News that makes us laugh, cry, or both

[tzor]

Still, I would like to point out that it is pretty important to me that DOMA gets repealed. ...

So yeah, it is pretty important to us.

You have a good reason to want DOMA repealed. But beware, lowering your own taxes leads to the "conservative" side.

(As opposed to raising someone else's taxes which leads to the "liberal" side.")

But seriously, for a varity of reasons, especially the notion of unfair tax burdens, I also think DOMA has to be repealed.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

In Tzor's defense, Obama did promise socialism and seems to not coming through with the goods. And I believe I mentioned that he actually doesn't have the power to do what he promised when he was running for president.

I know that I'm "supposed" to think "At least it's not a republican". I don't. I think Obama is a rightist idiot and long for a REAL left-wing politician. No matter what you people say, Obama ain't good enough by far.

[Maj]

They have "Shimmer" gold and platinum

Is that stuff safe to eat?

I also think DOMA has to be repealed.

DOMA's retarded. It should never have been brought up, let alone passed.

[Kaelik]

In Tzor's defense, Obama did promise socialism and seems to not coming through with the goods. And I believe I mentioned that he actually doesn't have the power to do what he promised when he was running for president.

Um...

No, he really didn't promise socialism. Which makes it even weirder that you think he both 1) promised socialism, and 2) is right wing.

And I believe no other President has ever had the authority to do 90% of the things they promise.

Reagen couldn't de-regulate things, and FDR couldn't build dams. Clinton Promised Healthcare too, and George doesn't get to pass tax cuts.

Saying that a someone is a scam artist because they claim as president to pass laws is so utterly retarded that if Tzor said it I'd know he was being a deceptive ass because even he's not that stupid.

You political opinions are insane. Double insane.

[Username17]

Obama is a centrist right-winger on most issues that matter. Let's be clear: he's arguing for market solutions to major problems. That's the conservative position in places that aren't completely insane.

Now, Obama never promised socialism. His opponents claimed he was going to socialize medicine, and that's ultimately what needs to be done. But frankly all he promised to do was try to save capitalism.

And I'm willing to take that, because we don't have an alternate system in place to feed people were capitalism to actually collapse like it was threatening to last year.

But seriously, don't forget that the President of the United States is still the enemy. Even when he's the least worst option presented.

-Username17

[Prak]

They have "Shimmer" gold and platinum

Is that stuff safe to eat?

I would imagine so, It'd have to pass the FDA to be sold.

Just don't eat too much of it, or your shit will shine.

[Josh_Kablack]

My household pays on average more than six thousand dollars in federal taxes vs a heterosexual couple with the same economic situation. This year we may top more than seventeen thousand in taxes more than a heterosexual married couple, including the new 2009 three thousand dollar tax upon my health benefits.

If those numbers are for real, then you as a couple either:

A> earn a lot more than I think you earn

and/or

B> need to have a CPA take a hard look at your taxes, preferably before the end of the tax year.

Yes, it's horrible and unfair, and no I don't think you're making those numbers up - but they are high enough that getting an outside professional opinion is going to be worthwhile.

[Maxus]

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/13 ... care-refo/

I did a backflip. It may not be the right thing right now, but at least they can make progress now. Seriously, for a couple of months it seems like the Finance Committee has been stalling

[Crissa]

Josh: This mostly has to do with being forced to file as single people, my lack of credible income, that we haven't qualified for any of the tax credits because we can't file as a couple...

And that last year, the Bush administration change how health benefits are taxed. If they cover anyone who is not a direct dependent you must pay taxes on it as though it was bought on the individual market. So our 'income' jumped by '$10,000' because according to the feds, that's what the value of the benefit of having me on my spouse's plan is worth.

-Crissa

[shadzar]

Here is one to get people to cry....Get health insurance or pay $25,000 in fines OR go to jail! WTF?

[Crissa]

This thread is for links to news. While I can't link to my personal tax documents, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt... You might want to find a government source for that fine, shad.

-Crissa

[shadzar]

This thread is for links to news. While I can't link to my personal tax documents, so you'll have to take that with a grain of salt... You might want to find a government source for that fine, shad.

-Crissa

They were just recently still talking, and haven't found a link to the news yet where this bill passed the senate finance committee. Obama, came out and said something about it, but still no video or AP article on it that I can find. I AM looking everywhere and updating about 100 RSS feeds per hour to find details on it.

Whether Wiener will allow it to get in or not and if it will be in the final draft, then that is all to be seen, so probably why there isn't anything online about today's decision.

I am looking, but hoped others might too and get the most up-to-date info.

[Josh_Kablack]

Josh: This mostly has to do with being forced to file as single people, my lack of credible income, that we haven't qualified for any of the tax credits because we can't file as a couple...

Yeah yeah yeah I get that it's unfair.

