Do I pay any state income taxes on a 529 plan withdrawal in another state with no income tax? If I have a 529 plan from a state with an income tax, and I move to a new state without one and my child attends a school in this new state, do i pay any state taxes for withdrawals?

It is cheaper to live in a state with or without property tax? Most states w/out have state income tax...? I'm thinking about relocating. In Washington state, I pay about $4700 per year in property taxes. Of course, we don't pay state income tax in WA. I've noticed that property taxes in states with income taxes are significantly lower (i.e., Denver-metro area $400K home is less than $2000/year). How much am I going to sacrifice in state income tax, though? My family income is around $85K per year in WA. I'm assuming we'll probably receive similar incomes in CO if we decide to move there. Bostonia is right... I phrased my question incorrectly. All states have property taxes; I'm talking about states with high v. low property taxes. Thanks! By the way, our sales tax is 8.9%

How do states without income tax get their revenue? CA and NY have state income taxes to the tune of 9+% along with very high sales and property taxes. How do states like Texas, Florida make up for this revenue shortfall? Both these states have equally dense population(almost).

should i rent or buy in austin, tx? Is it worth it to buy a home (condo) as a graduate student? I've just been accepted into a PhD. program in Austin. The average time for completion is 5.5 years. Instead of moving from place to place I'm thinking of purchasing a condo there in the $75-85k range. I'm 21 and graduating with my B.S. this May. I have no student loans. I own my car. I've paid the most of my tuition + rent + insurance + CC+ my car without parental help. I pay for my CC in full always. I also have $4k in Roth. My acceptance into the program includes tuition waived, free health and dental insurance, one year of Roth IRA paid and a $2500 "signing bonus." Most importantly, it guarantees an annual $24,500. There is no state income tax in Texas. However, I cannot work under the school's contract. Many grad students buy their own apartments. In the same building, rent for a 1BR/1BA is ~$500-700 and many of the grad students there I've spoken with have mortgages in the $700-800 range.

What do you say now undocumented immigrants really do pay taxes here proof now what you got to say ? Illegal immigrants are pouring into tax-preparation offices and nonprofit agencies across Massachusetts and the nation to file state and federal income taxes, taking a step that some might deem unthinkable: giving their name, address, and financial information to the government.In Massachusetts, taxpayers here illegally are lining up from Chelsea to the Berkshires, despite the fear of deportation that is permeating the state after a massive raid in New Bedford last year and smaller raids in Boston-area cities and towns. While typical American taxpayers are wary of the Internal Revenue Service, illegal immigrants see the IRS as a friendly agency that could help in their quest for legal residency. "It's catching on that this is one of the things that you do" as a resident of the United States, said Corinn Williams, executive director of the Community Economic Development Center in New Bedford, which is getting 10 calls a day, double the number it got a year ago, from immigrants who want help filing taxes. "If you're making a case that you want to stay here, without a doubt that's one of the things that the judge is going to look at."http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/17/more_illegal_immigrants_are_rushing_to_file_taxes/

Can one claim both State Sales and Income Taxes in One Year on Form 1040? For a part year resident in a state like Texas without income tax, can one claim a sales tax refund for the time one is a resident in this state while one claims state income tax refund for the balance of the year in a state like Minnesota with state income tax?

State income tax question. I lived in three states in 2006...? I lived in three states in 2006 (one without state income tax), can tax filing software handle this situation? I lived in one state for three months (my "home" state) and my work promoted me to a position in another state. This second state did not have a state income tax. I was here for six months and had my vehicle registered in this state and my driver license and voter registration in that state. We were not happy there, so we moved again and spent the last three months of 2006 in a third state, where we are currently living. My taxes are otherwise straightforward (I am not a homeowner). Is tax filing software programed to sort out these types of issues? Does anyone know if I will need to pay state income tax in my current state (IL) on my wages from the previous two states? I did not have state income tax withheld for six months of 2006 while in the state without state income taxes.

As an expat living abroad, can I change my state residency to a no-income tax state to reduce my taxes? I last lived in a state with income taxes, so I've been filing income taxes there. But it occurred to me that since I live and earn income entirely in another country, why shouldn't I be able to change my state of residence to a state without income taxes? Thanks in advance.

Can a person owe federal or state income tax without having a tax lien against them? Can a person owe federal or state income tax without having a tax lien against them?

Please Help! Income Tax Question? I want to get the most money from my check without having to PAY in to federal or state taxes at the end of the year. Is there a trick to find out how many dependents I can claim to do so? I am claiming 0 atm and lose about 19% of my check to taxes.

W-4/ withholding question? I am a student who is going to work this summer, part time for 4 months. I am estimating that my federal tax will be less than $1000. (Because of the standard deduction and personal exemption). Can I choose to withhold nothing on my W-4s without incurring a penalty? Also I am a resident of Oregon which has a state income tax. If I chose to withhold none (or very little) would I be subject to an underwithholding penalty even though I wouldn't be subject to a federal penalty (because tax was lower than $1000)

Do I have to pay non-resident personal income tax in multiple states? In addition to working in my office 25 weeks a year, I travel 25 weeks a year to a dozen other states (spending as few as 4 days in some states to as many as 28 in one). Do I incur state income taxes for those states? Is there a chart showing the maximum number of days I can work in other states as a nonresident without incurring a tax liability or having to file a return?

State Taxes: How to Handle Part-Year Returns in 2 States? I have a state income tax question about part-year returns when living in two different states. I was employed by the same employer throughout the year, however, I was lucky enough to get on to a work-at-home program, so I started working from home and moved back to PA. So, from 1/1/08 - 5/14/08, I live in Virginia and 5/15/08 to 12/31/08 I lived in PA -- I recently finished the state income tax return for part year, but realized that I never changed my withdrawing status from my employer. So, my state tax was being withheld as VA resident for the entire year. I changed it for the start of 2009. Now, when I finished the returns, i'm getting a hefty refund from VA and need to pay a decent amount to PA. I am curious if my liability for tax based on where I lived had anything to do with my how my employer withheld taxes. That is, would it look 'fishy' if i'm to get 60-65% refund of my VA state taxes paid and then pay PA almost $1800 without ever filing with my employer that I moved to PA. (Well, I did change my address with HR, but not my tax information). Any input is appreciated. I don't want to file until i'm certain this is acceptable. I'm curious that, really, how do they determine if i'm truthful about my move dates and where i'm living, etc. If it helps, my drivers license was and has always been from PA. I moved to VA back in 2005 and never changed it -- I know, that's not good, but I always figured my residence in VA was temporary. I guess it took ~ 3 years to get back to PA, heh. Thanks. In reply to ernesthinton: Would you mind pointing me to information regarding the 6 months? I noticed VA has it that if you were a resident of VA for more then 183 days, then you're considered a full resident for tax purposes, but I could not find an equivalent definition in PA. In the instruction booklet for PA form 40, it states that you are a part-year resident if you moved into or out of PA during the year, and that's all it says, nothing about specific amount of time spent in/out of PA. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to get my facts straight. Thank you.

How does the State of Tennessee support their budget without a state income tax?

Please tell me if I am calculating what I will owe in self employment taxes correctly. I work as a secretary.? I work for a real estate agent, and receive $8 dollars and hour, for forty hours a week. She said she will give me a 10-99 at the end of the year. I hope to be gone long before then. I am holding back roughly 15% of my income. I came up with this calculation by an article on a website that had a formula. I will cut and paste the formula. Please tell me if this is correct because I don't want to owe a tremendous amount of taxes at the end of the year. The state I live in does not have a state tax. Also, am I eligible to claim the mileage of driving to and from work. I don't go anywhere once at work though. Or will I just pay 15% or more without having any deductions? I am married and my husband is not working. We don't have any children. I don't want to sound stupid, but I want ot make sure I have all the taxes covered. Am I forgetting to pay federal? Or is the 15% I pull back each week from my pay only going for medicare? Almost forgot!!! Here is the formula I used. Instructions STEP 1: Figure out your net income from self-employment. Net income is typically your total business receipts minus your total business deductions. STEP 2: Multiply your net income from self-employment by 0.9235 (or 92.35 percent). Your answer is called your "net earnings" from self-employment. If this number is less than $400, you don't have to pay self-employment tax. STEP 3: Multiply the amount of your net earnings that is $76,200 or less by 0.153 (or 15.3 percent), and multiply any net earnings over $76,200 by 0.029 (or 2.9 percent). Add your two answers together. This is your self-employment tax. STEP 4: Report your self-employment tax on Schedule SE of the 1040. Tips & Warnings You can deduct half of your self-employment tax in determining your adjusted gross income. Do this in the Adjustments section of the 1040.

I made 19,800.00 last year. I am single without children, why do I owe taxes? I just finished school last year and my net pay was 16,468.55. That is a barely-get-by-living-paycheck-to-paycheck income. Why would I owe both federal and state taxes? I have to pay for rent, bills, car, insurance, and student loans!! Please help me explain, or was the tax return estimation incorrect. I haven't filed yet but I put my information into one of those calculators and that's what they said.... Sincerely, A Poor College Student in need of any type of tax return....

Can I cash my state income tax check without my husband present? My husband is in jail and the check has both our names on it. My bank account is only in my name. Will my bank deposit it anyway or can I cash it if I show his ID?

i am a Fla. resident,love hunting,own a Pa. home,any hassles to buy a shotgun in Pa. since i am not a resident even though i own a home ..pay ALL the taxes too!--i can't claim residency in two states,so i chose Fla. whe i also own a small home-reason?..no state income tax. Would there be any trouble buying a shotgun for hunting in Pa.? In Fla i hunt with a rifle,not registered..lol..in Fla...you got the $$$..it's yours!.. I have NO criminal record..worst brush with the law..a parking ticket. Could i buy a shotgun in Pa. without major hassles and/or paperwork? thanx al :)

No taxation without representation? What do I get for my federal taxes? Our public schools are failing, Social Security is insolvent, Medicare & Medicaid are run by a corrupt government that uses taxpayer money to overpay the corporations that run it. Our military is in shambles, our economy is on the brink of complete collapse and all our leaders can think of to do in order to solve the problem is to use our tax dollars to bail out the mistakes of corporations while Americans end up homeless and broke. And stuck with the bill. Do people understand how much money we have spent in Iraq? Seriously really, get a grip and really GET how much money has gone down the hole? THREE TRILLION DOLLARS!!! $3,000,000,000,000 / 300,000,000 = $10,000/ea Each American is in for 10k ontop of the state income tax burden. What did our forefathers do, when faced with this kind of bogus farce of representation, when bullied into paying for something they don't even want or need? I love my country but hate the greedy bastards running it.

Federal or state income taxes, legal, fail, and just? How do you folk feel about a flat 10% tax across the board, without any exceptions, period?

Which states have no income tax? How can these states provide programs without monies?

