"KristleBawl" <kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote in

news:ecYLfjhyHHA.5484@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl:

> Unortunately, I have seen people use this very 'benefit' as part of a

> bigger scheme, where she works as an "indepedent contractor" and never

> files anything (look it up, self-employed, taxes not deducted by

> employer) and he works a regular job, but they're not married, and he

> claims EIC because he pays child support. Grrrrrr!

>

 

First, I know what an independant contractor is. I've done contract work

myself.

 

The laws governing the EIC have been changed in recent years. With the

above situation, the problem is the _woman_ defrauding the government by

not filing and paying taxes if necessary. If she was smart, she should at

least do the taxes to see what the outcome would be. Depending on how

much she makes every year, she might be suprised.....

 

I've done people taxes for them as well. One woman was working as an

independant contractor, making ~$5000/yr, and the contracting was

babysitting for someone in her home for $100/week paid by cash, with no

deducted taxes. The tax forms were filled out just as the $5k was from a

'real' self-employed job, filled in a schedule 'C', all the other correct

forms, and everything else required by the IRS. This was for 3 or 4

consecutive tax years, and never questioned by the IRS, since all the

rules were followed, this is completely acceptable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> "DanS" wrote in message

> news:Xns997184E0843B8thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

>> Interestingly enough, see this:

>>

>> http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

>>

>> I know it's old, but I'm sure the numbers are similar.

>>

>> To summarize, the richest 1% of taxpayers pay over 1/3 of the income

>> taxes in this country.

>>

>> Also, the top 50% of taxpayers pay well over 90% of all personal

>> income taxes.

>>

>> Adam, you are probably also not familiar with the federal 'Earned

>> Income Credit' ? This is a giant benefit to lower-income taxpayers.

>> It's a refundable tax credit to benefit single parents mostly, of

>> which we know is a huge group. For many, the EIC wipes out their

>> federal tax laibility, and can usually result in a giant tax return.

>> Example, a worker that is eligible for the EIC makes $8000/yr., and

>> has paid $500 in federal taxes thru paycheck deductions.

>>

>> With an AGI of $8000, the federal tax liability is $803. If you

>> qualify for the EIC, with one child, your EIC is $2729. That is

>> refundable. That means this worker, that has earned $8000 and only

>> paid in $500, will receive a federal tax refund of $2426. ($2729 EIC

>> + $500 (payroll deductions) - $803, their tax liability.

>>

>> That $8000 just turned into over $10,000 just based on the EIC alone.

>>

>> THE GOVERNMENT JUST PAID THAT WORKER OVER $2000 TAX FREE TO EARN

>> $8000.

>

>

>

Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

news:ex#A3nZyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> Families in the States are smaller than ever before. The Baby Boomers

> are about to retire and collect social security. Hence, the need for

> young baby making crazy workers to pay for the Baby Boomers' pension

> check. Enter the Latinos, stage left. If they are legal, they pay

> taxes. If not, they don't. Hence, amnesty.

>

> Alias

 

Taxes will be paid if they make enough money.

 

Q: How much tax money does the federal government collect from a married

couples with 3 kids that earn $20000/year total ?

 

A: $0

 

 

 

$20000 AGI - $10,300 Standandard Decuction - $9900 (3 kids x $3,300 ea.)

= -$200.

 

So, no federal taxable income for this 'poor' family of 3.

 

Wait !! Add in the refundable EIC of $3800 they qualify for.

 

So, this families federal tax refund will include the $3800 for the EIC,

plus any federal income tax withheld.

 

In this instance, legalizing this family will cost the US government

almost $4000 a year, not counting any other benefits they receive.

 

I just don't see how legalizing millions of illegal aliens will bring in

a substantial amount of tax income.

 

(And yes I know, all aren't families of 3 children, but it probably

nearly averages out.

DanS wrote:

> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

> news:ex#A3nZyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>

>> Families in the States are smaller than ever before. The Baby Boomers

>> are about to retire and collect social security. Hence, the need for

>> young baby making crazy workers to pay for the Baby Boomers' pension

>> check. Enter the Latinos, stage left. If they are legal, they pay

>> taxes. If not, they don't. Hence, amnesty.

>>

>> Alias

>

> Taxes will be paid if they make enough money.

>

> Q: How much tax money does the federal government collect from a married

> couples with 3 kids that earn $20000/year total ?

>

> A: $0

>

>

>

> $20000 AGI - $10,300 Standandard Decuction - $9900 (3 kids x $3,300 ea.)

> = -$200.

>

> So, no federal taxable income for this 'poor' family of 3.

>

> Wait !! Add in the refundable EIC of $3800 they qualify for.

>

> So, this families federal tax refund will include the $3800 for the EIC,

> plus any federal income tax withheld.

>

> In this instance, legalizing this family will cost the US government

> almost $4000 a year, not counting any other benefits they receive.

>

> I just don't see how legalizing millions of illegal aliens will bring in

> a substantial amount of tax income.

>

> (And yes I know, all aren't families of 3 children, but it probably

> nearly averages out.

>

>

>

 

According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

 

Alias

(Sorry, that part was intended for other readers that might not know.)

 

I agree, but that was over 15 years ago, so I have no idea what she does

now.

