comments to the IRS for review, Chris. I imagine
they'll say it's fine for you to not pay taxes, since in your
magnanimity you're saving your customers so much money.

Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted

BobR

unread,
May 13, 2009, 11:24:12 AM5/13/09
to
On May 13, 10:17 am, gfretw...@aol.com wrote:

> On 13 May 2009 11:04:38 GMT, Han <nob...@nospam.not> wrote:
>
> >Flat tax is nonsense as described.  Tax rates are fine - zero tax on the
> >first so much, 15% on the next so much, etc.  Perhaps a credit (negative
> >tax) for real poor people.  But certainly a good tax on "rich" people, or
> >blood sucking (fill in).
>
> >But no exceptions this or exceptions that.  No accounting gimmicks
> >allowed.
>
> The real problem is the politicians use the tax code to reward
> politically correct things and punish things they consider not
> politically correct. They are not likely to give up this power.

You mean they are not likely to give up the power to buy the votes of
the masses.

BobR

unread,
May 13, 2009, 11:32:06 AM5/13/09
to
On May 13, 6:07 am, "Stormin Mormon"

SO? Should I feel better that my taxes would have to be higher still
should all contractors be like the first and choose to not report the
income and pair their fair share of the taxes?

BobR

unread,
May 13, 2009, 11:34:47 AM5/13/09
to

And those that aren't will be split into multiple jobs for $599 or
less.

George

unread,
May 13, 2009, 12:00:28 PM5/13/09
to
So whats your point? Taxes are typically paid by adding a cost to
something. Your argument is also completely ridiculous that a tax cheat
is somehow more efficient than one who pays taxes. Contractor one is a
tax cheat no matter how you rationalize it.

If you don't want to pay taxes then you have something called a vote. It
gives us the ability to fire politicians. Unfortunately most people are
busy watching American idol or twittering or whatever to get involved..

akaSoetoro

unread,
May 13, 2009, 2:33:18 PM5/13/09
to

when you 1099 someone it is for income in a year. doesn't matter what
the individual jobs cost.

Oren

unread,
May 13, 2009, 2:46:59 PM5/13/09
to
On Tue, 12 May 2009 18:57:44 -0700 (PDT), BobR
<re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote:

>> And why shouldn't they have to pay taxes like we do??
>
>They absolutely should pay taxes just like the rest of us.

Puerto Rico should be paying income taxes. After all, we guarantee
their military defense. BACARDI Rum, located there could contribute
plenty of tax dollars on refreshments sold on the island.

Dan Lanciani

unread,
May 13, 2009, 4:14:54 PM5/13/09
to

I may have been unclear. It isn't a matter of using the process; it's
a matter of using it _without authorization_. Under the rules as last
I saw them (unfortunately the rules are secret and available only to
members of NACHA) payees must have permission to convert a check into
an ACH (EFT) debit. That permission can be implicit in the sense that
the payee can deliver or post a notice saying that if you provide a check
it will be converted; however, for billed accounts like credit cards and
utilities there must be an opt-out mechanism. (For in-person transactions
you can opt-out but then they don't have to accept your check.) So
far it is only the banks themselves, some utilities, and an insurance
company that I've seen break the rules by either ignoring my explicit
opt-out or converting without any prior notice.

Massachusetts also has some additional protection in Title XXII
chapter 167B Section 7 prohibiting people from conditioning the
sale of goods or services on payment by EFT. (Which is not to
say that they can't demand cash.) Your state might have something
similar.

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Dan Lanciani

unread,
May 13, 2009, 5:01:42 PM5/13/09
to
In article <maol051vdd6htd3be...@4ax.com>, gfre...@aol.com writes:

| On 13 May 2009 04:07:13 GMT, ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani) wrote:
|
| >| There are plenty of check cashing places that will cash any check that
| >| clears the "instant EFT" machine they have. They just want a piece of
| >| the action.
| >
| >That would be annoying since I don't authorize any third-party EFT debits
| >on my account; however, I think there would be time to send the 1099 while
| >I decided whether to dispute the debit. :)
|
|
| This looks like a check to your bank. I am not sure how many places
| have it but they are getting a lot more popular here in Florida.
| The machine uses the routing transit information off the check and
| processes it immediately.

