Longview

Flat taxes are regressive anyway; I don't think they're fair at all.

Bingo.

Gary, your ideas're nowhere near the mainstream or majority, not for the Republicans or the Democrats. And while you're certainly entitled to your beliefs, acting as if they're widely-held is disingenuous. Far's "kook fringe" goes, again, check your mirror. All I've advocated is allowing two of President Bush's three tax packages to expire, whereas you're accusing the wicked government of wanting to "take over every aspect of your life."

when this aforementioned gal paid in about 2500 over the year and gets back close to 5k, what would you call it? is she really paying taxes?

I call it someone who paid their income taxes, but also benefits from government assistance. Her income tax dollars still financed the previous fiscal year's budget. You can't accuse people who take government assistance of not paying their income taxes, though.

Your COMPASSION is killin my paycheck. I will send you a bill okay? or does your COMPASSION only work in words?

No need. The IRS, on behalf of our elected public officials, is already sending you one. You apparently either don't want to pay taxes, or you don't want to pay taxes to support the general welfare/support a minimum standard of living. That's fine, and I wish you the best of luck in lobbying the Repulican Party to adopt your views. I doubt it'll happen, though.

Thanks for shopping! We dont take returns.

I'm not sure what you meant by this, but if you were referring to my not having responded since last night, it's because some of us don't spend our nights 'til the wee hours of the morning on internet forums.

It wasn't intended as an insult, just pointing out the truth. It seems to me that the truth hurts when your called on your lefty views.

You're clearly the type who refers to anyone who dissents against your far-right views (and they are quite far, beyond even America's Republican Party) as a "Communist," "socialist," "lefty," or "lib." Anyone who refers to Hillary Clinton as a "Communist" or myself as a "socialist" has serious objectivity problems when it comes to their perception of economics and the political spectrum.

Vituperative ideologues like yourself're a dime a dozen, Gary. I'd suggest keeping a tight grip on that tin-foil hat of yours, 'lest I start stealing your right to choose through the internet.

which is refunded at the end of the year, so in essence they don't pay income tax, which has been everyone's point.

Their point is that they dislike anyone taking more from the system than they put in. Which is fine, but they cannot falsely claim that the poor and working poor don't taxes; he claimed that "the POOR do not pay TAXES," which is wholly false.

Okay! if I am POOR! I pay to the government $2000.00 for the year! I then SUCK reduced housing,free daycare,W.I.C. and E.B.T! Oh geez! I almost forgot, MED COUPONS.Do the math. I get a full return, I paid in. I say for every dollar they use they have to pay back.Where the HE!! is the incentive to get off the mother pig? Havin another kid is just a yearly raise.

If he's working 40 hours a week, he's not "on the mother pig." He's getting assistance to feed his family, making sure they're healthy, and keeping a roof over their heads. It is absolutely impossible for the poor to pay back every dollar used on them unless you intend on placing life-debts upon the poor and lower-middle class.

Your "havin another kid" comment is a blatant stereotype and a strawman. Using the minority who exploit the system as the broad example does nothing for a sincere discourse on the problems. I'm not sure what we do about those who do exploit the system in that manner, but I hope you're not suggesting forced sterilization, or something.

You've been reading Dilbert and the Way of the Weasel, haven't you

Revenue from the taxation of workers, including the working poor, is used to fund the previous fiscal year's budget; our current system depends on this basic structure of "take now, refund later." To say that the poor contribute in no way whatsoever is inaccurate.

Check the tax tables! they dont pay squat! All the while collecting the bennies!

Every single employee in America (barring undocumented/illegal workers) has income tax deducted from their paycheck. Yes, they're fully refunded come filing, but their wages are taxed initially (the revenue is required to run the budget during the fiscal year).

The poor do pay taxes. How much they're refunded/EIC'ed come filing is another matter altogether.

The POOR do not pay taxes my freind.

Workers, including the working poor, have income tax deducted from every single paycheck just like everyone else, friend.

The FlatTax is another proposal neither major party, Republican or Democrat, widely* supports. Just for reference.

* I believe Democratic presidential candidate Mike Gravel supports a flat tax, along with many Libertarian-leaning Republicans, though.

it's whopping when it exceeds the taxes you'd normally pay.

The EIC is a measure against poverty, in addition to its design of eliminating the taxes paid by the poor. It was never intended to be solely a dollar-per-dollar tax refund, nor has either party ever portrayed it as such.

It'd be completely unecessary were the minimum wage pegged to the federal poverty line, granted.

it's whopping when it along with other deductions gives her a tax refund of almost 5k!

We've already established that your ex-girlfriend was seriously abusing the system courtesy her mother's property. It shouldn'tve happened, but she shouldn't be used as the model example when discussing taxation.

Do you seriously not know that Gary was properly using that term, and that in that context it is a bad thing?

I see that he intended an insult, yes, so I applied a different meaning. Pardon me if I don't laugh at Gary's knee-jerk rhetoric or portrayal of rational discourse as "unacceptable," Scott.

