On 1 Feb 2005 23:31:01 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

As always talk to your accountant or tax expert.

http://www.taxguide-engineersandarchitects.com/

"If the 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects does
not save you an extra $300 or more on your taxes, your money will be
refunded when the book is returned within 30 days."

The 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects
For the tax year 2004

This should be a large help for some and a planning guide
for next year for others.

Ever wonder what deductions you may have missed?

Example:
[
SUV Loophole
If you drive a substantial amount for business (say, for commuting at
an out-of-town job), an incredible loophole is open to you. For
example, based on full-time usage, you can deduct up to 100% of the
cost of an SUV (up to $102,000) in just the first year. But you must
buy a large SUV or Pick-Up to take advantage of this tax break.
]

HTH
--
Cliff

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 01:55:15 -0500, Cliff wrote:

On 1 Feb 2005 23:31:01 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

As always talk to your accountant or tax expert.

http://www.taxguide-engineersandarchitects.com/

"If the 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects does
not save you an extra $300 or more on your taxes, your money will be
refunded when the book is returned within 30 days."

The 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects
For the tax year 2004

This should be a large help for some and a planning guide
for next year for others.

Ever wonder what deductions you may have missed?

Example:
[
SUV Loophole
If you drive a substantial amount for business (say, for commuting at
an out-of-town job), an incredible loophole is open to you. For
example, based on full-time usage, you can deduct up to 100% of the
cost of an SUV (up to $102,000) in just the first year. But you must
buy a large SUV or Pick-Up to take advantage of this tax break.
]

HTH

This is a classic example of the law of unintended consequences, not a
deliberate tax break for rich SUV owners.

The provision was written to allow businesses to expense delivery
trucks and such. That's why there's a weight requirement and the 100
percent business use. Of course some SUVs fall into that weight
category and as soon as people noticed that, well. . .

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Cliff wrote in
:

On 1 Feb 2005 23:31:01 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

As always talk to your accountant or tax expert.

http://www.taxguide-engineersandarchitects.com/

"If the 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects does
not save you an extra $300 or more on your taxes, your money will be
refunded when the book is returned within 30 days."

The 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects
For the tax year 2004

This should be a large help for some and a planning guide
for next year for others.

Ever wonder what deductions you may have missed?

Example:
[
SUV Loophole
If you drive a substantial amount for business (say, for commuting at
an out-of-town job), an incredible loophole is open to you. For
example, based on full-time usage, you can deduct up to 100% of the
cost of an SUV (up to $102,000) in just the first year. But you must
buy a large SUV or Pick-Up to take advantage of this tax break.
]

HTH

Cliff, I don't think that SUV loophole exists anymore. At least not for
the full deduction.

http://www.taxguru.org/incometax/Rates/Sec179.htm

"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for SUVs
weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining
$77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including
vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edi..._deduction.asp

"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section 179
break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to large
sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased,
business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several
light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more than
6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs
on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs
Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or
more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."


I would advise everyone out there to utilize a tax professional when
trying to understand these types of complicated tax issues. At the very
least, if you are going to use a web site for advice, make sure you can
corroborate the info they provide in a second reliable site. This stuff
is too important to your business to not let professionals handle it.


--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:44:43 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:

Cliff wrote in
:

On 1 Feb 2005 23:31:01 GMT, Dan Murphy wrote:

As always talk to your accountant or tax expert.

http://www.taxguide-engineersandarchitects.com/

"If the 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects does
not save you an extra $300 or more on your taxes, your money will be
refunded when the book is returned within 30 days."

The 2005 Tax and Financial Guide for Engineers & Architects
For the tax year 2004

This should be a large help for some and a planning guide
for next year for others.

Ever wonder what deductions you may have missed?

Example:
[
SUV Loophole
If you drive a substantial amount for business (say, for commuting at
an out-of-town job), an incredible loophole is open to you. For
example, based on full-time usage, you can deduct up to 100% of the
cost of an SUV (up to $102,000) in just the first year. But you must
buy a large SUV or Pick-Up to take advantage of this tax break.
]

HTH

Cliff, I don't think that SUV loophole exists anymore. At least not for
the full deduction.

http://www.taxguru.org/incometax/Rates/Sec179.htm

"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for SUVs
weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining
$77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including
vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edi..._deduction.asp

"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section 179
break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to large
sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased,
business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several
light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more than
6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs
on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs
Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or
more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."


I would advise everyone out there to utilize a tax professional when
trying to understand these types of complicated tax issues. At the very
least, if you are going to use a web site for advice, make sure you can
corroborate the info they provide in a second reliable site. This stuff
is too important to your business to not let professionals handle it.

Robert,
You need to know what a lot of it is first. Those "professionals"
ostly just look at history. What WAS done. By then it's too late
to do something different with more benefit to you.

In this specific case (SUV) "up to $102,000" and "a large SUV or
Pick-Up" both applied for the 2004 tax year. I expect "large", after
Oct. 22, applies to "vehicles weighing 14,000 or more". Like
large SUVs .... G.

Details would be in the book, not the one example-blurb.
THEN ask your professionals for advice *in advance* and
make decisions based on that.

