| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/President/Bush, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41491 Activity:nil |
1/23 Really, people...
Is it incompetence or embezzlement?
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/24/international/middleeast/24reconstruct.html |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:41492 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4641954.stm Canadian Conservatives win. Lower taxes and Bushism to reign in N America forever! \_ You know, I don't even feel too bad about this. The Conservatives are probably just as corrupt as the Liberals, but at least if they lower taxes they'll have less money to embezzle. The idea of closer ties with the US scares me, but it's not like Martin was doing a great job of keeping his distance either. \_ Or they can slash taxes, run up a huge debt and leave it to later generations to pay and/or default. Note that Canada is actually paying down their national debt right now. \_ Well, not all "conservatives" are as stupid as ours. \_ Except being a parlimentary system they only have something like 32-38 percent of the seats and 52 percent of the seats are in the hands of what, in the us, would be leftist pinkos. \_ We kicked out Davis for Ah-nold. Yes, we are all closet gropers, aren't we? |
| 2006/1/24 [Computer/Domains, Reference/RealEstate] UID:41493 Activity:high |
1/24 Fight eminent domain? Seize a judge's house
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4639374.stm -John
\_ Yeah, threatening judges with retribution based on their decisions,
no matter what form it takes, seems like an excellent long term
plan to guarantee the impartiality of the judiciary. |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Recreation/Media, Consumer/TV] UID:41494 Activity:nil |
1/24 have you thought you watched all episodes of STNG and discovered
that you missed an episode or two many years later?
\_ Nope.
\_ Yeah. I missed one s2 eps when it aired on TV and only
discovered it again on DVD. -stmg |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Uncategorized] UID:41495 Activity:moderate |
1/24 I masturbated 9 times yesterday, and 3 times this morning.
I think it's a new personal record.
\_ What do you masturbate to?
\_ This? link:csua.org/u/er3
\_ I can't believe that would get you 9 "throws".
\_ Any better recommendations?
\_ Do you mean you actually finished off with cum every time? That'd
be a record.
\_ I sure did. Is this the world's lamest superpower?
\_ You're Mr. Furious... masturbater.
\_ In College there was a guy we called Dave 22 because he claimed to
have masturbated 22 times in one day.
\_ That can be a good aerobic workout!
\_ When you masturbate more than chicks can, something's wrong.
\_ URL? ;-)
\_ I'm surprised that (1) this thread generated so many responses, and
(2) hasn't been deleted yet.
\_ You need free hands to delete this thread, and everybody's hands
are now too busy doing ...... you know. |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Science] UID:41496 Activity:nil |
1/24 To the person looking for a quiz generator earlier:
http://www.breadbox.com/proddetail.asp?id=84 |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:41497 Activity:moderate |
1/24 Pictures from SF "Walk for Life" (pro-life march)
http://www.zombietime.com/walk_for_life
\_ Check out its Anatomy of a Photograph page about how the media is
biased: http://csua.org/u/er6
\_ Replace your well-composed photograph with my crappy one now!
\_ "The page is not meant to be an argument for one side or the other,
nor does it analyze the merits of either position. It is simply
an essay about what happened that day, and what people did."
Ridiculous. It's a photo-essay presented to support the photo-
grapher's viewpoint. That's fine, but pretending to be unbiased
is not.
\_ Any media which doesn't support my viewpoint is biased!
\_ I think that statement is pretty much correct. The photo
essay does not make any points pro or anti-abortion. It
just comments on the behavior of the two factions. The
commentary on that may be biased, s/he does seem to think
that many of the pro-choice crowd are jerks, but s/he never
makes any arguments about the issue of abortion.
\_ Sorry, I thought the people at the rally were the issues
being discussed. And on that, s/he's biased.
\_ Isn't that what the web site said? "It is simply an
essay about what happened that day, and what people
did".
\_ And the photos and comments he featured portray certain
groups of people as competent and others as liars.
It's fish in a barrel to take unwholesome pictures of
Pro-Choicers disrupting a rally like this.
\_ This is the same guy who claims that the entire city of San
Francisco is pro-terrorist because he saw some grafitti on the
sidewalk that he didn't like. The guy is a moron.
\_ So is every journalist I've ever met. So what?
\_ http://www.zombietime.com/eyes_wide_open
"Turns out I was right -- San Franciscans don't think
Americans are the equivalent of the terrorists. They think
Americans are worse than the terrorists."
