Posts by Edward Fisher86

Consider this an official notice that I am now open to taking suggestions directly from the field.

darkotter35 said:So, what I witnessed today was straight-up Kafkaesque—and I mean top-tier, surrealist nightmare fuel kind of Kafkaesque.
Basically, my local town hall in a small suburb outside of Chicago is handing out ID cards to citizens who don't have digital logins or even an email address, which means you actually have to physically show up at the municipal building.
After hearing rumors yesterday that they were just handing these things out left, right, and center, I decided to head down there and see if I could snag one too.
To make matters even more ridiculous, when I tried to go through the official, legitimate channels using the online portal and employer verification, they refused to issue my card—even though I still have my old one—simply because I’m not currently working a full-time gig.
So, I roll up to the office and there’s already a line of about 20 people.
I join the queue and notice everyone is filling out these little slips of paper. I ask this guy next to me what the deal is, and he tells me, "Hey, let me just fill yours out for you while we wait." So, I give him my info, and the only real question on the form is the "reason for request." I write down "agricultural work" because that’s what I heard everyone was using yesterday to get approved—plus, I’ve got a house out in the country and a garden, so it’s technically a legitimate reason. I ask him if I need to specify where my house is or anything like that, and he just goes, "Nah, don't bother." I asked, "How are they even going to know I'm not making stuff up?" He looks at me and says, "They won't. You can write whatever you want." I was floored. I figured, okay, surely once you go inside, they’ll check your driver's license or something? He just laughs and says, "Nope, they don't check anything. You just drop the paper into a box." I stopped dead. Are you telling me twenty of us are standing here in line just to drop a piece of paper into a freaking box?! He says, "Yep." Suddenly, some guy at the front of the line starts losing his mind, yelling, "Goddammit, you idiots! This bureaucratic harassment is absolute bullshit!" Then someone walks out of the town hall and asks, "What the hell are we waiting in line for just to toss a paper in a box?" And then, out of nowhere, everything speeds up. Within five minutes, I’m at the front, I walk inside, and I drop my paper in the box. The guy tells me we should have the IDs within 48 hours. I asked where we pick them up, and he says, "They just leave them in a box outside, and you come by to grab the envelope with your name on it."
I’m like, hold on... so there’s nobody actually working this? You just grab it? He says, "Yeah." I asked, "Wait, so anyone could just walk up and take someone else's ID?" And he just shrugs and says, "Sure could."

To wrap this circus up: anyone can write whatever nonsense they want to get an ID, and literally anyone can walk up and pick up anyone else's ID.
We had a line of 20 people formed just so we could shuffle into the building one by one to drop paper into a box without a single shred of verification. A box that could have been sitting outside the whole time, and we could have all just tossed our papers in without any line at all.
While we were waiting, everyone in line was chatting away, sharing pens... honestly, the only thing we didn't do was crack open a beer together.

America... the land of complete and utter idiots.

I haven't read through everything yet, but it looks like you still haven't gotten this sorted out.

Did you actually email emergency-permits@fema.gov?

I just sent an inquiry myself.

edit:

Okay, I just finished reading. Regarding those agricultural works 🤣
I'm being a fool by trying to push everything through the official channels.

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.

I can get to the gas station without a pass, but I was just illustrating the point because it could just as easily be someone who doesn't have a station nearby at all.
Why would I need gas?

It's about 0.6 miles, mostly uphill and downhill. Maybe once every twelve days or so. And obviously, I can't exactly carry a jerry can on foot. But sure, I can drive every other day if the government and you lot decide that's what I should do.

At another location, it would be roughly 1.2 miles steep climbs and descents, winding mountain roads; you'd have to decide whether to take the bike or the car, assuming you want to avoid any social interaction whatsoever.

These permits are absolute garbage. They gave me one once, I didn't use it, and now they won't issue them. I sit in my car from Point A to Point B, maybe a twenty-minute drive, seeing absolutely nobody unless I'm staring through the windshield. It's private entry and exit. If there's an issue, like a break-in because people realize nobody is coming around, can I sue the state for blocking my access? Of course not, because first I'd have to pay the fine for "living in the wrong place." 🙄

hollowmason64 said:That’s a solid strategy right there.
Honestly though, the government is going to need all the revenue they can get, including from people like you who decide to "prove their innocence" only to end up paying the full fine plus costs instead of just settling for two-thirds.