If elected will Romney fine and deny tax credits to those without health care insurance ? That's what he did in Massachusetts. The health reform law, signed by former governor Mitt Romney in April 2006, states that the penalty for 2007 would be the loss of an individual's personal income tax exemption. This will cost residents who didn't get coverage $219 when they file their 2007 state income tax return. http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2008/01/01/penalties_to_rise_for_shunning_insurance/ DaisyCake...no mis-quote, read the article...what about retirees who saved their whole lives and are now victimized by this law

Can someone without income verification get a mortgage loan? I want to refinance but I know a few months ago I was declined even though I have good credit, because the banks had changed the rules so that you can't go stated income and by provided my tax returns it showed my income too low (due to tax right-offs since I'm self employed however I've never been late with any payment and make good money). So, are those restrictions still in place?

What is New York State Income Tax Rate For Capital Gains? I did my own taxes for the first time this year. Using tax software, I plugged in what my refund would be if I had no stock sales in 2006. BTW, my tax bracket is 15% and I'm in New York. Without Capital Gains: Federal Refund : $400 and State Refund : $1460 Capital Gains of only $4416. Federal : $260 (I owe) and State Refund : $1037 According to an online Capital Gains calculator I used, my Federal tax should be $662 (which explains why my refund went from $400 to minus $260). What I can't understand is why my State refund dropped so drastically.

Employer state id missing from w2? Hi I work for NJ based consulting company. In 2008 I worked whole year in VA but when I got W2 its has two states in it One is VA and another one is NJ. NJ has employer state id with state wages BUT no state income tax VA don’t have employer state id but HAVE state wages and state income tax. My questions are 1)Can I file VA tax without employer state id. 2)There is $ 4000 difference in VA and NJ state wages (W2 column number 16) but W2 column number reflect VA wages only why? 3)How can I proceed to file my taxes? Sorry if its very basic question for Gurus.

If my corp. is in NV and I want to pay an employee who lives in GA, do we both pay taxes in both states? I have heard that my out-of-Nevada employee would have to pay state income tax to both Nevada and Georgia if they earned a regular paycheck. Is that true? Is there a way to just pay the Georgia tax without filing a lot of paperwork?

How is the IRS Income Tax Unconstitutional when the 16th Amendment states it could? AMENDMENT XVIPassed by Congress July 2, 1909. Ratified February 3, 1913. Note: Article I, section 9, of the Constitution was modified by amendment 16. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. http://www.whitehouse.gov/kids/constitution/amendments11-27.html#16

State Income Tax and/or State Sales Tax? How can states that don't have either an income tax or sales tax generate revenue/funds to provide services for its citizens? How do states find other ways to generate revenue/funds to provide services without an income tax or sales tax?

Doesnt our government, now infected with the Pelosi/reid regime have enough taxes without wanting more? Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax, Fuel permit tax Gasoline Tax (42 cents + per gallon) Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Interest expense Inventory tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top oftax) Liquor Tax Luxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service charge tax Social Security Tax Road usage taxes Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone federal excise tax Telephone federal universal service fee tax Telephone federal, state and local surcharge taxes Telephone minimum usage surcharge tax Telephone recurring and non-recurring charges tax Telephone state and local tax Telephone usage charge tax Utility Tax Local to Fed. Isnt it enough? This is only a partial list. None of these taxes existed a hundred years ago. We, at that time, were the most prosperous nation on earth. It's obvious where the liberal welfare and tax and spend schemes have taken us. Look no farther than cut and run and the massive massive pork attached by Ms. Pelosi to protecting our soliders. Simple question here really: When is enough enough, and how can we get the liberal extremists to wake up? I suppose even god loves a liberal for some reason, I just cant figure out why? Let's get it right people OK? John Edwards, pre flip flop, Hillary and other extremists VOTED FOR IRAQ, so its not Bushs war. Next, the only thing Clinton did was to take unjustified credit for the Reagan tax cuts and welfare reform(after four successive vetoes) from the Contract With America. What we "got" from Clinton was an indicted and impeached president and white house character to an all time low. Character is not built through poltical correctness, polls and confiscatory taxes. The pelosi/reid regime, through cut and run should show you that. I think it was said along time ago best, those who dont lean from history are condemned to repeat it. Obvouisly the liberals here are vieing to be first in line. Yes, Im well aware taxes pay for things. The problem is. DO WE REALLY NEED GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN ALL THE THINGS THEY PAY FOR??? THE SOLUTION WAS SELF REALIANCE LONG AGO, WHY NOT NOW???

Is it right that kids under the age of 18 pay income tax? Anybody that had a job when they iwere n highschool had to pay federal, and in most states, state income tax, yet they cannot vote until they are 18. Is that not taxation without representation? Claiming a student exemption gives you a huge rebate, but you do not get it all back. Wouldn't we be better off letting the kids keep that money to save for their future education instead of giving it to the government to waste? I am not saying let kids vote, we should not tax them. Perhaps, forcing them to put it into somekind of investment account instead.

How do states like New Hampshire, Texas, North Dakota, and Wyoming survive without income taxes? Texas has created the most jobs. North Dakota, South Dakota, and New Hampshire have the lowest unemployment rates. Wyoming, North Dakota, Texas and New Hampshire have the lowest debt per. So its working for the both big and small states. In contrast NY and RI have income taxes and they high debt and high unemployment so what gives? Could the federal government do it as well?

How do I file state taxes if married living & working in different states? My husband and I got married in May 2006, he is active military and has Iowa residency, I held a job& residency in IL and FL, I was able to file our federal taxes no problem. But with our state taxes I'm lost. How do I file for each state without having my IL & FL income count on his Iowa return and vice versa, what forms do I fill out....HELP, I don't want to get audited after our first year of marriage!! Thanks to anyone who helps! :)

Why are all of the great jobs in state with an income tax like CA, but are scarce in states without like AL?

Trouble with WI state income tax return refund.? I did my taxes on Jan. 27th and they were accepted by the IRS the next day. This morning I received confirmation that my Federal check would be mailed out 2-13-09. However, my WI refund still says in processing. In past years my WI has let me know and most of the time aeven received long before federal about delivery date and whatnot. Right now my WI still says processing. I don't owe any back taxes or child support so I know it is not that. Plus, federal would have told me that anyhow. I didn't make any special claims on my state taxes. This is a simple EZ form without any dependents or anything. WTF is taking so long? The only difference is that I requested a paper check rather than a DD. The less the government knows about my finances the better. Anyhow, now I have checked the site so many times it tells me not to come back for 24 hours. It has never taken me this long to at least hear back from them on a delivery date. Heck, I think I have even received paper returns faster than my time "processing" right now. With everyone needing money right now the state of Wisconsin and the Federal Government are doing a bang-up job of getting money to people quickly and efficiently. Another day and still no return in the mail... not that I was really expecting it at this point. Thank goodness I have money for the things that I need but I have a feeling that some other unfortunate people may not. It is now day 10 and still no response from WI DOR pertaining to arrival time or even if it has been accepted. I have a distinct feeling that I am going to get my federal refund long before the state has even processed my return. When do you guys think I should call DOR and find out wtf is going on?

Is Money earned in one state taxable in another? I lived in a state without state income tax and moved to state which does have state income tax in March of 2006. Is the income from the first state taxable in the second? In other words, do I have to pay tax on money I didn't earn in state?

In what other State in the USA ? 1) In what other State in the USA other than Alaska.....has the Governor ever achieved a Huge Budget Surplus without imposing any State Income Tax or imposing any State Sales Tax like Governor Palin has done ? 2) In what other State in the USA other than Alaska.......Has the Governor ever given a $ 2,000 check to each citizen like Governor Palin has done ? 3) In what other State in the USA other than Alaska......has the Governor ever criminally prosecuted Oil Company Executives and Political Figures from both Political Parties like Governor Palin has done ? 4) In what other State in the USA other than Alaska......has the Governor ever built a 40 Billion Dollar Oil Pipeline using Oil Company Profits ( not citizen tax dollars ) to build the Oil Pipeline like Governor Palin has done ?

How can I compare my current tax exempt salary and benefits to job offers back in the States? I am trying to find out a way to compare my current NET income to what I could potentially NET back home. All of the salary comparison websites do not accurately calculate my tax exemption status and cost of living (lower) here in Germany. My guess is that I'll need to almost double my salary as I'm not paying most taxes here in Germany. Here's some more info about my situation. 1. Income tax exemption - I don't pay US or German income taxes. I'm exempt from both. I'm not paying US state income taxes either. This probably saves me at least 30% every year. 2. Sales taxes - I only pay sales taxes when I eat at a restaurant or shop for groceries on the economy (a german grocery store). I mostly shop at the commissary on base...and they sell everything at cost...you can't get groceries cheaper anywhere else. All other goods (utilities, clothing, cars, electronics, etc) are tax exempt. I prepay for gasoline (current US national average price without sales tax). Any suggestions? I'm not a GS employee (civil servant) or in the military. I work for a private contractor. I file the 2555 with my 1040 every year. My taxable income is just below the allowed amount. I am paying Social Security and Medicare. I also have 3 dependents. My wife also works for a private contractor and is tax exempt. I file EXEMPT on my W4. That way taxes are not taken from my paycheck. That's what we call exempt status here. Call it what you want. We're given a 3 month extension to file for being overseas.

my husband and i live in two different states. i let him claim our daughter and me for income taxes.? he agreed to split the return. i cant get an exact amount from him. how can i find out how much the return is without knowing how much it was and when he will receive it.

Can I move money out of the United States without paying tax? I have money in a bank which I have already paid income tax on. Can I move that money into a foreign bank without having to pay additional tax to the United States? Does it depend on the country I'm moving to? I'm thinking about Australia....

Can credit card companies take your income tax refund(state & city) without notice for unpaid debt? I asked HR Block and they said NOONE can touch your federal return unless you owe student loans,welfare fraud,or child support.But i need to know can they take my state and/or city refund without notifying me first? Thanks in advance for all help in answering my question!

If you had incorrectly paid taxes to the wrong state, how can this be fixed? Upon starting a new job, the employer assumed I had an address that was in Michigan. I didn't realize this mistake for quite some time, and when I did I changed it to be Wisconsin. Now, I find my W2 (of course) shows both states having collected income taxes. I do not want to be penalized for having this incorrect state on my taxes as I never even have lived there, yet if I was to do a "non-resident" form, I will be hit hard with taxes from Michigan. What do I have to do to reclaim the collected taxes from Michigan without doing a tax form that will make me pay as a Michigan resident? My employer has been less than wonderful to deal with as it is a large company and I have since been laid off.

is an owner of a buisness obligated to collect state and federal taxes? if an owner of a buisness sells goods and then pockets the money without paying taxes on the money recieved and not reporting it on their personal income taxes, and as an owner can they pay themselves individually from the company and then not report that money on their personal income taxes would that individual be breaking the law and if so how does one annonymously report that and if not illegal why not?

Filing state tax return with Ohio unemployment? Hi, i collected unemployment in the state of Ohio for part of the year in 2006. I received my 1099G form from unemployment. (the equivilent of a W2 form) This lists my federal income tax withheld on it, but i dont see anywhere on it anything about state tax withheld. Does Ohios unemployment system hold out state tax on your unemployment check? I was able to fill out my federal return with no problem, but without knowing how much i paid in state tax (if any) im kinda lost on the state return. Im worried now that they didnt take any state tax out and im gonna have to pay it all now. Has anyone here collected unemployment recently? If so how do you work this in on your state return?