Go ahead and read that kind of hateful trash if you want,
but I have better things to do with my time.
\_ I think instead of giving us "a variety of fresh perspectives",
the huge array of "reporting" we now have just lets everyone these
days live in an echo chamber where their beliefs are never
challenged by inconvenient facts. (emphasis on "inconvenient",
not "facts")
\_ You mean like motd?
\_ The motd is not an echo chamber. People agree, people
disagree. People post things that other people violently
disagree with.
\_ People are also apparently violent masturbators. See
below. |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Consumer/Audio] UID:41498 Activity:low |
1/24 Recommendations on high quality medium price-range skype
headsets?
\_ I have a Plantronics full ear coverage one with a boom mike,
which is also good for gaming. -John
\_ don't bother. Skype sounds terrible regardless. I just use
a regular stereo headphone + $1.99 made-in-China mic and it
works fine :p
\_ high quality skype is an oxymoron.
\_ I've been using it a lot since moving to Chile, both for
pc-pc and skypeout calls. It's not "high quality" but I
can hear and be heard just fine. And a good mic/speakers
make a difference. -John |
| 2006/1/24 [Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41499 Activity:high |
1/24 L.A. Times columnist does not support the troops
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1564056/posts
\_ Why post the freeper link? The real article is way funnier.
(And not in the ways he intended) http://csua.org/u/er5
\_ What exactly is wrong with his position? At least it's rational.
The idea that people who pull triggers are somehow not morally
culpable is not just stupid, but dangerous.
\_ yeah, there are a surprising number of genuine "at least he's
honest" freeper posts ... but there was also one:
"Hey- at least he's honest. Now get the rope."
\_ As a person who didn't support the war but who does support the
troops, my big problem with his position is that it proposes
a binary viewpoint: you're either against the war because you're
a pacifist, or you're not against the war. Baloney. I believe
that a disciplined and actively used military force is necessary
not only to our own national defense but also to the deterrence
of tyranny and genocide. I just don't think Iraq was an
appropriate target, and I think the administration made an
utter cock-up out of something that could have been done much
more smoothly. I think we need to withdraw our troops, not
because I think it will make everything better, but because I
think that's the only way we can salvage any real regard for
our military might.
\_ Indeed. You don't blame the hammer when you smash your thumb.
\_ I don't see that it proposes that binary viewpoint. It
proposes that the guys pulling triggers are in some way
morally responsible. I suppose the author is neglecting
those who don't see it as immoral, but simply unwise.
\_ "So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American
imperialism ..."
^American imperialism^whoever is President at the time |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Uncategorized] UID:41500 Activity:nil |
1/24 I <3 Santorum
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/video/stickerw.php |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Computer/Domains] UID:41501 Activity:high |
1/24 What is the best place to park your domain name?
\_ If you're planning on using it at some later date, http://gandi.net.
If you're planning on waiting to see who buys it for the most,
up your ass. -John
\_ Unless you own http://sex.com your domain isn't worth anything.
\_ Which doesn't prevent a lot of greedy morons from
thinking theirs is. -John
\_ I just sold a domain for $5k.
\_ Which domain? |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Politics/Domestic/Crime, Politics/Foreign/MiddleEast/Iraq] UID:41502 Activity:kinda low |
1/24 If a crime boss/gangster outsourced the killing to a hit-man,
will the crime boss be held liable?
\_ The man most recently executed in California outsourced
all his killings.
\_ Of course. Criminal conspiracy.
\_ Typically, this is the wife who wants her husband dead for some
reason and hires someone or convinces some boy to do it for "love".
\_ Didn't someone just get executed for ordering the killing of his
son's gf because she knew about his robbery?
\_ So if the US 'outsourced' torture, should it be held...
\_ Only if it wasn't done to "protect the American people"
\_ This is not entirely clear. If a non-US citizen is captured
in a theater of war and turned over to a country that does
not forbid the use of torture, it is not clear that any
const. provision has been violated (though a geneva conv-
ention provision may be violated, if geneva is applicable).
But, if a US citizen is turned over to a foreign power, then
the use of torture by the foreign power under the color of
US authority would be a violation of the 8th amend. |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Reference/History/WW2/Germany] UID:41503 Activity:low |
1/24 Slideshow comparing Nazi political cartoons
vs. conservative Cox & Forkum political cartoons
http://www.drmenlo.com/lgfquiz/slideshow1.html
[restored]
\_ Got tired of waiting for the comic to load.