 

I just have a problem with some people, like the ones in my example, that

cheat the system and hide income to avoid taxes. All that does is make it

harder on the honest people, like in your examples, to get all the benefits

they need, because the liars are getting the funds when they don't qualify.

 

On the other hand, after twenty years of working hard as a taxpayer, now

that I'm disabled, I see the flip side. If someone lies to avoid paying

taxes all their life, then retirement isn't going to be pleasant. What I'll

live on in my 70s is much less than what it would have been had I been able

to continue working until retirement age.

 

KB

 

"DanS" wrote in message

news:Xns99728008B5D41thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.142...

> "KristleBawl" wrote

>> Unortunately, I have seen people use this very 'benefit' as part of a

>> bigger scheme, where she works as an "indepedent contractor" and never

>> files anything (look it up, self-employed, taxes not deducted by

>> employer) and he works a regular job, but they're not married, and he

>> claims EIC because he pays child support. Grrrrrr!

>>

>

> First, I know what an independant contractor is. I've done contract work

> myself.

>

> The laws governing the EIC have been changed in recent years. With the

> above situation, the problem is the _woman_ defrauding the government by

> not filing and paying taxes if necessary. If she was smart, she should at

> least do the taxes to see what the outcome would be. Depending on how

> much she makes every year, she might be suprised.....

>

> I've done people taxes for them as well. One woman was working as an

> independant contractor, making ~$5000/yr, and the contracting was

> babysitting for someone in her home for $100/week paid by cash, with no

> deducted taxes. The tax forms were filled out just as the $5k was from a

> 'real' self-employed job, filled in a schedule 'C', all the other correct

> forms, and everything else required by the IRS. This was for 3 or 4

> consecutive tax years, and never questioned by the IRS, since all the

> rules were followed, this is completely acceptable.

Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

news:OXsCw4iyHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

> DanS wrote:

>> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

>> news:ex#A3nZyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>>

>>> Families in the States are smaller than ever before. The Baby

>>> Boomers are about to retire and collect social security. Hence, the

>>> need for young baby making crazy workers to pay for the Baby

>>> Boomers' pension check. Enter the Latinos, stage left. If they are

>>> legal, they pay taxes. If not, they don't. Hence, amnesty.

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> Taxes will be paid if they make enough money.

>>

>> Q: How much tax money does the federal government collect from a

>> married couples with 3 kids that earn $20000/year total ?

>>

>> A: $0

>>

>>

>>

>> $20000 AGI - $10,300 Standandard Decuction - $9900 (3 kids x $3,300

>> ea.) = -$200.

>>

>> So, no federal taxable income for this 'poor' family of 3.

>>

>> Wait !! Add in the refundable EIC of $3800 they qualify for.

>>

>> So, this families federal tax refund will include the $3800 for the

>> EIC, plus any federal income tax withheld.

>>

>> In this instance, legalizing this family will cost the US government

>> almost $4000 a year, not counting any other benefits they receive.

>>

>> I just don't see how legalizing millions of illegal aliens will bring

>> in a substantial amount of tax income.

>>

>> (And yes I know, all aren't families of 3 children, but it probably

>> nearly averages out.

>>

>>

>>

>

> According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

>

> Alias

 

No, not true. Not at all what I am saying. And nothing like what I said.

 

What I am saying is lower-income _families_ do not pay a large percentage

of the total personal income taxes collected.

 

Lower income means up to like $25,000'ish, which I would think is much

more than the migrant workers would make annually.

 

This is the link I posted and _according to the treasury department_:

 

http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:58:07 -0500, DanS

<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

 

>> According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

>>

>> Alias

>

>No, not true. Not at all what I am saying. And nothing like what I said.

>

>What I am saying is lower-income _families_ do not pay a large percentage

>of the total personal income taxes collected.

 

That's because low income families don't earn much in wages. Duh! If

you realize it or not you are marching to the ultra right wing drum

beat where those kooks never want to pay their fair share of taxes,

they always support corporations making windfall profits, they want

their own tax shelters where you need six figure incomes or a sizable

net worth to take advantage of, they are all for wars, as long as

neither they non their kids get drafted to fight or die for your

country, then they moan and groan about the poor being able to get

affordable health insurance and make up moronic claims like the rich

are having the pockets picked to paid for it typically saying moronic

things like get a second or third job or the poor are poor because

they like to be. Sounds crazy to rational people. Then again most

people think right wingers are nuts. -)

>

>Lower income means up to like $25,000'ish, which I would think is much

>more than the migrant workers would make annually.

 

Apples and oranges. Can you please pick a topic and stay on it?

>

>This is the link I posted and _according to the treasury department_:

>

>http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

 

All you are doing is trying to find documentation to skew numbers to

your narrow point of view. I noticed when I showed you a graph that

shows the top 1% of the richest people in this country own or control

a full third of the country's wealth you didn't utter a peep about

that.

 

Here's my view.

 

Q. Who should pay the lion's share of federal taxes?

A. The rich, they can afford it and won't even miss it.

 

Q. Who actually supports the government?

A. That would be the long suffering middle class.

 

Q. Who under the idiot Bush got the most tax breaks?

A. The super rich, his base.

 

Need any more educating, let me know.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 14:48:50 -0400, "KristleBawl"

<kristlebawl@hotmail.com> wrote:

>(Sorry, that part was intended for other readers that might not know.)

