No thank you, Obama will help them.

[strollingbones]

btw...takes a whole lot of balls to give min wage clerks who cant reply...a hard time....shows a lot about character if you ask me...picking on someone who cant protest..who has to put up with it...

 

[Ravi]

I am a statistic.

Working middle class; my husband owns a small business that falls into the $250,000.00, talking point threshold, so to speak. However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

While running my daily errands, a store clerk asked me today if I would like to donate my money to help a worthy cause. I told them, "No thank you, Obama will help them". I got a reaction.

It sounds cruel and insensitive, but I would like for anyone who reads this to do the same when someone asks you to give them your money. It just might make a difference.

The point I want to make is this. Our dollar goes much farther when the government stays out of our problems. When large charitable organizations become threatened by lack of public funding, then maybe we can end the corruption in our government.

That's pretty funny. I am going to use this line on the kids that are always panhandling outside the grocery store...annoying little buggers.

If your husband only brings home income "less money than a family of 4 on welfare," then he doesn't fall into the $250,000 talking point. Nice try, though.

 

[rayboyusmc]

Does anyone think that the government can do better things with our money than we can ourselves?/QUOTE]


yes: build highways, raise a military defense system, negotiate with other countries, oversee and regulate businesses from doing what they just did in the banking industry.

There are things that can only be accomplished as a group working together under the name of government.

I don't want anymore private "Alligator Alleys" like the one proposed for in Florida. I don't want Haliburton et al feeding our soldiers at a higher cost that we can do it ourself, and many more.

Private industry (AKA Blackwater) has proved that privatizing does not make it better or cheaper.

Taxes are what you pay for a civilized society. Now, the problem is to get the tax base correct.

 

[Care4all]

I am a statistic.

Working middle class; my husband owns a small business that falls into the $250,000.00, talking point threshold, so to speak. However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

While running my daily errands, a store clerk asked me today if I would like to donate my money to help a worthy cause. I told them, "No thank you, Obama will help them". I got a reaction.

It sounds cruel and insensitive, but I would like for anyone who reads this to do the same when someone asks you to give them your money. It just might make a difference.

The point I want to make is this. Our dollar goes much farther when the government stays out of our problems. When large charitable organizations become threatened by lack of public funding, then maybe we can end the corruption in our government.

Care to elaborate on that?

I'd assume what's left after expenses, employee salaries, benefits, and investing in the company.

Then her husband's income from the small business DOES NOT fall in to the $250k threshold so the premise of her original post, does not hold....that's all.

Her husband would have to make the $250k in NET TAXABLE INCOME....so there is no worries for her and her husband on the thresh hold....of taxes going up, they are no where near the threshold....

care

 

[Care4all]

Which is exactly what you're doing. You're claiming that you made X amount less deductions, when you are not entitled to said deductions.

You're incorrect and I would advise you read up on this.

I'm a fucking accountant. You can't take deductions for "all meals" or "a car just because it's in the business name." They have to serve a business purpose. It's in the tax code, and if you were to get audited, you'd be fucked.

And yes, Texas has a new franchise tax for businesses. Individuals still pay no income taxes, but businesses certainly do.

Furthermore, even though the higher tax rates apply to businesses who net over $250,000, there are other implications in Obama's plan. For instances, because of changes to allowable deductions, it will be harder for some businesses that gross over $250,000 to net themselves below $250,000.

on their individual income, there are reductions in what can be deducted, BUT NOT with their business, so they can reinvest in the business to reduce their profit income still, right?

 

[Fregretu]

I will try again.

I used Obama in my title, because he leads the government. Whether you are a dem or a republican, makes no difference to me.
Does anyone think that the government can do better things with our money than we can ourselves?

huh?

wtf does this have to do with your husband and his business?

Nice language. You must have a great career little fella. Absolutely nothing, It was a kind of an introduction. Maybe if i would have used foul language and started by name calling, maybe I would have appeased more of the readers.

I would never tell anyone what business my husband is in, espessially on this site. And I would like to thank some of you for your tax advise.


I will say this again. If you want to turn a dollar into a dime, give it to the government. But if you let the employers keep more of THEIR money, the economy will work itself out.

I think that If everyone stopped donating to charity, just for a short time. It will motivate these large organizations to turn their sites on the real problem. Our greedy, power hungry government.

When the government takes your dollar for "THE CAUSE", how much do you think is left after paying back political favors?

 

[Care4all]

45% of the workers in this country do not pay income taxes, would you object to giving them a tax break on their SS taxes and medicare taxes so they can have more of their money in their own hands so they can do more with it?

 

[rayboyusmc]

Nice language. You must have a great career little fella. Absolutely nothing, It was a kind of an introduction. Maybe if i would have used foul language and started by name calling, maybe I would have appeased more of the readers.

