OK, I'll admit it, our friends on the left are correct; there IS a catch to the Trump tax cuts

[francoHFW]

You're an idiot because you think Trump didn't screw his creditors. You're also an idiot because you think I don't understand the difference between personal income and business income.

Creditors know the rick going into business. Sometimes they win, sometimes they lose.

Were you one of those creditors? If you're not... well, of course you're not... so why do you care if one rich guy screw another rich guy. How that, other than having satisfaction of saying "Trump bankrupted" (and he didn't), is affecting your little life?

He also screwed many of his employees and suppliers... A scumbag

 

[bgrouse]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

I was trying to explain it to him but you know how the left is. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was trying to explain that "usually" is in reference to the type of compensation--not the word income. The words "capital" and "labor" are the reference to what income actually is. It has nothing to do with commas, it has to do with understanding what words mean. When he tries to Clintonize it in his response, you can try again, but I gave up.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

You earn unemployment benefits while you are working. So yes, that is income, you just didn't get paid for it until you filed.

Years ago I got laid off from a job and went to unemployment. They refused me because I worked so much I hardly took any time off of work. I did good work for the company so they paid me for all the sick days I never took, vacation, personal days, layoff compensation, and it amounted to 9 weeks of pay.

Of course I had to file that as income because I earned that pay while working. Unemployment seen it the same way. I have no idea what alimony is about.

And what about taxable refunds? You don't know what that's about, either? Christ! Why do I bother? If you don't know what alimony is, then you're far too stupid to discuss income taxation.

For your info, you're also supposed to report gambling winnings on line 21 (called "other income"). Is that from labor or capital?

 

[eddiew37]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

That had nothing to do with republicans?

You tell me. Who decided to switch the water supply source?

Or better, who is in power in Flint for the past 50 years?

The Republican governor and the people he appointed to the emergency Administration. Great job GOP!

yep
Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

 

[francoHFW]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

Decision to switch water source was all Democrats to save the money, or to fill their pockets.

The Republican fault is they didn't prevent Democrats from making a mistake.

From your link: "The report did find one bright spot: the determination of Flint residents, who repeatedly questioned officials about the water supply even after the city told them it was OK to drink."

When they said "city" you know who that is, right?

The decisions that lead to this tragedy we're all made by the new Republican governor and the administration he appointed.

 

[francoHFW]

Best to have Democrats protecting the water...

apparently not

the city council in Atlanta is almost exclusively run by democrats

I mean sure, the white folks in Buckhead send a few republicans, but the city is certainly run by democrats

nice try though

Democrats love clean water. Just ask people of Flint.

Rick Snyder Republican
Flint Water Crisis 'Series of Government Failures' to Blame | Time
time.com › U.S. › cities
Mar 23, 2016 - Michigan state agencies overseen by Gov. Rick Snyder and a series of emergency managers appointed by the governor are to blame for allowing contaminated water into Flint homes, according to a report released Wednesday. The findings—the most sweeping indictment to date of the role state officials ...

Decision to switch water source was all Democrats to save the money, or to fill their pockets.

The Republican fault is they didn't prevent Democrats from making a mistake.

From your link: "The report did find one bright spot: the determination of Flint residents, who repeatedly questioned officials about the water supply even after the city told them it was OK to drink."

When they said "city" you know who that is, right?

How can you read that article in skip over all the stuff about the Republican governor and the jackasses in his emergency administration of Flint?

 

[OKTexas]

If my representatives are not bringing jobs to my state by whatever means, it's time to get rid of them and hire representatives that will bring in new business. If you think your state does better with ten mom and pop shops over huge industry, then be my guest and offer them lower taxes than we offer our mom and pop stores. We'll stick with the conglomerates and see who does better..

Low taxes in these states are subsidized by the welfare block grants red states use to paper over the deficits caused by their fiscal policies. So you guys quite literally use welfare to pay for trickle-down. Which would make you all a bunch of moochers.

Simple fix, stop the ability to give the block grants as was originally intended. That's not a constitutional federal function.


.

 

[OKTexas]

They're stupid AND illiterate. When backed into a corner, they move goalposts and try to drown you out with sheer volume.

That's exactly right. Stupid, illiterate cowards. I happen to think a handful of them aren't even American; they're Russian trolls pretending to be American as they test out rhetoric here before disseminating it across social media.

You can tell who the Russians are a couple ways; first is by checking when their profile was created. If it was created between 2011 and 2016 (particularly 2013-15, when the troll ramp-up was in full swing), it's most likely a Russian account created to spread propaganda. Other ways of discerning a Russian troll are the use of misspellings and the misuse of grammatical structure; almost as if they wrote something in Cyrillic, put it through a Google translator, then copied-and-pasted that stuff right into the post.

Paranoid much? LMAO


.

 

[The Derp]

Simple fix, stop the ability to give the block grants as was originally intended. That's not a constitutional federal function..