>

>I agree, but that was over 15 years ago, so I have no idea what she does

>now.

>

>I just have a problem with some people, like the ones in my example, that

>cheat the system and hide income to avoid taxes.

 

Give me a break! The rich hide (the technical word is shelter) more

income than any other group and either get huge tax breaks or pay no

taxes at all on it. Ditto for many corporations.

>All that does is make it

>harder on the honest people, like in your examples, to get all the benefits

>they need, because the liars are getting the funds when they don't qualify.

 

Ditto for business owners. Remember, I used to be an auditor. -)

 

Here's a shocker for you to chew on that illustrates how inept the

federal government is. You know who is most likely not to repay their

student loans unwritten by the federal government? Doctors and

lawyers. Worse, many doctors that have refused to pay off their

student loans are reaping huge monthly payout's from Medicare and the

government doesn't do a damn thing about it and just keeps sending

them checks like clockwork instead of taking legal action to recover

the loan balances and withhold that from their Medicare

reimbursements.

 

You should also be aware that the Internal Revenue Service will latch

on to Joe Average's butt and not let go if you owe a few hundred

dollars in back taxes but some fat cat that owes hundreds of thousands

in back taxes, sometimes even millions, often can use some fancy pants

attorney to reach a settlement with the IRS where they pay back just

pennies on the dollar. This is a common tactic of the Hollywood

crowd, professional athletes, recording artists, etc., all that have

earned tens of millions of dollars and could have well afforded to pay

their taxes.

 

How do these two examples make you feel as a taxpayer?

 

Before picking on illegal's which seems to get some people's shorts

all bunched up consider this. These "illegal's" have had 300 billion

dollars in FICA taxes withheld from their wages over the years. A like

amount is kicked in by their employers. Most of that they will never

be able to collect in benefits, but Americans with valid social

security numbers will be able to reap the benefit of this windfall.

Further the Social Security System would be in far worse shape without

the estimated 7 billion "illegal's" contribute yearly just to FICA tax

withholding.

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote in

news:4hdv93p2svulndshvipfv80ikkkvtf7h6a@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:58:07 -0500, DanS

> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>

>

>>> According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>>No, not true. Not at all what I am saying. And nothing like what I

>>said.

>>

>>What I am saying is lower-income _families_ do not pay a large

>>percentage of the total personal income taxes collected.

>

> That's because low income families don't earn much in wages. Duh!

 

Really ? No kidding ?

> If you realize it or not you are marching to the ultra right wing drum

> beat where those kooks never want to pay their fair share of taxes,

> they always support corporations making windfall profits,

 

I do not.

> they want

> their own tax shelters where you need six figure incomes or a sizable

> net worth to take advantage of,

 

I don't think I'll ever have to worry about how to shelter a 6 figure

income.

> they are all for wars,

 

Not me. Bushwhacko should have never invaded Iraq.

> as long as

> neither they non their kids get drafted to fight or die for your

> country, then they moan and groan about the poor being able to get

> affordable health insurance

 

Nope. I believe that the system is horribly broken and health care should

either be government provided, or highly regulated as a not-for-profit

industry. (Although I know neither of those would probably work well, but

the current capitalistic business model certainly doesn't help the common

folk.)

> and make up moronic claims like the rich

> are having the pockets picked to paid for it typically saying moronic

> things like get a second or third job or the poor are poor because

> they like to be.

 

As I've stated, I'm FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from rich. Every penny I earn

goes towards mortgage payments on my 'luxury $75,000 mansion', groceries,

utility bills, and property & school taxes, and I drive an '89

Oldsmobile. And my bank account has a total of $300 in it. There's no

pension, retirement fund or 401K. That's it. I am poor.

 

If tomorrow I was involved in a horrible car accident and couldn't work,

you bet your ass I'd be knocking at the government door, it's that or

homelessness & starvation.

 

Of course, for 25 years I've been a law-abiding citizen, working, paying

my taxes, SS, and so on, and feel that I would be much more deserving of

receiving the government help when needed than the millions of illegals

if they are given amnesty.

 

Does that sound crazy to rational people ? Maybe, I don't know.

> Sounds crazy to rational people. Then again most

> people think right wingers are nuts. -)

>>

>>Lower income means up to like $25,000'ish, which I would think is much

>>more than the migrant workers would make annually.

>

> Apples and oranges. Can you please pick a topic and stay on it?

>>

>>This is the link I posted and _according to the treasury department_:

>>

>>http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

>

> All you are doing is trying to find documentation to skew numbers to

> your narrow point of view. I noticed when I showed you a graph that

> shows the top 1% of the richest people in this country own or control

> a full third of the country's wealth you didn't utter a peep about

> that.

 

I didn't see that post

> Here's my view.

>

> Q. Who should pay the lion's share of federal taxes?

> A. The rich, they can afford it and won't even miss it.

 

Isn't that what the wealthiest 50% of Americans pays well over 90% of all

personal income taxes means ?

>

> Q. Who actually supports the government?

> A. That would be the long suffering middle class.

 

(No answer as I'm not sure of the meaninf of 'supports' in this context.)

>

> Q. Who under the idiot Bush got the most tax breaks?