No foul language wasn't needed, just a lot more clarity on your situation. As one who reads the internet, I have become somewhat jaded on accepting anything on face value. Too many stories like this have not panned out, so please understand my skepticism.

Also, only 2% of small businesses are supposed to be affected by this income limit. To me that is a lot fairer than a small 5% of the uber rich over the 80% of the uber middle class. It's time we realized the value of our citizens as the force that drives this nation. The middle class is the engine and cars. The upper rich are the whistle. This 250,000 is about brining the middle class back into a position where they can earn, spend and drive the economy.

Your argument against government and all private has been brought up before. Some believe, some don't. I don't. We have too many examples of private industry not doing any better than government in certain areas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nice language. You must have a great career little fella. Absolutely nothing, It was a kind of an introduction. Maybe if i would have used foul language and started by name calling, maybe I would have appeased more of the readers.

A note about Liberals and Conservatives:

Since Liberals see their view as a higher calling that that of Conservatives, they mistakenly believe that it is entirely appropriate for then to use, not logic, facts, nor accepted debating techniques, but ad hominem attacks on the physical appearance, personal history, or imaginary mental defects. Notice how the Liberal replaces intellect with emotion. This is, no doubt, based on a medieval concept of recognizing witches and demons. In fact, Liberals attempt to deal with opponents in similar fashion: recall Clarence Thomas’ “High Tech Lynching.”

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

If you have to tell a story that makes you not sound like a blowhard Republican at first, it's probably not true.

ROFLMNAO... Based upon what principle? Tell us RS, what makes this true? Show us your intellectual math here...

(there will be no further discussion, wherein RS explains her reasoning... as there is no reasoning which could even potentially support this bilge... it's just more cliche based drivel from a bankrupt ideology)

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I am a statistic.

Working middle class; my husband owns a small business that falls into the $250,000.00, talking point threshold, so to speak. However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

While running my daily errands, a store clerk asked me today if I would like to donate my money to help a worthy cause. I told them, "No thank you, Obama will help them". I got a reaction.

It sounds cruel and insensitive, but I would like for anyone who reads this to do the same when someone asks you to give them your money. It just might make a difference.

The point I want to make is this. Our dollar goes much farther when the government stays out of our problems. When large charitable organizations become threatened by lack of public funding, then maybe we can end the corruption in our government.

That's pretty funny. I am going to use this line on the kids that are always panhandling outside the grocery store...annoying little buggers.

If your husband only brings home income "less money than a family of 4 on welfare," then he doesn't fall into the $250,000 talking point. Nice try, though.

ROFLMNAO... Lovely rationalization... Her husband runs a small business that grosses over 250K... He's the target.

You're focusing on his net... when in FACT: You and the Comrades are trying to TAX HIM ON HIS GROSS. The entire FARCE which incessantly notes: "CORPORATIONS DON'T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE" IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS... Whenever that discussion points out the distinction between Gross sales and net profit, YOU IDIOTS CLAMMER ON ABOUT HOW THEY SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR GROSS; DEMANDING THAT THE NET IS AN ILLICIT MEANS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

ANOTHER FACT IS THAT: Hussein is presently advancing policy which would use illicit accounting methods to artificially increase her husbands net, by precluding his means to deduct from his gross the costs he exposed himself to in order to do business.

So stow that bullshit... Her point is valid and THAT IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT.

 

[Ravi]

I am a statistic.

Working middle class; my husband owns a small business that falls into the $250,000.00, talking point threshold, so to speak. However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

While running my daily errands, a store clerk asked me today if I would like to donate my money to help a worthy cause. I told them, "No thank you, Obama will help them". I got a reaction.

It sounds cruel and insensitive, but I would like for anyone who reads this to do the same when someone asks you to give them your money. It just might make a difference.

The point I want to make is this. Our dollar goes much farther when the government stays out of our problems. When large charitable organizations become threatened by lack of public funding, then maybe we can end the corruption in our government.

That's pretty funny. I am going to use this line on the kids that are always panhandling outside the grocery store...annoying little buggers.

If your husband only brings home income "less money than a family of 4 on welfare," then he doesn't fall into the $250,000 talking point. Nice try, though.

ROFLMNAO... Lovely rationalization... Her husband runs a small business that grosses over 250K... He's the target.

You're focusing on his net... when in FACT: You and the Comrades are trying to TAX HIM ON HIS GROSS. The entire FARCE which incessantly notes: CORPORATIONS ADOn"T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS... Whenever that discussion points out the distinction between Gross sales and net profit, YOU IDIOTS CLAMMER ON ABOUT HOW THEY SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR GROSS; DEMANDING THAT THE NET IS AN ILLICIT MEANS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

ANOTHER FACT IS THAT: Hussein is presently advancing policy which would use illicit accounting methods to artificially increase her husbands net, by precluding his means to deduct from his gross the costs he exposed himself to in order to do business.

