kcjenkins

I really can't tell from the way you presented it, Eli. How much did he pay when he bought it? That amount, plus the dividend reinvested, would be the basis. You have a lot more info for the sale than you give us for the purchase, so I really can not follow the whole transaction.

By the way, this 'unofficial' draft version senators have access to for “discussion purposes only” is in small print and runs over 300 pages. Once the working draft is put into proper legislative form, it’s expected to be anywhere from 800 to 1,000 pages long. Ask yourself, would you buy anything, where the 'draft contract' you were to read before you sign was 30 pages long, but the actual, legal and binding 'Contract' was going to be 80 to 100 pages long, and you are to sign the 'draft', which will then be treated as if you had signed the official Contract?

Because this is so important, and because the media and the Congress have been so quiet on the details, here is a link to an actual copy of the proposed legislation, if anyone wants to see for themselves just what it does and does not contain. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Immigrati...legislation.cfm I suggest you use the 'read online' option, as this is a long bill but that option has an index that lets you go to any area you want to check out, etc.

And am I the only one who finds these quotes scary? Hillary Clinton, the likely candidate for the Democrats, said in June 2004, while opposing tax cuts, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." She also declared this past February, "The other day, the oil companies reported the highest profits in the history of the world. I want to take those profits and I want to put them in a strategic energy fund that will begin to fund alternative, smart energy alternatives and technology that will begin to actually move us toward the direction of independence." I am 63, and I have never before heard a major national candidate for President make even one statement that sounded nearly that Communistic. Have we all forgotten History? Have the many examples of the failure of Communistic societies to work been just written out of our text books, and thus out of the minds of the voters? Are we so eager for the government to give us things for free, that our greed has overtaken our common sense?

That is correct: Hickory Dickory Dock The Mouse Ran Up The Clock The Clock Struck One The Mouse Ran Down Hickory Dickory Dock

But who does the clean-up, Jeannie? :D

I agree, SCL, the sort of discussion we have here, which I have never seen [even in the old Community] be other than very general, clearly does not raise to the level of price-fixing. Keep in mind, also, that merely discussing in general terms your 'average' charge for a particular form or type of return is very different than working together to agree to charge that amount across a group or an area, as is done in price-fixing. Talking about what WE consider a fair price for X is very different than colluding to set a price for it. Frankly, I can not imagine any way to set up 'standard' prices, anyway, when both the complexity of the individual client's return, and the level of expertise and experience of the preparers varies so widely. Then there is the variance in local competition, cost of living, type of practice, etc....

It seems to me if they build the fence in the high traffic areas, they can then use both enhanced technology and extra guards to deal with it in the limited areas where the wildlife commonly crosses, which the rangers should have a good knowledge of. And remember, too, that the traffic and pollution that the invaders bring with them are a danger to the wildlife, too. Also, those cats do not need large openings, they can slip through small ones that are easily guarded. I'm all for protecting the wildlife, but I'm for protecting our boarders too. The two are not mutually exclusive, you know.

What are the next three letters in this sequence: HDD TMRUTC TCSO TMRD

The fact is, most Democrats and Republicans want to make the bulk of Bush's tax cuts permanent for low- and middle-income Americans, including the family child credit, ending the marriage penalty and the capital-gains-dividend tax reductions. By itself, this could pass both houses tomorrow. Yet the Democrats refuse to let it be voted on by itself. That is the real issue.

