Tax Deductible Sex Changes?

[Guest MunchKitten]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/02/03/case_backs_need_for_sex_change_surgery/

Katharsys

asked me to post this. Apparently you can now claim your sex change, Therapy, and Hormones on your taxes and get a deduction.

How about those of us with DIY hormones and no insurance?

[Bettypooh]

http://www.boston.co...change_surgery/

Katharsys

asked me to post this. Apparently you can now claim your sex change, Therapy, and Hormones on your taxes and get a deduction.

How about those of us with DIY hormones and no insurance?

You can go back 3 years and amend your taxes to reflect the newly allowed deductions It covers about everything other than BA and FFS The hitch is that you must have a valid diagnosis of GID and whatever you deduct has to be considered a medical necessity (including your mental health) The details so far are that GRS is absolutely fully covered as are HRT meds Treatments that are only to improve appearance are not covered If you have significant breast growth, BA is a no-go for deduction- but if the 'twins' are hardly there you can deduct implants. Electrolysis is still considered cosmetic as is nose, chin, and brow work You have to do it 'legit' to get the deductions- no Docs=no deductions

This was a rare ruling where all the Tax Court Judges sat together to rule on O'Donnabhain (sp?) and only two dissented. Usually only the Judge you're assigned rules on a case, but it's happened a few times before. They stated that they were going to clarify the details of what precedures were deductuble and when soon. This news came as a shock since heretofore all the IRS rulings had gone against us- nobody expected such a big turn-around. I'll PM you with more

Bettypooh

[WallaWalla]

I hate to be the hysterical wing-nut here, but is nobody else worried about government involvement on this end? I've already posted about this in other places, so here's the edited version of my two cents here:

Well, at least it's not a subsidy. I'm not sure how I feel about a tax-cut for this sort of a thing in general. I gotta be honest, sorta negatively. Maybe if the case in question wasn't so frivolous I might care a bit more. I mean really, a five thousand dollar tax deduction for a whole year is what you are going to court over? I understand that for some people that is a lot of money, but this is a middle aged civil engineer who ought to be paying their own bills.

I think that for some people it's a medical issue and for others it's something else. People who show phenotypical differences have no more valid motivation than those who do not. I'm not big on the provision of tax-cuts because it increases government involvement in the process and I am concerned that could lead to a situation similar to what is found in the UK. 'Therapy' surrounding transition already places too strong of an emphasis on whether or not somebody's feelings are authentic. It's an evaluation process more than anything, and I think that's a load of shit. Government involvement will increase this emphasis as they want to protect their tax revenue, as they will assume that there are people out there who will pretend to be a transsexual for the sake of getting a tax writeoff. Nevermind that the idea is patently ridiculous, they will cop that attitude anyway. Just look at how people behave when 'should transsexuals be allowed to use public bathrooms?' gets brought up for my citation.

Just for you guys:

I think that SRS is a privilege, not a right. It's entirely possible to adopt a desired gender role WITHOUT getting SRS. In cases where the desire for transition is permanent AND somebody can not afford SRS, there is the option(albeit a compromised option) of having an orchi.

While I am aware that I speak from a position of privilege on the grounds that my family was willing to pay for my surgery, they didn't offer to pay for everything, and they gave a firm no on breast augmentation. If I want my breasts to be bigger(and I do, as my visibly flat chest is a bigger social handicap than my obfuscated penis was), then I should work hard and pay for bigger breasts. Not everyone is born with the body they want, even if they aren't looking for as radical of a modification as gender/sex. We just have to deal with that, and I don't think it should be the government's responsibility to facilitate a financial incentive(directly or indirectly) for the commission of elective surgery. Yes, I did say that it was elective, and I will argue that point if anybody feels the need to contend it.

