Anonymous wrote:The state property tax exemption only applies to permanent total disability, a status that the VA may not review again after granting it. The court case alone is sufficient proof that her family never had permanent total status. The VA is confusing and so is DAT. I think she’ll be a good representative for her constituents but if this was an honest mistake she needs to demonstrate that because the official paper trail from government sources raises enough questions to require an explanation.
Elected representatives should be paying whatever taxes they owe, and that’s regardless of party affiliation or ideology. If you give people a break on ethics because you agree with someone, then you’re doing democracy wrong.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:She is just as unknown as her opponent.
We do know that she supports Thrive.
Does Viet Doan support Thrive?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.
False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.
That isn't true - you can't work if you have total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), which is when your combined rating is less than 100% but there is a finding you can't work. If you have a scheduler 100% rating you are allowed to work if you actually can despite your disabilities. Most people with a 100% rating can't possibly work, but some do. There can be a 100% rating for profound hearing loss, for example, and a person could still work in some jobs.
These are rare edge cases and if you do work it reduces your benefits.
There is zero evidence that this woman’s husband is one of these edge cases and it’s notable that she refuses to answer the direct question of what her husbands disability determination is. She owes an explanation.
No, she does not.
Anonymous wrote:She is just as unknown as her opponent.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.
False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.
That isn't true - you can't work if you have total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), which is when your combined rating is less than 100% but there is a finding you can't work. If you have a scheduler 100% rating you are allowed to work if you actually can despite your disabilities. Most people with a 100% rating can't possibly work, but some do. There can be a 100% rating for profound hearing loss, for example, and a person could still work in some jobs.
These are rare edge cases and if you do work it reduces your benefits.
There is zero evidence that this woman’s husband is one of these edge cases and it’s notable that she refuses to answer the direct question of what her husbands disability determination is. She owes an explanation.
No, she does not.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know a 100% disabled veteran who is a judge. No visible disabilities btw.
False. To retain 100% disability first of all means that you cannot work.
That isn't true - you can't work if you have total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), which is when your combined rating is less than 100% but there is a finding you can't work. If you have a scheduler 100% rating you are allowed to work if you actually can despite your disabilities. Most people with a 100% rating can't possibly work, but some do. There can be a 100% rating for profound hearing loss, for example, and a person could still work in some jobs.
These are rare edge cases and if you do work it reduces your benefits.
There is zero evidence that this woman’s husband is one of these edge cases and it’s notable that she refuses to answer the direct question of what her husbands disability determination is. She owes an explanation.