Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
By what authority does the U.S. tax the income earned in Thailand by a U.S. citizen living and working in Thailand?
The 16th Amendment to the Constitution... with some caveats of course:
For starters, folks can exclude up to $95,100 in 2012 in foreign earned income completely. The US can't touch it. They can also exclude part, or all, of any housing income reimbursements or any housing costs paid, They can claim a foreign tax credit against their U.S. tax liability for income taxes they pay to the foreign country, or alternatively take an itemized deduction for the taxes paid if more beneficial. And last but not least (and here is the only place jurisdiction raises its head at all)they can reduce their overall tax liability under tax treaties that the U.S.has with foreign countries.
In short, you need to make upwards of $150K before the US can even begin to tax income earned in Thailand, what they can tax is dependent upon what the actual foreign jurisdiction has decided they want to tax first, the taxing authority is based on international treaties (not a unilateral extension of authority into the foreign country)... and finally... only when you submit yourself to US jurisdiction by filing your tax return.
Again... you fail.
As the Supreme Court told us:
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
Last edited by HistorianDude; 04-11-2013 at 11:18 AM..
Reason: To fix a critical typo.
WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION, regardless of physical location and territorial boundaries.
As to your pathetic obiter dictum quote... Clearly NOT applicable as the U.S. does indeed tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Deductions apply as applicable just as the same is true within U.S. boundaries.
The U.S. asserts JURISDICTION to tax on the basis of two factors: source of income, and citizenship. If a foreign individual or corporation receives income from a U.S. source, that income is subject to tax. If a U.S. citizen living abroad received income from a foreign source, that income is subject to tax merely because of the U.S. citizenship of the receiver.
Thus we have a perfect example of WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION over citizens within a certain area: The U.S. taxes the foreign-earned income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The same principle applies to the U.K.'s birthright citizenship law (in Obama's case, the British Nationality Act of 1948). The U.K. had WORLDWIDE JURISDICTION to bestow automatic British citizenship at birth to any child born worldwide to a British father provided that the father of such a person is not a citizen of the U.K. by descent only.
As such, Obama was NOT under the complete jurisdiction of the U.S. at birth. He fell under the U.K.'s jurisdiction in the area of citizenship. Obama does NOT meet the "subject to the jurisdiction" requirement's meaning and intent stated in the Congressional Record: "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."
Obama was subject to the U.K.'s citizenship jurisdiction. He owed allegiance to a foreign power at birth. Legally, Obama isn't even a U.S. citizen at all. He is only recognized as one by current political policy.
The same is true of any child born in the U.S. to a non-citizen parent whose country asserts worldwide jurisdiction in the same manner. Legally, they are not U.S. citizens. They are only recognized as such by current political policy.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
The 19th Amendment to the Constitution...
Note that after HD ridicules those with legitimate points as to Obama's Constitutional ineligibility, he cites the women's suffrage Constitutional Amendment in rebuttal to the U.S. asserting JURISDICTION to tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
Note that after HD ridicules those with legitimate points as to Obama's Constitutional ineligibility, he cites the women's suffrage Constitutional Amendment in rebuttal to the U.S. asserting JURISDICTION to tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The man is NOT lucid. Take heed...
LMAO.
Note InformedConsent repeatedly cites Minor V Happersett, a woman's suffrage case, to bolster his arguments about natural-born citizenship--which had nothing to do with the case, since everyone agreed that Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen.
Note InformedConsent repeatedly cites Minor V Happersett, a woman's suffrage case, to bolster his arguments about natural-born citizenship--which had nothing to do with the case, since everyone agreed that Virginia Minor was a natural-born citizen.
Yet anotherLOW-information poster exposes themselves. We're on a roll!
1) I'm a she.
2) Minor v. Happersett had to derive Minor's citizenship in order to examine the question presented to SCOTUS. In doing so, SCOTUS determined:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
At this point we know for a fact that neither HD NOR his cheerleader DC at R are lucid.
Note that after HD ridicules those with legitimate points as to Obama's Constitutional ineligibility, he cites the women's suffrage Constitutional Amendment in rebuttal to the U.S. asserting JURISDICTION to tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
The man is NOT lucid. Take heed...
The man is pure smerge.
He is guilty of so many merged-for-smear violations, they are uncountable.
He is an anti-disquinguishment artist - an undefinitizing maniac.
Yet anotherLOW-information poster exposes themselves. We're on a roll!
1) I'm a she.
2) Minor v. Happersett had to derive Minor's citizenship in order to examine the question presented to SCOTUS. In doing so, SCOTUS determined:
"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."
At this point we know for a fact that neither HD NOR his cheerleader DC at R are lucid.
1. I don't care what gender you are.
2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CASE IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO SOLVE THESE DOUBTS. Meaning, they didn't need to rule about children born in the United States without reference to the citizenship of their parents. It
was irrelevant to the case.
Your inability to understand that Minor doesn't support your argument is an example of a lack of lucidity.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
You've just admitted JURISDICTION. Thank you!!!
Don't be stupid. The 19th Amendment gives the US no authority whatsoever to go to Thailand and enforce our tax laws. We can only do so, here, within our own jurisdiction to those citizens who are here, and submit themselves to that jurisdiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
As to your pathetic obiter dictum quote... Clearly NOT applicable as the U.S. does indeed tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad. Deductions apply as applicable just as the same is true within U.S. boundaries.
Ignoring that it's not obiter dictum at all (it is in fact one of the most commonly cited precedents in all of Supreme Court history) the US can tax anything it wants. It can enforce nothing unless and until the individual involved submits themselves within our borders to US jurisdiction.
You continue to fail.
As the Supreme Court has told us:
Quote:
The jurisdiction of the nation within its own territory is necessarily exclusive and absolute. It is susceptible of no limitation not imposed by itself. Any restriction upon it, deriving validity from an external source, would imply a diminution of its sovereignty to the extent of the restriction, and an investment of that sovereignty to the same extent in that power which could impose such restriction.
Birther thread disclaimer: All discussions in this post are for entertainment purposes only, since birthers have lost every single one of the more than 200 court cases they have filed, and Barack Obama has been elected and inaugurated as President of the United States... twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Note that after HD ridicules those with legitimate points as to Obama's Constitutional ineligibility, he cites the women's suffrage Constitutional Amendment in rebuttal to the U.S. asserting JURISDICTION to tax the foreign-sourced income of U.S. citizens living abroad.
That was a typo. It was obviously intended to be the 16th, not the 19th.
As to ridicule, I agree wholeheartedly with Thomas Jefferson when he wrote, "“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
