Tax relief for the deserving
Advertisement
Text size: small | medium | large
Your View
Published: November 19, 2008
This is in response to Keith Kessler’s letter in Saturday’s paper asked for an answer to his one simple question (which was actually a statement). Basically, he wanted to know why he had to prove “legal
presence” so he could continue to qualify for tax relief. The letter he mentioned answered his question. The answer is that a new law requires it. He didn’t like that answer, so he wrote a letter whining
about the situation.
What is noticeably absent from his entire rant is anything that states or even implies that he is here legally. And his logic for feeling he should not have to prove anything seems to be that since he’s
been getting the benefit for years without proof (quite possibly undeservedly), he should keep getting it.
And then, he plays the “discrimination card” and talks about elderly and disabled folks — but once again, never states that he belongs in either of those categories either.
Keith, if you are illegal, hopefully they will come and arrest you. If not, you will be left alone, but without tax relief unless you can prove you deserve it.
SAM NATIONS
Dumfries
Page 1 of 1
Post a Comment
The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.
Can't find what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
Reader Reactions
Posted by ( nobootlicker ) on November 19, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Well Sam, as is understood by your ignorance, you and most of the others who have commented on my letter still don’t understand or have the slightest clue as to what I’m trying to say. The county letter is just to intimidate those that the powers that be feel are obtuse enough to fall for their scam and to protect themselves from possible litigation.
My question was: “I would like to know what factual information you have to justify asking me if I am not a current legal resident when, in fact, you have been sending me tax relief for several years?“ Now that is not a statement as you suggest because it asks a question and ends with a question mark. (this is a ? mark in case you didn’t know)
How can you state this, Sam: “The letter he mentioned answered his question.“ when in fact you haven’t seen either letter? Are you part of the closet bigot club that helped to put such inane policy together? I wouldn’t doubt that from the ignorance in which you wrote your retort.
Now if you or the county knew anything about federal law both you and the county would realize how foolish this “Proof of Legal Presence” letter is. To show proof of being elderly or disabled one must show initially when applying for tax relief either a birth certificate, Medicare or Medicaid card (which is federal proof one is legal) a passport or citizenship papers, etc.
If I’ve been receiving tax relief for years obviously your remarks stating: “And his logic for feeling he should not have to prove anything seems to be that since he’s been getting the benefit for years without proof (quite possibly undeservedly), he should keep getting it.“ shows your mentality as well. The remainder of your letter is so hideous that I won’t even waste my time commenting on it.
Are you a county worker by chance? You might qualify with the brilliance you display and your uncanny lack of knowledge.
You can follow your BOCSs and bend over as far as you want but I will not follow them blindly over a cliff simply because they tell me too. This policy change is nothing more than a ruse for political posturing of a select few while trying to incite fear and terror within our county by some closet bigots who claim “this too is good for you.“
How far will you follow? First they start with the Elderly and Disabled because they figure they’re easy targets, then next may come all men and women over 18 years old, followed next by your children. The BOCSs claim this is to protect you from the scourge that is hiding around every corner, when in fact, all the board has done was to promote bigotry and racial tensions in this county. Just like your letter Sam. You must be proud or a card carrying member of this feeble BOCS. If the county really wanted illegals all they need to do is go to the 7/11 on Longview, big secret huh?
You can follow them over a cliff or into the Potomac River or wherever else they lead you but all I have to say is be careful where you walk, hold your breath and don’t swallow. You might end up choking on something far nastier than you figured or stepping into a bigger pile of political crap than you may have envisioned. By then, of course, it will be too late, because you allowed a few who think they are the chosen ones to engulf the whole. (remind you of anyone?) Sorry, but I won’t be standing with you because I won’t be following like obedient little sheep to the slaughter house.
Keith Kessler-
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rafaelva ) on November 19, 2008 at 6:52 am
Now I have to agree with several other posters on the original letter, and disagree with this LTE. The change in requirements has all the appearances of being applied ex post facto to the 2008 tax year.
To avoid the question PWC should continue to grant tax relief to any individual having applied for relief during the official application period for Tax Year 2008. The PLP requirement should apply to both new and renewal applications for tax relief for Tax Year 2009, and only new applications in subsequent years.
Report Inappropriate Comment
Posted by ( rafaelva ) on November 19, 2008 at 6:44 am
I still find this a very interesting topic, particularly because my wife and I will soon be eligible for this program.
I checked the PWC website, and the significant thing I noted was once a person applies for this relief, they must reapply each year. The application period is 1 Jan - 15 Apr of each Tax Year.
The Proof of Legal Presense Law was
effective 7/1/2008. This does seem to create a problem, since PLP was not required during the official application period for 2008, it should not have become applicable to the Tax Relief for the Elderly and Disabled until 1 January 2009.
Had PWC approached this issue by making
PLP a requirement for 2009, and not tried to implement it for the second half of 2008, After the application period had expired, and relief already
granted for the first half of 2008, they
could have avoided the question.
Report Inappropriate Comment