#tax evasion is a moral obligation | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sixpossumsinaclownsuit · 26 days

Text

Remember kiddos, polygamy and polyamory was only demonized for four core reasons:

Tw: homophobia, sexism, religious commentary, political commentary, oppression

1.) America wanted more taxes

Part of the legal institutionalization of marriage is that there is tax benefits for the individual parties when they get married, and financial ties/power is attorney between married people. It becomes messy when these ties extend to multiple people/marriages and the I*RS wants they tax money, and America would rather just make an entire way of life illegal than make laws and systems that accommodate people. See point #4 for more on that

2.) Puritan culture (aka thinly veiled sexism)

Puritan culture relies heavily on systems of control that villainize sex and women (that's a whole other conversation but I won't digress), and lots of marriages/polygamous marriages having sex with each other is obviously bad bad bad!! Hard to control!! Save the defenseless women from their pimp husbands! Orgies, the devil's work! And...

3.) Homophobia

Good god, women being in marriages together! Married to a man, but what if these women end up by being married to each other by extension! And having sex with each other! And what if a woman marries more than one man! Would these men become inferior to their wives? Would one of these husbands be less dominant than another? Would the men function in these complex marriages like a woman?! Disgusting! That's gay (derogatory!) Would these husbands be having sex with each other? But that's gay and gay is bad! Sex is bad! God, purge these sinners of their Sodomy!

(Surprise surprise, homophobia has very little to do with actual gay people and has everything to do with puritan culture, control, sexism and the demonization of sex, and points two and three are actually the same thing)

4.) Christian nationalism

Polygamy and nonmonogamy is normalized and integrated with several non-Christian and alternative Christian cultures going back thousands of years, like Islam, Mormonism, feudal Japanese/samurai cultures, Hinduism, several Native American cultures, etc... even in the Bible in Judeo-Christian history and biblical era cultures nonmonogamy was normalized. Banning nonmonogamy in America is banning the right to engage in non-christian religious rite and practice. It's only something criminal to post-puritan Christians and those beliefs becoming law, regardless of other religious beliefs and practices also existing in America, is the unseparation of church and state.

So before you tell a polyamorous person "oh that's cheating with permission" or "I could NEVER do that," or "I love my partner too much to do that/cheat like that," remember that these are the institutions and the propaganda you're upholding with your judgement. Supporting/ being kind about polyamory is religious tolerance, and biting your thumb at the I*RS.

Tl:dr, the dissolution of separating of church and state, puritan culture and the sexism/homophobia associated with puritan culture is why nonmonogamy is demonized and why polygamy is illegal in America.

Tone indication/post intention: satirical and exaggerated tones criticizing longstanding institutions of oppression with the intent to explain why judging, hating or criticizing nonmonogamous practices is oppressive and a result of propaganda. This post is not intended to persuade people who practice monogamy to practice nonmonogamy instead or to demonize monogamy. It is intended to advocate for breaking the stigma around nonmonogamy.

11 notes · View notes

incorrectsmashbrosquotes · 9 months

Note

So what do the Smashers think of Reptile’s dinosaur form? :D

Everyone Else: Sexy!

Yoshi: PLAGIARISM!

Everyone Else: SHUT UP, TAX EVADER!

Yoshi: Tax Evasion isn't a crime it's a moral obligation!

#incorrect super smash bros #super smash bros #incorrect quotes #smash bros #Yoshi #Reptile #Super Mario #Mortal Kombat #MK #MK 1 #Mortal Kombat 1

38 notes · View notes

wizthecringeone · 1 year

Text

13 notes · View notes

legalntax · 8 months

Text

Business Advisory Services in Dwarka/ Delhi

Legal-N-Tax Advisory LLP provides services for taxation, tax audits, tax litigation, tax controversy, accounting, and business registration in Dwarka Delhi.

LegalnTax India: Your Trusted Partner for Legal and Tax Advisory Services.

Charge Arranging, Assessment Aversion, and Tax Avoidance Made sense of

Charge Arranging: An Essential Methodology

Charge arranging is a genuine and fundamental practice that intends to upgrade a person's or alternately element's expense liabilities inside the limits of the law. It includes cautiously analyzing what is going on to recognize amazing open doors for lawfully decreasing how much duties are owed. Utilizing government-provided tax credits, deductions, exemptions, and incentives are examples of tax planning strategies.

For example, people can add to retirement accounts like IRAs or 401(k)s, which assist with getting their monetary future as well as give tax cuts as conceded tax collection. In a similar vein, businesses can structure their operations in a way that conforms to tax regulations to maintain compliance while simultaneously reducing their tax liabilities.

Charge Aversion: Working Inside the Structure

Charge evasion includes orchestrating one's monetary undertakings in a way that decreases charge obligation while remaining solidly inside the limits of the law. It's critical to take note that charge evasion systems could include exploiting legitimate provisos or ambiguities in the expense code. This training is frequently reprimanded for permitting well-off people and partnerships to pay proportionately lower charges than those with fewer assets.

An exemplary illustration of expense evasion is utilizing seaward records to protect pay from homegrown tax collection. While these procedures are legal, they some of the time flash discussions about reasonableness and value in the duty framework. Numerous states have put forth attempts to close these provisos and increment straightforwardness to guarantee that charge evasion doesn't dissolve their income base.

Tax Avoidance: Crossing the Legitimate Line

Tax avoidance, rather than charge arranging and expense evasion, is a purposeful and unlawful demonstration of not paying the duties that one owes. In most jurisdictions, it entails misrepresenting or concealing financial information in order to evade taxes. Evasion of taxes can result in severe penalties such as fines and imprisonment.

Instances of tax avoidance incorporate underreporting pay, swelling derivations, and keeping up with fake records. High-profile instances of tax avoidance have placed a focus on the results of mocking duty regulations, underscoring the significance of complying with legitimate expense commitments.

Key Focal points: Finding Some kind of harmony

Understanding the differentiations between charge arranging, charge aversion, and tax avoidance is fundamental for anybody hoping to deal with their funds. Tax evasion is a criminal act that can have dire consequences, whereas tax planning and legitimate tax avoidance are legal strategies aimed at minimizing tax burdens.

It is essential to remain informed regarding the changing tax landscape as governments continue to refine tax regulations and close loopholes. Talking with charge experts, like bookkeepers and assessment lawyers, can give important experiences in exploring this complicated territory while remaining on the right half of the law.

All in all, mindful assessment arranging and vital expense aversion are fundamental parts of monetary administration. They make it possible for individuals and businesses to reduce their tax liabilities without breaking any laws. By embracing these practices and maintaining a moral monetary way of behaving, we can add to a fair and useful duty framework that upholds financial development and cultural prosperity.

For more details - https://www.legalntaxindia.com/

#tax #tax services #taxation

0 notes

eternal-echoes · 2 years

Text

Catechism of the Catholic Church

II. Respect for Persons and Their Goods

2407 In economic matters, respect for human dignity requires the practice of the virtue of temperance, so as to moderate attachment to this world's goods; the practice of the virtue of justice, to preserve our neighbor's rights and render him what is his due; and the practice of solidarity, in accordance with the golden rule and in keeping with the generosity of the Lord, who "though he was rich, yet for your sake . . . became poor so that by his poverty, you might become rich."189

Respect for the goods of others

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one's disposal and use the property of others.190

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.191

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.