[froggy]

Tax philosophy in general for medical is that things done for cosmetic reasons are not deductable. There must be a medical necessity or prescription. Some items for the maintenance of prescribed items like contact lenses and hearing aids are duductable. This allows one to take the contact lense solutions, cleaners, special drops, etc and hearing aid batteries. I do not think that most SRS procedures are medically necessary. Therefore, they would be a cosmetic and non deductable expense.

Things ones buys for general health without a prescription generally are not deductable. For example toothpaste, shampoo, gym memberships, vitamins.

[FretaBWet]

I hate to be the hysterical wing-nut here, but is nobody else worried about government involvement on this end? I've already posted about this in other places, so here's the edited version of my two cents here:

Well, at least it's not a subsidy. I'm not sure how I feel about a tax-cut for this sort of a thing in general. I gotta be honest, sorta negatively. Maybe if the case in question wasn't so frivolous I might care a bit more. I mean really, a five thousand dollar tax deduction for a whole year is what you are going to court over? I understand that for some people that is a lot of money, but this is a middle aged civil engineer who ought to be paying their own bills.

I think that for some people it's a medical issue and for others it's something else. People who show phenotypical differences have no more valid motivation than those who do not. I'm not big on the provision of tax-cuts because it increases government involvement in the process and I am concerned that could lead to a situation similar to what is found in the UK. 'Therapy' surrounding transition already places too strong of an emphasis on whether or not somebody's feelings are authentic. It's an evaluation process more than anything, and I think that's a load of shit. Government involvement will increase this emphasis as they want to protect their tax revenue, as they will assume that there are people out there who will pretend to be a transsexual for the sake of getting a tax writeoff. Nevermind that the idea is patently ridiculous, they will cop that attitude anyway. Just look at how people behave when 'should transsexuals be allowed to use public bathrooms?' gets brought up for my citation.

Just for you guys:

I think that SRS is a privilege, not a right. It's entirely possible to adopt a desired gender role WITHOUT getting SRS. In cases where the desire for transition is permanent AND somebody can not afford SRS, there is the option(albeit a compromised option) of having an orchi.

While I am aware that I speak from a position of privilege on the grounds that my family was willing to pay for my surgery, they didn't offer to pay for everything, and they gave a firm no on breast augmentation. If I want my breasts to be bigger(and I do, as my visibly flat chest is a bigger social handicap than my obfuscated penis was), then I should work hard and pay for bigger breasts. Not everyone is born with the body they want, even if they aren't looking for as radical of a modification as gender/sex. We just have to deal with that, and I don't think it should be the government's responsibility to facilitate a financial incentive(directly or indirectly) for the commission of elective surgery. Yes, I did say that it was elective, and I will argue that point if anybody feels the need to contend it.

You poor Dear. I'm sure your flat chest is a bigger social handicap than your obfuscated penis but it's probably less of a handicap than your lack of intelligence. I imagine wealth and privilege will go a long way to make up for your shortcomings though.

This issue isn't about the government's "involvement" or a subsidy for body modification. It's about equality and fairness. Whether we like it or not the government has been involved in subsidizing behaviors it likes and punishing behaviors it doesn't like by using the tax laws. It allows tax deductions for having children that childless couples don't get because it decided more people was desirable. It allows tax deductions for job hunting related activities including the cost of relocation for a new job because it wants everyone to work and pay taxes. It allows wealthy people to deduct the cost of social functions if it is for business purposes. This is just a few examples.

Medical costs are deductible unless they are considered unneeded like cosmetic surgery. By denying srs (sex reassignment surgery) for us they are making the determination that we are doing this for frivolous reasons not for a medical need. This decision is being made by politicians, bureaucrats insurance companies and judges rather than Doctors. Any Doctor experienced with treating people with gender issues will tell you that in the vast majority of cases treatment results in a better outcome than denial of treatment.

Hugs,

Freta

[WallaWalla]

You poor Dear. I'm sure your flat chest is a bigger social handicap than your obfuscated penis but it's probably less of a handicap than your lack of intelligence. I imagine wealth and privilege will go a long way to make up for your shortcomings though.

Ad hominem.