In each of the last three cuts in marginal tax rates, revenues received by the U.S. Treasury have increased. Coolidge cut tax rates in the 1920s, Kennedy cut marginal tax rates in the 1960s, and Reagan cut them in the 1980s. Under Coolidge, marginal tax rates were cut from the top rate of 73% to 24%. The economy rewarded this policy by expanding 59% from 1921 to 1929. Revenues received by the federal treasury increased from $719 million in 1921 to more than $1.1 billion 1929. That's a 61% increase (there was zero inflation in this period). Growth averaged more than six percent annually. We are currently growing at 2.5%. Under Kennedy, marginal tax rates were cut from a top rate of 91% to 70%. In real dollar terms, the economy grew by 42%, an average of 5 percent a year from 1961 to 1965. Tax revenue to the U.S. Treasury increased by 62%. Adjusted for inflation, they rose by one-third. Under Reagan, marginal tax rates were cut from a top of 70% to 28%. Revenues (from all taxes) to the U.S. Treasury nearly doubled. According to the Budget of the U.S. Government, FY 1997, Office of Management and Budget. Revenues increased from roughly $500 billion in 1980 to $1.1 trillion in 1990. In each case, the personal income taxes paid by "the rich" increased when their tax rates were cut. The top 10 percent of earners in the Reagan years paid 48% of the income tax burden between 1981 and 1988. Martin Feldstien, professor of economics at Harvard, estimates that the U.S. Treasury would have collected two-thirds more revenue during the first three years of the Clinton presidency had his administration NOT raised taxes. It should be stressed, however, that the economy of the 1990s has grown moderately, in spite of tax increases, not because of them. The reason that much of this data is ignored in debates is politics, pure politics. It pays to engage in class warfare if you are a politician because it divides voters against each other. When the perception is that only the "rich" will profit from a tax cut, such policies become difficult to sell because those labeled as "rich" tend to be in the minority. In addition, politicians have a stake in keeping the tax code complex because it allows them to extract campaign donations and favors from people and corporations who derive huge benefits from special tax laws and exemptions in return. http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=676 In 2003, the most recent year we have IRS stats for, the top 10% of all filers, those with an adjusted income of a least $94,900, bore 66 percent of the income tax burden. Here are some other good links. http://www.ncpa.org/edo/bb/2004/20040407bb.htm http://www.e-quadnews.com/index.php/m/arti...%20Tax%20Burden

Robert Novak's column today is one every one should read, no matter which side of the aisle you favor. WASHINGTON, D.C. -- In routine party-line votes last week, both houses of Congress completed action on a Democratic-crafted budget containing the biggest tax increase in U.S. history. That this was overlooked attests to the legerdemain of Sen. Kent Conrad of Bismarck, N.D., chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. Conrad, a 59-year-old third-termer, is a monotone orator whose use of statistical charts betrays his dozen years as a North Dakota state tax collector. He seems so straight an arrow that it is hard to accuse him of the big lie. But that is precisely what he has done. Conrad has repeatedly insisted his budget contains no higher taxes. But how, then, can it increase discretionary spending $200 billion over five years, while promising immense budget surpluses in the future? By raising taxes not only on upper-bracket income earners but also on dividends and capital gains, affecting many more Americans. Conrad has been in denial. After I described his budget as an old-fashioned Democratic tax-and-spend formula on March 28, Conrad wrote a letter to newspapers accusing me of "blind ideology and meaningless partisan rhetoric." His budget, he said, "neither assumes nor requires a tax increase." That is exactly what he has been saying for months on the Senate floor. A typical exchange occurred May 9, when Republican Sen. John Thune displayed spend-and-tax charts. "Not true," responded Conrad. "There is no tax increase in the proposal before us." In the final debate last Thursday, Conrad again contradicted the assertions of higher taxes by his Republican counterpart on the Budget Committee, Sen. Judd Gregg. Different in kind from normal congressional debate, this is based not on the merits of higher taxes but disagreement on the existence of any increase. The mystery is easily solved. Under the Democratic budget, the Bush administration's tax cuts are permitted to expire at the end of 2010. That means higher taxes if Congress does nothing. Conrad has defended his no-tax-increase claim on grounds that the Democratic budget's five-year revenues total $14.827 trillion, compared with a "virtually identical" $14.826 trillion in President Bush's budget. But he is comparing apples and oranges -- calculations by the Congressional Budget Office and by the Office of Management and Budget using varying techniques and economic assumptions. That they are so close to each other was an accident. After months of Conrad's assurances that his budget contained no tax increases, the Senate adopted, 97 to one, an amendment by Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus that decreased estimated revenues by $195 billion. It would save the child tax credit, marriage penalty relief, estate tax decreases and other expiring tax proposals. If the budget "does not raise taxes," asked Rep. Paul Ryan, ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, on May 10, "why has there been a discussion about whether or not to adopt the Baucus amendment?" It survived in the final version of the resolution. Conrad's insistence has affected the way the budget resolution has been reported. The Associated Press account never mentions tax increases. The Wall Street Journal's headline cautiously refers to a "partial lapse of tax cuts." Conrad's fellow Democrats in the Senate buy into his euphemisms. Not a single Democratic senator voted against the tax-increasing budget -- not even Nebraska's Ben Nelson, who often departs from the party line and who supported the Bush tax cuts. But the budget resolution's tax increases sounded a warning signal for the House, which passed it by only 214 to 209. Until now, the new Democratic majority in the House has been solid amid substantial Republican defections. But no Republican member voted for the budget, while 13 Democrats opposed it. Of the defectors, left-wing Rep. Dennis Kucinich voted no because he said the budget would fund President Bush's Iraqi war effort throughout his term. The other 12 were moderates, including six freshmen who defeated Republicans last year. One freshman was Rep. Harry E. Mitchell of Arizona, who upset Rep. J.D. Hayworth in the heavily Republican Tempe district. "I simply cannot support a budget that allows key tax cuts to expire," said Mitchell, calling for extended capital gains and estate tax cuts. Kent Conrad didn't fool Harry Mitchell.

