Common Misconceptions ABout W2G & Wins on Taxes
Today I had my tax person do the 1040X and the revised schedules. Cost me $105.00. I have to pay the feds a total of $980.00 additional and the State will send me an additional refund of $675.00. So the fiasco will wind up costing me a total of $410.00.
I guess to sum it up, many people are under the misconception that you don't file if your losses match or exceed the winnings. Not true. Next is that, many people are also under the impression that you net out your winnings by your losses on the first page of your federal return. Not true. Losses go on a Schedule 'A' and on Line 28 up to the Standard Deductions. Once you figure in the Additional Income (Gambling Winnings) there most likely will be a deficient amount unable to be netted out to zero. But then that all depends on your tax bracket and your deductions claimed. The lady that did mine this time told me she probably does about 50 a year and has done this for a solid 10 plus years. She has very seldom seen where the winnings and the losses net each other out. There is usually something always due to the Feds for the increased income.
Never again, I will stick to chips and table games, thanks.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79Never again, I will stick to chips and table games, thanks.
Of course, everything you said about taxes also applies to folks who just play table games, if they want to be totally "honest" on their tax returns. It's just that table game players usually don't get W2G forms that will trigger interest by the IRS. Whether you get such a form or not, you are "supposed" to report all of your gambling winnings and then deduct your gambling losses on Schedule A. Most of us who are net losers for the year just assume that the deductions would exceed the additional income and that filling out the additional lines on the forms wouldn't really benefit anyone.
But those of us who don't have enough deductions to itemize don't have a way to deduct gambling losses. Are we expected to declare winning sessions but disregard losing sessions?Quote: DocOf course, everything you said about taxes also applies to folks who just play table games, if they want to be totally "honest" on their tax returns. It's just that table game players usually don't get W2G forms that will trigger interest by the IRS. Whether you get such a form or not, you are "supposed" to report all of your gambling winnings and then deduct your gambling losses on Schedule A. Most of us who are net losers for the year just assume that the deductions would exceed the additional income and that filling out the additional lines on the forms wouldn't really benefit anyone.
It's a bit as if the tax man agrees with the casino -- you're just not supposed to win!
Quote: JimRockfordBut those of us who don't have enough deductions to itemize don't have a way to deduct gambling losses. Are we expected to declare winning sessions but disregard loosing sessions?
You are "supposed" to declare both. Sadly, you are just out of luck if the write offs don't exceed your standard deduction.
Quote: JimRockfordBut those of us who don't have enough deductions to itemize don't have a way to deduct gambling losses. Are we expected to declare winning sessions but disregard loosing sessions?Quote: DocOf course, everything you said about taxes also applies to folks who just play table games, if they want to be totally "honest" on their tax returns. It's just that table game players usually don't get W2G forms that will trigger interest by the IRS. Whether you get such a form or not, you are "supposed" to report all of your gambling winnings and then deduct your gambling losses on Schedule A. Most of us who are net losers for the year just assume that the deductions would exceed the additional income and that filling out the additional lines on the forms wouldn't really benefit anyone.
Yep! And in a surprising number of states, you're not allowed to deduct your losses AT ALL. No matter what. So you pay taxes on your winnings even if you were a net loser. I know Massachusetts is on that list; unfamiliar with the rest.
It's great being the government, isn't it?!
EDIT: Doc beat me to it, yeah.
Quote: odiousgambitIf you know me well enough, you'd really worry if I somehow made a mistake and stumbled in to a W2-g. Having really vowed to never get one, I would be so mad at myself I'm not sure what I would do.
For my upcoming Vegas trip, I am going to be running through some free play which is new for me. My original intent was to find the highest denomination slot available for the amount of FP I had, with the intent to hopefully play the machines with the best payback. But as I might be moving to one of the states that doesn't allow deduction of losses this year, I think I'm going to have to change that strategy to basically eliminate the possibility of getting a W-2G.
