By receiving ' tax money' ... "giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty.
https://www.irs.gov/uac/ten-facts-about-the-child-tax-credit

Weird logic.

You'll earn yourself a nickname with that kind of thinking...



.

 

By receiving ' tax money' ... "giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty.
https://www.irs.gov/uac/ten-facts-about-the-child-tax-credit

I guess I still don't get it.
When I had a kid it became public knowledge - just like Obama's birth certificate.
There were times I would have liked to be not guilty, but alas, could not.

 

Weird logic.

I agree it is weird logic to say. "But taking tax money might be interpreted as giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty."

That beer sure is tasty. Time for another one.

 

I agree is is weird logic to say. "But taking tax money might be interpreted as giving up your privacy- in essence pleading guilty."

That beer sure is tasty. Time for another one.

That commercial looks like someone turned Broke Back Mountain into a Dude Ranch.

 

You give the NRA alot of credit. Care to link to their webpage or youtube video where the NRA stated such a thing?

Not from a webpage or youtube video. From the July 2016 American Rifleman, page 86. Thought you read the magazine?

The bold faced text is you including all

You only took one part of my message. The very first sentence says, "One of their latest "blocks" is to mentally ill people from being ineligible to buy guns."

The all included part of your question is answered here. "These are people that under their own admission are so "mentally disabled" they can't work", my quote. It means that there are SSI claims and payments to people who go through the process of determination to 'prove' they are mentally unfit to work and should be given SSI. So if they 'prove' that they themselves are so 'mentally unfit', doesn't that mean they should be also 'mentally unfit' to by a gun? You can't have it both ways.

 

No wonder the left siders say ... "they ought to pass a law." How about enforcing the laws on the books? It is a novel approach. Any AG who isn't willing to fully enforce the laws on the books needs to resign. That is at all levels of government.

And just how would/will all of the laws already on the books be enforced? It is my understanding that federal gun laws have to be prosecuted by federal courts. If a state has a similar law on the books then they prosecute using that law. Where and how will the federal system get the money to prosecute every federal crime? When sates pass the same laws as the federal side does then the laws will be prosecuted but now hands are tied.

 

Authorities already can block certain people (like schizophrenia, rage, or various other categories) with mental illnesses from buying weapons at gun stores.

Only if they are judged by a court to be unfit. Only at that time can they be stopped. How many are never in court for the problem? The congress and others keep saying "more mental health" needs to be applied instead of gun control. But they refuse to pass money allocations. When a way to keep mentally unfit from getting a gun, it still isn't good enough.

 

Only if they are judged by a court to be unfit. Only at that time can they be stopped. How many are never in court for the problem? The congress and others keep saying "more mental health" needs to be applied instead of gun control. But they refuse to pass money allocations. When a way to keep mentally unfit from getting a gun, it still isn't good enough.

We have a legal process to handle the mentally unfit and their rights. I've no problem at all setting up a federal court position to adjudicate SSI cases on a individual case level to remove gun or other rights. I do have a problem with a bureaucratic administrative list of payees having the same power. This is an executive power grab that should be seen as dangerous for all sides of the political spectrum.

 

Due process. It's guaranteed under the Constitution for all. Using a list to deny a right violates due process.

@ronv

What is the difference in receiving federal money. .... EIC is federal money,. SSI is federal money.

 

Due process. It's guaranteed under the Constitution for all. Using a list to deny a right violates due process.

I'm kind of a privacy nut myself, but it seems to me when you declare yourself under that section and it is validated, there is no difference. I suppose we could make all those people petition a judge for their benefits, but it just seems like more bureaucracy. What is the judge going to do? You or your guardian say there is a problem and a doctor confirms it... What does a judge bring to the table?

@ronv

What is the difference in receiving federal money. .... EIC is federal money,. SSI is federal money.

Well other than IEC is a credit against your own money, maybe no difference. What right might we take away with it? Keep in mind we are talking about an EO so there should be existing law on the subject.

 

I'm kind of a privacy nut myself, but it seems to me when you declare yourself under that section and it is validated, there is no difference. I suppose we could make all those people petition a judge for their benefits, but it just seems like more bureaucracy. What is the judge going to do? You or your guardian say there is a problem and a doctor confirms it... What does a judge bring to the table?

There's a big difference IMO between being eligible for a government benefit due to a medial condition and having government limit your civil/legal rights and release medical information to the public in the form of a crime database in order to get that benefit without proper due process.

