Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I'm still waiting for something bad to be proven.

---

So you have zero good things?

==============================

---

Jack has zero forethought G. He is unable through careful consideration to determine what will be necessary, or may happen in the future.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
In the history of the USA, lower tax rates have never lead to higher revenues. I can link the Treasury's "revenues" tables, if you like.

And while Reagan may have cut the tax RATES, his "reforms" eliminated a lot of deductions for the middle class (such as interest rate payments on loans in general, not just mortgages) and actually INCREASED the tax burden on the middle class by subjecting more of their income to taxes.

The concept (lower tax rates/ lower taxes = higher growth = higher revenues) is a valid theoretical one, but it's on the SAME CURVE where higher tax rates = higher revenues. This connection only comes into play when the taxes and tax rates are SO high (90% across the board) that they reduce consumption and therefore demand, and only in a closed economy where that increased demand does not translate to more jobs ...in China.

We should have this discussion with data on the table, otherwise we're just spinning our wheels. But I can tell you from a historical standpoint that as far as I can tell, for the USA and for every European nation that I can think of, this concept remains theoretical.

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

The tax rate was over 70% when Reagan took office. It made sense to lower it. He lowered them to 28%. He then raised them 11 times in the form of doing away with deductions.

What the republicans are attempting to do now, is what they've always done. Take care of those at the top who fund their campaigns.

I would note, most of wall street funds democrats. They speak out on occasion about the bullshit the Republicans pull concerning taxes. It's the ones who fund the lobbyists for these tax breaks that hold the most power in Washington. They are the Republican donor class.

It's like the racists and bigots that are now controlling the Republican Party. They only represent 30 or so percent of the Republican Party, but if they withdraw their support the party is doomed. It's the same when it comes to the Republican donor class.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.


==============================

---

That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.

Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
If there were any kind of remotely plausible way to generate an analysis that said this tax plan would pay for itself — or even come close to paying for itself — the Republican Party would find some way to produce the actual analysis. They haven’t produced such an analysis.

Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has been saying that his team will release a “dynamic” analysis of the Republican tax plan that will reveal its growth-boosting effects to be so incredible that they put deficit worries to rest.

Guess what? Mnuchin was lying:

www.nytimes.com/2017/11/30/us/politics/treasury-analysis-tax-bill.html
?_r=0

Mr. Mnuchin has promised that Treasury will release its analysis in full. Yet, just one day before the full Senate prepares to vote on a sweeping tax rewrite, the administration has yet to produce the type of economic analysis that it is citing as a reason to pass the tax cut.

Those inside Treasury’s Office of Tax Policy, which Mr. Mnuchin has credited with running the models, say they have been largely shut out of the process and are not working on the type of detailed analysis that he has mentioned. An economist at the Office of Tax Analysis, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his job, said Treasury had not released a “dynamic” analysis showing that the tax plan would be paid for with economic growth because one did not exist.

---

On the money SECOND. This, as the health care plan, is being done without regard to due process. It is being done behind closed doors by a few without the input of the Senate or the house.


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:

That is the point G. That has always been the point. So why do the Republicans always get away with Raising taxes on those with less? I think todays politics sheds a light on that. It may just be because of the bigotry within the party. The Republicans sell it as though to many who don't belong here, or are freeloaders, are getting free money. Just look at how people like JSF turn on their own when it comes to being centered on issues. Inclusive instead of reclusive.

Hate G, perhaps hate is behind the Republican success when it comes to giveaways to the rich. I have to add stupidity as a reason for their success. Some are so blinded by hate they make really stupid decisions based on really stupid politics. Again, I hold up JSF as an example.

---

Approving of and encouraging hate is like a drug for some people, and Trump is the dealer. It was interesting to read an article that interviewed Trump voters who to a person said they will vote for him again in 2020.

"Why?"
"He does what he says he will."
"Like what? There's no wall."
"Not his fault..."

like that on and on and after each item, "not his fault."

They seem most perturbed about the NFL players and happy at how Trump had called them out.