\_ Gee, 2 cartoonists, both from western cultural heritage,
occasionaly use similar imagery! Say it ain't so! Hey, Hitler
went on vacations, and Bush went on vacation! Bush = Hitler!1!1 |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Recreation/Media] UID:41504 Activity:low |
1/24 DIS to acquire PIXR
\_ Oh well, PIxar was such a good movie house.
\_ Oh well, Pixar was such a good movie house.
\_ Time to sell. Not a bad deal, though, +200% in five years. -tom
\_ So what do some of the Pixar Sodans think of this move? |
| 2006/1/24-26 [Politics/Domestic/911, Politics/Domestic/President/Bush] UID:41505 Activity:high |
1/24 [ Preserved b/c this thread is still active ]
Domestic eavesdropping opponents have been using the misquote from
Benjamin Franklin: "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security
deserve neither". http://csua.org/u/er9 [nyt]
Now, this is a misquote, and the difference between the quote and
the misquote is substantial and relevant to the debate. However,
I don't recall any popular media calling the protestors on the
misquote. Why is this? Does the press not know the quote is wrong?
Do they simply not care?
\_ Isn't this entire thread an attempt to ignore the larger issue?
\_ What I wanna know is, did "those who sacrifice freedom for safety
deserve neither" motd guy participate in the rally, or it just
some place like http://democraticunderground.com that's spreading the
misquote? (anyway, http://CNN.com says it's a "paraphrase")
\_ Good for CNN. "Paraphrase" is unfair to the substantial
difference between the quote and the misquote, but that's
still better than NYT and CBS, who just ignored the error
altogether.
\_ the substantiveness of the difference between the paraphrase
and the exact quote is debatable as well
\_ only if people who can't comprehend english are debating.
\_ not in my view
\_ Is f(g(x)) ~= f(x)? Only for very few f() and g().
\_ you're entitled to your view even if it makes no
sense. welcome to america.
\_ but it does make sense, so ...
\_ http://www.ushistory.org/franklin/quotable/quote04.htm
(what Mr. Franklin actually said, and his mouth moves too)
\_ http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader$605
Actually is "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase
a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty or Safety."
That still seems pretty close to me.
\_ IOW, the quote is silent on whether it's ok to give up liberty
for non-temporary safety. (And indeed much of government is a
trade-off between liberty and safety.) Now, did Bush buy
temporary or non-temporary safety with the eavesdropping?
Hence my claim that the difference is relevant to the debate.
\_ Also, the quote is silent on whether we should enact Daylight
Saving Time, abandon the gold standard, or legalize gay
marriage. However, while it would be a stretch to say that
the quote proposed any of the latter, it's a reasonable
extrapolation to say that the quote discourages sacrificing
liberty for any kind of safety, especially in light of a lack
of any further written material by Franklin in opposition.
More to the point, however, what he's really saying is that
cowardly people who would compromise with tyrants should be
done away with. Or, in common parlance, snitches gots to
be capped.
\_ This is a childish distraction, not a real point. He is
clearly talking about liberty and security, not any of
the red herrings you bring up. You *may* be correct when
you say he was really talking about the larger issue of
compromising with tyrants (although I personally doubt it,
it isn't an unreasonable interpretation), but the rest of
your post about unrelated issues is useless. Misquoting
the man to make some political point shows a great deal
of either ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. Which of
those is worse is left to the reader to decide.
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserves
\_ Is "People who trade dignity for a one-night stand deserve
neither" equivalent to "People who trade dignity for a
long-term relationship deserves neither"? Both statements
long-term relationship deserve neither"? Both statements
may be true, but are they equivalent? You do understand
2 true statements may still not be the same.
\_ My bringing up the admittedly ridiculous examples I did
was an attempt to illustrate the dangers of drawing
conclusions from omissions in the man's words. As the
quote says that giving up liberty for temporary safety
is not to be done, and since Franklin never followed
that up with a caveat or exception, it is reasonable to
draw the conclusion that he would have had a similar
distaste for giving up liberty for non-temporary safety.
\_ No. Giving up liberty for non-temporary safety is
called government.
\_ You're assuming that the liberties that you
purport to have given up in exchange for safety
were actually in your possession to begin with.
\_ Ref state of nature, Locke, and the social
contract.
