Geithner coming after your cellphone usage!

[Yurt]

I don't have a cell phone, and I have never had a company cell phone. I had to stop at a coin operated phone to call in. So, basically I could care less if the cell phone users get taxed, but it just seems the gooberment is sucking on straws to find inventive ways to create revenue since they have spent more that they have income. Screw the gooberment. Let them sink. Let their money spending programs fail. That's the only way the left wing liberal idiots are going to learn. Dry up their income. Taxation without representation has never been legal in the United States. If your elected officials continue to support these idiotic spending sprees by the gooberment, fire them and hire some more intelligent and conservative representatives. Take charge of your own country.

what kind of stance is that....well, just because i don't do that or use that...i don't care

 

[Nik]

dammit, i just did that which i earlier accused you of....

you asked a question as to why not cell phones....let me ask you, do you then support this tax proposal?

This isn't a new tax proposal. Its merely going to start considering cell phones as benefits, which they are. If a company gives something to you thats of value, thats a benefit. I see no reason why it shouldn't be taxed.

so you want it to be taxed?

Yes.

 

[Nik]

I don't have a cell phone, and I have never had a company cell phone. I had to stop at a coin operated phone to call in. So, basically I could care less if the cell phone users get taxed, but it just seems the gooberment is sucking on straws to find inventive ways to create revenue since they have spent more that they have income. Screw the gooberment. Let them sink. Let their money spending programs fail. That's the only way the left wing liberal idiots are going to learn. Dry up their income. Taxation without representation has never been legal in the United States. If your elected officials continue to support these idiotic spending sprees by the gooberment, fire them and hire some more intelligent and conservative representatives. Take charge of your own country.

 

[alan1]

At my last job, I carried a company cell phone 24/7. I never once used it for personal use. I never gave out the number to anybody except people that I worked with. My daughters didn't even have the number, they called my personal cell phone if they needed to talk of me.
Should I have been taxed for that?

 

[Yurt]

This isn't a new tax proposal. Its merely going to start considering cell phones as benefits, which they are. If a company gives something to you thats of value, thats a benefit. I see no reason why it shouldn't be taxed.

so you want it to be taxed?

Yes.

you do realize this makes you look like a fool...you claimed, by stating "who said i was" that you are not a tax loving fool when i called you on it....

well, appears my analysis was correct and you are being a dishonest hack once again. you do love this tax. you will now mince words and claim you do not love all taxes, but my point was solely regarding your love of this tax....

and don't be stupid and get into a discussion regarding what "love" means....you knew what i meant, you acted like an asshole and pretended you didn't know what i meant, so i had to play the circuitious route and prove you love this tax.

remind me not to take you seriously anymore

 

[Soaring]

I don't have a cell phone, and I have never had a company cell phone. I had to stop at a coin operated phone to call in. So, basically I could care less if the cell phone users get taxed, but it just seems the gooberment is sucking on straws to find inventive ways to create revenue since they have spent more that they have income. Screw the gooberment. Let them sink. Let their money spending programs fail. That's the only way the left wing liberal idiots are going to learn. Dry up their income. Taxation without representation has never been legal in the United States. If your elected officials continue to support these idiotic spending sprees by the gooberment, fire them and hire some more intelligent and conservative representatives. Take charge of your own country.

what kind of stance is that....well, just because i don't do that or use that...i don't care

It's a fair stance. You idiots who must have the convenience of a company cell phone are just spoiled brats. You don't need a cell phone to run a business. If you think you do , then you are out of touch with reality. Use your friggin brain to make snap decisions without having to constantly check in with the boss. Earn your pay. Use your brain.

 

[Nik]

so you want it to be taxed?

Yes.

you do realize this makes you look like a fool...you claimed, by stating "who said i was" that you are not a tax loving fool when i called you on it....

well, appears my analysis was correct and you are being a dishonest hack once again. you do love this tax. you will now mince words and claim you do not love all taxes, but my point was solely regarding your love of this tax....

and don't be stupid and get into a discussion regarding what "love" means....you knew what i meant, you acted like an asshole and pretended you didn't know what i meant, so i had to play the circuitious route and prove you love this tax.

remind me not to take you seriously anymore

Incorrect again, dipshit.

I don't love taxes, but I think they need to exist. I actually take serious the burden of supporting government and all of its programs. And you already pointed out the flaws in your argument and attempted to explain them away. "Your point" was just that it was this tax. Well then why did you call me "tax loving" as opposed to addressing this particular point? Further, the issue of love actually matters. Or do you not see a distinction between supporting a necessary evil because I don't believe in fiscal irresponsibility, and loving something?

Remind me not to take you seriously anymore. Oh wait, I never have, because its been abundantly clear that you are a partisan hack of the worst kind.