From proposed SS rule:

The NIAA requires any Federal department or agency that conducts proceedings to adjudicate a person as subject to the Federal mental health prohibitor to provide the person with both oral and written notice of several things at the commencement of the adjudication process. (40) Consistent with the NIAA, the oral and written notice we propose to provide would advise the affected individual of the following: (1) The adjudication, when final, will prohibit him or her from purchasing, shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms and ammunition, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4); (2) any person who knowingly violates these restrictions may be imprisoned for up to 10 years or fined up to $250,000, or both; and (3) relief from the Federal firearms prohibitions imposed by 18 U.S.C. 922(d)(4) and (g)(4) as a result of our adjudication is available to the individual.
...
We recognize that, for purposes of reporting an individual to NICS, the “commencement of the adjudication process” differs from the meaning that we would attribute to that phrase in the context of our disability determination process. As we discuss here, for the purpose of these proposed rules, the commencement of the adjudication process refers to the commencement of the process we use to determine whether an individual requires a representative payee, after we have determined the individual to be disabled based on a finding at step three of our sequential evaluation process that the individual's impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listing of Impairments.

 

So if they 'prove' that they themselves are so 'mentally unfit', doesn't that mean they should be also 'mentally unfit' to by a gun?

And surely they are unfit to vote?

 

EIC is a credit against your own money? There are those that pay around income tax and max out on EIC..... that doesn't sound like your own money by any accounting standards.

 

EIC is a credit against your own money? There are those that pay around income tax and max out on EIC..... that doesn't sound like your own money by any accounting standards.

Okay, so lets find something to take away from them.

 

And surely they are unfit to vote?

Most of you aren't getting my meaning, I'm not as articulate as you. Most times people applying for SSI don't get it on the first application, unless there are undeniable circumstances. But if someone fights long and hard enough they usually get something. So if you are declaring yourself mentally unable to work and thus needing SSI, shouldn't that also count toward other things that require mental competency?

 

Most of you aren't getting my meaning, I'm not as articulate as you. Most times people applying for SSI don't get it on the first application, unless there are undeniable circumstances. But if someone fights long and hard enough they usually get something. So if you are declaring yourself mentally unable to work and thus needing SSI, shouldn't that also count toward other things that require mental competency?

You can work and still get SSI for a mental impairment. Think of the people you see collection shopping carts or other similar jobs who appear disabled. What you can't do is "substantial gainful activity" (fully support yourself) and still get full benefits.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10095.pdf

 

Okay, so lets find something to take away from them.

Call your congressman with your suggestions. They would love to hear from you.

I said EIC and SSI were federal money. You identified EIC as the recipents money being paid back. I cited a case where your thinking was incorrect.

There are those that game the system well to maximize their EIC. I've had people that walked because they told me a disqualifying item and they didn't like the fact that I told them they didn't qualify for it. So they left and went to another tax preparer and never mentioned the disqualifying statement.

from IRS.gov
IRS estimates that between 21 percent to 26 percent of EITC claims are paid in error. Some of the errors are unintentional caused by the complexity of the law, but some of the claims are intentional disregard of the law. Here are the questions preparers frequently ask concerning fraud.

In your state there were 567k claims and 1.5 billion paid out. You can figure out about how many fraudulent cases there were and how much money it "cost". Visit the IRS site.
For the 2014 tax year, 27.5 million received about $66.7 billion in EITC during 2015

 

Call your congressman with your suggestions. They would love to hear from you.

I said EIC and SSI were federal money. You identified EIC as the recipents money being paid back. I cited a case where your thinking was incorrect.

There are those that game the system well to maximize their EIC. I've had people that walked because they told me a disqualifying item and they didn't like the fact that I told them they didn't qualify for it. So they left and went to another tax preparer and never mentioned the disqualifying statement.



In your state there were 567k claims and 1.5 billion paid out. You can figure out about how many fraudulent cases there were and how much money it "cost". Visit the IRS site.
For the 2014 tax year, 27.5 million received about $66.7 billion in EITC during 2015

It is simply rule of how much tax you owe at the end of the year. It was all negotiated by congress and no distinction is made wither the value of the line-item in your 1040 packet is owned by the government and they are giving the recipient the money, or if the recipient overpaid his taxes in the first place and the overpayment never should have collected the money. It is simply a rule and anyone with half a brain can follow the rules and calculate how much they should send it or receive back as the bottom line.

If you want to argue which lines are similar to welfare and which are unfair taxes, you'll have to add some more lines to the form to make those calculations and get the congressmen who negotiated budget and the IRS employees who interpreted the budget and converted it into a 1040 form.

In other words, I don't think the analogy of EIC and SSI is worth discussing.

 

The pictures have been posted.
AK74.
Importing them is currently Illegal!

But not because of any gun control law.

 

The lines already exist. After you figure the tax you owe, then some non refundable tax credits reduce your taxes owed, but can not go below zero.

Then you figure out the amount you payed plus the refundable tax credits. that total minus any tax owed, is your return. I've seen many with no taxes owed and little tax paid in, boost their refund to thousands of dollars.... slot in the 5k to 9k range.

Break out the necessary forms and see for yourself. I would not want to deprive you from learning.