State payer number Form 1099-R? I have a form 1099-R that has the state WI in box 11 (as is supposed to be there), but no payer's state number (for American Funds) but H&R Block won't let me input it without the payer's state number. If the state income tax withheld is 0, do I have to put anything and if I do how do I find the payer's state number?

If I live in NY only 6 months of the year do I report only 6 months income from my partnership LLC? Since I moved to a state without state income tax I still need to file for the 6 months I was living in NY. On form 1065 K1 that I file w/ the federal it has my yearly income but with the NY state partnership form how much do I put as my income since it was only 6 months and it wont match the K1 forms numbers.

Can I file my income tax without my state ID? I live in NYC and I have an expired ID card, can I still file my income tax at a tax preparation place? Thanks

Can I live in one state and claim residence in another? I live in a state that has income tax. Can I change residence to another state without income tax and still maintain a home in my current state?

Why do celebrities and some Rich people live in California or Vermont? I mean, why not live in Florida or Delaware, both states without any state income tax. California tax can be as high as 9-10% I can see some tech induestries and actors living there, but the majority of rich people, why not moved and pay NOT state income tax?

If Federal and State taxes were eliminated in the U.S., how would the country support itself? I know that income tax did not exist until the early 20th century, and without taxing all the goods we buy, how would the U.S. support itself? Where would our revenue come from? People are always claiming that the IRS and all taxes are illegal, so I need to know what we would do without taxes to support our country.

Why do states have sales taxes? The sales tax gives the poor an incentive to work harder. There are more poor people, so to have them pay their fair share, they have to pay a higher percentage. The sales tax is relatively easy for the state and local governments to collect. If the rich pay most of the income taxes in America, then the poor can pay the sales tax. Which combination, if any should exist even, is correct ? States without sales taxes tend to have the lowest average incomes.

How can I improve my leads in real estate without expensive advertising? I am fairly new iin this real estate game and my capital is limited. I Need new leads and any advise is welcome. I live in an area where prices are cheeper than most and we do not have a state income tax.

How to calculate federal adjusted gross income without 1040ez form in front of me? I e-filed federal a month ago and got my return already but how do I figure out federal adjusted gross income to file state taxes?

In CA, state income tax reduced for 10 year old violation.? When my friend asked for proof of violation she was told it would cost $20 per record. Is this true? They can withhold money without providing proof. How does she know it wasn't just a mix up. Is there any free way to dispute this?

How do I file my VA state taxes if my husband is a Marine and a residence of TN. I had to have VA state? licenses before my job would hire me. TN does not pay state taxes. On our federal we were told to file jointly. Now how do I file my state without including my husbands income that wasn't taxed by VA?

What does the State of Ohio consider as "Resdincy" when moving into the state (for tax purpose)? I'm moving back to Ohio from a state withOUT state income tax... not only will i go down in pay b/c of cost of living but I will also have to pay what seems like 20 lines of taxes to the state, city, county, school, your mother and her neighbor... B/c I will be a partial resident when filing next year, what does the State of Ohio consider as residency? If you found info on the state's government website, please link. Thanks!!

Any California income tax experts out there. I have some questions regarding deductions on income tax returns? On your federal and state income tax if you have your employer take out money for short term disability insurance and long term disability insurance (this is in addition to what your employer offers), are these 2 deductible? Also, on a cafeteria plan, I know that the money comes out pre-taxed, but is there any part of that money that you can claim or deduct on your taxes? My brother has this through his work and this is the first year he is filing single, legally separated. He tried Turbo Tax without putting in the long & short term insurances as well as nothing for the medical expenses since he is on this cafeteria plan. Just wondering if these are deductible before I take all his paperwork to the tax guy tomorrow (and shell out $200) to see if they can come up with something as right now it's saying he owes bucks which he doesn't have. Thanks so much all you tax savvy individuals!! :o) Forgot to add, he has the long & short term disability insurance as well as money for dental & medical premiums all taken out as section 125. Is any of this deductible or is he totally screwed? Thanks again! Oops, didn't finish my sentence....doesn't have the money. Unfortunately, he doesn't even have the money to make payment plans thanks to the blood-sucking vampira he's legally separated from and his own attorney. Oh well, thanks for answering my question, this clears it up. I've never used a cafeteria plan with any employer so I wasn't too familiar with it other than I knew it was pre-tax. Thanks again!

Can I cash a check made out to me and my husband after we both endorsed it, but without him being present? It's our state income tax refund but my husband is in the Navy & will be out to sea for a while. He endorsed the check for me yesterday, but there was a problem cashing it at Walmart (reason #3 whatever that is) and so I want to try going to the check cashing place by my house because we don't have a joint account and both of our individual banks are not near the house. So would I be able to cash it? I have my military ID with both our names on it.

I have a 401K that is vested. I plan to go to India and cash it. How to do without paying much penalty and tax I have a 401K that is vested for around 100000 US$ and I am allowed to take it after I leave the employer. I do plan to go back to India. Is it possible to take 15,000 $ per year and avoid paying federal and state taxes ( Since Iam out of country and not a resident + it falls with less income per annum). Is there a penalty that I have to pay while taking money out. I will have closed all my bank accounts except this IRA/401K account and so how would I pay the penalty and any taxes that might occur. Please advice.

real state taxes? What is the law number, that allows you to sell a property and buy a more expensive one, without paying income taxes?

Biz income for quarter, was $12,742.16, including 8.25 % tax added. What is the amount taxed formula? Quick books has wrong figures for my income and taxes I owe. Invoices to customers included 8.25% state tax added to my charges. My total collected and deposited for the quarter was $12,747.16. Is there a way to figure out what my base income was before the 8.25% was added in without going through scores of individual invoices and payments?

Filed 2006 Return, Accepted, but forgot W2? I filed my federal and state income taxes on 1/30, and my return was accepted by both agencies. However, today, 2/1 I received an additional W2. I had completely forgotten I worked for this company and it was brief and the beginning of last year. The difference is about $200 in their favor on each return. I know I have to file a 1040X, but my return was scheduled to be direct deposited next Friday. Is there any chance they still would, and I just send back the difference? Can I call them to try and get them to release the approval so I can put the new w2 info in, or will they adjust it automatically without a huge wait? This was an honest mistake and I am so sorry, I just had made some arrangements to pay bills with the refund and hope it will work out. Does anyone have a similar experience?

I am getting my first paycheck as an independent contractor.What should I do about fed income tax withholding? I am in Calfornia and am working in a Calif. company. I ask because I am not considered an employee of that co., but am an independent contractor (e.g. doing free lance work). Since I am not an employee, the employer will issue me a check without withholding anything for state or fed income tax. What kind of withholding do I need to do for fed. income tax? Which form(s) should I use? Thanks.

Tax Extension Question? ok...so i am a total procrastinator!!! here it is April 16th and i didn't file my state income taxes. i filed my federal taxes but not my state. my question is, is it too late to file for an extension, or do i even need to since i should be getting a refund instead of owing money? and what if it is not necessary to file for an extension? do i just file my state taxes as soon as possible without penalty? i am so confused!!! PLEASE HELP!! another problem i have is that my husbands W2 does not have any state tax information on it. the box is blank. and the box that is supposed to be the employer's state ID no. is blank also. i know he paid state taxes but i dont know where to find this information.

recieved my income tax in march never recieved my state check how do i find it? is it possible the person who did my taxes could have had my state check sent to her account without me knowing how can i track it down

Could the United States benifit from a simplified US Tax Law for everyone? We have about 200 publications, equal to that in forms, and spend billions of mailing, recordkeeping, storage, and the endless sorting out of mistakes when they happen every year Americans complete their United States Tax Returns. How do you think we could simplify the tax code without abolishing it for defense purposes and protecting our citizens and those who are TRULY disabled and in need of long-term care? What about a flat rate percentage of tax paid yearly on income set at 20% with no forms to fill out and just an electronic recordkeeping system where your taxes were paid through withholding from income received before you get it? My thoughts on this matter will appear in my group theUSvotingBooth in Yahoo later this week. I will not accept terroristic or agressive responses on this topic. If you have a remark that is agressive or deciminates violent remarks it will be dealt with. Civil community responses are highly recommended and welcome. Presently, the United States Government spends billions on sending the over 200+ publications, and 300+ forms to the 200 million or so taxpayers the US says are filing returns regularly. If we used a simpler tax code having everyone pay a flat 20% rage regardless of income and had it withhold every year eliminating those forms, and pubs, and the volumes of confusing laws that go with it then I think it would save is billions. We could then cut costs by reducing the work force necessary to explain all of those laws and put more to work helping increase the work foce and maybe give our country new knowledge and other capabilities. What do you think? No terroristic remarks please - I know taxes are a touchy subject, but let's remain calm, civil citizens.

Can low-income parents open educational saving accounts without jeopardizing state aid? Finanically my sister's family in Missouri is considered low-income, which qualifies her 3 young kids for state-fund health coverage. She would like to open educational saving accounts for the kids and can afford to put in $100/kid/month, plus cash gift from relatives. My question is will her kids' health coverage be jeopardized if the state is aware that she has saving accounts and disqualify her low-income status? Are children's educational saving accounts added to parents' total income tax or are they separate? Also, would it be possible for me (CA resident) to open up these accounts? What are the current tax-free educational saving plans offered by the Fed and Missouri state?

Why Illegal Aliens MUST Be Licensed to Drive!? Why Illegal Aliens MUST Be Licensed to Drive! Democrat politicians in California have attempted on several occasions to grant driving privileges to illegal aliens.....aka, undocumented Democrats. Their argument goes something like this: Illegal aliens are 'good-hearted, hard-working' folk----even George Bush says so--- who are very concerned about breaking California law by driving without a license and insurance. Put that in perspective: California has about six million miscreants who have invaded America by crossing our borders illegally, and who have ignored all US immigration laws. These criminals access public services to which they are not entitled, evade both federal and state income taxes, and have overcrowded California's penal system to the point where authorities are unable to effectively deal with the US citizen inmate population. They have also bankrupted several hospitals in the state by demanding medical care that hospitals are obligated to provide regardless of ability to pay. Yet, dimwit liberals want California voters to believe that illegal aliens simply want to do what's right in order to comply with the law? Has human history ever recorded a more illogical, stupid argument? Well, just one: The morons who want to license illegals are the same fools who vehemently oppose laws that would require positive identification at the voting polls. So if California Democrats had their way, illegal aliens would be licensed to drive to the polls and would vote uncontested....for Democrats, of course! To those illegals genuinely concerned about following the law, my suggestion is this: Head south, do not look back, do not come back, and do not write..... even if you are able to! Comprehende~?