 

[Nik]

At my last job, I carried a company cell phone 24/7. I never once used it for personal use. I never gave out the number to anybody except people that I worked with. My daughters didn't even have the number, they called my personal cell phone if they needed to talk of me.
Should I have been taxed for that?

Probably not, it doesn't sound like a benefit.

I know lots of people who get company cell phones where the company takes over the entire plan. Corporate and personal calls included + a free blackberry. Now tell me why that shouldn't be taxed?

 

[Nik]

I don't have a cell phone, and I have never had a company cell phone. I had to stop at a coin operated phone to call in. So, basically I could care less if the cell phone users get taxed, but it just seems the gooberment is sucking on straws to find inventive ways to create revenue since they have spent more that they have income. Screw the gooberment. Let them sink. Let their money spending programs fail. That's the only way the left wing liberal idiots are going to learn. Dry up their income. Taxation without representation has never been legal in the United States. If your elected officials continue to support these idiotic spending sprees by the gooberment, fire them and hire some more intelligent and conservative representatives. Take charge of your own country.

what kind of stance is that....well, just because i don't do that or use that...i don't care

It's a fair stance. You idiots who must have the convenience of a company cell phone are just spoiled brats. You don't need a cell phone to run a business. If you think you do , then you are out of touch with reality. Use your friggin brain to make snap decisions without having to constantly check in with the boss. Earn your pay. Use your brain.

Umm, some cell phones are so you can check e-mail and calls wherever you go. Some businesses require constant contact with clients and so, yes, cell phones are necessity.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Incorrect again, dipshit.

LOL, only took you 3 posts to resort to name calling this time Nik , but I guess when your head is filled with nothing but nonsense and you're about as articulate as the average trash can, what else can you do?

Here's me at You ... AGAIN...... please do the rest of us a favor and at least make an honest attempt to act like an adult.

 

[Nik]

Incorrect again, dipshit.

LOL, only took you 3 posts to resort to name calling this time Nik , but I guess when your head is filled with nothing but nonsense and you're about as articulate as the average trash can, what else can you do?

Here's me at You ... AGAIN...... please do the rest of us a favor and at least make an honest attempt to act like an adult.

Resort to name calling? As I explained to your simple, feeble mind before, it supplements my arguments. Notice that after I said "incorrect again, dipshit", I wrote a paragraph on exactly why dipshit was wrong. Or are you so delicate that the word just blinded you and you didn't have the ability to keep reading?

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

Incorrect again, dipshit.

LOL, only took you 3 posts to resort to name calling this time Nik , but I guess when your head is filled with nothing but nonsense and you're about as articulate as the average trash can, what else can you do?

Here's me at You ... AGAIN...... please do the rest of us a favor and at least make an honest attempt to act like an adult.

Resort to name calling? As I explained to your simple, feeble mind before, it supplements my arguments. Notice that after I said "incorrect again, dipshit", I wrote a paragraph on exactly why dipshit was wrong. Or are you so delicate that the word just blinded you and you didn't have the ability to keep reading?

ROFLMAO ! thank you for once again proving my point...........

 

[Nik]

LOL, only took you 3 posts to resort to name calling this time Nik , but I guess when your head is filled with nothing but nonsense and you're about as articulate as the average trash can, what else can you do?

Here's me at You ... AGAIN...... please do the rest of us a favor and at least make an honest attempt to act like an adult.

Resort to name calling? As I explained to your simple, feeble mind before, it supplements my arguments. Notice that after I said "incorrect again, dipshit", I wrote a paragraph on exactly why dipshit was wrong. Or are you so delicate that the word just blinded you and you didn't have the ability to keep reading?

ROFLMAO ! thank you for once again proving my point...........

Oh? Do explain how I did.

 

[Yurt]

Yes.

you do realize this makes you look like a fool...you claimed, by stating "who said i was" that you are not a tax loving fool when i called you on it....

well, appears my analysis was correct and you are being a dishonest hack once again. you do love this tax. you will now mince words and claim you do not love all taxes, but my point was solely regarding your love of this tax....

and don't be stupid and get into a discussion regarding what "love" means....you knew what i meant, you acted like an asshole and pretended you didn't know what i meant, so i had to play the circuitious route and prove you love this tax.

remind me not to take you seriously anymore

Incorrect again, dipshit.

I don't love taxes, but I think they need to exist. I actually take serious the burden of supporting government and all of its programs. And you already pointed out the flaws in your argument and attempted to explain them away. "Your point" was just that it was this tax. Well then why did you call me "tax loving" as opposed to addressing this particular point? Further, the issue of love actually matters. Or do you not see a distinction between supporting a necessary evil because I don't believe in fiscal irresponsibility, and loving something?

