Has Anyone Else Completely Lost Faith In The Government?

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

They should probably cut you a break, but at the same time if they are up front about the fact payments are processed the following day you're kinda SOL.

Yeah, it's rough on that front. I still don't understand why banks can't do instant transactions at this point in life. I learned the hard way paying a bill the day it was due, but it took 3 days to 'process' and I got hit with a late fee because of it.

[NC_Skins]

Originally Posted by firstdown

So a few months back I paid our mothly payroll taxes on the IRS web page on the due date. I usually pay them early but this was a very large payment in January to wrap up our 2012 year. Around March I get a bill from the IRS for $329 as a penalty for paying my bill one day late. So i pull the receipt I printed and it shows I paid it on time but then it shows the payment processing date as the following date. WTF, I made the payment on time but because they decide to process it on the following day I get hit with a penalty of that size.

I have worked with the IRS in the past and they have been fair but this time its like I'm talking with a different agency all together. I showed proof it was paid on the due date but the dumb ass people working there keep reading me that stupid line about paying the payroll taxes late and incurring a penalty. I have just lost 2nd appeal and had to send in the payment because of their threats to put a lien against me and my business. I still have to close on our home loan and don't need any issues. Personally I think the Obama Administration is putting preasure on the IRS to collect any taxes they can and F the American people. Even though I paid the bill I'm not goin to stop appealing until I get my money back.

Don't feel bad. I got hit with a $850 "failure to file" fee from the IRS for 2011 taxes. I sent in the return with a 3,600 check. They cashed the check, and didn't file the return. The only reason I knew about the return not filed is they sent a notification this year saying I would lose the $3,600 credit.

Failure all the way around. So now I'll have to call in and ask for them to remove this fee. I seriously doubt they will even though it's their fault. It's a ****ing robbery to say the least.

[RedskinRat]

That is utter bullshit.

[RedskinRat]

Guantanamo: Force Feeding

What happened to us being better than them? Isn't that the lie we were force-fed before the first immaculation of The One? I'm not a fan of al Qaeda, but I won't want to my Government doing this either.

[CRedskinsRule]

How does this not violate the 5th amendment?

Breaking Politics ‏@breakingpol 19m

US Supreme Court justices rule police can take DNA samples from people charged but not convicted of crimes - @Reuters
Retweeted by Breaking News
Expand

[JoeRedskin]

Because the 5th Amendment only protects you from being forced to give incriminating testimony. You cannot be forced to answer questions.

Your DNA, however, is governed by search and seizure protections of the 4th Amendment. (Search & Seizure).

Not commenting on the validity of the division. Just saying how it is/has been viewed by the SC.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Because the 5th Amendment only protects you from being forced to give incriminating testimony. You cannot be forced to answer questions.

Your DNA, however, is governed by search and seizure protections of the 4th Amendment. (Search & Seizure).

Not commenting on the validity of the division. Just saying how it is/has been viewed by the SC.

I understand what you are saying, but here is the 5th amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]

What could be more of being a witness against yourself then using your own genetics against you.

I don't know the original intent, but just on the face of it, having your dna used against you would seem to be self incrimination. But - apparently not.

[SmootSmack]

Wait, why is this thread back on the main page?

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Wait, why is this thread back on the main page?

Yeah, as much as I like the debating thread, it was better (I think) when it didn't show on the home page.

[mredskins]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Yeah, as much as I like the debating thread, it was better (I think) when it didn't show on the home page.

Agreed! Get the debate thread off the main page! Grrrrr...

[firstdown]

How is it any different then giving them your finger prints? Makes sense if the DNA does not match they know they have the wrong guy if it matches then you get what's coming.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by firstdown

How is it any different then giving them your finger prints? Makes sense if the DNA does not match they know they have the wrong guy if it matches then you get what's coming.

Didn't say I agree with giving up fingerprints before you are found guilty. It still seems like a self-incrimination to me.

[Daseal]

Also, the actual case he was arrested for 1st and 2nd degree assault, and the DNA swab linked him to a previous rape. This guy is obviously a scumbag, but it concerns me that your DNA can be taken easily, entered into a database, etc.

[firstdown]

They also take your blood and breath to catch drunking drivers.

[Daseal]

Originally Posted by firstdown

They also take your blood and breath to catch drunking drivers.

Only if you agree, right?