On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:14:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS
INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which
case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets
taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your
mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.

It your proposal was viable, some country world wide
would have done it that way. No one did, for a reason.

OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040. Add that to line
15.
Easy enough even for a kangaroo ****er like yourself?
Insult my wife and I have no respect for you cocksucker.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:14:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not
corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't
answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS
INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the
only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that
is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit
shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which
case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets
taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's
go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then
he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your
mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.

If your proposal was viable, some country world wide
would have done it that way. No one did, for a reason.

OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040.
Add that to line 15.

Corporations don't have one.

Insult my wife and I have no respect for you cocksucker.

That was a joke, Joyce. Got that SoH bypass on Medicare did you ?

You really are a total moron.Â* I've filled out the income tax returns
for
a small business many times.Â* The revenue, the gross receipts of the
business
are not and never were considered the gross income to the owner.
Revenue
is not income, only the PROFIT is.Â* Revenue is not taxed by the feds,
only PROFITS.Â*Â* The new 2% tax Fretwell proposed would clearly apply to
INCOME not to business gross receipts.Â* It is, after all, an INCOME tax,
moron. If you had a new 2% tax on INCOME like Fretwell proposed, it
would
apply to someone who had $50K in profits from a business the same way it
would apply to someone who made $50K from a job.Â* The fact that the
business
had $300K in revenue to earn that $50K is irrelevant.
And to top it off, you're in Australia.Â* I would never sit here
in America and try to tell someone in Australia how their taxes work.
You're just like that Mr. T fellow, an ignoramus who can't be educated.
Fundamentally, you don't understand the definition of income.


Agreed, Rod's a total clueless dick.

This is from the clueless clown that can't even manage to work
out how to stop Avast from putting its sig on all its posts, or
even get its news client to post its own drivel properly.

--
Bod

Blimey! you're even more clue less than I thought.
I explained the reason to you.


--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

"Bod" wrote in message
...

You really are a total moron. I've filled out the income tax returns
for
a small business many times. The revenue, the gross receipts of the
business
are not and never were considered the gross income to the owner.
Revenue
is not income, only the PROFIT is. Revenue is not taxed by the feds,
only PROFITS. The new 2% tax Fretwell proposed would clearly apply to
INCOME not to business gross receipts. It is, after all, an INCOME
tax,
moron. If you had a new 2% tax on INCOME like Fretwell proposed, it
would
apply to someone who had $50K in profits from a business the same way
it
would apply to someone who made $50K from a job. The fact that the
business
had $300K in revenue to earn that $50K is irrelevant.
And to top it off, you're in Australia. I would never sit here
in America and try to tell someone in Australia how their taxes work.
You're just like that Mr. T fellow, an ignoramus who can't be educated.
Fundamentally, you don't understand the definition of income.


Agreed, Rod's a total clueless dick.

This is from the clueless clown that can't even manage to work
out how to stop Avast from putting its sig on all its posts, or
even get its news client to post its own drivel properly.

Blimey! you're even more clue less than I thought.

We'll see...

I explained the reason to you.

Pity all that did was prove how utterly clueless you have always been.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 12:46:54 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've dug?

We'll see...

Of course we'll see EXACTLY that. It's part of your psychopathy, senile
psychopath!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:14:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your
mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.

Most of us just like to point out what a quarrelsome senile idiot and
psychopath you are, senile Rot!

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:33:08 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Insult my wife and I have no respect for you cocksucker.

That was a joke, Joyce. Got that SoH bypass on Medicare did you ?

Strange, people shouldn't respect a senile psychopathic swine like you,
whether you insult their wives or not.

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:10:27 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH all the stinking troll****

What has all this got to do either with light bulbs or a group like ahr, you
endlessly quarrelling psychopathic senile Ozzie cretin?

--
FredXX to Rot Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shippe the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 19:22:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


Blimey! you're even more clue less than I thought.

We'll see...

We'll see you trolling on all these groups like there was no tomorrow! Come
to think of it, luckily, for you 85-year-old senile cretin there won't be
too many tomorrows left!

--
Norman Wells addressing senile Rot:
"Ah, the voice of scum speaks."
MID:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 7:35:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

So sad. YOU made a proposal for a new 2% tax. Why do you make proposals,
toss out ideas, if you don't want them discussed? And 90% of the arguing
would have been avoided if you'd just answer the very simple question
I quickly asked. Instead, you're still diverting and now implying that
the problem is not with your lack of clarity or response to a simple
question. The question is right there in the post you just responded to
and instead of answering it, you instead to attack others here?

