If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Parents rushing to deliver their bouncing, darling little tax exemptions before January 1   (komotv.com) divider line 190
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8973 clicks; posted to Main » on 31 Dec 2005 at 10:09 AM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2005-12-31 12:48:43 AM  
You'll write off a heckuva lot more income than what the IRS ever gives you with that one, MORANS.
 
2005-12-31 09:00:26 AM  
I'm working at a wedding tonight for similar stupid tax reasons.

\how romantic
 
2005-12-31 10:14:18 AM  
"Dammit woman! PUSH!"
 
2005-12-31 10:15:10 AM  
No mention of how it might affect the health of the kid? Good use of the Asinine tag.
 
2005-12-31 10:15:27 AM  
Kyosuke: yeah. Tax reasons. That's the story the groom is sticking by. In reality it's just another cynical ploy so he won't forget their aniversaries in coming years. Probably will have the kids born on the 31st too.
 
2005-12-31 10:15:41 AM  
Birhtdate 12/31/05 11:59:59 Wook-it da widdle baby!

Birhtdate 01/01/06 00:00:01 Farking brat!
 
2005-12-31 10:15:51 AM  
Speaking as a mom who gave birth to two kids in January, no...I'm with the folks in the article (assuming that their due date isn't way off in February). I would have loved for the girls to have showed up a couple of weeks early, not only for the tax reasons!!!!

Besides, once you have the kids it's nice to have that extra chunk of change. I'd say this was "amusing", not "asinine". But I suppose if you've never pointed out to anyone that 40 weeks is *10* months, not nine, you might not think of it the same way....
 
2005-12-31 10:17:17 AM  
Seattle, the USA version of Canadian healthcare?

Hello, stupid: the five hundred dollars will be eaten up in a few weeks with diapers. Plus the article portrays her as someone trying to get out of as much work as possible.
 
2005-12-31 10:19:04 AM  
Birhtdate 01/01/06 00:00:01 Farking brat!

Actually, most hospitals make a big deal about the New Year Baby (first baby born that year). I've heard about parents who get free diapers and other free stuff.
 
2005-12-31 10:20:09 AM  
2005-12-31 10:15:41 AM LookOutForThatTree!
Birhtdate 12/31/05 11:59:59 Wook-it da widdle baby!
Birhtdate 01/01/06 00:00:01 Farking brat!
___________________________________________________

Actually, being born one second after midnight would probably be worth a lot more than a one-year tax deduction. The first baby of the year seems to get a lot of publicity/free stuff.
 
2005-12-31 10:21:00 AM  
You'll write off a heckuva lot more income than what the IRS ever gives you with that one, MORANS.

Well, assuming you are going to have the child anyway and didn't get pregnant for the tax exemption, then you would be much better off having the child December 31, then January 1.
The IRS gives you the same credits for the child no matter when he/she was born in the year, so basically you get a free year of tax breaks.
 
2005-12-31 10:21:10 AM  
DBM: beat me by a minute!
 
2005-12-31 10:23:49 AM  
Damn, pwned by two Farkers in a row. Not my best effort, eh?
 
2005-12-31 10:24:22 AM  
Kaji
40 weeks is *10* months, not nine

40 weeks = 9.24 months assuming 4.33 weeks per month.
 
2005-12-31 10:24:44 AM  
My birthdate is December 31, so this is a fine thing to wake up to (people calling me/my parents asinine). Thanks alot, Fark.
 
2005-12-31 10:27:30 AM  
We may get that first baby of January. The wife is due Jan 13th, but it could happen today.

The tax break is about the 50,000th thing we're worried about.

Maybe if the due date was in late December and was late we'd have induced on the 30th rather than the 1st for tax reasons, since those date would have been essentially the same in terms of the baby's health.

/girl
//2nd kid
 
2005-12-31 10:28:33 AM  
If it doesn't cause *any* sort of health risks to either the mother or child, and if the kid is due a couple of days later anyway, I don't suppose it's that big of a deal.