2410 Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just. A significant part of economic and social life depends on the honoring of contracts between physical or moral persons - commercial contracts of purchase or sale, rental or labor contracts. All contracts must be agreed to and executed in good faith.

2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.

One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.

2412 In virtue of commutative justice, reparation for injustice committed requires the restitution of stolen goods to their owner:

Jesus blesses Zacchaeus for his pledge: "If I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold."192 Those who, directly or indirectly, have taken possession of the goods of another, are obliged to make restitution of them, or to return the equivalent in kind or in money, if the goods have disappeared, as well as the profit or advantages their owner would have legitimately obtained from them. Likewise, all who in some manner have taken part in a theft or who have knowingly benefited from it - for example, those who ordered it, assisted in it, or received the stolen goods - are obliged to make restitution in proportion to their responsibility and to their share of what was stolen.

2413 Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. the passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant.

2414 The seventh commandment forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity. It is a sin against the dignity of persons and their fundamental rights to reduce them by violence to their productive value or to a source of profit. St. Paul directed a Christian master to treat his Christian slave "no longer as a slave but more than a slave, as a beloved brother, . . . both in the flesh and in the Lord."193

#Catholic #Christianity #Catechism

6 notes · View notes

nefariouscryptid · 3 years

Note

um!!!!!!! i’m not v well acquainted w your characters yet so!!! who are the valentino’s n what do they do (: <3 just general info if you wanna talk abt it or whatever andbmanf 🥺

So the Valentino’s are a crime family that work for the Durante family, which is a part of an underground political empire.

The Valentino’s themselves are Brian Valentino, Plethora Valentino, and Cassandra Valentino. All three of them are married to each other in a closed polygamous relationship (I think that’s how you would refer to it).

Brian Valentino works for a small drug faction responsible for producing opioids and sedatives for use on political prisoners, to slowly introduce drugs into a country that lacks any kind of narcotrafficking (usually these kinds of jobs r paid in high amounts and very rarely happen due to the risky nature of it), and to deal drugs to politicians who just wanna get high. Personality wise he’s standoffish, blunt, rough around the edges, and extremely loyal to those who he cares about, which is only his husband and wife. He acts a lot without thinking, is fairly antisocial, and quick to judgement.

Plethora Valentino is an assassin who’s usually signed to assassinating lower political officials or is in charge of training any newbies that come in either from the SLATE program or from the military, since Plethora is considered a veteran assassin at the point he’s at. A lot in his job is mostly setting up dates and methods of how someone is going to get whacked, but if he’s the one doing the killing it’s most of the time him being a sniper. His biggest hit was a Vice President which required him to be in hiding for about 3 months. However what ended up as the biggest hit because of how badly it went was of Ivans wife, which prompted an unplanned 4-6 month hiding which ended up being extremely… traumatic. Plethora is an outgoing wiseass, usually getting along with anyone he meets or has to work with and has a more childish personality. He’s quick to anger, brash, and loyal to anyone he cares about. After the assasination of Mrs. Frikoski however he became very closed off and anxious, often confused on what day it was, and forgetting anything he had to do for the day.

Cassandra Valentino is the chief executive of The CFTC and is responsible for monitoring and changing stock numbers and what markets are set to become more mainstream in the public for their investments, as well as making sure parties on the market meet their contractual obligations. She is to notify anyone in her section of the industry if there is going to be a planned market crash or increase value to specific popular or underinvested but known stocks. She’s a cunning yet reserved woman, always psychoanalyzing people and treating them more as if they’re a list of information rather then people. She’s fairly shy if she can afford to be, but is assertive and has a sense of commandingness to her.

While she doesn’t every show up with her family (cause they… yk… die…) Brenda Valentino is their child that was born outside of Cassandras womb as a kind of experiment by the Frikoski’s after they murdered everyone. That didn’t work and she was put into adoption and was fostered by a family who neglected, physically, and emotionally abused her. She got into the anarchist political scene as a teenager, especially since it really took off with underground groups during the new Frikoski empire era, where they finally ran away from home, started HRT, and became an “enemy of the state” as she would half jokingly refer to themself as. She became notorious for helping conduct and participating in a mass shooting against a hate group that was about to execute multiple people for racial reasons. She’s also wanted for tax evasion, credit card fraud, assault with a deadly weapon, multiple other assault charges, murder of law enforcement officials, and is classified as being a terrorist (also keep in mind this is a different world now then what we have so they also would be arrested for things regarding freedom of speech since there’s no amendment for that anymore, and things she is wanted for differs slightly for how it would work in our world. Either way she would absolutely still be classified as a terrorist.) Brenda is a very ruthless person, her formative years skewing her sense of morality and furthering her hatred towards society and even the world before she was born. However despite this she does have a strong moral code and opinions on what is right or wrong (despite knowing morality is technically made up and she has problems with a lot of takes on it), although it is still clouded by her violent behavior and extreme measures she’s willing to go for them, and while she doesn’t believe in justice being served by any government or group of people, she still will try to help people if they’re in a current bad situation. To her avenging people is pointless because it’s not going to prevent anything from happening again and to them they think it’s more about people feeding their savior complex. But she has come across rotten people in her time that have done horrible things to people such as children that she has helped people kill. She’s someone that most people have a problem with if they follow a “violence is not the answer” mindset. While she fights and believes in good causes she’s extremely violent and causes just as much death (outside of system caused deaths) as the people she’s against. She doesn’t impose her methods or ideologies onto other people cause like I said she doesn’t believe in group led vengeance unless literally everyone is on board and there isn’t a definite leader. It’s up to you to decide if she’s a good person or not.

#alex banters #asks #bab tag #brian valentino #cassandra valentino #plethora valentino #brenda valentino #my ocs

3 notes · View notes

regina-del-cielo · 3 years

Note

Hi!! Really curious about 22 and 24 for the “hi, I’m not from the US” ask set”

Hello Anon! Thank you for asking!

22. what makes you proud about your country? what makes you ashamed?

Oh boy, this is the One Million Dollar question, mh? Ok, buckle up.

I'm proud of the history, the art, the natural beauty, the food, the culture (most of it), the language. I love how diverse and yet similar we are (and this is a hill I will die on: the history of Italy's unification is chock full of controversies, mistakes and crimes, but it wasn't based on nothing. The ideal behind it was fucking real, and I think too many Italians get lost in the differences and forget it). I'm proud of the fact that despite being a dumpster fire of a country (see below), we're still alive and kicking - we can still reach excellence in many fields, we still see and create beauty, we still help.

What am I ashamed of? *waves hands around* I think I can sum it up as THE FUCKING POLITICS. Italy has a chronic problem with politicians that care more about short-term consensus (and getting the hefty pension) than actually thinking about what the country needs. The bureaucracy is INSANE, tax evasion is out of control, which means that people who actually pay taxes have to pay a lot more than they should for services that are barely staying aloft as they are (infrastructures, schools, the national healthcare system)... if the governments themselves don't cut the budgets destined for those services. Not to mention how the Vatican is always breathing on the neck of politicians when it comes to anything that vaguely, tangentially, touches morality, and unfortunately the ones that most often end up in the government bow their heads. When a complaint for a structural problem arises, or an economic crisis comes in (and it cyclically does, because guess what? They never solve the problems that caused it in the first place), it's always the fault of the ones that came before. Or of immigrants, depends how much they're skewed towards the right wing. Also, if one were to judge the intelligence level of my compatriots by the people interviewed on afternoon tv programs they'd think we're a mass of illitterates with retrograde views on basically everything, and I find that disgusting.

