The IRS may dial up new rules that could cost you more in taxes if your employer gives you a cell phone.
The feds have proposed taxing 25% of business cell phone use as income.
That means someone who’s in a 28% tax bracket and whose work cell phone costs their company $1,000 a year would pay $70 more in federal income tax.
[…]
The IRS has had a law on the books regarding taxation of personal calls on business cell phones for two decades, but companies have rarely complied because of the difficulty of keeping such records.
[…]
One choice would be for employees to offer proof that they have a personal cell phone that they use during working hours. That would substantiate that the business cell phone was being used solely for work purposes.Another option being floated would allow companies to use a statistical sampling to figure out how much of their employees’ phone bills are for personal calls.
[…]
The IRS said it is awaiting responses to its proposals from the public.
#64, should be medicaid, not medicare.
#60 Fusion:
“But we live with the laws we have, not decide which laws we will obey and which we won’t.”
I agree to a point, but should we obey unjust laws?
Your saying someone is wrong for breaking any law, at any time. If I refuse to follow a law, which is later found to be unconstitutional, or morally repugnant, am I in the wrong?
I think most people would disagree with you on this.
In fact, we (rightly) glorify people who helped slaves escape, even though this made them, under the law, thieves.
I’m not comparing helping slaves escape with protesting unjust taxes, but your idea that breaking the law is *always* wrong is just, well, wrong.
#60 Fusion:
After reading this comment again, I don’t EVER want to hear you complain about gays not being allowed to marry.
I mean, it’s illegal for them to, so they should just obey the law.
Sounds ridiculous, doesn’t it?
# 60 Mr. Fusion, said, “But we live with the laws we have, not decide which laws we will obey and which we won’t.”
Not being from the US perhaps you don’t understand. If we had followed this idea, the US wouldn’t even exist…
Oh and read up on the end of slavery. It didn’t happen democratically. There was a Civil War in between.
They want a public response? I say tar and feather them and ride them to the border on a rail. The kick them out of the country. I’m already paying all the taxes I want to pay.
#70:
“I’m already paying all the taxes I want to pay.”
Why don’t you want to be *more* patriotic?
#62, Liberty Loser,
The easy answer is no. I don’t use a “company” phone. That though is irrelevant. The real question is why are you avoiding paying your proper and legal share of taxes?
#63, Liberty Loser,
So where are these “NEW TAXES” you guys are drowning in? You keep mentioning them. Where are they? The way you guys talk about the government taking so much more money from you it should be easy to list a few.
BTW, if you don’t want to pay more in tobacco taxes, don’t smoke. It is a dirty habit anyway. That should make it voluntary. Only those that wish to pay will smoke.
#66, brm,
If I refuse to follow a law, which is later found to be unconstitutional, or morally repugnant, am I in the wrong?
Until the law is found unconstitutional you are wrong and may be punished according to the law. All laws are valid on their face until such time as a Judge declares they are unconstitutional. YOU are not the one who gets to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.
To keep it simple, if a driver doesn’t believe a 20 MPH in a school zone is constitutional and he should be allowed to drive at unlimited speeds meets a similar driver who thinks a Red Light should be the signal to proceed through the intersection . . .
If someone believes he should be able to use an 80 rd magazine on his new full auto and decides to use it for target practice on Main Street as an exercise of his 2nd Amendment right . . .
If someone likes Alphie decides that your 12 yr old daughter should be made a breeding stock to populate the western world with his progeny, and any law that prohibits that, to him, is morally repugnant . . .
Please, think about your answer a little first.
There are currently many laws that segments of our society find morally repugnant. An example would be income and property taxes paid by the Amish. Yet they do it. Because our laws do not segregate that some people are better than others. During the military draft, Amish and others were almost always exempt as conscience objectors or allowed to serve in non-combat positions such as hospital orderlies.
#74, You are a complete fool. A local law concerning school zone speed limits has absolutely nothing to do with the federal Constitution. Just as murdering people has nothing to do with a 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.
An invalid law is an invalid law. That is exactly the reason why you cannot be prosecuted for a crime without an impartial jury… because the jury is meant to be the final protection against tyranny of the state.
And unless it is perfectly clear to you, a quote by Thomas Jefferson:
“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”
#74:
“Until the law is found unconstitutional you are wrong and may be punished according to the law.”
True, but if a law is found unconstitutional, that means it was *always* unconstitutional. And judgments against people according to this law erased, right?
“All laws are valid on their face until such time as a Judge declares they are unconstitutional.”
I’m not sure if that’s how it works. An unconstitutional law would not be one we have to obey.
Again, I don’t know for sure, but I’m assuming that if I go to jail because I broke a law that was later found to be unconstitutional, I’ll be released because it was OK for me to ‘break’ that law in the first place.
“YOU are not the one who gets to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.”
I’m the *only* person who decides which laws I obey and which ones I ignore. Who is making these decisions for me?
“Please, think about your answer a little first.”
I am thinking. There is no clear agreement on the morality of certain taxes in America. That’s something to think about: how should Americans think morally about taxation.
But, there is clear near-unanimous agreement that having sex with 12-year-olds is wrong, and has nothing to do with the Constitution.
Nice straw man, though.
#73:
“So where are these “NEW TAXES” you guys are drowning in?”
Inflation.
#72, The easy answer is no. I don’t use a “company” phone.
Ah, so it’s a jealously thing. Gotcha.
Are you going to recommend to your liberal buddies they should start paying their taxes?