If there's *any* additional risk of any sort from doing so, however, it's pretty sick.

/wife is 6 months pregnant with our first kid
/no, fb is NOT the father :)
 
2005-12-31 10:30:13 AM  
I don't see how the tax deduction will help the woman in the article stay home with her child longer. Even if she files her taxes Feb 1, she won't get the money until the end of February at best. Unless she works for a company willing to give her at least 8 weeks off the timing doesn't work. And, $500 just isn't that much money; if she needs the money because she doesn't get paid during her maternity leave, she is better off going back to work.

However, if she is low income she can file for the EIC, which could be worth a lot more. But the timing still doesn't work.
 
2005-12-31 10:32:38 AM  
Corbett has some more practical suggestions for saving on your taxes such as buying a new car to take advantage of the sales-tax exemption, which could save twice as much as having a baby.

Wow, that must be the worst idea I've ever heard... Yeah, you'll save a lot on your taxes, but then you have to drop the cost of a new car ON TOP OF the cost of your brand new baby. Brilliant advice, Mister Corbett. The point is not to keep as much of your money out of the greedy wasteful hands of the evil evil government as possible, the point is to keep as much of it in your hands as possible, and so that may mean spending more on your taxes but less on everything else. Not complicated.

/I want to work at Grant Thornton in Seattle
//Apparently they aren't too picky about who they hire
 
2005-12-31 10:32:55 AM  
ga362
40 weeks = 9.24 months assuming 4.33 weeks per month

Pregnancy "months" are considered to be exactly 28 days = 4 weeks in order to have a consistent measure.

It's certainly more than 9 regular months, and feels like more than 10.
 
2005-12-31 10:39:50 AM  
TurboCrip
Pregnancy "months" are considered to be exactly 28 days = 4 weeks in order to have a consistent measure.

I learned something. Thank you.

The reason that caught my attention is because I once had a boss that used 4.33 in some cockeyed formula to determine pay day. His formula cost the salaried employees 4 weeks pay each year.
 
2005-12-31 10:40:41 AM  


We're on a mission from God....
 
2005-12-31 10:41:13 AM  
moof: That's the story the groom is sticking by. In reality it's just another cynical ploy so he won't forget their aniversaries in coming years.

Why do you think I proposed on her birthday, and we're having the wedding on the last day of July? It's all about planning ahead, man.
 
2005-12-31 10:41:51 AM  
The article actually understates the tax benefit of having children. Not only do you get the exemptions as stated in the article, but you also receive a tax credit. This tax credit reduces the amount of tax liability, not your gross income. I think the tax credit for 2005 is $1,000. In 2004, I figure each child reduced my taxes by about $1,300. So if I had a child due within the first few days of 2006, I definitely try to push it out before year end.
 
2005-12-31 10:43:52 AM  
I know a couple that used medication to induce labor last year so they would have it on or before Dec 31.

I don't know what's sadder, the couple who would endanger the health of the mother and child for a tax break, or the fact that our tax system is so screwed up that people actually consider this.
 
2005-12-31 10:44:10 AM  
Submitter doesn't appear to have kids...

Children require $$$, I don't blame parents one bit for wanting that $500. Especially since due dates are arbitrary anyway (our child came much earlier).
 
2005-12-31 10:47:28 AM  
Yeah. I'm definately a big fan of planning your significant dates. Got married the day before my birthday. Which is also the day after the anniversary of our first date. So to celebrate them all we just go out to dinner and see a concert. My b-day present and her anniversary present all rolled into one. No fuss, no muss and I never forget it.
 
2005-12-31 10:47:59 AM  
A better way to save money would be to not have any kids. There are too many friggin' people on this rock as it is.
 
2005-12-31 10:49:30 AM  
Well, I have a lot more respect for those parents mentioned in the article than I do for many of the childless (by choice) losers on fark.com.
 
2005-12-31 10:55:06 AM  
smokescreen

Well, I have a lot more respect for those parents mentioned in the article than I do for many of the childless (by choice) losers on fark.com.