Quote: AcesAndEightsFor my upcoming Vegas trip, I am going to be running through some free play which is new for me. My original intent was to find the highest denomination slot available for the amount of FP I had, with the intent to hopefully play the machines with the best payback. But as I might be moving to one of the states that doesn't allow deduction of losses this year, I think I'm going to have to change that strategy to basically eliminate the possibility of getting a W-2G.
being in one of the 'bad' states is maybe the worst situation, but everything about the W2-g is bad in my book. My mortgage payment is low now, so it's touch and go about whether I'll take itemized deductions every year; taking standard deduction and living in a bad state is a double whammy for sure [VA where I live is OK though]
ya know, the threshold is too damn low. It shouldnt be $1200 this day and age.
Quote: odiousgambitbeing in one of the 'bad' states is maybe the worst situation, but everything about the W2-g is bad in my book. My mortgage payment is low now, so it's touch and go about whether I'll take itemized deductions every year; taking standard deduction and living in a bad state is a double whammy for sure [VA where I live is OK though]
ya know, the threshold is too damn low. It shouldnt be $1200 this day and age.
All currency numbers in the tax code should be indexed to inflation. Unfortunately only some are.
Quote: Dalex64When you are talking about avoiding having income reported on a W2-G so that you don't have to report gambling income, you are talking about tax evasion.
Yes. So is any table games player NOT reporting all gross winnings as income. So is NOT paying sales tax to your home state on internet or mail-order purchases. So is NOT reporting your garage sale income.
Lots of things are technically and legally tax evasion, that everyone does. Your point is?
The advice that is flying around on this site is that it is ok not to report your income as long as you don't get a w2g.
That is bad advice.
Quote: Dalex64False premises lead to false conclusions.
Then explain to me how theft isn't a crime.
Quote: rudeboyoiThen explain to me how theft isn't a crime.
The premise is that taxation is theft.
Quote: Dalex64The premise is that taxation is theft.
That was a joke. I knew what you were referring to. Explain to me how taxation isn't theft.
I might use the word simply alot, but basically, that is overly simplistic.
I think you are under contract by law to pay taxes. Therefore, willing or not, the payment of taxes has been agreed upon and therefore isn't theft.
Frankly I think your argument about people not having a chance to consent to the contract has more merit, but not much. I counter that with: it is a condition of your citizenship, and you have a right to revoke your citizenship.
Quote: Baccaratfrom79I rarely play slots. But I did in 2013 and each time I won. I am strictly a table games player with 90% Bac and 10% or so BJ. So W2G's are not an issue. In 2013 I was waiting a couple times for my wife playing Blackjack. In a Midwest casino they have the high limit cashier in the rear of the high limit slots. She was doing quite well that night, about $15k off a $3 or $4k buy in. Every time she accumulated $5k of winning chips, I would take them to the cashier and cash them out. I stuck a few hundred dollar bills in and played about 10 spins, netting some W2G winnings. I won a total of $17,000. I did not put it on my 2013 taxes last year and I get a notice in December that I owe almost $4,000.00 to the IRS.
Today I had my tax person do the 1040X and the revised schedules. Cost me $105.00. I have to pay the feds a total of $980.00 additional and the State will send me an additional refund of $675.00. So the fiasco will wind up costing me a total of $410.00.
I guess to sum it up, many people are under the misconception that you don't file if your losses match or exceed the winnings. Not true. Next is that, many people are also under the impression that you net out your winnings by your losses on the first page of your federal return. Not true. Losses go on a Schedule 'A' and on Line 28 up to the Standard Deductions. Once you figure in the Additional Income (Gambling Winnings) there most likely will be a deficient amount unable to be netted out to zero. But then that all depends on your tax bracket and your deductions claimed. The lady that did mine this time told me she probably does about 50 a year and has done this for a solid 10 plus years. She has very seldom seen where the winnings and the losses net each other out. There is usually something always due to the Feds for the increased income.
Never again, I will stick to chips and table games, thanks.
