Not only that the company didn't address any of the concerns I raised in my complaint number : XXXX, but intentionally tried to gray out the entire age discrimination issue I raised in my subject complaint, through injected new unrelated items, such as assets and prior year income from investment, neither of which I claimed as current income. Since my current income is made up of pension and social security income, it is special in the sense that it for life income and as such, it should not matter when I started receiving it. My current income therefore, should have been the companys focus, unless the company is trying to gray up the issues as to avoid answering my specific questions related to age discrimination by the company through incorrect and unfair application of its debts to GROSS income ratio. 
Below are the questions I raised in my complaint # XXXX : A - Why doesn't the company add back to my net income ( pension and social security ), the percentages representative of FICA ( social security and Medicare taxes ), NYS income tax and the 70 % IRS exemption for my social security income to arrive at the equivalent gross income amount, to be used in determining the debts to GROSS income ratio used by the bank, in spite of the fact that CFPB defines " gross '' income as income which includes " taxeS '', and other deductions, emphases on " taxeS '' not just one type of taxes ( federal income ) as the company thinks. 
- Summary of The Companys answer : absolutely no mention what so ever of the percentages representative of FICA ( social security and Medicare taxes ), NYS income tax. The company instead focused on the 11 % federal income tax I paid in XX/XX/XXXX. 
B - Provide an explanation of the 11 % net to gross income conversion which Citibank used in denying my application, and how would that reflect the social security, Medicare and the New York state income taxes all of which I'm exempt from paying, and as such, their respective percentages of net income should be added back to my net income to arrive at the equivalent gross income which then can be used to arrive at the correct debt to gross income ratio? 
- Summary of The Companys answer : Absolutely no mention what so ever of how applying the 11 % will substitute the percentages of social security, Medicare and the New York state Income taxes all of which I'm exempt from paying. The company instead mentioned income I received from investment in XX/XX/XXXX, something which is not only unrelated to my question, but rather to the entire loan application! 

C - Citibank -the company- did not address why with a net income I earned from my job during XX/XX/XXXX which is happened to be less than my current net income, the same company arrived at an acceptable debt to gross income ratio in XX/XX/XXXX ( I was told it was in the 40 % s ) when I refinanced my mortgage back then, but not now when I'm applying for a smaller loan with higher equity in my home and most importantly, why that would not constitute age discrimination against pensions and social security receivers for not allowing them same opportunity allowed to wage earners? 


- Summary of The Companys answer : No mention what so ever. 


To summarize, Citibank is avoiding my specific questions related to treating those who receive pension and social security in a way EQUAL to those who earn wages. Specifically, when implementing the debts to gross income ratio. By not adding the percentages of social security, Medicare and local income taxes to the net pension and social security income received, or by intentionally avoiding to explain why it should not do so, I do believe Citibank is acting in an age discriminatory way, and not as an equal lender opportunity bank, as it should be.