OT Illegals getting huge tax returns.

Han wrote:

> This discussion has been enlightening. I recall that in years long
> past, a SSN for dependents wasn't necessary. The numbers of
> dependents claimed fell sharply when children and other dependents
> needed a SSN and full name in order to be claimed on a tax return.

That may be true, but I do not remember such a thing. Can you provide any
kind of reference to this claim? Otherwise, it's just one of those claims
that sound good, but...


> Maybe our GD Congress- critters could enact something similar for
> holders of an ITIN.

Oh God Han! Please don't expect those idiots to do anything smart!

>
> I like it that ITIN holders get to pay taxes. It reduces the stress
> on SSA, Medicare and Medicaid.

I'm not sure of that Han. I'm curious about how much this new category
really enables less of that, rather than more of it. Don't know - just
curious.


>
> Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
> immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...

Certainly a component of an overall strategy, but not by far, the single
effective component.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 5/8/2012 3:55 PM, tiredofspam wrote:
> A friend just mailed me this.
>
> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>
>
> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>
>
> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>
> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>
>
>

why? Nothing will be done about it.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

HeyBub wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>
>>> Then it would not be random would it.
>>
>> It absolutely could be, and if you do not understand why, then you do
>> not understand what random actually means. A random drawing would not
>> guarantee a uniform cross section. Just as it is possible to flip a
>> coin 4 times and get heads each time, or roll 7 with four successive
>> rolls of the dice, or deal a hand of cards holding three aces, a
>> random drawing would certainly allow a legislature full of people you
>> certainly would not want passing laws.
>>
>> Since by definition half of all people are below average in
>> education, or intelligence, or experience, or any other measure of
>> competence,
>> and half are below average in being susceptible to influence
>> peddling, bribery extortion, blackmail, a random drawing, over the
>> long run, would virtually guarantee that about half of the time you would
>> get a
>> legislature that is below average in competence, and below average in
>> being susceptible to control by others with their own private
>> agendas.
>
> Likewise, you do not understand "average."
>
> If ten people take a test and nine score 100 while one scores a zero,
> 90% of the test takers are above average.

Yeahbut - that does not contradict his point. Not defending his point, but
your argument does not contradict it.

>
> Since your understanding is fatally flawed, your conclusion is also.
>

Too soon to tell.


>>>
>> And what about free choice? What if someone doesn't want to serve?
>> If you make him or her serve anyway, that's slavery. If you let them
>> decline service, then you've lost the randomness.
>
> In some jurisdictions, voting is mandatory. Australia comes to mind.

Yeahbut - this is not Australia.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

dadiOH wrote:

>
> You wouldn't get that with a random selection. Seems to me if a
> random selection of citizens can decide a person's fate in a murder
> case they could reach a reasonable consensus regarding legislation.
>

Random selection does not do that. Random selection creates the jury pool,
but then the selection from that pool is anything but random.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>
>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>
>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>
>>
>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>
>>
>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>
>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>
> --------------------------------------
> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
> and the IRS.
>
> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.

Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote for
the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected officials.

--
www.ewoodshop.com

well swingman I guess you are. I did quote the law (IRC section 24) and You
do have to be a citizen to get the credit (which means you HAVE to Have a SS
number, a TIN simply does not work). So I guess I'm correct and you’re a
moron. sorry

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

On 5/9/2012 12:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> The reporter is a moron! You need to give a social security number for
> each dependent to get the credit. No SS number and the IRS rejects the
> filing (hence no refund at all) plus the child has to a US citizen and
> live with the taxpayer all year.(IRC section 24). being a resident of
> Mexico is not sufficient to claim the credit. I do this type of thing
> for a living(35 years+) and this reporter is completely wrong.

The reporter was just reporting, the one who brought it to the
reporter's attention was someone in the industry like you; and the IRS,
if you had bothered to read the followups and supporting links, admitted
to it.

Would you believe the US Treasury Department which issued these report?:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html#tax

Just for you, here's the two part original story ... you might want to
learn to follow links that point to supporting evidence provided in the
story:

http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions

http://www.wthr.com/story/17861738/will-lawmakers-act-to-close-tax-loophole-for-illegal-immigrants

So, if you're still on calling someone the reporter a moron, here is the
IRS's statement:

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service:

"The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these
credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of
taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS
shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders
is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies
it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its
programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA's recommendation on
requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As
TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the
legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the
Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of
the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically
for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing
stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to
refine and improve our processes."

So, who's the moron now, moron?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

I believe that they have been educated by their peers about this loophole.

As one of them said, Its available why not get it then.

I have been working with Indians since 1987. Recently about 3-4 years
ago one of them told me at lunch that most Indians lie about their birth
date when they enter the country.

They are tutored before coming here that if they claim they are older
they can collect SS earlier if they stay here.


Yes everyone but us honest folk work the system...

I don't believe this was a mule thing. I think it fell through and some
astute people realized it and passed the info along.

On 5/9/2012 3:44 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>
>> Lew you probably didn't watch to the end, because it is the illegals
>> who are working our system.
>
> -----------------------------------
> Yes, I watched the entire thing.
>
> Are you suggesting that a group of illegals, many of whom are
> illiterate in their native language, have the ability to read and
> understand the US federal income tax laws, written in American
> English?
>
> Question.
>
> Do you prepare and file your own federal income tax forms?
>
> It is obvious that the illegals are being used as "mules" in an
> elaborate scheme to defraud the IRS.
>
> Lew
>
>
>

"tiredofspam" wrote:

>A friend just mailed me this.
>
> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>
>
> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>
>
> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>
> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!

--------------------------------------
Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
and the IRS.

Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.

Lew

.

"Mike Marlow" wrote:

> That's an oxmoron.

Then what is: oxymoron?

Lew

================================================================
>> Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".
===========================

"Swingman" wrote:
>
> You won't find them in an apathetic, superficial electorate, so get
> off your lazy cynical asses and do something about it.
---------------------------------
Like make sure Romney goes back to Bain Capital?