24. what other nation is joked about most often in your country?

FRANCE. No Italian EVER will lose the occasion to diss France. It's a moral obligation at this point. Honourable mention to the Very Specific Dissing of Germans for wearing sandals with socks and drinking cappuccino while eating a full lunch.

#anonymous #asks and answers #hi I'm not from the US ask set #I got emotional answering the first question wtf #hope I satisfied your curiosity Anon #the fact that the 'ashamed' section is longer than the 'proud' one is Very Italian of me #I should also say that we Italians have a habit of self-deprecation that is probably equal to our dissing of the French and Germans

5 notes · View notes

threadvector · 3 years

Text

The irony is that taxes were intended to lessen social polarity and friction

Moreover, these strata of society were most likely to use tax planning to minimize their tax payments. They wriggled their way around controversial subjects and the result was that every loophole cutting measure brought in its wake a growing host of others. Governments from Germany to the USA are working along the same lines. But they underwent a malignant transformation. In the lunatic fringes there were those who refused to pay taxes and served prison sentences as a result. But there is no way of preventing a tax evader from enjoying tax money paid by others. This way, more tax payers were supposed to be caught in "the net". The situation looked hopeless. Money is transferred from one group of citizens (law abiding taxpayers) - to other groups. It indirectly affects the purchasing power of those not knowledgeable enough, devoid of political clout, or not rich enough to protect themselves.. Suddenly, the fashion was to downsize government, minimize its disruptive involvement in the marketplace and reduce the total tax burden as part of the GNP. All these very dear prices might have been acceptable if taxes were to achieve their primary stated goals. Tax revenues were diverted to pay for urban renewal, to encourage foreign investments through tax breaks and tax incentives, to enhance social equality by evenly redistributing income and so on.

These economic activities went unreported and totally deformed the processes of macroeconomic decision making, supposedly based on complete economic data. So, governments tried the next trick in their bag: they shifted from progressive taxes to regressive ones. This lack of transparency and even-handedness led to the frequent eruption of scandals which unseated governments more often than not. That they failed to do so is what sparked the latest rebellious thinking. At first, the governments of the world tried a few simple recipes: They tried to widen the tax base by better collection, processing, amalgamation and crossing of information. On the other, the number of tax rates and the magnitude of each rate will be pared down. This proved to be a much more efficient measure - albeit with grave social consequences. They began to be used to express social preferences. Monstrous black economies were formed by entrepreneuring souls. This was really a shift from taxes on income to taxes on consumption. The salaries of the lower strata of society are eroded by inflation and this has the exact same effect as a tax would. Regressive taxes were politically and socially costly. Research demonstrated that most tax money benefited the middle classes and the rich, in short: those who need it least. Still, it became so widespread and so socially accepted that no one dared challenge it seriously. The idea is aesthetically appealing: all tax concessions and loopholes will be eliminated, on the one hand. This failed dismally.To tax or not to tax - this question could have never been asked twenty years ago.

They abolished on the one hand - and gave with the other. If they succeed, we may all inherit a better world. Moreover, VAT and other direct taxes on consumption were almost immediately reflected in higher inflation figures. This is why inflation is called the poor man's tax. Taxes are inherently unjust. Thus, governments were reduced to using the final, nuclear-like, weapon in their arsenal: the simplification of the tax system. Moreover, decades of progressive taxation did not reverse the trend of a growing gap between the rich and the poor. As economic theory goes, inflation is a tax. This apparent lack of macroeconomic control creates a second layer of mistrust between the citizen and his government (on top of the one related to the collection of taxes). This entailed conflicts with special interest groups whose interests were duly reflected in the tax loopholes. They are enforced, using state coercion. Progressive taxes resembled Swiss cheese: too many loopholes, not enough substances. Taxes are largely considered to be responsible for the following: They distorted business thinking; Encouraged the misallocation of economic resources; Diverted money to strange tax motivated investments; Absorbed unacceptably large chunks of the GDP; Deterred foreign investment; Morally corrupted the population, encouraging it to engage in massive illegal activities; Adversely influenced macroeconomic parameters such as unemployment, the money supply and interest rates; Deprived the business sector of capital needed for its development by spending it on non productive political ends; Caused the smuggling of capital outside the country;

The formation of strong parallel, black economies and the falsification of economic records thus affecting the proper decision making processes; Facilitated the establishment of big, inefficient bureaucracies for the collection of taxes and data related to income and economic activity; Forced every member of society to - directly or indirectly - pay for professional services related to his tax obligations, or, at least to consume his own resources (time, money and energy) in communicating with authorities dealing with tax collection. The recipients are less savoury: they either do not pay taxes legally (low income populations, children, the elderly) - or avoid paying taxes illegally. They are trying to stem what is in effect a tax rebellion, a major case of civil disobedience. Marginal tax rates will go down considerably and so will the number of tax rates. Income distribution has remained inequitable (ever more so all the time) - despite gigantic unilateral transfers of money from the state to the poorer socio - economic strata of society. VAT rules around the world allow businesses to offset VAT that they paid from VAT that they were supposed to pay to the authorities. Historically, income tax is a novel invention. As long as this is the case, the eternal chase of the citizen by his government will continue. People found ways around this relatively unsophisticated approach and frequent and successive tax campaigns were to no avail. Governments, being political creatures, did a half hearted job. No wonder that tax planning is regarded as the rich man's shot at tax evasion. The government, on its part, will no longer use the tax system to express its (political) preferences. Recent studies clearly indicate that a reverse relationship exists between the growth of the economy and the extent of public spending. If they fail, the very fabric of societies will be affected.

Many of them ended up receiving VAT funds paid the poorer population, to which these tax breaks were, obviously, not available. Knowing the propensities of human beings, the safe bet is that people will still hate to see their money wasted in unaccounted for ways on bizarre, pork barrel, projects. In economies where taxes gobble up to 60% of the GDP (France, Germany, to name a few) - taxes became THE major economic disincentive. When the social consequences of levying regressive taxes became fully evident, governments went back to the drawing board. The natural inclination was to try and plug the holes: disallow allowances, break tax breaks, abolish special preferences, eliminate loopholes, write-offs, reliefs and a host of other, special deductions. The poor subsidized the tax planning of the rich, so that they could pay less taxes.

The irony is that taxes were intended to lessen social polarity and friction - but they achieved exactly the opposite. The same pattern was repeated: the powerful few were provided with legal loopholes. They are an infringement of the human age old right to property. Some of them tried to translate their platforms into political power and established parties, which failed dismally in the polls. As Big Government became more derided - so were taxes perceived to be its instrument and the tide turned. Thousands of laws, tax loopholes, breaks and incentives and seemingly arbitrary decision making, not open to judicial scrutiny eroded the trust that a member of the community should have in its institutions. So, people will feel less like core spun sewing threads Manufacturers cheating and they will spend less resources on the preparation of their tax returns. Why work for the taxman? Why finance the lavish lifestyle of numerous politicians and bloated bureaucracies through tax money? Why be a sucker when the rich and mighty play it safe? The results were socially and morally devastating: an avalanche of illegal activities, all intended to avoid paying taxes. It will propagate a simple, transparent, equitable, fair and non arbitrary system which will generate more income by virtue of these traits. But some of what they said made sense. Originally, taxes were levied to pay for government expenses. They could afford to pay professionals to help them to pay less taxes because their income was augmented by transfers of tax money paid by the less affluent and by the less fortunate

1 note · View note

uscitizenship · 4 years

Text

The Top 5 Things You Need to Know Before Applying for Citizenship

1. You must be a lawful permanent resident of the United States for a required period of time to apply for citizenship In order to apply for citizenship, you must be a lawful permanent resident of the United States for a specified period of time. The period of time you must wait before filing for citizenship depends on how you acquired your permanent residence.