Don't have to tell me. I see them ladies with $200.00 hair do and $50.00 nail job pay their groceries with food stamps to then take them to daddy who's waiting in his pimped up ride out in the parking lot. Pisses me off every time I see it. And I see it more frequently than I care to.

I share your disdain for cultures with no sense of responsibility and individuals who exploit the system, but to alter the system in hopes of affecting those exploitative individuals in a way that adversely affects the genuine working poor and lower-middle class isn't fair. No more fair than it is that the upper-middle class is now seeing adverse effects from an AMT whose purpose was to affect those who exploit loopholes.

a girl i was dating who lived in arkansas made 7k a year. had eic and so on.....and got back a whopping check at tax time. what is not considered is she lived rent free in her mom's second house, so that 7k + free rent = more than poverty line.

Her rent not being factored into her income is a problem; she's practically a dependent of her mother still, then. I'm not sure if there'd be anything relevant in the federal code, and I know nothing of Arkansas' state code. If there's not, there probably ought be. That's the problem, federal and state governments really ought factor COL (Cost of Living) into their equations less often than gross income.

Also, I'd hardly call the EIC "whopping."

I've seen a few people describe refer broadly to "pre-school" as "babysitting." Are we talking daycare here, or pre-Kindergarten? I went to pre-K, which was decidedly educational. There's a difference between Canada's daycare program and Sen. Clinton's pre-Kindergarten proposal, I think.

Daycare for 3 and under is certainly babysitting, but pre-Kindergarten tends to be a focused, curriculum-based grade level (in my experience).

i also expect the amt to bite me this year.

I agree with you that the AMT started "biting" far too many people, and that its metaphorical jaws need a trimming back. It needs some crucial action to bring it back to its narrow, intended purpose.

lemme guess......you don't fall into any of those categories eh?

Average teacher pay is $40K. You can do the math, I'm sure.

One note I didn't include earlier concerns the structuring of our tax brackets. We need more incremental brackets, to prevent problems like bracket five's. There's no reason for those making $150K a year (the "upper-middle class urban types") to be pegged to the $300K+ crowd (which is pretty wealthy no matter where you live, including expensive urban settings).

and while on the subject of taxes, what are your thoughts on amt?

The AMT for whom? The individual Alt. Min. needs work badly, if that's what you're asking; an inflation peg wouldn't hurt, and patching out the "upper middle" class again wouldn't hurt. It still serves an important purpose where the exploitation of loopholes is concerned, is all. I don't support it as it stands, but I don't support a repeal, either. The 20 million (I think 20 million, don't hold me to it) additional taxpayers who've become subject to the Alt. Min. weren't the tax's intended target, and Congress should act to amend the situation.

Fair point. So you agree that a household income of 200k in location A may make you rich, but may not make you rich in location B? I know you do, just want to say it out loud. People who want to raise taxes act like "200K" means the same everywhere. It doesn't.

Certainly. Mind you, what we normally refer to as the "Bush Tax cuts" are actually three separate provisions, from years 2001, 2002, and 2003 respectively. The 2001 and 2003 provisions were largely inter-related package deals (which had little to do with the upper-middle class bracket), while the 2002 package was a generally well-targeted proposal.

Were I in charge, I'd allow Bush's 2001/2003 package to expire (which will happen anyway), while keeping the business-targeted 2002 package. The 2001/2003 plan can be rewritten with a greater focus on the upper-middle class and small business, without all the gratuitous cuts the ultra-wealthy received. We can have a more sensible tax plan for the middle class, but Eggtra 01/03 isn't it. We can help the fourth and fifth income tax brackets without such gratuitous handouts to the sixth.

Pre-school is just a babysitting place.

Sounds like you've seen some pretty lousy pre-Kindergarten programs.

Day care programs certainly are, but government-run daycare for single working parents is another matter entirely. Clinton's proposal looks to simply be a single-grade extension of the current public school system, not an American version of Canada's daycare provisions.

The libs want the government to take over every aspect of our lives

You've got your tin-foil hat on too tight there, methinks.

I can see your another lib that when faced with the truth he just starts rationalizing.

And I can see that you're a fringe laissez-faire right-winger whose ideas aren't even embraced by our nation's Republican Party. You could be a more Ayn Rand-leaning Libertarian type, but that'd depend on where you stand with regard to government intervention in social issues.

And did you seriously just use the word "rationalize" as if it were a bad thing? My sincere apologies for conforming to reason.

You just sound like someone that wants the rich to pay more. As it is the top 25% pay 84% of the taxes. Where do you think your job and our economy comes from? Rich people. If you tax them until they see no need to try to be rich then no one works. Your just expousing socialistic views.

The word is "espousing," and no, I'm really not. You're farther to the right than America's Republican Party, judging by what you espouse.

The wealthy (rightly so) pay the bulk of the tax burden because they benefit most from our free society. Our economy "comes from" a free society, one built upon the backs of both private and public sector contributions alike. You talk as if allowing President Bush's tax cuts expire will put the wealthy into the poorhouse, despite record profits being experienced by America's executives. Rest assured, America's millionaires and billionaires won't be dissuaded from profits on account of the coming expiry.

pre-school to me means kindergarten. it's not mandatory at the state level that i'm aware of. and all i can remember of kindergarten is being taught how to take a nap during school

My kindergarten taught us the alphabet, geography, and basic writing. Kindergarten's required in my state, though; your state's program could be completely different.

