Mediaboss Marketing

Something that many people do not understand is that filing a joint income tax return with your spouse is an election. You dont have to do it. Of course, probably more often than not, it will cost a couple to file separately, although if they could claim to be single they might come out ahead. Youre not supposed to do that if you are actually married though. The main reason that you might choose to not file a joint return is to avoid joint and several liability. Ive written about that a lot.

There is another wrinkle to joint filing being an election. Some elections have to be made with a timely filed return. You snooze, you lose. Thats not the case with joint returns. You can even amend to a joint return, from separate returns, although you cant go the other way. There is still a requirement, though. In order to file jointly, you have to, well, file. If the IRS files for you, which is what happens to procrastinators and certain stubborn people, you lose the ability to file jointly. That is what Donald Salzer heard about from the Tax Court last week.

Mr. Salzer, whom the Tax Court characterizes as a substantial wage earner, did not file a return in 2010, because he disagreed with government policies. I have to have some admiration, perhaps grudging, for that, since that type of thing is what got Henry David Thoreau the night in jail that resulted in his writing about civil disobedience.

Thoreau was protesting the Mexican War, but Mr. Salzer had quite a few things troubling him about the way the country has been going.

We are citizens of the United States of America. We have paid taxes to what we thought was the United States of America. Apparently through the years, socialism has taken control of this country without us being aware of it. and Barak [sic] Obama has plowed straight ahead with tons more. We resoundingly reject it which is shown in our not having submitted a tax form for 2008 or 2009 and will not be doing so for 2010. We support the United States of America, the republic, the Christian nation; we do not support this socialist government that has hijackedWashingtonDC. God has said Blessed is that country whose God is the Lord. (Psalm 33:12) This government has shown nothing but malice toward the American people, has attacked our soldiers and veterans in various ways, has attacked our children at the public schools by trying to push wrong beliefscontrary to the Bible to them, has sexually assaulted our people at the airports in the name of security, is killing the unborn, has taken over car companies, have taken control of the banks, taking over our health care and sold us to China. We know what socialism is. Socialism is not just another economic theory. There is no good kind of socialism. It is an anti-Christian, anti-American and against the U.S. Constitution. It is about trying to control people and deprive them of what they need. Because of it, millions of people have died. We reject this whole heartedly. We do not want this happening to the people of this country or anywhere. This needs to stop now.

It was hard for me to believe that you were entirely serious about that socialist question. I did think it might be useful to point out that it wasnt under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks.

At any rate the protest did not get Mr. Salzer so much as a few minutes in jail, much less a whole night. It got him free tax preparation from the IRS. As he discovered though, Theyll just look at the gross income. No personal exemptions other than yourself, deductions etc.

Some of that got adjusted, but one thing that was not adjusted was filing status.

Petitioner contends that he could have filed a joint return for 2010 but chose not to because of his disagreement with Government policies. However, as the U.S. Supreme Court instructs, we give effect to what actually happened and not what might have happened.

Petitioner addresses the additions to tax only inferentially by alleging that he would be due a refund if joint filing status were now allowed. Perhaps this allegation is true, but it is irrelevant because it invites us to enter the speculative might have/could have realm, which, as previously stated, we may not.

See the rest here:
For Joint Filing Status You Have To File

PyroFalkon #39;s Sims 4 Socialism Challenge Day 1
Let #39;s play The Sims 4! Jon "PyroFalkon" Michael, the writer of the IGN Entertainment strategy guide wiki for The Sims 4, has created a set of house rules to ...

By: PyroFalkon #39;s Let #39;s Play Extravaganza

Visit link:
PyroFalkon's Sims 4 Socialism Challenge Day 1 - Video

National Socialism 3 Reich
SIEG HEIL !

By: AIberto Canosa

See original here:
National Socialism 3 Reich - Video

September 22, 2014|7:49 am

It is a good thing the Scots voted against independence from England. The movement was not about freedom, but about increasing socialism. Both the UK Socialist and Green Parties, along with other left-wing parties, supported the referendum; the Conservative Party (Tories) and right wing UKIP opposed it. Here is an analogy that makes it easy to understand: if California secedes from the U.S. to become a communist state, is it really about freedom and independence?

What has been disturbing about the movement is a lack of informed analysis. Most supporters vaguely claimed it was about independence and freedom, but didn't get into specifics. There have been plenty of clichs and colorful flags, but little substance. "Yes Scotland" and "Better Together," the names of the two competing sides, were frequently bandied about with little more.

Reading deeper into the referendum, it becomes clear that proponents wanted to leave the UK in order to implement more socialism than currently exists there. One of the biggest reasons was so Scotland could keep its vast oil reserves all to itself - 90 percent of UK oil reserves are located in Scotland - and use the money to pay for even larger government welfare programs. Another reason was to ditch the current austerity measures being imposed across the UK as a result of too much government spending, and avoid the privatization of government functions. Additionally, proponents want to spend more money on childcare, which they proposeto fund by putting 100,000 more women in the workforce, who will then pay more taxes. A final key reason for leaving the UK is to eliminate nuclear weapons. A Trident nuclear missile base is located in Scotland, and seceding would force it to relocate - of course many jobs would go with it.