Yep, that is pretty much how it usually works. Although some men DO actually watch the meat on their own, even baste and turn it without guidance. A few even mix the BBQ sauce, although they normally leave it to the women to clean up the mess they make doing that!

I doubt it. Although she might consider suing the adviser who messed her up.

Tomorrow, when support is open, call them and they should be able to help you. Ask for an interactive session with a tech, as they have the tools to fix almost any problem for you once they take over your computer.

You should NEVER, EVER, EVER, buy Postal money orders. Not only do they cost more than the other Money Orders you can buy, they will not even start trying to track a lost one until after 30 days. You can track a Western Union one in a day, stop it, and get a replacement the same day. Even the 99¢ ones you buy at 7/11 and such stores can be canceled and replaced in just a day or two.

As one of the Moderators here, I will tell you that I have no problem at all with the discussion of rates. I doubt that they serve much purpose, because each client is different, and any experienced preparer will charge according to his or her own system, considering not only the forms, what local rates may be, but also the PITA factor of each client, etc. But it is hardly 'price-fixing' for a group of unaffiliated people to merely discuss how they may charge. Since any corp return is going to depend in large part on the quality of the bookkeeping of the business, it is really nutty, IMHO, to even try to have a 'standard' price for such forms. But, hey, if you want to do it, it's your pocketbook, and your time, so it's OK by me. One thing is for sure, that is NOT what price-fixing means.

Well, the only real benefit I see is simply that when the inevitable change comes along, you will not have to worry about running out and buying 2¢ or 3¢ stamps for the number of remaining stamps on hand. You will just keep using them until they are gone, and then buy more. If you buy them not to 'hold' and save, but just buy them all the time, routinely, you will not be 'investing' but you will be covered when the change does come.

"IRS Commissioner Named to Lead Red Cross" -- Washington Post headline I always heard they could get blood from a stone.................................LOL

It's intent may be similar, but it's wording goes a LOT further than anything in our code. ;~)

Not true, I have a roll of them in my drawer.

I sent mine through PayPal, and it went through very smoothly.

Only the taxing arm of government could manage to so screw up such a simple thing as this 'standard' refund. Thankfully, in most every case, the amount of imputed interest will be too small to make a difference if it is left off on the 2007 return. As it will be on almost all returns.

Interesting. If you go to CCH home and then select the CCH Tax Message Board, it takes you to a message saying: Valued CCH Tax Message Board Users: In order to focus our efforts on quickly providing you a modern and improved CCH Tax Message Board, we are temporarily taking down the current board. We are working diligently on the new solution, and fully expect to have it available for you in the very near future. Thank you for your patience. BUT, if you had saved a link to that board, as I have, and use the link to go directly to it, the board is still there. However, it has clearly been the target of malicious spam, with all the new posts being ugly. I certainly hope none of our friends is the cause of that spam, because I am sure that they will track it and try to prosecute whoever is sending all that garbage. As they should.

That would be Albert Einstein.