Question:

I’ve seen so many instances of that I could write a book.  But then, I look for it. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses."  But my thought is; What is the problem? Alleged fundamental incompetence. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses."  But my thought is; What is the problem?

Alleged fundamental incompetence. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

A I understand this, I take it the Corps are down hiring below the practitioners these days.  The other part of what they are saying, as I interpret it, is that the Corps has in place Controllers who are not competent to determine and implement an adequate level of internal controls.   Then the questions is, can this problem be fixed?  But my thought is; What is the problem? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – For Competence, Accounting Gets a ‘D’ in Poll of Businesses By JANET WHITMAN DOW JONES NEWSWIRES NEW YORK — Businesses give the accounting profession a "D" grade, a new survey shows. But, even with the Enron Corp. mess, it isn’t accountants’ integrity that scores such low marks. Instead, the real cause for concern is a lack of competence, which is eroding customer satisfaction, according to the poll conducted by NFO WorldGroup, a New York financial-services-marketing firm. <snip But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses." http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1018393895577052760,00.html?mod=sp… This could be a worse problem than the scandals. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA http://survivalworks.com

Response:

For Competence, Accounting Gets a ‘D’ in Poll of Businesses By JANET WHITMAN DOW JONES NEWSWIRES NEW YORK — Businesses give the accounting profession a "D" grade, a new survey shows. But, even with the Enron Corp. mess, it isn’t accountants’ integrity that scores such low marks. Instead, the real cause for concern is a lack of competence, which is eroding customer satisfaction, according to the poll conducted by NFO WorldGroup, a New York financial-services-marketing firm. <snip But auditors scored average or below for having "expertise in my industry," for maintaining "a staff we can rely on to provide the right advice," and for having "staff that are responsive to my needs." Also scoring low marks were auditors’ "capability to provide expert advice and insights on business risks associated with accounting treatments" and "competence in recommending the right level of financial controls," as well as having staff that is "competent in understanding complex financial structures used by some businesses." http://online.wsj.com/article/0,,SB1018393895577052760,00.html?mod=sp… This could be a worse problem than the scandals. — Jim Hudspeth, CFE, CPA   http://survivalworks.com

Response:

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And since he is sitting in The Chair, he ought to take the usual heat for it, and if it turns out he’s really dirty, well, even better. Harry Krause – - I see you are now setting the stage knowing nothing will come from the Enron investigation, at least nothing that Bush or Cheney did wrong.

Not at all. My position hasn’t changed. I know Bush and Cheney are dirty…it only remains to be seen how dirty. I’m hoping for "really dirty." Again, most of you righties have a real problem with language. Whatever you do for your living, stick to it. Words are not your forte. — Harry Krause – - There is nothing fairer than workmen having unions for their mutual benefit. – Will Rogers

Response:

Words are not your forte.

Neither are they yours, since you have such problems making yourself understood. Brickwriting is your forte as I remember it. How well do you need to write in order to explain bricklaying? Delete ImtheNRA in order to spam me. The Second Amendment isn’t about deer hunting.

Response:

I know Bush and Cheney are

dirty…it only remains to be seen how dirty. I’m hoping for "really dirty."<< — Harry Why?  So the U.S. can be besmirched while trying to fight a war against terrorists? When are you finally going to leave the country you seem to hate?

Response:

I know Bush and Cheney are dirty…it only remains to be seen how dirty. I’m hoping for "really dirty."<< — Harry Why?  So the U.S. can be besmirched while trying to fight a war against terrorists? When are you finally going to leave the country you seem to hate?

1. Bush and Cheney are not the US…they are simply politicians, and slimy, lying ones at that. 2. The US talks the talk about fighting a war against terrorists, but it isn’t walking the walk. Freeing Afghanistan from the Taliban was a good thing, to be sure, but the Taliban were merely an agent of the core of terrorism, whose funding and power emanates from Saudi Arabia and other oil-drenched Arab states. 3. I find it remarkably consistent you Repugs have in common the idea that if one is critical of Repug leaders, one hates one’s country and therefore should leave it. In the words of Edward R. Murrow: "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. When the loyal opposition dies, I think the soul of America dies with it." Well, I’m not leaving. Choke on that. — Harry Krause – - MAD Magazine named Konservative Rev. Jerry Falwell the "dumbest person of 2001" for blaming the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on gays and lesbians, feminists and other groups. "We thought Falwell had reached his personal pinnacle of dumbness a few years ago when he accused the Teletubbies of promoting homosexuality," said MAD editor John Ficarra. "Give the guy credit, we underestimated him."

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet already: From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron: Okay, you’ve proven yourself to be a real idiot when it comes to politics. Did you kiss the T.V. when Bush was on? What’s idiotic about it? Are you so blind and naive as to believe that this supposed "corruption" started the minute Bush took office? It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to believe that this kind of "stuff" has been going on for far longer than that. If Bush is guilty of "something" (Which has yet to even be identified), then it’s an easy bet that his predecessors are just as guilty. It’s called American politics. Dave

And since he is sitting in The Chair, he ought to take the usual heat for it, and if it turns out he’s really dirty, well, even better. — Harry Krause – - No issue can be negotiated unless you first have the clout to compel negotiation. – Saul Alinsky

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why don’t you educate us as to where any of your writing has actually been published? It is amazing that someone who professes a "professional writer" yet does not appear to have any articles published under his name. Ah, but I do. You’re simply too stupid to find them. Most of what I have written–in fact, most of what is written, is not on the web. Were you the only dimwit in your family?

Any decent public library. — Harry Krause – - Black people, brown people, they’re all part of the union. If you don’t like it, then get out, but we’re not going to change it. – Cesar Chavez

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet  already:  From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political  adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron: Okay, you’ve proven yourself to be a real idiot when it comes to politics. Did you kiss the T.V. when Bush was on?

What’s idiotic about it? Are you so blind and naive as to believe that this supposed "corruption" started the minute Bush took office? It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to believe that this kind of "stuff" has been going on for far longer than that. If Bush is guilty of "something" (Which has yet to even be identified), then it’s an easy bet that his predecessors are just as guilty. It’s called American politics. Dave

Response:

And since he is sitting in The Chair, he ought to take the usual heat for it, and if it turns out he’s really dirty, well, even better. Harry Krause – -

I see you are now setting the stage knowing nothing will come from the Enron investigation, at least nothing that Bush or Cheney did wrong. Before it was claims of criminal activity, then it was serious wrong doings, now it is being "dirty", "real dirty".  Pretty soon it will be fault by association (remember this) as you alluded to also. You grasp at straws, fight windmills and see the sky falling at every turn. You are unbelievable Harry.

Response:

How come this statement was not given when all the investigations into Clinton / Gore and all the Chicom fund raising? Bill

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet already: From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron: Okay, you’ve proven yourself to be a real idiot when it comes to politics. Did you kiss the T.V. when Bush was on? What’s idiotic about it? Are you so blind and naive as to believe that this supposed "corruption" started the minute Bush took office? It doesn’t take a huge leap of faith to believe that this kind of "stuff" has been going on for far longer than that. If Bush is guilty of "something" (Which has yet to even be identified), then it’s an easy bet that his predecessors are just as guilty. It’s called American politics. Dave And since he is sitting in The Chair, he ought to take the usual heat for it, and if it turns out he’s really dirty, well, even better. — Harry Krause – - No issue can be negotiated unless you first have the clout to compel negotiation. – Saul Alinsky

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet already:  From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave

Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron: New York Post By Dick Morris TOP DEM OPENED THE DOOR January 29, 2002 — DEMOCRATS seeking to blame President Bush and the GOP for the Enron scandal need to look more closely at their own house – especially at the work done by the former Democratic National chairman, Sen. Christopher J. Dodd. While many candidates of both parties have received campaign contributions from Enron and its "independent auditor" Arthur Andersen, very few have passionately fought their cause in Washington as diligently as Chris Dodd. It was on account of Dodd’s tireless efforts that Arthur Andersen was able to act as both "independent auditor" and management consultant to Enron for $100 million a year. That role – so fraught with conflict of interest that it makes a joke of the concept of outside auditors protecting shareholders – has been identified as one of the major causes of the debacle. In 1995, it was Dodd who rammed through legislation, overriding President Clinton’s veto, to protect firms like Andersen from lawsuits in cases just like Enron. The Dodd bill limited liability for lawyers and accountants for "aiding and abetting" corporate fraud by their clients, making them liable only for their "proportionate" share of the blame, rather than for the entire fraud. So, if an accounting firm kept secret the true picture of a corporation’s finances, it would only be liable for part of the total fraud on the investors. For shareholders, this law is awful – the fraudulent company has usually lost nearly all its value before the shareholder learns about it, so there’s nothing left. For the accounting firm, though, it’s great – the shareholders can’t pin the total losses on you. And from Andersen’s point of view, it was really wonderful, because they were already facing thousands of lawsuits for their role in securities fraud. A grateful accounting industry showed its appreciation to Sen. Dodd by contributing $345,903 to his campaign between 1993 and 1997. Every major accounting firm pitched in – Deloitte & Touche, Ernst & Young, Coopers & Lybrand, Peat Marwick, Price Waterhouse. (Dodd has received more money from Arthur Andersen than any other Democrat – $54,843.) From ‘93 to ‘97, Dodd also received $523,551 from the securities industry, which was thrilled with other provisions of the ‘95 law that limited liability from securities lawsuits, notably for firms that failed to live up to their predictions about future earnings. Consumer groups had opposed the legislation – the U.S. Public Interest Research Group labeled it "The Crooks and Swindlers Protection Act." But Dodd’s services to Andersen didn’t stop there. Every analysis so far of the Enron scandal lays much of the blame on the conflict of interest that Andersen faced in auditing and consulting for Enron at the same time. Auditors must be independent to assure that companies do not report misleading financial data to stockholders. Once Andersen was getting up to $100 million a year in consulting fees from Enron, does anyone really believe that they would have blown the whistle on the firm’s shady books? But when the SEC tried to bar this practice, so ridden with conflict of interest, it was Chris Dodd, along with Rep. Billy Tauzin (now R-La., though a Democrat until August 1995), who according to the Associated Press "brokered a deal" to stop the SEC action. As a result of Dodd’s intervention, the SEC agreed not to issue a ban on the practice of auditing and consulting for the same client. Such practices have led to what Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) called "the kind of hide-the-debt shell game that took place at Enron." In an ultimate act of hypocrisy, Dodd has now actually introduced legislation to ban accounting firms from doing consulting for companies it audits – precisely the same policy he killed when the SEC was considering it. Now that this issue is in the public eye, Dodd is pretending to be an advocate for the shareholders. But the Enron workers who lost their pensions and the Enron shareholders who lost their portfolios know it is too late for them. And Arthur Andersen knows it makes no difference to them now.

Response:

Why don’t you educate us as to where any of your writing has actually been published?

Harry puts up sticky notes on the bulletin boards at the local Teamsters office and claims that he’s *published*.

Response:

Why don’t you educate us as to where any of your writing has actually been published?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is amazing that someone who professes a "professional writer" yet does not appear to have any articles published under his name. Ah, but I do. You’re simply too stupid to find them. Most of what I have written–in fact, most of what is written, is not on the web. Were you the only dimwit in your family? — Harry Krause – - They don’t suffer; they can’t even speak English. – Republican lawyer George Baer on starving miners

Response:

It is amazing that someone who professes a "professional writer" yet does not appear to have any articles published under his name.  

Ah, but I do. You’re simply too stupid to find them. Most of what I have written–in fact, most of what is written, is not on the web. Were you the only dimwit in your family? — Harry Krause – - They don’t suffer; they can’t even speak English. – Republican lawyer George Baer on starving miners

Response:

No, but I did get a few laughs. The Doof mispronounced at least 17 different words, including nuclear and Hamas.

And he’s still the President of the U.S. of A. and you are an old broken down union hack and it really pisses you off. Bert

Response:

It is amazing that someone who professes a "professional writer" yet does not appear to have any articles published under his name.   This same individual professes to be very intelligent, yet spends his life arguing politics in a boating forum.  He has never changed anyone’s opinion over to his opinion, but he has managed to convert make many who agreed with his philosophy to the dark side.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No, but I did get a few laughs. The Doof mispronounced at least 17 different words, including nuclear and Hamas. And he’s still the President of the U.S. of A. and you are an old broken down union hack and it really pisses you off. Bert

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet already: From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron: Okay, you’ve proven yourself to be a real idiot when it comes to politics. Did you kiss the T.V. when Bush was on?

No, but I did get a few laughs. The Doof mispronounced at least 17 different words, including nuclear and Hamas. — Harry Krause – - Keep your sermons; give us your proxies. – slogan in Kodak unionization drive

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The investigation has just begun and look what’s out of the closet  already:  From the NYT: Associates of Bush Aide Say He Helped Win Contract By RICHARD L. BERKE WASHINGTON, Jan. 24 — Karl Rove, President Bush’s top political  adviser, recommended the Republican strategist Ralph Reed to the Enron Corporation for a lucrative consulting contract as Mr. Bush was weighing whether to run for president, close associates of Mr. Rove say. One question. How is this illegal? Please provide specifics. Dave Funny…..all these lame attempts to link the Republicans with the fall of Enron.  But now we have Dick Morris, a former Clinton consultant and confidant, saying we should actually be looking at the Dems and the Clinton regime dealings with Enron:

Okay, you’ve proven yourself to be a real idiot when it comes to politics. Did you kiss the T.V. when Bush was on?

Response:

Question:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that? —–=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!  Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers!  ==—–

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that?

I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about? What causes that? I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it.

A culprit boasted here and on some other groups that he had cancelled nearly 60,000 usenet messages. Who was the nice person who reposted here? Timo, perhaps? A. Lucien Meyers, CIA, CMA — If you receive this by error, please delete it and inform the sender. http://www.consult-meyers.com recommends e-mail encryption using pgp. To Big Brother Echelon from "spook": Saddam Hussein security SDI plutonium Kennedy Soviet Marxist CIA

Response:

Anybody know what all these "REPOST:" headers are all about?

They are about countering rogue cancels. I was wondering the same thing.    I subscribe to several newsgroups and this is the only one that did it.

Not so. This is not the only newsgroup affected. It obviously is just the only one of the ones you subscribe to. For additional information about rogue cancels and the resurrection    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

A culprit boasted here and on some other groups that he had cancelled nearly 60,000 usenet messages. Who was the nice person who reposted here? Timo, perhaps?

Thank you for the kind words. But, no, I do not have such facilities. Set you newsreader to show all the message headers. There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages.    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

Thank you for the kind words. But, no, I do not have such facilities. Set you newsreader to show all the message headers. There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages.

I set the headers to full in Netscape 4.7, got no relevant information. "It’s God’s job to sort out what to do with terrorists.    It’s our job to deliver them to God. " I’m allergic to spam. Remove "No Spam" from my e-mail address to respond. —–= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 16 Different Servers! =—–

Response:

There is some more information on the cancellation and the resurrection in the full headers of the REPOST messages. I set the headers to full in Netscape 4.7, got no relevant information.

An example:  Article: 12557 of alt.accounting  Path: news.uwasa.fi!newsfeeds.funet.fi!newsfeed1.funet.fi!skynet.be!skynet.be!new sfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.freenet.de!peer.news.opaltelec om.net!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!news-in-sanjose!cyclone.bc .net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!news.noc.cabal.int!resurrector!guidorepost! not-for-mail  Newsgroups: alt.accounting  X-Original-Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!newsengine. sol.net!newspump.sol.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!look.ca!cyclone.bc.net!peer1-sj c1.usenetserver.com!fs01-sjc1.usenetserver.com!usenetserver.com!news.webuse net.com.POSTED!104878dd!not-for-mail  X-Abuse-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers  X-Abuse-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.  Organization: WebUseNet Corp.  http://corp.webusenet.com – ReInventing the UseNet  X-Comments: GtR Repost: The following Usenet article was cancelled, more  X-Comments: than likely by someone other than the original poster.  Please  X-Comments: see the end of this posting for a copy of the cancel.  X-Comments: Guido the Resurrector can be contacted at  Lines: 25  Xref: news.uwasa.fi alt.accounting:12557  Path: news.sol.net!spool1-nwblwi.newsops.execpc.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!news-out.vi si.com!hermes.visi.com!uunet!ash.uu.net!sac.uu.net!lax.uu.net!news.navix.ne t!u-n-c-a-n-c-e-l-l-e-r  Newsgroups: alt.config,comp.lang.c,alt.accounting  Organization: Navix Internet Subscribers  Lines: 2  NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34  X-No-Archive: yes  Comment: Anarchy! Fuck You!  X-Commentary: I love NewsAgent 1.10, Sandblaster Build 74 (19 March 1999) and the Polaris Cancel Engine V. 6.1  X-Unacanc3l: yes  This message was cancelled from within Mozilla…not

Response:

 NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34

According to Spamcop that might be alltel.net    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

Response:

Why would someone cancel the article and then repost it? I don’t understand the motive.  NNTP-Posting-Host: 166.102.15.34 According to Spamcop that might be alltel.net    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Acc. Journals Links  http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/opas/jott/jottjour.html

—–=  Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News  =—– http://www.newsfeeds.com – The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!  Check out our new Unlimited Server. No Download or Time Limits! —–==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups – 19 Different Servers!  ==—–

Response:

Why would someone cancel the article and then repost it?

I venture from your question that you may have got the situation crucially wrong. The rogue canceling and the reposting (resurrection) are not made by the same party. I don’t understand the motive.

Usenet has its fair share of all kinds of abusers and crackpots. For some more take a look at (some) of the material indicated on the last line of my signature.    All the best, Timo — Prof. Timo Salmi ftp & http://garbo.uwasa.fi/ archives 193.166.120.5 Department of Accounting and Business Finance  ; University of Vaasa Timo’s  FAQ  materials  at   http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html

Response:

Question:

How much does one prospect cost for an accounting practice?