If you acquired your permanent residence based on marriage to a United States Citizen spouse, and you are still married to that individual, you may apply for citizenship once you have reached a 3-year period of continuous residence as a legal permanent resident.

If you are no longer married to the U.S. Citizen spouse through which you gained your permanent residence, or if you did not gain your permanent residence based on marriage, you may apply for citizenship once you have reached a required 5-year period of continuous residence as a legal permanent resident.

2. You must demonstrate that you have been physically present in the United States and maintained continuous residence for a required period of time in order to file for citizenship

Physical Presence

In order to apply for citizenship, you must demonstrate that you have been physically present in the United States for at least 30 months in the 5 years preceding your citizenship application.

Continuous Residence

In addition, you must demonstrate that you have maintained continuous residence in the United States for a 3- or 5-year period depending on how you obtained your permanent residence. This means that you must not have taken any trips outside of the United States that lasted more than 6 months out of the year in the 5 years preceding your citizenship application. Trips outside of the United States include trips taken to Mexico.

Absences lasting more than 6 months may disqualify you from applying for citizenship.

You must keep in mind that the naturalisation application specifically asks questions regarding how many trips the applicant has taken abroad that lasted 24 hours or longer including:

How many total days (24 hours or longer) did you spend outside the US during the last 5 years How many trips of 24 hours or longer have you taken outside the US during the last 5 years List all trips of 24 hours or longer that you have taken outside the US during the last 5 years starting with your most recent trip including the date you left the US and the date you returned to the US. Exemptions exist for applicants working abroad for the United States government such as members of the military, and contractors of the U.S. government.

3. You must demonstrate that you are a person of good moral character

At the time of your citizenship interview, the immigration officer must make a determination regarding your moral character. Individuals who have been arrested or convicted of serious crimes or drug offences will not qualify for citizenship. Certain offences such as DUI s can temporary bar an applicant from obtaining citizenship, if the offence occurred within the 5 years preceding the citizenship application. If you have been arrested or convicted of a crime, you should consult with an attorney before filing for citizenship.

Other situations that may indicate to the immigration officer that you are not a person of good moral character include: making misrepresentations of fraud on your application or during the interview, lying to the immigration officer at any time during the application process, owing taxes to the IRS, having serious tax issues, owing child support, failing to meet obligations mandated by court order, tax evasion, entering a marriage solely for the purpose of obtaining an immigration benefit.

4. You must pass a civics examination and demonstrate your ability to read, write, speak, and understand basic English at the naturalisation interview Civics

The civics test consists of an examination which tests the applicant’s basic knowledge of U.S. history and government. The format of the examination is Question and Answer. At the time of the interview, the immigration officer will ask the applicant up to 10 out of 100 civics questions. Applicants must answer 6 out of 10 questions correctly to pass the civics examination.

Exemptions to this requirement exist for individuals aged 50 or older who have lived in the U.S. for 20 years or individuals aged 55 or older who have lived in the U.S. for 15 years.

English language

Your ability to speak the English language is determined by the immigration officer conducting your naturalisation interview. As part of the examination, the USCIS officer will ask you to read a sentence aloud. Applicants must read one out of three sentences correctly. In addition, applicants must pass a writing test, and write one out of three sentences correctly, free of grammatical mistakes.

Exemptions to this requirement exist for individuals with a physical, development disability, or mental impairment. These individuals must file Form N-648 with their application to receive an exemption.

5. Selective Service Requirement

If you are a man who gained permanent residence between 18 and 26 years of age, you must provide proof of your registration with the Selective Service. If you were required to register for the Selective Service but failed to do so, you must provide a written statement explaining why you did not register and provide a status information letter from the Selective Service. For more information regarding the Selective Service, please click here.

#us citizenship

1 note · View note

jack-kellys · 6 years

Text

today is Halloween

here's a real wild ralbert spider-man au fic that takes place on Halloween

enjoy

__________________

another day on the job

warnings: cursing, al's a cop, someone gets s m a c k e d, yeah that's it how unusual for me,

words: 1700 ish oh jeez

yep

——

Race was late again.

This was the third time this week they’d set a date, just a small coffee date, and Race had been at least twenty minutes late to each of the last few. Not like Albert was punctual, but anyone who arrived after Albert? That was saying something.

Albert opened the case file in front of him, taking away the paper clip that held the pictures inside. He frowned, looking down at them for what seemed like the millionth time.

People like this really made him hate his job.

Spider-Man, the newest “hero” of New York, has recently caused a lot of property damage on a high end building in Midtown, and now the NYPD was starting to get more directly involved. Albert was one of the lead detectives on the case, and it had been extremely taxing lately. There was barely any information on the guy, except that he apparently talked a lot, a few cops recounting their strange encounters with the web-slinging creep.

He looked up from reading through the file for the fourth time as the door of the small café banged open, Race practically tumbling in.

Albert stared at him with furrowed brows until Race sat himself down across from him. “What happened this time?” Al sighed, sipping his espresso.

“Well, ok, so I was comin’ here, right,” Race starts off, and Albert could already feel the headache coming on, “right from work. And I notice this guy start followin’ me, which like, gotta get away from that right? So I take a longer route. Guy’s still there. So then I book it, okay, completely different direction, ‘n now I’m here. Sorry,” Race finally finished. His arms were crossed, Albert didn’t fail to notice, making Race come off as evasive and defensive.

He breathed in, eyes closed, and then out.

“Race, babe,” Al said, brows lowered with a frown. “You know I’m a detective, right?”

“Uh, yeah, Albie, of course I—“

“You know it’s part of my job to call bullshit?”

Race opened his mouth to argue, then closed it, slumping back against his seat. “I just...don’t wanna talk about it, alright?” Race said, voice quieter.

“Alright,” Albert relented. “We won’t.”

“Thanks, baby,” Race smiled, standing up to peck Albert’s cheek. “Lemme get my pumpkin spice latte. It’s Halloween after all!”

Albert rolled his eyes, watching Race go to order. He felt worry roll around in his stomach, tightening a bit into a ball of sharp anxiety. He looked down at the file with a defeated expression.

He hoped he was wrong.

He hoped Race wasn’t the reason he hated his job.

But there was only one way to find out.

•••

Albert supposed he was lucky it was Halloween. It fell right in line with his plan.

A stupid, ridiculous plan, but it was the most plausible he could think of.

The hardest part was going to be keeping Conlon in the dark, but that would come later.

First was the phone call.

Albert parked, walking an extra two blocks just in case. The moon hung bright in the sky, Albert having excused himself from Halloween night for a few hours, telling Race he had some extra work to finish up.

What a fucking lie.

And here came another one.