Why do YOU think that Illegals do not pay taxes? I don't wish to offend but I do wish to inform ..... There is no TAX Free money in regards to the majority of the illegals.... unless they work in cash paying jobs ... like construction for example... Lots of people hide in the construction business for that very reason..... illegals are just working in construction. We have American dead beat dads who work in it too so they get easy money under the table as we call it so as not to pay child support. Most industries pay with payroll checks. If an illegal works in an industry that does pay with payroll checks then the appropriate federal, and state taxes are removed. I recently did a spot check on payroll checks from the main industry in my town from 4 different illegal pay stubs..... 2 from poultry and 2 from restaurants. I did an estimate based on those 4 pay stubs in regards to the shifts worked at each one of those industries. I had an estimate of State taxes paid in to my state of $64,000.00. I did not figure up the Federal Taxes but you best believe that they have been raking it in also. Please keep in mind that the county that I live in is not ranked among the largest in my state. I would love to be able to do a State wide survey, but the problem is getting people to trust you not to use their information against them. You may be surprised to also be informed that at least 2 of these people had, health insurance for which they paid for & utilized, they also had an additional voluntary $5.00 taken out each week as a donation for United Way Fund. I did no guesstimates on those donations, but just these 2 people alone donate a solid figure of $520.00 @ year which has to be noted as community service. IT WAS A REAL EYE OPENER TO ME. Please understand that the illegal does not file federal income taxes.... he does fall in a low income category and would be eligible to receive most of his tax money paid in as refunds... now do you really think that our government wants to make them legal so they have to give that money back ..... NO, of course not. The fence is going to be a joke. Who cares build the fence. The American public has clamored that they wish for this atrocity to be built. Then once all those billions of dollars are sunk into the building of this shameful wall......there will be no money for mass deportations...You seed this is why the government is building this wall... We all know that it will not serve the purpose for which it is built....They didn't even build a levy that could protect New Orleans..... the illegals crossing are just as unpredictable.....Build the fence so they will be able to say later well we don't have the money now for deportations.......Also you will see discounts on ladders on the other side of the border. You just need a ladder to safely scale the wall without a scratch. .THE POLITICIANS DO NOT WANT TO SEND THE ILLEGAL BACK

Can a US citizen work without SSN? My son (16 years old) wants to enter the work force and does NOT want to have anything to do with the Social Security System. He is very socially astute and feels that SS contributions are a poor investment and he would see little or no return as the system gradually goes bankrupt over the next 50 years. Back when I was a young and naive new father, he was automatically issued an SSN when he was born along with a bunch of other hospital papers. He knows that Social Security is a voluntary program and he was illegally entered into the program since he was underage and could not give his authorization to be a member. How does he rescind his SSN and how can he be employed without an SSN? He has no issue paying State and Federal income taxes. Can he be employed with a TIN?

Is this True ? ......No Tax...on Wages ? American Citizen's, living and working in the 50 states have no liability to pay federal income taxes and no liability to pay state income taxes, since the Constitution of the United States of America clearly does not allow for a DIRECT, UNAPPORTIONED TAX on Citizen's property or on the fruit of their labors. The recent case in Illinois, United States v. Robert Lawrence highlighted the fraudulent 1040, which does not contain a valid OMB number. The govt asked for the case to be dismissed, because Lawrence's atty intended to expose the fraud and the government was smart enough to realize that this would also expose the Constitutional tort existent because the income tax is a direct unapportioned tax.. The 16th Amendment does not change Constitutional taxation, because it is limited to the word “income”, which is not redefined in this amendment. Here the term “income” means that on which an excise tax can be levied. “Income” does not refer to earnings for work. This was confirmed by at least 8 Supreme Court rulings, and has never been overturned. The 16th Amendment does not repeal the Constitution’s principles of taxation. The 16th Amendment granted Congress no new powers of taxation. This amendment is a statement about excise taxes, and certainly does not allow for a new direct tax on earnings for work. Income is not specifically defined in the IRS Manuals nor is it defined in the IRS Code. Congress did not define it. Income has always been defined by the Courts as to exclude wages. TAX LAW ORIGINS AND AUTHORITY Congress has had power to lay and collect income taxes from the time of the adoption of the Constitution, (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 US 1). This power was subject to the requirement that direct taxes be apportioned among the several states according to population (Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., [N.Y. 1895] 125 S.Ct. 673, 157 US 429). The adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (effective Feb. 25, 1913) giving Congress power to: "Lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration" Evens v. Gore, [Ky 1920] 40 S.Ct. 550, 253 U.S. 245, Kasey v. C.I.R., [C.A. 91972] 457 F2d 369, Cert. denied 93 S.Ct. 197, 409 U.S. 869 It did not limit or expand the power of Congress to tax under the constitutional provisions authorizing Congress to lay and collect taxes but instead merely provided for taxation of income without apportionment (Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., [N.Y. 1916] 36 S.Ct. 236, 240 U.S. 1, 60 L.Ed. 493; Simmons v. U.S., [CA Md 1962] 308 F2d 160). The Brushaber court ruled that the 16th Amendment separated the source (capital) from the income (profit) permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income, but leaving the source (wages, salary, compensation, fees for service, first time commissions and capital) untouched and free of tax. If these things were to be taxed, it could only be construed as a direct tax, unquestionably in violation of the Constitution, making the entire tax in income void. There still remains the question as to what is constitutionally allowable as "income" which can be taxed, as Congress is not constitutionally free to define "income" in any way it chooses (Simpson v. U.S., [D.C. Iowa 1976] 423 F.Supp. 720, reversed on other grounds, Prescott v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, [C.A.] 561 F2d 1287). Further, the labels used do not determine the extent of the taxing power (Simmons v. U.S., [C.A. Md. 1962] 308 F2d 160; Richardson v. U.S., [C.A. Mich. 1961] 294 F2d 593, cert. denied 82 S.Ct. 640, 360 U.S. 802, 7 L.Ed.2d. 549). To reiterate; the tax authorized under the original U.S. Constitution has not changed except as to separate the source of "income" from the income itself permitting the collection of an indirect (excise) tax on income by leaving the source (wages, salaries, fees for service, and first time commissions) free of tax (Brushaber, supra.) despite how some politicians interpret the 16th Amendment. NOTE: The Brushaber court referred to an earlier case, Pollock v. Farmers Loan and Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 [1895] which declared the Income Tax Act of 1894 unconstitutional, as it's effect would have been to leave the burden of the tax to be born by professions, trades, employments, or vocations; and in that way, what was intended as a tax on capital would remain, in substance, a tax on occupations and labor. This result, the court held, could NOT have been contemplated by Congress. Since the general term: "income" is not defined in the Internal Revenue Code, (U.S. v. Ballard, [1976] 535 F2d 400) and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Congress may not, by any definition it may adopt, conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives it's power to legislate, and within whose limitations alone, that power can be lawfully exercised (Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 1889). Since the Rules contained in the I.R.S. Manual, even if codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, do not have the force and effect of law (U.S. v. Horne, [C.A. Me. 1983] 714 F2d 206) and the power to promulgate regulations does not include the power to broaden or narrow the meaning of statutory provisions beyond what Congress intended (Abbot, Procter & Paine v. U.S., [1965] 344 F2d 333, 170 Cl.Ct. 408) and regulations cannot do what Congress itself is without power to do; they must conform to the Constitution (C.I.R. v. Van Vorst, [C.C.A. 1932] 59 F2d 677). Since the ultimate Appellate Court is the U.S. Supreme Court, we must look to that Court for a definite answer on the question of conformance and affirmation that Wages are not classified as income which can be taxed. The Court has recognized that: "... It becomes essential to distinguish between what is, and what is not `income' ..." Eisner v. Macomber, [1920] 252 U.S. 189 and determined that: "... `income' as used in the statute should be given a meaning so as not to include everything that comes in, the true function of the words `gains' and `profits' is to limit the meaning of the word `income'" (So. Pacific v. Lowe, 238 F. 847); (U.S. Dist. Ct. S.D. N.Y. 1917); (247 U.S. 30 [1918]) The Court determined that: "... the definition of income approved by the Court is: `The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.'" Eisner, supra. "Income within the meaning of the 16th Amendment and the Revenue Act means, gain ... and in such connection gain means profit ... proceeding from property severed from capital, however invested or employed and coming in, received or drawn by the taxpayer for his separate use, benefit and disposal" Staples v. U.S., 21 F.Supp. 737, (U.S. Dist. Ct. EDPA, 1937) In the case of Lucas v. Earl, [1930] 281 U.S. 111, the U.S. Supreme Court stated unambiguously that: "The claim that salaries, wages and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produced the gain is without support either in the language of the Act or in the decisions of the courts construing it. Not only this, but it is directly opposed to provisions of the Act and to regulations of the U.S. Treasury Dept. which either prescribe or permit that compensation for personal services be not taxed as an entirety and be not returned by the individual performing the services. It is to be noted that by the language of the Act it is not salaries, wages or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gross income. That which is to be included is gains, profits and income DERIVED from salaries, wages or compensation for personal service." [Emphasis added] The Court ruled similarly in Goodrich v. Edwards, [1921] 255 U.S. 527 and in 1969, the Court ruled in Conner v. U.S., 303 F.Supp. 1187, that: "Whatever may constitute income, therefore must have the essential feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber, supra, it was true under sect. 22(a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938, and it is likewise true under sect. 61(a) of the I.R.S. Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income .... Congress has taxed INCOME and not compensation." "... one does not derive income by rendering services and charging for them." Edwards v. Keith, [1916] 231 F. 111 Even at the state level, we find courts following the lead of the U.S. Supreme Court: "There is a clear distinction between profit and wages or compensation for labor. Compensation for labor cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law." Oliver v. Halstead, [1955] 196 Va. 992, 86 S.E.2d 858 and: "Reasonable compensation for labor or services rendered in not profit." Lauderdale Cemetery Assoc. v. Matthews, 345 Pa. 239, 47 A.2d. 277, 280 [1946] Since the above cases are the undisputable law with respect to what is or is not income, we find the word "income" does not mean all monies that come into the possession of an individual, but profit or gain FROM the money one takes in, such as interest, stock dividends, profit from an employee's labors, but not from an individual's wages, which are compensation for his labor. This means that the average person in America, who has no large investments or riches upon which he receives interest, dividends, etc., in excess of the amounts listed above (1992) but merely works for wages, has income insufficient in amount to be required to file a tax return. .

Taxes in TEXAS...? If I live in Texas only part-time of the year but work in a neighboring state where there is a Income Tax (unlike TX). How do I decdie if I need to pay income Taxes?? Does the state where I work has any say in it or is it up to me to declare my domicile in TX. Can I maintain a part-time residence in the state wheer I work without having to pay Income taxes there? P.S. I currently do NOT live in TX....but I am planning on doing so in the future..

Income tax Oregon? Hi Can some one tell me exactly what is taking of your income in Oregon. Let's say your salary is $6000 per month. WIthout 401K and health, how much is taking off when you consider higher income tax in this state? Thank you

Would civilization continue and would the USA even exist if there were no income taxes? The income tax wasn't adopted until 1913 with the ratification of the 16th Amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Before that, the USA somehow managed to grow to be a world power. What if the income tax were repealed and people got to actually keep ALL the money they earned. Would the economy collapse, anarchy reign, civilization be destroyed? Or would things actually get better for most people, except the politicians who have become addicted to our money?