That isn't entirely accurate. You can live in Washington, D.C. (as your registered residence), but you still pay local taxes based on where you actually reside.

You pay those taxes based on where you work.

Do you have a specific example for that?

Well, do you have an example showing that isn't the case?

Wow. I haven't met a single lawyer who is so blatantly against the Constitution.

That’s probably because you think you know the law just because—how did you put it?—you’ve "read a lot about it." You really don't.

Exactly, if nobody stops you, you just head home without a hitch. And if you check the American CDC website, they have a perfectly clear explanation of what self-isolation entails and who it applies to.

For the text I quoted, I also provided the source—the European e-Justice Portal, which is maintained by the European Commission to improve access to cross-border justice and public access to information regarding their initiatives and general European Union policies. It's definitely more relevant than your interpretation pulled from some place where the sun doesn't even shine.

Which one would that be?
The EC covers a lot of ground, but for actual legal practice, there are other institutions for that.
I didn't bother commenting on it earlier because you threw out an answer meant for an inquiry about annulments, yet here we are debating divorce and its legal grounds.
What am I even supposed to say to that? That you have no idea what you're talking about and you're mixing up basic terms? I could use much stronger language, but honestly... goodness forbid I waste my time getting worked up over you. I know the type—thinks they're an expert on everything and understands it all better than the professionals. Why bother with school when they were clearly born smart and finished with nothing more than a high school diploma?
Yeah, just keep thinking whatever you want... seriously.

Well, come on, finally enlighten us. After pages and pages of being cryptic, please, let's hear what this perfectly valid reason is for not having your ID sorted out—assuming it’s not just laziness or trying to get ahead somehow.

Because if you need fuel for a car you don't actually need to drive—since, as you put it, you can't really go anywhere from that small town—then why is it absolutely essential?
If people are giving ridiculous excuses like that to justify getting a pass, I honestly can't blame the authorities for brushing you off. Fuel... seriously?
🤦

Not them, but him. Just one. Not a group, just one individual.
The law is called the Infectious Disease Protection Act, and this version has been around for ages. Under Article 47 regarding Security Measures, it lays out very clearly everything the Secretary has the authority to do.
I've explained this before to these self-proclaimed legal experts who basically learned the law on Google, but every once in a while, someone like you pops up, and they're still spinning the same nonsense, so we just end up going in circles again.

I have zero interest in feeding the bottom feeders.
Stay stuck in your own narrow little bubble.

Since you don't even need gas for a car, because, as you put it yourself, you can't get anywhere from the middle of nowhere, why is it absolutely essential for you?
If people are citing things like that as reasons for a pass, I'm honestly not surprised when they get brushed off. Gas... seriously?
🤦

This wasn't about me, but 🤦 🤦 🤦
Go ahead and call my neighborhood the middle of nowhere if you want; I'm heading to the nearest big grocery store, which I apparently have to visit ten times just to grab everything I need to last a while.
The important thing is that you have plenty of gas since you actually go places.

Lisa Chase3 said:I guess maybe walking? I mean, look at folks in North Korea who trek for hours from their village to Pyongyang and back because nobody even owns a bike. (Sad irony, but true—unless fake news is real and everything we've seen about South Korea is just some photo montage and propaganda, which I've heard people say more than once, unless you've actually been there yourself), though honestly, people used to walk everywhere all the time and it was fine. Now, you basically need a car just to hit the local corner store for a paper, smokes, gum, or whatever else lol—this isn't meant to dismiss your point, I totally get what you're saying, but besides that, you really should always have gas in the tank. Do I even need to list all the people who can't just walk for an hour or two, or when you might suddenly need a ride and it's not just some scenic cruise?

Sure, maybe people need it less now, but plenty still need a car and a way to drive. Even if it sits for days, you gotta start it up occasionally just to keep it running, and you need gas for that (plus, prices dropped a bit 😵). Is that even worth explaining? What happens to a car sitting perfectly still like a tree for days, weeks, months?