> A. The super rich, his base.

 

Great, the Bush administration is a joke, and no matter what you call my

views...right-wing...left-wing....chicken-wing....I don't care....I will

never have anything good to say about the current president.

In article <eat9KaHyHHA.4712@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>,

"HeyBub" <heybub@gmail.com> wrote:

> There are more MRI machines in Seattle (pop: 563,000) than in all of Canada

> (33 million).

 

Perhaps but accessing them is another story.

 

My wife went to her Dr. on Tuesday with a very sore back. Two working

day wait here.

On next Monday she gets an MRI re the back.

Cost= included in Canada's health care.

Location is Vancouver, BC.

This service is the same for EVERYONE!

 

My wife's friend who is a Prof. at a S. Carolina Univ. is scared to

retire. She now has a very good Univ. health plan.

When she retires she suddenly has no health care plan and faces the

difficult task of finding a private insurer, then staying healthy enough

that she can afford it as well as having that insurer keeping her.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:18:15 -0500, DanS

<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>> Here's my view.

>>

>> Q. Who should pay the lion's share of federal taxes?

>> A. The rich, they can afford it and won't even miss it.

>

>Isn't that what the wealthiest 50% of Americans pays well over 90% of all

>personal income taxes means ?

 

That's like saying fat people eat more food than thin people. Duh!

 

You said much of your income goes towards paying off a mortgage.

That's because that item represents a large portion of your total

disposable income. It's worse for poorer people that likely are paying

rent and don't see any benefit from owning a home. Look at what the

idiot Bush did. He gave the super rich a tax break they neither earned

or needed. About the best excuse the greedy bastards that liked the

giveaway said they paid the tax, why shouldn't they get it back like

everybody else.

 

The right wing crowd tries to argue everyone should get a tax break.

The point is Joe Average got enough to maybe take out the wife out and

have a nice dinner. The rich in many cases got back $20,000, $50,000

or more. They probably bought a third or fourth car on went on a

extended vacation.

 

It's the same with the so-called death tax or estate tax. It only

applies to people that stand to inherit a windfall. Joe Average will

never see a dime in tax savings but he's paying for it because to give

the rich that kind of a break they don't need will cost the government

dearly, most estimates say hundreds of billions of dollars in lost

revenue.

 

http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm

 

The greediest segment in America oddly are the people that are already

rich. They always want more giveaways from the government.

>> Q. Who actually supports the government?

>> A. That would be the long suffering middle class.

>

>(No answer as I'm not sure of the meaninf of 'supports' in this context.)

>

>>

>> Q. Who under the idiot Bush got the most tax breaks?

>> A. The super rich, his base.

>

>Great, the Bush administration is a joke, and no matter what you call my

>views...right-wing...left-wing....chicken-wing....I don't care....I will

>never have anything good to say about the current president.

 

We can agree on that much. -)

 

Learn about another greedy bastard, Shoot em in the face Cheney.

 

This jerk was a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief

act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions,

which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that

would have applied absent the Katrina legislation.

 

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html

 

Now before the dim bulbs think Cheney was a swell guy to give millions

to charity, understand he only gave $32,000 in 2003.

 

Why did he give so much in 2005? Because being allowed to deduct

nearly 7 million in contribution due solely to the Hurricane tax

relief act, he was able to reduce his taxable income by a huge amount

again cheating the treasury out of what he would have otherwise had to

pay.

 

Just another example how the super rich play the system and guys like

you that can't stop moaning that poor people don't pay enough taxes

just don't understand how the game is played.

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html

Are you still peddling your trash here. Go away and find a political list.

 

--

Ian

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:5ikv939ushv295od4kl8sdupse3mq1jr0h@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 15:18:15 -0500, DanS

> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>

>>> Here's my view.

>>>

>>> Q. Who should pay the lion's share of federal taxes?

>>> A. The rich, they can afford it and won't even miss it.

>>

>>Isn't that what the wealthiest 50% of Americans pays well over 90% of all

>>personal income taxes means ?

>

> That's like saying fat people eat more food than thin people. Duh!

>

> You said much of your income goes towards paying off a mortgage.

> That's because that item represents a large portion of your total

> disposable income. It's worse for poorer people that likely are paying

> rent and don't see any benefit from owning a home. Look at what the

> idiot Bush did. He gave the super rich a tax break they neither earned

> or needed. About the best excuse the greedy bastards that liked the

> giveaway said they paid the tax, why shouldn't they get it back like

> everybody else.

>

> The right wing crowd tries to argue everyone should get a tax break.

> The point is Joe Average got enough to maybe take out the wife out and

> have a nice dinner. The rich in many cases got back $20,000, $50,000

> or more. They probably bought a third or fourth car on went on a

> extended vacation.

>

> It's the same with the so-called death tax or estate tax. It only

> applies to people that stand to inherit a windfall. Joe Average will

> never see a dime in tax savings but he's paying for it because to give

> the rich that kind of a break they don't need will cost the government

> dearly, most estimates say hundreds of billions of dollars in lost

> revenue.

>

> http://www.cbpp.org/3-16-05tax.htm

>

> The greediest segment in America oddly are the people that are already

> rich. They always want more giveaways from the government.

>

>>> Q. Who actually supports the government?

>>> A. That would be the long suffering middle class.