Maybe you don't know, but turning welfare into block grants was something you Conservatives did with welfare reform in the 1990's. So you're the ones who made it possible for you to raid welfare to pay for tax cuts. Prior to that welfare reform you all wanted, welfare was distributed directly from the feds to the recipient, states weren't middle men taking their own cut to make their budgets balance. Turning welfare back to what it was pre-1996 would mean every single red state would have to raise taxes to cover the budget shortfalls.

 

[The Derp]

Paranoid much? LMAO

Conservatives cannot win elections unless they employ trolls and propagandists...and they're so ******* lazy about it that they outsource the job to Russia.

 

[OKTexas]

They are not worthy, they are criminals. And everyone got a tax cut, not just the rich. Keep pushing the propaganda, it's quite entertaining.


.

I think people in blue States aren't going to get tax cuts. And the rich are getting 4% tax cuts while the poor are getting two or 1% tax cuts. I hope he's a goddamn genius but I wouldn't hold your breath they're liars and thieves more likely...

The poor don't pay income taxes how can they get cuts?


.

Those should get at least 300% cut. No, scratch that, make it 500%.

Yeah, 500% of zero is still zero. Lefties can't grasp that concept. LMAO


.

There are plenty of other taxes besides federal income taxes, brainwashed dupe of the greedy idiot rich. The richest pay 28% of their income in all taxes, the poorest pay 18%. Everyone who earns money real money pays between 24 and 28 percent in all taxes. That is a flat tax and means that the richest end up with all the new wealth and the country and the non-rich go to hell as they have for the last 35 years, dupe.

Yeah, 18% of 20K is $3,600, 28% of 100K is $28,000, I think $3,600 is a small price to pay to insure a future income, health care and the benefits of local government. Of course it won't actually cover the costs, but you already know that, it's the other guys that are making up the difference.


.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not how the sentence is written. The sentence says it's a gain or recurrent benefit usually measured in money that derives from capital or labor. For usually to apply only to money and not to capital or labor, the sentence would have to be written with the following commas:
a gain or recurrent benefit, usually measured in money, that derives from capital or labor

Those commas are not there, so you are wrong.

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

I was trying to explain it to him but you know how the left is. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was trying to explain that "usually" is in reference to the type of compensation--not the word income. The words "capital" and "labor" are the reference to what income actually is. It has nothing to do with commas, it has to do with understanding what words mean. When he tries to Clintonize it in his response, you can try again, but I gave up.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

You earn unemployment benefits while you are working. So yes, that is income, you just didn't get paid for it until you filed.

Years ago I got laid off from a job and went to unemployment. They refused me because I worked so much I hardly took any time off of work. I did good work for the company so they paid me for all the sick days I never took, vacation, personal days, layoff compensation, and it amounted to 9 weeks of pay.

Of course I had to file that as income because I earned that pay while working. Unemployment seen it the same way. I have no idea what alimony is about.

And what about taxable refunds? You don't know what that's about, either? Christ! Why do I bother? If you don't know what alimony is, then you're far too stupid to discuss income taxation.

For your info, you're also supposed to report gambling winnings on line 21 (called "other income"). Is that from labor or capital?

Sure it is. You spent your money to get it back with a profit. In other words you took an action to financially benefit.

I know what alimony is, I just don't know how it pertains to taxes because my taxes are such a mess I have to hire a tax preparer to do all that. I do all the adding, dividing, and calculations, but she puts it all together to file. My taxes are usually 15 to 25 pages long depending on the year. I don't mess with that shit. Plus statistics show that you're less likely to get audited if you have a specialist do your taxes, and so far, never been audited.

 

[OKTexas]

Simple fix, stop the ability to give the block grants as was originally intended. That's not a constitutional federal function..

Maybe you don't know, but turning welfare into block grants was something you Conservatives did with welfare reform in the 1990's. So you're the ones who made it possible for you to raid welfare to pay for tax cuts. Prior to that welfare reform you all wanted, welfare was distributed directly from the feds to the recipient, states weren't middle men taking their own cut to make their budgets balance. Turning welfare back to what it was pre-1996 would mean every single red state would have to raise taxes to cover the budget shortfalls.

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.


.

 

[The Derp]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

 

[francoHFW]

I think people in blue States aren't going to get tax cuts. And the rich are getting 4% tax cuts while the poor are getting two or 1% tax cuts. I hope he's a goddamn genius but I wouldn't hold your breath they're liars and thieves more likely...

The poor don't pay income taxes how can they get cuts?


.

Those should get at least 300% cut. No, scratch that, make it 500%.

Yeah, 500% of zero is still zero. Lefties can't grasp that concept. LMAO


.