Eureka, there's your solution: forget the gas, they should just buy bicycles.🙏

Joshua Gray75 said:There’s a massive wave of frustration regarding the sheer illogic of the stay-at-home orders—so many citizens are pushing back because they can't even drive to the next town over just to hit a pharmacy (since their own town doesn't have one) or grab gas at a station (because there isn't one in their municipality). They're taking these complaints straight to local officials, who—to be fair—are starting to realize this isn't a sustainable long-term strategy. Of course, you'll notice those local leaders are much more receptive when the Democratic Party or some other opposition group holds the reins...

As far as I can tell, these logical inconsistencies are only really being flagged by two members on this forum.
Maybe a few others too—though they aren't nearly as loud about it—or perhaps they've finally grasped what the vast majority of people here (and elsewhere) are actually talking about.

For some, a massive ego simply won't allow them to admit that they might be wrong—even occasionally.
For others, this forum serves as little more than an outlet for personal frustrations...
Some people just don't want to think.
And then there are those for whom it all simply doesn't matter.

☕

Exactly.
For instance, who's running the show in San Diego?

Adam Collins4 said:No, nobody is "enjoying" anything or acting superior—most of this was just about people who straight-up admitted they were negligent and now they're facing the music...

If someone has a legitimate reason—like that lady who posted earlier, or even you—that’s a completely different story...

But if someone missed an obligation because they were just being careless and now they're demanding their rights? Well, they just have to suck it up.

And wouldn't you know it, in the end, we all saw who was actually talking nonsense...😉

Whether they were negligent or had a valid excuse, the fact remains that the problem needs solving, and as of right now, nobody seems to have a clue how.

If you felt we weren't on the same page, you could have just said so instead of resorting to insults. I have zero interest in your smug little emojis paired with fresh attempts at being offensive. Period. Full stop.

-------
-------------------------------------

hollowmason64 said:What's the difference there? What did I say differently the second time? And where exactly in our country hasn't local transmission been recorded?
How are they going to figure out where you're coming from? Maybe by asking you?

Yeah, but what about the people who were harassing folks for just taking a walk in accordance with the instructions from the National Headquarters, denying them the right to a ventilator if they get sick, or calling them names... Isn't that hysteria?

Nope. In my book, those are just consequences being applied.

In other words, your interpretation of the law doesn't hold water.

Well, at least you think you've interpreted it correctly. Honestly, everyone thinks they're some kind of expert, and then when they hit a wall and mess up big time, they act shocked that things turned out differently because they chose to interpret 😁
differently.

Look, for private individuals, anything that isn't explicitly forbidden is allowed. On the flip side, there's another law that requires you to report a new residence if you've moved.

Honestly, nobody is actually profiting here, but unless someone is a tenant whose landlord refused to register them—making it impossible—there's no excuse for not updating an address other than laziness or looking out for one's own interests.
Anyway, people like that shouldn't be taking their frustrations out on others just because they're in a bind themselves.
And the local government is what it is; I didn't write the rules. 😁

Oh, please, they are absolutely gloating, listing off all these examples of how everyone screwed each other over regarding things like tolls, transportation, or even loans... 🙄
Besides renting, there are plenty of ways to suddenly find yourself stuck with the wrong legal residence.

It's easy to throw a fit when you feel justified—fine, give me the fine, but let me fix my paperwork first.
That seems to be the one thing you can't handle right now, especially since you can't even do it online.
Sure, if you listen to that Secretary, he'll tell you it's possible, so why wouldn't you be pissed?

hollowmason64 said:Where did I ever say it would be restricted? Come on, don't put words in my mouth.
All I said was that if you're traveling from another area, you might be issued an isolation order because you're coming from a zone with local transmission. For instance, if you're driving from Indianapolis to Washington, D.C., and the police pull you over, you'll be sent into isolation.

Just take a look at the comments on Facebook and various forums—the sheer amount of hysteria and symptoms of mental instability popping up is wild. The only difference is that people with actual disorders aren't life-threateningly ill.

The only thing I see online is all this whining about how "unbearable" it is because they want to see a girlfriend or boyfriend, go for a walk, head to a lake house, or visit family for Easter...
It’s just pure spoiled behavior and entitlement—feeling like everything has to happen exactly when and how they want it.

