Without the 1098t form, you can't claim jack shit. It's like trying to claim the child deduction when you have no children.
Good Luck
Name the Place You Can Pay NO Taxes And Receive A Refund..
- Thread starter schuylaar
- Start date
Without the 1098t form, you can't claim jack shit. It's like trying to claim the child deduction when you have no children.
Good Luck
No one in the middle pays anywhere close to 50%. Romney probably doesn't either but that is a different story.
Romney is not cheating the federal government out of anything. When you are worth tens or millions, or hundreds of millions of dollars, you have a very complex procedure in front of you to comply with a very complex tax code.
I would bet my life that Romney told his tax attorney to follow all laws, and he did. Given that Romney has been intent on being in public life, he knows full well that cheating on taxes would eliminate his career.
Tax laws for the poor are no where near as complex, they say stuff like "if you earn under a certain amount, and went to school, we're going to give you $X."
They are also written for lawyers by lawyers. Why do you think that the laws are not simple? They are written to promote the need to hire an attorney. If an average high school student could figure it out, then many lawyers would be out of work. So the lawyers we send to congress write shit to promote the need of lawyers.
Why do you think we have socialized legal care, and not socialized medical care? Because lawyers, not doctors make the laws.
When the right to an attorney was written into the constitution, it meant the government could not stop you from hiring an attorney, like they could in England at the time. Time passes, a creative lawyer decides it could mean that people have a right for the government to hire an attorney for them when the government charges them with a crime. He won his case, and we now have public defenders.
Romney spends a hell of a lot of money on lawyers to do his taxes, so he can save even more. Every bit of it is legal, just like you and I getting tax credits this year.
Doer
Well-Known Member
CEOs, shareholders, Franchise operators, small business owners are a distinction without a difference.
Here we work on, within or against the Big Casino. What possible difference is there, as to who is the boss? The Man, of course, is the boss.
Workin' for the man, every night and day. Big Wheels kept on turnin', proud ganja keeps on burnin', Rollin' (rollin) Rollin' (rollin) Rollin' ona River City.
Here we work on, within or against the Big Casino. What possible difference is there, as to who is the boss? The Man, of course, is the boss.
Workin' for the man, every night and day. Big Wheels kept on turnin', proud ganja keeps on burnin', Rollin' (rollin) Rollin' (rollin) Rollin' ona River City.
Wal-Mart is a franchise?
You know Cheezy?
BTW I know a McDonalds that starts you at $18 an hour...STARTING.
thank you for the "lesson"
“I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president. I'd think people would want me to follow the law and pay only what the tax code requires.”
~Mitt Romney
By his own standard, then, he is not qualified to become president. But as much as it reveals the absurdities of Mitt Romney, his voluntary overpayment underscores the absurdities of the current tax system. Romney owes so little because of the tax code’s favoritism toward the rich. Whereas the top rate on salary, wages, and tips is 35 percent, the top rate on interest, dividends, and long-term capital gains is only 15 percent. This is economically inefficient, because it encourages businesses and individuals to structure their affairs to take advantage of the differential. It is also instinctively unfair, because it privileges a hedge-fund manager’s carried interest over a factory worker’s wages.
Romney’s charitable contribution to the Treasury concedes this unfairness. The real reason Romney is overpaying is that it simply feels wrong to most people, if not also to him, for someone who earned $13.7 million to be paying less than 13 percent of his income in taxes when working people face a payroll tax of 15.3 percent on their first dollar of income (temporarily reduced to 13.3 percent). By yielding to political criticism and moral pressure about how little he pays, Romney implicitly accepts that under a fairer tax system, people like him would be required to pay more.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_big_idea/2012/09/romney_s_taxes_the_gop_candidate_s_preposterous_explanation_for_overpaying_them_.html
like i said, when his loopholes disappear..i'll be more than happy to disqualify myself from pell and stafford..until then?
Seems to me, someone that can hold a min 3.8 GPA should be able to go to college for free. Lots of scholarships out there
I will be 100% honest when I tell you I used a Pell grant my first semester. Otherwise, I was well paid to attend University. Those programs no longer exist though.
I will be 100% honest when I tell you I used a Pell grant my first semester. Otherwise, I was well paid to attend University. Those programs no longer exist though.
Bullshit. Where? Their prices would need to be crazy high.
Sand4x105
Well-Known Member
Ha... finally I get around to reading this.....THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!
because i'm in school, i qualify for the american opportunity credit and will receive $830 refund even though i did not pay one single cent in taxes last year..
THANKS..OBAMA!!!!!!!