Here is the thing with gambling winnings/losses as they are reported to the IRS. Lets stick to Fed. returns as every state is different as others have pointed out. If you get a W2G that money is reported as income to the IRS by the casino. They DO NOT deduct your losses if any. They report winnings. So you win 10K on a slot. Then dump back in 8K of it. Your net win is 2K. But the IRS is going to tax you on 10K, because that's what the casino reported. So to net out your losses, which virtually every gambler has, you have to itemize your deductions when you file. This sucks. Just like the example above. If Bac had not had the good sense to take his losses to his tax guy and amend his return he would have been out 4K INCORRECTLY. This is the rub, for lots of people it may be the only reason they need to itemize as opposed to taking the standard deductions.
The worst part is that lots of people in the general public are really unaware, see above, to a stunning degree to how taxes work and are filed. I'm sure many a person has paid taxes on W2G's not knowing they could deduct losses, or not knowing how. So they get a W2G and just add it in as income, or there tax software does, and get screwed. The main problem is the byzantine tax code. Millions of people in this country over or underpay taxes. Most of them unknowingly...it's just too complicated.
Quote: Dalex64From what I recall, the basis for your claim that taxation is theft is simply because theft is the taking of property from someone unwillingly.
I might use the word simply alot, but basically, that is overly simplistic.
I think you are under contract by law to pay taxes. Therefore, willing or not, the payment of taxes has been agreed upon and therefore isn't theft.
Frankly I think your argument about people not having a chance to consent to the contract has more merit, but not much. I counter that with: it is a condition of your citizenship, and you have a right to revoke your citizenship.
Consent is a voluntary interaction. You can't be forced to give consent or else it isn't consent. Simply being born in a certain geographical area is not giving your consent nor does a baby have sufficient mental capacity to give consent if they actually had the option to do so. A contract is not valid if entered into under duress. Consent comes with no repercussions if you choose to say no. If someone says give me your property or I will hurt you, even if you oblige and give them your property and you did not get hurt, it was not a consensual transaction since there were repercussions of you getting hurt if you chose not to oblige.
Quote: vendman1for lots of people it may be the only reason they need to itemize as opposed to taking the standard deductions.
Most taxpayers take the standard deduction even when the ability to itemize deductions is thoroughly examined. I can imagine many times a taxpayer with a $1200 W2-g and accompanying 1200 in losses still having to take the standard deduction; others here have said so too.
Surely a very large win accompanied by very large losses results in qualifying for itemized deductions; this has other problems with the AGI almost every time I understand. In this latter case, though, I think it is reasonable to think the taxpayer may owe taxes [not that I like the way the code handles that as a yearly thing]. What I have a problem with is the low threshold of $1200 where I think it is actually unlikely that losses don't cover that win with the vast majority.
Quote: rudeboyoiConsent is a voluntary interaction. You can't be forced to give consent or else it isn't consent. Simply being born in a certain geographical area is not giving your consent nor does a baby have sufficient mental capacity to give consent if they actually had the option to do so. A contract is not valid if entered into under duress. Consent comes with no repercussions if you choose to say no. If someone says give me your property or I will hurt you, even if you oblige and give them your property and you did not get hurt, it was not a consensual transaction since there were repercussions of you getting hurt if you chose not to oblige.
It's an interesting argument you're making, but I would have to say in rebuttal, have you ever ridden on a public road or highway? Lived in a house with city water and/or sewer? Attended public school? Watched television or listened to the radio, or used a cell phone? All of those things are built, maintained, and owned by the public through taxes, even the airwaves. My guess is you'd have to answer yes to all of them. While you were a minor, your parents/guardians had the right of consent for you. After you reached your majority, you now tacitly consent to being taxed for them every time you use them. At least that's how it works in America.
TANSTAAFL.
Quote: Dalex64Two wrongs don't make a right.
The advice that is flying around on this site is that it is ok not to report your income as long as you don't get a w2g.
That is bad advice.