I don’t know how much it costs to get a prospect, but I can tell you how much a client is worth.  While two different things, they are related in how much marketing one is willing to do to gain a new client.  In most markets the purchase price of a practice is 1 to 1.5 times annual billings.  Or in a recently closed deal at my office, 1 times the annual revenues collected from clients that use my services was the purchase price (I was willing to go to 1.5 times, but don’t tell him now).  So a client that pays me $500 a year is worth $500. — Paul A. Thomas, CPA Athens,  Georgia

Response:

What is the general, average cost of a prospective accounting client? Well, there is no figure that I am aware of that you could give as such due to the very unorganized and unmonitored way accounting services are marketed presently. For average industries the cost is around $50 to $250 per prospect, depending on the size of their target group, nature or the item of sale, and efficiency of their advertising and marketing tactics.

Let me tell you a subtle pitfall to avoid in your analysis.  All prospects are not alike.  In fact, they are incredibly diverse, almost different categories.  Apples and Oranges. You wouldn’t say, "how much is the average cost of a grocery item in a supermarket?" So what, if the cost of acquisition of various clients is different? They are all different.  Some are worth gold, some are worth less than nothing. The tool you want to use, in growing your consulting practice has nothing to do with these kinds of dollar averages.  Instead, you should focus on the raw facts:  "what characteristics are you looking for in you client?" … and client relationships?  This is partly a function of your own goals in life and who you want to be, as a person. The other sets of raw facts are "what will it take to get them to hire me?"   Take a few minutes, in a quiet room with these questions, and forget about the dollar stuff. TOdd

Response:

How much does one prospect cost for an accounting practice? Few people come to think about the fact that each prospect you receive has a price tag. As an Accounting Professional you naturally are aware of cost structures as such. Following the actual cost of prospects is worthwhile because it allows you to monitor and eventually control the cost efficiency of your marketing. What is the general, average cost of a prospective accounting client? Well, there is no figure that I am aware of that you could give as such due to the very unorganized and unmonitored way accounting services are marketed presently. For average industries the cost is around $50 to $250 per prospect, depending on the size of their target group, nature or the item of sale, and efficiency of their advertising and marketing tactics. You can spend thousands of dollars and not get a single prospect. And you can get prospects without ANY cost. Neither of these extremes will work for any longer period of time; it

Question:

Does Turbo Tax offer the ability for amending creating amended returns?

Response:

Does Turbo Tax offer the ability for amending creating amended returns?

The Pro version does.   Mike Block, Tax Fighting C.P.A.  World’s #1 QuickBooks Top Tester FREE NetLedger consult refer #10260   FREE 462p QB book/error codes/ 80 QB add-ons http://blocktax.com/ Spam bait (credit E. Needham):

Response:

Question:

Hi Folks, Did a rebuild data in July 00 with QB6 pro(Canadian) and it changed all the tax deductions on employee cheques prior to July 1 to the new lower tax amounts. I assume it used the right period rates but most likely the new increased personal amounts of 7,331 instead of the 7,131 prior to July 1. Help!!! Any workaround for this?? Any help appreciated. Later…. David S.

Response:

I’ve never seen the Rebuild Data function make changes to transactions, as you’ve described.  It should NOT do so. Assuming your diagnosis is correct, I’d call that a BUG which you should report asap to Intuit. QB maintains only one tax table, thus it cannot use different tax tables based on transaction dates.  All payroll software that I have worked with operates on a similar basis, although I’m sure there are some programs that maintain multiple tax tables. Following is an outline of the only "fix" that I can think of: 1. Ensure that you have a backup copy of your data as it existed prior to rebuilding.  Make at least one extra copy of this file and put it in a safe place, just in case. 2. Remove the new tax table and re-install the old tax table. Unless Intuit has changed things since 1999 December, this involves replacing only one file, TAXTABLE.CAN, which is only about 25 kb.  The new file should have a 2000 June or July date, the old file a date of 1999 December or 2000 January.  (QB doesn’t readily tell you this, doesn’t make or keep backup copies of old tax tables when installing new tables.  I keep backup copies of old tax tables just in case; I rename them for identification, so the Jan-June table for 2000 is named TaxTable.001 and the July-Dec table for 2000 is named TaxTable.007 for example.)  If you don’t have a copy of the old tax table, you can probably obtain it from Intuit or from another user who hasn’t updated the tables. 3. Restore a backup copy of your data as it existed prior to rebuilding. 4. Rebuild the data. 5. Re-enter transactions as necessary, especially including payroll up to 2000 June 30 but NOT including subsequent payroll. 6. Backup and verify your data. 7. Re-install the new payroll tax table (see 2. above). 8. Re-enter remaining transactions as necessary, specifically including July payroll. 9. Backup your data. Again, these recovery steps assume that your diagnosis is correct, caused by a serious bug in the Rebuild Data function. This still seems unlikely to me, and should be discussed with QB Tech Support. NOTE:  Never rely on just one backup.  Consider making 2 backup copies every time, one on floppy disk and another on some other medium.  Keep at least 2-3 generations of backups; depending on specific circumstances, I recommend that some of my clients retain as many as 15 generations of backups.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Folks, Did a rebuild data in July 00 with QB6 pro(Canadian) and it changed all the tax deductions on employee cheques prior to July 1 to the new lower tax amounts. I assume it used the right period rates but most likely the new increased personal amounts of 7,331 instead of the 7,131 prior to July 1. Help!!! Any workaround for this?? Any help appreciated. Later…. David S.

Response:

Hi Vernon Upon further investigation I found the following: It was not the personal deduction amount which affected the witholdings but was the tax rates in effect. Only federal tax rate was affected, and I don’t know if the CPP and UI rates changed July 1. We started using payroll class allocations in the last period paid prior to July 1 and that period was NOT affected, only the periods prior to this in which no class payroll class allocations were applied. Later…. David S.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve never seen the Rebuild Data function make changes to transactions, as you’ve described.  It should NOT do so. Assuming your diagnosis is correct, I’d call that a BUG which you should report asap to Intuit. QB maintains only one tax table, thus it cannot use different tax tables based on transaction dates.  All payroll software that I have worked with operates on a similar basis, although I’m sure there are some programs that maintain multiple tax tables. Following is an outline of the only "fix" that I can think of: 1. Ensure that you have a backup copy of your data as it existed prior to rebuilding.  Make at least one extra copy of this file and put it in a safe place, just in case. 2. Remove the new tax table and re-install the old tax table. Unless Intuit has changed things since 1999 December, this involves replacing only one file, TAXTABLE.CAN, which is only about 25 kb.  The new file should have a 2000 June or July date, the old file a date of 1999 December or 2000 January.  (QB doesn’t readily tell you this, doesn’t make or keep backup copies of old tax tables when installing new tables.  I keep backup copies of old tax tables just in case; I rename them for identification, so the Jan-June table for 2000 is named TaxTable.001 and the July-Dec table for 2000 is named TaxTable.007 for example.)  If you don’t have a copy of the old tax table, you can probably obtain it from Intuit or from another user who hasn’t updated the tables. 3. Restore a backup copy of your data as it existed prior to rebuilding. 4. Rebuild the data. 5. Re-enter transactions as necessary, especially including payroll up to 2000 June 30 but NOT including subsequent payroll. 6. Backup and verify your data. 7. Re-install the new payroll tax table (see 2. above). 8. Re-enter remaining transactions as necessary, specifically including July payroll. 9. Backup your data. Again, these recovery steps assume that your diagnosis is correct, caused by a serious bug in the Rebuild Data function. This still seems unlikely to me, and should be discussed with QB Tech Support. NOTE:  Never rely on just one backup.  Consider making 2 backup copies every time, one on floppy disk and another on some other medium.  Keep at least 2-3 generations of backups; depending on specific circumstances, I recommend that some of my clients retain as many as 15 generations of backups. Hi Folks, Did a rebuild data in July 00 with QB6 pro(Canadian) and it changed all the tax deductions on employee cheques prior to July 1 to the new lower tax amounts. I assume it used the right period rates but most likely the new increased personal amounts of 7,331 instead of the 7,131 prior to July 1. Help!!! Any workaround for this?? Any help appreciated. Later…. David S.

