images GREENIX Event Management 
ohpdfeb2003
06-27 01:50 PM
nothing you have said below answers my question.In 30 years if u are paying 1500 for rent that is 540,000 that is gone.Instead if you used that money to pay the interest, you canclaim that 540,000 as a deductible.Let me say it slowly so u can understand.
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible.That is the difference.In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund.But if you are renting you receive zero.That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain.As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month.As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year.You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined.And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent.Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000.You cannot Afford to buy it anymore.And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting.I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what?I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that?Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts.Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated.Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that.Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
540,000 of rent nets you zero in 30 years.
540,000 paid towards interest makes it a deductible.That is the difference.In the 28% tax bracket you receive an extra 5,040 a year in your tax refund.But if you are renting you receive zero.That amounts to 28% of that money u lose renting which is a whopping 151,200 in 30 years which is huge.
Again let me repeat 30 year rent of 1500/month is 540,000 down the drain.As a renter toy claim to save money while u are losing 1500/month.As an owner that 1500 goes to interet which I can get back 28% every year.You don't.
I'm not even calculating principal here.
When you rent the amount you save is the same as the principal+equity+property value of my home and savings combined.And in that case after 30 years i managed to get something back with that money you lose in rent.Even if u rent for 30 years the home you mightve wanted to buy 30 years ago at 400,000 is now 800,000.You cannot Afford to buy it anymore.And on top of that you blew 540,000 renting.I blew 540,000 on interest but guess what?I got 151,200 of that amount back in tax returns.
Why can you not see that?Your arguments do not display any financial sound to renting other than you like to throw 1500 a month away.
Looks like you dont read all the posts.Taxdeduction of mortgage interest is overrated.Everyone gets a standard deduction, not all your interest is tax dedcutible, only the difference between your interest payment and standard deduction if any( every one gets standard deduction:D).
so you thought you saved 151,200 in mortgage interest but guess what you arent even saving half of that.Renter's have the downpayment money invested elsewhere thats making more than inflation:) to cover more than the difference you saved
wallpaper Unique Business Card for
GCOP
07-13 10:11 AM
We are going to write the letter to DOS.All of us in EB3, request IV to step up the efforts to solve EB3 visa problem.EB2 has already advanced to 2006.We are happy for them.EB3 is still in 2001 .Nothing can be more serious than this.IV's concentrated efforts (Meeting with DOS or other authorities) in this situation will be highly admired, at this time when it's needed the most.Thanks in Advance.
alisa
01-04 12:57 PM
Let me try.I still have one day more before I start working again.
I don't have a lot of time either.My wife is getting increasingly irritated; I might lose my laptop-privileges pretty soon.
We said 'can you hand over Dawood him'.You said he is past.How is being past meant that his crimes go unpunished?
Its not because I am defending Dawood.Its just that when people talk about Dawood, the response from Pakistan has been that India is giving the list of the usual suspects, and trying to score points.[They also deny that he is in Pakistan].So, I say, forget the past.Just focus on Bombay; get to the bottom of it, use it as an opportunity to improve relations between India and Pakistan, and move forward.
You then say no extradition treaty.So if we give proof for the Bombay incident, how are you going to take action, if you have not done yet for the past incidents.I just don't get it.
First of all, 'I' won't be taking any action, regardless of what proof anyone provides.
Secondly, I think Pakistan shouldn't need to be provided any proof.Pakistan should do its own investigation.And Pakistan and India should also cooperate in their investigations.
And then Pakistan should charge those people with 'treason', and hang them.
We want see if we can trust you.
First of all, there is no 'we' as you mean it.This is not IndianImmigrationVoice, despite repeated and increasing evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, this is a pretty good opportunity for Indians and Pakistanis who live in the USA to engage in a conversation about the relations between their countries.I don't think this thread is anything more than that.So, unless I start asking you to loan me a million dollars, 'trust' is a moot point.
You don't won [own] up, yet you won't punish and infact you seem to protect these guys.
I think you are unable to distinguish between an individual (me for example, or you), groups of individuals (any one of the militant groups), the state and the government (Pakistan or India), the media, and the public opinion.
I don't have a lot of time either.My wife is getting increasingly irritated; I might lose my laptop-privileges pretty soon.
We said 'can you hand over Dawood him'.You said he is past.How is being past meant that his crimes go unpunished?
Its not because I am defending Dawood.Its just that when people talk about Dawood, the response from Pakistan has been that India is giving the list of the usual suspects, and trying to score points.[They also deny that he is in Pakistan].So, I say, forget the past.Just focus on Bombay; get to the bottom of it, use it as an opportunity to improve relations between India and Pakistan, and move forward.
