http://www.irs.gov/publications/p501/ar02.html#en_US_2012_publink1000220868

Quote :

"Tests To Be a Qualifying Child Tests To Be a Qualifying Relative The child must be your son, daughter, stepchild, foster child, brother, sister, half brother, half sister, stepbrother, stepsister, or a descendant of any of them. The child must be (a) under age 19 at the end of the year and younger than you (or your spouse if filing jointly), (b) under age 24 at the end of the year, a student, and younger than you (or your spouse if filing jointly), or (c) any age if permanently and totally disabled. The child must have lived with you for more than half of the year.2 The child must not have provided more than half of his or her own support for the year. The child is not filing a joint return for the year (unless that joint return is filed only to claim a refund of withheld income tax or estimated tax paid)."

Quote :

"2There are exceptions for temporary absences, "

Quote :

"Temporary absences. Your child is considered to have lived with you during periods of time when one of you, or both, are temporarily absent due to special circumstances such as: Illness, Education, Business, Vacation, or Military service."

Quote :

"Student defined. To qualify as a student, your child must be, during some part of each of any 5 calendar months of the year: A full-time student at a school that has a regular teaching staff, course of study, and a regularly enrolled student body at the school, or A student taking a full-time, on-farm training course given by a school described in (1), or by a state, county, or local government agency. The 5 calendar months do not have to be consecutive. Full-time student. A full-time student is a student who is enrolled for the number of hours or courses the school considers to be full-time attendance."

Quote :

""

4/7/2013 8:06:33 PM

Look, if your permanent address is still with your parents that's where you should vote. All that stuff you quoted above doesn't support the position you hold.

Idiot.

Choo choo.

4/7/2013 8:10:45 PM

the train shtick got overplayed fast

4/7/2013 8:11:43 PM

I voted to get alcohol in bars in Boone when I was a student. I don't even go there, but now students can drink liquor. Your welcome and fuck you old people

4/7/2013 8:13:16 PM

sure it does, you are allowed to vote where you live

if you are a full time student for any 5 months in a year then your parents can claim you as a dependent because you meet the exemption for residency (there are no other time limits or requirements for this)

and per common sense its in everyone's interest to vote where they are living

4/7/2013 8:13:24 PM

Who cares?

I mean, with all the selfish/stupid/uninformed/bigoted/whatever people that are allowed to vote...it seems silly to get upset about a question of residency.

4/7/2013 8:15:09 PM

4/7/2013 8:15:27 PM

aaronburro, you're fucking wrong about what a dependent is. Nowhere in the tax code does it state that a dependent must live with the parent/family member!

http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/a/Dependents_4.htm

Quote :

"Relationship Test for Qualifying Relatives To meet the relationship test, the dependent must either be related to the taxpayer is one of the following ways, or live with the taxpayer for an entire year, and the relationship must not violate local laws. Qualifying Relationships with no residency requirement The dependent will meet the relationship test for being claimed as a qualifying relative if the dependent is related to the taxpayer in one of the following ways: son or daughter, grandson or granddaughter, great grandson or great granddaughter, stepson or stepdaughter, or adopted child, brother or sister, half-brother or half-sister, step-brother or step-sister, mother or father, grandparent, great-grandparent, stepmother or stepfather, nephew or niece, aunt or uncle, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, father-in-law, or mother-in-law, or foster child who was placed in your custody by court order or by an authorized government agency."

The law explicitly states that your son and daughter do not have to live with you to be a dependent!

http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/a/Dependents_3.htm

Quote :

"Six Criteria for Qualifying Relatives The dependent cannot be a qualifying child of another taxpayer. The dependent earns less than the personal exemption amount during the year. For 2013, this means the dependent earns less than $3,900. The taxpayer provides more than half of the dependent's total support during the year. The taxpayer is related to the dependent in certain ways. If the dependent is married, the dependent cannot file a joint return with his or her spouse. The dependent must be a citizen or resident alien of the United States, Canada, or Mexico."

And while the tax code considers college students to still be living with their parents, in reality as a student the majority of your time in the year is spent at college (8-9 months out of the year). They may live in dorms, or they may even have apartments where they regularly receive mail, electric bills and rent bills at, which qualify them to declare their residency in the town they live in! So why should a student, who is far more impacted by the local representatives of the college they live in, not be allowed to vote in the district they live in for the majority of the year without their parents losing their tax credit? Where they vote has no bearing on the financial support they receive as a student from their parents.