There are plenty of other taxes besides federal income taxes, brainwashed dupe of the greedy idiot rich. The richest pay 28% of their income in all taxes, the poorest pay 18%. Everyone who earns money real money pays between 24 and 28 percent in all taxes. That is a flat tax and means that the richest end up with all the new wealth and the country and the non-rich go to hell as they have for the last 35 years, dupe.

Yeah, 18% of 20K is $3,600, 28% of 100K is $28,000, I think $3,600 is a small price to pay to insure a future income, health care and the benefits of local government. Of course it won't actually cover the costs, but you already know that, it's the other guys that are making up the difference.


.

Giving all the wealth to the richest is a small price to pay for Misery. you have to love those rich people, if you're an brainwashed functional idiot.

 

[OKTexas]

Paranoid much? LMAO

Conservatives cannot win elections unless they employ trolls and propagandists...and they're so ******* lazy about it that they outsource the job to Russia.

Damn, you're funny, thanks for the laugh.


.

 

[OKTexas]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser.


.

 

[francoHFW]

Simple fix, stop the ability to give the block grants as was originally intended. That's not a constitutional federal function..

Maybe you don't know, but turning welfare into block grants was something you Conservatives did with welfare reform in the 1990's. So you're the ones who made it possible for you to raid welfare to pay for tax cuts. Prior to that welfare reform you all wanted, welfare was distributed directly from the feds to the recipient, states weren't middle men taking their own cut to make their budgets balance. Turning welfare back to what it was pre-1996 would mean every single red state would have to raise taxes to cover the budget shortfalls.

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.


.

You might want to think about taxing the rich more like their fair share and investing in America so we don't have so many people on welfare. And thanks for the corrupt GOP World depression of 2008. Great job. And the stupidest Wars ever...

 

[francoHFW]

You're mistakenly under the impression that I would object to that. There's no reason for money to be laundered through federal bureaucracies just to send a portion of it back to the States. Unconstitutional welfare bullshit account for 70% of federal spending and a 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, that's not sustainable.

So you think Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are unconstitutional? Why do you think that?

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser.


.

I think I'll go with the Supreme Court decisions and basically just consider you a brainwashed functional moron.

 

[The Derp]

Feel free to quote the Article, Section and Clause that authorize them and I'll be happy to prove you wrong. Hint, if you come up with Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 you're already a loser..

General Welfare clause.

The end.

You lost.

 

[bgrouse]

He's not wrong. You are.

The problem is how to explain to leftist something that is self explanatory, when leftist wants it to mean something else.

Commas are not there because gain or recurrent benefit is usually measured in money.

Usually. But not necessary. They can be measured in other values that derives from capital or labor.

If I were you, I would sit someplace in the corner where nobody can see me, and pull my ears over my face to hide shame from being THAT stupid.

But that's me. Knowing leftists, you are gonna continue posting here and prove to us over and over why you should go and sit in the corner with your ears pulled over your face.

I was trying to explain it to him but you know how the left is. It's like trying to talk to a brick wall.

I was trying to explain that "usually" is in reference to the type of compensation--not the word income. The words "capital" and "labor" are the reference to what income actually is. It has nothing to do with commas, it has to do with understanding what words mean. When he tries to Clintonize it in his response, you can try again, but I gave up.

You're dodging this question:

You can spin it any way you want. The bottom line is everyone else pays money on their income. It doesn't have to be from labor or investments. Line 10 on the 1040 lists income from "Taxable refunds, credits, or offsets of state and local income taxes." Line 11 is for Alimony. There's also Unemployment compensation. Are you going to tell me these are all either from investments or labor?

You earn unemployment benefits while you are working. So yes, that is income, you just didn't get paid for it until you filed.

Years ago I got laid off from a job and went to unemployment. They refused me because I worked so much I hardly took any time off of work. I did good work for the company so they paid me for all the sick days I never took, vacation, personal days, layoff compensation, and it amounted to 9 weeks of pay.

Of course I had to file that as income because I earned that pay while working. Unemployment seen it the same way. I have no idea what alimony is about.

And what about taxable refunds? You don't know what that's about, either? Christ! Why do I bother? If you don't know what alimony is, then you're far too stupid to discuss income taxation.

For your info, you're also supposed to report gambling winnings on line 21 (called "other income"). Is that from labor or capital?

Sure it is. You spent your money to get it back with a profit. In other words you took an action to financially benefit.

And what about income from an activity not engaged in for profit? Is that not income?

I know what alimony is, I just don't know how it pertains to taxes because my taxes are such a mess I have to hire a tax preparer to do all that. I do all the adding, dividing, and calculations, but she puts it all together to file. My taxes are usually 15 to 25 pages long depending on the year. I don't mess with that shit. Plus statistics show that you're less likely to get audited if you have a specialist do your taxes, and so far, never been audited.

Well, there's more to taxes than "adding, dividing, and calculations" so I'm not surprised you sound clueless. Alimony received is in the "income" section (line 11 to be precise), so could you explain to me whether that's from labor or capital?