images world map printable with 
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question.In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone.Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible.Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible.That is the difference.In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund.But if you are renting you receive zero.That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain.As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month.As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year.You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined.And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent.Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000.You cannot Afford to buy it anymore.And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting.I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what?I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that?Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts.Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated.Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that.Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible.That is the difference.In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund.But if you are renting you receive zero.That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain.As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month.As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year.You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined.And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent.Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000.You cannot Afford to buy it anymore.And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting.I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what?I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that?Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts.Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated.Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that.Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
wallpaper world map outline with country
Macaca
04-17 08:40 AM
To Conceal Donors, Some Political Groups Look to the Tax Code (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601352.html), By Jeffrey H.Birnbaum, Tuesday, April 17, 2007
An increasing number of organizations working to influence elections also are working to hide who is paying for their activities.
Several political organizations colloquially known as 527s are relying more on or switching into 501(c)(4) groups, the type of tax-exempt entity that the tax code uses for advocacy groups.
The 527s must disclose who gives them money; 501(c)(4)s do not have that requirement.
The trend, which was discovered by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, runs counter to one of the basic tenets of modern-day election law -- broad public disclosure.Voters generally have the right to know who is helping to elect their representatives and senators.Armed with such data, they can decide for themselves who, if anyone, is trying to buy their congressional representatives.
A lot of political influence is at stake if such transformations proliferate.In last year's elections, 527s spent $143.2 million.The biggest outlays on the Democratic side came from the Service Employees International Union, Emily's List and America Votes, a coalition of liberal groups.On the Republican side, the big spenders were the Progress for America Voter Fund, the College Republican National Committee and the Presidential Coalition.
There are many reasons that 527s might want to alter their stripes.The main one has nothing to do with concealment: The Federal Election Commission has been cracking down on 527s, insisting they cannot explicitly press for the election or the defeat of candidates.
But in trying to sidestep the crackdown, several 527s have chosen an alternative structure that is harder for the public to track.Tax-exempt groups of various types have always been able to keep their donors anonymous (except to the Internal Revenue Service).The exception to this, made in 2000, is the type of electioneering funds called 527s, which have to publicly name their contributors.
In recent years, one group that has leaned more heavily on its 501(c)(4) is Progress for America, once one of the largest GOP-leaning 527s.Another group is converting outright: the Club for Growth, which supports conservative, anti-tax candidates.According to a letter obtained by the Campaign Finance Institute, the club sees many benefits in its transformation, including secrecy."Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances," wrote Patrick J.Toomey, the group's president.
Some experts doubt that the Club for Growth will be widely imitated.An organization cannot simply change its label to a 501(c); it must also alter its function so that it no longer primarily works on elections.Last week, Public Citizen, the liberal gadfly, formally complained that Americans for Job Security should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c)(6), or trade a*sociation, because of its large-scale electoral involvement.
Veil of Secrecy
A sample of entities involved in politics that operate as 501(c), (4), (5) or (6) groups, which are tax-exempt and do not have to disclose their donors publicly.
Organization and Examples of 2006 political activity
AFL-CIO Spent about $40 million on its pro-Democratic political program.
Americans for Job Security Ran an estimated $1.5 million in ads on behalf of then-Sen.Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
Chamber of Commerce Spent $10 million on ads thanking largely GOP incumbents for pro-business positions.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Spent $1.6 million on election-related activity, including voter education and mobilization.
Focus on Family Action Sponsored radio ads in several competitive Senate races.
League of Conservation Voters Spent more than $1 million on TV ads, mailings and other political outreach.
NARAL Spent more than $740,000, mostly to rent voter lists for Internet communications.
National Rifle Association Campaign war chest (excluding PAC funds) was reportedly $9 million.
SOURCE: Campaign Finance Instititue
An increasing number of organizations working to influence elections also are working to hide who is paying for their activities.
Several political organizations colloquially known as 527s are relying more on or switching into 501(c)(4) groups, the type of tax-exempt entity that the tax code uses for advocacy groups.
The 527s must disclose who gives them money; 501(c)(4)s do not have that requirement.
The trend, which was discovered by the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute, runs counter to one of the basic tenets of modern-day election law -- broad public disclosure.Voters generally have the right to know who is helping to elect their representatives and senators.Armed with such data, they can decide for themselves who, if anyone, is trying to buy their congressional representatives.
A lot of political influence is at stake if such transformations proliferate.In last year's elections, 527s spent $143.2 million.The biggest outlays on the Democratic side came from the Service Employees International Union, Emily's List and America Votes, a coalition of liberal groups.On the Republican side, the big spenders were the Progress for America Voter Fund, the College Republican National Committee and the Presidential Coalition.
There are many reasons that 527s might want to alter their stripes.The main one has nothing to do with concealment: The Federal Election Commission has been cracking down on 527s, insisting they cannot explicitly press for the election or the defeat of candidates.
But in trying to sidestep the crackdown, several 527s have chosen an alternative structure that is harder for the public to track.Tax-exempt groups of various types have always been able to keep their donors anonymous (except to the Internal Revenue Service).The exception to this, made in 2000, is the type of electioneering funds called 527s, which have to publicly name their contributors.
In recent years, one group that has leaned more heavily on its 501(c)(4) is Progress for America, once one of the largest GOP-leaning 527s.Another group is converting outright: the Club for Growth, which supports conservative, anti-tax candidates.According to a letter obtained by the Campaign Finance Institute, the club sees many benefits in its transformation, including secrecy."Unlike in the past, your donations to the Club will not be disclosed to the public, except in very limited circumstances," wrote Patrick J.Toomey, the group's president.
Some experts doubt that the Club for Growth will be widely imitated.An organization cannot simply change its label to a 501(c); it must also alter its function so that it no longer primarily works on elections.Last week, Public Citizen, the liberal gadfly, formally complained that Americans for Job Security should not be allowed to operate as a 501(c)(6), or trade a*sociation, because of its large-scale electoral involvement.
Veil of Secrecy
A sample of entities involved in politics that operate as 501(c), (4), (5) or (6) groups, which are tax-exempt and do not have to disclose their donors publicly.
Organization and Examples of 2006 political activity
AFL-CIO Spent about $40 million on its pro-Democratic political program.
Americans for Job Security Ran an estimated $1.5 million in ads on behalf of then-Sen.Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).
Chamber of Commerce Spent $10 million on ads thanking largely GOP incumbents for pro-business positions.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund Spent $1.6 million on election-related activity, including voter education and mobilization.
Focus on Family Action Sponsored radio ads in several competitive Senate races.
League of Conservation Voters Spent more than $1 million on TV ads, mailings and other political outreach.
NARAL Spent more than $740,000, mostly to rent voter lists for Internet communications.
National Rifle Association Campaign war chest (excluding PAC funds) was reportedly $9 million.
SOURCE: Campaign Finance Instititue
Pre-requisite: What is Legislation?(http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3317&highlight=legislation)
Lobbying is the practice of trying to persuade legislators to propose, pa*s, or defeat legislation or to change existing laws.A lobbyist may work for a group, organization, or industry, and presents information on legislative proposals to support his or her clients' interests.
Resources
History of lobbying (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Byrd_History_Lobbying.htm)
The Nonprofit Lobbying Guide (http://www.independentsector.org/programs/gr/lobbyguide.html)
Center for Lobbying in the Public Interest (http://www.clpi.org/)
The Democracy Center (http://www.democracyctr.org/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.