"You know what N-F-L stands for? N*ggers For Life."

I don't know if I already posted this here but it dawned on me the other day that apart from Trump being president the biggest thing the bugged me about now is this isn't a glitch. No matter what level of Russian influence there was, the Trump voter is real, they live here, and they'll vote again. How can he still have a 30% approval rating? It is unbelievable.

==============================

---

Populism 'the pure people' against 'the corrupt elite'? It works both ways. The minorities against the corrupt whites. To me, both parties are guilty of this destructive messaging. Both parties are responsible for Trump.


T

Quote:

---

Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy ...

---

IN CHINA. OR SOUTH KOREA.

What would you do with that money?
Get a new phone? Where is it made? China.
Buy a new frig? Where is THAT made? South Korea.
New clothes? Vietnam.
A new purse? Bangladesh.
Household supplies from Walmart? China

There is only one way you would definitely "stimulate" the economy here at home - Buy an in-person service: restaurant meals, lap dances, or medical care. If you're going to buy a manufactured item, you would be hard-pressed to find a product which was MOSTLY made in the USA.

---

While I do have some problems with globalization I am not the fatalist you are. Which is why you present a fatalist populist message whenever you discuss it.

Where something is made does not tell the whole story. For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there. The goods are shipped into this country. So much of that process provides Americans with jobs... so on and so on.

The point is to expose your posting as populist and destructive. This applies to most of the issues you post about.


T

Quote:

---

For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

For instance, the Walmart store is here so Americans work there.

---

And are paid so poorly that Walmart actually hands out brochures on how to apply for food stamps and other government aid.

Service jobs are not manufacturing jobs.

---

I love that we are having this discussion. Brief as it will be because you are an asshole troll who I'll tire of.

My response to you this time, is that no matter what is posted that has a positive outlook, you'll go negative, because that's the populist message. Unless it concerns Putin, Trump and Putins' ally's, like Trump. Did I mention Trump?


T

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:
Give us lowly citizens each a check for $500 and I guarantee we'd stimulate the economy and possibly, ultimately create the demand for new jobs... but you'd probably have to do it every year. I'd be wiling to bet that knowing my fellow citizens like I do a lot of people would get the $500 check and spend $750 - $1000.


==============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.

==============================

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

I've actually said that I would be a fan of a Universal Income of $12,000/yr for every American Citizen with a social security number. This is an idea that has been floated around by some economists for a few years.

The catch is, that it would be given to everybody. Every single person. Yes, the rich too. A completely neutral spending catalyst that would not be available to certain classes and not other classes. All people. The epitome of Equal Opportunity and a shining example of unequal outcome.

Most rich people wouldn't even blink before buying something stupid with it, but it would drastically improve the lives of the people who would need it the most. Chances are, most of it would be spent no matter who gets it.

My only condition I would put on it is that for the first 18 years it is put into a trust, and a child only gets the trust money if they complete high school and go to some form of secondary school. Either college or a trade school. This would also be a great incentive for kids to actually learn something while they're spending most of their time at state run daycare centers.

---

If the handout is too big then you'd have a nation of couch potatoes.

==============================

---

Quote:

---

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.

---

Quote:

---

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.

---

Quote:

---

Things don't have to be made in the US for their sales to profit the US businesses that sell them.

---

Quote:

---

If manufacturers were the sole profiteer from product sales, as you suggest, then you can bet you paycheck American manufacturing would be booming.

---

Quote:

---

Americans are greedy - we'd find a way to manufacture goods if there was so much profit in it.

---

Quote:

---

Rethink!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF:

Quote:

---

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.

---

At the same time that Reagan cut rates, he also subject MORE INCOME to taxes by eliminating a lot of personal deductions. Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut. It's easy to increase revenues if you give with one hand and take with two.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/e
conomy/reagan_years_taxes/


Also, during America's big boom years- post WWII to about 1960 - the tax RATES were much much higher- up to 90%. So high tax RATES ... as high as 94% .... didn't slow down the economy at all during those years.



