|
p_janish
|
10-30-2009, 02:01 AM
Post subject: Taxing ***New Question***
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
|
|
I know there are some other posts on this but i have a new question.
I'm from south dakota... no income tax... do i still have to report my winnings???
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
bode
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: May 2006
Location: slow motion
Posts: 4,270
|
|
pretty sure you still have to pay fed taxes.
|
Quote:
|
eeevees are not monies yet...they are like baby monies.
|
|
|
bigspenda73
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pwnsylvania
Posts: 7,546
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bode
pretty sure you still have to pay fed taxes.
|
ya, you don't have STATE income tax bubba, still gotta pay for Obama's Wranglers.
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
Yes.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
Deanglow
|
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: lol
Posts: 2,443
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by spoonitnow
Yes.
|
|
|
|
|
revolvingiris
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,139
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bode
pretty sure you still have to pay fed taxes.
|
Aren't there like a group of people out there fighting this and winning? I keep hearing about ex-IRS agents who keep taking things to court and winning.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
No there aren't
Maybe with loopholes, but all that sovereignty garbage doesn't work. Take Kent Hovind for example: one of the highest profile tax evaders for philosophical reasons; serving ten years.
|
|
|
|
spoonitnow
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: IRC Chat Room
Posts: 5,406
|
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ripptyde
I only have 2 simple rules when I am coaching a new student.
Rule # 1: don't ask questions
Rule # 2: don't ask questions
I have no interest in discussing strategy with a protege'. Your job is to remain quiet and listen. I have a very systematic approach that I will share with the right candidate and I promise that I will turn you into a force of nature and show you elements of the game of poker that you never knew existed.
|
|
|
revolvingiris
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,139
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No there aren't
Maybe with loopholes, but all that sovereignty garbage doesn't work. Take Kent Hovind for example: one of the highest profile tax evaders for philosophical reasons; serving ten years.
|
Have you seen that like 10 video, err, video on youtube? Where the guy shows and gives examples of why you dont need to pay federal income tax? I dont know shit about taxes but I do know I dont want to serve 10 or any years.
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
There are seemingly legitimate sources for everything. If it was true that we didnt need to pay federal taxes, two things would have happened. 1) Shitloads of people would have stopped paying, and 2) laws would have been passed to re-require payment.
It's BS and nothing else
|
|
|
|
wufwugy
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,660
|
|
I should add that it does not matter one bit what anybody says about it. Even if somebody is absolutely right that we don't have to pay taxes, we still do because that's how the judicial system works. Law is an assload of ambiguous technicalities that often contradict each other. It does not matter what something 'means' if it is not supported by judgments.
The simple fact that you cannot get away with not paying taxes means that it is effectively illegal. It's not the 'law' that matters, but how the 'law' is 'ruled' that matters.
|
|
|