>>

>>(No answer as I'm not sure of the meaninf of 'supports' in this context.)

>>

>>>

>>> Q. Who under the idiot Bush got the most tax breaks?

>>> A. The super rich, his base.

>>

>>Great, the Bush administration is a joke, and no matter what you call my

>>views...right-wing...left-wing....chicken-wing....I don't care....I will

>>never have anything good to say about the current president.

>

> We can agree on that much. -)

>

> Learn about another greedy bastard, Shoot em in the face Cheney.

>

> This jerk was a major beneficiary of the Hurricane Katrina tax relief

> act. In particular, he claimed $6.8 million of charitable deductions,

> which is 77% of his AGI -- well in excess of the 50% limitation that

> would have applied absent the Katrina legislation.

>

> http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2006/04/kirsch_cheney_t.html

>

> Now before the dim bulbs think Cheney was a swell guy to give millions

> to charity, understand he only gave $32,000 in 2003.

>

> Why did he give so much in 2005? Because being allowed to deduct

> nearly 7 million in contribution due solely to the Hurricane tax

> relief act, he was able to reduce his taxable income by a huge amount

> again cheating the treasury out of what he would have otherwise had to

> pay.

>

> Just another example how the super rich play the system and guys like

> you that can't stop moaning that poor people don't pay enough taxes

> just don't understand how the game is played.

>

> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-5.html

>

>

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 22:42:38 +0100, "Ian Betts" <igb123@talktalk.net>

wrote:

>Are you still peddling your trash here. Go away and find a political list.

 

Still trying to be a control freak I see. Well junior, you'll have to

wait in line, lots of others here have the same idea. Now run along

kid.

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote in

news:8cev93pnrrlplo4jpokt1q4mimadsu1cv5@4ax.com:

> Before picking on illegal's which seems to get some people's shorts

> all bunched up consider this. These "illegal's" have had 300 billion

> dollars in FICA taxes withheld from their wages over the years. A like

> amount is kicked in by their employers. Most of that they will never

> be able to collect in benefits, but Americans with valid social

> security numbers will be able to reap the benefit of this windfall.

> Further the Social Security System would be in far worse shape without

> the estimated 7 billion "illegal's" contribute yearly just to FICA tax

> withholding.

 

Here's an article form 2003, about 2001 (why is it so hard to find

anything really current?). And at that time, the estimate was 9,000,000

illegal aliens.

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/14/politics/main549153.shtml

 

'About 366,000 returns were filed using individual taxpayer

identification numbers in 2001, according to IRS data from that year, the

most recent information available. People with the tax numbers reported

wages of almost $7 billion and paid almost $305 million in taxes,

according to the IRS......'

 

Funny, you say they contribute $7 billion. This article says they

*reported wages* of $7 billion, and *contributed* $305 milion. That's

roughly $900 per filer. A drop in the bucket for taxes. So (in 2001), SSI

contributions on $7 billion are about $1 billion with the employers

contribution.

 

If your saying there are now 63,000,000 illegal aliens, then your numbers

might be right.

 

-------------------------------------

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_

04.txt (2004)

 

'California's nearly 3 million illegal immigrants cost taxpayers nearly

$9 billion each year, according to a new report released last week by the

Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based

group that promotes stricter immigration policies.'

-------------------------------------

 

That's all.

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:02:02 -0500, DanS

<t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>'About 366,000 returns were filed using individual taxpayer

>identification numbers in 2001, according to IRS data from that year, the

>most recent information available. People with the tax numbers reported

>wages of almost $7 billion and paid almost $305 million in taxes,

>according to the IRS......'

 

Don't you pay attention? You're mixing apples and oranges again.

You're talking income tax returns filed, I'm referring to FICA taxes

for Social Security purposes that's automatically withheld and has

absolutely nothing to do with filling a tax return.

>

>Funny, you say they contribute $7 billion.

 

They do each year, in withheld FICA taxes. Their employers pay another

7 billion. What don't you understand?

>If your saying there are now 63,000,000 illegal aliens, then your numbers

>might be right.

 

I said no such thing. Why do people try to make stuff up or are they

just plain stupid?

* Adam Albright:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:02:02 -0500, DanS

> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>

>> 'About 366,000 returns were filed using individual taxpayer

>> identification numbers in 2001, according to IRS data from that year, the

>> most recent information available. People with the tax numbers reported

>> wages of almost $7 billion and paid almost $305 million in taxes,

>> according to the IRS......'

>

> Don't you pay attention? You're mixing apples and oranges again.

> You're talking income tax returns filed, I'm referring to FICA taxes

> for Social Security purposes that's automatically withheld and has

> absolutely nothing to do with filling a tax return.

>> Funny, you say they contribute $7 billion.

>

> They do each year, in withheld FICA taxes. Their employers pay another

> 7 billion. What don't you understand?

 

These illegal immigrants who are letting taxes be taken out, are

doing so under stolen Social Security numbers... which has caused

many problems for those folks who actually own those numbers,

sooner or later. This is a *huge* problem.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6814673/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/17/ap/national/mainD8I9KEEG0.shtml

http://www.smartmoney.com/debt/advice/index.cfm?story=ssn2004

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/3502003.html

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/04/news/id.php

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2006/02/ss_secret_stash.html

 

Most illegal immigrants work for cash under the table.