Response:

Dumb and Dumber, I must have been in that movie. It wasn’t the rebuild at all. When I went back and applied classes to all the older cheques and did not realize that the total cheque was being recalculated at that time using the new personal deduction. Solution was to edit federal tax on about 125 cheques to agree with my back-up Thanks for your help Later… David S.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi David: CPP and EI (formerly UI) did not change in July.  Federal rates did, as you know, as did rates for roughly half the provinces (Ontario, for example, but not Nova Scotia). What you found about using classes is interesting – that’s the kind of "detective" work that’s usually needed to solve apparent accounting mysteries. My previous post still applies – apparently the Rebuild Data changed previously-entered transactions.  I’ve not personally experienced that, and it’s something that should NOT happen and should be reported asap to Intuit, along with all related information that you can provide (such as the effect of class allocations).  Still assuming (not doubting) that your assessment is correct, the "fix" I described is still appropriate – if (hoping) that you have a backup file that is prior to the Rebuild but quite recent.  Of course you also need to know which transactions (subsequent to the backup date) must be re-entered, which will require printing various reports from the current (rebuilt) file. Regards, Vernon Hi Vernon Upon further investigation I found the following: It was not the personal deduction amount which affected the witholdings but was the tax rates in effect. Only federal tax rate was affected, and I don’t know if the CPP and UI rates changed July 1. We started using payroll class allocations in the last period paid prior to July 1 and that period was NOT affected, only the periods prior to this in which no class payroll class allocations were applied. Later…. David S.

Response:

Hi David: CPP and EI (formerly UI) did not change in July.  Federal rates did, as you know, as did rates for roughly half the provinces (Ontario, for example, but not Nova Scotia). What you found about using classes is interesting – that’s the kind of "detective" work that’s usually needed to solve apparent accounting mysteries. My previous post still applies – apparently the Rebuild Data changed previously-entered transactions.  I’ve not personally experienced that, and it’s something that should NOT happen and should be reported asap to Intuit, along with all related information that you can provide (such as the effect of class allocations).  Still assuming (not doubting) that your assessment is correct, the "fix" I described is still appropriate – if (hoping) that you have a backup file that is prior to the Rebuild but quite recent.  Of course you also need to know which transactions (subsequent to the backup date) must be re-entered, which will require printing various reports from the current (rebuilt) file. Regards, Vernon

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Vernon Upon further investigation I found the following: It was not the personal deduction amount which affected the witholdings but was the tax rates in effect. Only federal tax rate was affected, and I don’t know if the CPP and UI rates changed July 1. We started using payroll class allocations in the last period paid prior to July 1 and that period was NOT affected, only the periods prior to this in which no class payroll class allocations were applied. Later…. David S.

Response:

Question:

I have been selling a little on eBay for a few months.  I seem to have an endless amount of paperwork to do.  Please tell me what I need to keep track of, and I’d love ideas on the most efficient and easiest way to do it.  Will IRS catch up to us, if we only sell about $200. month gross? Please help!  Thanks. Before you buy.

Response:

(snip) Will IRS catch up to us, if we only sell about $200. month gross? Please help!  Thanks.

SHHHH!!!! They will now!

Response:

I can’t give any answer regarding the KGB but will tell you what I keep a record of – I made a simple database in MS Works with the following catergories: Item number, item description, my price, selling price, have I received payment, have I shipped item, and tracking number.  If I need to add a note about an item that doesn’t fit the above I place it in the "have I shipped" column with an asterisk before it to make it stand out. When I do taxes this year I am adding up the cost of all the items that sold and I have been paid for, am subtracting that from the selling price (not including shipping), subtracting the total ebay fees for the year, and reporting the resulting figure as non-declared income.  At least that’s my plan, will talk to a CPA about it beforehand.  I am not bothering to adjust for exemptions regarding it, if I err I plan on erring in the IRS’ favor – any mistake will be minimal and far outweighs the penalty if it was the other way around. If the KGB wants more detail I’ll write something but I’ve long since given up on a full detailed accounting with all receipts.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have been selling a little on eBay for a few months.  I seem to have an endless amount of paperwork to do.  Please tell me what I need to keep track of, and I’d love ideas on the most efficient and easiest way to do it.  Will IRS catch up to us, if we only sell about $200. month gross? Please help!  Thanks. Before you buy.

Response:

You can link from item# to ebay listing, and such..

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I can’t give any answer regarding the KGB but will tell you what I keep a record of – I made a simple database in MS Works with the following catergories: Item number, item description, my price, selling price, have I received payment, have I shipped item, and tracking number.  If I need to add a note about an item that doesn’t fit the above I place it in the "have I shipped" column with an asterisk before it to make it stand out. When I do taxes this year I am adding up the cost of all the items that sold and I have been paid for, am subtracting that from the selling price (not including shipping), subtracting the total ebay fees for the year, and reporting the resulting figure as non-declared income.  At least that’s my plan, will talk to a CPA about it beforehand.  I am not bothering to adjust for exemptions regarding it, if I err I plan on erring in the IRS’ favor – any mistake will be minimal and far outweighs the penalty if it was the other way around. If the KGB wants more detail I’ll write something but I’ve long since given up on a full detailed accounting with all receipts. I have been selling a little on eBay for a few months.  I seem to have an endless amount of paperwork to do.  Please tell me what I need to keep track of, and I’d love ideas on the most efficient and easiest way to do it.  Will IRS catch up to us, if we only sell about $200. month gross? Please help!  Thanks. Before you buy.

Response:

Do any of you attempt to write off part or all of your ISP costs for doing eBay business?                                Donna in Texas – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –

Response:

Also, what about recorded mileage to the post office for an IRS write-off?                       Donna

Response:

I don’t say anything–I don’t claim it–won’t ever get a business license–etcetera. If I made a million at a garage sale–I wouldn’t pay taxes–why should we with eBay?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do any of you attempt to write off part or all of your ISP costs for doing eBay business?                                Donna in Texas

Response:

Because Ebay and your bank have a record of every single transaction you’ve made on Ebay, which they would be happy to supply to the IRS if you ever got audited.  Unlike yard sales, which are done on a cash basis. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t say anything–I don’t claim it–won’t ever get a business license–etcetera. If I made a million at a garage sale–I wouldn’t pay taxes–why should we with eBay?

Response:

Question:

I dont see where this has any bearing on the subject at hand, but have you considered the fact that the federal income tax was originally instituted to support the civil war? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. \///

Response:

I dont see where this has any bearing on the subject at hand, but have you considered the fact that the federal income tax was originally instituted to support the civil war?

I *think* the federal income tax was begun in 1913; possibly to support the forthcoming U.S. part in WWI, but the U.S. didn’t get into WWI until 1917, so I am not sure about that connection.  I agree it has no bearing on the subject of divorce!  [altho tax issues are a thorny part of the process....] JPH

Response:

Federal income tax existed before 1913 – but at one point was found to be unconstitutional. Hence – a constitutional amendment was enacted, I believe with the threat of WWI on the horizon, in order to permit a federal income tax so the federal government could continue to function "in the style to which it was accustomed". .,  is my understanding. Happily, I note that Dan and I seem to be in agreement with the basic argument I put forth, and I absolutely agree with Dan that there are many factors to be considered with respect to arriving at a fair agreement between the parties in a divorce. If I understand Dan’s point – I believe also that he is correct that the best situation is an agreement between the parties, negotiated with the relevant factors in mind, and with the object of fairness for each party. Best Regards,   –  BD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I dont see where this has any bearing on the subject at hand, but have you considered the fact that the federal income tax was originally instituted to support the civil war? I *think* the federal income tax was begun in 1913; possibly to support the forthcoming U.S. part in WWI, but the U.S. didn’t get into WWI until 1917, so I am not sure about that connection.  I agree it has no bearing on the subject of divorce!  [altho tax issues are a thorny part of the process....] JPH

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Thanks for your note. – – —  snip-  - only 57% after-tax income, but must assume 67% of CS obligation. Hence – inequitable. No, you’ve thrown a wrinkle into it by adding a constraint requiring proportionate share of support, but proportionate to what? Ok, clarify: Available income.

It’s going to sound like the communist slogan: "From each according to ability and to each according to need."  And there are a thousand details that go into it, all of them arguable points that may never be agreed upon by the parties involved. An objective 3rd party view would use aftertax as part of the method of determining what’s available.  I have no argument with you on that.  I don’t think that is enough, however, and a number of other factors can subtract from what’s "available", including nonreimbursable expenses required for employment, and obligations to support other relatives, just to name a few. Personally, I think it is more equitable to try to proportionalize from the financial situation that existed prior to divorce.  If the future NCP was contributing $x of support pre-divorce after having paid his house payment or rent, taxes, etc.  then he should continue to contribute that much, but adjusted downward by a percentage that reflects his increased cost of living.  Yes, this means the kids will have to lower their standard of living a little, just as the NCP lowers his standard of living a little. For divorcees who can cooperate and are up for the analysis, and want to be fair, they can sort out all these details right down to the minutia and figure out how much each parent should contribute.  I suggest the guiding theme would be to proportion based on the amount each agrees is available after taxes, and basic living expenses. The usual case, however is that people will not agree, and the state has to step in and settle it for them.  What happens is _everyone_ gets tossed into a cookie cutter mold of a formula designed to adjust on the basis of what the average person has "available".  (whatever that is). So, these experts try to build a picture of an average person, how much the basic living expenses are, and how much is left over.  Surely, they have to compute this on the basis of aftertax income, etc.  However, once that is done, only for the reason of simplifying things and avoiding reopening the CS agreement annually (which costs everyone more wasted money), they determine the amount and figure out the percentage of aftertax income it represents, or the percentage of pretax income it represents, and say "here’s the rule".  They’ve decided the answer and have backcalculated to compose the problem. e.g. The answer is $3283 and the problem is x% of some income number.  Pick which income (choice of pretax or aftertax) and they will tell you what x is. Aftertax or pretax?  How can you claim proportion of pretax is same proportion of aftertax?  Decide which one you want. My argument is that in order for the obligation to be proportionate, if that is desirable, then it *must* be calculated after tax.