If they're going to apply this to students, then this should be applied to the elderly who live in nursing homes that their parents pay for who are declared as a dependent. Family member's who are supported by their families in areas they no longer live in. This legislation targets a very specific group of people, when in reality students aren't the only people who can and do live away from the family members that support them financially!

Quote :

"But, they shouldn't be able to be claimed as a dependent of someone else, then. That seems logical to me."

How the fuck is that logical? No. Seriously. If the person is fucking dependent on their family to live, then they're a fucking dependent! Why does it matter where they vote? It seems logically to me that if you depend on your family to live, and that they allow to you to live elsewhere outside of their home, then you're still a dependent and that your interests as a citizen and voter aren't in the district you don't live in or seldomly live in...

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 8:25 PM. Reason : .]

4/7/2013 8:21:23 PM

chooo choooo

4/7/2013 8:25:14 PM

im with you fellows, but can we stop with the trains?

4/7/2013 9:22:00 PM

Quote :

"it should be based on where you live. And as a dependent, YOU LIVE WITH YOUR PARENTS. It's that simple. and, how is it fucking local elections? Because you are voting on issues that will last far far far beyond your miniscule time there. Many kids are going to be there for one year, max, yet they'll vote on tax increases while knowing literally NOTHING about the local area. They check the "D" box beside every candidate without knowing anything about them, simply because the voter guy tells them to do so. Democrats in these towns thrive on a perpetually uninformed group of voters to pass things that the rest of the community might not want. To put it bluntly: the voices of those who are informed are drowned out about those who will never be informed, don't care to be informed, and won't be there long enough to be affected by their vote. Why in the fuck should this even be allowed, especially when the students still have a place to vote: their actual homes"

this

4/7/2013 9:35:29 PM

^ No. That is the dumbest fucking thing I have read. I don't even know how I missed that before.

As a college student, where did you live most of the year? At college! So why should you be voting in an area where you only spend 3 months out of the year living at? Because your parents claim you on your taxes as a dependent?

And how is it that Democrats in college towns thrive on the uninformed? Is the implication being that the Republicans in the town are not uninformed and that the only people who vote Democrat are the uninformed, you know, because if they were really informed they would vote Republican? A freshmen in college is going to be far more likely to vote based on their parents views after being exposed to them for 18 years of their life. After a year or so of independence and being away from the constant political umbrella of your parents, students typically make up their own mind, whether it's out of naivity or a lack of being fully independent. Republicans and Democrats try to thrive on the uninformed. Uninformed voters exist on both side of the political spectrum, and as citizens it's not our job or the government's job to decide who is and who is not worth/informed/smart enough to vote. As citizen's it is our responsibility to try to educate voters, but even then we have the tendency to educate them in a way to sway them to whatever side/view you support.

This bill's only aim is to try to take areas that have historically been liberal and try to disperse them into areas of rampant conservativeness.

The fact is, the local politicians in the area a student goes to school and those elections have far greater impact on the student's life than the local politicians at their parent's home. And to change that for the benefit of one party completely undermines our voting system and greatly changes who local politicians in college towns actually represent.

To blast democrats for trying to take advantage of the "uninformed" in college towns, is completely and totally missing the culprits in this situation, and is nothing more than aaronburro being a partisan hack.

4/7/2013 10:09:51 PM

4/7/2013 10:22:40 PM

How can you not see that this is a blatant attempt for conservatives to dilute votes that they typically won't get?

There's no rational basis for this plan, other than government corruption. It's basically the same principle as gerrymandering.

If you support this plan, you're supporting corruption.

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 10:49 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2013 10:48:44 PM

As much as this will help conservatives...it only helped Democrats in the first place to give young people an option that no one else gets - choosing where to vote. It's not like young people are in any way prohibited from voting, or it's even making it harder for them to vote in the slightest. The absentee ballot has not changed.

4/7/2013 11:15:00 PM

but it is making it harder for them to vote

why can't they vote where they live?

4/7/2013 11:17:58 PM

lol at the argument that anyone who votes democrat isn't pretty uninformed.

The nation is on the precipice of collapse and people are still voting democrat. I'd say that's pretty goddam uninformed, wouldn't you?

Working in business it's pretty rare to meet a liberal and whenever you do they always shift the conversation or flatly deny being a liberal because they get tired of being laughed at or chided. It's also not very good for their professional reputation or business development...

It's time to grow up children we're in our thirties. Being liberal is only acceptable in college when mommy and daddy are paying for everything. It's time to join the real world.