That "regulation" is found in the Family Law, and Article 51 lists "if one year has passed since the termination of the marital union" as the legal basis for divorce.

I never said that. You were the one who started questioning where it says spouses aren't allowed to live at two different addresses. I simply gave you the legal definition of marriage, which is a union. And a union implies that people live together.
In fact, the National Organization for Women notes that married partners can mutually decide where they will reside.
Nobody ever suggested the state would start annulling anything or monitoring who lives with whom. But once you guys started insistently badgering me with "where does it say that," I just pointed out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; I just find it unbelievable that people are getting so angry at others for being careless about their registered addresses in the first place.

Not quite. A pass is really just proof that you absolutely have to leave your home, like if you need to get to a job that can't be done remotely, provided your employer isn't on the list of businesses forced to shut down.

… with children.

🤦

The Family Law also dictates that spouses are obligated to be faithful to one another (Article 31).

It’s honestly sad that you’re exhausting the very concept of a "community" just by focusing on a single shared residence, regardless of how long someone is away.

Damn, I’m just now realizing what a ridiculous piece of legislation we have here in the US.

Nobody ever suggested the state would start nullifying anything, nor that they’re monitoring who lives with whom; rather, once you started insisting so stubbornly on "where does it say that," I simply answered your question by pointing out exactly what the law says regarding the residence of married partners.

If you claim something isn't allowed, then it follows logically that I should ask where exactly that prohibition is written.

And nobody is taking pleasure in anyone else's problems; it's just unbelievable to me that people are so angry at those who were simply careless regarding how they handle their registered addresses....

Fine, tax evasion, sloppiness... maybe by the end of this madness, you'll finally hit the mark.

Yeah, you guys are moralizing and enjoying yourselves.

We really ought to pull together and start making some formal proposals, just to see what can actually be accomplished without all this unnecessary drama.

Rijeka actually requested to consolidate the old regional ring, but they shut that down. Same thing happened with Maui—they wanted the whole island included, but that was rejected too.

hollowmason64 said:Nah, it’s not really about fear. I wouldn't call myself a fearful person by nature—though, obviously, I’m definitely not indifferent to what's going on.
It all comes down to how much harder everything has become lately. Honestly, just trying to live and work under these conditions is exhausting. I find myself constantly wishing this whole thing would just wrap up already. Your entire existence starts feeling like a repetitive cycle of washing and disinfecting yourself and everything you touch, which is just draining when you're actually trying to get things done. You end up spending half your energy just managing that, or just standing around outside the store waiting for a break, or trying to make sense of your day off. It’s a lot.
If we actually want this whole thing to wrap up sooner, there's one simple thing a certain number of people could do: just stay home. That’s it. No need to head out to the front lines, no need to pick up a rifle, and definitely no need to go out there risking your neck. Honestly, nothing dramatic is required—just staying put at home would make all the difference.
Look, I get it. In actual war zones, when things are falling apart and people are under fire, split-second decisions happen—people shoot because they have to survive. But if someone starts opening fire just because they want to go for a stroll, hang out with their buddies at a pub, or grab some food? Honestly, that’s a different story. As far as I'm concerned, you're either completely mentally unstable or just a spoiled brat.
I really need to be home right now... honestly, life just keeps throwing these little dramas my way.

That’s pretty much how it goes. Everyone who managed to "scrape by" or pull some fast one just points the finger at someone else when things inevitably blow up in their faces. It’s the same old story. It reminds me of that department head back in the day—she was constantly cutting corners with housing paperwork and address filings, playing fast and loose with the rules, but the second she got caught in the mess, she acted like it was everyone else's fault but hers. People just love to dodge accountability.
That's just the mindset for you.

Look, there isn’t an actual ban on anything here, but there is a legal definition for what constitutes a marriage. Under the law, marriage is— community.
Strictly speaking, if you have two people living at two different addresses, they aren't considered a household or a single unit.
Actually, if you look at how most people see it, once partners stop living under the same roof for more than a year, that’s usually the line where the relationship is considered over. It's like the community itself has effectively dissolved at that point.

