posted April 15, 2005 10:53 PM              

Some of them, anyhow.

I'm still a little peeved about the Earned Income Credit, though: Our income's below the threshold and we have a child, but we were told that we didn't qualify since we were both under 25.
Now, I can see why that clause is there: To prevent umpteen million college students who're living off of gov't funds from stepping up to claim it, but c'mon. We're a military family scraping by, not undergrads.

(And, yes, I've been in the former's shoes, too - and I don't think that I warranted the EITC then.)

posted April 16, 2005 12:56 AM            

If you both have SSN's and your child has a SSN...and you had income....are US citizens...earned income under the limit and were not claimed as dependents on someone else's tax return...nor were claimed on their tax return for the EITC, then it appears you would qualify.

posted April 16, 2005 01:01 AM            

Good for you JW, but not as much as I've gotten, not to the equivalent to what I've made so far that is!

Very, very little that is!

Too much of everything is never enough for the rich, but the luxury of being poor comes along way doesn't it?!

But I'm Marxist, right JW, what would I know? I'm glad to know how my communism works out so well for people like you!

So what can your words of wisdom work for me?!

Oh yeah BTW, Dow Jones went down today for three digits under the decimal line today, I wonder why!

I got a ticket to hELL however(if theirs any prospect buyers), it will only cost you $3000, but guaranteed, you'll get the nicest "cool" seat imaginable if possible!

posted April 16, 2005 02:06 AM              

Though, really, who am I to complain?
She was free at the Soldier Service Center.

I'd have to double check our actual paperwork, but I remember her saying that we didn't qualify "because we were under 25" (yes, we both were), though she was apparently mistaken about the qualifiers.

posted April 16, 2005 12:20 PM            

Recognizing that some cannot escape payroll deductions based on wages, salary and tips, the goal is to get as much of their money back as possible. But your point is well taken!

posted April 16, 2005 03:18 PM            

I have to disagree with the idea that an active duty military person should be exempt from Federal taxes. I think any exemption on that magnitude should apply only to active duty / combat military personnel.

It would be like saying "a law enforcement agent that is being paid by the federal, state, county government should not be taxed by those goverments as long as they are "active". Whether one is military, fire or law enforcement, they are still risking their lives for others.

It is different when one goes overseas to combat. I can't remember how they are compensated for being overseas and / or combat, but I know that they pay is well over what they make stateside (that was one of the only good points - according to Mr. Taurus- about possibly being sent to Iraq).

I think that the overall Military pay is crap and should be increased. The housing allowance isn't bad though and each promotion does increase the salary nicely. Still, we see some of our friends (and Mr. T's fellow soldiers) scrimping by at lower pay rates. We normally have a dinner at least once a month or more and invite them all over since money is tighter for them than us.

I think what adds insult to injury is when you file some state taxes (like in Maryland) where they point out "If you were active military overseas or in combat or if you received a bonus, you must declare it to pay MORE taxes). I can almost see that disgusting Donald Schaffer rubbing his creepy little hands together, salivating at getting his hands on every dime.

posted April 17, 2005 01:06 PM            

There's also the problem of the requirement to sign a document...1040 tax return under penalty of perjury which flies in the face of the 5th amendment to the US Constitution and ruled on by the US Supreme Court that one who files and signs a tax return is testifying..within the meaning of the 5th Amendment. Given the wording of the 5th Amendment that no one can be compelled to be a witness against themselves, then no one can be compelled to sign a tax return...because the government will hold all statements made on a tax return against the individual...even honest mistakes and either prosecute or impose fines and penalties against them.

More government double speak is found in the government's proclamation that the income tax is based on "self assessment" and voluntary compliance. Can that which is entirely voluntary be compulsory? ....Two concepts diametrically opposed. Volunteer or we'll prosecute you

Of course this all makes perfect sense..within the framework of what the income tax really is...which is a tax on the profits/net income of corporations..which as artificial entities created by acts of Congress and the States, do not enjoy all the rights and privileges of natural citizens...i.e, real people.

All this talk about a new tax system is in play because upwards of 20,000,000 Americans are no longer volunteering Worse yet, they are demanding the government show them the law that requires them as individuals to file a tax return and pay a tax based on their wages, salaries and other personal earnings.

Another issue..though seldom raised in discussing income tax issues is the legality of Federal Reserve Notes...issued by a private corporation, the so called Federal Reserve and circulating...illegally, as tender in payment of debts. Federal Reserve Notes are not money as defined in the Constitution and only Congress can coin money and regulate the value thereof.

Has one who has been paid in Federal Reserve Notes or checks payable in Federal Reserve Notes or electronic digits posted to an account, been paid in lawful money of the United States...or have they been paid with a circulating IOU masquerading as legal tender? If the latter is true, then they have not been paid and could have no income from the services they rendered...no matter what definition of income is used. An IOU is a promise to pay..at some future date.

As for me, I'm ready to be paid for all my past work in the money of account of the United States...which is gold and silver coin.

posted April 17, 2005 01:11 PM            

But the Supreme Court "thoroughly reviewed the Act in Pollock v. Farmer's Loan & Trust Company (in 1895) and ruled it unconstitutional because it failed to meet the requirement of apportionment," Beresford wrote in his motion.

THE POWER TO DESTROY
Plaintiff seeks high court tax review
Files motion to have court define 'income'

By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com

A Washington man has filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court, asking justices to review a lower court ruling "involving federal income taxation that affects … the vast majority of Americans."............
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24164

http://newsmine.org/archive/cabal-elite/international-banking/income-tax-unconstitutional-supreme-court-1895.txt

posted April 17, 2005 04:42 PM              

He rants.
A lot.

But, then, he's an Aquarius.

I don't believe that military's exempt from FICA, though. I'll have to look at my husband's pay thingie to be positive, but I'm pretty sure that they take their chunk out, too.

Re: State Taxes: We haven't come across a deployment yet, but I'm sure that VA'll be the same. People keep telling us to change our official residence to Florida.

Re: Deployment Tax Exemption: If it were any other way, it'd be an outrage.

Re: Military Pay: Yeah, it is crap.
I couldn't imagine trying to support a family as a lower enlisted soldier, especially with the economy as it is around so many military posts. If the spouse wants to get a job, they sometimes can, but it'll be at minimum wage or slightly above that with some education. If they have kids, it's often more cost effective for the spouse to stay home.

Jase is making slightly above $20,000 (I don't feel that that's a matter for secrecy; if you know his rank - WO1 - and that he's only been in a year and half and that he's no longer getting flight pay, you can look at any military pay scale to know). We're living decently, especially considering that we're not paying for most of our utilities, housing (it's OK - standard military issue), or medical care; but it starts to look like less when you consider that he's gone 5 days/nights out of the week and is always on call.

posted April 19, 2005 10:59 PM            

Yeah..I hear ya..no getting rich being a soldier. Mr. T does well, but that is because he is an E-6 and has been active for over 11 years. He is also specialized in the K9 unit. Still, when he gets out he will more than likely join the police force (they are heavily courting him) and that will still start off below what I was making out East (but again, it is for service not for money).

Things are picking up on my end and even though I am only doing temp work, I am working on Post and enjoying it. I work in the department that helps soldier move- with local, inbound or outbound. But I am also waiting for an interview with the county for a better paying lab / public health position.

Two incomes are always better than one- so him being a cop won't hurt too much AND..once they have been in long enough the pay does increase nicely.

I am not sure about Jase's plans, but the longer he stays in, the more classes he takes (and points he earns) the faster he will be promoted- especially in this climate with less people signing up.

Take care-