Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
SK in CV
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.
In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.
[/quote]
The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.
As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.
And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.
In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.
[/quote]
The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.
As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.
And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
Ah, another personal attack. Lets try dealing with the facts instead of using emotionally charged words and phrases in an attempt to tilt the discussion.. followed by a ‘naw, you couldn’t be that bad a person, I must be misunderstanding you’ type of phrase.
In your previous post, what was the point of even bringing up ‘racists screed’? Emotionally charged words, yes.. and it attempts to shut down discussion by trying to associate my position with that of a racist (something commonly viewed untenable). Thereby in that mechanism, it is also ‘name calling’ through association.
[/quote]
The first time (racist screed) was not a personal attack. This one was. You can address it as you wish. But if you think that children, bearing no responsibility as to the situation they find themselves in, are less worthy than other children simply because of the legal status of their parents, then all three (arrogance, sense of superiority and entitlement) apply. There really is no getting around that.
As to the rest, yeah, if you ignore some of the evidence, and only accept that which supports your position, you’ll probably win every argument.
And shutting down discussion? We’re still talking. Stop your whining. You chose your words. If they lead to logical conclusions, don’t complain when those conclusions are exposed.
ParticipantI’ll just respond to this one little thing.
[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.
The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.
On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
ParticipantI’ll just respond to this one little thing.
[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.
The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.
On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
ParticipantI’ll just respond to this one little thing.
[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.
The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.
On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
ParticipantI’ll just respond to this one little thing.
[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.
The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.
On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
ParticipantI’ll just respond to this one little thing.
[quote=ucodegen]When logic fails, resort to name calling (ie racist screed). If you really knew me, you would know that this comment is so far off that it is laughable.
[/quote]There was no name calling. I think you have adopted a racist screed. That doesn’t make you a racist.
The argument that undocumented aliens are a huge drain on the system has long been debunked. In some counties and states their contributions are less than associated costs. In others they are more. Nationwide, there are no conclusive studies, though in more recent years the contribution of the undocumented has risen with better enforcement of employment laws. The “under the table” payments, as described in the original post have dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. They’re not gone, but they’re nowhere near where they were. As previously mentioned by at least one other poster, payment of social security and medicare taxes by those who will never receive any benefits is a huge gain for the system. It extends the solvency of both programs.
On education, if I understand you to be saying that you believe that children of citizens are more worthy of an education than those of non-citizens, solely based upon where their parents were born, I am simply dumbfounded by your sense of superiority, arrogance and entitlement. Hopefully I misunderstand you.
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]
On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]
On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]
On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]
On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Which is my point with this one. The employee kicks in 6.2% (7.65% including Medicare Hospital Insurance) and the employer kicks in another 7.65%. The employer does not cover both. The illegal kicks in nothing as does the employer of the illegal.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
Are you sure you can take the child care credit when the wife is not working? Otherwise we will have to factor in her wage which up to now has not been included. We have also not considered children and the cost to the system of Jose Illegal’s kids (which would get educated in the US school system at the cost of over $8000 per kid per year) and not mentioning the likeliness that any health issues with the Jose Illegal’s children will be handled by Medicaid. Child care and deductions for children are out unless we consider costs to the system of children on both sides.[/quote]
On the first point, no, it wasn’t your point. It was mine. You started out claiming it was just the 6.2%, not 7.65%. If we’re comparing how much money Joe and Jose have to live on, the employer’s share is incidental.
And yes, I’m sure on the calculation. If my masters in tax and 20 years as a CPA didn’t make me confident enough, my tax software did.
No need to even address the rest of your long debunked racist screed. But please answer me this. Do you really think that Jose’s 8 year old son really deserves less of an education than Joe’s son simply because of where his parents were born?
Participant[quote=ucodegen]
Joe Legal wouldn’t pay the employers share of SS (which is actually 7.65% not 6.2%).
Where do you get your numbers? I got mine from social security admin. 6.2% is the employee’s haircut, 6.2% is the employers haircut. If you look on your W-2, it is box #4. See also linky, notice it says employee and employees each. OASDI is social security and medicare. The self employed show what the total rate is, which is 12.4%. Your employer takes half and the employee takes half. HI is medicare hospital insurance which brings it to 7.65% each to the employer and employee.
You didn’t take into consideration the standard deduction or personal exemptions or child tax credit on the federal, which would have greatly reduced their taxes to just over 2%.
It doesn’t reduce it that much. How many child credits were you taking for Joe Legal? Standard deductions apply to income not the tax, so they reduce the AGI.
Sales taxes would have been paid equally both both Joes.
You mean Joe and Jose. True, though Jose would probably be spending more in Mexico by sending money home.[/quote]
One at at time.
In the old days it was commonly known as FICA. That’s social security. Currently 7.65% for both employee and employer. 6.2% for OASDI and 1.45 for Medicare.
Standard deduction is $11,400. Exemption for joe, mrs. joe, and the two little joes total $14,600. bringing taxable income down to $26,000. 2 child care credits of 41,000 each brings fed tax down to $1,069.
If Jose is sending money home, that means that Joe could be saving too, and not paying sales tax.
-
AuthorPosts