Honestly, my favorite type of people are the ones who try to dodge that 18% withholding tax—believe me, I’d love to skip it too, but duty calls—and then they just stay registered somewhere else entirely and wonder, "Wait, is this going to be an issue?"
I mean, what on earth possessed you to move your registration out of Washington, D.C. if you actually live and work right here?

hollowmason64, what exactly are you talking about here, the definition of marriage?

Are you suggesting the government should be auditing residency applications just to annul marriages😁?

There is absolutely no prohibition on people in that sense, and you can't drag this out like some endless debate; the state can't just file a request to terminate a marriage, so writing what you're writing is completely pointless.

Just cool off and stop seeing enemies of the state lurking around every corner. Honestly... it is completely beneath my dignity to sit here and explain why I am in my current situation when idiots clearly can't grasp very simple rules in this context.
Go ahead and imagine how much I've clashed with the government; think whatever you want, because you aren't seeing any reason beyond tax hikes and other nonsense.

It’s great to see how much you all enjoy relishing in other people's problems while simultaneously not caring at all about, say, the neighbor next door who spends his days socializing with everyone under the sun; as long as you're busy worrying about who got hit by an unpaid tax bill, that's apparently your top priority.

Elizabeth Barrett6 said:Anyone else out there living this exact same way—living outside of Washington, D.C., but working and basically doing life in the city? I’ve got my work pass to get in, but I don't have an active residency registration in D.C. right now. I used to have it for tax purposes, but that expired.

Right now I'm hanging out at my permanent residence, but there's a good chance I'll have to head into the office next week. Am I gonna run into trouble since I don't have an active D.C. address on file?

I haven't tested that myself, but I'm in a similar boat (not in D.C., though—permanent residence in one spot, work and housing in another). Both branches of the National Headquarters have assured me that as long as you carry your permit (which, in this case, is for work), you won't face any issues.

Adam Collins4 said:I honestly find myself wondering why I constantly attract these mindless trolls who clearly struggle with basic reading comprehension... you want to argue, but you just don't have the mental capacity to back it up.

My wife is way too sharp for the kindergarten-level nonsense you're trying to pull here...

So, let's get back to it: provide me with one actual argument that proves living separately is somehow normal... when you find one, let me know.

Then we can move on to discussing your inability to actually read, and eventually, the part where you lie because you can't defend your own point.

P.S. If you want to show me what kind of "intellectual" you are, maybe stop dragging other people's families into this mess—especially since nobody is even bringing up yours... save that behavior for the people who failed to teach you manners.

Until then—give me an argument for when spouses living apart is actually acceptable...

I’m responding because you just keep pushing this nonsense.
I don't feel the need to prove who lives where, because that's beside the point.
The actual issue here is that there is simply no law or regulation preventing spouses from living at different addresses.
It’s just like how you aren't required to switch your bank card just because you moved houses—which was actually something you mentioned yourself.

Look at it this way:

James Phillips92 said:Why should spouses have to live at the same address? Is there some rule saying married couples aren't allowed to live apart?

Adam Collins4 said:Look, once you actually find me a realistic example—one that’s actually widespread, mind you—then we can have a real conversation about this...

Honestly, I have zero intention of getting into a wrestling match over something this trivial...

The reality is that most of these people were just too lazy to update their paperwork after getting married or moving house...

And yeah, technically, it is prohibited...😉

Some folks do it out of pure laziness, others because they're trying to cheat the system on travel reimbursements... and so on and so forth.

Go ahead and keep arguing with yourself; I know your style well enough, so fine... I'm done with this.👋

As for everyone else jumping in to feed off someone else's drama, fine, have at it—but don't be surprised when that same garbage comes back your way.

Adam Collins4 said:It’s not "trolling"—it’s "end of discussion" when you finally manage to provide an actual argument proving that any sane married couple actually lives apart...

Until then, I’m not interested in your playground games...

As for those people who claim they "live separately," they should probably stop whining and just finish their paperwork properly like everyone else...

Oh please, since we're talking about lies—when did I ever say it was forbidden for them? kava:

If you've got the guts, try having a conversation like that at home with your wife.

Adam Collins4 said:Oh, so we're trolling now...

Let me know when you're done with the spin...

Until then, I'm waiting for an actual argument—you know, where and when exactly this "spouses living apart" thing is supposed to happen...☕

I have no intention of going back and forth with you anymore. You're just spreading falsehoods.

