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.
Is it actually possible that you’re struggling to wrap your head around this? Honestly, I feel like I'm explaining basic civic logic here. Let’s look at a concrete scenario to clear up the fog. Take local income tax, for instance—that surcharge people pay to their municipality. You pay it to the city where you actually reside, purely because that's where your legal residence is established. To give you a personal example, I live out in Solon, but I commute into the city for work every single day; naturally, I pay my local taxes to Solon because that is where my permanent address is registered. Now, let’s apply that to the hypothetical situation you mentioned. If the person in your example has their permanent residence in a small coastal town like Malibu, keeps a secondary residence in a place like Kansas City, and then commutes from Kansas City to Chicago for their job, they wouldn't be paying those local taxes in Chicago just because they show up there to punch the clock. No, they would be paying them in Kansas City, where their residency is officially documented. It’s about where you live, not where you spend your working hours. Simple as that.
So, here is what you're actually claiming:
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.
You’re completely off base here—even in the very quote you provided, it explicitly states that payments are determined by your place of residence, not, as you so confidently claim, your place of employment. Just because, in this specific inquiry, the workplace happens to align with where the person lives doesn't mean your logic holds any water. You can't just take a coincidental overlap and use it to rewrite the rules; the text clearly outlines the criteria for determination, and it points squarely at residency.
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.
Are you actually aware that the Secretary of Homeland Security is currently holding that office? It’s a fundamental fact, really, though I suppose clarity isn't exactly a priority for everyone these days. He isn't the Secretary of Health and Human Services—not by a long shot. I remember back when my cousin was dealing with those massive bureaucratic headaches over at the CDC in Atlanta, and even then, the jurisdictional lines were drawn with absolute precision. You can look it up if you need a reality check, but the federal statutes regarding public health protections and infectious disease control simply do not grant any authority whatsoever to the Department of Homeland Security. It's quite basic legal structure, yet here we are, acting as if the entire administrative framework of this country has collapsed into chaos.
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.
Yeah, well, it certainly looks lovely written out like that, doesn't it? It’s one of those things where everything seems perfectly aligned on paper, almost deceptively so, much like how I once thought my old vintage Mustang was going to be a reliable daily driver before the transmission decided to give up the ghost right in the middle of a busy intersection in Chicago. You see the elegance of the prose, the way the sentiment flows, and you think, "Yes, this is exactly how it should be," but then reality starts to settle in, and you realize that a polished sentence isn't always a reflection of the messy, complicated truth underneath. It’s all very well and good to have it looking pretty, but I've lived long enough to know that aesthetics can be quite a distraction from the actual substance of the matter at hand.
I was reading through this rather lengthy, supposedly "informative" article earlier today—and I use that term loosely, because frankly, calling it informative feels like a stretch—and I couldn't help but feel a mounting sense of irritation at how it was structured. It’s one of those pieces where you start out thinking you might actually learn something useful about the current landscape, perhaps some insight into the shifting economic tides we see here in the States, but then you get bogged down in these endless, circular arguments that seem to go nowhere fast. It reminds me of a situation I dealt with years ago when I was working for a logistics firm over in Chicago; we had a consultant come in, someone who spoke with incredible authority and used all the right buzzwords, yet every single suggestion he made was fundamentally disconnected from the reality of our daily operations. That is exactly what this article feels like. It’s polished, yes, it’s presented with a certain level of academic sheen, but once you peel back the layers, there is very little substance to hold onto. You spend ten minutes wading through dense, pseudo-intellectual prose only to realize the author hasn't actually addressed the core issue at hand, which, in my estimation, is the real crux of the matter. It’s frustrating, truly, to see such well-funded editorial resources wasted on something that offers nothing more than a superficial glance at a deeply complex topic. One would hope for a bit more rigor, a bit more honesty, but I suppose that's asking too much of modern digital journalism. Look, we really need to address the fundamental flaw in the reasoning being used here, because frankly, it’s exhausting to follow. This argument was formulated entirely before any local broadcast signals were even confirmed, and yet, the speaker keeps making these sweeping, sweeping generalizations about entire nations whenever they discuss areas under local transmission. It’s a massive logical leap that just doesn't hold water. If we actually applied that kind of rigid, hyper-literal logic to real life, we’d be forced to mandate total self-isolation for every single person who dares to step out the front door just to grab a gallon of milk at a local 7-Eleven. It’s absurd.
The Secretary mentioned that once we hit those high-incidence hotspots, certain special measures will kick in, but honestly, I can't help but wonder how that’s actually going to play out on the ground. It sounds fine when you hear it delivered from a podium in D.C., all polished and authoritative, but there is such a massive gap between a policy announcement and the actual reality of local enforcement. I remember back when my cousin was working in public health administration in Chicago, he used to vent constantly about how these "special measures" often turn into nothing more than a mountain of confusing paperwork that does little to actually address the crisis at hand while simultaneously strangling small businesses. You have to ask yourself: what does this look like in practice? Are we talking about localized lockdowns, redirected federal funding, or just more bureaucratic red tape that leaves the people in the middle of the storm feeling completely abandoned by the government? It feels like we're being promised a precision tool when, historically, the government tends to swing a sledgehammer. Can you actually see that over there?.