\_ If he never followed up with any further statements
on the subject we can only conclude he had nothing
more to say on the matter. Anything else is jumping
to unfounded conclusions. By your reasoning, the
opposite of your assumption could also be said and
it would be an equally unfounded conjecture.
\_ *shrug* Invent a time machine or consult a
medium and ask him yourself, then.
\_ Well, you are the one trying to impute extra
meaning to Franklin's quote. We're saying
he said what he said, and reading anything
more into it would be unjustified. If you
go back, this subthread started with "IOW,
the quote is silent on...".
more into it would be unjustified. Looking
back, this subthread started with "IOW, the
quote is silent on..."
\_ ? I'm saying we can't know. I'm not making
any assumptions about what he meant. We'll
never know unless there's some other written
document somewhere clarifying. Why do you
think I'd need a time machine for anything?
\_ Is "People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for a year deserve neither" equivalent to
"People who would trade $100K up front for a monthly
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve neither"?
payment of $5k for the rest of their lives deserve
neither"?
\_ Your analogy assumes the quantification of the
unquantifiable. Or, as WSB put it, "There are no
honorable bargains involving exchange of qualitative
merchandise... for quantitative merchandise."
\_ Which part is unquantifiable? This PP's analogy
uses only quantifiables so you must mean the phrase
"temporary" from Franklin's quote is unquantifiable?
Or you mean "essential"? Please explain.
\_ Comparing two quantities ($100K and $60K) is
easily done. Comparing two qualities (liberty
and safety) is not.
\_ Hmm, ok, then you disagree with Franklin?
\_ How about comparing 'safety' and 'little
temporary safety'?
\_ The original quote also says "essential liberty." One may
argue that essential liberty includes the liberty to
communicate, but that liberty does not cover CLEARTEXT
communications, ie the gov. can't (1) forbid you from using
public-key encryption or (2) force you give them your private
key, BUT they can listen to you conversation if you do it in
the clear.
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dans
\_ One may argue that, but it's a moronic argument. -dan
\_ Why? Communicating in cleartext is basically the
same as talking in public. One must assume that
as soon as the communications leaves the confines
of one's own home, it is available to everyone.
If you don't value the privacy of your communication
to the level necessary to take precautions against
eavesdropping, you have assumed the risk that the
your communications will be intercepted.
I'm only asking whether it is an ESSENTIAL liberty
to communicate in cleartext. I can accept that it
a nice to have liberty, but I cannot accept that
it is essential.
\_ Only recently has it been possible for ordinary
people to encrypt phone conversations. Are you
saying that the government had the ability to tap
phone conversations for the last 100 years without
a warrant? Why would the courts disagreee with that?
\_ Many different ciphers/codes have existed as
long as phones have been around. Arguably OTP
has also existed since at least WW2. If you
value your privacy enough you should use the
state of the art cipher system for the era in
which you are living. Yes it slow, yes it is
inefficient and hampers communication, but
that is the price of secure communication.
It is not just the government that has had the
ability to tap and record phone conversations
for decades. Private industry has this ability
as well.
I am not arguing for an interpretation of search
under the 4th amend. I am arguing that cleartext
communication is not an essential liberty as
used by Franklin.
long as phones have been around. It is not
easy to have a two way conversation but it
is doable. If you value your security that
much, then the inconvenience is worth it.
NOTE: I am not arguing for an interpretation
of search under the 4th amend. I am arguing
that cleartext communication is not an essential
liberty w/in Franklin's use of that term.
In addition, my assertion also applies to all
forms of communication, including letters.
I think that the term essential in this context
would not cover the liberty to mail letter w/o
them being subject to review by the post office.
It is not an ESSENTIAL liberty that one have
the ability to send letters in the clear.
\_ This quote is more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs to support
things like right-to-own-machine-guns. If the media doesn't point
out the exact quote when it's used by Charlton Heston, is it an
artifact of the right-wing media? -tom
\_ URL with Charlton Heston or nutjob, media, and the quote please.
\_ not quite all your parameters, but close: -!tom
http://www.armedfemalesofamerica.com/notablequotes.htm
yes, I know it's not a misquote
here's Mr. Heston, and he doesn't misquote too
http://www.nrahq.org/transcripts/denver_close.asp
\_ http://www.twelvearyannations.com/id28.htm
(Aryan Nations World Headquarters) -tom
\_ Well, Aryan Nations isn't "libertarian nutjobs" or
Charleston Heston, and a self-promotional web site
isn't a popular media report. Otherwise you're dead on.