Chicago!!! What kind of life can $80k buy??? Sorry, not to sound like you can actually buy "having a life" :) My husband & I are from the midwest, but are currently living in Houston. We have both been out of college a couple of years and are making an "ok" household income of about $90k. In Houston, without state/local income taxes, that is liveable. We pay $900 for our 2BR 2BA apt. We now plan to make a move to Chicago, a city that better fits our tastes (meaning, there are actually seasons and it's a few hours drive to family). I am also taking the opportunity to make a move into a different industry, which is resulting in us making only about $80k/yr combined. I would be working in Lincoln Park and my husband in the Loop. We are not trendy nightpeople, but are in our mid 20's (no kids) and enjoy coffee shops (w/ wifi) and a good thai restaurant (and yoga for me). We are ok with commuting up to a half an hour (we'd prefer not to use our car). Where and how in Chicago can we afford to live on our meager salary? We've been checking apartment prices using a variety of internet resources. As all of you already know, rental prices are steep. We have to move in less than three weeks and we are feeling a bit overwhelmed trying to sort through all of the neighborhoods. There are so many neighborhoods, but many people focus on Lincoln Park. I would like to hear more about other neighborhoods and suburbs within easy commuting distance. As far as our apartment search goes, Craigslist was great, but it didn't appear to indicate whether any utilities are included. Utilities would make a big difference when looking at some of the rental prices.

Why did Clinton pardon these people.?

And you wonder why undocumented immigrants dont pay taxes? Posted: July 26, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Bob Unruh © 2007 WorldNetDaily.com The Internal Revenue Service has lost a lawyer's challenge in front of a jury to prove a constitutional foundation for the nation's income tax, and the victorious attorney now is setting his sights higher. "I think now people are beginning to realize that this has got to be the largest fraud, backed up by intimidation and extortion and by the sheer force of taking peoples property and hard-earned money without any lawful authorization whatsoever," lawyer Tom Cryer told WND just days after a jury in Louisiana acquitted him of two criminal tax counts. And before you consign him to the legions of "tin foil hat brigades" who argue against paying taxes, and then want payment to explain how to do that, he addresses the issue up front. "These snake oil peddlers have conned millions of dollars out of many well-intended patriots and left a trail of broken lives in their wake. … These charlatans should be avoided, not only because they will lead you to bankruptcy and prison, but because by association they discredit those who are telling the truth," he said. The truth, he said, is where he comes in, with the launch of a new Truth Attack website that is intended to build on his victory, and create a coalition of resources to defeat – ultimately – the income tax in the United States. Although the legal citations in the case tend to run the length of paragraphs, Cryer told WND the underlying issue is not that complicated. Essentially, he argued that income is not necessarily any money that comes to a person, but rather categories such as profit and interest. He said the free exchange of labor for compensation has been upheld as a right by the Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily make the compensation income. If ever such an argument were to be presented widely, Cryer said, the income to the federal government would plummet. But not to worry, he said, the expenses could be reduced equally by eliminating programs, departments and agencies that also have no foundation in the Constitution. "The Founding Fathers intentionally restricted the taxing powers of the new federal government as a measure of restraint on its size. By exceeding that limited taxing authority the federal government has been able to obtain resources beyond its intended reach, and that money has enabled the federal government to exceed its authority," he said. For example, he said, the Constitution does not empower the federal government to regulate education, or employment, and agriculture, yet it does so. The jury in U.S. District Court in Louisiana voted 12-0 to find Cryer, of Shreveport, not guilty of failure to file income taxes for two years. He had been indicted in 2006 on charges of failing to pay $73,000 to the IRS in 2000 and 2001. The next step in his personal case will be up to the IRS and prosecutors, if they choose to continue the issue, he said. But for the rest of the nation, he's working with Save-a-Patriot, the Free Enterprise Society, Live Free Now and his own Lie Free Zone to spread the message of the truth. "There are three points that are important," he told WND. "There's no law making the average working man liable [for income taxes], there's no law or regulation that allows the IRS to contend that earnings are 100 percent profit received in exchange for nothing, and the right to earn a living through any lawful occupation is a constitutionally protected fundamental right, and it is exempt from taxation." Spokesman Robert Marvin in Washington's IRS office told WND the Internal Revenue Code provides for taxation on salaries or wages, but when pressed for a specific citation, or constitutional provision, he said, "I can't comment." Cryer's encounter with tax law began more than a decade ago when a friend told him the income tax was sham. Cryer started researching, hoping to keep his friend out of trouble. But his conclusions, after years of research, were exactly what his friend told him. He researched not only tax laws, but also the documents pertaining to the drafting of the U.S. Constitution as well as the first income tax. He said throughout his battle, he's offered at every turn to pay taxes if the IRS could show him the authorization, and that never has happened. "The Criminal Investigation Division and Department of Justice both responded only with 'your position is frivolous.' I had never stated a position, so how could they know whether it was frivolous?" he said. "Imagine my sending you a bill for $1,000 and when you call me and ask what the bill was for I simply said, 'that position is frivolous, just write the check and send it in.'" His acquittal, he said, was a precedent because it means "people can see and recognize the truth." He said multiple Supreme Court opinions have affirmed an individual's ownership of his or her own labor, and "exercising your fundamental rights" is not taxable. "It is definitely a trade. What most people receive in the form of wages, salaries or in my case fees that they personally earned for their labor is not received in exchange for nothing." He said there might be a profit that should be taxable, but there might not. "The IRS lets Wal-Mart sell a trillion dollars worth of goods, but they can back out their cost of goods [before being taxed,]" he said. "The IRS considers, in the case of a Wal-Mart wage earner, 100 percent of what he takes in is profit." "But he's using his life, energy and work lifespan, and depleting it as he goes," Cryer told WND. "[Working] is a God-given fundamental right that is protected under the Constitution and can't be taxed any more than exercising freedom of speech." While he waits to see what, if anything, the IRS and Justice Department will do next in his case, he's working to coordinate the groups that are battling taxation as unconstitutional. "I have started a campaign to unify [the work] and we've got a number of organizations that are sponsoring and supporting this campaign," he said. The goal is to get everyone "who is aware of the truth" organized so they can spread the word. He warned without a restoration of constitutional basics, the nation is lost. "Read your Constitution and you will see that the federal role does not include ANY authority to regulate or tax any citizen directly and that WE expressly reserved the right to rule and govern ourselves as States, not as mere political subdivisions," his website says. "The Constitution does not allow the government to run your lives, but the money it is stealing from millions of Americans is the fuel for its over-reaching and kibitzing. Take the money back and we and our states and communities can again be free," he said. Long Story short, income tax is unconstitutional, and yet most undocumented immigrants pay taxes

Is an individuals income "personal property" (not taxable) and is the 16th amendment abused by the IRS. The 16th Amendment reads: The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration. The Supreme Court defines "income tax", as an excise tax "imposed with respect to the doing of business in corporate form". With tax on property, gas, sales, heating, communications, cable, auto registration, inheritance, lottery winnings, capitol gains, home sales, home buying and even foreclosure the government is completely over taxing like never before. Question is, if the federal reserve bank is privately owned by anonymous individuals and corperations, why am I sending my money away without there being an accounting of how the tax collected is spent? Isn't this taxation without representation?

Exempt from Federal Taxes....Will I still Recv a Refund for 07? Ok, here is my predicament. I filed exempt on my tax forms like I do every year with 1 exemption thus preventing Federal Taxes from being taken out of my paychecks and ONLY Fica/Med/State taxes being taken out...I am currently a part-time student that works full-time and only 20 yrs old this would be the 1st time I could file taxes without someone else being able to claim me. My gross income for this year was 23,275 and I fall into the 15% tax bracket. Will I still get a refund for 07 or would I owe money?

Does cutting taxes actually mean that money goes back into our pockets? Seriously, doesn't it just 'trickle down' into increased state taxes, local taxes, or deficit? Can't we finally see through this as a nation, and say 'there is no way to spend money, without income'? I can't believe the republicans STILL convince people that they can spend, and not tax. I understand how it is supposed to work, but if you cut funding for schools, and then cut taxes, the schools still need their money, so the state taxes increase, and so on down the line...

Trade promote peace and real properity, state breeds social conflict? Why my question/opinion was erase? The political season brings promises to "bring us together as a community" and "heal the divisions between us." Here is what the political class won't reveal: their laws, programs, restrictions, subsidies — the whole panoply of interventionist measures they love and of which they promise ever more — are the main source of social division. In contrast, markets draw people into peaceful social relationships, and encourage and reward harmonious interaction among people. Free trade, for example, brings polar opposite countries together. Only a few decades ago, we were in an arms race stand off with communist China. Today we trade, extensively bettering each country's people. Trade can lower weapons and grow relationships. It also helps us learn about other cultures and traditions. Many multinational corporations have discovered that without appeasing local tastes their new business ventures will implode. Companies like Coca-Cola in India and Pizza Hut in China must learn about various cultures. We exchange business models and ideas to grow closer together. Trade does not make us all experts in world religions and cultures. However, it does give us a clue and helps build tolerance and appreciation. Chinatowns and other ethnic enclaves don't translate exact culture of those far away places. However, we do get a mere taste of other countries that would be unavailable if our borders were more closed and our participation in world trade far less. This exchange is valuable in promoting peace and understanding in the world. But what does the welfare state do? First of all, the welfare state is supposedly a caring entity. However, this entity does not engage the world but instead only engages its own citizens. The welfare state breeds cultural isolationism. The idea is this: Social Security for us and no one else. The rhetoric of kindness hits a hard wall of hypocrisy here. The welfare state in its nature does not care about the world but "cares" about its own voters and constituents. Social programs run large expenses that cannot long be afforded by any nation. The natural result is for nations to turn against their neighbors and those in need, creating social conflict. Today in the United States, we debate about the great costs imposed on Americans by immigrant consumption of social services. Resentment builds toward what many see as a threat to the system that "provides" us with social security, medicine, and welfare. This growing hatred of immigrants is not something unique to the United States. All across France, as well as many other Western European welfare states, the resentment of all immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, and Turkey boils. The end result of all socialist states will be national socialist perspectives. The "right" to health care, the "right" to social security, and the "right" to welfare become the rights of citizens born and raised, not the outsiders. The social conflict grows. Ron Paul mentioned this point regarding immigration in the June 4th New Hampshire debate: We force our states and our local communities to pay for the healthcare, and pay for the education. Why wouldn't they bring their families? And because of our economic conditions, we do need workers. But if we had a truly free market economy, the illegal immigrants would not be the scapegoats. We would probably need them, and they would be acceptable. But because of economic conditions, they have become the scapegoat. And of course in the last sentence, these economic conditions are the overwhelming burden placed by state expenditures. This discussion reaches far beyond immigration. Today, most animosity between the races does not come from the idea that blacks or Hispanics or whites are inferior. In modern days, most people who resent another race feel the other races are equal. Many ask, "If others are equal, then why are they consuming more welfare services per capita?" Other cultural groups are seen as criminals stealing money from honest taxpayers. The agitation is not toward blacks or Hispanics, but to the welfare queen, the crack pusher, and the disability scammer. I've never heard of anyone being angry because a black man made a lot of money. People aren't angry with Reginald Davis, Atlantic CEO of Wachovia, or Kenneth Chenault, the black CEO of American Express. In fact, the same types of people who in general resent black people for welfare use love these individuals. The social conflict isn't about color anymore. Minority special interest groups and politicians push for further social services. In turn, other groups start to view these minorities as tax-money thieves. The special interest groups indirectly and without intention channel a hatred of redistribution into a hatred of race. Other egalitarian policies have enlarged this problem even more. No single policy has been more destructive to black and white relations than affirmative action. This policy was designed to promote unity and egalitarianism. The result has been a growing animosity between the two groups. Such is the route of the welfare state: hate those who use the system extensively. Weren't these programs supposed to bring us together and bridge the gaps of income and race? The reality is throwing more fuel to the fire of separation and segregation. The welfare state creates resentment among groups who pay and groups who get paid. Some are angry at those who won't give them more money, while the other side doesn't want any more money taken away. Often an entire group will be seen as being on one side of that line. The tension comes from this push and pull, not from color. Anger is not just between races but within races. Whites often resent "trailer trash" who are their own skin tone and from the same genetic background. Karl Marx talked about a class struggle, but this class struggle does not exist naturally in a capitalist society. But as soon as socialism enters, the class struggle is very real. The struggle is between those from whom money is taken and those who receive it. The rich have no reason to dislike or hate the poor. But once you turn the impoverished into a voting block for higher tax rates or more redistribution, a class struggle will ensue. Tensions between groups have always existed. When the Chinese and Irish first arrived, many felt that they were going to steal jobs and destroy the economy. However, time revealed the fallacy of these claims. It is by no mere accident that the most booming areas of this country are in New York City and the West Coast. You cannot hate a race long when they don't do anything to invade your life. The welfare state perpetually increases the costs of immigration. A period of acceptance never comes about as the new immigrants are immediately cradled by the state. There is almost no discrimination left against Asians or the Irish. Is this mere coincidence? Or were they viewed as non-invasive after a few decades of immigration without the state stealing taxes from current residents in order to bribe the arrival of a new voting block? Politicians are more than happy to exploit this state-created class struggle for their own purposes. The Democrats are more than happy to have a constant voting block to which they can promise better social services. Republicans are overjoyed to have citizens who can be lied to about lower taxes time and time again as they run some of the biggest deficits this country has ever seen. Frédéric Bastiat said long ago what still rings true today: "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." These social problems are the battle where every man aims at the tax money of every other man. This is the root of modern animosity, racism, and spite. The only way for us to live together in harmony is through trade and voluntary interactions, which benefit both parties. These programs that supposedly bring us together actually tear us apart. Unity cannot be created artificially through the welfare state. Unity is something that must naturally happen among groups of individuals. To forcefully and coercively attempt to bring unity through the welfare state breeds only hatred and social conflict.

