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.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 13:03:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


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

Lost yet another argument, you disgusting senile psychopathic troll?

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

wrote in message
...
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.

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

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 20:30:00 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



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

**** off from normally evoloved humans' ngs, psychopath!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

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.

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, you're instead
adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

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


I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is that
not correct? 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? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME
to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational
accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine profit
and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed and
meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed
guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the
profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K
in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just
like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you
proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the troll
is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales, $50K
in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

On 05/03/2019 12:52, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

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.

--
Bod

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

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

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.

All completely irrelevant to WHAT FRETWELL WAS
PROPOSING HIS 2% INCOME TAX SURTAX BE ON.

And since you can't even manage to work that
one out, here goes the chain on the rest of your
even sillier and more irrelevant ****.

"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.


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

Yes, 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.

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.

Federal income tax has never worked that way,

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

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

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:33:24 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

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.

All completely irrelevant to WHAT FRETWELL WAS
PROPOSING HIS 2% INCOME TAX SURTAX BE ON.

It's largely irrelevant because any knowledgeable person familiar with US income
taxes and our tax return forms and definitions, would take a statement
proposing a new 2% gross
income tax to mean a 2% tax on gross income. We were talking about INCOME
taxes, not business revenue taxes, you know. And that's how it's done now,
Form 1040 starts off with GROSS INCOME, where salary, business PROFIT,
interest earned, etc are added up as GROSS INCOME. $50K in business profit
shows up there just like $50K from a job. We don't screw people
who have a small business by taxing them on the business revenue, never have.
Taking "gross" to mean "gross income", when discussing personal income taxes
is reasonable, anything else yields stupid results, as you just found out.
So, clearly that puts you in the dope class. For starters, it's dopey for
someone in Australia to be trying to tell me how US income tax works.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 04:33:12 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

We see it here, EVERY day, you total moron!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

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

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 04:43:52 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



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

Losing yet another one of your idiotic "discussions", you quarrelsome senile
pest? LOL

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:33:24 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

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.

All completely irrelevant to WHAT FRETWELL WAS
PROPOSING HIS 2% INCOME TAX SURTAX BE ON.

It's largely irrelevant because any knowledgeable person familiar with US
income taxes and our tax return forms and definitions, would take a
statement
proposing a new 2% gross income tax to mean a 2% tax on gross income.

And the gross income for a small business
that isnt a corporation is the turnover, ****wit.

reams of your irrelevant pig ignorant **** flushed where it belongs

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

"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

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:04:25 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:33:24 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

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.

All completely irrelevant to WHAT FRETWELL WAS
PROPOSING HIS 2% INCOME TAX SURTAX BE ON.

It's largely irrelevant because any knowledgeable person familiar with US
income taxes and our tax return forms and definitions, would take a
statement
proposing a new 2% gross income tax to mean a 2% tax on gross income.

And the gross income for a small business
that isnt a corporation is the turnover, ****wit.

reams of your irrelevant pig ignorant **** flushed where it belongs

I see, back to dig your ignorance hole deeper still. And again, we're talking
about PERSONAL income tax, the INDIVIDUAL's GROSS INCOME, not the gross income
of the business fool. Look at 1040.


This really is simple. Fretwell can weigh in and either

A - Acknowledge that he was intending to apply a 2% tax to an individual's
gross income, which includes PROFIT from a business. $50K profit
from a business is taxed $1000 extra, just like a $50K salary.

B - Tell us that he intended for it to apply to the total sales/gross income
of small businesses. In which case a business that had sales of $3 mil,
but only had a profit of $50K, pays $60K in extra tax.


A leads to truth, logic, fairness, compatibility with the current tax laws and
accounting. There is no "problem". B leads directly to stupidville,
where you're the mayor. B is so stupid, I can't believe it's what Fretwell
intended, but you sure went that route.

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:05:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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, you're instead
adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

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


I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is that
not correct? 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? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME
to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational
accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine profit
and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed and
meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed
guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the
profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K
in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just
like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you
proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the troll
is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales, $50K
in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

I want the tax code to address problems like GE that tells the
stockholders they are making billions but they can still tell the IRS
they are losing money and pay no tax.
We could argue that there should not be a corporate tax but I still
would like to see it fairly assessed.
I suspect if Trump's returns ever see the light of day he will have a
similar situation.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:05:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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, you're instead
adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

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


I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is that
not correct? 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? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME
to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational
accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine profit
and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed and
meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed
guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the
profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K
in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just
like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you
proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the troll
is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales, $50K
in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

I want the tax code to address problems like GE that tells the
stockholders they are making billions but they can still tell the IRS
they are losing money and pay no tax.

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?






We could argue that there should not be a corporate tax but I still
would like to see it fairly assessed.
I suspect if Trump's returns ever see the light of day he will have a
similar situation.

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...



On Mon, 4 Mar 2019 14:36:58 -0500, Tekkie® wrote:

Clare Snyder posted for all of us...


And with these darn cataracts I need all the help I can get


I thought you worked on Mopar products ;-)
like the handiman who was hired to repaint the porch out back, and
came in after finishing the job and said it easn;t a porch, it was an
Audi

never heard that one, thanks.

--
Tekkie

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.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:04:25 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 12:33:24 PM UTC-5, Rod Speed wrote:
"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

You really are a total moron.

We'll see...

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.

All completely irrelevant to WHAT FRETWELL WAS
PROPOSING HIS 2% INCOME TAX SURTAX BE ON.