He glared at Race’s contact on his phone, stomach twisting in guilt before pressing call and raising the phone to his ear.

“Hey, Albie! Ya comin’ home early?” Race’s voice crackled over the other end. “I hope so, cause I got so much candy here—“

“R-Race,” Al interrupted, making his voice sound weak. He was afraid he’d break his act and falter if Race finished his sentence. “I-I got jumped. These guys, musta recognized me as a–“ Albert coughed away from the phone, then bit his lip before continuing with the lie. “–as a cop. They’re gonna come b-back, I can’t move–“

“Baby, oh my god,” Race breathed, and Albert almost sighed in relief that he had been cut short. Lying to Race practically caused him physical pain. “I-I’ll be there in a moment, where are you?”

“I think near the First Avenue subway, on...14th, Race, I don’t kn—“

“I’ll be there. Hold on, Albie, I swear—I’ll be right there. I love you.”

“I love you too.”

The line went dead, and Albert lowered the phone shakily, leaning against a wall to breathe for a moment.

If Albert was right about Race, this was a perfect trap.

Albert had been on top of the Spider-Man’s activity since last year, and last Halloween it seemed like the guy had been more stressed out than usual—more activity and false alarms than normal, people in costumes doing stupid things.

Race would be more distracted, not thinking as clearly.

Albert had chosen a more discreet location, somewhere people weren’t often there. A small alley. The Spider-Man swung from above��Albert knew he’d be found.

And as much as it broke Albert’s heart to decit Race like that, it was a clear motivation. Race would come.

Albert raised his phone up again, having selected a different contact.

“Conlon. Track my phone, bring your stuff, don’t ask questions,” Al said when Spot picked up.

“Fuck you,” Albert heard Spot groan back.

“It’s about Spider-Man.”

“Fuck!” Albert almost laughed at the surprise in Spot’s yelp, taking the phone away from his ear as Spot hung up.

Everything was in place.

•••

Albert found himself pacing the alley, nerves starting to settle in. There was always a chance he could be wrong, and Race could get here after Spot, and see he was perfectly fine, and then Al would have to explain he thought Race was the fucking—

Al whipped around as a figure landed behind him.

It was him.

Oh, god was it him.

Albert could easily tell it was Race from this close up. The way the red and blue clad spider held himself, shifting from one foot to another, the slimness of his body, seemingly all angles.

Albert could also tell he was confused. Race, of course, expected Albert to be hurt in some way, which he wasn’t. Yet Race didn’t know that Albert knew his true identity, and therefore had to hide his hesitation.

The insect-like eyes on the mask went large for a small moment and then back to normal. “Hey, dude, didn’t mean to startle ya. Just patrolling the area, crazy night—“

“Cut it out,” Al sighed, the knot of guilt unraveling into a nauseous feeling as he watched the masked man falter. “The act, I mean. You can drop it.”

“Uh, I don’t think I follow? I..” the Spider-Man trailed off, the eyes larger again. Albert recognized the habit of Race’s voice going up when he was confused about something.

“Tony,” Albert managed. “I know. I know it’s you, Sunshine.”

A silence hung in the air for a few long seconds, and for a moment Albert thought he had been wrong about everything.

Then he watched as the Spider-Man shakily pulled off his mask after looking around warily. Messy blonde hair and watery blue eyes were revealed, Race wearing a defiant expression. “Albie, wait, don't arrest me, I can explain, please, just—“

“You don’t have to,” Albert whispered, surprising himself.

Race looked up, angry tears threatening to spill. “And what’s that even mean? You fucking hate the Spider-Man, you always have,” he said bitterly. Albert couldn’t help but wince a little.

“Well,” Albert started, hesitant. Conflict burned inside him, his obligation to the law clashing with his morals, the sound of their battle blaring in his ears. “Well, I called you, like, two minutes ago, and you’re already here. I called Spot only thirty seconds after and he’s an officer and he ain’t even here yet.” Albert scuffed his shoe into the ground, not meeting Race’s eyes.

He was embarrassed. Embarrassed for not trusting Spider-Man—Race, really—to be the good guy, and embarrassed for throwing the NYPD under the bus like that.

Albert looked up as Race took his hands. “I know how hard this is for you,” Race said quietly. “But, Albie, this is what I do. It’s who I am—who I’ve been.”

There was a fire in Race’s eyes that Albert had never seen before. Race wanted this. He believed in this. And standing in this dark alley with the moonlight gleaming in Race’s set expression, distant sounds of children screaming as Halloween continued far away from them, Albert couldn’t find it in himself to refute him.

“Alright,” he said shakily, “okay.”

Albert saw Race beam before he was enveloped in a bone-crushing hug from the taller man.

“Thank you, Albie. I’m so sorry,” Race whispered, then kissed Albert’s temple lightly.

“No, I am. Shit,” Albert‘s eyes widened, pulling himself away from Race. “I called Spot as backup, in case I was wrong about you. Fuck.”

Race’s eyes widened too before he pulled his mask back on, pressing two fingers to his palm and shooting his famous webbing into the sky. “Albie, I gotta—“

“Aw, but wait, shit,” Albert smacked his forehead. “I told him I called him about you. About Spider-Man. God, I’m an idiot.”

“Baby, how are you a cop?” Race sighed, the eyes narrowing on the mask.

“Shut up and punch me,” Albert frowned.

“Yeah oka—wait, what?” Race sputtered, incredulous.

“I can say you got away from me, but I need evidence,” Albert explained. “Just do it.”

“Baby, no I couldn’t ever…”

“Race.” Albert deadpanned. “I lied to you about being hurt. On Halloween night. For the sole purpose of tricking you.”

“Oh yeah,” Race growled, and Albert watched nervously as the eyes on Race’s mask started narrowing. “Albert DaSilva, you fucking dick, ruining my favorite holiday.”

“Wait, wait Ra—“ Albert’s eyes widened as Race’s fist wound up, remembering in that moment about the Spider’s extra strength.

Too late. Race’s fist hit his head like a sharp brick, Albert’s eyes rolling back as he slipped into darkness.

•••

He waded back into consciousness a while later, cracking his eyes open and seeing a blurry Spot Conlon’s dark eyes on the road, finger’s drumming his steering wheel of his cop car. “You’re the second biggest idiot I know, DaSilva,” Spot grumbled.

“I feel like a fuckin’ building jus’, like, bitch-slapped me,” Albert slurred, not daring to move. Everything felt like it was ringing, banging in his head. The traffic lights looked blinding through his slow blinks.

“‘Cause one did. You’re definitely gonna have a concussion, pal, that damned Spider got ya bad. You musta pissed him off.” Spot scoffed, rolling his eyes.

Al smiled messily. “Yeah, I did piss ‘im off,” he giggled.

“I hate your stupid ass.”

“Happy Halloween, Conlon,” Al sighed happily, closing his eyes.

“Shut up.”

————

fun right? also albert's the dumbest cop in the city. at least that's what spot tells everyone he knows

tag list: @suddenly-im-respecsable @alberts-cigar @bencookisagod @thatpoorguysheadisspinning @spot-conlon-king-of-brooklyn

142 notes · View notes

nettlewildfairy · 5 years

Note

howl from howl's moving castle is a flake

i feel like tax evasion and draft dodging although similar to flaking have different moral meanings and ramifications and that when it comes to actually meeting and hanging out with his friends or family when they need him or have made plans he actually does a pretty decent job of showing up when he is needed provided he is not being magically imprisoned at the time. He did ghost a few ex’s tho.