Remind me not to take you seriously anymore. Oh wait, I never have, because its been abundantly clear that you are a partisan hack of the worst kind.

you get pissed when i say you "love" this tax.....and claim you never said it.....then you admit it is necessary and that you support this tax.....

then you double talk with a necessary "evil".....my entire point from the beginning was.............YOU SUPPORT THIS TAX

and i was right. ergo, my original statement. thank you for actually bolstering my original point with your well reasoned argument....though you thought you were arguing against my point, you actually proved it up very well nik.....

good job, thanks!

 

[Nik]

you do realize this makes you look like a fool...you claimed, by stating "who said i was" that you are not a tax loving fool when i called you on it....

well, appears my analysis was correct and you are being a dishonest hack once again. you do love this tax. you will now mince words and claim you do not love all taxes, but my point was solely regarding your love of this tax....

and don't be stupid and get into a discussion regarding what "love" means....you knew what i meant, you acted like an asshole and pretended you didn't know what i meant, so i had to play the circuitious route and prove you love this tax.

remind me not to take you seriously anymore

Incorrect again, dipshit.

I don't love taxes, but I think they need to exist. I actually take serious the burden of supporting government and all of its programs. And you already pointed out the flaws in your argument and attempted to explain them away. "Your point" was just that it was this tax. Well then why did you call me "tax loving" as opposed to addressing this particular point? Further, the issue of love actually matters. Or do you not see a distinction between supporting a necessary evil because I don't believe in fiscal irresponsibility, and loving something?

Remind me not to take you seriously anymore. Oh wait, I never have, because its been abundantly clear that you are a partisan hack of the worst kind.

you get pissed when i say you "love" this tax.....and claim you never said it.....then you admit it is necessary and that you support this tax.....

If you don't see the difference between love and support, then you have some major issues. Let me ask you a question. Do you support any tax?

then you double talk with a necessary "evil".....my entire point from the beginning was.............YOU SUPPORT THIS TAX

Really? So why didn't you just say "so you support this tax" instead of saying

but then why are you such a tax loving citizen?

Instead of just questioning my support for this tax, you changed it into love (which is much, much different than support), and said tax generally, instead of specifically. And then you wonder why I object to it?

and i was right. ergo, my original statement. thank you for actually bolstering my original point with your well reasoned argument....though you thought you were arguing against my point, you actually proved it up very well nik.....

good job, thanks!

No, you weren't.

 

[Zoom-boing]

before this bunch of damn dumb democwats gets done you will have a breath o meter tached to yer neck and will be charged with emitting co2 per every breath you take..

Sssshhh, they'll hear you and push it through while we're all diverted with teleprompter gaffs and Biden gaws.

 

[Seraega]

Taxes should be fair. Whether you're paid straight cash, or cash + medical insurance, or cash + medical insurance + stocks + cell phone... it's all income and should be taxed equally. This is a loop hole the same as not taxing other benefits. Hopefully some of these holes are going to be plugged soon. Taxing medical benefits was a McCain idea remember... it's just being adopted because even a broken clock is right twice a day... well this was one of McCains few good ideas.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is a loop hole the same as not taxing other benefits.

This wasn't a loophole, it was simply an un-enforceable law. There's a difference.

 

[STAND4LIBERTY]

This is a loop hole the same as not taxing other benefits.

This wasn't a loophole, it was simply an un-enforceable law. There's a difference.

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference? kinda reminds me of the problem we have with illegal aliens, technically they are illegal but since the gub'ment doesn't enforce the laws they're allowed to stay via a loophole in the law (which is a pretty big loophole I might add).

One might even go so far as to say that it's yet another example of the federal government saying one thing (the law is X) and doing another (but *wink**wink* we won't enforce that law, so don't pay any attention to it).

Lastly I wonder if all the politicians will have to start paying taxes on their own cellphone usage, 'cause you know that has got to be a significant amount of money per professional liar ... er.. politician ... it'll be interesting to see if they exempt themselves from it if aggressive enforcement becomes a reality (I'm betting that they will one way or another).

 

[Midnight Marauder]

This is a loop hole the same as not taxing other benefits.

This wasn't a loophole, it was simply an un-enforceable law. There's a difference.

While I understand the difference from a technical perspective, in practice is there really a difference?

Yes there is quite a difference. In 1989 when this law was passed, it required record-keeping of all calls by the employees and the employer. It wasn't enforced because of this cumbersome requirement, and went 20 years without being addressed. So, no loophole technical or otherwise, it was simply forgotten and never enforced.

A loophole is a legal out that goes around the law, isn't against the law but violates the spirit and intent of the law.

I understand what you're saying, but the use of the term "loophole" is highly inaccurate here. It incorrectly lumps it in with major problems we have with enforceable laws that are enforced. Unless of course, there's a loophole!

You illegal alien example doesn't fit. There's no loophole in that law, it's simply not enforced like it should be. Just like this cellphone tax law.

Problem is now, folks like Mountain Man will still be taxed for that company cellphone whether he uses it for personal or not.