Here it is again:


You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.



B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets taxed
$60K.



So again Fretwell, with your proposed new 2% tax, did you intend A or B?
Why is it that you won't answer that simple, direct and very pertinent
question? It can be answered with one letter, A or B.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"


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.

It isnt that easy with the other ones that have a very high gross
income and a much lower income for income tax purposes.

What "Other ones"?

Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders
and property flippers etc.

If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an "S" you
can.

But not if its gambling or speculation.

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've dug?

We'll see...

You're like a black hole, sucking at everything, but spewing out crap too.
A subchapter S is commonly used for real estate, which can be speculation.

But fretwell has the the 2% surtax on the corporation GROSS


That's a lie, he never said anything about corporations when he made the
proposal and we were talking about Trump's personal tax cuts, tax refunds
to individuals, not corporate taxes. Only later did he drag corporations
into it and then he did not say anything about his 2% tax applying to them.




so there is no point in using a subchapter S for that. In fact
you would be worse off doing that because you miss out
on the other deductions available if you do it as an individual
for the normal income tax, separate from fretwell's surtax.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the tax code. With a Sub S
you don't lose anything with regard to normal individual income tax
deductions. A Sub S simply flows the business PROFIT into the top
of your 1040, just like the PROFIT from a sole proprietorship,
limited partnership, etc flows into the GROSS INCOME of your personal
return, just like it would from a salary, interest, etc. But keep
digging that hole of ignorance ever deeper.





For example, buying condos in a new building on the hope that they
will be worth more next year. Buying a piece of land near a proposed
new big redevelopment, like buying property in NYC where Amazon was
supposed to go. speculating that the deal will go through. That blew up.

Only because the property market blew up. It never stays blown up forever..
We've just made more than 25% a year with our rental property.

Irrelevant diversion, because again you've been trapped in your ignorance
hole. You claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for "speculating",
that was the issue, because it's not true.





Can't do that with an S? WTF? Who says?

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

No, just having fun see you spin around in your hole of ignorance that
you keep digging ever deeper. First it was Sub S can't be used for
speculation. This post it was that with a Sub S you lose your normal
individual income tax deductions. What's coming next?





They are frequently used for trading stocks, day trading, which
many would call speculation, it's not investing, that's for sure.

Yes, but with fretwells 2% on the corporation GROSS, its pointless
doing it that way to avoid paying the surtax because it doesnt.


Yes? Oh, so what you said last post, that Sub S can't be used for
speculation, was wrong. That';s what happens when you sit in Australia
and try to explain to us, argue with us, about what goes on in America.
I've filled out the forms, paid the taxes, you haven't. How deep is
that ignorance hole and when will you stop?

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"


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.

It isnt that easy with the other ones that have a very high gross
income and a much lower income for income tax purposes.

What "Other ones"?

Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders
and property flippers etc.

If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an "S"
you
can.

But not if its gambling or speculation.

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've dug?

We'll see...

You're like a black hole, sucking at everything, but spewing out crap
too.
A subchapter S is commonly used for real estate, which can be
speculation.

But fretwell has the the 2% surtax on the corporation GROSS


That's a lie,

We'll see...

he never said anything about corporations when he made the proposal

Yes, but later said that he wanted corporations included.

reams of your repetitive **** and lies flushed where they belong

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 03:04:51 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

03:04 am in Australia? REALLY, you senile cretin? Is your senility not
letting you sleep in again? LMAO

Why, oh WHY, are ALL you trolls ALWAYS, without ANY exception, so MISERABLE?
LOL

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:05:02 AM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"


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.

It isnt that easy with the other ones that have a very high gross
income and a much lower income for income tax purposes.

What "Other ones"?

Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders
and property flippers etc.

If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an "S"
you
can.

But not if its gambling or speculation.

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've dug?

We'll see...

You're like a black hole, sucking at everything, but spewing out crap
too.
A subchapter S is commonly used for real estate, which can be
speculation.

But fretwell has the the 2% surtax on the corporation GROSS


That's a lie,

We'll see...

he never said anything about corporations when he made the proposal

Yes, but later said that he wanted corporations included.


Again, that's a lie. He only made some vague reference to wanting to
see big corporations who pay no taxes now, pay some kind of tax.
He did not say it was his 2% new tax, which again, he clearly proposed
in the context of individual income taxes. And now, Fretwell is playing
cute, refusing to answer the very simple question I've asked several
times now.



reams of your repetitive **** and lies flushed where they belong

You mean like when you claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for
speculation? WRONG. They are used all the time for real estate
speculation and day trading.