What is the simplest way to pay income tax in India ? This question is in the context of a very simple rental income of Rs. 3,000 /= per month. Income tax is to the state government of central government? Are there forums / organisation which assist a citizen in directly approaching the income tax department, without going through an auditor or accountant and filing the returns? Thanks.

it seems so illogical!?!? it seems so illogical how can it be?.... they put braile on baby changing stations (could be messy to say the least), and drive-through ATMs. we park in driveways and drive in parkways. there are so many people in this world, yet the majority feels alone and abandoned. we have a constitution and a declaration of independence establishing our rights, yet we are not free from our own governments, set to protect us. a government of the people for the people and by the people, but hundreds of laws are passed every day without our knowledge by a select few. a person can blame God for the misery in thier life, yet say they do not believe in a god. ignorance of the law is considered no excuse, yet they do not teach us the laws. in fact, to learn the laws, one must be accepted into law school. we have an internet, available to virtually all of us, and still we have politicians make our choice of president. in the last how many years have we had a president elected from a write-in ballot? Ross Perot, (an oil tycoon), can run for president, on the promise to not even take pay, let alone allow lobbyists to bother him without success. yet two George Bushes, ( not commonly known, father and son oil tycoons,) can be ellected president. the internet is considered a tool, but is more commonly used for entertainment, harrasment, invasion of privacy, and destruction. we have freedom of the press, but the truth is only printed in underground newspapers and magazines and back pages in fine print. we have the right to free speech, yet can be thrown in jail for what we say. we can even be thrown in jail for victimless crimes. there are almost as many laws in this country as there are people. we are taught proper reading and writting in elementary, then taught shorthand in highschool. in schools they tell us that Columbus "discovered America", what of the nomads, vikings, eskimos, and Amerigo Vespucci ( not sure of the spelling)? we are supposed to have separation of church and state, can't pray in school, yet can get credits for attending a mormon church for one hour a day in high school. our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on wars, and rebuilding the countries they destroy, while we have millions of people living below poverty level. we are offered Social Security that is not considered secure. we pay income tax, then sales tax, inheritance tax, road tax, sin tax, (that is correct, SIN tax), fuel tax, state tax, county tax, and even city taxes ( talk about taxation without representation!!!). the rich can keep getting richer, while the poor keep getting suppressed. if the 2000 richest people in the world, along with our governments, surrendered 60% of thier monies to the public, the middle and lower class people could join the upper class on vacations and owning thier own homes and cars, as well as eliminate all debts from the lower through upper classes , (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness). we go to war over oil, when all of our cars could run on our own waste. our governments start wars over pipelines, then claim we are at war with terrorists, (I have lots of info on this subject). how the hell can this be? it just seems so illogical to me!!! are we blind, or just docile, like cattle? well, you tell me. better yet tell a freind!!! oh yeah, let us not forget, we speak english in america, Hmmm!!! please feel free to rate other's answers. ty i think there is something that can be done about it, before it is too late, but so many are shallow, or scared

Can i withdraw my 401K money without any penalties and taxes since i am leaving the country for good? My Work Visa expires in April 2007. So i may have to go back to my country. Is there any way i can save on this 401 K money. I can keep it as it is in 2007 and take it out in 2008. In 2008, i won't have any income in the United States and so whether i will save on taxes for 401K?

income tax return? i'm going to be doing my taxes pretty soon(sometime this week) I worked 2months while still on my military contract and then i recieved unemployment for about 6months. I wasnt informed that i had to ask for taxes to be taken out of my pay so i was being paid without any state or fed taxes being taken. i then worked for 3 more months with a company where everything was regular as far as pay and taxes go. I'm going to be claiming my 6 year old nephew and my grandmother as dependents. will i still get a tax return? i'm sure i'll have to pay back the money that didnt get taken. any idea how much i could get? i havent been working steady i've been working with temp services every since i got out of the military. I joined the guard and got a bonus that was taxed. I probably worked a total of 9months and grossed about 17000 this year from unemployment,temp work,and national guard service,21grand if u cant the bonus. any idea of what 2 expect or things i could clam on my tax form?

it seems soo illogical??? it seems so illogical how can it be?.... they put braile on baby changing stations (could be messy to say the least), and drive-through ATMs. we park in driveways and drive in parkways. there are so many people in this world, yet the majority feels alone and abandoned. we have a constitution and a declaration of independence establishing our rights, yet we are not free from our own governments, set to protect us. a government of the people for the people and by the people, but hundreds of laws are passed every day without our knowledge by a select few. a person can blame God for the misery in thier life, yet say they do not believe in a god. ignorance of the law is considered no excuse, yet they do not teach us the laws. in fact, to learn the laws, one must be accepted into law school. we have an internet, available to virtually all of us, and still we have politicians make our choice of president. in the last how many years have we had a president elected from a write-in ballot? Ross Perot, (an oil tycoon), can run for president, on the promise to not even take pay, let alone allow lobbyists to bother him without success. yet two George Bushes, ( not commonly known, father and son oil tycoons,) can be ellected president. the internet is considered a tool, but is more commonly used for entertainment, harrasment, invasion of privacy, and destruction. we have freedom of the press, but the truth is only printed in underground newspapers and magazines and back pages in fine print. we have the right to free speech, yet can be thrown in jail for what we say. we can even be thrown in jail for victimless crimes. there are almost as many laws in this country as there are people. we are taught proper reading and writting in elementary, then taught shorthand in highschool. in schools they tell us that Columbus "discovered America", what of the nomads, vikings, eskimos, and Amerigo Vespucci ( not sure of the spelling)? we are supposed to have separation of church and state, can't pray in school, yet can get credits for attending a mormon church for one hour a day in high school. our government spends hundreds of billions of dollars on wars, and rebuilding the countries they destroy, while we have millions of people living below poverty level. we are offered Social Security that is not considered secure. we pay income tax, then sales tax, inheritance tax, road tax, sin tax, (that is correct, SIN tax), fuel tax, state tax, county tax, and even city taxes ( talk about taxation without representation!!!). the rich can keep getting richer, while the poor keep getting suppressed. if the 2000 richest people in the world, along with our governments, surrendered 60% of thier monies to the public, the middle and lower class people could join the upper class on vacations and owning thier own homes and cars, as well as eliminate all debts from the lower through upper classes , (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness). we go to war over oil, when all of our cars could run on our own waste. our governments start wars over pipelines, then claim we are at war with terrorists, (I have lots of info on this subject). how the hell can this be? it just seems so illogical to me!!! are we blind, or just docile, like cattle? well, you tell me. better yet tell a freind!!! oh yeah, let us not forget, we speak english in america, Hmmm!!! please rate other's answers. also posted in politics