I agree that is _one_ of the factors. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Typically, the CS is figured solely on NCP income.  So, pick a number, $3283 ???  Then $3283 is 22% of NCP’s aftertax, or $3283 is 16% of NCP’s pretax.  But it is still $3283.  And it doesn’t matter whether it was percentage of NCP’s pretax or NCP’s aftertax so long as the percentage is appropriate to whatever it is applied to. As to whether proportionality is actually equitable or not, that argument could go on forever.  I know that I have subscribed to a certain standard of living that would be difficult to adjust year to year.  I have house payment and other fixed monthly payments that sort of have to be paid whether I make barely enough to pay them or make $200K more than I need.  That sort of sets my "zero point" of break even well above let’s say $30K. The NCPs "cost of living" is rarely taken into account in calculating the support obligation. So, the NCP should adjust *their* standard of living to meet income after taxes and support.

Supposedly, the cookie cutter formula is supposed to factor in NCP’s cost of living.  That is varies from one person to another is an obvious flaw in the method. So to me, making aftertax $50K is twice as good as making aftertax $40K because the former gives me $20K above necessity to live on, and the latter only gives me $10K above necessity to live on. No, you have the full $50K (less support) to live on. How that is spent is controlled by you as a matter of personal preference.

Technically correct.  But don’t you see the point that one’s expenses tend to increase as one’s income, although not proportionally and certainly not arithmetically?  Everyone has a basic subsistence level that is above $0.  My point is that $0 should not be the point at which to begin discussing proportionality.  Maybe 2x or 3x the poverty level is the right point.   But 50/40 is only 1.25, far short of 2.00. That’s why I think strict proportionality is _not_ equitable. You offer the assumption that the 30K is "fixed". Nothing fixes that amount. Some courts have suggested a minimal amount that the NCP may have for living expenses of 10K. Some provide that amount as $0.

I’m just trying to pick easy numbers I can calculate in my head.  I certainly think $0 is wrong.  I even think $10K is too low, but it’s a step in the right direction. In that same example, if I netted $20K above necessities and my ex only netted $10K beyond her necessities, regardless of our actual gross or after tax incomes, I’ve basically got twice as much "extra" money to play with than she does.  Only in real life, it’s probably a $30K to $1K comparison.  I pay a higher proportion of child care than she does and still have way more left over than she does.  I do not get hung up over the percentages.  What is equitable? Again, I offered the assumption that a proportionate share is equitable. Whether or not it is is a different argument.

        <snip The word "proportional" just sounds too good to refuse.  Mathematically proportional to a $0 base isn’t the same as establishing a true proportionality after basic expenses are met. I had an idea of what was "fair" in my case.  My wife and I both worked outside home, and that situation was not expected to change after divorce.  I contributed more money to the family than she did because I made more.  That was an existing situation.  After divorce, the variables were: difference in tax status of each wage earner, and who gets the child exemptions and so on, plus admittedly there were now two households to maintain (she had a house payment and no one to share it with, and I had a house payment with no one to share it with, plus utilities, etc.).  So, what I did was assess the apparent contribution from each of us before divorce, and took a SWAG at guessing the increase in expenses for each of us due to new tax status and living situations. Neither of us made an extravagant change in lifestyle.  It seemed fair to both of us that since I contributed more money before divorce, that I should continue to do so after divorce, and that is how we set the proportion of expenses each of us should pay.  It wasn’t difficult to assess the expenses — child care, clothing, extracurricular expenses and medical for the kids.  We each agreed to fund our own households (house payments, utilities, etc.) and split the _actual_ child expenses proportional to a formula.  So, I pay 2/3 of child care (and receive 2/3 of child care credit) and take 2/3 of the tax exemptions (which is done by trading years), 2/3 clothing, medical, etc.  We each pay for 100% of food, etc. when the kids are with us (time split 50/50).  So maybe the true split in costs comes closer to 60/40.  There is no "mommy support" in there, just an equitable split of costs. I find that I still have tons more "available" money than she does.  But we both think it is fair.  If I were to win the lottery and become a multimillionaire, I’d probably call her up and tell her to forget it, I’ll cover ALL the kids expenses.  And that would seem fair to me.  But short of a drastic change in finances, neither of us want to tamper with a formula that works. A lot of people can’t arrive at this "civil" arrangement.  For them, there is the hell of the state mandated guidelines which assumes everyone is the same.   — Dan Daugherty

Response:

Thanks for your note. –

- —  snip-  - only 57% after-tax income, but must assume 67% of CS obligation. Hence – inequitable. No, you’ve thrown a wrinkle into it by adding a constraint requiring proportionate share of support, but proportionate to what?

Ok, clarify: Available income. Aftertax or pretax?  How can you claim proportion of pretax is same proportion of aftertax?  Decide which one you want.

My argument is that in order for the obligation to be proportionate, if that is desirable, then it *must* be calculated after tax. Typically, the CS is figured solely on NCP income.  So, pick a number, $3283 ???  Then $3283 is 22% of NCP’s aftertax, or $3283 is 16% of NCP’s pretax.  But it is still $3283.  And it doesn’t matter whether it was percentage of NCP’s pretax or NCP’s aftertax so long as the percentage is appropriate to whatever it is applied to. As to whether proportionality is actually equitable or not, that argument could go on forever.  I know that I have subscribed to a certain standard of living that would be difficult to adjust year to year.  I have house payment and other fixed monthly payments that sort of have to be paid whether I make barely enough to pay them or make $200K more than I need.  That sort of sets my "zero point" of break even well above let’s say $30K.

The NCPs "cost of living" is rarely taken into account in calculating the support obligation. So, the NCP should adjust *their* standard of living to meet income after taxes and support. So to me, making aftertax $50K is twice as good as making aftertax $40K because the former gives me $20K above necessity to live on, and the latter only gives me $10K above necessity to live on.

No, you have the full $50K (less support) to live on. How that is spent is controlled by you as a matter of personal preference. But 50/40 is only 1.25, far short of 2.00. That’s why I think strict proportionality is _not_ equitable.

You offer the assumption that the 30K is "fixed". Nothing fixes that amount. Some courts have suggested a minimal amount that the NCP may have for living expenses of 10K. Some provide that amount as $0. In that same example, if I netted $20K above necessities and my ex only netted $10K beyond her necessities, regardless of our actual gross or after tax incomes, I’ve basically got twice as much "extra" money to play with than she does.  Only in real life, it’s probably a $30K to $1K comparison.  I pay a higher proportion of child care than she does and still have way more left over than she does.  I do not get hung up over the percentages.  What is equitable?

Again, I offered the assumption that a proportionate share is equitable. Whether or not it is is a different argument. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Why should _anything_ be tax deductible?  If you pay $10,000 in income tax, what does it matter whether it all came from a small percentage of _all_ in your income, or a larger percentage of just _some_ of your income?  By allowing tax deductions, the govt. is shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another. And it most readily shifts it to the NCP. The NCP is government’s current bad-boy, and is accorded minimal rights and inequitable treatment. So long as the percentage is set right, it doesn’t matter where exemptions and deductions fall.  If the problem is posed correctly, to set first that the exemptions and deductions will fall to the CP, then it is a simple matter of algebra to come up with the magic percentage that nets the CP the correct amount.  If roles were reversed, so that NCP defaulted to receive all exemptions and deductions, you can be sure the legislators would simply increase the percentage to make sure the CP netted the same CS payment after tax. Except where couples can cooperate to conspire to avoid taxes and keep it for themselves and their kids instead of Uncle Sam, one cannot look at only half the problem and pose an argument.  Half the problem is who gets the deductions and pays the taxes and the other half is the percentage assessed against the NCP’s income.  It’s crazy to only look at one w/o the other.