That way, neither the illegal immigrant or the employer

pay taxes.

 

 

-Michael

DanS wrote:

> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

> news:OXsCw4iyHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>

>> DanS wrote:

>>> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

>>> news:ex#A3nZyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>>>

>>>> Families in the States are smaller than ever before. The Baby

>>>> Boomers are about to retire and collect social security. Hence, the

>>>> need for young baby making crazy workers to pay for the Baby

>>>> Boomers' pension check. Enter the Latinos, stage left. If they are

>>>> legal, they pay taxes. If not, they don't. Hence, amnesty.

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>>> Taxes will be paid if they make enough money.

>>>

>>> Q: How much tax money does the federal government collect from a

>>> married couples with 3 kids that earn $20000/year total ?

>>>

>>> A: $0

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> $20000 AGI - $10,300 Standandard Decuction - $9900 (3 kids x $3,300

>>> ea.) = -$200.

>>>

>>> So, no federal taxable income for this 'poor' family of 3.

>>>

>>> Wait !! Add in the refundable EIC of $3800 they qualify for.

>>>

>>> So, this families federal tax refund will include the $3800 for the

>>> EIC, plus any federal income tax withheld.

>>>

>>> In this instance, legalizing this family will cost the US government

>>> almost $4000 a year, not counting any other benefits they receive.

>>>

>>> I just don't see how legalizing millions of illegal aliens will bring

>>> in a substantial amount of tax income.

>>>

>>> (And yes I know, all aren't families of 3 children, but it probably

>>> nearly averages out.

>>>

>>>

>>>

>> According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

>>

>> Alias

>

> No, not true. Not at all what I am saying. And nothing like what I said.

>

> What I am saying is lower-income _families_ do not pay a large percentage

> of the total personal income taxes collected.

>

> Lower income means up to like $25,000'ish, which I would think is much

> more than the migrant workers would make annually.

 

Wrong.

 

Alias

>

> This is the link I posted and _according to the treasury department_:

>

> http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

>

>

On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:48:29 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>

wrote:

 

>Most illegal immigrants work for cash under the table.

 

Totally unsupported and based on Urban myth.

 

The majority of "illegals" work in factories, meat packing plants, the

service industry like Hotels, Motels, Restaurants, in construction,

janitorial services and so on. Employers under federal law withhold

FICA taxes and the employer has to report what's called taxable wages

on form 941 on a quarterly basis. Of course there is always some under

the table activity going on, but not to the extent the uninformed

imagine and that is almost always mom and pop businesses that engage

in that. Sure, that too adds up, but it still is a drop in the bucket

compared to the millions of illegals receiving a paycheck and having

taxes withheld.

 

True, many workers have 'fake' social security numbers and also fake

green cards. Trust me, I was an auditor in the 70's and know first

hand how bad this abuse is. I can only imagine how much worse it is

now.

 

The dirty little secret is the feds know where these employees are

working, they know the social security numbers are phony because guess

what, the employer gets a report that kicks back invalid or improper

social security numbers when the employer reports wages under wrong SS

numbers on their 941 forms.

 

The employers are asked to correct this information, but that's about

all. The feds don't do much about it, few raids, since were talking

billions the feds rake in and they're not about to refuse that kind of

windfall. That's one of the real reasons Congress doesn't really do

anything about the "illegal" problem, our economy depends on them and

it helps fund the Social Security fund.

Go argue you tiresome ideas somewhere else you two. Who want to know what

the US economy is doing anyway.

 

--

Ian

 

"Alias" <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in message

news:#j9cCGmyHHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> DanS wrote:

>> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

>> news:OXsCw4iyHHA.600@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>>> DanS wrote:

>>>> Alias <aka@maskedandanonymous.info> wrote in

>>>> news:ex#A3nZyHHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:

>>>>> Families in the States are smaller than ever before. The Baby

>>>>> Boomers are about to retire and collect social security. Hence, the

>>>>> need for young baby making crazy workers to pay for the Baby

>>>>> Boomers' pension check. Enter the Latinos, stage left. If they are

>>>>> legal, they pay taxes. If not, they don't. Hence, amnesty.

>>>>>

>>>>> Alias

>>>> Taxes will be paid if they make enough money.

>>>>

>>>> Q: How much tax money does the federal government collect from a

>>>> married couples with 3 kids that earn $20000/year total ?

>>>>

>>>> A: $0

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>>> $20000 AGI - $10,300 Standandard Decuction - $9900 (3 kids x $3,300

>>>> ea.) = -$200.

>>>>

>>>> So, no federal taxable income for this 'poor' family of 3.

>>>>

>>>> Wait !! Add in the refundable EIC of $3800 they qualify for.

>>>>

>>>> So, this families federal tax refund will include the $3800 for the

>>>> EIC, plus any federal income tax withheld.

>>>>

>>>> In this instance, legalizing this family will cost the US government

>>>> almost $4000 a year, not counting any other benefits they receive.

>>>>

>>>> I just don't see how legalizing millions of illegal aliens will bring

>>>> in a substantial amount of tax income.

>>>>

>>>> (And yes I know, all aren't families of 3 children, but it probably

>>>> nearly averages out.