Lew

"tiredofspam" wrote:

> Lew you probably didn't watch to the end, because it is the illegals
> who are working our system.

-----------------------------------
Yes, I watched the entire thing.

Are you suggesting that a group of illegals, many of whom are
illiterate in their native language, have the ability to read and
understand the US federal income tax laws, written in American
English?

Question.

Do you prepare and file your own federal income tax forms?

It is obvious that the illegals are being used as "mules" in an
elaborate scheme to defraud the IRS.

Lew

On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Leon wrote:
>> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
>> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they are
>> randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.
> I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I lived in
> Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off them. To a man,
> they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my belief that it is a good
> one.
>
That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?

Wondering wrote:

> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable.
> But
> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
---------------------------------
Sounds like you are describing the current election cycle.

Lew

On 5/11/2012 11:42 AM, Leon wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 12:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>>>>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>>>>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>>>>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>>>>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>>>>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>>>>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>>>>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>>>>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>>>>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>>>> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
>>>> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they are
>>>> randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.
>>> I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I
>>> lived in
>>> Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off them. To a
>>> man,
>>> they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my belief that it is
>>> a good
>>> one.
>>>
>> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
>> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
>
> Then it would not be random would it.

It absolutely could be, and if you do not understand why, then you do
not understand what random actually means. A random drawing would not
guarantee a uniform cross section. Just as it is possible to flip a
coin 4 times and get heads each time, or roll 7 with four successive
rolls of the dice, or deal a hand of cards holding three aces, a random
drawing would certainly allow a legislature full of people you certainly
would not want passing laws.

Since by definition half of all people are below average in education,
or intelligence, or experience, or any other measure of competence, and
half are below average in being susceptible to influence peddling,
bribery extortion, blackmail, a random drawing, over the long run, would
virtually guarantee that about half of the time you would get a
legislature that is below average in competence, and below average in
being susceptible to control by others with their own private agendas.

While in the long run a random drawing would be reasonably expected to
obtain legislators approximating a reasonably uniform cross section of
the population from which it is drawn, that is not true of any single
selection cycle. And just as in 10,000 tosses of a coin you are likely
somewhere to find four or five heads in a row, over the long run, a
random drawing would almost guarantee at least one legislature
completely filled with people who are incompetent and unqualified by any
reasonable definition.

> And as far as I am concerned we have worse than Archie Bunker now,
> Archie Bunker would be an improvement.

Surely you jest. Archie Bunker was well meaning, but he was also a
bigoted, sexist racist who usually made knee-jerk decisions and seldom
gave serious thought to any idea that challenged his prejudices. That's
not the kind of person I would want making laws that would control what
I can and can't do. But assuming you would actually prefer a
legislature full of Archie Bunkers, I only used him as an example. If
you are a liberal Democrat, a random drawing could certainly fill your
legislature with conservative Republicans. Or, if you're a libertarian,
a random drawing could get you a legislature full of socialists, or
fascists. Or vice versa for any of those examples.

And what about free choice? What if someone doesn't want to serve? If
you make him or her serve anyway, that's slavery. If you let them
decline service, then you've lost the randomness.

Your legislators who thought it a rotten idea were right.

On 5/11/2012 12:20 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> Wondering wrote:
>
>> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable.
>> But
>> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
> ---------------------------------
> Sounds like you are describing the current election cycle.
>
So both the Democrat and the Republican (and third party if there is
one) candidates in your Congressional and legislative races are all
uneducated, racist, sexist bigots?

>> Sounds like you are describing the current election cycle.
--------------------
Wondering wrote:

>
> So both the Democrat and the Republican (and third party if there is
> one) candidates in your Congressional and legislative races are all
> uneducated, racist, sexist bigots?

Nothing is ever ALL. Sorry but no cigar.

Lew

On 5/12/2012 5:53 AM, dadiOH wrote:
> Just Wondering wrote:
>> On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>>> Leon wrote:
>>>> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>>>>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>>>>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>>>>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>>>>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>>>>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>>>>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>>>>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>>>>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>>>>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>>>>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>>>> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
>>>> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they
>>>> are randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.
>>> I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I
>>> lived in Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off
>>> them. To a man, they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my
>>> belief that it is a good one.
>>>
>> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
>> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
> You wouldn't get that with a random selection.
In a random selection any combination is equally possible. For example,
take a population of 1,000 citizens, number them consecutively, than
select five of them by random. You're just as likely to draw nos.
1,2,3,4, and 5 as you are 41, 172, 394, 666 and 827. You're just as
likely to pick the five least qualified people as you are to draw any
other combination.

> Seems to me if a random
> selection of citizens can decide a person's fate in a murder case they could
> reach a reasonable consensus regarding legislation.

First, what makes you think a jury is randomly selected from the
population at large?
Second, a jury is not just turned loose to decide a person's fate.
There are tight controls over what evidence they are presented with,
what they are instructed about the law, etc. Plus, if they get too far
out of control, the judge can enter a judgment contrary to their
verdict. Either side can appeal, etc. etc.
Third, what makes you think a random group of citizens could, or would,
reach a more reasonable consensus than elected representatives do?
> In the worst case, you would get a number of greedy, shortsighted,
> incompetent, self serving bums.

I can picture scenarios much worse than that.
> The difference between that and the current
> situation is that they would only be there for one term.

The voters, who ARE "majority rule" when it comes to electing
representatives, already have it in their power to put people in for
only term.
> No pension either.
>
That should be the law already.
I would also require anyone who has to take an oath to uphold and defend
the Constitution to take an examination to prove they understand about
the Constitution and laws that they actually understand what that oath
means. If they can't prove they understand their oath, they shouldn't
be allowed to take it, meaning they should not be allowed to accept the
office.