Or when you claimed that Sub S income means you lose normal income
tax deductions that an individual has? WRONG. Sub S income flows
into an individual return just like small business PROFIT from a
sole proprietorship, salary, or interest income.

Or when you claimed that the IRS doesn't define gross income on an
individual return to include only small business PROFT, not their
revenue? Wrong, as shown by the IRS forms and instructions.

Or when you accepted the BS premise that a new 2% tax should be used
to pay down the deficit? How stupid is that? The deficit is ~$1 tril
a year, in order to pay down the national debt, you'd have to first
eliminate the $1 tril deficit, which a 2% tax isn't going to do.

But heh, keep digging that hole of ignorance ever deeper. And maybe
someday Fretwell will decide to answer the simple question and tell
us what he actually meant. But he's hiding out. The last post he made
seems to suggest that he wasn't sure WTF he meant, it was just some
flapping in the wind.

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Greg, I hate to say it but filters/rules are your friend. I know you are
trying to be helpful but the trolls have their own agenda.

Also Schneider Electric is closing their Leesport, PA manufacturing plant. I
do not know what they manufactured there.

--
Tekkie

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:05:02 AM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"


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.

It isnt that easy with the other ones that have a very high gross
income and a much lower income for income tax purposes.

What "Other ones"?

Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders
and property flippers etc.

If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an
"S"
you
can.

But not if its gambling or speculation.

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've dug?

We'll see...

You're like a black hole, sucking at everything, but spewing out
crap
too.
A subchapter S is commonly used for real estate, which can be
speculation.

But fretwell has the the 2% surtax on the corporation GROSS


That's a lie,

We'll see...

he never said anything about corporations when he made the proposal

Yes, but later said that he wanted corporations included.


Again, that's a lie. He only made some vague reference to wanting to
see big corporations who pay no taxes now, pay some kind of tax.
He did not say it was his 2% new tax, which again, he clearly proposed
in the context of individual income taxes. And now, Fretwell is playing
cute, refusing to answer the very simple question I've asked several
times now.



reams of your repetitive **** and lies flushed where they belong

You mean like when you claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for
speculation?

Never ever said anything even remotely like that, you silly little
pathological liar. And since all you can do is lie thru your ****ing
teeth, here goes the chain on all the rest of your bare faced lies.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 07:40:18 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 90 lines of the troll's usual senile psychotic blather

--
Sqwertz to Rot Speed:
"This is just a hunch, but I'm betting you're kinda an argumentative
asshole.
MID:

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 5:47:28 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 3:40:36 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:05:02 AM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 8:47:09 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 3:06:48 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, "Rod Speed"


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.

It isnt that easy with the other ones that have a very high
gross
income and a much lower income for income tax purposes.

What "Other ones"?

Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders
and property flippers etc.

If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an
"S"
you
can.

But not if its gambling or speculation.

What? More BS spewing from the hole of ignorance that you've
dug?

We'll see...

You're like a black hole, sucking at everything, but spewing out
crap
too.
A subchapter S is commonly used for real estate, which can be
speculation.

But fretwell has the the 2% surtax on the corporation GROSS


That's a lie,

We'll see...

he never said anything about corporations when he made the proposal

Yes, but later said that he wanted corporations included.


Again, that's a lie. He only made some vague reference to wanting to
see big corporations who pay no taxes now, pay some kind of tax.
He did not say it was his 2% new tax, which again, he clearly proposed
in the context of individual income taxes. And now, Fretwell is
playing
cute, refusing to answer the very simple question I've asked several
times now.



reams of your repetitive **** and lies flushed where they belong

You mean like when you claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for
speculation?

Never ever said anything even remotely like that, you silly little
pathological liar. And since all you can do is lie thru your ****ing
teeth, here goes the chain on all the rest of your bare faced lies.


Senile or lying or both again?


Fretwell:
If you think you will have a business or tax reason to form an "S" you
can.

Rod:
But not if its gambling or speculation.

Thats talking about a BUSINESS OR TAX REASON,
not saying that it can't be done, ****wit.



Just like Trump. Show the world exactly what you posted, what YOU
brought up, your own words proving exactly what you posted, and you
then simply deny, deny, deny. Poor you, just a misunderstood great
being, like Trump.


Why don't you deny the rest of your BS too? Here it is again:


You claimed that Sub S income means you lose normal income
tax deductions that an individual has? WRONG. Sub S income flows
into an individual return just like small business PROFIT from a
sole proprietorship, salary, or interest income.