So stow that bullshit... Her point is valid and THAT IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT.

So this part of her statement was a lie: However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

The rest of your post is quite frankly the raving of a madman.

 

[DavidS]

The story doesn't make her sound like a blowhard Republican. Your response though DOES make you sound like a blowhard lefty.

Well that would be logical, RS is...

I was having a Captain Obvious moment.

 

[DavidS]

You're focusing on his net... when in FACT: You and the Comrades are trying to TAX HIM ON HIS GROSS.

If he's an S-Corp or LLC, you cannot tax him on gross. You would have to completely re-write the entire corporate system of America that would affect millions of businesses and you would essentially wipe out nearly 75% of them if you did that. There are absolutely NO movements to do this in any US government.

If you're a C-Corp, which very few small businesses are, then yes, you can get taxes on gross. But C-Corps are usually very large corporations that have millions of tax deductions and Emron-type accounting offices.

ANOTHER FACT IS THAT: Hussein is presently advancing policy which would use illicit accounting methods to artificially increase her husbands net, by precluding his means to deduct from his gross the costs he exposed himself to in order to do business.

What are you talking about? Are you making this shit up from thin air? First of all, you cannot artificially inflate someone's net without inflating the Gross. If you're taking away deductions or you're making the percentage someone can write off in deductions, that's not artificially inflating anything. That's just taking away deductions... but Obama has actually INCREASED deductions that small businesses can use.

Now unless you have a story on this from the WSJ that shows Obama is trying to eliminate tax deductions for S-Corps or LLCs, then you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Does anyone think that the government can do better things with our money than we can ourselves?/QUOTE]

yes: build highways, raise a military defense system, negotiate with other countries, oversee and regulate businesses from doing what they just did in the banking industry.

Wow Really? Yet those highways were built by private companies...

There are things that can only be accomplished as a group working together under the name of government.

Golly... so you want to redefine the argument to state the legitimate purpose of Government... as if someone has suggested that there is no legitimate purpose for government.

I love it when leftists respond to arguments which discredit leftist redistribution schemes, wherein they immediately run to highlight legitimate functions of the US Government; which is inevitably infustructure and national defense.

Hysterical! (In at least two contexts and on several levels)

I don't want anymore private "Alligator Alleys" like the one proposed for in Florida.

I live just a few miles from the Alley and no one here wants it privatized either... and no one here is talking about privatizing it. That is a myth... a myth created by THE LEFT.

I don't want Haliburton et al feeding our soldiers at a higher cost that we can do it ourself, and many more.

Haliburton doesn't feed our troops at a higher cost, the contractors cut the cost to feed the troops SIGNIFICANTLY... Where do you GET THIS IDIOCY?

Private industry (AKA Blackwater) has proved that privatizing does not make it better or cheaper.

Absolutely FALSE... Blackwater does it cheaper and they do it better.

It's not a complex calculation dumbass, it's just one beyond your intellectual means.

Private contractors specialize in their respective industry... meaning they do that job all day, every day and they have an innate understanding of how to do it, as well as the equipment and personnel to do it. Private contractors pay their own way, they carry the liability for performance and while the numbers that you read about, which private contractors are being paid seems out of sight to you, they're actually quite small compared to the costs of the government doing it themselves. The same with private contractors and sub-contractors... THUS THE BASIS FOR THE SUB-CONTRACTORS EXISTANCE. If the contractor could do the job as well and for LESS MONEY... THEY WOULD.

Clearly your dumb ass disagrees... so I directly and unambiguously challenge you to answer the question: WHY WOULDN'T THEY?

Taxes are what you pay for a civilized society. Now, the problem is to get the tax base correct.

ROFLMNAO... WRONG... Taxes do not make societies civilized any more than they make government legitimate... Either a society is civilized or it is not and whether a government is legitimate or it is not and that is WITHOUT REGARD TO TAXATION...

NO SERIOUS INDIVIDUAL HAS EVER SUGGESTED THAT THERE ARE NOT LEGITIMATE PURPOSES FOR COLELCTIVE TAXATION. Those legitimate functions are those collective concerns which promote the GENERAL WELFARE and provide for the COMMON DEFENSE...

Infrustructure PROMOTES for the general welfare and the military PROVIDES for the common defense.

The problem comes along when YOU IDIOTS; AKA THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT want to PROVIDE WELFARE AND PROMOTE THE IDEA OF A COMMON DEFENSE... meaning you want to take money from those who HAVE EARNED IT and PROVIDE IT TO THOSE WHO DID NOT EARN IT and to PROMOTE IN GENERAL the IDEA of a US Military... just not much of a military and not one which is used to actually kill those who would contest the US interests of attack US allies... particularly given that those people are EXCLUSIVELY LEFTISTS... meaning that the people that the US military is designed to destroy are PEOPLE JUST LIKE YOU! People that contest the AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE... WHO DEMAND WE STOP LOOKING OUT FOR OUR OWN INTERESTS... AND STOP DEFENDING OUR ALLIES... Sound familiar Pogue?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's pretty funny. I am going to use this line on the kids that are always panhandling outside the grocery store...annoying little buggers.