>>>>

>>>>

>>>>

>>> According to you, practically no one pays taxes in the USA?

>>>

>>> Alias

>>

>> No, not true. Not at all what I am saying. And nothing like what I said.

>>

>> What I am saying is lower-income _families_ do not pay a large percentage

>> of the total personal income taxes collected.

>>

>> Lower income means up to like $25,000'ish, which I would think is much

>> more than the migrant workers would make annually.

>

> Wrong.

>

> Alias

>>

>> This is the link I posted and _according to the treasury department_:

>>

>> http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/js1287.htm

>>

>>

>

>

* Adam Albright:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:48:29 -0400, MICHAEL <u158627_emr2@dslr.net>

> wrote:

>

>

>> Most illegal immigrants work for cash under the table.

>

> Totally unsupported and based on Urban myth.

>

> The majority of "illegals" work in factories, meat packing plants, the

> service industry like Hotels, Motels, Restaurants, in construction,

> janitorial services and so on. Employers under federal law withhold

> FICA taxes and the employer has to report what's called taxable wages

> on form 941 on a quarterly basis. Of course there is always some under

> the table activity going on, but not to the extent the uninformed

> imagine and that is almost always mom and pop businesses that engage

> in that. Sure, that too adds up, but it still is a drop in the bucket

> compared to the millions of illegals receiving a paycheck and having

> taxes withheld.

>

> True, many workers have 'fake' social security numbers and also fake

> green cards. Trust me, I was an auditor in the 70's and know first

> hand how bad this abuse is. I can only imagine how much worse it is

> now.

>

> The dirty little secret is the feds know where these employees are

> working, they know the social security numbers are phony because guess

> what, the employer gets a report that kicks back invalid or improper

> social security numbers when the employer reports wages under wrong SS

> numbers on their 941 forms.

>

> The employers are asked to correct this information, but that's about

> all. The feds don't do much about it, few raids, since were talking

> billions the feds rake in and they're not about to refuse that kind of

> windfall. That's one of the real reasons Congress doesn't really do

> anything about the "illegal" problem, our economy depends on them and

> it helps fund the Social Security fund.

 

Adam,

 

There have been a few studies done in the last few years, two

notable ones are by the Pew Hispanic Center and Center for Immigration

Studies. Yes, there are more and more illegal immigrants working

in regular paycheck jobs, which is one reason why the stolen Social Security

numbers problem has skyrocketed. However, these studies have found that

the majority of illegal immigrants are working for subcontractors.

This is especially true in the construction business, and most of these

subcontractors are paying under the table. Then you have lawn care

companies who also pay under the table, and as you mentioned many

small business "mom and pop" places do the same. Either way, however

it is being done, it's still against the law. Something needs to be done.

Massive deportation is not the answer, but neither is ignoring the problem.

I do agree with you, many in the government do not really want anything

done about it.... that includes Democrats and Republicans.

 

In North Carolina, there has been a dramatic increase in raids of larger

businesses suspected of using illegal immigrants. In Charlotte, there have

been raids of construction sites and even restaurants. Usually the bigger

businesses had illegal immigrants working with stolen SS numbers, and

in a few instances the situation was mixed with some being paid partly

under the table. Or, just the part-times being paid under he table.

But, here in Charlotte, most illegal workers at the construction sites and

restaurants were working strictly for cash. By the way, Charlotte is a booming

city with with massive construction going on, and the recent national downturn

in housing has not had much impact in Charlotte. I'll admit, if these illegal

immigrants were to disappear, a lot of construction might come to a

stand still and/or the costs would go up.

 

Anyway, I've said my piece. This isn't really the place for this and if you

want to discuss this past your reply to this, email me.

 

 

-Michael

Adam Albright <AA@ABC.net> wrote in

news:vcrv9354af35sdam94c7ccfu7s9q3ib3o0@4ax.com:

> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 17:02:02 -0500, DanS

> <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:

>

>>'About 366,000 returns were filed using individual taxpayer

>>identification numbers in 2001, according to IRS data from that year,

>>the most recent information available. People with the tax numbers

>>reported wages of almost $7 billion and paid almost $305 million in

>>taxes, according to the IRS......'

>

> Don't you pay attention? You're mixing apples and oranges again.

> You're talking income tax returns filed, I'm referring to FICA taxes

> for Social Security purposes that's automatically withheld and has

> absolutely nothing to do with filling a tax return.

 

Well Adam, for being a smart guy, you sure have trouble with math and

deducing information.

 

FICA taxes, directly withheld, yes, that is EXACTLY what I showed you.

 

I'll do the math again for you....

 

(2001)

 

$ 7 billion in reported wages from the 4% of the estimated illegal aliens

(9 million) that actually filed taxes.

 

*REPORTED WAGES* = gross earning, FICA deduction is 7.75% (now, was 7.65 in

2001).

 

Therefore, $7 Billion * 7.65% = $535,500,000 or $535 Million withheld.

 

NOW, and the employers contribution and you have $1.07 Billion a far cry

from what you claim as $7 Billion from the workers and $7 Billion matching

form the employer.

 

This was in 2001.