Or, he doesn’t do so good with imposed obligations like work, or following the law but is on some level beholden to social obligations. except for ex’s whom he has a habit of straight up avoiding.

#ive read the book like 5 times #and seen the movie like 20 times #ive read the sequals to howl's moving castle the book only 2 times each but house of many ways has been on my reading list for a while #i should find a copy of that

4 notes · View notes

seekfirstme · 3 years

Text

Meditation: Who likes to pay taxes, especially when you think they might be unreasonable or unjust? Jesus and his disciples were confronted by tax collectors on the issue of tax evasion. When questioned about paying the temple tax, Jesus replied to his disciples: We must pay so as not to cause bad example. In fact, we must go beyond our duty in order that we may show others what they ought to do. The scriptural expression to give no offense doesn't refer to insult or annoyance - rather it means to put no stumbling block in the way of another that would cause them to trip or fall. Jesus would not allow himself anything which might possibly be a bad example to someone else. Do you evade unpleasant responsibilities or obligations?

Jesus predicts his death and triumph over the grave

On three different occasions in Matthew's Gospel, Jesus predicted he would endure great suffering through betrayal, rejection, and the punishment of a cruel death (Matthew 16:21, 17:22-23, and 20:17-19). The Jews resorted to stoning for very serious offenses and the Romans to crucifixion - the most painful and humiliating death they could devise for criminals they wanted to eliminate. No wonder the apostles were greatly distressed at such a prediction! If Jesus their Master were put to death, then they would likely receive the same treatment by their enemies. Jesus called himself the "Son of Man" because this was a Jewish title for the Messiah which the prophet Daniel explained in his vision of the One whom God would send to establish his everlasting kingdom of power and righteousness over the earth (Daniel 7:13-14).

The Suffering Servant and Lamb of God

Why must the Messiah be rejected and killed? Did not God promise that his Anointed One (Messiah in Hebrew) would deliver his people from their oppression and establish a kingdom of peace and justice? The prophet Isaiah had foretold that it was God's will that the "Suffering Servant" make atonement for sins through his suffering and death (Isaiah 53). John the Baptist described Jesus as "the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1: 29, Isaiah 53:6-7). When Jesus willing offered up his life for us on the cross he paid the price for our redemption with his blood.

Jesus offers freedom and victory over sin and death

Jesus came to rescue us from sin and its destructive forces and to restore us to fulness of life with our heavenly Father. Sin not only separates us from God - it leads us down the path to corruption and unending death. Slavery to sin is to want the wrong things and to be in bondage to hurtful desires and addictions. The ransom Jesus paid sets us free from the worst tyranny possible - the tyranny of sin, Satan, and death. Jesus' victory did not end with his sacrificial death on the cross - he triumphed over the grave when he rose again on the third day. Jesus defeated the powers of death and Satan through his cross and resurrection. The Lord Jesus offers us true freedom and peace which no one can take from us. Do you want the greatest freedom possible, the freedom to live as God truly meant us to live as his sons and daughters?

"Lord Jesus, your death brought true life and freedom. May I always walk in the freedom and power of your love and truth and reject whatever is contrary to your will for my life."

FEAR YE, FEAR YE

“And now, Israel, what does the Lord, your God, ask of you but to fear the Lord, your God?” —Deuteronomy 10:12

“The Lord, your God, shall you fear, and Him shall you serve.” —Deuteronomy 10:20

If you go to church, you will usually be exhorted to love and serve the Lord (Dt 10:12). In a good church, you will even be told to love God “with all your heart and all your soul” (Dt 10:12) by keeping His commandments (Dt 10:13). However, there’s still something missing. Before we can love, serve, and obey the Lord fully, we must fear Him (Dt 10:12). The fear of the Lord is not only the beginning of wisdom (Ps 111:10); it is also the beginning of loving God with all our hearts.

When we were baptized and confirmed, we received the fear of the Lord. By a life of faith, we deepen our fear of the Lord as we are awed by His presence, love, and power. As we immerse ourselves more deeply in Scripture, we are moved to humbly tremble at His Word (Is 66:2). By grace, our delight becomes the fear of the Lord (Is 11:3). In the Spirit, a reverent fear can overtake us (Acts 2:43) to the point that we are submissive to each other (Eph 5:21). As we make “steady progress in the fear of the Lord,” we enjoy “the increased consolation of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:31), Who produces a great love in our lives (see Gal 5:22).

Prayer: Father, renew my Baptism and Confirmation. May I fear You more deeply.

Promise: “He sends forth His command to the earth; swiftly runs His word!”—Ps 147:15

Praise: St. Teresa Benedicta, once a Jewish intellectual, surrendered her misconception about the Messiah, converted to the Catholic Faith, and joyfully followed Jesus as her Lord.

Reference:

Rescript: "In accord with the Code of Canon Law, I hereby grant the Nihil Obstat for the publication One Bread, One Body covering the time period from August 1, 2021 through September 30, 2021. Reverend Steve J. Angi, Vicar General, Chancellor, Archdiocese of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio January 12, 2021"

The Nihil Obstat ("Permission to Publish") is a declaration that a book or pamphlet is considered to be free of doctrinal or moral error. It is not implied that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat agree with the contents, opinions, or statements

0 notes

foyernormanchapel · 6 years

Link

“Moral judgment entails more than putting oneself in another’s shoes. As the philosopher Jesse Prinz points out, some acts that we easily recognize as wrong, such as shoplifting or tax evasion, have no identifiable victim. And plenty of good deeds—disciplining a child for dangerous behavior, enforcing a fair and impartial procedure for determining who should get an organ transplant, despite the suffering of those low on the list—require us to put our empathy to one side. Eight deaths are worse than one, even if you know the name of the one; humanitarian aid can, if poorly targeted, be counterproductive; the threat posed by climate change warrants the sacrifices entailed by efforts to ameliorate it. “The decline of violence may owe something to an expansion of empathy,” the psychologist Steven Pinker has written, “but it also owes much to harder-boiled faculties like prudence, reason, fairness, self-control, norms and taboos, and conceptions of human rights.” A reasoned, even counter-empathetic analysis of moral obligation and likely consequences is a better guide to planning for the future than the gut wrench of empathy.

Rifkin and others have argued, plausibly, that moral progress involves expanding our concern from the family and the tribe to humanity as a whole. Yet it is impossible to empathize with seven billion strangers, or to feel toward someone you’ve never met the degree of concern you feel for a child, a friend, or a lover. Our best hope for the future is not to get people to think of all humanity as family—that’s impossible. It lies, instead, in an appreciation of the fact that, even if we don’t empathize with distant strangers, their lives have the same value as the lives of those we love.

That’s not a call for a world without empathy. A race of psychopaths might well be smart enough to invent the principles of solidarity and fairness. (Research suggests that criminal psychopaths are adept at making moral judgments.) The problem with those who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action.

But a spark may be all that’s needed. Putting aside the extremes of psychopathy, there is no evidence to suggest that the less empathetic are morally worse than the rest of us. Simon Baron-Cohen observes that some people with autism and Asperger’s syndrome, though typically empathy-deficient, are highly moral, owing to a strong desire to follow rules and insure that they are applied fairly.

Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships. Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human; it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide.”

#will graham is probably a good man despite his empathy not because of it #related to train of thought/twisty feelings im having which im not sure i have the energy to elaborate #empathy

4 notes · View notes

marymosley · 4 years

Text

Tax Avoidance: A Moral Duty

By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor

While it is a truism that in many respects some form of taxation is needed to provide necessities to a society, in practice many government and social detriments arise as either a consequence to or are derivative of tax policy. I’ve found for myself that fostering a personal goal of avoiding specific taxation or in many cases excessive taxation generally comports with a greater advocacy of morality in several beneficial forms.

First I must emphasize the difference between Tax Avoidance and Tax Evasion.

Tax Evasion is the criminal and / or civil refusal to make payment of taxes a taxpayer is legally compelled to provide as a consequence of earnings or purchases.

Tax Avoidance is the lawful participation in a practice where a taxpayer is not legally required to pay taxes or he or she chooses to abstain from or to minimize activities that generate lawful tax liability.

I am by no means advocating tax evasion and I strongly discourage others to engage in such. While we have an obligation to pay the tax we are required, we are also equally obligated to make use of any deduction or credit of tax we are due.

I believe this topic can be discussed in lengthy detail but for the purpose of brevity a primer should suffice.

In tax avoidance as a moral duty one has to probably accept the notion that not all goals sought by government or especially politicians are benevolent. For nearly the past two decades the U.S. Federal Government’s political leadership has actively engaged in what I consider to be highly immoral behavior. At it’s worst it has willingly engaged in instigating completely elective foreign expeditions and wars that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of foreign civilians, and thousands of American military personal and citizens. In fact it could realistically be argued that the resolve “to get” individuals who our politicians did not like, such as Saddam Hussein , Assad, and Quadaffi, was so prevalent that Congress and the then presidents convinced themselves that close to a million lives were worth taking out these three men. Men I might add posed no true threat to the people of the United States. So over a trillion dollars of tax payer supplied money and treasury securities went toward those debacles.

I do not take issue with the idea of needing a military to protect ourselves in the ordinary sense, but lately in my life politicians have shown on the federal level that they believe a tool for personal political gain is to cause the death of civilians and our soldiers here to “get the bad guy”. And that looking tough works to get hired in an elected position. I am not willing to reward that behavior.

Often in the past wars have ended simply because a nation depleted itself of money and materiel and could no longer prosecute the battle. It could also be argued that a government being awash in the financial means to fight an elective war would be more tempted to use such means than if it was constrained by a limited budget. For me I do not agree with providing that means so easily.

The first example of “getting the bad guy” I came to realize in my life was President George H.W. Bush’s need to get Bad Guy Manuel Noriega. back in the 1980s. Most of you readers know of this affair so I won’t repeat it. For those who do not feel free to search for “Operation Just Cause”, the almost complete joke of a name our government gave that endeavor.

I remember having a training class with two officers who formerly served in U.S. Special Forces during the invasion of Panama to oust Bad Guy Noriega on drug trafficking charges (or so that was the excuse)–A police action as it was called then. One of the officers said they were sent there to get Noriega and when in country found themselves pinned down by sniper fire. So, they called in an airstrike which leveled a building. Of course they had to defend themselves but I had to wonder what kind of police action this was. I knew that generally when we went to take down a drug dealer in the county it generally did not involve airstrikes and blowing shit up all over town. But it seems that when it involves bad guys our federal government doesn’t like, well what’s a few hundred or thousand civilian lives anyway? I must have missed something when I went through the academy. I thought we had to preserve the peace not destroy it.

Controlling the size and over-reach of government

The old maxim goes, “a government that is big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have” and the more money we supply government the greater it grows in terms of control and want of increasing revenue. Such is the way of empire building.

I’ve seen many examples over the years where politicians here at the state level only curtailed spending when faced with either a crisis of revenue shortfalls or when the voters finally had enough and revoked their ability to tax excessively via the Citizen’s Initiative process or by removal at the ballot box. If we continue to allow government to be provided with limitless amounts of tax revenue it only encourages excessive spending and decreases any need for efficiency. And once again the pols will demand increasing tax rates exacted against citizens just to keep the juggernaut rolling. And the bigger it is, the more it wants to encroach upon others.

The Practice of Tax Avoidance results in stronger, more independent living.

Consider the notion of Conspicuous Consumption, that is the never-ending goal of spending money on “things” to elevate one’s self-image. It is the antithesis of Simple Living.

Living beyond one’s means results in many greater tax liabilities, whether it be in the form of higher amounts of sales tax or engaging in activities that generate tax itself. The simplest form of this involves eating in expensive restaurants in high-sales-tax cities as opposed to buying ordinary food at a grocery store (tax free) and eating at home for fifteen-percent of the cost. The food is also healthier I might add.

The stupidest example I personally saw was a Seattle based restaurant that charged more for pop than beer (due to Seattle’s sugared beverage tax) and because of the higher costs restaurants must pay due to over-regulation , the restaurant added an extra labor cost surcharge which was also subject to sales tax. In the end it cost more than five day’s worth of groceries just so that I could pay more tax and reward a city that is governed by some of the biggest fools in the state.

Yet, if instead we buy ordinary groceries, and don’t support a government that is incompetent, if enough restaurants fail maybe businesses might actually begin to exert some action against bad legislation. Surely this is a bit harsh, but who really motivates politicians, the voter or corporations?

Also ,if we looked carefully as a measure of what type of house or car to buy by the amount of tax we must pay resulting from such a purchase we might soon begin to realize that perhaps we don’t need the biggest, most expensive, most energy intensive, and most arrogant example of a dwelling or vehicle. An eight thousand square foot house that we can barely afford is not only more costly on the environment but can we morally justify our actions when a two thousand square foot house is just as livable? How much more hubris do we need when so much of the world would be greatly pleased just to have clean water and electricity. If instead we took some of that cost savings or superfluous property tax (which would probably be wasted otherwise) and gave it directly to a legitimate charity that actually bettered the lives of others less fortunate than we. Or we could at least be somewhat selfish and keep the money ourselves and not be as strapped for cash.

Beneficial Tax Law Can Elicit Morally Sound Behavior

While it can be debatable as to whether or not subsidies and tax credits result in a net benefit to the intended recipient generally speaking there are times where it does much good.

When deductions to charity are permitted there is a direct link between the amounts individuals give and what tax breaks they receive, and in the absence of such charity is curtailed. The per-capita generosity for Americans is one of the highest in the world and we have a tradition of tax deductions for charitable giving. (Though unfortunately this has lessened recently due to tax law changes). We have also benefited from tax credit schemes that encouraged the purchase of greener vehicles and the willingness of investors to engage in the construction of Tax Credit low-income housing projects to house the under-served. In the latter, the desire for tax avoidance actually put roofs over people’s heads.

I believe it is incumbent upon people to strongly consider how government will use what is given to it. The more power it is given, the less benevolent it will inevitably become. We only need a cursory understanding of history to recognize how usual this is the case. And money is as inseparable from power as it is from greed. The more money you give to politicians, the less freedom you will have.

By Darren Smith

The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.

Tax Avoidance: A Moral Duty published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

0 notes

lodelss · 4 years

Text

ACLU: Not Just a Bad President, Trump is a “Holmesian Bad Man.” Act Accordingly.