On 5/12/2012 6:11 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> dadiOH wrote:
>
>> You wouldn't get that with a random selection. Seems to me if a
>> random selection of citizens can decide a person's fate in a murder
>> case they could reach a reasonable consensus regarding legislation.
>>
> Random selection does not do that. Random selection creates the jury pool,
> but then the selection from that pool is anything but random.
>
>
Even the jury pool is not a random selection. There are whole groups of
the population whose names are never included in a jury pool.

On 5/13/2012 7:54 AM, Han wrote:
> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> "Average" is absolutely the wrong metric to use in evaluating most
>> anything like this.
> I agree (note on the calendar!). I think one should consider median rather
> than average. Median being the point at which half the observations have a
> value higher, half lower than that median value. It "discards" outliers.
> Of course, you need to establish whether convential statistics might apply,
> such as whether or not the values symmetrically follow a bell curve.
>
In the general U.S. population, the median and the mean are the same
point (or near enough not to make a statistically significant difference
to the final result in the example under discussion.)
And when you're taking a truly random sample taken from the general
population, you CAN'T discard outliers, or any other part of the
population, or the sample will no longer be truly random.

But you're both missing the point. The discussion is the consequence
of filling what are not elected seats in the government by a random
drawing from the population at large, which does fall nicely on a bell
curve. You're posing some "what ifs" that do not track the reality of
taking a random sample from the general U.S. population. in the long
run the aggregate of your samples will approximate that bell curve. But
any particular sample could come from any part of the curve. You could
very well get a sample consisting entirely of people in the bottom
second (or third) sigma distribution of the population at large. In
fact, given a sufficient number of samples, you would occasionally
expect that result. In other words, over the long run, selecting a
legislature by a random drawing from the general population would
occasionally be expected to populate the legislature with the worst of
the worst.

On Wed, 9 May 2012 07:17:17 -0400, "dadiOH" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>CW wrote:
>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>>>
>>>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>>>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>>>
>>>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
>>> and the IRS.
>>>
>>> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
>>> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.
>>
>> Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote
>> for the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected
>> officials.
>> ================================================================ Where do
>> you find these "responsible elected officials".
>
>If God had wanted us to have elections he would have given us candidates.

And the last valid one of those was Ross Perot. I wrote him into the
primary ballot rather than waste a vote on someone I didn't like at
all. Don't vote. It only encourages them.

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

CW wrote:

> Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".

That's an oxmoron.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

Mike Marlow wrote:
> HeyBub wrote:
>> Just Wondering wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Then it would not be random would it.
>>>
>>> It absolutely could be, and if you do not understand why, then you
>>> do not understand what random actually means. A random drawing
>>> would not guarantee a uniform cross section. Just as it is
>>> possible to flip a coin 4 times and get heads each time, or roll 7
>>> with four successive rolls of the dice, or deal a hand of cards
>>> holding three aces, a random drawing would certainly allow a legislature
>>> full of people
>>> you certainly would not want passing laws.
>>>
>>> Since by definition half of all people are below average in
>>> education, or intelligence, or experience, or any other measure of
>>> competence,
>>> and half are below average in being susceptible to influence
>>> peddling, bribery extortion, blackmail, a random drawing, over the
>>> long run, would virtually guarantee that about half of the time you
>>> would get a
>>> legislature that is below average in competence, and below average
>>> in being susceptible to control by others with their own private
>>> agendas.
>>
>> Likewise, you do not understand "average."
>>
>> If ten people take a test and nine score 100 while one scores a zero,
>> 90% of the test takers are above average.
>
> Yeahbut - that does not contradict his point. Not defending his
> point, but your argument does not contradict it.
>

Sure it does. If he starts with a flawed definition, "by definition half of
all people are below average in education...", his conclusion must be wrong.
He concludes, using this flawed definition, that a random drawing would
result in half those picked being scalawags, that half the elected
legislature below average in competence.

That's simply not true.

In the electorate of an example state, there may be only ONE person who is
corrupt and corrupt enough to drag the overall average down to the level of
"maybe." If the population elects 100 members to its legislature and happens
to include this rascal, you still end up with 99 righteous law makers.

"Average" is absolutely the wrong metric to use in evaluating most anything
like this.

On 5/8/2012 7:34 PM, CW wrote:
>
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>>
>>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>>
>>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
>> and the IRS.
>>
>> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
>> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.
>
> Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote for
> the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected officials.
> ================================================================
> Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".

You won't find them in an apathetic, superficial electorate, so get off
your lazy cynical asses and do something about it.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

My co-worker was an Indian, and a friend. I was quite shocked.

I have no hard proof. But I do believe.
My wife didn't believe, but now does based on how many Indians didn't
know there birthdays.

I think many 3rd world countries know more about how to get around our
system. We are just naive.

On 5/9/2012 6:45 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> writes:
>> wELL, IT'S IS NOT THAT HARD TO GET A PASSSPORT WITH A DIFFERENT BDAY IN
>> India. They don't have records like we do. And there is so much
>> corruption that it is easy.
>>
>> My wife and another friend wound up doing the census, and many times
>> when they asked the birth date the person would say they would have to
>> get back to them. I know my birthday. Now the next question I have, is
>> why would I not believe what the co worker told me?
>>
>> And while not confirmed it certainly starts looking plausible based on
>> my wife's and friends census experience.
>>
>> So Scott, take your closest Indian friend and ask if it is possible,
>> plausible, or whether they have any knowledge before you say it's bullshit.
>>
>
> i'm sorry, whatever your name is, but it is up to you to prove your assertion,
> not up to me to disprove it. A simple anecdote told you by your coworker
> is not evidence of anything except your gullibility.
>
> scott

Swingman wrote:
> On 5/8/2012 7:34 PM, CW wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Swingman" wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> "Lew Hodgett"<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>>>
>>>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>>>
>>>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>>>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>>>
>>>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------
>>> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
>>> and the IRS.
>>>
>>> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
>>> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.
>>
>> Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote for
>> the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected officials.
>> ================================================================
>> Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".
>
> You won't find them in an apathetic, superficial electorate, so get off
> your lazy cynical asses and do something about it.
>

I've got it! Let's vote Obama President for Life, abolish congress
and the Supreme Court. Look how much we would save by not having to
have elections..Then all of us could stop work and live on our fair
share--for as long as China would be willing to support us.