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.
Now, look, nobody is actually claiming that you wrote that such a thing automatically results in a divorce. But, for heaven's sake, it’s equally untrue to suggest that the law itself implies such a consequence either.
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.
When we talk about the dissolution of a marriage, we aren't just talking about paperwork; we’re talking about the total cessation of everything that actually constitutes a marital union. It’s a fundamental shift in existence. People tend to get hung up on the logistics, specifically the idea that living under separate roofs is the ultimate litmus test for whether a marriage has ended, but I’ve always found that logic to be incredibly shallow. Moving into a studio apartment in downtown Chicago or renting a place out in the suburbs isn't a strictly necessary requirement to prove a marriage is over, nor is it a sufficient one on its own. I remember a colleague of mine back in my university days who moved out months before his divorce was even filed, yet they were still functionally married in every way that mattered—sharing finances, making joint decisions, and maintaining an emotional bond. Yet, in the eyes of the legal system here in the States, lawyers almost always lean on that physical separation as their primary evidence to demonstrate that the community has truly dissolved for the sake of a divorce filing. It’s a convenient shorthand for the courts, I suppose, but it misses the messy, complicated reality of how human connections actually break apart.
Let’s consider a bit of a hypothetical scenario here—something that feels like it could happen in any suburban sprawl across the States, where the logistics of moving can get incredibly messy. Imagine this: a husband and wife sit down and make a very deliberate, very calculated agreement. He decides to relocate from a coastal city like San Diego over to a major hub like Chicago to chase a career opportunity, and he goes ahead and buys an apartment there, officially updating his residency to match. Meanwhile, the wife and their child stay behind in San Diego. They’ve mapped it out with this sort of rigid, almost clinical precision: she and the kid will join him in Chicago in two years, once the little one finishes elementary school. The logic—if you can call it that—is to avoid the upheaval of moving the child right before they start high school, ensuring they can settle into a new district for the long haul. It sounds organized on paper, I suppose, but when you really sit with the idea of a family living split between two coasts like that, you have to wonder about the emotional toll and the sheer exhaustion of maintaining two separate lives just to satisfy a logistical timeline.
In the meantime, we manage to make things work, though it’s far from simple; he might head out to Los Angeles for the weekend, or she and the kid will make the trip up to New York whenever their schedules and finances allow for it. We try our best to spend the holidays together, making sure we sit down and hash out all the heavy decisions as a unit, because that's just how we operate. And look, it isn't like we're just making this up as we go—there's a whole paper trail for everything. We have the texts, the printed transcripts of our conversations, and even friends who were over at the house during those weekends when we were actually both home together to vouch for us.
However, once that first year drags on, she starts to harbor this subtle, simmering resentment toward her husband, though she remains tight-lipped about it—she’s convinced herself that if they can just power through one more year, things might stabilize, and she’d hate to throw the whole marriage away just yet. But that kind of silence isn't healthy; it just eats away at you from the inside until, eventually, she reaches her breaking point and decides she has to file for divorce. Now, here is what I am actually wondering: do you really think an American family court judge would actually buy her claim that the marital union had effectively dissolved over a year ago due to living at separate addresses, especially when there is a mountain of evidence and plenty of witnesses ready to testify that, in reality, they were still very much a unit?
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.
It’s pretty obvious you were looking at the wrong section—or more accurately, you weren't reading closely enough, because if you had, you would have noticed the text doesn't actually match what I was quoting. The passage I am referencing is located right under the heading
5 What are the conditions for legal separation?, which is exactly what I linked you to directly via the URL hash.
Jerry Robinson56 said:The police can enter a residence without a warrant... in certain specific circumstances.
That is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, but that bolded part is crucial—they can enter under very strictly defined circumstances, but they can't just claim, "Oh, there was music playing, so we assumed someone was in immediate danger, and since we couldn't hear screaming over the music, we assumed everything was fine." That logic doesn't hold water.
Jerry Robinson56 said:Do you even understand what viruses are and how they spread? Infection is possible through food or even traces you leave behind.
Sure, it's possible, but it's highly unlikely. It's technically possible that I get hit by a car tomorrow on my way to the grocery store, but we don't ban all traffic because of that; instead, we establish traffic laws and speed limits. It's the same principle with a virus—the primary risk comes from being in close proximity to an infected person, which is why social distancing guidelines exist, while the less probable scenarios are addressed through recommended precautionary measures to mitigate those risks.
Jerry Robinson56 said:Until then, quarantine is the best possible option. And the only one.
Do you actually grasp the concept of viruses and incubation periods? A nationwide quarantine wasn't even implemented (at the federal level), nor is it the most effective measure for a virus of this nature. Quarantine is an ideal response for high-mortality viruses with short incubation periods, whereas with something like COVID-19, quarantine is really a last resort used only for areas where the spread has become totally uncontrollable.
