Re: Date manipulation

From: Ian Dalziel (iandalziel_at_lineone.net)
Date: 12/27/03 

Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2003 14:31:53 +0000

On 27 Dec 2003 09:21:13 -0500, docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <g34ruvktos452r31ej95sgp5c0dfbda8uu@4ax.com>,
>Ian Dalziel <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Ahhhhhhh, I see! My error and apologies for the sloppiness of my
>terminology; my intention in using the term 'pre-tax' (which you are
>entirely correct in interpreting as 'applied before taxes') was to
>indicate that the deduction was 'untaxed'.
>

<phew!>
You would be right with a deduction - that's what I tried to say
(obviously not very clearly). To be "untaxed" a deduction has to be
pre-tax, but an addition has to be post-tax.