It's largely irrelevant because any knowledgeable person familiar with
US
income taxes and our tax return forms and definitions, would take a
statement
proposing a new 2% gross income tax to mean a 2% tax on gross income.

And the gross income for a small business
that isnt a corporation is the turnover, ****wit.

reams of your irrelevant pig ignorant **** flushed where it belongs

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:05:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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, you're
instead
adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

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


I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is
that
not correct? 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? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME
to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational
accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine
profit
and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed
and
meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed
guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the
profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K
in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just
like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you
proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the
troll
is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales,
$50K
in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

I want the tax code to address problems like GE that tells the
stockholders they are making billions but they can still tell the IRS
they are losing money and pay no tax.

I thought we were talking about personal income tax, not corporations.

Thats not EVERYONES, stupid.

It started with Trump's personal tax cut.

And moved on to his proposal for fixing the immense federal debt.

And sadly, you didn't answer the simple question.

He just did, he wants the surtax on the GROSS, not the claimed net
income/profit.

You really have two options:

Wrong again.

A - What you proposed was a new 2% tax on individuals gross income,

He didnt say individuals and has now made it clear he meant corporations
too.

reams of your irrelevant **** about how this are done
now, not what he proposes, flushed where it belongs

So, which is it?

He already said neither, he wants a 2% surtax on the GROSS, even for
corporations.

We could argue that there should not be a corporate tax but I still
would like to see it fairly assessed.
I suspect if Trump's returns ever see the light of day he will have a
similar situation.

"Bod" wrote in message
...
On 05/03/2019 12:52, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, March 4, 2019 at 9:03:25 PM UTC-5, 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

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.

--
Bod

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

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?
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.
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.
Can't do that with an S? WTF? Who says? They are frequently used for
trading stocks, day trading, which many would call speculation, it's
not investing, that's for sure. Australian troll, the new "expert" on
US tax code.

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:06:37 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH senile troll****

What has all your senile bull**** got to do with a group like ahr, you
psychopathic senile idiot?

--
Bod addressing abnormal senile quarreller Rot:
"Do you practice arguing with yourself in an empty room?"
MID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:18:43 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH another load of the senile psychopath's stinking troll****

....and much better air in here again!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:15:55 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:

FLUSH 200 lines of idiotic troll****

What has all this bull**** got to do with a group like ahr, you abnormal,
85-year-old, senile, psychopathic swine?

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

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 06:04:11 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


reams of your irrelevant pig ignorant **** flushed where it belongs

Lost yet another one of your idiotic "discussions", you senile cretin? BG

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:08:29 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:


reams of your irrelevant pig ignorant **** flushed where it belongs

Are your IDIOCY and SENILITY getting exposed again, poor 85-year-old senile
cretin? LOL

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

On Wed, 6 Mar 2019 07:23:09 +1100, cantankerous trolling senile geezer Rot
Speed blabbered, again:



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.


I doubt you will find ANYONE on these groups who would disagree with him
though, you clueless senile dick!

--
The Natural Philosopher about senile Rot:
"Rod speed is not a Brexiteer. He is an Australian troll and arsehole."
Message-ID:

On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 11:48:31 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, March 5, 2019 at 2:35:25 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Mar 2019 05:05:58 -0800 (PST), trader_4
wrote:

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, you're instead
adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

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


I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is that
not correct? 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? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME
to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational
accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine profit
and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed and
meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed
guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the
profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K
in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just
like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you
proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the troll
is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales, $50K
in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

I want the tax code to address problems like GE that tells the
stockholders they are making billions but they can still tell the IRS
they are losing money and pay no tax.

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. Income is profit for a business.
(after Schedule C expenses).
If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation.
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.

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.

On 3/4/2019 8:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 03/04/2019 01:54 PM, wrote:
There was still plenty of money and the VA was not nearly as inclusive
as it is now. You pretty much had to have a combat connected
disability to get much in a VA hospital. Now anyone with a DD214 can
go.

My father had a hernia repaired in the VA in the '50s. Since he was a
Marine on the Oklahoma in WWi I doubt it was combat connected.

I've heard a lot of good things about the VA. A friend is working
towards getting a knee replacement there. Another had kidney cancer
surgery there. Cancer was discovered when VA was working him up for
cyber knife prostate cancer surgery. First they did the kidney then the
prostate.

On 3/5/2019 12:59 AM, 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.


Did it myself without a lawyer:

https://www.bizfilings.com/

You can even get an EIN number yourself and save mo

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small...ber-ein-online

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.

"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
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.

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.

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

Having fun thrashing yet another straw man ?

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.

"trader_4" wrote in message
...
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

Nope, on the GROSS.

based on "gross" and didn't define what you meant by gross.

It only has one meaning, gross income or turnover in the case of corps.

I assumed it to mean your personal income tax gross,

Stupid assumption given he/she has now said it includes corps.

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.

On 03/05/2019 04:34 PM, Frank wrote:
On 3/4/2019 8:53 PM, rbowman wrote:
On 03/04/2019 01:54 PM, wrote:
There was still plenty of money and the VA was not nearly as inclusive
as it is now. You pretty much had to have a combat connected
disability to get much in a VA hospital. Now anyone with a DD214 can
go.

My father had a hernia repaired in the VA in the '50s. Since he was a
Marine on the Oklahoma in WWi I doubt it was combat connected.

I've heard a lot of good things about the VA. A friend is working
towards getting a knee replacement there. Another had kidney cancer
surgery there. Cancer was discovered when VA was working him up for
cyber knife prostate cancer surgery. First they did the kidney then the
prostate.

I imagine it depends on where you are like any other hospital.