You are likely talking about ACH conversion. This is not the same as a
check and is not (in theory) allowed without the permission of the customer
whose account is to be debited. Banks seem to conflate various types of
check truncation but it is still possible for you to tell the difference.
Under the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act the bank must supply upon
request a legal substitute check which includes an image of the back and
front and verbiage indicating that the copy is legally equivalent to the
original for all purposes. (Obviously if they _have_ the original they can
give you that instead.) If the bank cannot supply the substitute check
then the transaction was probably not processed as a check.

| It is not a debit card. It is a check, any
| check. The first place I saw it in action was a brick yard.

Here you are likely talking about point-of-sale ACH truncation. The
merchant posts a notice explaining that your check will provide the
account and routing information for them to make an electronic withdrawal
from your account. If you hand them a check you agree to the process.
This is explicitly allowed by the NACHA rules but your bank certainly
knows the difference between this and actually clearing the check. (As
bad as my own banks are I can still see the difference on the statement,
but that may be because I have declined all their generous offers to stop
sending me at least images of my canceled checks.) Point-of-sale
truncation is not the same as taking an existing check to a third-party
check cashing service where the service has no way to know that the
original maker of the check gave even implicit permission for the
conversion.

Note well that your rights and responsibilities wrt a check (a negotiable
instrument) and an electronic debit are completely different. In particular
the time you have to dispute a charge is different as in theory is the
burden of proof.

| Considering how much money it costs for a bank to handle the physical
| document (a check) I bet this becomes a lot more popular.

That was the whole point of the Check21 legislation. It allows checks
to be processed electronically while maintaining their character as
negotiable instruments and providing images so you can argue about the
signature. ACH check-to-debit conversion existed before Check21 and
is better for everyone except the consumer making the payment. There
is tons of information on Check21 to Google if you care about the
distinction...

Dan Lanciani
ddl@danlan.*com

Percival P. Cassidy

unread,
May 13, 2009, 8:40:33 PM5/13/09
to
On 05/12/09 08:14 am HeyBub wrote:

> "Recipients of real estate rental income that make payments of $600 or more
> to a service provider (such as a plumber or accountant) in the course of
> earning rental income would be required to send an information return
> (generally, Form 1099-MISC) to the IRS and to the service provider.

> Exceptions would be made for particularly burdensome situations, such as for
> taxpayers (including members of the military) who rent their principal
> residence on a temporary basis, or for those who receive only small amounts
> of rental income. The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning
> after December 31, 2009, and would raise about $3 billion through 2019."
>
> Of course, not only will this create bureaucratic hassles for small

> landlords, but it will significantly raise the costs of hiring local


> tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
> business."
>

> http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/05/audacity-of-tax-as-bad-as-you-thought.html

Why shouldn't it apply to property owners paying service providers? It
applies already to churches paying occasional organists or preachers an
amount exceeding $600 a year.

Perce

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 13, 2009, 9:00:39 PM5/13/09
to
I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
fingerprinted, packed up, and dumped across the border. The
second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
type prison camp.

I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
nation.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Kurt Ullman" <kurtu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kurtullman-889C3...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net...

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 13, 2009, 9:02:32 PM5/13/09
to
I'll agree with that. The power to tax or taxrelief gives
them great ability to shape the direction of the nation.

Look at our present direction. A hard working contractor
gets audited while a pregnant border criminal gets buckets
of taxpayer dollars.

Instead of getting angry at border criminals, maybe we
should figure out who is giving away all the tax monies?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


<gfre...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:c1pl059n4hos5h6ip...@4ax.com...

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 13, 2009, 9:05:41 PM5/13/09
to
You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.

One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
govt has less of our money.

How many times have you been audited. And the auditor says
"the contractor on the other side of town did a cash job, so
I'm adding $50 to your assessment."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"BobR" <re...@r-a-reed-assoc.com> wrote in message

news:6da840a8-3dcf-4e09...@v4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

Ed Pawlowski

unread,
May 13, 2009, 9:40:04 PM5/13/09
to

"akaSoetoro" <b...@rry.aka> wrote in message
news:LkEOl.40937$b9.1...@bignews6.bellsouth.net...