So wait, I'm a loser because I refuse to burden...

1. the world with another mouth to feed
2. the country with another future social security recipient
3. my community with another ignorant brat to school
4. myself with an (at least) 20-year financial and legal liability

???
 
2005-12-31 10:56:25 AM  
ptonvbstar

My birthdate is December 31, so this is a fine thing to wake up to (people calling me/my parents asinine). Thanks alot, Fark.

It comes to us all...

gorfie

Submitter doesn't appear to have kids...

Children require $$$, I don't blame parents one bit for wanting that $500. Especially since due dates are arbitrary anyway (our child came much earlier).


I thought pretty much the same - I actually thought "child hater". The article is very misleading and the "asinine" tag is not really appropriate. It's fair to assume the parents didn't have a child for $500 - there are cheaper lays around and any woman with a brain cell is going to turn that deal down rapido so really it just seems they used a fortunate set of events to their advantage. I can't see much difference between that and when a parent gets a kid to lie about their age to get concessionary prices. In fact that's worse. My wife takes advantage of her size 3 feet because she can get kids shoes which are exempt from VAT (sales tax to you yankees). So what?

Given the danger involved in childbirth inducing a couple of days early is not really endangering the mother or baby. If we're talking a fortnight/three weeks or more early then submitter
may not quite be the bitter old fart he seems...
 
2005-12-31 10:57:25 AM  
ptonvbstar
You say it's your birthday? It's my birthday too, yeah. In fact, I was just handed a card.

Happy birthday, by the way.

And, for the rest of you, some of us are actually born on Dec 31st by sheer chance, and what an awful day it is to be born on. Winter holiday two for one gifts, and spending your birthday at someone else's new year party is no way to go through life.

Bah.
 
2005-12-31 10:57:53 AM  
stiletto_the_wise

Not only are you a loser, but a selfish and pessimistic individual.
 
2005-12-31 10:58:29 AM  
smokescreen: Humans have been genetically programmed to reproduce by 4 million years of evolution. They can't help it.

But some people have chosen to break away from their basic animal instinct to reproduce. YOU obviously haven't.
 
2005-12-31 10:58:52 AM  
We were planning on buying a new car anyway, so hey.. glad we bought it yesterday instead of next week.

ga362:

40 weeks = 9.24 months assuming 4.33 weeks per month.

I'm thinking you've never been pregnant.

OregonVet: Hello, stupid: the five hundred dollars will be eaten up in a few weeks with diapers. Plus the article portrays her as someone trying to get out of as much work as possible.

Sooo... they wouldn't have had to pay for diapers if they waited till January? hint: they would have had to pay more than $500 in diapers anyway, assuming they went disposable.

ptonvbstar: My birthdate is December 31, so this is a fine thing to wake up to (people calling me/my parents asinine). Thanks alot, Fark.

Happy Birthday!
 
2005-12-31 11:00:29 AM  
stiletto_the_wise

So wait, I'm a loser because I refuse to burden...

1. the world with another mouth to feed
2. the country with another future social security recipient
3. my community with another ignorant brat to school
4. myself with an (at least) 20-year financial and legal liability


Thankyou Ebeneezer - I'm sure that's really why you don't have kids. What a bitter little person you are.

You were a kid once you miserable twat.
 
2005-12-31 11:00:43 AM  
smokescreen Your inability to rationalize past your biological urges is a shining example of everything that's wrong with the human race.
 
2005-12-31 11:05:03 AM  
stiletto_the_wise: So wait, I'm a loser because I refuse to burden...


from an evolutionary standpoint you are a loser, you didn't pass your genetic information on. you lose at the game of life.


OTOH the earth is overpopulated so breeders are causing more harm than good
 
2005-12-31 11:05:37 AM  
Your inability to rationalize past your biological urges is a shining example of everything that's wrong with the human race.

Wow - what a philosopher. Which elements of humanity do you feel are a result of this?
 
2005-12-31 11:05:44 AM  
I didn't read the whole thread, so this may have been covered.