--
G.W. Ross

The Lab called... Your brain is ready!

On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
> Swingman<[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 5/10/2012 8:46 AM, Han wrote:
>>
>>> Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
>>> immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...
>>
>> As long as professional politicians are allowed, they will continue to
>> pander to special interest groups.
>>
>> I agree that a guest worker program would reasonably solve a lot of
>> problems, but I'm afraid that, with the lawyer logic being used in
>> government these days, it would not be the panacea we would hope for
>> ... these folks seem entirely incapable of exercising any measure that
>> benefits the country before themselves.
>
> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in ancient
> Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all vote-eligible
> citizens would be put into a pot and someone would blindly draw names to
> be assigned administrative jobs. A new lottery would be done every so
> often, so there wouldn't be entrenched administrators. The only
> criterion was that they had to work for the benefit of Athens. The US
> is too averse of professional administrators for fear of corruption, but
> corruption by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something
> needs to be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>

I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
requirement that government officials are not elected rather they are
randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.

tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> writes:
>wELL, IT'S IS NOT THAT HARD TO GET A PASSSPORT WITH A DIFFERENT BDAY IN
>India. They don't have records like we do. And there is so much
>corruption that it is easy.
>
>My wife and another friend wound up doing the census, and many times
>when they asked the birth date the person would say they would have to
>get back to them. I know my birthday. Now the next question I have, is
>why would I not believe what the co worker told me?
>
>And while not confirmed it certainly starts looking plausible based on
>my wife's and friends census experience.
>
>So Scott, take your closest Indian friend and ask if it is possible,
>plausible, or whether they have any knowledge before you say it's bullshit.
>

i'm sorry, whatever your name is, but it is up to you to prove your assertion,
not up to me to disprove it. A simple anecdote told you by your coworker
is not evidence of anything except your gullibility.

scott

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> well swingman I guess you are. I did quote the law (IRC section 24) and You
> do have to be a citizen to get the credit (which means you HAVE to Have a SS
> number, a TIN simply does not work). So I guess I'm correct and you?re a
> moron. sorry
>
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> On 5/9/2012 12:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > The reporter is a moron! You need to give a social security number for
> > each dependent to get the credit. No SS number and the IRS rejects the
> > filing (hence no refund at all) plus the child has to a US citizen and
> > live with the taxpayer all year.(IRC section 24). being a resident of
> > Mexico is not sufficient to claim the credit. I do this type of thing
> > for a living(35 years+) and this reporter is completely wrong.
>
> The reporter was just reporting, the one who brought it to the
> reporter's attention was someone in the industry like you; and the IRS,
> if you had bothered to read the followups and supporting links, admitted
> to it.
>
> Would you believe the US Treasury Department which issued these report?:
>
> http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html
>
> http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html#tax
>
> Just for you, here's the two part original story ... you might want to
> learn to follow links that point to supporting evidence provided in the
> story:
>
> http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions
>
> http://www.wthr.com/story/17861738/will-lawmakers-act-to-close-tax-loophole-for-illegal-immigrants
>
> So, if you're still on calling someone the reporter a moron, here is the
> IRS's statement:
>
> Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service:
>
> "The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these
> credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of
> taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS
> shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders
> is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies
> it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its
> programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA's recommendation on
> requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As
> TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the
> legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the
> Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of
> the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically
> for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing
> stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to
> refine and improve our processes."
>
> So, who's the moron now, moron?

The question I have about all of this is what kind of work this
"illegal" was doing that resulted in his owing $10,000 in income tax to
begin with.

tiredofspam <nospam.nospam.com> writes:
>I believe that they have been educated by their peers about this loophole.
>
>As one of them said, Its available why not get it then.
>
>I have been working with Indians since 1987. Recently about 3-4 years
>ago one of them told me at lunch that most Indians lie about their birth
>date when they enter the country.

Given that their birthdate is on the passport they must use to apply
for a residence permit or citizenship, I find this a bit hard to
believe and quite unlikely.

Also, given the number of americans of indian descent that I've worked
with and called friends over the last thirty years, I call bullshit.

scott

On 5/11/2012 12:24 PM, Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>>>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>>>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>>>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>>>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>>>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>>>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>>>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>>>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>>>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>>> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
>>> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they are
>>> randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.
>> I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I lived in
>> Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off them. To a
>> man,
>> they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my belief that it is
>> a good
>> one.
>>
> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?

Then it would not be random would it. And as far as I am concerned we
have worse than Archie Bunker now, Archie Bunker would be an improvement.

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 5/9/2012 11:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>> well swingman I guess you are. I did quote the law (IRC section 24)
>> and You do have to be a citizen to get the credit (which means you
>> HAVE to Have a SS number, a TIN simply does not work). So I guess I'm
>> correct and you’re a moron. sorry
>
> You're just trying to be cutesy, You should be ashamed to call
> yourself a tax preparer without the ability to read; you should be
> ashamed to be a member of a profession that facilitates ripping off
> the tax payer:
>
> From an _IRS field agent_ in California on May 9, 2012:
>
> "'Based on what comes across his desk, he has seen the problem burgeon
> in tax returns filed by Spanish-language tax preparers. Calling them
> “the enablers and catalyst of this fraud,” the Northern California
> field-office agent noted their clients are more comfortable working
> with preparers who speak their language. The preparers educate their
> clients about greater returns they can receive the following year if
> they qualify family members for the Additional Child Tax Credit
> refund. It’s a win-win-lose – the client learns how to get more
> money back from the IRS, the preparer generates good will and repeat
> business, and the U.S. taxpayers get soaked. Knowledge of the scam
> then spreads by word of mouth."
>
> http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/irs-field-agent-heres-how-illegals-scam-syst
> em/
>
> And, you are indeed a moron for being dissembling in continuing to
> insist that this does not happen despite what the law says, and
> despite the clear evidence to the contrary:
>
> DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
> INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
> ATLANTA, GA 30308
>
> WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
>
> June 16, 2011
>
> "It is important to recognize that unlike many other tax benefits, the
> law does not require the _taxpayer_ or _eligible child_ to have a
> social security number in order to receive the CTC or the ACTC. The
> IRS is administering the law accordingly. Legislative changes would be
> required to deny many of the claims discussed in the report."
>
> Again, _read_ the report, moron:
>
> http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html
> #mgtresp

