Yet, in post #655779 you claimed you don't take deductions for family members. Is that to justify not paying other owed taxes?

Yep, the ex takes the deduction as we have 50/50 custody. She opted to take the deduction and I opted to be listed as the custodial parent. See what happens when you assume?

Why does it not surprise me that BD is not still married? Are his standards for personal excellence, you know the ones which make him believe he should be making grocery-store shopping decisions for all, not sufficient to help him keep perhaps the largest single promise he made in his whole life?? Is he not a man of his word? Just askin, since he seem to be all up on ripping people for having tattoos and having the nerve to go shopping.

And BD, you STILL haven't told me if you think that home-owner WELFARE (mortgage interest tax deduction) should require a similar drug test? Why is your government handout any different than theirs?

My guess is BD has to have a job, make money, have good credit and be a productive member of society to get your so called home owner welfare. Unlike most people I have seen sucking off the goverment [censored]. Oh ya I would say yes to both but I don't have anything to hide either..

You probably should have thought about taking care of a family before you ended up with an ex.

First off tax deductions are not welfare, to suggest they are is the most perverted definition possible.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=welfare

Government benefits distributed to impoverished persons to enable them to maintain a minimum standard of well-being.

Not sure where you live, but I don't know any "needy" or " impoverished" homeowners. So, that said, no drug tests would be needed.

As for why I'm not married, not that it's any of your business, but she decided the drug/jail life was the direction she wanted to go. Feeling stupid yet?

Typical liberal, when you're beat on the issue, attack the person. Only the stupid would assume on an unknown quantity. Good job sport!

She chose drugs to deal with her dickhead husband, huh, bait humper?

So many people on this board aren't riding their high horse around pointing their booger-picking finger at everyone else, Hank.

I'm not shocked you couldn't see the obvious difference, though.

Yeah, gee...........that's a RESPONSE to bait humper and his high-horse riding bullsh!t.

Try again.

If you try harder, chances are you won't look like a fool next time.

If you insist.

Hank..

Uh, you missed the point. We are ripping BD for getting a divorce in JEST. In truth, it *is* none of my business why he got a divorce, and I *do* understand that these things happen. Now when he sees a guy with tattoos, buying mountain dew, he may perhaps realize that it's none of *his* business either, and that people can and do end up on welfare without being second class citizens, and requiring them to submit to drug-tests because he doesn't like them.

BD...

Welfare/Stimulus/Tax Breaks -- they are not different, the NAMES may have specific definitions, but the obvious (to all but you) point is they all equal money given by the government to people to achieve some goal. Homeowners are DEDUCTING money they owe to the government, because we enacted policies giving enormous tax credits to encourage home ownership. And as you point out, the benefits of this tax credit are almost entirely borne by people who have plenty of money. I believe the cost to the government on this is on the order of $100B a YEAR.

Now with $100B of entitlements here, and no clear need, I can't see any reason we shouldn't start at least DRUG TESTING all homeowners to ensure they're not spending it on Crack. And additionally, I think visits to casinos by anyone on this entitlement program, they should be declared ineligible as well.

B

p.s. Since obviously people get confused, that last paragraph, was SARCASM

It's always in jest, Hank.

It's the Dark Side.

I don't really think bait humper is a dickhead.

Well..................maybe a little.

Not attacking at all, just merely making a suggestion after an observation. Not surprised you get so defensive when your obvious weaknesses are displayed.

Okay, feel free to consider that an attack, but not because you are the issue, regardless of what your narcistic dementia conjures up.

Just in case she does punish all by sending pics....

JEST maybe not the perfect word choice there -- but you do get the point, that I'm making, I trust...

IR,
Agian, its idiotic to equate deductions with welfare. If the government ceased to exist, the homeowner would keep his money, but the welfare recipient would have no money. If deductions ended or taxes went up, the homeowner will have less and if welfare goes up the reciepient has more. Allowing someone to keep more of something is not the same as giving them something.

WIthout deductions, our ecomony would cease to work. Thats not saying some are not bad or do not achieve the desired goal, but they must exist on some level or the cost of production would be unbearable. Take a builder. Can he deduct the cost of land and raw material? What about the cost of labor? Advertising? General overhead? When we get into questionable material is when we talk about things like deduction on equipment or client lunches. Where the legitimacy ends is the question is? But they all still involve keeping something not recieving something. If you can't understand that you are truely an idiot.

Now on the drug testing, perhaps where bluewater is going is the real answer. If we actually had social workers that checked up on children and had the authority to remove them in bad situations, then the problem would be moot. The second the recipeint was not providing the adequate care for the child, the child would be removed. If the peson had excess funds available, then the checks could end too. No need for the test or to end cash checking, just do the real job of following up on the true reason the checks are being paid out rather than try to take the easy way out.

Krijack,

Let's imagine that instead of calling them tax "deductions" we change their name to tax "refunds". You send in the full amount, and get a refund check the next day for your qualifying refund amount. The net amount is unchanged from today.. This is functionally equivalent to what we have today, you just CHOOSE to think of it as different because it makes you feel better.

Contrary to what you write, deductions are not required for a functioning economy and a vastly simpler tax code (and wildly less $$ spent on accountants) would result if we simply lowered rates a bit, and did away with all deductions. It's not like your example is wrong, we've just set tax rates high enough that your builder needs deductions to survive.

Deductions enter the tax code because they are POLITICALLY easier to vote for than refunds, stimulus, or welfare. They are not intrinsically a different action--they simply re-distribute wealth and/or liabilities in a way that politicians agree is likely to keep them in office.

To answer your question Hank, nobody should become a citizen unless they speak English. Legal immigrants should not be given any welfare. Why import people who take more than they contribute? We need to close the anchor baby loophole. Welfare of any kind should be limited to 18 months total lifetime benefit, in no more than 6 month periods. Same for unemployment. There is no reason MOST people can't get their sh!t together in 6 months. Welfare breeds government dependence and underachievement.

What I want to know is why the 6.2% taken out of my check for social security does not go towards my retirement, but someone elses?

You mean all the white people who dont speak English like the Dutch, Germans, French, Russians, Swedish, Finns, Norskis, etc? I don't remember mentioning race. Just FYI, more people in the world speak English than any other language. Dumb ass.

English is the "standard" language in America, although it is not the official language yet. Imagine all the money we could save in printing costs alone.