That is nothing but partisan hacking.

Says the fellow talking about a so-called "cradle to grave nanny state," and accusing liberals of wanting "no one to have any choices." A mirror for you, friend. Pot, kettle, black.

actually, it was the democrats who authorized such and first did so

An authorization which was a grave mistake. This also changes in no way the fact that the Republican-led Congress has been far more egregious in their looting of the Social Security Trust, nor the fact that they are looting it while also advocating a privatization. In the private sector, their actions would be a blatant conflict of interest.

yes, that's an option the rich will have. an option the middle class will probably lose in the op.

An option the poor and ever-growing lower-middle class don't have at all, currently.

i dislike how it runs out the private schools. that's one point i was making by my pic of her - everyone's lack of choice if she has her way.

Where does it indicate that private pre-K's wouldn't be allowed to continue business? I can't seem to find that insinuation in the article. That aside, there're still private K-12's now, and there'll still be private pre-K's under Sen. Clinton's proposal.

nor do i buy that about the taxes on those over 200k would pay for it. i've heard that line before too.

Whether you "buy" it or not, it's true. Allowing President Bush's $200K+ tax cuts to expire could easily fund something so simple as an additional grade, especially one that wouldn't require teachers with broad certifications or lengthy higher education. Methinks you underestimate the revenue generated by our nation's highest 1%.

i seem to recall some promises made about social security too....about not being taxed, etc...and we see how that turned out.

If Republicans would cease their looting of the Social Security trust fund to pay off our burgeoning national debt, Social Security wouldn't be in such dire straits right now. Driving Social Security into bankruptcy while simultaneously promoting its privatization is a pretty obvious tactic, but one most Americans see through plainly. President Bush's attempts at privatizing Social Security have been overwhelmingly unsuccessful, and rightly so.

Longview... I think I love you already.

Majored in economics and history, starting my graduate work next spring on my Master's; I want to teach. It's a habit.

not at all - you're losing your choice. and know new taxes, btw

What choice? My choice between no preschool for my children at all, or a public preschool system? Such a hard decision. Perhaps we ought privatize the public Kindergarten through 12th grade schools, while we're at it? Give those poor people the "choice" between no education or no education?

There'd be no new taxes needed if we simply let expire George W. Bush's tax cuts for those making over $200,000 a year; those who benefit most from a free society ought contribute the most to hold it up, after all. Calling Hillary a "communist" or a herald of some "New World Order" is flatly partisan. A millionaire woman with vast ties in the private sector (insurance companies, K-Street, Wall Street, outsourcing agencies, et al) is neither a communist nor particularly liberal. Such vacuous political rhetoric and hollow name-calling serves little purpose other than demonizing "the other side."

Granted, some American conservatives will label anyone politically to the left of Newt Gingrich a "Communist." Such inflammatory mislabeling only muddies political discourse and inhibits genuine discussion of the issues.

Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, a professor and specialist in early childhood education at Columbia University, said Mrs. Clinton’s proposal struck the right balance by having states manage pre-K programs while involving the federal government in a much-needed financial role.

“The dollar-for-dollar match is especially key here,†Professor Brooks-Gunn said, “because it will make clear that the programs will still be run at the state level, and it will be an incentive for states that haven’t invested heavily in pre-K.â€

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/us/polit...xprod=permalink

While I'm not usually a fan of Sen. Clinton's approach to public programs, her federalist state-by-state approach in this case is well-founded. A federalist approach allows innovation on the part of state governors and legislatures to address unique problems and spur innovation one might not normally find via a national approach.

Got to go, the CNN/YouTube Democratic debate's on right now!

Vis

Bearing in mind that I'm just an average Joe with an immigrant wife (no bona fide legal credentials whatsoever), the guys at ImmigrationPortal always talked about a "30-60-90" policy with regard to spousal-based immigration.

Suppose someone enters on a B1/B2 visa and after "x" days applies for AOS through marriage sponsorship.

If x < 30 = USCIS will accuse the applicant of committing fraud/misrepresentation and the burden of proof lies on the applicant

If 30 < x < 60 = USCIS may accuse the applicant of committing fraud/misrepresentation and the burden of proof lies with the applicant

If 60 < x < 90 = USCIS may accuse the applicant of committing fraud/misrepresentation but the burden of proof will lie with USCIS

If x > 90 = USCIS will most likely not accuse the applicant of committing fraud/misrepresentation

That's from user "Triple Citizen" at ImmigrationPortal, who I generally found to be a reliable person. It was described as a "rule of thumb" many have encountered in their dealings with the USCIS. Take everything I say with skepticism and a large grain of salt unless it's confirmed by someone with experience or legal background, though.

Also, it seems as if many of this forum's posters arrived through the K-1 process, which wouldn't apply. I apologize if I've distracted you from your question.

Yep, not the most creative username, I know. Where're y'all?

Vis