[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 11:24 PM. Reason : a]

4/7/2013 11:19:40 PM

^^^ no college students don't have a special privilege by being able to register at college.

Anyone can register to vote wherever they are living, this isn't a privilege limited to young people or college students.

What this new plan does is penalize the parents of college students, for their kids exercising their right to vote. It's a distortion of democracy. It's paying parents to make sure their kids votes don't matter.

^ the economy has gotten better under Obama, in spite of republican obstructionism. You're an idiot for not knowing this.

[Edited on April 7, 2013 at 11:21 PM. Reason : ]

4/7/2013 11:20:02 PM

^ We're in a much more dire economic situation than we were in 2007 actually.


Check the national debt moron.

4/7/2013 11:23:41 PM

None of your predictions have ever been right. You have no credibility, and sound like an idiot by continuing to repeat things that are wrong, and insisting they aren't.

4/7/2013 11:26:54 PM

says the person who pays no attention to how much debt this country is in

4/7/2013 11:28:56 PM

You can tell when someone has no idea what they're talking about, when the national debt is the first thing they bring up.

Almost as dumb as people who think someone shouldn't be voting where they actually live.

4/7/2013 11:34:02 PM

check it out guys, face works in business

4/7/2013 11:49:05 PM

I only trust people who work in bidness.

4/7/2013 11:56:48 PM

do you all prefer thomas the train to chuggington?

4/8/2013 12:10:32 AM

We're basically $100 trillion in debt when you include unfunded liabilities.

Europe is collapsing as we speak so much for my predictions not being right. If you check the soapbox i called all this stuff years ago.

It's pretty obvious to even the most casual observer im not trying to take any special credit or anything.

When nations go as deep into debt as we are, their economy and currenncy eventually collapses in chaotic fashion. It's very easy to understand and well documented throughout history.

In Cyprus they just resorted to potentially stealing money from people's private checking accounts. Just because the government has been sneaky about their theft since the 70's doesn't mean it's not occuring here.

With the internet and spread of information they just can't be as bold as they were in the 1800s and 1930's when they resort to larceny of private wealth.

4/8/2013 12:17:19 AM

In my city we have have roughly 33,000 students (Compared to State's 34,000). Our city's population is about 270,000, so students make up what 12% of the population for the city.


That's not a big percentage and that's just total students and not out of state or town students. The students should have a voice because the campuses are located within the city and currently there's a few fights between neighborhoods and the universities over expanding.

At the same time I'm not sure if those that vote follow local issues like the school board or at-large issues. It's easy to see both sides of the argument when you see some of the local races and what is said during them versus who was elected and who wasn't.

4/8/2013 12:20:28 AM

just another front in the war on higher education

so proud to live in a state where being uneducated is considered a virtue

fuck God, fuck Jesus Christ

4/8/2013 12:27:03 AM

"higher" education is responsible for a lot of the woes in this country. Not only is it one of the leading causes of bankrupting our current and future generations but it's also created a lot of lazy know it alls who sit around and talk on the internet about stuff they know nothing about like government/economics/etc because they're just reciting verbatim what their liberal professors were paid to brainwash them into believing. They'd be much better off bypassing college and learning real skills and getting a job and not filling their head with all this government propaganda they learn in college.

Quote :

"Formal education is merely a biased entity used to propogate favoured ideas. Few teach how to think rationally, but instead teach us to rely on indoctrination and memorization. Consequently, formal education has handed down, from one generation to the next, theories which not only conflict with the reality of events, but ensure confusion for decades to come. "

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM. Reason : a]

4/8/2013 12:44:29 AM

Quote :

"it's also created a lot of lazy know it alls who sit around and talk on the internet about stuff they know nothing about"

Pot meet kettle

4/8/2013 12:47:09 AM

I don't get it. I know tons of stuff because i put the time in to learn about things and un-learn most of the stuff i learned in college.

There are a few other people on here who understand finance/economics buy by and large the majority of this website is completely clueless.

Although the intelligence level of this board is significantly higher than the average american populace, i'd say the economics/political beliefs is somewhat lower than the average american. I think that's interesting commentary on the "formal education" they've received.

People with just an undergraduate degree and no actual experience typically have much less understanding of business and economics than people who simply ran a small business or worked in it. Surely, that much is obvious to you.

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 1:05 AM. Reason : a]

4/8/2013 12:59:09 AM

Quote :

"The nation is on the precipice of collapse and people are still voting democrat. I'd say that's pretty goddam uninformed, wouldn't you?"