It seems to me that you offer a conclusion that: The *purpose* and effect of the existing rules is *not* to split the cost proportionately. I would agree with that conclusion. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It has nothing to do with actual need and everything to do with figuring out how to buy votes. If people with kids were in the minority, and hardly affected the outcomes of elections you can bet there would be no deductions whatsoever. The first priority of any govt. is to remain in power, which requires votes.  Hence, we get deductions for mortgages, etc.  It would be extremely difficult to accurately account for every dollar spent on kids, so instead we get child care deductions, child exemptions, and now child tax credits.  Why?  Because we (parents) vote for the guys that promise us these things.  Let’s face it, we’re just another Special Interest Group. Agreed. And for NCPs an interest group whose interests are not being considered. Ask Carville.  You’re probably right.  But he’d be the one to know. I’d prefer _nothing_ be tax deductible, and then lower the overall tax rate so that the same net amount is collected.  That way, my taxes don’t have to go up to help someone else support their church whose dogma I find to be anathema, or some charity that I think is a waste of money. If I decide to rent a house, my taxes don’t have to go up to support other homeowners who deduct mortgage interest.  I can’t deduct interest on a car loan, so why should someone else deduct it on a home mortgage? If I don’t have kids, why should my federal income tax go up to help support people who do decide to have kids?  It’s all about votes, pure and simple. Absolutely. It is politics. Kindest Regards,  — BD Viva la flat tax! — Dan

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think you’re making this "priority" thing up. The "priority" can be used to describe seeming opaque tax rules, such as: (US, but some similarities with some Canadian rules,) An employer may provide a certain type of health insurance plan for employees – the employees under that plan may make such health insurance payment *before* federal tax and social security tax. But, if the same employer permits employees to make voluntary contributions to a *pension plan,* those contributions are excludable from federal taxable income, but would be subject to FICA tax. The theory there being:  Uncle will permit you to pay certain health costs before requiring you pay for taxes and social security. Well, that makes sense. But, with regard to your pension contribution – Uncle requires that you pay into his retirement system *before* you pay into your own. So, there is an "ordering" of priorities. Sure, there are plenty of inconsistencies in the laws, but this general theory provides a basic understanding of Uncle’s priorities – even though it is not, admittedly, consistent in each case. That CS is not deductible to the payer or taxable to the payee simply reflects the model set in an intact family — those of us who aren’t divorced cannot deduct what we spend on our kids either, but we do pay taxes on our income _before_ we spend it on our kids. So, I’d suggest that the tax obligation should "follow the money." Also, since CS is not deductible, it really doesn’t matter in most cases if it is calculated on pre-tax or after-tax income, so long as the percentage is lower for pre-tax than for after-tax. (e.g. 17% pre-tax or 20% after-tax). Respectfully disagree. Taxes must be paid. Therefore the available income for CS must be from after tax income. Assume it is desirable for 2 parties to assume proportionate share of support for one child based on respective income. CP earns 10k/y, NCP earns 20k/y. Total obligation – (table) is say $4,900. Pre-tax – NCP pays 2/3rds. CP takes kids as dependents, (as permitted by law in absence of agreement), HOH status, possibly lower tax bracket, child credit and EIC. NCP, if divorce not finalized, must file MFS. NCP may have tax obligation (Fed, FICA and State) of, say, $4,800 (Possible.) CP pays $765 FICA/Med, virtually no Fed or State tax, and receives EIC of about $2,200. After tax, before support –  situation – CP net $11,435,  NCP $15,200. NCP has only 57% after-tax income, but must assume 67% of CS obligation. Hence – inequitable.

No, you’ve thrown a wrinkle into it by adding a constraint requiring proportionate share of support, but proportionate to what?  Aftertax or pretax?  How can you claim proportion of pretax is same proportion of aftertax?  Decide which one you want.  Typically, the CS is figured solely on NCP income.  So, pick a number, $3283 ???  Then $3283 is 22% of NCP’s aftertax, or $3283 is 16% of NCP’s pretax.  But it is still $3283.  And it doesn’t matter whether it was percentage of NCP’s pretax or NCP’s aftertax so long as the percentage is appropriate to whatever it is applied to. As to whether proportionality is actually equitable or not, that argument could go on forever.  I know that I have subscribed to a certain standard of living that would be difficult to adjust year to year.  I have house payment and other fixed monthly payments that sort of have to be paid whether I make barely enough to pay them or make $200K more than I need.  That sort of sets my "zero point" of break even well above let’s say $30K.  So to me, making aftertax $50K is twice as good as making aftertax $40K because the former gives me $20K above necessity to live on, and the latter only gives me $10K above necessity to live on.  But 50/40 is only 1.25, far short of 2.00. That’s why I think strict proportionality is _not_ equitable.   In that same example, if I netted $20K above necessities and my ex only netted $10K beyond her necessities, regardless of our actual gross or after tax incomes, I’ve basically got twice as much "extra" money to play with than she does.  Only in real life, it’s probably a $30K to $1K comparison.  I pay a higher proportion of child care than she does and still have way more left over than she does.  I do not get hung up over the percentages.  What is equitable?   Why should _anything_ be tax deductible?  If you pay $10,000 in income tax, what does it matter whether it all came from a small percentage of _all_ in your income, or a larger percentage of just _some_ of your income?  By allowing tax deductions, the govt. is shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another. And it most readily shifts it to the NCP. The NCP is government’s current bad-boy, and is accorded minimal rights and inequitable treatment.

So long as the percentage is set right, it doesn’t matter where exemptions and deductions fall.  If the problem is posed correctly, to set first that the exemptions and deductions will fall to the CP, then it is a simple matter of algebra to come up with the magic percentage that nets the CP the correct amount.  If roles were reversed, so that NCP defaulted to receive all exemptions and deductions, you can be sure the legislators would simply increase the percentage to make sure the CP netted the same CS payment after tax. Except where couples can cooperate to conspire to avoid taxes and keep it for themselves and their kids instead of Uncle Sam, one cannot look at only half the problem and pose an argument.  Half the problem is who gets the deductions and pays the taxes and the other half is the percentage assessed against the NCP’s income.  It’s crazy to only look at one w/o the other. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It has nothing to do with actual need and everything to do with figuring out how to buy votes. If people with kids were in the minority, and hardly affected the outcomes of elections you can bet there would be no deductions whatsoever. The first priority of any govt. is to remain in power, which requires votes.  Hence, we get deductions for mortgages, etc.  It would be extremely difficult to accurately account for every dollar spent on kids, so instead we get child care deductions, child exemptions, and now child tax credits.  Why?  Because we (parents) vote for the guys that promise us these things.  Let’s face it, we’re just another Special Interest Group. Agreed. And for NCPs an interest group whose interests are not being considered.

Ask Carville.  You’re probably right.  But he’d be the one to know. I’d prefer _nothing_ be tax deductible, and then lower the overall tax rate so that the same net amount is collected.  That way, my taxes don’t have to go up to help someone else support their church whose dogma I find to be anathema, or some charity that I think is a waste of money. If I decide to rent a house, my taxes don’t have to go up to support other homeowners who deduct mortgage interest.  I can’t deduct interest on a car loan, so why should someone else deduct it on a home mortgage? If I don’t have kids, why should my federal income tax go up to help support people who do decide to have kids?  It’s all about votes, pure and simple. Absolutely. It is politics. Kindest Regards,  — BD

Viva la flat tax! — Dan

Response:

I think you’re making this "priority" thing up. That CS is not deductible to the payer or taxable to the payee simply reflects the model set in an intact family — those of us who aren’t divorced cannot deduct what we spend on our kids either, but we do pay taxes on our income _before_ we spend it on our kids.   Also, since CS is not deductible, it really doesn’t matter in most cases if it is calculated on pre-tax or after-tax income, so long as the percentage is lower for pre-tax than for after-tax. (e.g. 17% pre-tax or 20% after-tax). Why should _anything_ be tax deductible?  If you pay $10,000 in income tax, what does it matter whether it all came from a small percentage of _all_ in your income, or a larger percentage of just _some_ of your income?  By allowing tax deductions, the govt. is shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another.  It has nothing to do with actual need and everything to do with figuring out how to buy votes. If people with kids were in the minority, and hardly affected the outcomes of elections you can bet there would be no deductions whatsoever. The first priority of any govt. is to remain in power, which requires votes.  Hence, we get deductions for mortgages, etc.  It would be extremely difficult to accurately account for every dollar spent on kids, so instead we get child care deductions, child exemptions, and now child tax credits.  Why?  Because we (parents) vote for the guys that promise us these things.  Let’s face it, we’re just another Special Interest Group. I’d prefer _nothing_ be tax deductible, and then lower the overall tax rate so that the same net amount is collected.  That way, my taxes don’t have to go up to help someone else support their church whose dogma I find to be anathema, or some charity that I think is a waste of money. If I decide to rent a house, my taxes don’t have to go up to support other homeowners who deduct mortgage interest.  I can’t deduct interest on a car loan, so why should someone else deduct it on a home mortgage? If I don’t have kids, why should my federal income tax go up to help support people who do decide to have kids?  It’s all about votes, pure and simple. — Dan Daugherty – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Right Joel, that suggests that who should have the dependency exemption deduction be *negotiated* as it often is. (… Other particulars best discussed with an atty and tax advisor omitted.) You also point to a clear benefit of calculating support based on *after tax* income rather then pre-tax income. The result of calculating support on pre-tax income points to the clear *ordering* (as in "order of priorities") of obligation put forth by the government. Tax law is a clear indication of the governmental priorities – by not allowing the child support to be deductible by the payor, the government is making the payment of income taxes a higher priority then the payment of child support. This is particularly ironic when one considers that the government, by allowing deductions (US) for such things as excise taxes on automobiles, home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, pension contributions, investment expenses, etc.  —  the ability of an individual to allocate resources to the *child support obligation* is considered by Uncle Sam to be *not his problem*. Any governmental individual or organization which uses a "kids first" argument is just talking nonsense, government has made clear it’s priorities, and in respect to this matter, government puts government first. Regardless of any disagreement with this priority argument, the combination of factors of allocating dependency tax benefits, (and, where it applies calculating child support based on pre-tax income) produces an economic error – the total effect of those rules typically causes an NCP to "double count" income for purposes of taxation and child support. Thus, the government, expects NCPs to adopt the government’s method of accounting, and sees no problem with those individuals having the same income to spend over and over for as many purposes as is politically expedient. The only way to overcome many of these built-in problems is to have a negotiated divorce agreement, drafted with the concept of fairness in mind. Thanks for your note, Joel.   Best Regards, –  BD I think that the tax bracket of each should be major factor.  If one person is paying taxes at a 15% marginal rate and the other at 31%, it is a waste of shared resources for the 15% taxpayer to take the deduction, since it’s worth twice as much to the other person.  In that case, if there’s that much communication between the two people, balance the expenses some other way but make maximum use of advantages where the rules are shaped from the outside.  The same holds ture when two people compare the costs of the family insurance (health etc) that the respective corporate plans offer.  The person with the most liberal amd cost effective coverage should secure the insurance in most cases. (Job stability also counts). My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction. It is a decision between you two – some agree to alternate years claiming the child.  In general though, the CP gets to claim the child and the NCP doesn’t get to claim anything (seems kinda stupid to me). Zimm If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you: — http://netnow.micron.net/~kgibson Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I think you’re making this "priority" thing up.