If your husband only brings home income "less money than a family of 4 on welfare," then he doesn't fall into the $250,000 talking point. Nice try, though.

ROFLMNAO... Lovely rationalization... Her husband runs a small business that grosses over 250K... He's the target.

You're focusing on his net... when in FACT: You and the Comrades are trying to TAX HIM ON HIS GROSS. The entire FARCE which incessantly notes: CORPORATIONS ADOn"T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS... Whenever that discussion points out the distinction between Gross sales and net profit, YOU IDIOTS CLAMMER ON ABOUT HOW THEY SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR GROSS; DEMANDING THAT THE NET IS AN ILLICIT MEANS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

ANOTHER FACT IS THAT: Hussein is presently advancing policy which would use illicit accounting methods to artificially increase her husbands net, by precluding his means to deduct from his gross the costs he exposed himself to in order to do business.

So stow that bullshit... Her point is valid and THAT IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT.

So this part of her statement was a lie: However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

The rest of your post is quite frankly the raving of a madman.

No... the lie was in your would-be annotation of finding a distinction between his gross and his net... Or would you like to deny the Left's incessant drive to strip business of the means to deduct their costs from gross receipts?

Would ya like to deny that the left uses Gross revenue as a source to demand that "Corporations don't pay their fair share"?

And you madman quip is little more than a default concession on your part; declaring yourself unable to address the argument, which were it actually insanity, it would be no problem at all for a same individual to enage it and in so doing readily highlight the fatally flawed reasoning.

Now you're a desperate little gal who would KILL to produce a post which could conclusively point out a fatal flaw in my reasoning; thus reason is served that IF YOU COULD DO SO... YOU WOULD!

Thus you concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(ya did the best ya could, Godblessya!

 

[Ravi]

ROFLMNAO... Lovely rationalization... Her husband runs a small business that grosses over 250K... He's the target.

You're focusing on his net... when in FACT: You and the Comrades are trying to TAX HIM ON HIS GROSS. The entire FARCE which incessantly notes: CORPORATIONS ADOn"T PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE IS SOLELY FOCUSED ON THEIR GROSS RECEIPTS... Whenever that discussion points out the distinction between Gross sales and net profit, YOU IDIOTS CLAMMER ON ABOUT HOW THEY SHOULD BE PAYING TAXES ON THEIR GROSS; DEMANDING THAT THE NET IS AN ILLICIT MEANS TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

ANOTHER FACT IS THAT: Hussein is presently advancing policy which would use illicit accounting methods to artificially increase her husbands net, by precluding his means to deduct from his gross the costs he exposed himself to in order to do business.

So stow that bullshit... Her point is valid and THAT IS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH IT.

So this part of her statement was a lie: However, he brings home less money than a family of 4 on welfare. So we live off of my income as an inside salesperson working for a small business.

The rest of your post is quite frankly the raving of a madman.

No... the lie was in your would-be annotation of finding a distinction between his gross and his net... Or would you like to deny the Left's incessant drive to strip business of the means to deduct their costs from gross receipts?

Would ya like to deny that the left uses Gross revenue as a source to demand that "Corporations don't pay their fair share"?

And you madman quip is little more than a default concession on your part; declaring yourself unable to address the argument, which were it actually insanity, it would be no problem at all for a same individual to enage it and in so doing readily highlight the fatally flawed reasoning.

Now you're a desperate little gal who would KILL to produce a post which could conclusively point out a fatal flaw in my reasoning; thus reason is served that IF YOU COULD DO SO... YOU WOULD!

Thus you concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.

(ya did the best ya could, Godblessya!

I'll type this slowly for you, Pubic. If he brings home so little money that it is akin to welfare and his family lives off his wife's salary then no way is he netting $250,000 or more. Dim, much?

 

[Fregretu]

[/quote]I'll type this slowly for you, Pubic. If he brings home so little money that it is akin to welfare and his family lives off his wife's salary then no way is he netting $250,000 or more. Dim, much?[/QUOTE]

I dont know where you are getting your information. Never mentioned net nor gross. Libs have their talking points, the media repeats them over and over and over again. Thats why everyone knew what I was talking about when I used the term '$250,000.00 threshold' and loosely I might ad.

I tend to align myself with people who think like PuliousInfinite. Thanks.

 

[Ravi]

Sad for you. Next time try harder...don't pretend that profits that are like welfare to you are going to be affected.

You suck at being a troll.

 

[Fregretu]

Sad for you. Next time try harder...don't pretend that profits that are like welfare to you are going to be affected.

You suck at being a troll.

What?