It is heroic to deprive the evil government of money. It is wonderful advice to avoid w2g's.
Quote: Dalex64
I think you are under contract by law to pay taxes. Therefore, willing or not, the payment of taxes has been agreed upon and therefore isn't theft.
Show me the contract. Even if there was a contract, the contract would have to be, "The government can take as much of your money as they want every year, can capriciously change the calculations of how much they will take, and are under no obligation to deliver any specific good or service to you. This same arrangement extends to your children and all of their children in perpetuity."
What court would uphold a contract where one party gets to determine the amount of the payment and the amount of services rendered in perpetuity even through the next 10 generations of your children? This sort of contract is called slavery and is simply invalid on it's face.
Quote: Dalex64it is a condition of your citizenship, and you have a right to revoke your citizenship.
No, you do not have a "right" to revoke your citizenship, The government can make you pay a large fee to do so.
Also, what is the legal definition of a citizen?
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's an interesting argument you're making, but I would have to say in rebuttal, have you ever ridden on a public road or highway? Lived in a house with city water and/or sewer? Attended public school? Watched television or listened to the radio, or used a cell phone? All of those things are built, maintained, and owned by the public through taxes, even the airwaves. My guess is you'd have to answer yes to all of them. While you were a minor, your parents/guardians had the right of consent for you. After you reached your majority, you now tacitly consent to being taxed for them every time you use them. At least that's how it works in America.
TANSTAAFL.
The government maintains a monopoly on these services so well think none of these services could be provided without government. So sick of the roads argument. It's a flat piece of land. It's really not that complicated. Any product that you are forced to purchase is not a worthwhile product. The market will meet the demands of the consumer. People want to get from point A to point B so they'd be willing to pay for that service voluntarily. My most likely guess is that roads around residential areas will be paid for by the residents around that area. Roads around commercial areas will be paid for by businesses around those roads. Highways will be paid for by companies that need to transport their goods from one area to area another supplemented with tolls for others that want to utilize them. If you believe freeloaders will be a problem, know that only a little of taxes collected to maintain these roads actually goes to maintaining these roads. Government is very inefficient and costly. On the state level about 30% of taxes collected for road maintenance actually goes towards maintaining the roads usually collected in form of a gas tax. Imagine cutting out this middle man and 100% going towards those willing to build these roads.
Quote: rudeboyoiThe government maintains a monopoly on these services so well think none of these services could be provided without government. So sick of the roads argument. It's a flat piece of land. It's really not that complicated. Any product that you are forced to purchase is not a worthwhile product. The market will meet the demands of the consumer. People want to get from point A to point B so they'd be willing to pay for that service voluntarily. My most likely guess is that roads around residential areas will be paid for by the residents around that area. Roads around commercial areas will be paid for by businesses around those roads. Highways will be paid for by companies that need to transport their goods from one area to area another supplemented with tolls for others that want to utilize them. If you believe freeloaders will be a problem, know that only a little of taxes collected to maintain these roads actually goes to maintaining these roads. Government is very inefficient and costly. On the state level about 30% of taxes collected for road maintenance actually goes towards maintaining the roads usually collected in form of a gas tax. Imagine cutting out this middle man and 100% going towards those willing to build these roads.
What you'd end up with is a whole lot of toll roads, and stopping every time you turned a corner to pay that owner for travelling that road. Which we're seeing more and more in Florida; try travelling Orlando without using a toll road. Or, if you go to Miami, if you have the money, you pay to ride. If you don't have the money, I hope you have the time: I95 is a parking lot 30 miles long. I like the way we do it now.
Quote: bigfoot66
No, you do not have a "right" to revoke your citizenship, The government can make you pay a large fee to do so.
Also, what is the legal definition of a citizen?
It costs $2250 now to revoke your citizenship. It used to only be $650 until recently.
Quote: beachbumbabsWhat you'd end up with is a whole lot of toll roads, and stopping every time you turned a corner to pay that owner for travelling that road. Which we're seeing more and more in Florida; try travelling Orlando without using a toll road. Or, if you go to Miami, if you have the money, you pay to ride. If you don't have the money, I hope you have the time: I95 is a parking lot 30 miles long. I like the way we do it now.
You can like the way we do it now all you want. That doesn't give you the right to have a third party (the government) to force others to follow along.
Quote: beachbumbabsIt's an interesting argument you're making, but I would have to say in rebuttal, have you ever ridden on a public road or highway? Lived in a house with city water and/or sewer? Attended public school? Watched television or listened to the radio, or used a cell phone? All of those things are built, maintained, and owned by the public through taxes, even the airwaves. My guess is you'd have to answer yes to all of them. While you were a minor, your parents/guardians had the right of consent for you. After you reached your majority, you now tacitly consent to being taxed for them every time you use them. At least that's how it works in America.
TANSTAAFL.
This argument makes intuitive sense: We provided you with a service, you owe us for it. Morally, though, it is pretty clear that this argument does not hold water. If I were a newspaper man and just started delivering the newspaper to your home without a contract, how would you react when I sent you a bill for $50 at the end of the month? Would you say, "Well gees, I did read a few articles, clipped a couple of coupons, and laughed a couple of Garfields, I guess I owe the guy $50."
We don't object to paying for what we consume, the problem is that the government can choose to deliver ANY bundle of services and charge ANY amount of money for delivering them. In fact in many cases you cannot refuse their services. Try not sending your kid to one of their rotten schools. Try competing with the post office, I'll point you to the great Lysander Spooner's experience: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Letter_Mail_Company. They used tax money to fight him and his very popular mail service because it competed with their monopoly. They can choose to deliver services that you find morally objectionable and charge you for it. I personally object to the use of flying killer robots killing innocent people overseas, but my money pays for it. Maybe you object to some other thing the government does.
It is pretty clear that this is not a morally sound arrangement, and as a practical matter, not an arrangement that any of us would willingly enter with any corporation.
Quote: BeardgoatRudeboyoi, this isn't meant as an insult or flame, but have you ever looked into moving out of the US to someplace where you can try and live your life without the government interference you strongly despise? Is this somethig that is possible for you?
I looked into moving to new Zealand a couple years back then realized it was highly unlikely I'd be able to move after finding out about all the hoops I'd be required to jump through. Plus my family and friends live here. And if I'm moving from one government controlled area to another what's the real difference?
Quote: rudeboyoiI looked into moving to new Zealand a couple years back then realized it was highly unlikely I'd be able to move after finding out about all the hoops I'd be required to jump through. Plus my family and friends live here. And if I'm moving from one government controlled area to another what's the real difference?
How about New Hampshire for the http://www.freestateproject.com ?
Be sure to tell FedEx and UPS they're providing illegal services or they're disrupting a federal monopoly, since they're in direct competition with the USPS as well. I disagree with claiming immorality of spending tax dollars for public infrastructure/services/good. I don't know anybody, including myself, who wouldn't like a line-item veto on what my taxes get spent on, or how much I pay. That's not a fight that's ever going to be won with wholesale anarchy; instead, you have to be heard at the meeting where they're funding the thing, either as a new project, or sustainment. The immoral stance is the one that condemns the way things are done without doing anything to change it.
Quote: beachbumbabsBe sure to tell FedEx and UPS they're providing illegal services or they're disrupting a federal monopoly, since they're in direct competition with the USPS as well.
They cannot deliver 1st class mail. The law reads, "Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law . . .shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . or both."
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/universal-service-postal-monopoly-history.pdf
Quote: bigfoot66How about New Hampshire for the http://www.freestateproject.com ?
Yah I looked into that. I also considered moving back to my hometown to persuade the populace to disband the local government there. It's the county seat too.