The "priority" can be used to describe seeming opaque tax rules, such as: (US, but some similarities with some Canadian rules,) An employer may provide a certain type of health insurance plan for employees – the employees under that plan may make such health insurance payment *before* federal tax and social security tax. But, if the same employer permits employees to make voluntary contributions to a *pension plan,* those contributions are excludable from federal taxable income, but would be subject to FICA tax. The theory there being:  Uncle will permit you to pay certain health costs before requiring you pay for taxes and social security. Well, that makes sense. But, with regard to your pension contribution – Uncle requires that you pay into his retirement system *before* you pay into your own. So, there is an "ordering" of priorities. Sure, there are plenty of inconsistencies in the laws, but this general theory provides a basic understanding of Uncle’s priorities – even though it is not, admittedly, consistent in each case. That CS is not deductible to the payer or taxable to the payee simply reflects the model set in an intact family — those of us who aren’t divorced cannot deduct what we spend on our kids either, but we do pay taxes on our income _before_ we spend it on our kids.

So, I’d suggest that the tax obligation should "follow the money." Also, since CS is not deductible, it really doesn’t matter in most cases if it is calculated on pre-tax or after-tax income, so long as the percentage is lower for pre-tax than for after-tax. (e.g. 17% pre-tax or 20% after-tax).

Respectfully disagree. Taxes must be paid. Therefore the available income for CS must be from after tax income. Assume it is desirable for 2 parties to assume proportionate share of support for one child based on respective income. CP earns 10k/y, NCP earns 20k/y. Total obligation – (table) is say $4,900. Pre-tax – NCP pays 2/3rds. CP takes kids as dependents, (as permitted by law in absence of agreement), HOH status, possibly lower tax bracket, child credit and EIC. NCP, if divorce not finalized, must file MFS. NCP may have tax obligation (Fed, FICA and State) of, say, $4,800 (Possible.) CP pays $765 FICA/Med, virtually no Fed or State tax, and receives EIC of about $2,200. After tax, before support –  situation – CP net $11,435,  NCP $15,200. NCP has only 57% after-tax income, but must assume 67% of CS obligation. Hence – inequitable. Why should _anything_ be tax deductible?  If you pay $10,000 in income tax, what does it matter whether it all came from a small percentage of _all_ in your income, or a larger percentage of just _some_ of your income?  By allowing tax deductions, the govt. is shifting the tax burden from one group of taxpayers to another.

And it most readily shifts it to the NCP. The NCP is government’s current bad-boy, and is accorded minimal rights and inequitable treatment. It has nothing to do with actual need and everything to do with figuring out how to buy votes. If people with kids were in the minority, and hardly affected the outcomes of elections you can bet there would be no deductions whatsoever. The first priority of any govt. is to remain in power, which requires votes.  Hence, we get deductions for mortgages, etc.  It would be extremely difficult to accurately account for every dollar spent on kids, so instead we get child care deductions, child exemptions, and now child tax credits.  Why?  Because we (parents) vote for the guys that promise us these things.  Let’s face it, we’re just another Special Interest Group.

Agreed. And for NCPs an interest group whose interests are not being considered. I’d prefer _nothing_ be tax deductible, and then lower the overall tax rate so that the same net amount is collected.  That way, my taxes don’t have to go up to help someone else support their church whose dogma I find to be anathema, or some charity that I think is a waste of money. If I decide to rent a house, my taxes don’t have to go up to support other homeowners who deduct mortgage interest.  I can’t deduct interest on a car loan, so why should someone else deduct it on a home mortgage? If I don’t have kids, why should my federal income tax go up to help support people who do decide to have kids?  It’s all about votes, pure and simple.

Absolutely. It is politics. Kindest Regards,  — BD

Response:

If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you:

Response:

It is a decision between you two – some agree to alternate years claiming the child.  In general though, the CP gets to claim the child and the NCP doesn’t get to claim anything (seems kinda stupid to me). Zimm – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you:

Response:

My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – It is a decision between you two – some agree to alternate years claiming the child.  In general though, the CP gets to claim the child and the NCP doesn’t get to claim anything (seems kinda stupid to me). Zimm If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you:

– http://netnow.micron.net/~kgibson Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction.

Yeah, the tax laws following the dependency deduction really don’t favor the NCP – in absence of agreement, the parent who lives with the child more then half the time  is entitled to the dependency deduction, child credit, any available earned income credit or education credits – - as well as the abiltity to file HOH, while a NCP must file either single or married filing separately. Unfortunately, these factors tend to *increase* the NCPs proportionate share of the child support burden – and in this state –  since the support calculation is figured on pre-tax income – an NCP can, and usually does, end up carring a greater proportion of the guideline costs of raising the child then would be implied as "equitable" – as put forth in the law. And who is the beneficiary here – Well, it’s the government! Best Regards,   BD "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." — Jacquin’s Postulate on Democratic Government

Response:

Oops – my response was US – when question was Candian. I know that at least some Canadian provences have changed the rules for entitlement of claiming the children on the tax return – from the person paying support – to the person with the child. The reason was simple – since an NCP is likely to have a higher tax bracket – the govenment could collect more taxes. Those government guys don’t give us NCPs much of a break. For Ontario – call your local tax advisor – they should be gald to help you. Kindest Regards o’ Northern Cousin – BD (Posting from  Maine – which many in the US consider a province of Canada.) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction. Yeah, the tax laws following the dependency deduction really don’t favor the NCP – in absence of agreement, the parent who lives with the child more then half the time  is entitled to the dependency deduction, child credit, any available earned income credit or education credits – - as well as the abiltity to file HOH, while a NCP must file either single or married filing separately. Unfortunately, these factors tend to *increase* the NCPs proportionate share of the child support burden – and in this state –  since the support calculation is figured on pre-tax income – an NCP can, and usually does, end up carring a greater proportion of the guideline costs of raising the child then would be implied as "equitable" – as put forth in the law. And who is the beneficiary here – Well, it’s the government! Best Regards,   BD "No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." — Jacquin’s Postulate on Democratic Government

Response:

Right Joel, that suggests that who should have the dependency exemption deduction be *negotiated* as it often is. (… Other particulars best discussed with an atty and tax advisor omitted.) You also point to a clear benefit of calculating support based on *after tax* income rather then pre-tax income. The result of calculating support on pre-tax income points to the clear *ordering* (as in "order of priorities") of obligation put forth by the government. Tax law is a clear indication of the governmental priorities – by not allowing the child support to be deductible by the payor, the government is making the payment of income taxes a higher priority then the payment of child support. This is particularly ironic when one considers that the government, by allowing deductions (US) for such things as excise taxes on automobiles, home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, pension contributions, investment expenses, etc.  —  the ability of an individual to allocate resources to the *child support obligation* is considered by Uncle Sam to be *not his problem*. Any governmental individual or organization which uses a "kids first" argument is just talking nonsense, government has made clear it’s priorities, and in respect to this matter, government puts government first. Regardless of any disagreement with this priority argument, the combination of factors of allocating dependency tax benefits, (and, where it applies calculating child support based on pre-tax income) produces an economic error – the total effect of those rules typically causes an NCP to "double count" income for purposes of taxation and child support. Thus, the government, expects NCPs to adopt the government’s method of accounting, and sees no problem with those individuals having the same income to spend over and over for as many purposes as is politically expedient. The only way to overcome many of these built-in problems is to have a negotiated divorce agreement, drafted with the concept of fairness in mind. Thanks for your note, Joel.   Best Regards, –  BD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I think that the tax bracket of each should be major factor.  If one person is paying taxes at a 15% marginal rate and the other at 31%, it is a waste of shared resources for the 15% taxpayer to take the deduction, since it’s worth twice as much to the other person.  In that case, if there’s that much communication between the two people, balance the expenses some other way but make maximum use of advantages where the rules are shaped from the outside.  The same holds ture when two people compare the costs of the family insurance (health etc) that the respective corporate plans offer.  The person with the most liberal amd cost effective coverage should secure the insurance in most cases. (Job stability also counts). My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction. It is a decision between you two – some agree to alternate years claiming the child.  In general though, the CP gets to claim the child and the NCP doesn’t get to claim anything (seems kinda stupid to me). Zimm If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you: — http://netnow.micron.net/~kgibson Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