You then say no extradition treaty.So if we give proof for the Bombay incident, how are you going to take action, if you have not done yet for the past incidents.I just don't get it.
First of all, 'I' won't be taking any action, regardless of what proof anyone provides.
Secondly, I think Pakistan shouldn't need to be provided any proof.Pakistan should do its own investigation.And Pakistan and India should also cooperate in their investigations.
And then Pakistan should charge those people with 'treason', and hang them.
We want see if we can trust you.
First of all, there is no 'we' as you mean it.This is not IndianImmigrationVoice, despite repeated and increasing evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, this is a pretty good opportunity for Indians and Pakistanis who live in the USA to engage in a conversation about the relations between their countries.I don't think this thread is anything more than that.So, unless I start asking you to loan me a million dollars, 'trust' is a moot point.
You don't won [own] up, yet you won't punish and infact you seem to protect these guys.
I think you are unable to distinguish between an individual (me for example, or you), groups of individuals (any one of the militant groups), the state and the government (Pakistan or India), the media, and the public opinion.
2011 ARTIST MANAGEMENT.BUSINESS
nogc_noproblem
08-05 01:10 PM
A man was walking in the street when he heard a voice...
"Stop!Stand still!If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you." The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him.The man was astonished.
He went on, and after awhile he was going to cross the road.Once again the voice shouted: "Stop!Stand still!If you take one more step a car will run over you and you will die." The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.
"Where are you?" the man asked."Who are you?"
"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.
"Oh yeah?" the man asked."And where the heck were you when I got married?"
"Stop!Stand still!If you take one more step, a brick will fall down on your head and kill you." The man stopped and a big brick fell right in front of him.The man was astonished.
He went on, and after awhile he was going to cross the road.Once again the voice shouted: "Stop!Stand still!If you take one more step a car will run over you and you will die." The man did as he was instructed, just as a car came careening around the corner, barely missing him.
"Where are you?" the man asked."Who are you?"
"I am your guardian angel," the voice answered.
"Oh yeah?" the man asked."And where the heck were you when I got married?"
more...
GCKaMaara
01-07 10:21 AM
Refugee_New,
Is this true?Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all?If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC.I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
Is this true?Are you just visiting forum just for this and not for your immigration at all?If so, its really bad.
Refugee_New already got the GC.I have read his some previous posts too and after that I doubt his commitment for the IV goals.
People responding to him please understand, either we can focus on efforts which will help us getting GC faster or we can continue to discuss this topic.
more...
desi3933
08-05 03:26 PM
It is not the Law.It is just a guidance provide in one 2000 Memo by a USCIS director.
Incorrect.Read for yourself.
Sec.204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date.-- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any cla*sification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify.In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition.A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
Incorrect.Read for yourself.
Sec.204.5 Petitions for employment-based immigrants.
...
...
(e) Retention of section 203(b)(1) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b1&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1509) , (2) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b2&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1529) , or (3) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact203b3&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1551) priority date.-- A petition approved on behalf of an alien under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act accords the alien the priority date of the approved petition for any subsequently filed petition for any cla*sification under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act for which the alien may qualify.In the event that the alien is the beneficiary of multiple petitions under sections 203(b)(1), (2), or (3) of the Act, the alien shall be entitled to the earliest priority date.A petition revoked under sections 204(e) (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7Cact204e&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-1773) or 205 (http://www.uscis.gov/propub/template.htm?view=document&doc_action=sethitdoc&doc_hit=1&doc_searchcontext=jump&s_context=jump&s_action=newSearch&s_method=applyFilter&s_fieldSearch=nxthomecollectionid%7CSLB&s_fieldSearch=foliodestination%7CACT205&s_type=all&hash=0-0-0-185) of the Act will not confer a priority date, nor will any priority date be established as a result of a denied petition.A priority date is not transferable to another alien.
____________________________
US Permanent Resident since 2002
2010 Logo, Business Cards,
Person leaves employer X (140 approved, more than 180 days since 485 filing, etc.) and joins employer Y on EAD (under AC21).
Employer X revokes 140 so as to not run into any issues like you pointed out.Nothing personal against the employee, just business.
That person after a while decides to go back to employer X (485 is still pending) under AC21.
Does the USCIS look at that as okay to do?Or do they question the employer's intentions since the employer had earlier revoked the 140.
Thanks in advance for sharing your opinion on this.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.