State : Neither Samaritan Nor Solomon ?? Mises? If you say that government is too big and truly overweening, you elicit a surprising degree of agreement among people, even mainstream columnists, economists, and nearly everyone. Even government employees, who famously resent their bosses, might be quick to agree. If you hang outside the offices of the IRS in Washington, D.C., in the park at noontime where its employees take their lunch, you will get an earful of vitriol against the bureaucracy such as you wouldn't hear outside 1990s militia circles. Incidentally, the government is having a terrible time recruiting employees. Only 16% of college-educated workers say that they are interested in a government job. Among those without a college degree, there is twice the level of interest. Among people currently employed, those with managerial or professional occupations show a low interest level of 17%. Among those who want work to be challenging and enjoyable, only 9% thought a government job qualified. And, interestingly, among those who say they want to make a contribution to society, 90% said that non-government work in the private sector, whether for profit or non-profit, is the way to go. Now, what this means is that the smart set avoids government. Government work might still be attractive to people with fewer economic opportunities, but they are entering it for reasons that are not ideological. And for that reason too, they are less loyal to the public sector and glad to bail out if something else comes available. Most people view this as a very bad trend. I would only say that it is a significant trend, especially considering that in the heyday of government central planning, government sought to attract the best and the brightest. Often it did. Now, one might argue that if government were doing what it should be doing, this would be a good thing. But if government is doing many bad things, it is certainly not a bad trend for it to experience a brain drain. It is always a tragedy to see smart and entrepreneurial men and women be attracted away from productive employment in the private sector toward a position of power in the public sector. It makes us poorer to have the talents drained away from wealth creation toward wealth destruction. As for the very few good people in politics — Ron Paul is the great exception that proves the rule — they are true public servants only insofar as they work to diminish government power rather than increase it. So long as government is large and overweening, we are better off with a public sector that cannot attract the best and brightest. They should stay put where they can continue to expand the range of goods and services offered within the market framework. It is the market that provides us the means necessary to improve our standard of living, and the tools we need to maintain some degree of independence from the state. We often rail against incompetence in government. But before we go too far with this language, we need to consider that competence in government may be a far worse fate. We don't need genuinely competent antitrust enforcers, drug and food regulators, tax collectors, money manipulators, labor-law interventionists, gun grabbers, and environmental police. As H.L. Mencken said, we should be thankful that we don't get all the government we pay for. To be sure, we are paying far more today for government than ever before. Consider the real annual growth rate of total government outlays by presidents. Under Nixon, it was 3%. Under Carter, it was 4.1%. Under Reagan, 2.6%. Under Bush's dad, 1.9%, a figuring owing to the cuts in military spending. Domestic spending soared. Under Clinton, whom we all denounced as a socialist, it was 1.5%, the lowest rate in the postwar period. And under the present Bush, who promised less government? The real annual growth rate of total government outlays has been 5%, which compares to Johnson-era spending. The old rationales for government growth may have been discredited in the public mind. But they are alive in Washington, among the special interest groups, and among the media. I would like to identify the main ones. Rationale Number One: The Good Samaritan State. In this view of government, the state should act like the third person to come upon the poor man who had been beaten and robbed. They imagine a population that is divided among three types of people: victims, victimizers, and those who refuse to help. The victim classes we know all too well, because the litany is said again and again within the structure of labor law: the elderly, the very young, ethnic and racial minorities, religious minorities, sexual minorities, the physically and mentally disabled, workers, the underpaid, people in rural areas, those who deal with urban overcrowding, people who breathe dirty air or eat chemically produced products, artists, the manufacturing industry, people with peanut allergies, the dyslexic, short people, fat people, the leisure deprived, and I've probably left out a hundred or so other groups. Among the victimizers, we similarly have a list: capitalists, racial and ethnic majorities, sexual majorities, the overpaid, managers and CEOs, people who live in gated communities, the well armed, consumers of cell phones, owners of mines, anyone living off a trust fund, fully abled men, and anyone who resents social managers telling them what to do. In the view of those who advocate the Samaritan State, these two classes of victims and victimizers are constantly at war. There is nothing but conflict between them. The loss of one is the gain of the other. These categories are fixed and unchanging. The lack of harmony of interests is built into the structure of the social and economic world. The remedy requires an institution that is relentlessly engaged in reweighing the power relationships between the two groups. The conflict cannot be finally ended, but justice requires that the victims are given an unending stream of compensation and that the victimizers are treated with disdain and punished for their very existence. Social justice thus requires that victimizers are reduced, disabled, denounced, and spat upon, while the victims must be exalted, fed, clothed, funded, and made whole. This is how the Left, broadly speaking, thinks the world works, and should work. It doesn't matter whether one considers oneself a hard Marxist or a soft social democrat, the intellectual tie that binds them together is the view that conflict and not cooperation characterizes the work of society in the absence of an institution dedicated to bringing about social justice. The institutional answer is, of course, the state. The state is the Samaritan who lifts up and exalts the meek, and smites the proud and powerful who would otherwise walk right past the poor person on the street, who is the very archetype of the victim in the leftist view of how the world works. But there are many things wrong with this view of society. In the parable, the victim was beaten and robbed. He was exploited only in a very narrow and old-fashioned sense: his person and property were violated. These are crimes against libertarian ethics, a system of thought that mirrors what every religious and ethical system has taught: do not kill and do not steal. In other words, he was not a victim of some hazy notion of Social Injustice. He was not discriminated against, exploited by an employer, made to work long hours, or denied a comfy living in his old age. There is a huge difference between being beaten and robbed, and having to pay high prices for prescription drugs. The great error of the Left is its inability to distinguish the injustice of violence from the supposed injustice of inequality of material condition. As for the Samaritan, he was not acting as an agent of the regime. He used his own money to help the victim. He got him back on his feet and paid his bills at the private clinic where he was deposited for care. The Samaritan did not rob someone else to give money to the man on the street. He presumably got his money justly by hard work and investment. He had no desire to keep the man dependent, nor to exercise power over him, tax him, regulate him, nor send him to war. The state is something very different. It has no income but that which it robs from someone else. It seeks its own gain at others' expense. It protects itself and promotes itself before the interests of everyone else. It is beholden to special interests who create and control its regulatory apparatus. It is not impartial. It sides with its friends over its enemies. Moreover, the state is an exploiter, a murderer, a violator of human rights. The typical response of the Left is to say that they want a state that does only good things such as share and care, and not bad things such as steal and kill. But this cannot be. We might as well wish for a lion that only purrs and cuddles, or a rattlesnake that only provides percussion accompaniment to mariachi music. The very nature of the state is that it exists only through and for compulsion. To imagine otherwise is not to face reality. Rationale Number Two: The Solomonic State. In the Bible we are told that King Solomon had "understanding exceeding much and largeness of heart, even as the sand that [is] on the sea shore." And his "wisdom excelled the wisdom of all the children of the east country, and all the wisdom of Egypt." He was "wiser than all men" and "his fame was in all nations round about." He spoke "three thousand proverbs: and his songs were a thousand and five." He "spake of trees, from the cedar tree that [is] in Lebanon even unto the hyssop that springeth out of the wall: he spake also of beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of fishes. And there came of all people to hear the wisdom of Solomon, from all kings of the earth, which had heard of his wisdom." Now, I'm not here to dispute the Bible's account of Solomon's wisdom. But let us also recall that Solomon's rule later became close to tyrannical. His son Rehoboam inherited his power, and when the people begged for relief from Solomon's "heavy yoke," and instigated a full-scale crackdown: "My father scourged you with whips; I will scourge you with scorpions." To be wise and prudent is not characteristics of rulers. In fact, it is very dangerous to hope that they may be. If we set out to find such a person, and have fantastic power available to him when we believe he has arrived, we have set up the framework for tyranny. The founders knew that no man can be trusted with power. They attempted to construct a system that presumed that men were corruptible, and that there would be some means to dislodge them when their corruption showed. Still, today many people long for the Solomonic State as a means of dispensing justice. Unlike the Samaritan model, the goal here is not charity but the just wielding of the sword on behalf of the right and true. Thus should we seek out righteous men of learning and moral character who know what evil is and have the courage to stand up to it and destroy it. This model is what inspires this mentality. There are many problems with this model. One man might be very wise, even the wisest of all men. But as F.A. Hayek might remind us, all the accumulated knowledge in the head of one person is still infinitesimal as compared with the wisdom that emerges through social cooperation on the marketplace. We can consider the price of any good on the market as it stands right now, and know that this one price results from the accumulated decisions of millions of people across thousands and thousands of sectors of economic activity spread throughout the world. The knowledge is dispersed in a million directions and results from small decisions and actions by economic actors. But the result is a single indicator that assists in allocating resources better than any single mind could ever do. The model of the Solomonic State also imagines that somehow the social order we see around us cannot possibly have come about without a single will operating in society, some firm hand that has designed the order and keeps it running smoothly. People who think this way imagine that in the absence of this firm hand, there would be nothing but a Hobbesian state of nature, where society is a war of all against all and life is nasty, brutish, and short. Our age is notably lacking in the likes of Solomon, and so those who fear the Hobbesian state of nature turn to the managerial state to act wisely in the interest of justice and order, at home and abroad. They might not always like what the rulers do, but they consider the alternative to despotism more fearsome. They warn about the dread results of anarchism and liberty, where people senselessly kill and rob without consequence. They fear this liberty more than they fear the abuses of power. This, I submit, is the mentality of many conservatives and many on the Right. We see it in the affections they have for Bush, the Patriot Act, the war on terror, and how quickly people fall for any leader who uses Manichean rhetoric in defense of the latest nationalistic crusade. What these people need more than anything else is a familiarity with the insights of the old liberal tradition as represented by Jefferson, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard. They need to come to see how order is not the mother of liberty but its daughter. They need to see how society is harmonious not because of the state but because of the prevalence of human cooperation in the marketplace, where people work to trade to their own mutual betterment. People who fail to understand this become the unwitting servants of tyranny, particularly in the modern age when it is so obviously not wise but stupid and violent and presumptuous. They imagine that the state can posses godlike powers and bring justice and order, but they end up only empowering the worst elements in society, bringing injustice, and chaos. Now, you might say that the old liberal view of society is naïve. It might be in people's interest to learn to trade rather than steal but we live in a fallen world. If not for some overarching controlling force, people would loot each other unrelentingly and kill for fun. Now, to this I can say that it is true that some societies have not learned to make trading and peace significantly more prevalent than violence and killing. History is strewn with examples. The question we have to ask ourselves is whether a society that fails to learn the art of civilization will erect and sustain a state that will impose civilization on the people. I submit that history also teaches that when a people are brutal and uncivilized, the state is even more so. The state is rarely and maybe never better than the people it rules; in fact, it is almost always worse. Rationale Number Three: Log-Rolling. Given these two very different conceptions of the state, one favoring the welfare state and the other favoring a warfare state, why don't the visions cancel each other out? So intense is the desire of one group to have the state that it wants that it is willing to put up with another group's desire for its conception of the state. The two conceptions decide to cooperate and erect a state that purports to behave both like Solomon and like the Samaritan. That is the origin of the guns-and-butter state, or the welfare-warfare state, or the modern state as we know it, one that purports to meet every need. We see how this log-rolling works every day on Capitol Hill. One group wants more money for tanks and weaponry, and the other wants more for Medicaid and education. If both agree that politics is the art of compromise, they will put up with the other group's priorities in order that their own vision can be fulfilled. On the Right, we find that the love for the police power is more intense than the hatred of redistribution. On the Left, we find that the love of redistribution is more intense than the hatred of war and leviathan. They therefore work together to erect a massive and ever-growing executive. They are similarly unwilling to oppose the state in total. They fear that in doing so, the state as an institution will be discredited, and their conception of what the state should do along with it. Neither side particularly loves big government but both sides agree that it is better than the alternative of letting people alone. So they log-roll to support the public sector above all else, even when it means that they must sleep with their ostensible political enemies. Rationale Number Four: The Inflationary State. Now we come to the reason this system is able to perpetuate itself. And there is something of a mystery to explain here. No people anywhere will put up with a leviathan that grows and grows forever. At some point, the problem of funding state expansion will result in too much violence against property, and the people will revolt. Indeed, if the federal government had to collect all its revenue through a tax of any kind, leveled right now against the public, I submit to you that it would spark a tax revolt on a scale never before seen in modern history. Thus do we have the central bank to create money for the state. Thus do we have paper money that can be created in unlimited quantities. Thus do we have deposit insurance to make banks failure proof, so that the masses will never doubt that the credit pyramid is immortal. Thus do we have the Fed's power to manipulate interest rates and control the flow of credit to the system. An economist at Lehman Brothers sent us an interesting chart the other day. It compares the level of price increases across many Fed regimes. Under the first Fed governor Charles Hamlin, the dollar declined 8% in value. Under Thomas B. McCabe from the late forties, it declined 7.2%. Under Arthur Burns, wholly owned by Nixon, the dollar declined 42% in value. Under Volcker, Mr. Tight Money, it fell 40%. And under Greenspan, who has a reputation as a great inflation fighter, the value of the dollar in terms of goods and services fell fully 44%! Inflation serves the cause of the state by giving it room to run up debts without limit and fund its activities without making the people cough up more revenue. Indeed, that is the primary purpose of the inflationary state. People often say to me that a gold standard is impractical. In fact, that is not the case. It is very practical. It is the free-market answer. The state doesn't need to produce money any more than it needs to produce shoes or shirts or clocks. The problem is that we lack the political will to stop the inflation monster. Rationale Number Five: The Propaganda State. In every society control of educational institutions increases in tandem with the rise of the state. This is because the state needs these institutions to inculcate the civic religion of loving the public enterprise, and also because the less people know about the idea of liberty the more the state is provided the room to grow. Consider the Department of Education. Ever since its creation, every Republican administration has come to power with an intention to abolish it. But once they get in power, they find that bureaucracy has its uses. Instead of cutting or abolishing it, they increase the agency and give it more to do. The more the state does, the more the state sees the need to control public opinion by controlling the schools. Now, there is a point of optimism here. If any state could rule without propaganda, it would surely do so. Why then do states find educational control and the propagation of the civic religion in their interest? Because at some level, every state, in all times and places, is required to seek the tacit consent of those it governs. No state can control a society by use of the sword only and alone. It must also seek some degree of ideological conformity with its own goals. Otherwise its rule becomes threatened and destabilized. The other side of the coin is that states can indeed be destabilized by the ultimate counterrevolutionary tactic of providing alternative sources of education. As Mises said, all of history is a battle of ideas. Where the ideas of freedom are triumphant, liberty prevails. Where the ideas of freedom are buried and suppressed, despotism prevails. Our pathway is clear. It is a choice of the Mises Institute not to mix in the mire of a political system that is wholly owned or attempt to seek favor from influential opinion makers. Our path is one of education, pursued with high-minded ideals, advanced using the most modern methods, and animated by the spirit of guerilla warfare. There are Misesians and Rothbardians strewn throughout the academic world, financial and banking houses, law firms, and in every walk of life, not only in this country but all over the world. We have worked for nearly a quarter of a century on a very radical project of advancing economic science and logic. We have pushed to keep the fire of freedom burning brightly. We have sought to teach anyone and everyone about the workings and benefits of liberty. We have come under pressure from left, right, and center. Yet the attention given to this body of ideas grows by the day. We can prevail against the Propaganda State. So long as we are free to do so and have the means available, we will continue to do so. This is our weapon against power. It is the most effective weapon anyone could ever possess. If we win this victory, we win all others. We thank you for supporting education for liberty, and for being part of the revolutionary vanguard that sees through the errors of our day and imagines a brighter future of freedom, private property, and peace. : Mises Institute