Because we never had debt under a Republican. Only under Republicans... Never mind that the last time we had a balanced budget was under an evil Democrat. That George W really helped the nation out by taking the budget surplus he had and plunging us right back on our debt trail by handing out in the form of a "stimulus." That Reagan was such a savior to our debt...

Our debt keeps climbing and neither fucking party had a decent way to help our debt. Yup, Mr. Romney would have helped our debt out by trying reducing the government's income...

4/8/2013 1:05:10 AM

The problem though is that you can't teach stupid, let alone to expect stupid to competently teach (or in your case, re-teach) itself. The best we can hope for is containment, because we as a society have decided to try and value everyone.

4/8/2013 1:06:14 AM

^ Seriously. It's pretty sad when my ejaculate has a higher IQ than face's hamster wheel of a brain...

4/8/2013 1:15:57 AM

Quote :

"I don't get it. I know tons of stuff because i put the time in to learn about things and un-learn most of the stuff i learned in college."

The problem is that you've never demonstrated that you actually know anything. You've demonstrated that you think you know a lot of things over and over again. I'm not convinced you're anything but an unemployed sales rep with a drinking problem.

4/8/2013 1:18:54 AM

Your post is just such a typical liberal wasteland of words. You can't think because you're so blinded by your feelings and emotions like a woman.

Quote :

"Because we never had debt under a Republican."

Where in my post did I mention republicans?

Quote :

"Never mind that the last time we had a balanced budget was under an evil Democrat."

The president doesn't have the authority to spend money. Surely, an intelligent liberal like you would know this and you were just purposely trying to spin this. Congress was controlled by Republicans in 1994. Clinton was dragged kicking and screaming to the table to balance the budget.

Quote :

"That George W really helped the nation out by taking the budget surplus he had and plunging us right back on our debt trail by handing out in the form of a "stimulus." "

Giving the American people their own money back is the only moral thing to do. Bush was a terrible president for being too liberal, that much I agree with you on, but arguing that giving people their money back was bad is a terrible argument and you come off as a nut job. He plunged us into debt by launching two wars and passing Medicare Part D. He was a closet democrat.

Quote :

"That Reagan was such a savior to our debt..."

Again, the President doesn't have the authority to spend. I'm not sure if you're just uninformed, dumb, or have liberal blinders on. Probably a good bit of all three though. Those congresses were controlled by Democrats and not a single one of his budgets were passed as he proposed them. For all 8 proposals spending was raised by congress. Besides, that deficit increase would have happened regardless of who was President because interest expenditure over his presidency increased by $1 trillion.

Quote :

"Our debt keeps climbing and neither fucking party had a decent way to help our debt. Yup, Mr. Romney would have helped our debt out by trying reducing the government's income... "

Strawman. Who said anything about voting for Romney? Ron Paul had plenty of suggestions/proposals to fix our mounting deficits.

In reality, it was probably too late for Ron Paul to save us from the economic collapse. But now it's a virtual certainty.

Inflating our way out just isn't going to work because of the interest expense owed to foreign governments. This is going to lead to full scale wars, poverty, and utter chaos.

The cops in Europe are beating their own citizens. America unleashed its military on its citizens in the 30's. What will stop them from doing it again? When all you have is a hammer everything starts looking like a nail.

We've made major steps to becoming an oligarchy these last couple of years. The banks virtually control the nation now.

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 1:22 AM. Reason : a]

4/8/2013 1:22:00 AM

just so we're clear, Face is the crazy asshole sect.


[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 1:25 AM. Reason : ]

4/8/2013 1:24:58 AM

If anyone is even remotely convinced by any of that I would like to speak to them about an exciting investment opportunity.

4/8/2013 1:26:08 AM

anyone who is paying even the slightest bit of attention already knows this and they've already begun investing accordingly.

We're still getting capital inflows from scared money fleeing Europe. What happens when those become outflows because the money is fleeing our collapse?

4/8/2013 1:29:36 AM

There's not going to be a collapse, as long as the people like you are kept at bay.

Just like we haven't had the inflation or hyperinflation you kept predicting a few years ago.

4/8/2013 1:40:02 AM

haha i can't tell if you're kidding.

4/8/2013 1:48:05 AM

'Anti-government' couple may be at sea with kidnapped children
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/06/17629020-officials-anti-government-couple-may-be-at-sea-with-kidnapped-children?lite

this is what your type of fear and paranoia leads to. You don't care to actually solve any problems.

So where is that hyperinflation? Or even just regular inflation, face?