This discussion has been enlightening. I recall that in years long past,
a SSN for dependents wasn't necessary. The numbers of dependents claimed
fell sharply when children and other dependents needed a SSN and full
name in order to be claimed on a tax return. Maybe our GD Congress-
critters could enact something similar for holders of an ITIN.

I like it that ITIN holders get to pay taxes. It reduces the stress on
SSA, Medicare and Medicaid. Too bad the ITIN holders might not get to
claim those benefits ... <smirk>.

Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 5/10/2012 8:46 AM, Han wrote:
>
>> Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
>> immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...
>
> As long as professional politicians are allowed, they will continue to
> pander to special interest groups.
>
> I agree that a guest worker program would reasonably solve a lot of
> problems, but I'm afraid that, with the lawyer logic being used in
> government these days, it would not be the panacea we would hope for
> ... these folks seem entirely incapable of exercising any measure that
> benefits the country before themselves.

Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in ancient
Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all vote-eligible
citizens would be put into a pot and someone would blindly draw names to
be assigned administrative jobs. A new lottery would be done every so
often, so there wouldn't be entrenched administrators. The only
criterion was that they had to work for the benefit of Athens. The US
is too averse of professional administrators for fear of corruption, but
corruption by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something
needs to be done so the people will benefit eventually.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"Mike Marlow" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Han wrote:
>
>> This discussion has been enlightening. I recall that in years long
>> past, a SSN for dependents wasn't necessary. The numbers of
>> dependents claimed fell sharply when children and other dependents
>> needed a SSN and full name in order to be claimed on a tax return.
>
> That may be true, but I do not remember such a thing. Can you provide
> any kind of reference to this claim? Otherwise, it's just one of
> those claims that sound good, but...

My memory didn't fail me. I found this pdf:
http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/LaLumiaSalleeMissingKids.pdf
If you do a Find for IRS you'll find the statement:
<quote>
As of 1987, filers were newly required to report a Social Security Number
(SSN) for all dependents over the age of 5. Given this information, it
was relatively easy for the IRS to verify the existence of dependents and
to check that they were not listed on multiple returns, and consequently
the probability of cheating without detection fell precipitously. The
response to this change in reporting rules was pronounced. Our data show
that the number of dependents claimed in 1987 fell by 5.5%, which is
equivalent to 4.2 "missing children".
</quote>

>> Maybe our GD Congress- critters could enact something similar for
>> holders of an ITIN.
>
> Oh God Han! Please don't expect those idiots to do anything smart!

They react to pressure from lobbyists, don't they? I am always
optimistic ...

>> I like it that ITIN holders get to pay taxes. It reduces the stress
>> on SSA, Medicare and Medicaid.
>
> I'm not sure of that Han. I'm curious about how much this new
> category really enables less of that, rather than more of it. Don't
> know - just curious.

Seems to me they (and their employer has to pay taxes on the wages. I
doubt that an ITIN will be honored like a SSN for benefits, but it
probably should - after all the ITIN holder did pay into the system ...

>> Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
>> immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...
>
> Certainly a component of an overall strategy, but not by far, the
> single effective component.

We are talking about 2 different things here. Enforcing taxation
policies, and enforcing immigration rules. They get intertwined here,
but it is really very clear that allowing people into the country without
having a way to check on whether they follow the rules (no work unless
they have the right kind of visum, leave when their time is up, etc) is
folly. I lump illegal entry here together with legal entry, but illegal
staying. Overstaying your visum is easy, nobody cares. It might be
difficult to re-enter if your visum expired, but that is another
question.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

"HeyBub" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> "Average" is absolutely the wrong metric to use in evaluating most
> anything like this.

I agree (note on the calendar!). I think one should consider median rather
than average. Median being the point at which half the observations have a
value higher, half lower than that median value. It "discards" outliers.
Of course, you need to establish whether convential statistics might apply,
such as whether or not the values symmetrically follow a bell curve.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Just Wondering <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 5/13/2012 7:54 AM, Han wrote:
>> "HeyBub"<[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> "Average" is absolutely the wrong metric to use in evaluating most
>>> anything like this.
>> I agree (note on the calendar!). I think one should consider median
>> rather than average. Median being the point at which half the
>> observations have a value higher, half lower than that median value.
>> It "discards" outliers. Of course, you need to establish whether
>> convential statistics might apply, such as whether or not the values
>> symmetrically follow a bell curve.
>>
> In the general U.S. population, the median and the mean are the same
> point (or near enough not to make a statistically significant
> difference to the final result in the example under discussion.)
> And when you're taking a truly random sample taken from the general
> population, you CAN'T discard outliers, or any other part of the
> population, or the sample will no longer be truly random.
>
> But you're both missing the point. The discussion is the consequence
> of filling what are not elected seats in the government by a random
> drawing from the population at large, which does fall nicely on a bell
> curve. You're posing some "what ifs" that do not track the reality of
> taking a random sample from the general U.S. population. in the long
> run the aggregate of your samples will approximate that bell curve.
> But any particular sample could come from any part of the curve. You
> could very well get a sample consisting entirely of people in the
> bottom second (or third) sigma distribution of the population at
> large. In fact, given a sufficient number of samples, you would
> occasionally expect that result. In other words, over the long run,
> selecting a legislature by a random drawing from the general
> population would occasionally be expected to populate the legislature
> with the worst of the worst.