What Does Illegal Immigration Cost? When George W. Bush visited the U.S. Border Patrol’s Yuma Station Headquarters in Arizona Monday — for the second time in a year — his message on illegal immigration sounded a bit tougher than in the past. “Illegal immigration is a serious problem — you know it better than anybody,” he told a group of border agents. “It puts pressure on the public schools and the hospitals, not only here in our border states, but states around the country. It drains the state and local budgets…Incarceration of criminals who are here illegally strains the Arizona budget. But there’s a lot of other ways it strains the local and state budgets. It brings crime to our communities.” The president touted his get-tough-on-the-border policies, enacted under pressure from the then-Republican Congress, and singled out Operation Jump Start, under which National Guard troops assist border agents. But he also stressed the need for “comprehensive” reform, and when he did his message sounded like the George W. Bush of old. “Past efforts at reform failed to address the underlying economic reasons behind illegal immigration,” the president said. “People are coming here to put food on the table, and they’re doing jobs Americans are not doing.” With those words, the president was revisiting the great question in the debate over illegal immigration: Is the presence of illegal immigrants, mostly from Mexico, a boon to the U.S. economy, or a drag? It’s a question that has long divided Bush supporters; the Wall Street Journal editorial page tells us that a lenient immigration policy is absolutely vital for American prosperity, while enforcement-first advocates tell us a strict policy is the only thing that will ensure continued economic health. Both have plenty of statistics to cite to make their case. But now a scholar at the Heritage Foundation, Robert Rector, has found a new and revealing way to get at the answer. Rector has just published a study, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,” that is ostensibly not about immigration at all. He takes the most detailed look yet at the economics of the 17.7 million American households made up of people without a high-school degree. With numbers from the Census Bureau, the Congressional Research Service, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and other government agencies, Rector found what they make, what they spend, and how much they receive in government services. The reason Rector chose to look at low-skilled workers is that it is estimated that nearly two-thirds of illegal immigrants fall into that category. (By way of comparison, slightly less than ten percent of native-born Americans are in that group.) By focusing on those workers, Rector was able to make use of information on them that is more detailed and precise than information on immigrants as a whole. And any conclusions he reached would be applicable to a large majority of illegal immigrants who are already in this country as well as those who would come here under various immigration reform proposals. Rector began by calculating the dollar value of the benefits those low-skill workers receive from the government. There are direct benefits, like Medicare and Social Security, and means-tested benefits, like food, housing and medical benefits specifically for low-income people. Then there is public education, along with population-based services like police and fire protection, parks, and roads. (Those services benefit everyone, and their cost usually increases as the population increases.) After that, there is interest on the public debts, a burden spread throughout all income groups, and the cost of what Rector calls “pure public goods” — national defense, scientific research, and a few other areas — which benefit everyone but do not necessarily rise in cost as the population rises. Rector found that in 2004, the most recent year for which figures are available, low-skill households received an average of $32,138 per household — the great majority in the form of means-tested aid and direct benefits. (Rector excluded from that figure the cost of public goods and interest; with those included, he says, each low-skill household receives an average of $43,084.) Against that, Rector found that low-skill households paid an average of $9,689 in taxes. (The biggest chunk of that was the Social Security tax — $2,509 — followed by state and local taxes, consumption taxes, property taxes, and federal income taxes, but Rector counted everything, including highway levies and lottery purchases.) In the final calculation, he found, the average low-skill household received $22,449 more in benefits than it paid in taxes — the $32,138 in benefits, excluding public goods, minus the $9,689 in taxes. Taking that $22,449, and multiplying it by the 17.7 million low-skill households, Rector found that the total deficit for such households was $397 billion in 2004. “Over the next ten years the total cost of low-skill households to the taxpayer (immediate benefits minus taxes paid) is likely to be at least $3.9 trillion,” Rector writes. “This number would go up significantly if changes in immigration policy lead to substantial increases in the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and receiving services.” From a purely money perspective, it’s a powerful argument. At a cost of $22,449 per household per year — well, multiply that by an adult lifespan of 50 years and you have an average lifetime cost to the taxpayer of $1.1 million per unskilled worker. Increase that population with a wave of unskilled immigrants, and you’re talking a lot of money. There’s probably room for argument on Rector’s exact numbers. Jeffrey Passell, a senior research associate at the Pew Hispanic Center, questions whether some of Rector’s cost estimates might be too high. For example, the arrival of new illegal immigrations will likely not raise the cost of defending the country, he says, so perhaps future immigrants will not be quite as expensive as Rector claims. (Rector tried to address that issue by excluding the cost of pure public goods in the $22,449 figure.) Still, Passell does not question the basic premise of Rector’s report. “One of the purposes of our government is to provide support for people on the low end,” says Passell. “Of course there is a bit more spending on households on the lower end than on the high end, and of course the low-income households don’t pay as much as the high-income households. That’s not surprising.” The bigger argument over Rector’s approach is whether illegal immigrants bring economic benefits that outweigh their undisputed costs. Tamar Jacoby, an advocate of comprehensive reform who is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, points to a study done recently of immigrants in North Carolina which estimated that in the past ten years Hispanic immigrants had cost the state $61 million in benefits while being responsible for more than $9 billion in economic growth. “Yes, the individual might cost more in services,” says Jacoby, “but they are growing the pie so significantly that that cost pales in comparison.” Not so, says Rector. “The problem is, the growth to the pie that they make, they eat,” he explains. The economic growth reflected in the numbers, he says, is what the immigrant workers are making. “To the extent that they make the pie grow any bit more than what they take out of the pie in wages, it is very subtle, and it would be a tiny fraction of the gross domestic product growth,” Rector says. And that means something for the immigration debate, and for George W. Bush’s proposals. “Every one of these [reform] bills envisions bringing in millions and millions of additional low-skill immigrants with the right to access welfare and become citizens,” says Rector. “Within ten years, you would have four million of these individuals, each of whom can bring family. You’d be looking at a cost of $80 billion per year.” Perhaps Congress and the president will decide to do that. But if Robert Rector is correct, no one should underestimate the cost.

What kind of FICA form or forms does a small business owner have to file with the IRS &FTB (Calif) RE: payroll The bookkeeper quit (the bookkeeping profession) without filing the necessary paperwork. This small business is in California. FTB means "Franchise Tax Board" which is the state agency in California that collects State of Calif income tax. I just needed to know the name/number of the form so I can download it from the IRS and Franchise tax bd websites. Thanks.

If a person was making $25000 a year in Texas,say? Wouldn't the burden of taxes be less for that person than another person who lived in a state with an income tax structure,even the state without an income tax would have a more regressive tax structure?

Can my mom and stepdad file an injured spouse for taxes? In 1998,1999,2000,2001,2002,2003,2004, the State of California took "back taxes owed" from my parents taxes because my real dad claimed A LOT more than he should have in 1982(before I was born), without my mother's knowledge. They cant go after my real dad for the money because he claims SSD. My step dad is the only one working (he makes enough for my mom to stay home) and they took the money from HIS income tax earnings. When they went to file taxes this year, their tax professional said they might be able to file for an injured spouse and get back the money that they took from him. I was just wondering if anyone knows if this is possible?

Why not pay for college if a state pays for highschool? states are required to pay for public schools..economically it just makes sense you make more money with an education, also the state benefits from this, along with your community. statistics show that with a highschool education you make about 4 times more money than without, and with a college education you make 3 times more money than a highschool education, so like 12 times more than no edcation. If states pay for school up to highschool, why not pay for college? The only thing i can think of is that a state educated person might leave to another state but from a national perspective barely anyone educated in the united states leaves. Why waste money on sports stadiums and other investments when you can diretly help a states citizens... also what business investment can pay back for itself 4 times over in about 2 decades almost guranteed? college costs 20k min 40k max highschool salery 45k college salary 90k through income taxes alone it would pay back for itself in abou 6y? economically wise its been proven, thats why insurance works... i agree with these answers.....everyone cant be equal thats communism and we all know how that ends but why not have the states put a substantial more amount of money in scholarships....which go to the most worth people......there are alot of people out there who work hard, and get good grades.....who cant afford college even with the people who die, drop out, do drugs, and abuse the system statistically the idea is still sound altough it prob wouldn't work because to ensure rightful use youd prob have to sign some papers saying that you wont leave us....stuff that is kinda illegal.....

Do I need to file income tax? I am a 19 year old college student and a California resident. I work two jobs, but the expected income for the jobs is $250 and $2000, making a total of $2250. What is the maximum amount I can earn without filing taxes this for 2007? (both federal and state)