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 1:53 AM. Reason : ]

4/8/2013 1:51:58 AM

face, I'm not going to quote bomb this thread.

The President can't introduce fiscal legislation, a task only the house can do, but the President can sure as shit veto any legislation that comes across his desk. To try and take any responsibility away from the President is just ludicrous and misleading. He's the first to be blamed for for any economic hardship and he's the last to be congratulated during economic prosperity.

And while your post doesn't mention Republicans, it does mention "liberals," which by extension is the Democrat Party. Your post squarely blames them for our problems and that anyone who voted for them is "uninformed." My post merely points out that our debt has climbed under both conservative and liberal Presidents/Congresses. Calling someone who votes liberal as being "uneducated" is just flat out stupid in light of the facts that I pointed out.

And while you never said anything about voting for Romney, my post was far from a strawman. You are clearly a conservative. This past election there were two realistic options, Obama or Romney. To even bring up Ron Paul is a joke since he wasn't even running for President when it came to vote.

Also, it's hilarious that you say shit like "come on guys, we're in our 30s," and go on a tirade about how being a conservative helps you in your career, when Ron Paul's popularity is concentrated in college aged conservatives who are about as uneducated as the student voters that aaronburro label as prey for the democratic party. Ron Paul's supporter's judgement is clouded by their idealistic optimism they have for the shit that he says, when in reality he's no different than any other toolbag politician. Not to mention publicly supporting Ron Paul will get you laughed out of any conservative group of people in the 30s and above...

4/8/2013 2:21:34 AM

most of your post is untrue and if you must know i voted for Johnson.

I've never voted for any republican for president in any of the four elections i've been eligible to vote in.

The republican party is far too left wing for any fiscal conservative to support.


The problem with this country is that 95% of the population is now liberal. You democrats are so far gone and looney that you actually believe republicans are conservative. That should tell you something. There is nothing fiscally conservative about the majority of members of the Republican party. Unfortunately, since there are no more conservatives in the country we end up with two very similar candidates each election now. Could anyone tell a difference between Romney/Obama other than a little rhetoric here and there?

Thankfully, many of the people who got elected in 2010 are doing their best to stand up to the Lindsay Graham's, John McCains, etc in the party. But in reality, it's too late.

Liberalism is a disease and once it takes over a country doom is imminent. We're at the tipping point.

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 4:12 AM. Reason : a]

4/8/2013 4:04:46 AM

Oh. I got it. You're an ultra-conservative, aka Nationalist, or Nazi.

4/8/2013 7:37:41 AM

If you are not republican or democrat, you are a nazi.

That's what passes for discourse around here

4/8/2013 8:02:54 AM

I don't see how anyone can pass this off as anything other than voter suppression. Its the same story that we see over and over again... If you can't win an election based on persuading enough voters to support your platform, then keep your platform the same and change the way people vote.

One would think that if you couldn't persuade the majority of the public to support your views, then its YOU and YOUR VIEWS that are dreadfully out of sync with society.

4/8/2013 8:13:05 AM

HEY YOU JERKASSES

REMEMBER THOSE NUISANCE PARTY ORDINANCES YOU HATED IN COLLEGE

IMAGINE IF THEY PASSED THAT AND IT AFFECTED YOU SND YOU COULDN'T VOTE

THEY JUST PASSED IT AND YOU COULD DO NOTHING

THEY COULD PROBABLY KICK YOU OUT OF YOUR HOUSE TOO

STOP BEING A DICK AND PRETENDING LIKE THAT WOULDN'T HAVE MADE YOU MAD

EVEN IF YOU ARE AN "ADULT" NOW

YOU STILL PROBABLY EITHER DRINK TO BLACK OUT OR PLAY CALL OF DUTY OR BELIEVE IN THE "MYSTERY METHOD"

OR YOU ARE AARONBURRO AND ARE 40 AND STILL TROLLING

SO YOU'RE STILL A MANCHILD

SHUT THE FUCK UP

[Edited on April 8, 2013 at 8:57 AM. Reason : C]

4/8/2013 8:54:07 AM

Re: moron's post

that's why tww has TSB

4/8/2013 9:18:44 AM

Ok boys and girls, chew on this, taxing takes money from everyone (or nearly everyone). You do not get this money back, poor people don't get this money, rich people don't get this money.

3^ Similar things occurred before when NC was run by a politburo of democrats. Doesn't taste so good coming from a side you do not agree with does it?

4/8/2013 1:47:28 PM