Overall, tax cuts are not a huge driver of the economy, and never have been.

Other, MORE IMPORTANT, factors were at work then, such as the American dominance in manufacturing post-WWII, when all of the other manufacturing facilities had either been destroyed by the war (Germany, France, Japan, Italy) and/or were not yet developed (China). In today's crowded manufacturing environment, that kind of dominance will be impossible to achieve. The best you can hope for is parity and a neutral balance of trade.

Oh, and BTW- the top marginal tax RATE under Regan was 70%, not 78%.

Quote:

---

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I was old enough to be aware of politics when Reagan was running for President, and he promised
(1) a decrease in taxes
(2) an increase in government (DOD) spending ("Star Wars" anyone?), and
(3) a decrease in the deficit.
Common sense told me that the best he could hope to achieve was 2 out of 3, and anything else was just wishful thinking. As it turns out, he only met 1 out of 3 goals.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.

---

So you only had to go back 96 years - good catch. [ / snarkasm ]

BTW, do you have any HISTORICAL CONTEXT you want to use to give that some deeper understanding? Like how we were still coming out of WW1? And what happened right after that 1921-29 period? Something called "Great" but wasn't so great?? You just illustrated the dangers of using raw data to prove things.

==============================

---

Quote:

---

You are not making sense. He reduced the Tax RATES. The Revenue intake shifted towards high income earners paying more than the average or lower income earners. Your claims are implying the lower income earners ended up paying a greater share of the Tax burden, which is the opposite of truth and fact.

---

Quote:

---

Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ElvisChrist:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by G:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Some reality deniers keep claiming that history never actually happens, and the proven effect of Lower Tax RATES increasing Tax Revenue is absent from their indoctrinations.

The examples of these facts keep getting buried in other threads, so I'd like to put some examples in a common thread which can be referenced, either by specific posts, or the whole thread.

I'll detail some later.
Feel free to post examples you know about. Including years, rate changes, revenues, nations would be helpful.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Mellon was able to get Income Tax RATES lowered from 73% down to eventual 24% and Revenues from 1921 to 1929 increased from $719 Million to over $1 Billion, an average increase of 4.2% per year for 8 straight years. This info can be found in the wiki entry for Laffer Curve, which has a pile of BS as the regular info, but has a "History" link with some actual facts - including Keynes understanding this dynamic.

---

So you only had to go back 96 years - good catch. [ / snarkasm ]

BTW, do you have any HISTORICAL CONTEXT you want to use to give that some deeper understanding? Like how we were still coming out of WW1? And what happened right after that 1921-29 period? Something called "Great" but wasn't so great?? You just illustrated the dangers of using raw data to prove things.
==============================

---

He had to go back 96 years, and then his prime example of how great an idea this is resulted in the Great Depression.

Republicans just cannot think; it's that simple.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

You are not making sense. He reduced the Tax RATES. The Revenue intake shifted towards high income earners paying more than the average or lower income earners. Your claims are implying the lower income earners ended up paying a greater share of the Tax burden, which is the opposite of truth and fact.

---

Not implying that at all. What I posted was

Quote:

---

Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut.

---

Small and medium-sized businesses often don't bother to incorporate, so business income is often treated as personal income. You're right that the tax hike affected higher income earners more than lower.

But my main point about the effect of tax rate cuts in general remains: They don't stimulate the economy and therefore they don't increase revenues.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
JSF:

Quote:

---

Reaganomics Tax Cuts.

---

At the same time that Reagan cut rates, he also subject MORE INCOME to taxes by eliminating a lot of personal deductions. Many families and businesses saw a tax HIKE, not a tax cut. It's easy to increase revenues if you give with one hand and take with two.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/09/08/news/econo
my/reagan_years_taxes/


Also, during America's big boom years- post WWII to about 1960 - the tax RATES were much much higher- up to 90%. So high tax RATES ... as high as 94% .... didn't slow down the economy at all during those years.



Overall, tax cuts are not a huge driver of the economy, and never have been.