 

Now, in 2007, I couldn't find any more recent numbers, but to make the $7

billion (employee part only) from your claims, the amount of reported wages

must be 13 times the amount reported in 2001, $91 Billion. Or, instead of

4% reporting wages, 52% must be reporting wages. Or any combination of both

of those showing a SIGNIFICANT rise. (Yes, I understand there are more

illegals now than ever and that in itself would increase the total

contributions, but not to the extent you claim.)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------

 

Also, if you would have read the first link (from 2001), you'll see that

these are not being paid on stolen SSN's. These are being paid on taxpayer

ID numbers the IRS handed out which was strictly meant to be used for

paying taxes to the government.

 

"....submitted his federal return using an increasingly popular tax number

issued by the Internal Revenue Service to people who can't get Social

Security numbers."

 

But unfortunately, some institutions and other government agencies have

been accepting these for non-tax payer reasons.

Re: Michael Moore IS a Sicko

 

Personally I can't wait until this Big Fat Hypocrite has a heart attack

or something. Suddenly the U.S. health care system will be the best

in the world.

 

Mike

Re: Michael Moore IS a Sicko

 

Vicious and mean spirited aren't you?

 

Hypocrite???

 

--

I Bleed Blue and Gold

GO BEARS!

 

 

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message

news:no-D051BA.15362120072007@news.supernews.com...

> Personally I can't wait until this Big Fat Hypocrite has a heart attack

> or something. Suddenly the U.S. health care system will be the best

> in the world.

>

> Mike

Re: Michael Moore IS a Sicko

 

Mike <no@where.man> wrote in news:no-D051BA.15362120072007

@news.supernews.com:

> Personally I can't wait until this Big Fat Hypocrite has a heart attack

> or something. Suddenly the U.S. health care system will be the best

> in the world.

>

> Mike

>

 

Want to hear something totally unexpected that may never have been uttered

by anyone before ?.........

 

My employer just told me that the cost of my insurance premium is going

down $8/month !!!!!!!!!

 

Sure, it's only $8, but what amazing is the direction is down.

"Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

news:MPG.2105b9cfa26e43219897a4@adfree.Usenet.com...

> In article <u0QaJ77xHHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

> aka@maskedandanonymous.info says...

>> Trying to trot out a straw man again, eh? Address the fact that over 40

>> million US citizens have no health coverage if you can. The current

>> advances in medicine are not coming from the USA but Europe. The fact

>> that some Saudi Sheik who is having is ass kissed by Bush comes to the

>> USA to put him or herself at the front of the line for transplants

>> doesn't give the US health system much credibility.

>

> LOL, they were coming here before Bush, long before it, as were many

> other countries people.

>

> As for health care being offered to the masses, LOL, you get what you

> work for. From what I've seen and read, except for the basics, there is

> no quality health care in the mass-system in any country, only the rich

> get quality care that involves anything serious - unless you are willing

> to wait for a very long time.

 

 

i'm 62 years old, from the U.K. (thats in europe). I've never been a high

earner. after suffering angina two years ago i was diagnose with a heart

condition. very shortly after I was given a 'quadruple heart bypass'. it

cost nothing. and all my ongoing medications are free. national health

service....we love them. all doctors appointments are free, all

medications are free (older than 60 yrs), all referrals to consultants are

free and any subsequent operations or hospital care is yep you guessed it

....free.

 

the funny thing is that the u.k. doesn't rate compared with the u.s. in

terms of wealth. something wrong somewhere?

That's because US taxpayers are forced to give to the charity of lazy bums

called Welfare. We spend more on welfare than the military.

Every minority group and degenerate in the US has tricked people into

believing welfare helps the needy, when it in fact creates a income source

for bums, perpetually pregnant women, and part time drug dealers.

 

"johngood_____" <void@void.net> wrote in message

news:p7iAi.15803$ka7.9856@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

>

> "Leythos" <void@nowhere.lan> wrote in message

> news:MPG.2105b9cfa26e43219897a4@adfree.Usenet.com...

>> In article <u0QaJ77xHHA.4800@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl>,

>> aka@maskedandanonymous.info says...

>>> Trying to trot out a straw man again, eh? Address the fact that over 40

>>> million US citizens have no health coverage if you can. The current

>>> advances in medicine are not coming from the USA but Europe. The fact

>>> that some Saudi Sheik who is having is ass kissed by Bush comes to the

>>> USA to put him or herself at the front of the line for transplants

>>> doesn't give the US health system much credibility.

>>

>> LOL, they were coming here before Bush, long before it, as were many

>> other countries people.

>>

>> As for health care being offered to the masses, LOL, you get what you

>> work for. From what I've seen and read, except for the basics, there is

>> no quality health care in the mass-system in any country, only the rich

>> get quality care that involves anything serious - unless you are willing

>> to wait for a very long time.

>

>

> i'm 62 years old, from the U.K. (thats in europe). I've never been a

> high earner. after suffering angina two years ago i was diagnose with a

> heart condition. very shortly after I was given a 'quadruple heart

> bypass'. it cost nothing. and all my ongoing medications are free.

> national health service....we love them. all doctors appointments are

> free, all medications are free (older than 60 yrs), all referrals to

> consultants are free and any subsequent operations or hospital care is yep

> you guessed it ...free.

>

> the funny thing is that the u.k. doesn't rate compared with the u.s. in

> terms of wealth. something wrong somewhere?

>