hollowmason64 said:You didn't exactly point out where in the Constitution it says you're the official benchmark for proportionality. Or, you know, that we should all be turning to you to ask what *you* personally think constitutes being reasonable.
...and then, regarding that specific question they asked, he says:
Based on what we've been looking at here, if a taxpayer officially calls a place like Key West home but actually spends most of their time living somewhere else, things get a little more complicated regarding where they file. In the city where he works—which happens to be Chicago—his income tax is actually calculated based on where he officially resides. So, under the local rules there, he's looking at an 18% tax rate.
So, basically, the withholding tax depends on where you're actually doing the work. It’s one of those things that can get a bit tricky if you're moving around, since your tax obligations follow your physical location.
Which part exactly isn't clicking for you? I could try sketching it out if that helps. Or, honestly, do you need a little help with reading comprehension?
So, what was I again? How did you put it? Frustrated? Honestly, that’s just a passing mood. It comes and goes. But stupidity... well, that's a different story entirely. A fool is a fool for life.
So, Nicholas King was actually responding to another user who mentioned that he wouldn't even bother paying a fine if he were slapped with one. It wasn't really about the specifics of what the penalty would be or what it was for—nobody was digging into those details at all. Everything just kind of spiraled from his initial comment about how he personally wouldn't pay up.
Look, let's just stop with the fabrications. Please quit claiming I said someone would actually be slapped with a fine; that’s just not what happened. The whole conversation was really just a hypothetical look at what people might do to trigger a penalty in the first place. At the end of the day, you just pay it. You might settle it a little early, or a little late, or maybe the amount shifts up or down a bit, but that's the gist of it.
Heh, I think I know what you mean, but you "know." Your "knowledge" really shines through in your response to the guy who basically told you to get lost.
Man, I just love it when people start citing "intelligence" from someone who’s clearly just talking nonsense... as if that guy is some kind of genius.
You absolutely killed me with that comment 😁
So why don't you show us the Secretary's decision? And tell us how that specific article actually relates to what's happening on the ground right now.
The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html
Of course, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to play the troll—acting oblivious to anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about things being unconstitutional.
Actually, there is, because it clearly states it if you're coming from an area where local transmission has occurred. And that applies to the whole country.
Nothing in what you're citing implies that living at separate addresses means the end of a marriage, and you haven't provided any proof for that claim either. Your entire argument boils down to "trust me, I know." Sorry, but that isn't going to cut it without actual evidence.
I never said that it automatically meant a divorce. You seem to have forgotten where this discussion even started—it was the claims from forum users asking why married partners would have to live together, arguing that the law doesn't require them to share an address, so it should be perfectly fine for a husband and wife to have different addresses, even though it's causing issues for some people. That's where the debate kicked off.
I did say the law doesn't forbid it, but that the law implies they live together through its provisions.
It's just how life works, too. I mean, it's pretty standard to assume a husband and wife live under the same roof, right?
Then came the part where I mentioned that being separated for more than a year can serve as a legal basis for divorce. Not an annulment—which is what you were quoting regarding an agreement—but a divorce.
I honestly don't get how anyone could call this "cheap" when it's a completely justified expense. It isn't about being lazy or trying to game some system just because someone thinks staying put is more profitable.
And while we're talking about gas money—how far do you actually drive to get to the store? How often are you out on the road just for groceries? Honestly, reading some of these posts makes it feel like everyone lives in tiny little towns where you burn through a full tank of gas every week just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.
You seriously have some issues. I worked in another city for 12 years; I paid my local taxes in the city where I actually reside.
Read the Internal Revenue Code and stop embarrassing yourself.
Nicholas King was referring to a user who said he wouldn't pay a fine if he got one. Nobody was debating what the penalty would be or why—it started from his comment saying he simply wouldn't pay.
So quit lying and making up stuff about me saying someone would get fined for something. The whole debate was just about how someone would react to getting a fine. They can just pay it. Maybe a little earlier, maybe a little later, maybe more, maybe less.
Like I already said, there is no fine for his situation.
Oh, I just love it when people appeal to "logic"... we all know how incredibly smart and wise that guy is.
You absolutely killed me with that comment. 😁
No, the logic is laughing at you, because it sees the nonsense you write from one post to the next.
The Secretary's decisions regarding movement restrictions?
Here’s the first one: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...03_35_737.html
And here’s the update:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/...04_39_833.html
Obviously, you could have found all this yourself, but you just decided to be a troll acting clueless about anything that doesn't fit the narrative you're trying to sell about unconstitutionality.
Give me a break! Now tell us, where is the quarantine order, and where is the Secretary of Health?
It's right there, clearly stated, if you're coming from an area where local transmission occurred. And that applies to the entire country.
That's not true. I know several people working in the field across the US. Stop talking trash.
How often do you actually drive to the store? Honestly, reading these threads makes it feel like everyone lives in some tiny rural hamlet where they burn through a full tank just to hit the local corner shop and the pharmacy.
God, you’re arrogant. It's unreal. Do you even read what people are saying to you? Go ahead, read what Alexander Thompson wrote.
I already told you—the best punishment for you would be finding yourself stuck in the exact same situation as the people you’re currently mocking.
Jerry Robinson56 said:The police can enter your apartment without a warrant... in certain specific cases.
And that has to be a very, very, VERY justified situation clearly defined by law. But I bet you'd try to stretch that logic to say they should bust in just because your music is too loud.
Do you even grasp how viruses work and how they spread? Infection can happen through food or even traces left behind.
The risk is just too high because the danger isn't visible. Get it?
Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. The only one.
It's understandable that you're personally suffering because this feels illogical, but try giving me one actual scenario that's causing you trouble right now...
Jerry Robinson56, you're absolutely right! Let's just ban eating altogether, since viruses spread through food anyway!
Jerry Robinson56, a quarantine hasn't been declared. We all know how a quarantine is officially called out—it's all strictly regulated by law, Jerry Robinson56.