This issue isn't about the government's "involvement" or a subsidy for body modification.

I explicitly stated that it wasn't a subsidy.

It's about equality and fairness.

Right, and the prior precedent was that medically necessary procedures prescribed by an M.D. were the only things considered tax deductible.

Whether we like it or not the government has been involved in subsidizing behaviors it likes and punishing behaviors it doesn't like by using the tax laws. It allows tax deductions for having children that childless couples don't get because it decided more people was desirable. It allows tax deductions for job hunting related activities including the cost of relocation for a new job because it wants everyone to work and pay taxes. It allows wealthy people to deduct the cost of social functions if it is for business purposes. This is just a few examples.

Some of the examples you offered provide economic benefit/stimulus, other ones would fall into the category of 'social control' from my point of view.

[WallaWalla]

These quote limitations are ridiculous.

Medical costs are deductible unless they are considered unneeded like cosmetic surgery. By denying srs (sex reassignment surgery) for us they are making the determination that we are doing this for frivolous reasons not for a medical need.

SRS wasn't denied to anyone prior to this precedent. Also, I do not agree with the notion that transition is 'frivolous' unless there is a medical need. I am of the opinion that any reason for transition is equally valid to any other reason. Transsexuals who demonstrate a medical etiology and distinct differences in phenotype are no more entitled or valid than those who demonstrate a fetishistic or transvestic etiology in my view.

Comparing it to a disease model makes me think of the way that 'whether or not it is a choice' is such a big deal to people. You know what? I think that it shouldn't matter whether or not it's a choice. I think that it's every bit as okay for somebody to 'make the choice to be transsexual' as if they had no choice at all. In fact, to place an emphasis on whether or not it's a choice is implicitly stating that the behavior needs an excuse.

This decision is being made by politicians, bureaucrats insurance companies and judges rather than Doctors.

I absolutely agree with this statement, and posited this as the root of my concern for government involvement in transition.

Any Doctor experienced with treating people with gender issues will tell you that in the vast majority of cases treatment results in a better outcome than denial of treatment.

Any 'Doctor?' We aren't referring to a medical doctor in this case. We are referring to psychologists, who, by definition, are incapable of prescribing medical treatment. This is why I deny the validity of 'medical necessity' in the case of SRS.

[Bettypooh]

.... I do not think that most SRS procedures are medically necessary. Therefore, they would be a cosmetic and non deductable expense....

SRS and gender-trasnition is the only medically recognized treatment for Transexualism- what you or I think about it's legitimacy is irrelevant The licensed Doctors who write the manual are the ones who decide the proper treatments. Of all the recommended treatments in the DSM, SRS was singled out as the only one where the recommended treatment was disallowed as a deduction- discrimination without cause Yes, some TS's live non-op, but a life as an average woman isn't possible like that Women do have sex, and sex as a woman doesn't happen if you've got a penis. And there are numerous recorded cases of TS's who committed suicide because they couldn't get SRS SRS is necessary for some TS's and to deny these people a chance for a normal life is the same as me denying you the wearing of diapers because I don't like your reason for wearing them. Think about that before deciding that your viewpoint is legitimate simply because you think it is, and let the experts decide- as they have

Bettypooh

[WallaWalla]

I am not sure where the idea that anyone was 'denying transsexuals the option of SRS' came from in this thread. SRS was a commonly implemented and available treatment within the United States prior to the Supreme Court ruling in question. I also do not feel that the tax deduction will make it significantly easier for disenfranchised or impoverished TS people to get SRS. They will still need to obtain payment in cash up front, just like they always have.

Of all the recommended treatments in the DSM, SRS was singled out as the only one where the recommended treatment was disallowed as a deduction- discrimination without cause

Perhaps this is because SRS is the only treatment suggested which is not prescribed by a psychiatrist.

[Bettypooh]

Perhaps this is because SRS is the only treatment suggested which is not prescribed by a psychiatrist.

Psychs don't "prescribe" medical operations- they're not allowed to. And since you think a vagina isn't necessary to be a woman then stop using yours for anything except peeing or admit your thinking is wrong.

Bettypooh

[WallaWalla]

Psychs don't "prescribe" medical operations- they're not allowed to.

I didn't word that correctly. However, psychiatrists(being M.D.) are capable of making medical decisions, psychologists(P.H.D.) are not. The treatment of TS people is not performed primarily by psychiatrists, but by psychologists. Only in instances where other problems are present such as severe depression, anxiety, and mood or personality disorders will a psychiatrist be involved. If you know of any psychiatrists that specialize in the care of TS people and you can provide a citation, I will happily digress.

Why do you put the word "prescribe" in quotation marks? Surgery is indeed, prescribed.

And since you think a vagina isn't necessary to be a woman then stop using yours for anything except peeing or admit your thinking is wrong.

False dichotomy. I would also say somewhat off-topic.

The basis of my argument doesn't rest on whether or not a vagina makes a woman. The basis of my argument rests on the belief that giving tax breaks to transsexuals will increase government involvement in the process. The government will become more weary of TS tax fraud(for ludicrous reasons as I mentioned earlier), and could possibly impose regulations on the diagnosis of TS people in the future. I think that this would be disastrous, because I do not feel that medical necessity is what should be carrying the way for us here. I think that we should be able to be accepted by society regardless of what reasons we transition for, and it should be acceptable for anyone to transition if they wish to. Somebody who can not muster the finances to transition prior to this judgment will benefit scarcely from an after the fact tax cut. They will still need to amass the money needed to pay the surgeon up front, regardless of what the supreme court says.(well, unless we get off into nationalized healthcare territory...different can of worms though)

I don't identify as a woman, I identify as a MtF transsexual. My life experience is fundamentally different from that of a natal woman. I will always be impacted(in a positive manner I would even say) by the first 19 years of my life and the socialization that occurred during that time. Additionally, I would argue that I do not have a vagina, but a neovagina.

Also, are you saying that pre-operative transsexuals aren't women because they don't have vaginas? If a vagina is necessary to being a woman, then a pre-operative transsexual is, by definition, not a woman. I, for my part, find that idea ridiculous. A vagina is not what makes a woman, it is what the person's self-identity dictates that makes them a woman.

[sarah_ab]

hahahah so i was reading though and saw TS... and TS is also an abbreviation for tourette syndrome and i was thinking, oh my so now people with tourettes need SRS too.... sorry just made me chuckl...

[d_drew12]

Medical costs are deductible unless they are considered unneeded like cosmetic surgery. By denying srs (sex reassignment surgery) for us they are making the determination that we are doing this for frivolous reasons not for a medical need. This decision is being made by politicians, bureaucrats insurance companies and judges rather than Doctors. Any Doctor experienced with treating people with gender issues will tell you that in the vast majority of cases treatment results in a better outcome than denial of treatment.

If you feel that you should get your SRS paid for through insurance then everyone else in this world should be able to get any elective surgery paid for by insurance. They too could claim it is an image issue and they're struggling the same way you are with yourself over it. By opening this door you'd be opening the door for anyone who's obese to get lipo or gastric bypass, a balding person to get hair implants, a person with wrinkles a face lift, someone with a scar surgery to fix it, a women with small boobs breast implants, lasik eye surgery, teeth whitening etc. If it were up to the doctors, they'd allow EVERYTHING to be covered, why, more money for them. People would be coming in for more and more procedures all the time and that would drive up your insurance premiums drastically. Surgery is expensive and with everyone being allowed to do all these elective surgeries to make themselves feel more complete the same as someone who wants SRS would be draining the insurance companies bank. The only way to replenish it is to charge EVERYONE more and it would mean more and more people wouldn't be able to afford insurance for the major health issues, you know the life threatening ones. I'd say those are more important then someone getting SRS covered by insurance, don't you? The insurance companies more than anything determine what they'll cover to keep down their expenses and thus keeping down the premiums so more people can afford insurance. I've been denied medical procedures because there wasn't enough "proof" that the insurance company had to feel I needed it so if I wanted it, I'd pay out of pocket for something medically even though I have insurance. I see why insurance companies have to be that way though.

Work hard, save your money and have the procedure done. If anything, like someone else said, it's motivation for you to work harder. I want lasik, hair implants, teeth whitening, and a lower BMI, all things aside from the weight unless I do surgery, something I, me, myself, have to pay for. Do you think I should get this things for free too if you get your SRS procedure paid for?

[lil jenny]

....... drew. i know you said on another post that you are just trying to be the devels advocet. but evry time you speak of these things it seems as though you dont know what it is have these problems.

[WallaWalla]

I can't believe that my posts are the ones getting voted down. It's not like I'm the one hurling personal attacks here. I am just trying to have a conversation and share my opinion here people. I have no interest in making enemies, why discourage healthy discourse? If I am saying something that is plain untrue, I won't get mad at you or call you names if you simply provide a reference to information that proves me wrong. Or, in lieu of a reference, a dialectical refutation of a rhetorical point.

I mean really, I fail to see how I'm being so immature as to warrant that here. I bear no ill will toward any of you.

That's how my legislature sees it!

That's how most states in the U.S. see it as well(sorta). Most states won't even let you change what is on your driver's license until after you've had an orchi or SRS. I'm pretty sure there are some places where you can't change your legal status all the way, even after the fact. Heck, my birth certificate still says male, and that's not going to change being that I was born in a podunk Texas county.

If you feel that you should get your SRS paid for through insurance then everyone else in this world should be able to get any elective surgery paid for by insurance. They too could claim it is an image issue and they're struggling the same way you are with yourself over it. By opening this door you'd be opening the door for anyone who's obese to get lipo or gastric bypass, a balding person to get hair implants, a person with wrinkles a face lift, someone with a scar surgery to fix it, a women with small boobs breast implants, lasik eye surgery, teeth whitening etc. If it were up to the doctors, they'd allow EVERYTHING to be covered, why, more money for them. People would be coming in for more and more procedures all the time and that would drive up your insurance premiums drastically. Surgery is expensive and with everyone being allowed to do all these elective surgeries to make themselves feel more complete the same as someone who wants SRS would be draining the insurance companies bank. The only way to replenish it is to charge EVERYONE more and it would mean more and more people wouldn't be able to afford insurance for the major health issues, you know the life threatening ones. I'd say those are more important then someone getting SRS covered by insurance, don't you? The insurance companies more than anything determine what they'll cover to keep down their expenses and thus keeping down the premiums so more people can afford insurance. I've been denied medical procedures because there wasn't enough "proof" that the insurance company had to feel I needed it so if I wanted it, I'd pay out of pocket for something medically even though I have insurance. I see why insurance companies have to be that way though.

Work hard, save your money and have the procedure done. If anything, like someone else said, it's motivation for you to work harder. I want lasik, hair implants, teeth whitening, and a lower BMI, all things aside from the weight unless I do surgery, something I, me, myself, have to pay for. Do you think I should get this things for free too if you get your SRS procedure paid for?

The topic doesn't have anything to do with insurance. Besides, there are a few insurance companies which cover SRS.(probably only economically viable for the richest of the rich though)

[WallaWalla]

[d_drew12]

....... drew. i know you said on another post that you are just trying to be the devels advocet. but evry time you speak of these things it seems as though you dont know what it is have these problems.