Other, MORE IMPORTANT, factors were at work then, such as the American dominance in manufacturing post-WWII, when all of the other manufacturing facilities had either been destroyed by the war (Germany, France, Japan, Italy) and/or were not yet developed (China). In today's crowded manufacturing environment, that kind of dominance will be impossible to achieve. The best you can hope for is parity and a neutral balance of trade.

Oh, and BTW- the top marginal tax RATE under Regan was 70%, not 78%.

Quote:

---

The four pillars of Reagan's economic policy were to reduce the growth of government spending, reduce the federal income tax and capital gains tax, reduce government regulation, and tighten the money supply in order to reduce inflation.[2] During Reagan's presidency, the national debt nearly tripled, and the U.S. went from being the world's largest creditor nation to the world's largest debtor nation in under eight years.

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

I was old enough to be aware of politics when Reagan was running for President, and he promised
(1) a decrease in taxes
(2) an increase in government (DOD) spending ("Star Wars" anyone?), and
(3) a decrease in the deficit.
Common sense told me that the best he could hope to achieve was 2 out of 3, and anything else was just wishful thinking. As it turns out, he only met 1 out of 3 goals.


-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Heard a news story.
Apple is repatriating some money it stuck in overseas Tax havens
Apparently Tax Reform has some provision for a one-time window allowing repatriation of money at a one-time reduced Tax Rate.

Ahem.

Because of a Lower Tax Rate.

Perhaps Jayne can help us with the math on higher Tax Rate applied to zero: nuthin and nuthin is, ah, nuthin, carry the nuthin....

And now we have a Lower Tax Rate, creating sumthin.

OK, Libtards pay attention now. Which is greater: nuthin or sumthin?


Apparently it was $250 Billion brought back. $38 Billion Tax contribution.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if FOXCONN has been mentioned around here. It is a tech company building a huge manufacturing complex in Southeast Wisconsin.

They worked out a contract with Gov Scott Walker, and a reduced Tax Rate was involved. Something like 15,000 jobs will be created just from the facility directly.

Some have claimed it was just a PR scam, it wouldn't really happen. The process to draw 7,000,000 gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan is being worked out.

Not a guarantee, but today was announced that FOXCONN purchased a 7 story building in downtown lakefront Milwaukee for their US HQ.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The local Ultra Food grocery store closed down about 5 months ago. I just went to the Family Dollar that was located to the side of it today to pick up a few things and it was shuttered up. That's not good.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Not sure if FOXCONN has been mentioned around here. It is a tech company building a huge manufacturing complex in Southeast Wisconsin.

They worked out a contract with Gov Scott Walker, and a reduced Tax Rate was involved. Something like 15,000 jobs will be created just from the facility directly.

Some have claimed it was just a PR scam, it wouldn't really happen. The process to draw 7,000,000 gallons of water per day from Lake Michigan is being worked out.

Not a guarantee, but today was announced that FOXCONN purchased a 7 story building in downtown lakefront Milwaukee for their US HQ.

---

I just saw the news report that the FOXCONN package included 17% Tax reduction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I thought it was strange that most of the tax reform bill starts in 2018, but the tax on individuals for not having health insurance isn't dropped until 2019.

There are going to be a LOT of people who were misinformed that do not have health insurance today that are looking at a $695 or 2% pillaging of their income in April of 2019, whichever is greater.

Most people I've talked to about this are only even vaguely aware of the tax in the first place, even though it's been instituted for years now. Of those that knew what I was talking about, most of them were under the impression that it wasn't a thing anymore and were surprised to hear that it will still be effecting people on their income taxes next year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
The local Ultra Food grocery store closed down about 5 months ago. I just went to the Family Dollar that was located to the side of it today to pick up a few things and it was shuttered up. That's not good.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

we just got a new Meijer last year, seems they opened several in the region. Took years of wrangling with our idiot city council.
I asked the other day why a business moved s few doors away, but in the same building. They said that 2 units were needed, for a new Dominoes.