#73 BTW, if you don’t want to pay more in tobacco taxes, don’t smoke.
WOW!!! After all that complaining about me saying the same thing about credit cards rates.
So, if YOU think the tax is ok, then obviously it is a just tax. If someone else thinks differently, they are wrong.
This is the problem with “fair share,” Fusion. Who gets to decide?
#78, You got that right, brother.
#80, As much as I detest smoking, I am more against the government using its taxing power to promote a behavior modification agenda.
#82, Same here. I don’t smoke. I don’t go to restaurants that allow smoking.
But I abhor the idea of taxes “because it’s good for you.”
#75, SL,
You are a complete fool. A local law concerning school zone speed limits has absolutely nothing to do with the federal Constitution.
And you are wrong. ALL laws and regulation in the United States must meet the requirements of the Constitution. I guess that makes you the fool.
An invalid law is an invalid law.
Again, you are wrong.
Every law is assumed to be valid on its face until such time as a court of competent jurisdiction decides it is not.
Now, either get with the program and read the whole dialogue between “brm” and myself or don’t interject.
#77, brm,
“All laws are valid on their face until such time as a Judge declares they are unconstitutional.”
I’m not sure if that’s how it works. An unconstitutional law would not be one we have to obey.
Until a law is judged to be unconstitutional, it is valid. You are not the one to decide what is and what is not unconstitutional. That is solely the jurisdiction of a court.
Of course, most laws that infringe on peoples rights under the Constitution may be challenged before they become law. If there is a reasonable chance of prevailing, those bringing the suit may ask the court for an injunction prohibiting the government from implementing the law. If there is no injunction then the law remains in effect.
Example 1, a group decide a Ten Commandments monument on the Courthouse lawn is wrong. That group me petition a court to have it removed BUT the group may not remove it on their own. Because the monument has been there for a few years and leaving it will not injure someone, it would most likely not have an injunction to remove it first.
Example 2, the California Legislature passed a law dissolving all same sex marriages made prior to the passage of Option Eight. Those affected may challenge that law before it takes effect and request an injunction halting it until the Judge rules. Such a request would probably be granted as the harm of not dissolving those marriages is less than allowing them to be dissolved and then, with a favorable decision, reinstated.
“YOU are not the one who gets to decide which laws to obey and which to ignore.”
I’m the *only* person who decides which laws I obey and which ones I ignore. Who is making these decisions for me?
OK, I agree. You are the only one that decides if you are prepared to face the consequences of disobeying the law. If you think you are prepared to pay a heavy fine or go to jail then you just go right ahead.
Only quit your effen whining that you have a “right” to do it, you don’t.
But, there is clear near-unanimous agreement that having sex with 12-year-olds is wrong, and has nothing to do with the Constitution.
So, you want to decide which laws YOU must obey as well as others? That is so hypocritical. Remember, Alphie seriously believes sex with female children should be OK, that part is not being made up. In his mind it is morally repugnant to NOT have sex with a 12 y/o girl. (BTW, I DO NOT agree with Alphie)
#78, Inflation is a new tax?
So the Republicans are the biggest tax and spend group in the country?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
Oh, that is funny,
ha ha ha ha ha …
#79, Liberty Loser,
The law requires everyone pay their taxes. What makes you you so effen special?
#86, Inflation is a new tax?
Every time the Fed reduces interest rates, a new tax is implemented because the money supply increased.
Mr. Greenspan, himself, verified this.
So the Republicans are the biggest tax and spend group in the country?
Nope, the Fed. As proof, ask Bush I. He wanted Greenspan to jack with the interest rates to make him look better going into the election. Greenspan said, “No.” Greenspan admits that decision might have cost Bush the election.
You only see things as Democrat or Republican. They are the same side of the coin being tossed in the air by the Fed.
#88, Different side of the same coin . . .
#87, Quit avoiding the question.
Are you going to recommend to your liberal buddies to pay their back taxes and to start paying it from now on?
Something you liberals need to know:
Do you really think I’m going to take that money out of my pocket? HA-HA if you think so.
Thanks for paying my tax bill for me!
I’m passing it on to you. Way to help out the poor.
The IRS is demonstrating the “wisdom of Solomon”. “I will give three quarters of the baby to you, and one quarter to you (well, actually to me, but times have changed). Your comments, please?”
Strikes me that the matter is a potential accounting nightmare. With personal use of company transport, the issues are straightforward and the $ amounts considerable. But with phone usage, there are a kazillion different deals, the actual $ amount should not be that big (should it?), and the chances of unfairness are magnified.
On civil disobedience: those who helped slaves escape to Canada are heroes today, because of the morality of their cause. But to refuse to pay a tax on cell phone usage? If the 1980s was the money-grubbing “me generation”, they’ll look back on this as mountain cousins with those disco misanthropists.
Finally, something that Fusion wrote, caught my eye. Let’s call this tax the Reagan Personal Benefits Tax. There’s a precedent. In some circles WW II is called “the Hitler War”. You could have the FDR-Truman Atom Bomb, the Eisenhower-Kennedy-Johnson War in Vietnam, the Kennedy Blockade of Cuba, the Ford Pardons, and the Dubya-Obama Trillion Dollar Deficit. Sure, you’ll get ugly phenomena going with surnames that were innocent, or largely innocent, of their creation. And you’ll get strange bedfellows sharing the “blame” on some phenomena that just won’t go away. However, given the context of partisan and often thoughtless debate we see here, I think that both of those could be Good Things.