Correct. Sample size is important as well. Taking a sample of 12 people
from 300 million has inherently greater chance of not being
representative, etc, etc.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

[email protected] wrote:

> The reporter is a moron! You need to give a social security number
> for each dependent to get the credit. No SS number and the IRS
> rejects the filing (hence no refund at all) plus the child has to a
> US citizen and live with the taxpayer all year.(IRC section 24).
> being a resident of Mexico is not sufficient to claim the credit. I
> do this type of thing for a living(35 years+) and this reporter is
> completely wrong.

I have to admit that I know nothing about this stuff at all, so I will
simply ask - what about this ITIN matter? It seems that this identifier is
equal to the requirment for an SSAN, but in fact does not require an SSAN as
you claim. From my not-so-educated standpoint, it's not so much what the
pieces of the code may state, or require, as much as it is what is actually
taking place. It seems that the IRS themselves have off-handedly admitted
that this does take place in their statements that they do not have the
authority to legislate and are simply following the "law". That causes me
to question your outright dismissal of this.

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On Tue, 8 May 2012 19:19:17 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

> ================================================================
>>> Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".
>===========================
>
>"Swingman" wrote:
>>
>> You won't find them in an apathetic, superficial electorate, so get
>> off your lazy cynical asses and do something about it.
>---------------------------------
>Like make sure Romney goes back to Bain Capital?
>
>Lew
>
>

You're still guzzling that kool aid, aren't you?

The reporter is a moron! You need to give a social security number for each
dependent to get the credit. No SS number and the IRS rejects the filing
(hence no refund at all) plus the child has to a US citizen and live with
the taxpayer all year.(IRC section 24). being a resident of Mexico is not
sufficient to claim the credit. I do this type of thing for a living(35
years+) and this reporter is completely wrong.

"tiredofspam" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

A friend just mailed me this.

If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.


YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
Watch the newscast video and stay calm!


http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true

Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!

wELL, IT'S IS NOT THAT HARD TO GET A PASSSPORT WITH A DIFFERENT BDAY IN
India. They don't have records like we do. And there is so much
corruption that it is easy.

My wife and another friend wound up doing the census, and many times
when they asked the birth date the person would say they would have to
get back to them. I know my birthday. Now the next question I have, is
why would I not believe what the co worker told me?

And while not confirmed it certainly starts looking plausible based on
my wife's and friends census experience.

So Scott, take your closest Indian friend and ask if it is possible,
plausible, or whether they have any knowledge before you say it's bullshit.

On 5/9/2012 5:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> tiredofspam<nospam.nospam.com> writes:
>> I believe that they have been educated by their peers about this loophole.
>>
>> As one of them said, Its available why not get it then.
>>
>> I have been working with Indians since 1987. Recently about 3-4 years
>> ago one of them told me at lunch that most Indians lie about their birth
>> date when they enter the country.
>
> Given that their birthdate is on the passport they must use to apply
> for a residence permit or citizenship, I find this a bit hard to
> believe and quite unlikely.
>
> Also, given the number of americans of indian descent that I've worked
> with and called friends over the last thirty years, I call bullshit.
>
> scott

On Wed, 9 May 2012 12:44:30 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Are you suggesting that a group of illegals, many of whom are
>illiterate in their native language, have the ability to read and
>understand the US federal income tax laws, written in American
>English?

Are you aware that ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law? The
fact that they are "illegals" says it all. Come on, get your head out
of your ass.

Han wrote:

>
> My memory didn't fail me. I found this pdf:
> http://web.williams.edu/Economics/wp/LaLumiaSalleeMissingKids.pdf
> If you do a Find for IRS you'll find the statement:
> <quote>
> As of 1987, filers were newly required to report a Social Security
> Number (SSN) for all dependents over the age of 5. Given this
> information, it was relatively easy for the IRS to verify the
> existence of dependents and to check that they were not listed on
> multiple returns, and consequently the probability of cheating
> without detection fell precipitously. The response to this change in
> reporting rules was pronounced. Our data show that the number of
> dependents claimed in 1987 fell by 5.5%, which is equivalent to 4.2
> "missing children". </quote>
>

Good stuff Han. I had completely forgotten that I didn't even get my own
SSAN until I got my working papers in school. Doesn't look like it was a
sharp decline, but you educated me on that point all the same.


--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 5/9/2012 11:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> well swingman I guess you are. I did quote the law (IRC section 24) and
> You do have to be a citizen to get the credit (which means you HAVE to
> Have a SS number, a TIN simply does not work). So I guess I'm correct
> and you’re a moron. sorry

You're just trying to be cutesy, You should be ashamed to call yourself
a tax preparer without the ability to read; you should be ashamed to be
a member of a profession that facilitates ripping off the tax payer:

From an _IRS field agent_ in California on May 9, 2012:

"'Based on what comes across his desk, he has seen the problem burgeon
in tax returns filed by Spanish-language tax preparers. Calling them
“the enablers and catalyst of this fraud,” the Northern California
field-office agent noted their clients are more comfortable working with
preparers who speak their language. The preparers educate their clients
about greater returns they can receive the following year if they
qualify family members for the Additional Child Tax Credit refund. It’s
a win-win-lose – the client learns how to get more money back from the
IRS, the preparer generates good will and repeat business, and the U.S.
taxpayers get soaked. Knowledge of the scam then spreads by word of mouth."