It’s certainly not illegal for spouses to live at different addresses, despite what you claimed.
And there is absolutely no requirement to swap out all your bank cards just because you change your address, as you so confidently stated.
End of discussion.

Adam Collins4 said:Look, there isn't actually a ban if they are genuinely living apart...

I was just asking—quite politely, I might add—where in the real world you actually find couples living under different roofs...

And how many examples of that even exist...

Judging by this thread, people are complaining while basically admitting they didn't get their paperwork sorted out when they were supposed to...

So, my question stands: when exactly does a mass movement of spouses deciding to live separately actually happen?

So there really is no ban on spouses living apart. It sounds like you're just making it up as you go.

Adam Collins4 said:Wait, you want a link proving someone is committing fraud by living somewhere else than their registered address—say, basically scamming an employer out of travel reimbursements?

No. Give me the link regarding the ban on spouses maintaining separate residences.

Adam Collins4 said:I dealt with a situation at a firm once where this guy was registered as living in a special high-incentive zone... which meant he could claim extra tax credits and pull in some decent cash for commuting expenses. To be honest, nobody really batted an eye at first because, well, nobody actually knew who lived where in the beginning...

Then, the guy goes out and buys a condo in the city on a mortgage. Obviously, to finalize the loan, you have to update your address and all that jazz... so he did it with the Department of Justice, but totally neglected to tell the IRS... or even the payroll department at his company...

Fast forward about 20 months, the IRS finally figures out where he’s actually living, and boom—he gets hit with over $1,500 in back taxes he had to cough up immediately...

Naturally, everyone else was suddenly at fault—from the federal government down to my accounting team... while he was the only one in the right, of course. Typical.

I just don't get people who can't grasp the fact that whenever you change your info, you have to update more than just your ID—you need to notify your bank, your employer, everything. It's not rocket science.

What kind of bank cards would you actually need to change just because you moved addresses?

Adam Collins4 said:Look, once you actually find me a realistic example—one that’s actually widespread, mind you—then we can have a real conversation about this...

Honestly, I have zero intention of getting into a wrestling match over something this trivial...

The reality is that most of these people were just too lazy to update their paperwork after getting married or moving house...

And yeah, technically, it is prohibited...😉

Some folks do it out of pure laziness, others because they're trying to cheat the system on travel reimbursements... and so on and so forth.

Drop the link to this prohibition.
Or any other info you have regarding this supposed ban.

Nicholas King said:Is this perhaps the very same task force that—and I mean more sanctimonious than the Pope here—as far as I can tell, is the only one in the entire country (does every single local task force really need to invent their own rulebook that contradicts what the federal government mandates?) inventing an extra layer of bureaucracy where, for obtaining a permit based on circumstances involving caring for the elderly, the infirm, or non-relatives acting as caregivers, you now have to submit a formal opinion from a primary care physician?

I can already see the sheer exhaustion on the faces of these doctors because, given how completely broken our healthcare system is right now, they’re being forced to deal with even more nonsense like providing these "opinions"—and I mean, what could a primary care doctor possibly weigh in onregarding the specifics of caring for the elderly, the infirm, or non-relatives who aren't blood-related to the patient??? But hey, I guess that’s just what some bureaucrat decided was a good idea.

#bureaucracyatitspeak

He’s approving home healthcare, so he's likely more acquainted with how things work on the ground. That’s probably what they were aiming for, though we still run into issues since not everyone in need actually qualifies for coverage.

Has anyone living outside their municipality actually received a response yet?

Melissa Stewart6 said:I'm not interested in the math games being played by James Lee77 or Sisyphus. I actually agree with his point regarding the moderation, though.

I’m not interested in their little accounting sessions either. If you’ve walked away thinking otherwise, you've completely misread the situation.

What I'm actually getting at is this: sometimes, even the moderators don't feel like enforcing the rules on their own threads.

The person who started this thread can testify to that firsthand from their own experience.

Or... you can choose to deal with idiots by spreading them around to other users with moderator backing. And of course, leaving some people totally unsanctioned.

The whole thing is so absurdly ridiculous that I just had to drop my two cents. This isn't even about picking mods for the forum; I'm stepping away from that debate entirely.
Cheers,