But here's the thing - your numbers and the particulars of your gripes are not making sense, and I can't tell if it's just you spewing activist hype or if you really have been misinformed in a way that may be costing you thousands of dollars.

As per the 2008 tax tables, the lowest TAXABLE income at which a pair of single people pay 6k in taxes is with one of them having taxable income of $38,600 (owing 6k) and the other having taxable income of $0. That's taxable income, not Adjusted Gross Income, so you each get your personal exemption of 3500 and standard deduction of 5450 (but I think you own a home, so it probably pays at least one of you to itemize and that will make the number higher).

So to even have a combined federal tax liability of $6000 your minimum combined AGI for 2008 would have to be $56,500.

To even have a combined federal tax liability of 17k, it works out that your minimum combined AGI for 2008 would have to be $100,100.

But, that's the MINIMUM and your claim is that you are liable for that much MORE than a married couple, which strongly implies that that comparison is not against a zero tax liability, so you are implying that you as a couple earn substantially more than that. And judging solely by some of your prior posts I never figured you two for six-figure income types.

If so, congratulations, enjoy the good life and rue the hefty tax burdens that come with it.

If not, get your ass to someone who understands tax law better than you do, because they may be able to save you a big chunk of change.


****

But I'm further inclined to believe that you're acting on misinformation when you say things like:

we haven't qualified for any of the tax credits because we can't file as a couple.

Please name any tax credit which can only be claimed by married couples?

Lemme run down the credits on the 1040 here in a lengthy spoilerized list

On Line 47, the [link=http://www.irs.gov/businesses/article/0 ... 63,00.html]Foreign Tax Credit[/link] is independent of filing status.

On Line 48 the Credit for Child and Dependent Care Expenses does require married couples to file A Joint to claim it (save for in cases of widows who remarry within the tax year), but it can be claimed by unmarried taxpayers who file as Head of Household.

On Line 49, the Credit for the Elderly and Disabled again requires married couples to file Joint to claim it, but is again available to unmarried taxpayers who file Single or Head of Household

On Line 50, the Education Credits includes the

• Hope Credit -for which the taxpayer cannot be married filing separately (Single, Married Joint, Head of Household and Qualifying Widower are all allowed to take the credit)
• Lifetime Learning Credit - cannot be married filing separately, all other status are allowed to take the credit
• Student Loan Interest deduction (this is misnamed, it's really an adjustment to income), but once again, the rule is cannot be married filing separately, any other status is legit.
• Tuition and Fees Deduction - again, cannot be MFS, any other status is allowed.
• Education Savings Bond Program - again cannot be MFS, any other status is allowed
• Business Deduction for Work-Related Education - any status is okay, although the income limits are tighter for MFS
• Coverdell ESAs, QTPs, Education Exception to Additional Tax
  on Early IRA Distributions - I'm not familiar with these, but searching for "marriage" in that PDF yields no hits in the relevant sections, so I'm going to assume that martial/ filing status is irrelevant

On line Line 51, the Retirement Savings Contribution Credit[/ur] is open to any filing status.

On line Line 52, the [url=http://www.irs.gov/publications/p972/ar02.html#en_US_publink100012085]Child Tax Credit (and the associated refundable Additional Child Tax Credit) are available to all filing statuses.

Then we get Form 8396 for the mortgage interest credit, which is not limited by filing status.

Form 8839 for qualified adoption expenses is open to all filing status, but has certain additional requirements for the Married Filing Separately status.
Okay, Form 5695 for the Residential Energy Efficient Property Credit does require joint occupants to each fill out separate forms save in the case of couple who are married filing joint. But the credit is still allowed for all filing statuses.

Form 3800, General Business Credit gets weird if your marital / filing status changes from year to year and you are using carryback or carryforward - but the credit is still allowed for all filing statuses.

Finally, we have
orm 8801, Credit for Prior Year Minimum Tax which has special rules for Married Filing Separately , but is allowed for all filing statuses.

(all links are to the IRS website, some are PDFs)

So, although income thresholds and rules may change based on filing status, there is not a single credit on the 1040 which can only be claimed by married couples.

[Crissa]

The maximum penalty in the Senate Finance committee's bill starts at $200 and raises to $800 in 2017.

That's why I knew shadazar was full of shit.

-Crissa

PS: My spouse makes alot more money than than you're thinking. And I haven't had cash income in a couple years. We're not allowed to file as a couple on federal taxes.

The rebates and the First-time Homebuyers' credits top out at one gross income for singles and twice that for couples. We fall in the section where filing as a single hurts us.

Traditionally, we've always paid more tax than we absolutely had to, but the last five years we've been minimizing our tax burden. And with the advent of doing taxes as a couple for California, I have to prepare two sets of forms; one as couple, and then one as single, to file. Since this is done with a nice little computer program, it adds the numbers up for us and tells us the tax burden we'd have if we were allowed to file federally as a couple. Hence, I know what a het couple would be paying, and I know what we are paying.