I'm trying to find this cartoon on youtube to share on here. Maybe you've seen it before and can help. Something like government comes in and fixes this guy's roof, then fixes his car, then leaves him with like a quantity of 30,000 of some good he doesnt need and leaves him a bill.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is why we have a representative democracy, at least in theory. If you consider the government to be a third party, make it a first party transaction and get involved. The money gets spent by people representing you, from the school board to Congress. Proposed projects don't happen all the time, because of public opposition. Bad projects that got built get stopped from being re-funded or continued all the time.
Be sure to tell FedEx and UPS they're providing illegal services or they're disrupting a federal monopoly, since they're in direct competition with the USPS as well. I disagree with claiming immorality of spending tax dollars for public infrastructure/services/good. I don't know anybody, including myself, who wouldn't like a line-item veto on what my taxes get spent on, or how much I pay. That's not a fight that's ever going to be won with wholesale anarchy; instead, you have to be heard at the meeting where they're funding the thing, either as a new project, or sustainment. The immoral stance is the one that condemns the way things are done without doing anything to change it.
There's this meme I like that goes something like this.
1) If John told you that you had to obey him or he would violate you, that would be wrong.
2) Even if John claims that because he and his friends are in the majority , you must obey or be punished, that would still be wrong.
3) Even if John and his friends vote to have an institution work on their behalf, and that you must obey it's dictates or be punished, that would still be wrong.
C) If you understand this basic concept then you understand that government neither has the legitimate or lawful right to violate you just because some people decided to vote for it.
Quote: beachbumbabsBe sure to tell FedEx and UPS they're providing illegal services or they're disrupting a federal monopoly, since they're in direct competition with the USPS as well. I disagree with claiming immorality of spending tax dollars for public infrastructure/services/good. I don't know anybody, including myself, who wouldn't like a line-item veto on what my taxes get spent on, or how much I pay. That's not a fight that's ever going to be won with wholesale anarchy; instead, you have to be heard at the meeting where they're funding the thing, either as a new project, or sustainment. The immoral stance is the one that condemns the way things are done without doing anything to change it.
So what do you say to my argument? The government takes well over half the income of many wealthier people and delivers them a basket of goods that they are not inclined to use, like public schools. In what sense is this a moral arrangement, or one that someone would enter into voluntarily?
Quote: rudeboyoiYah I looked into that. I also considered moving back to my hometown to persuade the populace to disband the local government there. It's the county seat too.
I'm trying to find this cartoon on youtube to share on here. Maybe you've seen it before and can help. Something like government comes in and fixes this guy's roof, then fixes his car, then leaves him with like a quantity of 30,000 of some good he doesnt need and leaves him a bill.
Good luck. I think NH is the best hope but I did not move there--Yet. The old saying I like is that government breaks your leg, hands you crutches, and says "See, how would you get around without me?"
Quote: Dalex64Two wrongs don't make a right.
The advice that is flying around on this site is that it is ok not to report your income as long as you don't get a w2g.
That is bad advice.
It is absolutely bad tax advice, wherein "tax advice" is advice on how to correctly report all of your income. You are correct there.
However, I think it's good "tax evasion advice" to advise people on what the IRS knows, and what they should be reporting, what is likely to happen if they don't report other income (likely nothing), and what to expect if you do get audited.
As to the greater libertarian/statist debate that is broken out here, I will abstain.
What do you suppose the average consumer would pay for his use of national defense?Quote: rudeboyoiThe government maintains a monopoly on these services so well think none of these services could be provided without government. So sick of the roads argument. It's a flat piece of land. It's really not that complicated. Any product that you are forced to purchase is not a worthwhile product. The market will meet the demands of the consumer.
Quote: bigfoot66Show me the contract. Even if there was a contract, the contract would have to be, "The government can take as much of your money as they want every year, can capriciously change the calculations of how much they will take, and are under no obligation to deliver any specific good or service to you. This same arrangement extends to your children and all of their children in perpetuity."
Also, what is the legal definition of a citizen?
this wikipedia article describes it all better than I could.