You claimed that the IRS doesn't define gross income on an
individual return to include only small business PROFT, not their
revenue? Wrong, as shown by the IRS forms and instructions.

You accepted the BS premise that a new 2% tax should be used
- hide quoted text -
to pay down the deficit? How stupid is that? The deficit is ~$1 tril
a year, in order to pay down the national debt, you'd have to first
eliminate the $1 tril deficit, which a 2% tax isn't going to do.


My, what a big hole of ignorance.

Some gutless ****wit/pathological liar desperately cowering behind
trader_4 wrote just the **** you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit/pathological liar.

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 09:47:13 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


That¢s talking about a BUSINESS OR TAX REASON,
not saying that it can't be done, ****wit.

all the rest of your pathological lying flushed where it belongs

Your pathology and lying has just been exposed again, you disgusting senile
psychopathic swine!

--
Bill Wright to Rot Speed:
"That confirms my opinion that you are a despicable little ****."
MID:

On Thu, 7 Mar 2019 10:00:19 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

Some gutless ****wit/pathological liar desperately cowering behind
trader_4 wrote just the **** you'd expect
from a desperately cowering gutless ****wit/pathological liar.

You don't like it when your pathology gets exposed, eh, psychopath? LMAO

--
"Anonymous" to trolling senile Rot Speed:
"You can **** off as you know less than pig **** you sad
little ignorant ****."
MID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:33:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:14:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not
corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't
answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS
INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the
only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that
is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit
shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which
case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets
taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's
go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then
he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your
mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.

If your proposal was viable, some country world wide
would have done it that way. No one did, for a reason.

OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040.
Add that to line 15.

Corporations don't have one.

Corporations file the same 1040 as the crack dealer in the hood
looking for his EIC

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 14:45:22 -0500, Tekkie® wrote:

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Greg, I hate to say it but filters/rules are your friend. I know you are
trying to be helpful but the trolls have their own agenda.

I am old and retired. I even screw with "microsoft" when they call me
on the phone. Give them Windows 3.1 responses to what they have you
try. It is more fun than anything on TV. I had them going for 10
minutes once. "Rod" and "Trader" just like to argue but the most
tedious thing is they quote to much. Just tell me what ****es you
off, crop the rest of that ****.


Also Schneider Electric is closing their Leesport, PA manufacturing plant. I
do not know what they manufactured there.

Square D has slanted eyes these days.

On 3/6/19 2:45 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Also Schneider Electric is closing their Leesport, PA manufacturing plant. I
do not know what they manufactured there.


I'm a big fan of AFCI/GFCI breakers and Siemens makes it very easy to neatly install them so a Siemens panel is my "main" choice.

https://smile.amazon.com/Siemens-P40...dp/B01BD87AJQ/

On Wednesday, March 6, 2019 at 11:53:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 17:33:08 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 13:14:09 +1100, "Rod Speed"
wrote:



wrote in message
...
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 14:42:00 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 5:19:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not
corporations.
It started with Trump's personal tax cut. And sadly, you didn't
answer
the simple question.

You really have two options:

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,
in which case PROFIT from a small business is treated just as it is
today. PROFIT (not sales receipts) shows up at the beginning of 1040
where it's added with salaries, interest, etc to get total GROSS
INCOME.
So, that profit would be taxed 2% just like a salary. That is the
only
logical, sane way, so that's what I believed you meant. A $50K
business profit gets taxed $1000 just like a $50k salary. And that
is
exactly how the business profit is handled today, only the profit
shows
up as gross income to the individual at the beginning of form 1040.

B - For business owners, your tax would apply to business total sales
applying the 2% tax not to their personal return GROSS, but instead
to the business GROSS, ie their
total sales. That's what your buddy Rod claims you meant. In which
case
a business that has $3 mil in revenue, but only $50K in profit, gets
taxed
$60K.

So, which is it?

I thought we already decided that.


Decided what? Why is it so hard to answer the simple A or B question
above?


Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).

That isn't the issue and isn't the question.



If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.

You're the one that interjected another red herring, the S issue.
Whether it's an S corp or just a simple sole proprietorship, the
issue that's been raging for a day now remains exactly the same. Let's
go
through it one more time. In the context of a discussion on Trump's
tax cuts, tax refunds, and the deficit, you proposed a new, additional
2% tax on "GROSS". You didn't say gross what.

Yes?

I assumed it to mean personal gross income as reported on 1040.
In which case if a guy
owns a small business and has $300K in sales with $50K in profit, then
he
would pay an additional $1000 in tax, just like a guy who earns $50K
at a job. The sales never entered 1040 before, only the PROFIT.