Seriously... I never paid any taxes while I was in business except for three years, which, damn, my accountant, said, that maybe I should pay a little...
So I didn't use all my write offs for those three years in the 90's...
So, 1997-2007 I paid zero... you are not special... Obama is not special...
You just need to understand, the government wants your small business to survive, and gives you many tax credits...
Want to pay no tax... Start a business...
Most business loose money the first few years...anyway...
Oh yes... those years 97-07, I was married... she worked...
Ha.. yes.. .. she got back all her IRS withholdings also...
Amirika it's a wonderous place... if you understand numbers.... and how to use them
Sand4x105
Well-Known Member
But... He is making it up...ha's making it up... get it...haha... .NO SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!ahahahahhahhahaahhahahahahahhahhahhahahahahhahahahahhhahhhahhhaahhaaaaaa
EDIT: god damn! do i love RIU..this place is incredible entertainment..you COULDN'T even make this stuff up..
love you bucky
Not paying taxes doesn't mean you don't have a job. I have a job, and paid taxes all year, but when I filed them last month I owed $0 for the year, so I got them all refunded, plus more because I also took advantage of the opportunity credit. The credit takes education expenses into consideration. Why is it ok for some people to "legally lower their tax burden" but not others?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
north dakota oil fields or the heart of new york city most likely.
Bingo, Plus a $300 signing bonus I heard. A friend just came back from there and told me that he went to eat at McDonalds in Dickinson, ND. there were 8 tills open and 20 customers lined up at each till, the drive up extended 2 blocks out onto the street. I didn't ask about prices, but the volume sounds incredible. HE also said that the girls working at Applebees are making $1200 a week just in tips.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
Receiving money back you never paid in the first place (because your year end net tax liability was $0) is you taking money directly from someone else's pocket.
Work yourself through school and have some self respect, even this Commie shithole I live in won't give you credits for tax you never paid in the first place.
3.8s are way, way more common than they used to be because of rampant grade inflation.
twostrokenut
Well-Known Member
I was talking about the imaginary "trust fund". It is all credit card money now, you go girl.....the faster the bill exceeds the opprotunity to repay the better imho.....unless you called me a republicunt, in which case I have an awesome rebuttal.
Unwad your panties, I admit to pulling that quote off the first goog hit and not researching it at all, unlike our other lengthy discussion.
I did not "strew together" anything from the judiciary act either...only highlighted some bits sorry you thought my intent was to read the bolded together, it was not. Only important part for this convo is the suitors clause which is why Remedy preserved for fed notes at 12usc411.
Remember arguing with me at length that it would be repealed and re-worded by your office?
Remember you telling me that was "just a bit of housekeeping" in need of tidy?
To do so would abandon rule of Law and admit openly to Dictation.
We operate under the assumption we all volunteer to use the private credit, lets face it.
Well here it still sits, as it is lawfully obligated to do.....so that it may provide remedy...the bolded may be construed together:
Question is why the American Public chooses to conduct business in legal tender and NOT lawful money....they will wake up.12usc411 said:
The suitors clause is in the grant of admiralty jurisdiction. The "seizures on land" clause is in a totally separate grant of jurisdiction. If your claim is that the actions of the IRS constitute "seizures on land," the construction of the Judiciary Act of 1789 necessarily forces you to conclude that the "saving to suitors" clause is irrelevant to such seizures because it is entirely separate, contained in a separate grant of jurisdiction. They're not and cannot be construed to be connected. If they were supposed to be connected, they wouldn't be contained in separate grants of jurisdiction.
First of all, I never worked for the office that revises the US Code. What I did say say was that the text as it appears in the US Code is based on text of the act of congress as originally passed, or as codified into positive law by congress. Title 12 of the US Code has not been enacted into positive law, which is why the changes to the codified text have occurred solely by act of congress.
You have the right to redeem Federal Reserve Notes for "lawful money." The courts of the United States, empowered by the constitution to interpret the laws enacted by congress, have concluded that tendering an equal amount of Federal Reserve Notes for the notes tendered satisfies the statute. That's the end of it.
Federal Reserve Notes are lawful money and legal tender. I gave you case after case after case that explicitly said it over and over and you invented reasons to ignore it because you want to believe the crackpot nonsense some tax evader is spewing. Your desire to avoid the truth does not alter the fact that the tax evader argument is total bullshit that has been entirely dismissed by the courts.
The fact that the "saving to suitors" clause relates solely to the grant of admiralty jurisdiction should be the fatal flaw in the crackpot case that wakes you up, but you even defend that despite the incontrovertible evidence against the claim.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bombur again.