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/irs-field-agent-heres-how-illegals-scam-system/

And, you are indeed a moron for being dissembling in continuing to
insist that this does not happen despite what the law says, and despite
the clear evidence to the contrary:

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
ATLANTA, GA 30308

WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION

June 16, 2011

"It is important to recognize that unlike many other tax benefits, the
law does not require the _taxpayer_ or _eligible child_ to have a social
security number in order to receive the CTC or the ACTC. The IRS is
administering the law accordingly. Legislative changes would be required
to deny many of the claims discussed in the report."

Again, _read_ the report, moron:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html#mgtresp

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

CW wrote:
> "Swingman" wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>>
>>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>>
>>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>>
>>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>>
>> --------------------------------------
>> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
>> and the IRS.
>>
>> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
>> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.
>
> Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote
> for the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected
> officials.
> ================================================================ Where do
> you find these "responsible elected officials".

If God had wanted us to have elections he would have given us candidates.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Swingman wrote:
> Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote
> for the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected
> officials.

People who watch AI shouldn't vote anywhere else.


--

Reply in group, but if emailing add one more
zero, and remove the last word.

Leon wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>
> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they are
> randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.

I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I lived in
Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off them. To a man,
they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my belief that it is a good
one.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Just Wondering wrote:
> On 5/11/2012 5:42 AM, dadiOH wrote:
>> Leon wrote:
>>> On 5/10/2012 9:14 AM, Han wrote:
>>>> Someone said we should go back to administration as was done in
>>>> ancient Athens (I didn't look up the details). The names of all
>>>> vote-eligible citizens would be put into a pot and someone would
>>>> blindly draw names to be assigned administrative jobs. A new
>>>> lottery would be done every so often, so there wouldn't be
>>>> entrenched administrators. The only criterion was that they had to
>>>> work for the benefit of Athens. The US is too averse of
>>>> professional administrators for fear of corruption, but corruption
>>>> by congress is allowed almost unfettered, alas. Something needs to
>>>> be done so the people will benefit eventually.
>>> I once mentioned to my son that there should be a lottery and or a
>>> requirement that government officials are not elected rather they
>>> are randomly chosen. Not totally unlike jury duty.

>> I've been advocating the "ransomly drawn" idea for years. When I
>> lived in Hawaii I knew many of the legislators, bounced the idea off
>> them. To a man, they thought it was a rotten idea which confirms my
>> belief that it is a good one.
>>
> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable. But
> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?

You wouldn't get that with a random selection. Seems to me if a random
selection of citizens can decide a person's fate in a murder case they could
reach a reasonable consensus regarding legislation.

In the worst case, you would get a number of greedy, shortsighted,
incompetent, self serving bums. The difference between that and the current
situation is that they would only be there for one term. No pension either.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Just Wondering <[email protected]> writes:
>On 5/11/2012 12:20 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
>> Wondering wrote:
>>
>>> That might be OK if the random drawing picked, say, Cliff Huxtable.
>>> But
>>> would you want a legislature full of Archie Bunkers?
>> ---------------------------------
>> Sounds like you are describing the current election cycle.
>>
>So both the Democrat and the Republican (and third party if there is
>one) candidates in your Congressional and legislative races are all
>uneducated, racist, sexist bigots?

you forgot religous zealots

scott

On 10 May 2012 13:46:10 GMT, Han <[email protected]> wrote:

>Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On 5/9/2012 11:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>>> well swingman I guess you are. I did quote the law (IRC section 24)
>>> and You do have to be a citizen to get the credit (which means you
>>> HAVE to Have a SS number, a TIN simply does not work). So I guess I'm
>>> correct and you’re a moron. sorry
>>
>> You're just trying to be cutesy, You should be ashamed to call
>> yourself a tax preparer without the ability to read; you should be
>> ashamed to be a member of a profession that facilitates ripping off
>> the tax payer:
>>
>> From an _IRS field agent_ in California on May 9, 2012:
>>
>> "'Based on what comes across his desk, he has seen the problem burgeon
>> in tax returns filed by Spanish-language tax preparers. Calling them
>> “the enablers and catalyst of this fraud,â€? the Northern California
>> field-office agent noted their clients are more comfortable working
>> with preparers who speak their language. The preparers educate their
>> clients about greater returns they can receive the following year if
>> they qualify family members for the Additional Child Tax Credit
>> refund. It’s a win-win-lose – the client learns how to get more
>> money back from the IRS, the preparer generates good will and repeat
>> business, and the U.S. taxpayers get soaked. Knowledge of the scam
>> then spreads by word of mouth."
>>
>> http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/irs-field-agent-heres-how-illegals-scam-syst
>> em/
>>
>> And, you are indeed a moron for being dissembling in continuing to
>> insist that this does not happen despite what the law says, and
>> despite the clear evidence to the contrary:
>>
>> DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
>> INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
>> ATLANTA, GA 30308
>>
>> WAGE AND INVESTMENT DIVISION
>>
>> June 16, 2011
>>
>> "It is important to recognize that unlike many other tax benefits, the
>> law does not require the _taxpayer_ or _eligible child_ to have a
>> social security number in order to receive the CTC or the ACTC. The
>> IRS is administering the law accordingly. Legislative changes would be
>> required to deny many of the claims discussed in the report."
>>
>> Again, _read_ the report, moron:
>>
>> http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html
>> #mgtresp
>
>This discussion has been enlightening. I recall that in years long past,
>a SSN for dependents wasn't necessary. The numbers of dependents claimed
>fell sharply when children and other dependents needed a SSN and full
>name in order to be claimed on a tax return. Maybe our GD Congress-
>critters could enact something similar for holders of an ITIN.
>
>I like it that ITIN holders get to pay taxes. It reduces the stress on
>SSA, Medicare and Medicaid. Too bad the ITIN holders might not get to
>claim those benefits ... <smirk>.
>
>Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
>immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...