While some places are breaking new ground, other places are trying to Go out of business.
Winnebago's Lakewood Golf Course got sold for the new huge Oshkosh Corp HQ.
FOXCONN making a huge campus in Racine.
Haribo building the its first American facility near Racine.
Green Bay is urgently rebuilding it's docks for the new Cruise Ships making port in a few months. And their baseball team Bullfrogs building a huge new stadium after the city dragged their feet for too many years.
I heard Aldi's is building several new stores around here, but I don't recall the specifics.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I thought it was strange that most of the tax reform bill starts in 2018, but the tax on individuals for not having health insurance isn't dropped until 2019.

There are going to be a LOT of people who were misinformed that do not have health insurance today that are looking at a $695 or 2% pillaging of their income in April of 2019, whichever is greater.

Most people I've talked to about this are only even vaguely aware of the tax in the first place, even though it's been instituted for years now. Of those that knew what I was talking about, most of them were under the impression that it wasn't a thing anymore and were surprised to hear that it will still be effecting people on their income taxes next year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That Tax still only applies if you are owed a Refund. If you owe a payment and only pay the amount less the Obamacare Tax, they are not allowed to chase after it. If you have a refund, they will confiscate the Tax from the refund.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I thought it was strange that most of the tax reform bill starts in 2018, but the tax on individuals for not having health insurance isn't dropped until 2019.

There are going to be a LOT of people who were misinformed that do not have health insurance today that are looking at a $695 or 2% pillaging of their income in April of 2019, whichever is greater.

Most people I've talked to about this are only even vaguely aware of the tax in the first place, even though it's been instituted for years now. Of those that knew what I was talking about, most of them were under the impression that it wasn't a thing anymore and were surprised to hear that it will still be effecting people on their income taxes next year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

That Tax still only applies if you are owed a Refund. If you owe a payment and only pay the amount less the Obamacare Tax, they are not allowed to chase after it. If you have a refund, they will confiscate the Tax from the refund.

---

Do you have a legitimate link that says this. Anything I've read says that you still owe the full amount when you do taxes next year.

My usual payment back from FED is around $100 to $200 since I claim two dependents up front so they don't get a free loan of $1,000 all year. The only reason it's that high even is because of the EIC. I might up that to 5 dependents just to not pay anymore taxes if this is actually the case.

Either way, I'm not getting my EIC credit next for the year, so this doesn't really help me out much at all.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will be the first year I'm not insured since it went into effect, so I never knew this was the case. Shame I already paid some federal taxes since they'd just take them out of my EIC then anyways. If I see that is the law though, then I'll immediately up my w2 info to 5 dependents so I don't pay anymore. I'll end up owing state and local taxes at the end of the year that way, but my checks will be bigger for the rest of the year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will be the first year I'm not insured since it went into effect, so I never knew this was the case. Shame I already paid some federal taxes since they'd just take them out of my EIC then anyways. If I see that is the law though, then I'll immediately up my w2 info to 5 dependents so I don't pay anymore. I'll end up owing state and local taxes at the end of the year that way, but my checks will be bigger for the rest of the year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You can't file a separate status for State vs. Federal? I'm always forced to fill out 2 forms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will be the first year I'm not insured since it went into effect, so I never knew this was the case. Shame I already paid some federal taxes since they'd just take them out of my EIC then anyways. If I see that is the law though, then I'll immediately up my w2 info to 5 dependents so I don't pay anymore. I'll end up owing state and local taxes at the end of the year that way, but my checks will be bigger for the rest of the year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You can't file a separate status for State vs. Federal? I'm always forced to fill out 2 forms.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
This will be the first year I'm not insured since it went into effect, so I never knew this was the case. Shame I already paid some federal taxes since they'd just take them out of my EIC then anyways. If I see that is the law though, then I'll immediately up my w2 info to 5 dependents so I don't pay anymore. I'll end up owing state and local taxes at the end of the year that way, but my checks will be bigger for the rest of the year.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

You can't file a separate status for State vs. Federal? I'm always forced to fill out 2 forms.

---