\_ You're a moron in several different ways, but primarily
because it's not the newspaper's job to correct the
people it's quoting, except when it's editorializing.
When it's just a news story, you report what was
said, you don't say "Charleton Heston said that
those who give up liberty for safety deserve neither,
but the actual Benjamin Franklin quote is 'those who
would give up essential liberty for safety...'".
That's simply not the job of a reporter.
And if you want to split hairs between the Aryan
Nation and libertarian nutjobs (I really don't think
the difference is significant), you can find similar
misquotes at
http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1554499/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39b6b6d66946.htm
and plenty of others. -tom
\_ Your claim was specific. You said "This quote is
more popularly used by libertarian nutjobs...".
Despite your rude bluster, you still have not
substantiated your claim. 2 tries, and you still
haven't found "libertarian nutjobs" who use
"this quote". You also claimed Charlton Heston
misquoted Franklin. Again, a specific claim, and
you have not backed that one up either. OBTW, CNN
said the protestors "paraphrased" Franklin.
\_ Uh, so freerepublic doesn't count as
libertarian nutjobs? -tom
\_ Absolutely not. Nutjobs? Yes. Libertarian?
No, no, no, no, no! The freepers are a bunch
of uneducated loud mouthed morons that all
clear thinking people across the political
spectrum wish would go away, but they are
definitely not libertarians. Please get the
bare basics right before posting.
\_ Geeze, you really are nitpicking.
OK, how about
<http://http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1996/le960801.html
(The Libertarian Enterprise)
<http://http://www.libertyforall.net/2003/archive/sept28/price.html
(Liberty For All)
<http://http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,47823,00.html
(Radley Balko, Cato Institute)
Give it up, already. -tom
\_ That was my first post in this thread.
My nit isn't your quoting, per se, it
is your gross misclassification of the
freepers which makes me think you've
either never read what they have to say
and are just repeating what you've been
told or worse, you have read the
freeper junk and can't see they aren't
libertarians at all and thus have no
idea what a libertarian is. I really
don't care what libertarians might have
misquoted Franklin. Not my game.
\_ But Tom, where is "this quote" in any
of your links? You specifically said
"this quote".
\_ Search for "liberty for safety." -tom
\_ You specified a particular quote. Also,
while the freepers are certainly nutjobs, not
even they'd tell you they are libertarians.
Strike 3.
\_ 0 for 3 isn't bad. it could've been worse.
\_ I don't know, he keeps trying. Seems to be
going for a solid 0 for 10.
\_ again, i think the real issue is not rather one should allow
domestic eardropping or not. The real issue is that as it is
right now, no one really knows the scope of domestic spying,
no check and balance is in place. So, in case of wrongfully accused
or that such program has being targeted for political purposes,
no one can turn the case over. It is all depend upon Bush Co
to decide who is 'terrorist' or not. Bush can easily use this
mechanism to spy on Democrat Party Committee. This is just like
\_ IC! DEMOCRAT__*IC*_ PARTY! You scoundrel!
You petty traitor! You villain! *IC*!
Why are you and Karl Rove always torturing
us with your vicious little RepubiKKKan
smears on the motd and your official
publications?! *IC*!
\_ Sounds like it's time to up the dosage
*again*, man. Or cut back..waaaaaay back
on the caffeine.
Watergate except it is now legal to do so.
\_ This may be a case of it has always been legal to do so, not
it is now legal to do so. The situation is different from
Watergate b/c the wiretaps in Watergate were conducted for
purely domestic purposes. Here the wiretaps are ostensibly
conducted for foreign affairs purposes. The distinction may
become impt, b/c the Pres. has far more power to act in
foreign affairs than in domestic affairs.
\_ regardless, there should be a check-n-balance mechanism
in place.
\_ Arguably the const. disagrees with you. The BoR may
not apply to executive power during a time of war,
when hostiles have been operating on American soil.
\_ So any President, on nothing more than their own
whim, can claim anyone is doing something
related to a "foreign" power, without any evidence
whatsover, and declare all Constitutional rights for
that person invalid? And no court or legislature
has any recourse? Is that your contention?
\_ There are limits to the executive power, BUT
those limits arguably only exist either (1)
during peacetime or (2) during wartime when
enemy forces are not operating on US soil.
