On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:44:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:59:45 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 12:27:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 4:47:58 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 12:42:05 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 1:41:35 PM UTC-5,
wrote:
On Sat, 2 Mar 2019 11:33:35 -0600, Mark Lloyd

wrote:

On 3/1/19 7:48 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:

[snip]

Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the
people,
and
for the people" - I might have gotten the order wrong
but - - - -

There is NO "the people". Some will always be left out, like
all
those
who did NOT vote for Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump (Gary) but I wasn't left out of the
tax
cut.
It saved me about $600 compared to running the same return on
the
2017
tax code.

Yes, and now the budget deficit, which was down to just $580 bil
when
Trump
took office, is on track to be ~$1 tril this year, with total
debt
exceeding
$22 tril. Trillion dollar deficits in a decent, expanding
economy.
Nice work by Trump and I hope you enjoy your tax cut that
someone
will have to pay for before too much longer. I'm sure Trump is
enjoying
his
tax cut and doesn't give a damn. Cohen related how in 2008 as
Trump
was
cutting staff salaries by half, he was enjoying his $10 mil tax
refund
and
commenting on how stupid the govt was to give it to him. So
much
for
today's
"conservatives" too. Obviously deficits only matter when
Democrats
run
them.


You never heard me say the tax cut was a good idea, I am just
pointing
out it actually was a cut for a lot of working class people. Too
bad
if you live in one of those high SALT states that didn't vote
for
Trump.

Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross),

Basing on the gross has real downsides particularly with
small business that isnt operating as a corporate. They
end up paying a lot more than the average wage slave
and many of them don't necessarily have a higher
living standard than the average employee.

That's pure BS.

We'll see...

A small business today that isn't a
corporation isn't taxed on it's gross.

Thats what he was proposing the 2% surtax on, stupid.

No, you're the one who's stupid and I hope Fretwell will chime in too.
He proposed a 2% new tax on people's INCOMES, not on business revenue.

And with a sole trader self employed, THEIR TOTAL
TURNOVER IS THEIR GROSS INCOME, ****wit.

none of the rest of your even sillier **** worth
bothering with, all flushed where it belongs

That just means more SPs would form a type S corporation.
It is actually a pretty trivial thing to do. When I did it the lawyers
charged me a few hundred bucks.

Instead of helping to clarify this and get it back on track,

That is precisely what he has done, more politely than I did.

you're instead adding to the confusion, which is sad.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
actually are that terminal a ****wit that has never had
a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.

This is what you posted:

"Personally I would go for an across the board 2%
surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross)"

Precisely. And the EVERYONE includes a small business owner
who isnt operating as a corporation, whose GROSS would in
fact be his turnover, not his net income after the cost of doing
business has been deducted from his GROSS.

Well if that's what Fretwell really meant, he can step up to the plate
and tell us with a simple yes. And then it's obviously a stupid concept,
which is why I would never think a knowledgable person would suggest such a
dumb thing.







I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2%
tax on GROSS INCOME, is that not correct?

Yes,

So now you speak for Fretwell?




and even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should be
able to work out that that is the total amount he has received
from his customers for the goods or services he has provided.

No, it's not as defined by our Form 1040. Business PROFITS show up as
GROSS INCOME, fool. But then you wouldn't know, because you're an
Australian. I would never be so stupid as to try to tell someone in
Australia how your taxes work. But stupid is as stupid does.





I gave you credit for having some reasonably sane proposal.
Now you seem to be saying that it's not an INCOME tax,
because if you're self-employed, running a small business,
it instead applies to the business revenue?

To that individual's TOTAL income which may include other
non business income like say the winnings from the lottery,
the winnings from betting on horse races etc etc etc.

Well, make up your mind. Lottery winings, salaries, interest earned,
AND BUSINESS PROFIT (not revenue) are defined as GROSS INCOME and are
reported at the very beginning of Form 1040.





Federal income tax has never worked that way,

Completely and utterly irrelevant TO THAT
NEW SURTAX that Fretwell is proposing.

It's very relevant, because he was talking about an additional tax
on "gross". He didn't say gross what, but since we are talking about
INCOME taxes, only a moron would think he intended to tax small businesses
on their REVENUE, rather than the owner on the profit. So, how it works
today is relevant. Talking about a new INCOME tax and using just the term
"gross", only a moron would think the intent was to tax a business on it's
revenue. A small business has $3 mil in sales, makes just $50K profit.
If you follow the existing forms, the existing procedure, only the $50K
shows up as GROSS INCOME at the start of the individual's tax return.
Only your stupid interpretation leads to stupid results.




reams more of your irrelevant **** flushed where it belongs