Businesses are stupid

[Judicial review]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

Actually I know a ton about all 3. People here have challenged me here over the months but failed every time. Both rwers and libs. I'm really so smart I shock my self with how much I'm correct. Knowing what i know is truly scary and boring as shit. I mean, who would have thought I'd be 100% correct about everything the last 6 years even since before Obama got elected? No one has been that ******* right on the planet! The business debates I get into are over with in 1 post whether it's a right winger or left leaning dumbshit.

You are truely amazing!

God deserves the credit. He made me this way over time.

 

[Judicial review]

Guys guys guys. It depends on your individual tax situation. You can't say the rich pay all the taxes.

I told rabbi I end things in 1 post so I prove it yet again,

Example - Someone who is taxed as an independent contractor or sole proprietor gets a 1099-misc in Feb. say you have $105,000 gross income on your 1099 if you are lucky like i used to be when filing these things you can find enough deductions to get it down to around $35,000 to $40,000 adjusted gross income and that's with filing jointly with a spouse and 1 dependent and 500 in deductable charity donations and medical premiums. After all possible deductions. That is a federal tax liability of on average between $3,500 to $6,000 federal only.

Would you call that sole business owner rich? No. Not at all. Because his real profit or income wasn't 105,000 it was the 35,000-40,000. Why, because overhead is an necessary vital expense just like personal expenses such as rent, insurance, inventory, grocery's, pens, paper, ink, computer etc. Sole proprietors business income and expenses are combined with his personal. That's one of the main differences between a corporation and a sole business.

 

[JoeMoma]

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

Actually I know a ton about all 3. People here have challenged me here over the months but failed every time. Both rwers and libs. I'm really so smart I shock my self with how much I'm correct. Knowing what i know is truly scary and boring as shit. I mean, who would have thought I'd be 100% correct about everything the last 6 years even since before Obama got elected? No one has been that ******* right on the planet! The business debates I get into are over with in 1 post whether it's a right winger or left leaning dumbshit.

You are truely amazing!

God deserves the credit. He made me this way over time.

 

[The Rabbi]

If you want to talk business and finance you need me involved. I'm the business and financial genius here on this board.

I thought you were the political genius?

In my grand introduction to this board i said I was all 3. ;>)

Which means in all likelihood you don't know a fig about any of them.

Actually I know a ton about all 3. People here have challenged me here over the months but failed every time. Both rwers and libs. I'm really so smart I shock my self with how much I'm correct. Knowing what i know is truly scary and boring as shit. I mean, who would have thought I'd be 100% correct about everything the last 6 years even since before Obama got elected? No one has been that ******* right on the planet! The business debates I get into are over with in 1 post whether it's a right winger or left leaning dumbshit.

You are truely amazing!

A legend in his own mind.

 

[SwimExpert]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

Your link does not change logic, nor does it change facts. I've just proven to you that someone in the bottom 40% will incur a tax liability.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

Your link does not change logic, nor does it change facts. I've just proven to you that someone in the bottom 40% will incur a tax liability.

Figures dont lie, s0n.

 

[SwimExpert]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

Your link does not change logic, nor does it change facts. I've just proven to you that someone in the bottom 40% will incur a tax liability.

Figures dont lie, s0n.

Indeed. I posted them.

 

[The Rabbi]

The bottom 40% of wage earners not only pay no incomes taxes: they get more back than they put in--effectively a negative income tax.

This is false. No matter how many times you say it, it will still be false. You are making statements about an arbitrarily determined group, and implying conclusions about the individuals.

The bottom 40% includes all earners making up to $36,500 a year. A single w/no dependents filer using the 1040EZ in tax year 2013 will have had taxable income of $26,500 and tax liability of $3,533.

There are many people who end up having a zero tax liability. However those people are found across the income spectrum. An individual's unique tax situation determines such things. Of course, if we would eliminate all the fancy bullshit and employ a simple system without various deductions and loopholes, there would no longer be this issue.

I have posted the link over and over. Here it is again.
The rich do not pay the most taxes they pay ALL the taxes

Your link does not change logic, nor does it change facts. I've just proven to you that someone in the bottom 40% will incur a tax liability.

Figures dont lie, s0n.

Indeed. I posted them.

No. You posted a theoretical that might apply to 5% of the people in the lower 40%. I posted an article that looked at actual figures from actual returns of the IRS. Guess which one carries more weight.

 

[SwimExpert]

No. You posted a theoretical that might apply to 5% of the people in the lower 40%. I posted an article that looked at actual figures from actual returns of the IRS. Guess which one carries more weight.

1 - Your entire position is fallacy of composition. There is nothing you can say that will change that. As fallacy, the argument is invalid and rejected by a logical mind.

2 - Your argument is furthermore a red herring and inappropriate comparison. My position is to eliminate income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners. You need to expand your grouping to match in order for any comparison to have any logical relevance.

3 - Your position commits further fallacy in the form of accident. There are many people who have a zero income tax liability. There are many people who have very high incomes who reduce their tax liability to zero or less. Your position ignores this completely, and arbitrarily applies your condemnation to only those exceptions you prefer to apply it to.

 

[The Rabbi]

No. You posted a theoretical that might apply to 5% of the people in the lower 40%. I posted an article that looked at actual figures from actual returns of the IRS. Guess which one carries more weight.

1 - Your entire position is fallacy of composition. There is nothing you can say that will change that. As fallacy, the argument is invalid and rejected by a logical mind.

2 - Your argument is furthermore a red herring and inappropriate comparison. My position is to eliminate income taxes on the bottom 95% of earners. You need to expand your grouping to match in order for any comparison to have any logical relevance.