You're right, I don't know what it's like to have your problem. You probably don't know what it's like to have my problem. Been balding since high school, am overweight and must wear corrective lenses or contacts. My biggest issue is my hair but I can't even get a paid for prescription through my insurance to help me deal with it or lessen the problem let alone correct it. It has to come out of my own pocket. I have no family history of it happening this young. It's an image issue to me and I use to be very depressed about it and still somewhat am but have learned, these are the cards I'm dealt. I was made fun of and singled out quite a bit especially when I was younger on my balding. I would wear a hat a lot, especially when going out with friends to pick up the ladies because I didn't want to look like the fourty year old in the crowd. I figured I could hide what I really looked like with a hat. Now that I'm 26, people don't comment as much since I'm a little bit older now but it gets brought up often enough that I know people still recognize me as a twenty something who's balding. I don't wear a hat as much now since I'm married but I do have to be careful out in the sun as I can easily burn my scalp.

However much I don't know what you're going through, it really isn't the point I was making. My point was many people are depressed or don't like the cards we're dealt when it comes to our body and our image. If we let SRS be covered then why shouldn't so many other procedures be covered like my balding? There are ways to correct both issues but they are elective surgeries since they aren't life or death issues really, just more cosmetic. I realize your insides may be hurting so it's more of a mental dilema with yourself, as is my balding for me but I don't think it's fair for everyone to pay more into insurance for me to have more hair so I can get over my image issue. I would rather see the premiums we pay go to help people who are physically sick and who are more in need of the money. I know someone who maxed out her life time insurance coverage of one million dollars after having beat cancer twice. Insurance no longer paid for her and her and her husband lost nearly everything to pay for the rest of her cancer recovery. Those are the people who need the money, not me for my hair issues, to the women who's losing her families home. I can live without hair, she can't live without treatment.

[FretaBWet]

If you feel that you should get your SRS paid for through insurance then everyone else in this world should be able to get any elective surgery paid for by insurance. They too could claim it is an image issue and they're struggling the same way you are with yourself over it. By opening this door you'd be opening the door for anyone who's obese to get lipo or gastric bypass, a balding person to get hair implants, a person with wrinkles a face lift, someone with a scar surgery to fix it, a women with small boobs breast implants, lasik eye surgery, teeth whitening etc. If it were up to the doctors, they'd allow EVERYTHING to be covered, why, more money for them. People would be coming in for more and more procedures all the time and that would drive up your insurance premiums drastically. Surgery is expensive and with everyone being allowed to do all these elective surgeries to make themselves feel more complete the same as someone who wants SRS would be draining the insurance companies bank. The only way to replenish it is to charge EVERYONE more and it would mean more and more people wouldn't be able to afford insurance for the major health issues, you know the life threatening ones. I'd say those are more important then someone getting SRS covered by insurance, don't you? The insurance companies more than anything determine what they'll cover to keep down their expenses and thus keeping down the premiums so more people can afford insurance. I've been denied medical procedures because there wasn't enough "proof" that the insurance company had to feel I needed it so if I wanted it, I'd pay out of pocket for something medically even though I have insurance. I see why insurance companies have to be that way though.

Work hard, save your money and have the procedure done. If anything, like someone else said, it's motivation for you to work harder. I want lasik, hair implants, teeth whitening, and a lower BMI, all things aside from the weight unless I do surgery, something I, me, myself, have to pay for. Do you think I should get this things for free too if you get your SRS procedure paid for?

Are you Gay Drew? Bi maybe? Transgendered? If you're hetrosexual what are you doing in this forum (Rainbow Diapers) never mind this thread? You come in here looking to cause trouble because you don't like us or what we stand for. You think we're an easy target for you so you come in and rain on our parade and then say I was just taking the other point of view. This isn't the first time you've been in here causing trouble but I'm hoping it will be the last.

This isn't a political forum set up for people of opposing points of view to use to argue the merits of their cause. It's a forum for us to support each other. If you're not one of US then get the hell out and stay out. I'm not speaking for anyone else on this forum or thread only for myself. As for me I don't give a sh*t what your opinion is. I've wasted my time trying to reason with you before and learned you're not here to learn just to cause trouble.