I was born on the 30th, as was one of my daughters, (she just turned 2!).

Though I live in Canada, we also get a tax break for the year, which is a small help.

The real help though, is the $600/ month less in day care we will have to spend for one full year.... I was, and our daughter will be 3 when entering Jr. Kindergarten. This is a benefit in dollars, as well if your child is intelligent at all, they won't be lacking for challenge.

Our oldest was born in February, and she is ahead of her peers, as most were born in the later part of the year. Of course this won't matter come high school, but she is in Sr. Kindergarten right now, and any little bit helps while her mind is so spongy...

I am having a pretty strong deja vu over this thread, it may have been covered last year as well. I should email myself this for next years vwersion maybe?
 
2005-12-31 11:08:25 AM  
OTOH the earth is overpopulated so breeders are causing more harm than good

That's rubbish. There is a surplus of most natural resources. Sadly most nations hoard rather than share.
 
2005-12-31 11:11:21 AM  
Lehk: So your definition of a winner is someone who passes on their DNA?

So then, how do you stack up against a welfare mom with 15 kids? You'd better start breeding fast if you dont want to lose to a welfare mom!
 
2005-12-31 11:11:28 AM  
I rationalize extensively past my biological urges and enjoy a great life with my own kids. I have a great family, time to enjoy with friends, and even have gulp.....hobbies and sports that I can enjoy.

By then again, my life is not exciting as yours....with you know heavy drinking and all. Hopefully Darwin will play his role with losers like you some day and make this a better world.

I can completely respect MrNeutron comment about not having kids, but yours is very spiteful and downright hateful. Also, your comments remind me of the bagger at the grocery store who says he doesn't make enough to have a kid. I think it may be you.

And for that reason, I encourage you to drink a little more, fuk up your liver even worse, get a transplant (oh yes, from someone who used to be a kid) and go on with your life.
 
2005-12-31 11:12:16 AM  
Well, I have a lot more respect for those parents mentioned in the article than I do for many of the childless (by choice) losers on fark.com.

Why is the decision to not have kids grounds for being a loser? Isn't it better if the only people raising kids are those that actively want them?
 
2005-12-31 11:12:34 AM  
dichotomousmind:

Another thing that Corbett character neglected to mention is if you take the sales tax deduction, I'm PRETTY SURE you lose your state income tax deduction. I don't know if Washington (was it in Washington? I don't know) has a state income tax, but that could be a surprise when the couple that pops out a kid before December 31 for tax purposes buys a new minivan for tax purposes and gets zinged.

/Grant Thorton never called me back for an interview, still bitter, on a mission to always prove them wrong whenever possible.
 
2005-12-31 11:13:25 AM  
People, presumably, are genetically programmed to preserve their genes.

This can include not having kids in order to keep the wherewithal to help support one's siblings and their offspring, and to a lesser extent other relatives, and even unrelated individuals in the local society who are necessary to the lives of your relatives.
 
2005-12-31 11:13:31 AM  
Now that is great resonse (i'm being serious). My issue is with the "not wanting" part
 
2005-12-31 11:14:32 AM  
meekychuppet It takes either malice or stupidity to wish to will someone into being. It is certainly a selfish act, as the feelings of the person being created are never taken into consideration. There are no benefits to living short of occasional physical pleasures and most of those are designed (through millions of years of evolution) to put 'making babies' at the top of fun things to-do list for no other logical reason than that it feels good.

Existence can be summed up neatly into three categories: toil, strife and death.

For a list of all the reasons why humanity is a terrible mistake, feel free to browse through the history section of wikipedia.
 
2005-12-31 11:19:44 AM  
Merry New Year!



/12:30am 1 January 2006 where I am
//See you next year suckers
///Passing out now, too drunk......
 
2005-12-31 11:20:38 AM  
Being childless by choice is hardly grounds for being called a loser. What makes some people so hostile in defending their life choice when it really isn't under any threat anyways? Who are they really trying to convince? Simmer down, you're being irrational.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report