This is clearly not peace time and this is
a wartime scenario where the enemy is engaged
in operations on US soil, therefore the BoR
may not apply.
\_ What events will signify the end of the war?
We defeated the Taliban and Saddam Hussein and
occupy Iraq and have a puppet government in
Afghanistan... Aren't we on a never ending quest
to save my girlfriend now? I mean, when will the
"War on Terror" end, and if it isn't ending
anytime soon, doesn't that mean the President
will have expanded powers for decades?
\_ I find it interesting that the balance of
government branches issue is so important
yet does anyone here not understand that
the President has always had the ultimate
power since the mid 1900s? Without anyone
else's say so they can start a nuclear war.
Is that ok? If so, then why don't we trust
the office holder with lesser responsibilities
than all human life on the planet? I'm not
arguing for/against, I just find the reasoning
that "super power over life and death with no
checks" is ok while "omg, they're going to
listen to me talk sexy to my gf!!!" is not.
\_ Just because the President was given one
important power due to military neccesity
doesn't mean that he has unlimited power
to do anything.
\_ Actually the Pres. does have unlimited
power to do anything he wants in wartime
IF habeas is suspended. [ I know that
habeas hasn't been suspended, BUT if
it were, the Pres. would have the power
to do anything he deems necessary in
order to protect the republic. ]
\_ The conditions that signify the end of the
war are clear in my post. The Pres. authority
to violate the BoR will end when there are
no longer any foreign hostiles engaged in
operations on US soil. Perhaps this will take
decades, perhaps it will take longer. I do
not know, but I feel that AQ et. al. pose
such a threat to civilization, that any and
all means must be used to vanquish them.
Re "saving my gf": I disagree, despite the
lack of domestic terrorism
since 9/11, there is no
proof that AQ et. al. are
no longer carrying out long
term operations w/in the US.
Until such proof is avail.
the emergency exists. Such
proof can be made available
by the worldwide destruction
of militant islam; thus we
do not have to rely on an
assertion of proof via the
executive branch.
\_ More people in the United States have been
struck by lightning than died in domestic
terrorist attacks in the last decade. I
think you severely overreacting to a very
minor threat and giving up our liberties
because of a very minor problem. Your
paranoia and fearfulness over a tiny
problem are not worth tearing up the
Constitution.
minor threat and are giving up our liberties
because of your paranoia and media generated
hype and fearfulness.
\_ If you receive anal pleasure 100 times
in a year, it's no big deal. If you
receive it 20 times in a morning, you
might have problems. |
| 2006/1/24-25 [Reference/Tax] UID:41506 Activity:nil |
1/24 Tax question. Currently my tax withhold is "2" (single). Usually
I get back a few grand every year from Uncle Sam because of too
much tax withheld. However, someone told me that it's better to
put down "3" so that you have more in the bank to accumulate
interest rate, and pay back Uncle Sam later. The overall gain
would be the interest rate from the few grands that the government
withheld. Has anyone done this and is it particularly bad? Thanks.
\_ Everyone does it. I think I'm claiming 6 for withholding
purposes right now. Your goal should probably be to be close
to breaking even when tax time comes around; if you get a bunch
of money back, you gave the government an interest-free loan,
and if you have to pay a bunch of money, you might also have to
pay a penalty. -tom
\_ If you withhold too little you will be subject to
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p505/ch04.html . Whether it's
a good idea to withhold more or less really depends on your
spending habits.
\_ Note that you can also be penalized for withholding too
much. You should owe/overpay within 10% of the amount due.
\_ Wow, I didn't know there's an overpayment penalty. Do you
have a pointer to more info re that?
\_ I bet this entirely academic, but ...
\_ I bet this is entirely academic, but ...
http://www.irs.gov/govt/fslg/article/0,,id=112714,00.html
"An employee who files a false Form W-4 may be subject
to a $500 penalty." Of course, it depends on what the
meaning of "false" is: "Sometimes this cannot be done
simply by claiming an exemption for each member of a
family. The employee may be entitled to additional
withholding allowances, as provided in the regulations.
Code section 3402(m), section 31.3402(m)1, Employment Tax
Regulations."
to a $500 penalty."
\_ Unfortunately this doesn't say there's an overpayment
penalty. To be honest, I was suprised to hear that
the IRS would penalize overpayment, no matter by how
much.
\_ Don't forget that you need to pay tax on the interest from your
bank account, so the overall gain is lower than you think. |
| 4/15 |