No hugs 4 you,

Freta

[froggy]

I will play the devil again. Perhaps it is time to get the government out of all of our choices. Make nothing deductible. All pay taxes on his or her gross income. How you spend the rest is up to you and will not cause anyone else to pay more or less taxes. If you want or need SRS and can afford it, more power to you.

[WallaWalla]

I will play the devil again. Perhaps it is time to get the government out of all of our choices. Make nothing deductible. All pay taxes on his or her gross income. How you spend the rest is up to you and will not cause anyone else to pay more or less taxes. If you want or need SRS and can afford it, more power to you.

I would leap on this, but it would slow down growth/stability in the long run as far as I see it. Tax deductions that promote modernization of infrastructure are a very good thing imo.

I would say that about half of all tax deductions are not beneficial to anyone but the groups who collect on them though.(and sorry, I think this is one of them!)

[d_drew12]

Are you Gay Drew? Bi maybe? Transgendered? If you're hetrosexual what are you doing in this forum (Rainbow Diapers) never mind this thread? You come in here looking to cause trouble because you don't like us or what we stand for. You think we're an easy target for you so you come in and rain on our parade and then say I was just taking the other point of view. This isn't the first time you've been in here causing trouble but I'm hoping it will be the last.

This isn't a political forum set up for people of opposing points of view to use to argue the merits of their cause. It's a forum for us to support each other. If you're not one of US then get the hell out and stay out. I'm not speaking for anyone else on this forum or thread only for myself. As for me I don't give a sh*t what your opinion is. I've wasted my time trying to reason with you before and learned you're not here to learn just to cause trouble.

No hugs 4 you,

Freta

Really Freta, Really? I can't be here because I'm straight huh? Can't have an opinion either? Why not make a thread for black people and one for whites and only people of that race can be in those forums? Nobody from other races can comment. How about from now on you can't post anywhere but in the Rainbow Diapers thread since you're not straight? Does that sound fair? You have what seems to be a lot of pent up anger and you're directing it at me. I didn't come here to cause any fights or rain on your parade. I'm giving my take on the subject just as others here have and just because I may not agree with insurance or taxes paying for SRS, you feel the need to black ball me. Sheesh, guess I have to agree with everything you think to be on your side. For someone who doesn't care what I say, you sure say a whole lot about it. Do you hate everyone who doesn't agree with everything you say? Sure seems that way.

Does everyone else who posted here think I did or said something seriously wrong, if so, honestly, speak up. I'd like to know.

PS. I'm not into hugging anyway so that's fine I don't get a hug from you Freta.

[froggy]

I would leap on this, but it would slow down growth/stability in the long run as far as I see it. Tax deductions that promote modernization of infrastructure are a very good thing imo.

I would say that about half of all tax deductions are not beneficial to anyone but the groups who collect on them though.(and sorry, I think this is one of them!)

A stimulus needs to do its work and go away. A permanent stimulus is no better than income redistribution that will cause harm to some if it is ever revoked. For example, mortage interest was supposed to be a temporary stimulus for property sales. It is an institution now that could collapse the real estate market if taken away.

But this reasoning is somewhat out of the intent of this forum. I still believe that cosmetic and voluntary procedures are just that and should not be deductible. Included in voluntary are diapers for non medical reasons in my mind. There is no reason for the taxpayers to pay for our entertainment.

[WallaWalla]

But this reasoning is somewhat out of the intent of this forum. I still believe that cosmetic and voluntary procedures are just that and should not be deductible. Included in voluntary are diapers for non medical reasons in my mind. There is no reason for the taxpayers to pay for our entertainment.

I'm not certain that the consequences of SRS are purely cosmetic or analogous to the voluntary use of diapers.

Just sayin...

[Sophie ♥]

...I should move to MA...

-Sophie

[FretaBWet]

...I should move to MA...

-Sophie

This ruling was against the IRS by a Federal Judge I believe so it should set a presidence for all taxpayers regardless of what state they live in. You shouldn't have to move to benefit from this ruling. :-)

Hugs,

Freta