Rod, says no, the above guy has to pay $6K, because by gross, you meant
not the gross of his personal income, as reported on 1040, which would
show the $50K of business profit, but the "GROSS" of the business, which
would be $300K on Schedule C and he'd owe $6K in tax.

So, again, which did you mean? It can't be both




It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept
out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.

The problem is you said something about putting a 2% tax on existing
taxes based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.
I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross, because that's
what we were talking about. In which case, $50K, the business PROFIT
is what shows up as gross income on the owner's personal return.

Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bull****? You people
just like to argue.

Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your
mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.

If your proposal was viable, some country world wide
would have done it that way. No one did, for a reason.

OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040.
Add that to line 15.

Corporations don't have one.

Corporations file the same 1040 as the crack dealer in the hood
looking for his EIC




To the core of the issue of the last two days here, I see this buried
in above, but I didn't see the post where it came from:


"OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040. Add that to line 15."

Did you post that? Seems logical it would have been you. If so, then
you agree with my interpretation of what you first posted, ie that your
new 2% "gross" tax would be a tax on the person's gross income, which,
per 1040 and the statement above, only includes the PROFIT from a
business, not the businesses
gross revenue/sales. That 2% would apply to the individual's gross income,
which includes salaries, interest, alimony, etc and PROFIT from a business.
In which case it makes sense and there is no tax hit to small businesses
bases on their sales. So, was that from a post you made?

posted for all of us...

Greg, I hate to say it but filters/rules are your friend. I know you are
trying to be helpful but the trolls have their own agenda.

I am old and retired. I even screw with "microsoft" when they call me
on the phone. Give them Windows 3.1 responses to what they have you
try. It is more fun than anything on TV. I had them going for 10
minutes once. "Rod" and "Trader" just like to argue but the most
tedious thing is they quote to much. Just tell me what ****es you
off, crop the rest of that ****.


Also Schneider Electric is closing their Leesport, PA manufacturing plant. I
do not know what they manufactured there.

Square D has slanted eyes these days.

Okay, I was unaware. My impression from riding past was that it was some
kind of emergency supply center as there were people there on weekends.

I like to screw with callers too but I really must have gotten under his
skin and he called too many times and then made my number the spoofed one
and it was a pain in the ass. I just ignore most unknown callers unless they
leave a message. PA is increasing the fines for these and I called my local
pol and told her the way to approach it but I think it went over her head...

By the way you have always been helpful to me and I appreciate it.

Ever post the different type screws pix in the self tapping thread?

--
Tekkie

On Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:07:26 -0500, Tekkie® wrote:

Ever post the different type screws pix in the self tapping thread?

--
Tekkie

I posted a new thread. Let's see how long it takes for that good deed
to go unpunished. ;-)

wrote in message
...
On Sunday, March 3, 2019 at 8:37:51 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:35 AM, Frank wrote:
On 3/3/2019 8:05 AM, wrote:
On Saturday, March 2, 2019 at 11:01:15 PM UTC-5, rbowman wrote:
On 03/02/2019 01:32 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
That's the sad part - the"asshole in charge" doesn't realise he
is
to govern for the good of ALL the people, not just his small crime
family inner circle, or his "chearleaders" (ever notice inhigh
school
the "chear leaders" were generally not "the sharpest knives in the
block" but more likely the good-looking airheads????)

Do you think the pant-suited bitch who referred to half the
electorate
as deplorables would govern for ALL the people? Do you think Romney
would make it past 47% of the people?

The US government. from its inception, has not governed for the
benefit
of ALL the people.

Just out of curiosity, what do you have against pant suits? I haven't
worn
a skirt in more than 20 years.

Cindy Hamilton


I suspect he has nothing against pant suits but is against this
particular wearer.

FYI, I have never worn a skirt.

Why not? They look like they could be comfortable in warm weather.

If you don't feel you need panty hose, perhaps. Wearing
panty hose in warm weather is like wearing longjohns.

Real scotsmen dont wear anything under their kilts.

But they must be pretty uncomfortable in
summer because they are very thick cloth.

On Mon, 4 Jan 2021 16:31:02 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

FLUSH the trolling senile asshole's latest troll**** unread

--
Marland answering senile Rodent's statement, "I don't leak":
"That¢s because so much **** and ****e emanates from your gob that there is
nothing left to exit normally, your arsehole has clammed shut through disuse
and the end of prick is only clear because you are such a ******."
Message-ID: