Re: Date manipulation
From: Ian Dalziel (iandalziel_at_lineone.net)
Date: 12/27/03
- Next message: Ian Dalziel: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Previous message: Robert Jones: "Re: Date manipulation"
- In reply to: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Michael Mattias: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:04:59 +0000
On 27 Dec 2003 08:33:14 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>In article <hvoquv0ri8tnhagbufe40r5bfl0pec3rmv@4ax.com>,
>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>On 26 Dec 2003 18:21:53 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>
>>>In article <5ndpuvs9apbu2h66u3s9d0ammq4ho7fhje@4ax.com>,
>>>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>>On 26 Dec 2003 14:23:56 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>... and my point is that this is one way of doing it. Another way is to
>>>>>say 'here we have a quantity to be applied against the paycheck; is this
>>>>>quantity taxable or not? if it is taxable then apply the quantity in a
>>>>>fashion which shows taxation, if not then not.'
>>>>
>>>>You're not listening, are you?
>>>
>>>I'm trying to... and respond, as well.
>>>
>>>>Think about it - is it good to apply
>>>>the quantity in a way which shows taxation, or is it not?
>>>
>>>If the status is untaxed then it should be applied as such, either
>>>positively or negatively.
>>>
>>
>><sigh> :-)
>>
>>Sure, but an "untaxed" deduction in that sense effectively comes out
>>of TAXED income - if it is paid with no reference to tax, it reduces
>>the net payment by its full amount.
>
>And as I stated earlier that is one way to consider a deduction. Another
>way to consider it is that a deduction is a portion of income which is
>subject to tax calculations, just as certain kinds of income (dividends,
>say, or 1099-paid income) are not subject to tax calculations. If the
>portion of income which is not subject to tax calculations is to be
>subtracted (a deduction) and this portion is a negative amount then the
>result is a net addition.
>
Absolutely - no argument about that at all. Now let's go back and look
at what we were talking about :
"... and it turned out that the President of the bought-out hospital
was the beneficiary of some rather... creative accounting; it seems
that he'd had a pre-tax deduction applied to his payroll profile, one
which would, every week, automatically take out one hundred pre-tax
dollars...
... and then somehow - *must* have been an accident because *everyone*
denied knowing *anything* about this - the VSAM file containing the
employee profiles got changed... and the sign-nibble on the COMP-3
field for this deduction went from negative to positive, giving the
man a 'negative deduction'...
... so every time his paycheck was calculated the programs would
subtract negative one hundred pre-tax dollars, in effect giving him an
additional one hundred tax-free dollars."
OK? Now what I am saying is A PRE-TAX ADDITION IS NOT TAX-FREE!
It would have to be post-tax to be tax-free - if it is pre-tax the
tax calculation will deduct tax from it.
- Next message: Ian Dalziel: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Previous message: Robert Jones: "Re: Date manipulation"
- In reply to: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Next in thread: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: docdwarf_at_panix.com: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Reply: Michael Mattias: "Re: Date manipulation"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|