|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 106 responses total. |
jp2
|
|
response 25 of 106:
| 
May 7 16:06 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 26 of 106:
|
May 7 16:09 UTC 2002 |
Re #23: They don't, but if even eBay (a fairly large company that's
actually making a profit) decides they can't afford to fight that kind
of legal challenge, what chances do any of the rest of us have if we
run afoul of some foreign law? Or maybe foreign courts will start
going after ISPs that host the pages of people with content they find
offensive.
|
jp2
|
|
response 27 of 106:
|
May 7 16:12 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 28 of 106:
|
May 7 16:26 UTC 2002 |
Re #25: if you move to a foreign country and earn money there, you will
pay income tax there and the United States cannot touch you. So, your
"No" is incorrect. It should be more of a "maybe". If you *import*
income into the United States, then that is another matter, and is
subject to US law. (I lived and earned money in the Netherlands, and
was not subject to US tax.)
|
brighn
|
|
response 29 of 106:
|
May 7 16:51 UTC 2002 |
#26> eBay is not morally obligated to fight your ethics battles for you.
Although frankly, on this topic, I'd wager that eBay is using German law as
an excuse because they don't have the cajones to admit taht *they* are
censoring Nazi paraphrenalia (something they shouldn't be ashamed to admit...
if I run an auction service, I'd be uncomfortable selling Nazi paraphrenalia,
too).
|
jp2
|
|
response 30 of 106:
|
May 7 17:02 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 31 of 106:
|
May 7 17:29 UTC 2002 |
Perhaps they can assess all they want, but if you are llving in a foreign
country and paying foreign income tax, the United States *cannot touch*
your income, as I said. So, it is you that (as usual) is in error. (it
would help if you could read better and not misinterpret what is written.)
|
jp2
|
|
response 32 of 106:
|
May 7 17:33 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 33 of 106:
|
May 7 17:41 UTC 2002 |
How will the USA "touch" your foreign income if you are living abroad?
This is exactly what part of the controversy is about that guy Rich that
Clinton pardoned. The USA has no way to get taxes from him. Come on, admit
it that you are up the creek.
|
drew
|
|
response 34 of 106:
|
May 7 17:54 UTC 2002 |
Re #24:
Last I checked, purchase and use of marijuana in the Netherlands is still
technically illegal; it's just that the police have a policy of not doing
anything about it if done in certain places.
|
jp2
|
|
response 35 of 106:
|
May 7 17:55 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 36 of 106:
|
May 7 19:03 UTC 2002 |
So, I was right. I am not the least bit embarassed by being correct. All
I said was that the USA could not touch a person earning money abroad.
It can't even touch someone that earned it here and took it abroad.
|
brighn
|
|
response 37 of 106:
|
May 7 20:44 UTC 2002 |
Rane and Jamie are as tenacious as Aaron and Leeron, but at least they're not
as verbose.
|
jp2
|
|
response 38 of 106:
|
May 7 21:04 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 39 of 106:
|
May 7 22:58 UTC 2002 |
But he didn't so the IRS can't. That is all I have maintained. The law
of a country only applies to citizens of a country when they are in
that country, with the exception of extradition treaties, but that
isn't just the law of a single country.
|
jp2
|
|
response 40 of 106:
|
May 7 23:01 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 41 of 106:
|
May 8 00:21 UTC 2002 |
I'm with Jamie on this point. It isn't that the law of the US fails to apply
to Rich, it's that they can't actually do anything to him unless and until
he falls into their grasp. If he had property in the US, they could sieze
it: if the law didn't apply to him, they couldn't do that.
|
jp2
|
|
response 42 of 106:
|
May 8 00:23 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 43 of 106:
|
May 8 00:27 UTC 2002 |
"cruCified". I hate self-proclaimed uber-people who mispell.
|
md
|
|
response 44 of 106:
|
May 8 00:40 UTC 2002 |
Latin "crux" -- the inflected forms begin with "cruc-" as in "crucis"
(genitive singular) and "crucem" (accusative singular). The "cruc-"
root can be seen in such words as "crucified" and "excruciating," which
is what it must be like to be Jamie.
|
jp2
|
|
response 45 of 106:
|
May 8 01:25 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
scott
|
|
response 46 of 106:
|
May 8 01:38 UTC 2002 |
43? Sure you don't mean 44, mr. infallible?
|
jp2
|
|
response 47 of 106:
|
May 8 01:40 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
md
|
|
response 48 of 106:
|
May 8 01:41 UTC 2002 |
"Semantics"? He just said you can't spell, is all.
|
jp2
|
|
response 49 of 106:
|
May 8 01:46 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|