The tax on health insurance is a payroll tax, there's little I can do about it. This article is slightly out of date; as of last year the feds denied all California domestic partners being a qualified dependent, requiring more than merely the means test but also a relationship test. There's a bill in the senate to amend this, but it has not gotten a vote.

[shadzar]

That's why I knew shadazar was full of shit.

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=932743

[Maxus]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... e%22+Snowe

Some more about the Finance Committee vote. Pick your favorite news source.

[Kaelik]

Hey shadtard, read your own link.

That's the penalty for 1) Not buying Health Insurance and 2) Not paying the fine that is much much much lower than that.

That's like saying that you can get put in jail for years for speeding, if you, you know, refuse to pay the fine, refuse to report to court, ect. And resist arrest when they come.

Yeah, if you don't follow the law, you pay a fine. If you then choose not to follow that law, you have to be charged a larger fine, because you've already proven that an $800 fine doesn't mean anything to you.

[ckafrica]

The Dashing of Hope

[shadzar]

Hey shadtard, read your own link.

Hey butt-fucker, why not read everything else in the world.

Explain to me, one of you cock-sucking retards how:

1- someone who cannot afford insurance, would be able to get it?

2- someone who could not afford insurance could pay some tax penalty, or small fine?

3- what happens after you don't even have enough money to live, and being forced to pay some stupid fines you cannot even pay as it is? You get fined again or jail time!

READ yourself. Try thinking when you read.

The reason nearly 50 million people are reported as being uninsured is because they applied and were ineligible to get insurance. Then you have the many that couldn't afford to even try to get it.

So explain to me EXACTLY what you think is going to happen to someone unemployed? The get a maximum fine of $25,000 or a year in jail for not having enough money during a record high unemployment rate (which only counts those ON unemployment, not all those that just cannot find jobs and not illegible for unemployment) DURING A RECESSION!

OR are the stupid people here just trying to deny fact again, and make a claim that there is NOT a $25,000 fine or jail time in existence in the new health care crap?

Just pick out the parts you like, and ignore the other parts even exist right?

[shadzar]

The Dashing of Hope

People were killed for voting? Explain. I have been a bit busy thinking about other things to see what has been going on with that voting over there except for suspected fraud. Or is the fraud basically it, so nothing new really happening?

[Username17]

The Dashing of Hope

People were killed for voting? Explain. I have been a bit busy thinking about other things to see what has been going on with that voting over there except for suspected fraud. Or is the fraud basically it, so nothing new really happening?

Bush picked a heroin warlord to run the country. He is a corrupt buffoon who never really had much popular support. His election tactics have been laughable 1920s style corruption. The Taliban, emboldened with a whole pile of weapons and troops from Pakistan, has gone on a rampage, attacking the election as a whole.

Between comical voter fraud from Karzai and outright ballot box burning from the Taliban, there is no winner from the last election. And a lot of people don't actually want to fight the Taliban to vote in an election that they have no confidence in.

So the Taliban won, because Bush's allies are asshats.

-Username17

[shadzar]

So nothing really new, except for me the Taliban are literally preventing people form voting physically, and/or padding the votes to keep Bush cronies in power. Thanks for the rundown. Maybe Bush will move there and we will be rid of him. That might also stop the war if they have him, cause he can do for them [Taliban] what he did for us over the past 8 years.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

PS: My spouse makes alot more money than than you're thinking. And I haven't had cash income in a couple years.

Interesting...

[mean_liar]

To even have a combined federal tax liability of 17k, it works out that your minimum combined AGI for 2008 would have to be $100,100.

But, that's the MINIMUM and your claim is that you are liable for that much MORE than a married couple, which strongly implies that that comparison is not against a zero tax liability, so you are implying that you as a couple earn substantially more than that. And judging solely by some of your prior posts I never figured you two for six-figure income types.

If so, congratulations, enjoy the good life and rue the hefty tax burdens that come with it.

LOL. Due to immigration fuckups I didn't get to count my wife and son as dependents on my 2008 taxes due to lack of ITINs/SSNs (though I can handle this with an amended return). The difference was about $4k. At my income level it doesn't matter that much.

If the lack of married status hits you to the tune of $6k, then to even complain about it is a trip into bizarroland. You realize that you're The Man at that point, right? You are capitalism's Chosen Ones, the ultimate recipients of the toil of the teeming proletariat masses. This charming revelation puts your screeds into a whole new world of entertaining, especially in light of your comment about the Atlantic.

Also, move. New England has seasons and the locals are very nice.

Have you considered adopting each other? I seem to recall that idea was floated once in a similar discussion in my past, but I have no idea if it actually has any merit or not.

[violence in the media]

PS: My spouse makes alot more money than than you're thinking. And I haven't had cash income in a couple years.

Interesting...

Yeah, the images that spring to mind.