+1

--
Most powerful is he who has himself in his own power.
-- Seneca

Just Wondering wrote:
>>
>> Then it would not be random would it.
>
> It absolutely could be, and if you do not understand why, then you do
> not understand what random actually means. A random drawing would not
> guarantee a uniform cross section. Just as it is possible to flip a
> coin 4 times and get heads each time, or roll 7 with four successive
> rolls of the dice, or deal a hand of cards holding three aces, a
> random drawing would certainly allow a legislature full of people you
> certainly would not want passing laws.
>
> Since by definition half of all people are below average in education,
> or intelligence, or experience, or any other measure of competence,
> and half are below average in being susceptible to influence peddling,
> bribery extortion, blackmail, a random drawing, over the long run,
> would virtually guarantee that about half of the time you would get a
> legislature that is below average in competence, and below average in
> being susceptible to control by others with their own private agendas.

Likewise, you do not understand "average."

If ten people take a test and nine score 100 while one scores a zero, 90% of
the test takers are above average.

Since your understanding is fatally flawed, your conclusion is also.

>>
> And what about free choice? What if someone doesn't want to serve? If you
> make him or her serve anyway, that's slavery. If you let them
> decline service, then you've lost the randomness.

In some jurisdictions, voting is mandatory. Australia comes to mind.

Absolutely vote. Get rid of the incumbents.

When people vote for the current guy that means they are happy with the
current system. If you are happy with the current system you must be
milking it.

NJ still hasn't had it's primary. But when it comes my vote goes for Ron
Paul... I'm still reading the case for gold it took a while to get from
another library system. He goes into the history of our system. and it
is very ugly. Repeatedly our banks have screwed us. Defaulting and being
propped up. Congress (useless bastards) has __repeatedly__ told them
collect what is owed to you, but don't pay who you owe.

We need to get honest people in. We need to replace all of them in one
stroke. Notice how they have set it up to replace only 1/2 of them. To
stabilize the system (orig intention) or to show the next generation of
politicians how to work the system.

Lew you probably didn't watch to the end, because it is the illegals who
are working our system.

Larry you should vote. Just vote for someone not in office. My thoughts
are independents however strange their views are, are better than the 2
parties. They don't have the party lock that the Republicans and Dems
have. So they work for their ideologies, and maybe the people too.

The 2 parties are not working. They have instituted many laws that even
prevent the Independents from getting a foot hold. Like Equal time, and
the ability to be in the debates. Ever notice when it comes to the
debates in November there are only 2 people. They passed laws that allow
them to keep them out of those debates.

On 5/9/2012 9:19 AM, Larry Jaques wrote:
> And the last valid one of those was Ross Perot. I wrote him into the
> primary ballot rather than waste a vote on someone I didn't like at
> all. Don't vote. It only encourages them.

On 5/10/2012 8:46 AM, Han wrote:

> Of course, all this nonsense would go away if the US had a good
> immigration policy, that was indeed enforceable ...

As long as professional politicians are allowed, they will continue to
pander to special interest groups.

I agree that a guest worker program would reasonably solve a lot of
problems, but I'm afraid that, with the lawyer logic being used in
government these days, it would not be the panacea we would hope for ...
these folks seem entirely incapable of exercising any measure that
benefits the country before themselves.

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop

"Swingman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote:
> "tiredofspam" wrote:
>
>> A friend just mailed me this.
>>
>> If it doesn't infuriate you your numb already.
>>
>>
>> YOU WILL NOT BELIEVE THIS, but it is true!!
>> Watch the newscast video and stay calm!
>>
>>
>> http://www.wthr.com/video?clipId=7054149&autostart=true
>>
>> Please pass this on to other honest tax payers!!
>
> --------------------------------------
> Would appear that the real problem resides with the Congress Critters
> and the IRS.
>
> Illegal citizens are simply being used as part of an elaborate scheme
> to defraud by someone not covered in the piece.

Nope, it resides with an apathetic electorate that would rather vote for
the latest on American Idol instead of responsible elected officials.
================================================================
Where do you find these "responsible elected officials".

On 5/9/2012 12:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> The reporter is a moron! You need to give a social security number for
> each dependent to get the credit. No SS number and the IRS rejects the
> filing (hence no refund at all) plus the child has to a US citizen and
> live with the taxpayer all year.(IRC section 24). being a resident of
> Mexico is not sufficient to claim the credit. I do this type of thing
> for a living(35 years+) and this reporter is completely wrong.

The reporter was just reporting, the one who brought it to the
reporter's attention was someone in the industry like you; and the IRS,
if you had bothered to read the followups and supporting links, admitted
to it.

Would you believe the US Treasury Department which issued these report?:

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html

http://www.treasury.gov/tigta/auditreports/2011reports/201141061fr.html#tax

Just for you, here's the two part original story ... you might want to
learn to follow links that point to supporting evidence provided in the
story:

http://www.wthr.com/story/17798210/tax-loophole-costs-billions

http://www.wthr.com/story/17861738/will-lawmakers-act-to-close-tax-loophole-for-illegal-immigrants

So, if you're still on calling someone the reporter a moron, here is the
IRS's statement:

Full statement to WTHR from the Internal Revenue Service:

"The law has been clear for over a decade that eligibility for these
credits does not depend on work authorization status or the type of
taxpayer identification number used. Any suggestion that the IRS
shouldn't be paying out these credits under current law to ITIN holders
is simply incorrect. The IRS administers the law impartially and applies
it as it is written. If the law were changed, the IRS would change its
programs accordingly. The IRS disagrees with TIGTA's recommendation on
requiring additional documentation to verify child credit claims. As
TIGTA acknowledges in this report, the IRS does not currently have the
legal authority to verify and disallow the Child Tax Credit and the
Additional Child Tax Credit during return processing simply because of
the lack of documentation. The IRS has procedures in place specifically
for the evaluation of questionable credit claims early in the processing
stream and prior to issuance of a refund. The IRS continues to work to
refine and improve our processes."

So, who's the moron now, moron?

--
www.eWoodShop.com
Last update: 4/15/2010
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)
http://gplus.to/eWoodShop