3 - Your position commits further fallacy in the form of accident. There are many people who have a zero income tax liability. There are many people who have very high incomes who reduce their tax liability to zero or less. Your position ignores this completely, and arbitrarily applies your condemnation to only those exceptions you prefer to apply it to.

My position is based on published facts, facts you cannot refute. That you refuse to see them for what they are is testament to your stupidity.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Communal Worker Co-Operatives for people, not profits !!! Lol

 

[SwimExpert]

My position is based on published facts, facts you cannot refute. That you refuse to see them for what they are is testament to your stupidity.

Translation: You're making a bullshit argument based on illogical reasoning, but you don't mind.

 

[SwimExpert]

Communal Worker Co-Operatives for people, not profits !!! Lol

Sure. And when people die because they have no profits with which to buy food and pay rent, they'll join the mothership hiding behind comet Hale-Bopp and be taken to Heaven.

 

[The Rabbi]

My position is based on published facts, facts you cannot refute. That you refuse to see them for what they are is testament to your stupidity.

Translation: You're making a bullshit argument based on illogical reasoning, but you don't mind.

Wrong translation.
I posted an article that drew stats from the IRS.
You posted a scenario.
Guess which one has more credibility.

 

[SwimExpert]

My position is based on published facts, facts you cannot refute. That you refuse to see them for what they are is testament to your stupidity.

Translation: You're making a bullshit argument based on illogical reasoning, but you don't mind.

Wrong translation.
I posted an article that drew stats from the IRS.
You posted a scenario.
Guess which one has more credibility.

You posted a logical fallacy. It has no credibility whatsoever.

 

[Jarlaxle]

No, he posted HARD NUMBERS, while you posted...babble.

 

[SwimExpert]

No, he posted HARD NUMBERS, while you posted...babble.

No, an arbitrarily bounded group presented in composition fallacy is not hard numbers. What I posted was hard numbers. I posted very specific example of taxation. What Rabbi posted was a limited group, one so selected for no particular reason, and then expressed a correlative fact with the implication that each individual member of said group can be described in a certain way. That is no "hard numbers." In fact, that is the opposite of hard numbers. It is logical fallacy. If you can't understand logic then perhaps you need to take a class before you proceed further.

 

[OnePercenter]

Simplistic to an astonishing degree. Would you also eliminate payroll taxes, which would immediately bankrupt Social Security? Would you cut "entitlements" by 50% overnight? If you did, we would have millions of people living on the streets and clamoring for revolution. Fortunately, these draconian measures would be politically impossible.

That being said, we need to implement structural fiscal reforms in the next few years if we are to avoid permanent economic decline. One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced. This would also promote a more rational discussion of tax policies, since it would be in everyone's interest to achieve an optimum revenue/expenditure ratio.

Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be effective. Given the difficulty of obtaining 2/3 majorities in both House of Congress, this may only be possible if 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention.

It is simple.

-Put 10's of billions in the pockets of consumers.
-Eliminate inflation for 10 years.
-Increase sales tax revenue.
-Increase employee tax revenue.
-Increase Social Security tax income.
-Reduce all business taxes and employee expenses to 30% of gross revenue.
-Give small business a huge boost.
-Eliminate ALL welfare.
-Eliminate ALL unemployment.

-Base Federal tax or corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 400 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

 

[The Rabbi]

My position is based on published facts, facts you cannot refute. That you refuse to see them for what they are is testament to your stupidity.

Translation: You're making a bullshit argument based on illogical reasoning, but you don't mind.

Wrong translation.
I posted an article that drew stats from the IRS.
You posted a scenario.
Guess which one has more credibility.

You posted a logical fallacy. It has no credibility whatsoever.

An article using stats from the IRS is a logical fallacy? I dont think you know what the **** you're talking about.

 

[The Rabbi]

Simplistic to an astonishing degree. Would you also eliminate payroll taxes, which would immediately bankrupt Social Security? Would you cut "entitlements" by 50% overnight? If you did, we would have millions of people living on the streets and clamoring for revolution. Fortunately, these draconian measures would be politically impossible.

That being said, we need to implement structural fiscal reforms in the next few years if we are to avoid permanent economic decline. One place to start would be to prohibit any automatic increase in per capita entitlement spending in any year that the federal budget is not balanced. This would also promote a more rational discussion of tax policies, since it would be in everyone's interest to achieve an optimum revenue/expenditure ratio.

Unfortunately, this would probably require a Constitutional Amendment in order to be effective. Given the difficulty of obtaining 2/3 majorities in both House of Congress, this may only be possible if 2/3 of the States call for a Constitutional Convention.

It is simple.

-Put 10's of billions in the pockets of consumers.
-Eliminate inflation for 10 years.
-Increase sales tax revenue.
-Increase employee tax revenue.
-Increase Social Security tax income.
-Reduce all business taxes and employee expenses to 30% of gross revenue.
-Give small business a huge boost.
-Eliminate ALL welfare.
-Eliminate ALL unemployment.

-Base Federal tax or corporations at 30% of revenue.

-Raise minimum wage to $23.50/hr. Based on where minimum wage should be using 1970-2013 rise in food, shelter, and transportation.

-Eliminate all business subsidies (deductions/write-off’s/write-downs) except for employee expenses which are deducted dollar-for-dollar on all city, state, and Federal taxes and fees with the Feds refunding city, State, and fees.

-Companies with 400 employees or less, employee expenses above the deduction are subsidized at 100% with funds usually give back to the States.

-Adjust Social Security and private/public retirement and pension payments using 1970-2013 price structure.

-Remove the FICA limit.

-Back down ALL costs, prices, fees, to January 1, 2009 levels and hold them for 10 years which will eliminate inflation.

-Recall ALL off-shore investments tax free, and disallow any further off-shore investments.

-Make inversion illegal.

You posted this crapbefore.
It indicates you dont know jack shit.