I think that the tax bracket of each should be major factor.  If one person is paying taxes at a 15% marginal rate and the other at 31%, it is a waste of shared resources for the 15% taxpayer to take the deduction, since it’s worth twice as much to the other person.  In that case, if there’s that much communication between the two people, balance the expenses some other way but make maximum use of advantages where the rules are shaped from the outside.  The same holds ture when two people compare the costs of the family insurance (health etc) that the respective corporate plans offer.  The person with the most liberal amd cost effective coverage should secure the insurance in most cases. (Job stability also counts). My ex claims our middle son each year, I claim our youngest each year, and we bounce the eldest back and forth on even/odd years. This was discussed prior to our final settlement, and was deemed to be

equitable to both of us. Yes, I get the longest period of deduction, but I’m also the one paying child support. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I agree, Zimm…the NCP who pays support should get *some* sort of deduction. It is a decision between you two – some agree to alternate years claiming the child.  In general though, the CP gets to claim the child and the NCP doesn’t get to claim anything (seems kinda stupid to me). Zimm If my spose takes our children i pay the support  who gets to claim this for income Tax purposes as we are not going through lawyers right now and does anyone know what the standard rate is for  ( 4 Children) in the Province of Ontario.        THank you: — http://netnow.micron.net/~kgibson Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

At blue lake, one of the race organizers (AA sports) said the water for the 1/2 Ironmans was currently in the 40s. Wim – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone in RST-land familiar with the Pacific Crest 1/2 Ironman in Oregon June 26? You can look at AA Sports website:  www.racecenter.com.  Rumor has it that the water temperature is even colder this year, due to the record amount of snowfall.  I’ll be there with my neoprene swimcap on! Richard Ling

Response:

Anyone in RST-land familiar with the Pacific Crest 1/2 Ironman in Oregon June 26?  

Response:

Anyone in RST-land familiar with the Pacific Crest 1/2 Ironman in Oregon June 26?

Here’s my race report from last year… The 1998 Pacific Crest Triathlon delivered spectacular scenery, great people and a wonderful day.  The race was very well organized, one major exception not withstanding.  The swim was hands down the best I’ve ever seen: absolutely luxurious, even to the point of having two warming/changing tents with hot soup available, and carpet from the swim finish up the beach and into T1.  I’d bet the course measurement was within 1% or so.  Snow capped mountains in the background completed an amazing picture.  The water was cold — 56 degrees, like Pacific Grove but without the kelp.  One more thing to blame on El Nino — it’s what you have to deal with if you do a tri in the mountains this year, I guess.  At least I was ready for it.  Me and brain freeze are old friends.  Ask anybody. The bike route had amazing vistas, and the run was flat enough to be very fast, legs willing.  Check in and pre/post race amenities and entertainment were excellent, and transportation out to the swim start (it was a point-to-point bike ride) went off without a hitch.  We’d checked in our bikes the day before,  and they bused us out the next morning.  Or, you could have someone drive you out race morning, if you so chose — start time was 10:30 a.m.  Vineman could learn a lot about logistics from this race. The altitude was kind of sneaky.  You go from a swim at about 4850 feet down to the run at 4,200 feet and the effects creep up on you.  Not like Donner where you know right away you’re out of breath.  Just subtly wears you down, like wearing a 15 pound pack.  After four or five hours, you start to notice it’s there.  Usually, I get a second wind on the run.  Didn’t happen this time. Once the snap was gone, it was gone for good. The major exception was on-course aid.  Only three aid stations on the bike, and all they had was water.  Well, two of them had water — in half-liter bottles that wouldn’t stay put in a bottle cage.  The other one was dry when I got there.  On the run, there were aid stations of a sort about every two miles — arguably adequate for the half marathon they had in the morning, but dangerous for a half-IM.  Except for one that had Gatorade, they were all water-only as well.  Some were unattended.  Warm water in cups left on a table, and you had to stop and sort it out.  Except for the soup at T1, there was no food, no Powerbars, no GU, no nothing for fuel or electrolyte replacement, again excepting that one cup of Gatorade on the run.  If it had been just a few degrees hotter it would have been very, very ugly.  I’ve learned to carry my own stuff, so I was OK, but you can only carry so much.  OK is not optimal. A minor glitch was an active railroad crossing right at the beginning.  Based on the schedule they gave us just before the start, some people must have been caught by a train, but the swim coordinator said they would have volunteers with stopwatches at the crossing and adjust times if necessary.  I didn’t hear anyone complain about it after the race.  I’d assume it was as exquisitely managed as everything else in that gentleman’s bailiwick. All in all, and excepting aid stations, I’d say it was up to the standards of the best races I’ve been to, and even beyond in terms of some production values, like free massages, finisher medals and the like.  AA Sports clearly has its act together when it comes to accounting and operations management, which is something the business consultant in me really appreciates.  It means they have the systems in place which can correct their support problem, if they so choose.  It also means that they’re likelier than some to be around for the long haul. It was a small race, some 200-odd people, which makes some things easy, but makes other, important things hard, due to lack of cash flow.  If they fix the aid stations and beef up their marketing, this could easily become a destination race.  The venue is as good as it gets and the Sunriver Resort, where the HQ is, has enough going on to keep the rest of the family occupied for the weekend.  AA Sports is clearly investing in the creation of a unique atmosphere, like, say, Wildflower and Donner have succeeded in doing.  That’s an asset that should pay dividends in the future.  I plan on going back.  Hope to see you there. Tellus Venture Associates "Certainly the game is rigged. Don’t let that stop you; if you don’t bet, you can’t win."  R.A.H.

Response:

Anyone in RST-land familiar with the Pacific Crest 1/2 Ironman in Oregon June 26?

You can look at AA Sports website:  www.racecenter.com.  Rumor has it that the water temperature is even colder this year, due to the record amount of snowfall.  I’ll be there with my neoprene swimcap on! Richard Ling

Response:

I also raced Pacific Crest last year.  For me, it was a completely mixed bag.  I really liked the course, and, in fact, I’ve not gone faster on a 1/2 IM anywhere else. First of all – as of last week, there was a foot and a half of snow at the lake, and the water temp was rumored to be 45 degrees.   Word around town has it that the race will either be a duathlon, or the swim will be shortened to something like a 500. The water was clear and the 10.30a start was great.  But, it was seriously COLD.  I think 56 degrees was a generous estimate.  But, after about 10 minutes, my hands, feet, and face became numb enough to where I felt ok. The ride is rather scenic.  However, it is not at all technical.  There are only something like 4 turns.  I’ve done a lot of riding in that area, and was a bit disappointed to have to simply put my head down and peddle straight on.   Then again, it does make for a rather fast bike split.  Not much climbing involved at all, which is a good thing at that alititude.  The last 10 plus miles are actually downhill. The run is through the resort at Sunriver.  Fast and flat.  And lots of good spots for spectators. Logistically, ask anyone in Oregon about AA sports and you’ll get all sorts of responses.  This is not an organization of athletes who necessarily understand what athletes need on a course.  Thus, there were problems getting enough liquid in on the course (not to mention no food all day).   For those of us carrying our own food & plety of liquid, this was not a problem.  For others, though, it was tough.  There were a lot of people racing there who were used to cooler climates, and had a hard time with the dry, sunny, weather and temperatures in the 80’s.   I saw some serious bonks out there.  However, if you are prepared to support yourself, you can have a crackin’ good race. AA sports does a great job of providing an "overall racing experience for the family."  There is entertainment and other distractions for the family.  If you’re thinking of travelling, Sunriver is a good destination. Also, last year, this race was a qualifier for Long Course Worlds.  If it is again this year, it’s probably not too tough to qualify. For more information on the race, check out www.racecenter.com Will I do it again?  No, for two reasons.  One, the lack of support really, really left a bad taste in my mouth last year.  Two, it interferes with IM Switzerland. Good luck, and let us know how it goes this year if you race. — Share what you know. Learn what you don’t.

Response:

Question:

Anybody know of any good accounting software for the record industry?

Response:

Anybody know of any good accounting software for the record industry?

Are you looking for a retail record store with point of sale capability?  If so, check out Tracks.  We use Musicware but I would not recommend it.

Response:

Yeah….check this out http://www.pastel.com rgds, – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anybody know of any good accounting software for the record industry?

Response: