Displaying 31 - 40 of 221 Forum PostsPrev 2 3 4 5 6 Next
  • Feb 17, 2018 11:39 PM
    Last: 6mo
    857
    Jaded Wrote: My husband and I live in two different states for now. He is a resident of Mass and I am a resident of Ms and we file a joint tax return, but will I have to pay into Mass state even though I do not live or reside in that state?
    I would encourage speaking with a tax professional before filing, but you only have to pay state taxes for a state that you reside in. So if you don't reside in Massachusetts then you will not be required to pay Massachusetts state income taxes, but you will be required to pay Mississippi state income tax.
  • Feb 20, 2018 02:31 PM
    Last: 5mo
    1.1k
    Bearit4life Wrote: I was married in April of 2017 and in September of 2017 my husband beat me until I was sent to the hospitial . I had to relocate due to his violence and have restraining orders/protective orders in place. I am currently working with the Crime Victim Compensation as well. I am not divorced but I am DEF separated. What should I do?
    I'm so sorry to hear about everything you're going through. I would strongly encourage you to directly contact the IRS and ask them for guidance.
  • Jan 31, 2018 11:03 PM
    Last: 5mo
    2.4k
    I'm sorry to hear about your current predicament, but if you've talked with an IRS agent and they advised you to hold off on filing your 2017 taxes then I would heed their advice.
  • Oct 03, 2017 02:33 PM
    Last: 8mo
    3.3k

    The House just passed the Joint tax bill and the Senate is scheduled to vote on the bill tonight, which is all but guaranteed to pass after Leader McConnell has secured enough votes for its passage. Then it's off to the President's desk for his signature.

    The final version of the bill maintains seven tax brackets, doubles the standard deduction, but also does away with many popular deductions. It will go into effect on January 1, 2018.

  • Nov 21, 2017 08:20 AM
    Last: 8mo
    2.5k
    J.K.Logic Wrote:

    Update:

    Short-term funding bill includes help for children's health insurance

    So that buys time until Dec 22nd. But if nothing is done after that, many states will be without CHIP funds whatsoever. Trump is temporarily funding some states with leftover budget money from prior years in CHIP at the moment. But how long can that seriously last?

    This political football is putting 8,900,074 children's lives at risk. I find it ironic, and deeply depressing, that our Congress can pass a tax cut bill that will add trillions of dollars to our debt and deficit, but then claim it's fiscally irresponsible to make sure poor children receive adequate health care.

    Poverty isn't a red state or a blue state issue; it's an American issue. Poor children who live in Alabama or Mississippi deserve to get adequate health care as much as poor children who live in California or New York do.

  • Nov 21, 2017 08:20 AM
    Last: 8mo
    2.5k
    It really is a shame the political environment is so dysfunctional that members of both parties can't come together to ensure impoverished children are able to receive healthcare. It makes me sick.
  • Mar 28, 2015 03:20 PM
    Last: 19hr
    50k
    Maronita1 Wrote:

    People do NOT seem to realize you were NOT meant to live off Social Security. Social Security was INTENDED to be 1/3 of your retirement. People were SUPPOSED to also save for their retirement (1/3) and finally the government EXPECTED that employers would give retirement benefit (1/3). UNFORTUNATELY, MOST do NOT save for retirement AND many employers no longer give retirement benefits.

    Social Security was also passed during a time when the average person died before they even became eligible for it.

    Yes, Social Security was never meant to be the only form of financial security for retirees, but it has become that for millions of people now that major corporations no longer provide pensions and 401k's rise and fall with the stock market, which millions of people found out in 2008-09.

    Many people don't save what they need to for retirement because they can't save what they need to for retirement. The average American hasn't received a raise in decades. Sure, they may have made more money per year, but the cost of living has far outpaced any extra money they have made.

    It's not as simple as blaming the victim. Life is far more complicated than that.

  • Nov 01, 2017 04:45 PM
    Last: 9mo
    8.8k
    Maronita1 Wrote: WHEN I worked for Social Security it was explained to us that the real reason (according to management at the time) we have a problem with being able to continue to pay benefits far into the future is simply because of ABORTION. If all those children who were aborted had instead been born we (according to management at the time) would have plenty of people working and paying into the system to cover all those applying for benefits TODAY!

    That is an absurd argument if it's true your management actually said that.

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 9mo
    2.1k
    J.K.Logic Wrote: Wait, I'm confused.. didn't you say he ended subsidies? Or did you mean that he ended some levels of subsidies, but now that costs rise, they qualify for different brackets or something?

    I should have been more clear in my original post. The cost-sharing subsidies are mandated in the law, so President Trump can't unilaterally say they aren't lawful. What he did is say the government won't give payments to the insurance companies that are mandated by the law to provide those subsides.

    After reading up on it more, it appears the insurance companies already planned for that and factored it into the prices of their plans. It's true there will be some winners and losers here, but the most vulnerable Americans will still be able to obtain modestly priced health insurance.

    What's even more confusing is that the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit that focuses on healthcare policy, predicted President Trump's decision will wind up costing the government more because "eliminating cost-sharing reduction subsidies will save $10 billion in 2018, but the government will spend $12.3 billion because of the higher premiums the decision causes."

  • Oct 13, 2017 03:20 PM
    Last: 9mo
    2.1k

    What's ironic about this whole thing is that it appears this had the exact opposite effect of what President Trump had hoped for. More people now qualify for the subsidies, which are required by law to rise with the cost of a health insurance plan. So if a health insurance plan rises by 80% then the subsidy must rise along with it.

    He may have inadvertently made it so more, not less, people are able to obtain health coverage.