In particular, see the 'social contract' bit to see discussion about the "contract" that I was talking about. Under "What it Means to be A Citizen" it enumerates basic things about this social contract - rights and responsibilities of citizens and their government.
You can look up the legal definition of citizenship yourself.
Quote: bigfoot66They cannot deliver 1st class mail. The law reads, "Whoever establishes any private express for the conveyance of letters or packets, or in any manner causes or provides for the conveyance of the same by regular trips or at stated periods over any post route which is or may be established by law . . .shall be fined . . . or imprisoned . . . or both."
http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-history/universal-service-postal-monopoly-history.pdf
The money in mail delivery is in 3 things and has been for decades. 1)parcels 2)business/legal communications needing hard copies/actual signatures/time critical 3)bulk mail advertisers. UPS/FedEx/DHL/etc. took the cream off the USPS with 1 and 2. Ecards/Email/ebills have taken most of the rest off 1st class revenue. 1st class mail still doesn't pay its own way, because it's either been a slight loss leader, and/or because it's chasing an ever-decreasing per piece model in decline. 20 years ago I used 10-15 stamps a month. I'm down to less than 10 a year, and not likely to increase. So is everybody I know.
I sent 2 packages at Christmas this year. Both were smaller than a roll-on airline bag. Both less than 10 lbs. UPS was the cheapest at $110 for both. USPS was next at $120. FedEx was at $140. They're all out of their freaking minds.
And yet Amazon, because of their bulk rates, can send those packages for about $7 each.
Despite all of that, the USPS would still be making money if Congress hadn't hit them with crazy pension pre-pay requirements several years ago. Dunno how to fix it, not sure anybody can.
Edit: wanted to add that part of the reason the airlines are charging so much and are so crowded is that 20 years ago and earlier (for decades) a shocking amount of 1st class mail was actually airmail. Nearly every scheduled airline flight had bags of mail on them. And many times, the go/no go decision was made on the amount of mail. If you were ever left to rebook a flight because your connection was late during bad weather, no matter how many people they screwed on your connection, or if you departed on a flight that had about 10 people on it, it's most likely that leg had a bunch of mail on it. Ounce for ounce, the mail is worth many times your value to the airlines, and they have delivery contracts they have to meet to continue to carry it.
Quote: JimRockfordWhat do you suppose the average consumer would pay for his use of national defense?
No idea because we don't have a national defense. We have a national offense. I doubt very many people would be willing to voluntarily fund a war to invade another country however.
Quote: Dalex64this wikipedia article describes it all better than I could.
In particular, see the 'social contract' bit to see discussion about the "contract" that I was talking about. Under "What it Means to be A Citizen" it enumerates basic things about this social contract - rights and responsibilities of citizens and their government.
You can look up the legal definition of citizenship yourself.
This guy can probably describe it better than I could too.
The Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins: http://youtu.be/jNj0VhK19QU
Quote: rudeboyoiThe Social Contract: Defined and Destroyed in under 5 mins: http://youtu.be/jNj0VhK19QU
Ugh. I have a love/hate relationship with Steph but he is right here.
Quote: Dalex64this wikipedia article describes it all better than I could.
In particular, see the 'social contract' bit to see discussion about the "contract" that I was talking about. Under "What it Means to be A Citizen" it enumerates basic things about this social contract - rights and responsibilities of citizens and their government.
You can look up the legal definition of citizenship yourself.
So this is somebody's idea of why I ought to do what the government says. It is not in fact, a contract, it is an idea. A contract can only be valid if it is freely entered into, I never agreed to anything outlined in the social contract stuff and I strongly object to it. Besides, it doesn't make any sense. How can someone enter an agreement where one party gets to define all the terms? This cannot be a contract. It is slavery.
"Social Contract" is to Contract as Rape is to Love.
Also, you did not offer the legal definition of a citizen so I will. The classical formulation is that a citizen is someone who owes allegiance in exchange for protection. Do you believe this describes your relationship with the state?
