nschur

Purchase price is not what they use to determone value. The govt unerstood full well the sell it to me for a dollar wink wiink mentality. They use a data base of vehicle values . They compare the vehicle, determine what it should have sold for and asses taxes based on that.

I had a very similar thought. LOL

I never knew that military personel were not allowed to eat sleep and eat. So what do they do with the barraks, mess halls and all those dilly MREs? Oh yes, I invite you to do as one of my recent shifts dod. Train and answer calls all day. Then during the time tjat we are allowed to rest but still havingcto answer calls you get up at 2330, 0230, 0330, 0430, 0530, 0630. Yep sure got a lot of sleep that night. See this is why I posted anyway. I love and respect or military. But they ARE NOT THE ONLY ONES in this world that deserve our respect. You seem to believe they are and that NOBODY

What they said....

That is the way we have done it. Some small changes for those in the cuurent system and larger more comprehensive changes on the new hires. But even us old folks are still adding another 0.25% of our gross pay every year. We gave gone from 4 tp 6.5% starting this year. And our benefits have not Improved at all.

I heard Juan Williams on Fox the other day talking about the fact that we need to have some form of revenue increase. I wanted to ask him what happened to the $600 Billion tax increase they just got. I mean really... what need is there to try to do cost cuts or waste control if you jyst go ahead and tax people enough to cover the $1.3 Trillion deficit we had been running, Hell ee just gave them half of it in new revenues and the estimatesare still to see almost $Trillion defict! That means the increased spending by $300 Billion and only reducing the defict by an equal amount. Way to go guys...

I was going to appeal but sold the vehicle. From what I understand you have to pay the current tax, THEN, file your appeal. I know, sounds wrong. I tried to appeal first as it was several weeks prior to the due date and they would not take it unless I paid first.

Im sorry, were you not commenting on the amount of time that they spend away from their families and being shot at. Maybe I misread your post that I replied to.

As expected, you totallymissed the last sentance in my post and immediately try to didmiss the contributions of others that do not serve. That was my point. Others make large contributions and sacrifices that you refuse to see. Your side is always the most put on.

To date I have spent 5.6667 years away from my familiy, been shot once and subjected to 1 violent explosion without injury. just saying. But I agree this is a terrible thing for those vets to have to endure.

I may live ou there but ... not it.

Im going to add one small point and then ima gonna go get me sum popcorn. I think that you summarized that quite well. Now let me ask those that oppose this. Given the truth behind Stradials assessment, are you guys trying to tell us that you were here during that time and opposed the airport back in 1975. Did you move here after that knowing that Atlanta owned that property and had set it aside for use as an airport? Did you think that it was never going to happen? If you thought it might then why in the last 30+ years did you not take that opportunity to sell and move somewhere else befo

seriousl question here. I might be out of the loop on this one nut didn't a higher court already rule it was constitutional? Not that I am for it but I thought a ruling was already made. Some things I just do not follow as well as others and this is one of those.

Those charts made perfect sense to me TP. You mean you could not read them? My 14 y/ o daughter could read them and tell you exactly what they meant.

Nitro, I enjoyed our discusion on the hypothetical ramifications of this ruling. To bad that concept was lost on some. Something tells me that we will likely not worry ourselves overthe realworld implications that could arise from this within our lifetimes.

The good samaritan law is designed to mitigate liability issues that result from helping someone. Too bad legal costs are still an issue just to defend oneself. If only we had something to prevent people from filing frivolous lawsuits just to make a quick buck. Something like.... looser pays maybe.

I was working a part time job at WM in the electronics dept. I was the manager there befor we starting with the PD. I was coming back from break and saw the guy bolt with some electronics. I stopped him after he went out the front door. I was cjastised for doing that since I was not on loss prevention. "They are trained to do that" I saaid really? And police officers aren't? They told me not to do it again. Ok but quit giving us the speil about being alert to shoplifters if you do not intend to do anything about it.

I understand that concept quiet well but I have learned to NEVER underestimate the stupidity of others. We once pulled a man out from under the train on Atlanta rd near S Cobb dr. He got drunk and fell asleep on the tracks, per his friend, with his head leaning on one rail and his legs across the other. Train came and took off both legs and caused major head trauma but he lived. Darwin is right most of the time.

Yes and no. With the earned income tax credit and other tax credits like the child tax credit you can file and get a refund based off the tax CREDITS. That is not the case with deductions or exemptions. That is where the spreading the wealth and wealth transfer concepts come from. Yes, our conversation started as a result of this topic and is related to it but could easily be its own discussion.

No not at all... but that same 40 year old person gets to take THEIR personal exemption no matter what. Yhey can use it for their income or give it to their spouse if they file jointly. I do not think that a married couple can file seperately and have one take both exemptions. I am definately not going to gwt into the kid thing. Remember that 20 something dude that had like 30 kids a couple of years ago? But anyway... whoever did not claim your 3rd wife's exemption now has a higher tax liablility or maybe the guy who's wife he took or the next or the next. It may have been her using her own bu

Again I am thinking big picture. All those exemptions would / could exist with out you. For you as a married polymist to get them someone else would have to give them up. But yes if you corraled multiple wives you could indeed reduce YOUR tax liability but someone else's would go up. More competition for wives/ husbands I guess. Either way it will be Joe / Joan Average that loses here.

I can understand that but I have a question. I have a wife and 2 kids. I can take my personal deduction for myself and her. I know there was a "marriage penalty" associated with these deductions. That means that the personal deduction that is available to EVERY citizen independently was still available but was less since we were married. This penalty did go away for a while and both got the full amount. I believe that was to expire in 2012 and it may or may not have. Anyway, every adult is entitled to this deduction in one form or another, whether they are married or single or married filing s

I have a different view in this. Why is it any of the govermments business how many spouse a male or female has? What should matter is that they all take care of each other. With that said I must ask why in the heck would ANYONE that lives in the US under our legal system want more than one spouse? !? For that matter why would anyone want that anywhere?

I am glad we did not do that here.I was a poor student until highschool and started behind many of my peers. But during HS I worked hard and wound up ahead of most of my peers. I did attend and finish college with a BBA in Management. I wholely agree with Mike though. We need to come back and embrace the concept of trade skills being a respected educational / job route. My degree helped me get my job and helps at the job occasionally but for the most part it is about the skills of the trade, problem solving and common sense. College does little to address any of those but there is a fire

If I stated in an opinion piece that 2+2=4 would that mean it was wrong because you disagreed with my opinion? Facts are facts no matter where theyare given. What you do with those FACTS and how you use them to support your beliefs are debatable. The facts themselves are not. I can state all I like how much I dislike the policies of the man elected President in 2008. But no matter how much you disagree with me over those beliefs, the fact he was elected President in 2008 is an indisputable FACT.