Text 48933, 95 rader
Skriven 2007-03-29 09:44:33 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
  Kommentar till text 48910 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Any or all
==================
28 Mar 07 17:42, mark lewis wrote to Roy Witt:


 ml>> ummm... hello? where have you been? my oldest son was born in Dec of
 ml>> 1981... the tax code allowed us (i was married at that time) to
 ml>> claim him for the entire year...

 RW>> But the 1981 code didn't allow you to get back 'twice' what you
 RW>> paid in.

 ml> whatever it was, H&R Block got us back some $3000 IIRC and i had paid
 ml> in less then $1000...

That's unbelievable. H&R Block doesn't know shit about doing taxes. They
prey on suckers like you for a living.

 ml> no big deal, really... what it is is someone fussing about something
 ml> they haven't been able to take advantage of and so they're missing
 ml> out and feel that no one should get it since they can't O:)

I don't see the problem. One doesn't have to pay taxes before one can take
advantage of the loopholes.

 ml>> we also got to claim earned income credit and head of household...

 RW>> But you still didn't get back 'twice' what you paid in. You got a
 RW>> deduction credit. You still paid taxes, but merely at a lower rate.

 ml> nope... i've _always_ gotten back what i paid in or more...

 ml>> i was in the USAF, went in in Aug of that year, and my refund was
 ml>> more than what i had paid in...

 RW>> 'Twice'?

 ml> t'was a long time ago and i don't have the paperwork any more but it
 ml> was a lot more than paid in...

 ml>>  it has been that way ever since, too... when she and i divorced,
 ml>> she kept the child and was able to take advantage of those tax
 ml>> codes...

 RW>> But you couldn't, so you've misled those who don't know how that
 RW>> works by stating, 'it has been that way ever since'.

 RW>> For her, but not for you.

 ml> no... because i got it also when he came and lived with me... if one
 ml> provides 6months or more support, they can claim the dependent...

 ml>> he came to live with be when he was 15 and that gave me the
 ml>> opportunity, once again,

 RW>> See?

 ml> see what? we got it (more actually since we were married) when we
 ml> were together... she got it when we split and she had custody of
 ml> him... i got it when he came to live with me... there's nothing
 ml> misleading there... same rules...

 ml>> to utilize those tax codes and i did so all the way up until
 ml>> he no longer qualified for me to claim him... now, if he had
 ml>> continued his education by going to college while living here at
 ml>> home, i'd have been able to continue to claim him and still use
 ml>> those tax rules up until he turned 21...

 RW>> And?

 ml> and what? after 21, i'd no longer have been able to claim him and get
 ml> the additional deductions...

 ml>> now, since those tax codes have been around since at least 1981, why
 ml>> don't you pick another row to hoe 'cause you've come to the end of
 ml>> this particular one ;)

 RW>> Hmmmm, it looks like we found more field to plow, so maybe not yet.

 ml> nope, this field and row are finished... i'm not playing your
 ml> games... i'm _telling_ what is and what is done... don't like it?
 ml> change the laws... won't do anything to/for me since i don't have any
 ml> children i can claim any more anyway...

 ml> )\/(ark

 ml>  * Origin:  (1:3634/12)

               R\%/itt



The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but
that they know so much that isn't so. - Ronald Reagan

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)