Scotland is more left wing than the rest of the UK. Its two dominant parties are both on the left; the Scottish Labor Party and the Scottish National Party (SNP). Scotland has only elected one Conservative to Parliament since 2001, out of 59 Scottish seats. The recent surge of the SNP in 2011 led to the referendum. The Scottish left is irritated at being governed nationally by the Conservative Party in recent years.

Tellingly, one Scot tweeted on the night of the referendum, "If we go independent, we will no longer have to go to war for American interests and do things the Tory way!" Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who headed the independence effort, declared, ''A Yes means Scotland's future in the hands of people who live here - so no more Tory governments we didn't vote for.''

The pro-referendum side outspent the opposition by more than two to one, but it was defeated 55 percent to 45 percent, with a whopping 85 percent turnout. In contrast, only 50 percent of Scots voted in the last Scottish Parliament elections, and 63 percent in the last UK election. The areas with the highest turnout voted the strongest against the referendum.

This is evidence the Scots aren't quite as left as its leaders are. Less than half of Scots oppose nuclear weapons. Support for independence has been decreasing since 2007. The liberal Boston Globe admittedthe shakiness of the referendum, "The educated and middle-class Scots trended toward keeping the union, while the poorer, working-class Scots, who saw heavy industry collapse take their jobs away, tended to prefer a role of the dice to see if their condition might not be made better by going it alone."

Scotland merged with England in 1707, when the Scottish Parliament voted in favor of joining by 110 to 69. Ireland joined the union in 1801, however, most of Ireland except the Northern portion left in 1922. In 1934, the Scottish National Party was formed. In 1999, a separate Scottish Parliament was formed, in addition to the UK Parliament.

Some are comparingthe Scottish independence movement to separatist movements in Quebec, Northern Ireland, Catalonia, Ukrainian nationalists, and others. But support for Quebec's withdrawal from Canada has also been decreasing over the years. Like the Scottish independence movement, the Quebec separatist movement also calls for an even more left-wing platform than the existing regime. For example, on its website, the French Canadian party declares, "The Parti Qubcois had the courage to take up the issue of religious accommodation and secularism, neglected for so long by the Liberal Party of Quebec." Another area is free legal aid, "The Parti Qubcois has made a historic rise in eligibility thresholds for legal aid on or after 1 January 2014 - This increase will provide free coverage for elderly people living alone and mostly benefiting from GIS."

Read more:
Misleading 'Freedom' Referendum Goes Down in Flames in Scotland

Over the past few weeks, Americans have been confronted by a slew of scandals besieging our most popular sport. Outrage over the off-the-field violence of star running backs Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson has been accompanied by the revelation that the National Football League expects almost one-third of its retired players to develop long-term cognitive problems at notably younger ages than the rest of the population. Amid all this scrutiny, the NFL remains enshrouded in myths. Lets consider five of the most stubborn.

1. The NFL is on its way to resolving its concussion crisis.

This talking point, trumpeted by league officials and routinely repeated by sports reporters and fans, relies on the notion that new helmet technology and rule changes will suffice. In fact, the number of concussions was up more than 50 percent in this years first three preseason games compared with the same games last year.

And even if the league reduces concussions, the profound risks to its players will remain in the form of sub-concussive hits, the hundreds or even thousands of lesser blows that damage the brain without registering as full-blown concussions, and that are absorbed not just during games but in every full-contact practice.

The NFL doesnt have a concussion crisis, in other words; it has a violence problem. Players are bigger, stronger and faster than ever. When they collide, their brains soft organs smash against the inside of their skulls. No miracle technology or rule tweaking is going to undo the basic physics and physiology of the sport.

2. The NFLs economic model is socialist.

Pundits from Chuck Klosterman to Bill Maher have echoed this canard.

Its true that NFL teams share revenue generated by TV and merchandise deals. But this fact is a testament to the leagues canny corporate ethos. In 1961, for instance, lobbyists persuaded Congress to pass a law that allowed the NFL to circumvent antitrust rules and to sell TV rights, collectively, to the highest bidder. In effect, the NFL became a legal monopoly. A few years later, lawmakers cut a deal with the league that granted it tax-exempt status.

Like most effective monopolies, the NFL has leveraged its power at the expense of taxpayers, who supply 70 percent of the funding for NFL stadiums along with millions in infrastructure according to Judith Long, a professor of urban planning at Harvard University. Team owners also receive lucrative inducement payments to keep them from moving their franchises to other cities. Billionaires shaking down cities and states for public monies? Thats not socialism. Its crony capitalism.

3. NFL players are especially prone to be arrested for violent crimes.

Read the original post:
Column: Five Myths About the NFL, From concussions to Socialism