Not Just a Bad President, Trump is a “Holmesian Bad Man.” Act Accordingly.

“If you want to know the law, you must look at it as a bad man does, who cares only for the material consequences,” wrote legendary Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, “Not as a good one, who finds his reasons for conduct, whether inside the law or outside of it, in the vaguer sanctions of conscience.” Donald Trump is a Holmesian bad man, and an even worse president, pushing the bounds of corruption and authoritarianism, unbound by norms, the rule of law, a sense of shame, or even care for others. To deal with such a bad man and bad president — one who truckles to adversaries like Russian President Vladimir Putin, flouts Congress, swims in self-enrichment, and fails to take meaningful action as Americans die by the tens of thousands on his watch — will require more than the ordinary processes, checks and balances, and honor that have guided and constrained other presidents. Fortunately, Trump’s most recent egregious trial balloons (or warning shots) about subverting the election drew pushback from even his supporters, such as the co-founder of the Federalist Society, who called Trump’s tweet “fascistic” and “itself grounds for … immediate impeachment.” But his regime’s many efforts to repress the vote and discredit and undermine the election continue unchecked, abetted by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s refusal to take up election security and funding bills passed by the House, and his Postmaster General’s ongoing sabotage aimed at impeding the mail-in voting that will surge because of the pandemic Trump has exacerbated. Calm may return now to Portland, Oregon, as Trump has begun to withdraw the federal paramilitary storm troopers who just recently were sowing chaos, seizing protesters off the streets, and using force, such as rubber bullets and tear gas, without probable cause or the consent of local authorities. But Trump and his confederates, including Attorney General William Barr and Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf, continue to threaten this unconstitutional use of force in even more cities, ginning up images for Trump’s campaign ads and perhaps even road-testing tactics to remain in power in the event Trump loses the presidential election. This is “performative authoritarianism,” according to historian Anne Applebaum. “That these tactics are not ‘totalitarian’ doesn’t make them legal, acceptable, or normal … Citizens’ rights [were] violated in Portland. People have been hauled off the streets into unmarked vehicles.” Trump has shown again and again that, as a Holmesian bad man, he will do whatever he can get away with. It is a lesson Trump learned from his lawyer and mentor, Roy Cohn, as testified to by his lawyer and fixer Michael Cohen (now “Individual-1’s” nemesis). The tactics were honed during Trump’s career as a discriminatory and abusive developer and landlord: When dealing with tenants, contractors, and investors, do not honor your agreements and legal, let alone ethical, obligations. Don’t worry whether you have a legitimate cause of action or defense. Rather, flout norms and fairness, manipulate deadlines, drag out payments and processes, force litigation, make remedies and responses costly and cumbersome, overwhelm with falsehoods and fatigue, grind people and institutions down with the system — in short, break the law as you please, while using the law and legal procedures themselves as tools of abuse and evasion of accountability. Civil society groups like the ACLU and Protect Democracy have been doing what they can through public denunciation and lawsuits that challenge Trump’s abuses in Portland and nationwide, exposing illegal surveillance of Americans and Trump’s use of unaccountable officials such as Wolf. But it is not enough to deplore, to protest, or to litigate. Trump’s tactics, whether in New York or in Washington, will not be defeated solely by appeals to moral or legal obligations. Nor is Trump acting alone. The attorney general, the Senate (in the grip of McConnell and a cowed and complicit Republican majority), and too many “acting” officials, conscienceless collaborators, and pliant enablers have abetted Trump in straining and eroding our democratic system. “Democracy is not a state. It is an act,” our late hero John Lewis exhorted from his deathbed. To confront and defeat authoritarianism, performative democracy requires all patriotic defenders of the Republic to act — and that means act effectively. We should be mindful, as Holmes wrote, that “A man who cares nothing for an ethical rule which is believed and practiced by his neighbors is likely nevertheless to care a good deal to avoid being made to pay money, and will want to keep out of jail if he can.” The power centers at every level in our constitutional system must show they mean business by pushing back and imposing costs using the full measure of their powers under the law. What, then, should those with political authority and power do? In cities like Portland, when federal paramilitaries seize people off the street or use violence against them, they commit crimes. State and local officials should charge them and arrest them, as prosecutors in Baltimore and Philadelphia have said they would do. Would Trump challenge such efforts in court? Probably. Might these efforts lead to standoffs between local police and the paramilitary? Perhaps. But criminal charges would shift the burden on to the forces of authoritarianism and send a message that those who violate the law in Trump’s name are themselves vulnerable to prosecution. In Washington, it’s way past time to meaningfully assert congressional oversight and power. Regrettably, the Republican Senate has stood silent during, and the Democratic House of Representatives has too often allowed, Trump’s disregard of Congress’ spending enactments, the Senate’s role in confirming officials, and even the most basic requests for information necessary to congressional oversight. Even on the rare occasion when the House has defended Congress’ constitutional authority, these exertions have been ineffective and dilatory, leaving it to courts to adjudicate, let alone enforce its halting assertions. Congress should wield its power of the purse to strip funds for illicit operations by corrupted agencies. Going further, why shouldn’t the House hold Trump’s defiant henchmen in contempt, fine them, and have the House’s Sergeant at Arms place them under arrest? Would the power of Congress be challenged in court? Probably. Might there be confrontations between the Sergeant at Arms and Trump’s minions? Perhaps. But full use of Congress’ lawful powers to stand up to a bully and his gang, to push back against a bad man, is the only way for Democratic and even Republican members of Congress to show that they give a damn about liberal democracy, and are not merely sputtering ineffectually at shameless and unconstitutional obstruction. Nor is it only our members of Congress, governors, state attorneys general, mayors, and local prosecutors, who must act. It is we, the people who are the necessary and ultimate defenders of democracy. Like the diverse patriots protesting under the banner of Black Lives Matter, or the “Wall of Moms” in Portland, we must stand up, speak out, demonstrate, and put pressure on decision-makers. And, above all, we must vote. Finally, there must then be a lawful reckoning — a full exposure of the corruption, complicity, and lawbreaking that have marked this regime from day one. It must be made clear to all who enable this bad man and bad president that they will be held accountable; shamed in history, in their social circles, and in the eyes of their fellow citizens; obliged to disgorge tax returns, campaign finance records, emoluments, and ill-gotten profits and prestige; prosecuted and fined or jailed where appropriate; and made to pay the price of betrayal of the American people, our values, and the rule of law that our Republic depends on. Any hope of deterring Trump and his accomplices and enablers now — and even more importantly, building America back better when he is repudiated and gone — requires acting effectively in ways that a bad man can understand, and that the good demands.

****

Russell Pearce holds the Edward & Marilyn Bellet Chair in Legal Ethics, Morality & Religion at Fordham University School of Law. His college roommate, Evan Wolfson, teaches law and social change at Georgetown Law and at Yale, and serves on the advisory board of Protect Democracy.

Published August 10, 2020 at 07:52PM via ACLU https://ift.tt/2DHD1rt from Blogger https://ift.tt/3gKrhCV via IFTTT

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

nancydhooper · 4 years

Text

Not Just a Bad President, Trump is a “Holmesian Bad Man.” Act Accordingly.

****

from RSSMix.com Mix ID 8247012 https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/not-just-a-bad-president-trump-is-a-holmesian-bad-man-act-accordingly via http://www.rssmix.com/

0 notes