Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zundfolge
Exactly.
Didn't they already do some emissions thing? Or was that our normal "government?"
-John
To Govern;
to rule over by right of authority:
to govern a nation.
to exercise a directing or restraining influence over; guide:
the motives governing a decision.
to hold in check; control:
It used to be that America was defined by freedom. Freedom from Government.
-John
It should be noted, that the first act of this congress, will be to restrict our collective freedoms,.
What are the Bill of Rights, and the Second Amendment, but in anticipation of runaway Government today?
Only 40 shopping days before the next legislative session!
O2
This seems familiar....has it already been tried?Quote:
Originally Posted by zteknik
Any updates on the inspired elite from the local commie rag?
I see New Jersey in our future.........
More taxes disguised as fees.
Now the childless or single folk will be subsidizing the breeders with 1% of their salaries. Or another take of the responsible subsidising the irresponsible.
No rainy day funds, not my problem, but soon it will be.
https://kdvr.com/2018/12/07/paid-fam...y-in-colorado/
Fvck socialists and their thieft of my money.
The most basic aspect of not only humanity, but all life, ever = irresponsible. Is that what I'm reading here? Just want to be clear.
No, the act of producing something that you cannot afford to maintain on your own=irresponsible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I have no problem with kids. I have problems with people that expect others to pay for their kids, or pay for them to take time off to have them.
That's not what was posted.
If the issue is that the proposed bill is terrible, why is the anger not aimed at the people proposing the bill?
Because the people proposing it play on white guilt to get what they want. Knowing as the demographic sits, there's no repercussion for anything tax and social spending related.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
So one can write letters, send emails, post comments in the local papers, protest at the capitol. No one cares, no one gives a fuk what we the common folk say.
The CO Voters spoke and they not only listened, they went above and beyond to make sure. When the CO state legislature convenes, the magic word of the session will be TAXES! High high and how much will be the question.
Buzz words to trigger white guilt.
The Children
Think of the Kids
Living Wage
income equality
Better schools / education for Everyone. (see below)
Immigrants. Not illegal, just immigrants. The all inclusive umbrella which shines false hopes on those coming to America, Illegally.
Common Sense Gun Laws
We need to do something / provide for the Homeless.
Keeping in mind all the above have been tried over & over with minimal results, Except taxes and Fees going up.
Of course if you don't agree with those ideals. There's always the worn out buzz words.
RACIST and Xenophobic
That doesn't address what I'm asking at all.
You asked why the anger is not aimed at the ones who come up with these bills. I replied, the ones who do/did don't care what you think. or how angry you are. So like most forums, it's an echo chamber voicing ones displeasure of being screwed over.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Or did i get lost in the prs post ;)
You got lost. It's okay, I'm trying to make clarifications before accusations so it's a bit hard to follow.
Ahh ye ol j'accuse ploy. enteresting. very enteresting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Meh, should be between a worker and their employer. No need for govt involvement.
That ship sailed after Johnsons Great Society.Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalobo
Bolded is the only reason they want this. On it's face it's an issue that every conservative that has ever uttered anything about the importance of family should be behind 100% if they actually believed what they were preaching. In reality, it's a way to create yet another pool of free money that can just be invested and used on an unlimited amount of other projects with no strings attached and with zero oversight. Individual plans as suggested by foxtrot would provide the most long term benefit to people as a whole, but probably wouldn't work that well in reality for the same reasons as in the bold section. Even if everyone was allowed some sort of very broad use HSA from the very first day of their working life until they were old, the vast majority of young workers wouldn't contribute, and even those that did may not have earned enough money to be useful by the time they had their first kid.Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Except, as with Social Security, the natural tendency of government to spend money left in their care on shit that was never intended is inevitable. If it was a mandatory contribution to a privately held investment fund, the government would simply nationalize the banks and seize the money "for the good of the people".Quote:
Originally Posted by foxtrot
Freshman lawmaker Tom Sullivan, whose son died in the Aurora theater shooting,?will be the lead house sponsor of?a red flag gun bill?in the upcoming legislative? session.
https://www.cpr.org/news/story/rep-e...-flag-gun-bill
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...166897be0c.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by kidicarus13
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I don’t need 1% taken from my pay. My wife stays at home with the kids and I save comp time and PTO for such needs.
What I need is for Polis and his ilk to overdose on poppers and shingella.
Neither do I, I don't have children so why am I on the financial hook for this bullshit. I will NEVER get to use this "benefit" because I'm too old to have children.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
Children are the main selling point but it sounds like they’re including in it basic caregiving.
The problem is for most it will only provide the illusion of a safety net and necessitate part time work, at least, during that period of “benefit”.
When that fails, another gov benefit will be “necessary”.
Those who understand this prior will never use the “benefit”, but will pay for it nonetheless.
FWIW, my fav part of the article is the quote from Moreno (D - Commerce City)
"If you are getting something in return, then it can be considered a fee," Moreno said.
So... taxes give nothing in return, Mr. Moreno?
Heh.
How would this apply to people like IT guys that work from home for a company based elsewhere?
I was under the impression that companies with remote workers have a business “presence” in the state of residence of the worker, and are therefore subject to state law for that worker.
Can someone confirm/deny?
When you are on payroll in Colorado, you will have taxes withheld for CO, and will be subject to labor laws there.Quote:
Originally Posted by CavSct1983
I was remote worker in Colorado for years my employer is based out of NY, but had offices in CO- also, I was temporarily assigned to go to Tulsa for 7 weeks, and they withheld OK takes while I was there- in addition to CO taxes.
Once I moved to Texas, I filed with the company that my new base of remote operations was TX, and the CO withholding stopped.
What if there are no offices in Colorado?
How does being a 1099 change that?
Always best to speak with your accountant, when it comes to tax questions. .Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
Technically, if you're working in Colorado there's a presence there... could an individual get away with pretending their income is in another state the company is in? sure- but good luck if you're audited.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
The short answer is that a 1099 will be filing taxes similar to a business... quarterly payments, etc... you're not an employee but a contractor.
I'm not an accountant- I won't be responsible if you make any life decisions based on this...
I'm not asking for advice here, or for me. I was just curious.
It's a "fee" not a tax. No tax evasion then.
That wasn't directed at you specifically, just a catch-all to those reading it. I don't want Hell's accountants coming after me on their fuel-efficient scooters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I'll say first that I don't support this, but there is something in here that would benefit us childfree folks.
Quote:
Current federal law mandates you can keep your job if you need to take time off from work to care for yourself or a loved one if they are sick or just gave birth. It does not, however, mandate you should be paid.
Obviously the wording of the actual bill could be different, but it seems to apply to FMLA or sick leave as well.Quote:
When a family member is sick or a new baby is born, employees could then request benefits from the state.