Right, but Bob Smith charged me $500, Robert Smith charged me $500, Mary
Smith charged me $500. So many ways around this sort of thing it is silly.
The legitimate contractors, of course, will be filling out more paperwork at
the 1099's come in. Just an added step.


aemeijers

unread,
May 13, 2009, 10:17:19 PM5/13/09
to
Stormin Mormon wrote:
> I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
> fingerprinted, packed up, and dumped across the border. The
> second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
> solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
> the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
> of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
> citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
> type prison camp.
>
> I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
> nation.
>
Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that would be
needed for this mass roundup? And how to avoid accidentally rounding up
citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or other ID) who,
because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be illegal? They
don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them, you know.
SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico, but the
people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them apart
without a scorecard. US is not the only country with this problem.
Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic settlement
patterns, not current borders. Illegals flock to areas where they blend in.

--
aem sends...

BobR

unread,
May 13, 2009, 10:21:01 PM5/13/09
to
On May 13, 7:40 pm, "Percival P. Cassidy" <nob...@notmyISP.invalid>
wrote:

> On 05/12/09 08:14 am HeyBub wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Recipients of real estate rental income that make payments of $600 or more
> > to a service provider (such as a plumber or accountant) in the course of
> > earning rental income would be required to send an information return
> > (generally, Form 1099-MISC) to the IRS and to the service provider.
> > Exceptions would be made for particularly burdensome situations, such as for
> > taxpayers (including members of the military) who rent their principal
> > residence on a temporary basis, or for those who receive only small amounts
> > of rental income. The proposal would be effective for tax years beginning
> > after December 31, 2009, and would raise about $3 billion through 2019."
>
> > Of course, not only will this create bureaucratic hassles for small
> > landlords, but it will significantly raise the costs of hiring local
> > tradesmen, who will suddenly learn that they no longer work in a "cash
> > business."
>
> >http://tigerhawk.blogspot.com/2009/05/audacity-of-tax-as-bad-as-you-t...

>
> Why shouldn't it apply to property owners paying service providers? It
> applies already to churches paying occasional organists or preachers an
> amount exceeding $600 a year.
>
> Perce- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

The better question might be why does it apply to any of them?

sligoNo...@hotmail.com

unread,
May 14, 2009, 7:53:14 AM5/14/09
to
On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:05:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
>"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
>spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.
>
>One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
>that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
>govt has less of our money.

Which will translate into fewer services from the government.

tra...@optonline.net

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:22:09 AM5/14/09
to
On May 13, 10:17 pm, aemeijers <aemeij...@att.net> wrote:
> Stormin Mormon wrote:
> > I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
> > fingerprinted,  packed up, and dumped across the border. The
> > second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
> > solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
> > the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
> > of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
> > citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
> > type prison camp.
>
> > I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
> > nation.
>
> Uh Huh. And how exactly do you plan to pay for the massive
> infrastructure and staff increases for law enforcement that would be
> needed for this mass roundup?

Funny how money is available for everything else. We just passed
back to back $800Bil spending packages, without time for anyone to
even read them. Obama is proposing running deficits of $1Tril a year
for the next decade. So, we can pay for enforcing immigration laws
the same irresponsible way as everything else in this new era.

For the latest example of total fiscal irresponsibility, the govt is
spending $60 mil to build a memorial park in the middle of the corn
field in PA where the United 911 flight crashed. And they are using
eminent domain to take the farm property needed. I think any
reasonable person should see this for what it is. The country is deep
in debt, yet the govt is spending without any limits. There is no
reason you couldn't build a small but nice memorial for a couple
million tops. And who exactly do they think is going to go there to
see it in that area of PA?


>And how to avoid accidentally rounding up
> citizens (say, latino youths without drivers license or other ID) who,
> because they carry no green card, would be assumed to be illegal?

I guess the same way we sort out everyone else suspected of being a
criminal.

> They
> don't walk around wearing shirts that say 'wetback' on them, you know.
> SW US has entire areas that may as well be northern Mexico, but the
> people there are indeed US citizens. Awful hard to tell them apart
> without a scorecard.

How about using a birth certificate? Is that so hard?


> US is not the only country with this problem.
> Ethnic group concentrations tend to reflect historic settlement
> patterns, not current borders.  Illegals flock to areas where they blend in.

And at this point, that would be pretty much the entire USA. They
don't have to worry about fitting in, because no one is enforcing the
immigration laws. And in most places, it's considered politically
incorrect to even attempt to do anything about it.


>
> --
> aem sends...

tra...@optonline.net

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:30:36 AM5/14/09
to
On May 14, 7:53 am, sligoNoSPAM...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, 13 May 2009 21:05:41 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
>
> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >You have been duped by the assumption that there is some
> >"number of dollars" the govt needs. I believe that govt
> >spends about 1.2 to 1.5 times what it takes in.
>
> >One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
> >that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
> >govt has less of our money.
>
>         Which will translate into fewer services from the government.
>
>

Yep, which is a good thing. I want the govt to do less, not more.
Congress has an approval rating of what? 22% or so? Why anyone
would want a bunch of proven incompetents and crooks to be putting in
place more govt programs is beyond me.

And I agree with Stormin. A lot of people are under the mistaken
assumption that govt just takes what it needs to fund spending. In
reality, they are spending irresponsibly, without any regard to how
much money is available. I used to think that ultimately they had
enough responsibility to realize that they couldn't run increasing
deficits beyond a certain point. But that has now gone out the
window. UItimately, market forces will prevail and end the spending
orgy. But we have a few more years and then when it does happen, it
isn't going to be pretty. We're on the path to ruin followed by the
likes of many third world countries.

HeyBub

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:30:58 AM5/14/09
to
sligoNo...@hotmail.com wrote:

>>
>> One person failing to pay taxes doesn't necessarily mean
>> that someone else has to pay more. It just means that the
>> govt has less of our money.
>
> Which will translate into fewer services from the government.
>

And which services need be done by the government?

* Police? - There are many more security guards than cops.
* Firefighters? - 85% of the nation's firefighters are volunteers.
* Military? - Many wars have been fought by mercenaries.

I could go on, but there are two points:

1. Many "services" provided by the government could be more readily provided
by community effort.
2. Inasmuch as no government programs actually expire, the logical
conclusion is that government will eventually do everything.

Kurt Ullman

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:45:12 AM5/14/09
to
In article <cM2dneGhL9OZkpHX...@earthlink.com>,
"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:

>
> 1. Many "services" provided by the government could be more readily provided
> by community effort.
> 2. Inasmuch as no government programs actually expire, the logical
> conclusion is that government will eventually do everything.

I tend toward agreement with PJ__
"Politics should be limited in its scope to war,
protection of property, and the occasional
precautionary beheading of a member of the ruling class."

-P.J. O'Rourke

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:50:19 AM5/14/09
to
Actually, that would be wonderful. Lets immediately cut out
all funding for education (should be handled on the state
level). Next, we phase out Medicare and Medicaid, which
aren't powers given by the Constitution. That can be done by
private insurers. We'll phase out social security by not
offering it to younger members of society. They can invest
the same money in stocks, and mutual funds.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


<sligoNo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2g1o05horv7qv2vjt...@4ax.com...

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:51:46 AM5/14/09
to
Ah, the Obama plan!

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.

"HeyBub" <hey...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote in message

news:cM2dneGhL9OZkpHX...@earthlink.com...

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 14, 2009, 8:55:00 AM5/14/09
to
We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
know the number. But, that money could be used for
enforcement.

Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
out that they need to carry ID.

Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
sentence.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"aemeijers" <aeme...@att.net> wrote in message
news:PaLOl.2263$d36...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Kurt Ullman

unread,
May 14, 2009, 10:24:31 AM5/14/09
to
In article <guh4e1$abl$1...@news.motzarella.org>,
"Stormin Mormon" <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:

> We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
> money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
> television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
> that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
> know the number. But, that money could be used for
> enforcement.
>
> Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
> from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
> drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
> out that they need to carry ID.
>
> Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
> custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
> Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
> sentence.
>

Reminds me of the old Cheech take off on the Springsteen song:
I was born in East LA.

http://www.driko.org/lyrics/bornineastla.txt

Pat

unread,
May 15, 2009, 12:15:05 AM5/15/09
to
On May 13, 9:00 pm, "Stormin Mormon"

<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I'd like to see all the border jumping criminals
> fingerprinted,  packed up, and dumped across the border. The
> second time they come back, they spend six weeks in
> solitary, being fed bread and water. And then dumped over
> the border. Each further offense results in six more weeks
> of solitary. I'd like to see all crimes committed by non
> citizens punished with double sentences. In a Sherriff Joe
> type prison camp.
>
> I have little sympathy for people who don't respect our
> nation.

So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. I assume you view it
as a Mormon. So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? What is more important, God's Law or
civil law?

