"trader_4" wrote in message
...
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.

No need when he said yesterday that those small businesses
can become corporations easily and cheaply. That is close
enough to a simple yes for anyone who isnt a terminal ****wit.

And then it's obviously a stupid concept,

Not stupid so much as having that real downside
for small businesses which arent corporations.

And its got other real downsides too, most obviously with
those whose only income is social security where it makes no
sense to be slugging them 2% of their already very low income.

Ditto for those who only have a part time minimum wage job.

which is why I would never think a knowledgable
person would suggest such a dumb thing.

Its got nothing to do with knowledgeable except in the
sense of being aware of those cases where it makes no
sense to slug those to reduce the federal debt.

If you want to fix the problem with the immense and
increasing federal debt, the obvious much more viable
approach is to do something about the terminal
stupidity that HALF pay no net federal income tax.

No other modern first world country is actually THAT stupid.

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?

Not speaking for him, just confirming that thats what he said.

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.

Your Form 1040 is completely and utterly irrelevant
to WHAT FRETWELL WAS PROPOSING.

all the rest of your irrelevant **** flushed where it belongs