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
>  www.lds.org
> .
>

> "Kurt Ullman" <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

Pat

unread,
May 15, 2009, 12:18:57 AM5/15/09
to
On May 14, 8:55 am, "Stormin Mormon"

<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
> money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
> television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
> that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
> know the number. But, that money could be used for
> enforcement.
>
> Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
> from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
> drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
> out that they need to carry ID.

Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow stars on their
clothing.

Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing to thing
about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

>
> Lets start the program with everyone who is presently in
> custody, in jails or prisons. Check the immigration status.
> Deport them (if not citizens) at the end of their jail
> sentence.
>
> --
> Christopher A. Young
> Learn more about Jesus
>  www.lds.org
> .
>

> "aemeijers" <aemeij...@att.net> wrote in message

Han

unread,
May 15, 2009, 6:50:15 AM5/15/09
to
Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in news:bdf73f40-a54c-4339-
8995-e6e...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:

> On May 14, 8:55�am, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> We'll use the money that we save, by not spending buckets of
>> money on illegals. Any idea how much rent, food, cable
>> television, spending money, cigarettes, beer, and medical
>> that our government gives to illegals, now? I sure don't
>> know the number. But, that money could be used for
>> enforcement.
>>
>> Tell illegals from criminals by same method we tell crooks
>> from innocent. Where I live in NYS, I have to carry a
>> drivers license while driving. People will rapidly figure
>> out that they need to carry ID.
>
> Just tattoo ID numbers on their forearms and put yellow stars on their
> clothing.
>
> Being a Morman and therefore a minority religion, ne thing to thing
> about:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
>
>

Yes indeed ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 15, 2009, 10:20:10 AM5/15/09
to

So in other words, you think the Indians should have locked
up and/or
killed Joseph Smith Jr and the rest of the Mormons when they
invaded
Indian territory is 1838 because they were over-running the
area and
didn't respect the Indian nation or culture?

CY: I think you're being absurd. And combattive.

I view the world through the eyes of a Catholic. I assume
you view it
as a Mormon.

CY: Good assumption.

So what does your church teach about acceptance,
charity, loving thy neighbor? What is more important, God's
Law or
civil law?

CY: Having stated my position, I'm not here to debate.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar's; but there are certain
things that are
NOT Caesar's.

It is an interesting schism that separates Catholics from
Protestants
-- salvation through acts or salvation through grace.

CY: And the Mormon view. Saved by grace, exalted by works.


Stormin Mormon

unread,
May 15, 2009, 10:23:22 AM5/15/09
to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
Thank you for proving my point. You're not discussing.
You're slamming.

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Pat" <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message
news:bdf73f40-a54c-4339...@e24g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

Pat

unread,
May 15, 2009, 10:39:02 AM5/15/09
to
On May 15, 10:23 am, "Stormin Mormon"

<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
> Thank you for proving my point. You're not discussing.
> You're slamming.

No, I am pointing out that extremism leads to extremism.

I also pointing out that there are no Mormon or Mexicans or
Catholics. There are only people. There is no reason to segregate
them. Segregation and ghettos always leads to bad things. And if
that happens, and your group happens to lose power, YOU could be next
on the chopping block. You should protect immigrants as a manner of
protecting yourself, your family and your culture.

Pat

unread,
May 15, 2009, 10:48:20 AM5/15/09
to
On May 15, 10:20 am, "Stormin Mormon"

Saved by grace, exalted by works seems like a rational (as rational as
religion goes) and good set of values and beliefs. So turn the other
cheek, accept the leaper, give alms to the poor immigrants.

Hatred and disdain are bad for your karma.

tra...@optonline.net

unread,
May 15, 2009, 10:54:48 AM5/15/09
to
On May 15, 10:20 am, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spambloc...@hotmail.com> wrote:

What does any of this have to do with simply enforcing the existing US
immigration laws? Only a true kook would equate enforcing perfectly
reasonable immigration laws, similar to what virtually every other
country has on the books, to Nazi Germany. . I find it offensive,
even anti-semitic as it trivializes the holocaust. Very strange for
someone who claims to be so compassionate. But it does make it easy
to dismiss your sick arguments as total nonsense.

If you don't want any immigration laws, why shouldn't some fringe
group that thinks like you just charter 747's and start bringing
people over by the millions from Haiti, Somalia, India, and every
other third world country?