Forward planning can work wonders.

BTW, After one year how much can you then sell that
"up to $102,000" deduction (is there a tax credit in there too?)
for? Is the sale taxable income? Probably .....

How much does a fully loaded hummer weigh? What's the
"pay back", compared to an economy car?
--
Cliff

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:44:43 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:



Cliff, I don't think that SUV loophole exists anymore. At least not for
the full deduction.

http://www.taxguru.org/incometax/Rates/Sec179.htm

"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for SUVs
weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining
$77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including
vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edi..._deduction.asp

"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section 179
break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to large
sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased,
business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several
light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more than
6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs
on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs
Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or
more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."


snip


So that'd be a Humvee then?


Mark Rand (in the UK)
RTFM

Cliff wrote:

Snip...

I would advise everyone out there to utilize a tax professional when
trying to understand these types of complicated tax issues. At the very
least, if you are going to use a web site for advice, make sure you can
corroborate the info they provide in a second reliable site. This stuff
is too important to your business to not let professionals handle it.


Robert,
You need to know what a lot of it is first. Those "professionals"
ostly just look at history. What WAS done. By then it's too late
to do something different with more benefit to you.

Damn straight.

We paid good money for a good tax consultant
and still ended up with a big bill. My wife/
bookkeeper spent several hours figuring out
how to do the research tax credit and saved
us several thousand. And tought the tax
consultant how to do it...

Cliff wrote in
:

How much does a fully loaded hummer weigh? What's the
"pay back", compared to an economy car?


http://www.steelsoldiers.com/humvees.htm

Length: 15 feet (4.57 meters)
Width: 7.08 feet (2.16 meters)
Weight: 5,200 pounds (2359 kilograms)
Height: 6.00 feet (1.83 meters) reducible to 4.5 feet (1.37 meters)
Engine: V8, 6.2L displacement, fuel injected diesel, liquid cooled,
compression ignition, sorry fellas, no turbo (I'd slap on a Banks™)
Horsepower: 150 at 3,600 RPM
Transmission: 3 speed, automatic
Transfer case: 2 speed, locking, chain driven
Electrical system: 24 volt, negative ground, 60 amps
Brakes: Hydraulic, 4-wheeled disc
Fording depth:
without preparation: 2.5 feet (76.2 centimeters)
with deep water fording kit: 5 feet (1.5 meters)
with really deep fording kit and SCUBA tanks: 15 feet (4.5 meters)
Fuel type: Diesel
Fuel capacity: 25 gallons (94.63 liters)
Range: 350 miles (563.15 kilometers) highway
Unit Replacement Cost: $50,000


Not a commercial model, but I doubt the H2 is 9,000 lbs. heavier than
the military version. In other words, no way to take the current
section 179 deduction in full. The first $25K is OK, though.

The pay-back would be a function of the differnce in purchase price,
annual fuel cost, maintenance cost, insurance cost and tax
benefits/specific vehicle benefits. As always, no way to say in a
general way...must take it case-by-case.

As far as getting bad advice from your tax pro, that's part of life.
You must be a judge of charater and competence when hiring someone. A
basic level of knowledge is essential, in order to make such a judgement
(so research the web/read a book/take a class). If the tax guy does a
poor job, get rid of him and live and learn. I doubt that you could
argue a good tax guy is not worth his price (and then some). By
deffinition, a bad tax guy is bad. No sense in generalizing the whole
group as doing this or that.

--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

Jim Stewart wrote in
:

Cliff wrote:

Snip...

I would advise everyone out there to utilize a tax professional when
trying to understand these types of complicated tax issues. At the
very least, if you are going to use a web site for advice, make sure
you can corroborate the info they provide in a second reliable site.
This stuff is too important to your business to not let professionals
handle it.


Robert,
You need to know what a lot of it is first. Those "professionals"
ostly just look at history. What WAS done. By then it's too late
to do something different with more benefit to you.

Damn straight.

We paid good money for a good tax consultant
and still ended up with a big bill.


If he was a good tax consultant then why did you end up with a big bill?


My wife/
bookkeeper spent several hours figuring out
how to do the research tax credit and saved
us several thousand. And tought the tax
consultant how to do it...


Looks like you have lived through a bad experience, and learned from it.
Best of luck finding a competent tax advisor in the future...or learning
the skill yourself!




--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

Mark Rand wrote in
:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 11:44:43 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:



Cliff, I don't think that SUV loophole exists anymore. At least not
for
the full deduction.

http://www.taxguru.org/incometax/Rates/Sec179.htm

"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for
SUVs
weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining
$77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including
vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edi...Stories/sec179
_deduction.asp

"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section
179
break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to
large
sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased,
business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several
light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more
than
6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs
on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs
Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or
more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."


snip


So that'd be a Humvee then?


Mark Rand (in the UK)
RTFM

Please see my link/stats for a Humvee in my reply to Cliff. I think
this revision to section 179 is to specifically exclude all SUVs. It
re-defines a heavy work vehicle to more accurately account for the
purchase of a true 'heavy work' vehicle, not an SUV. Even the fattest
Hummer is prob . no more than 1/2 the GVW of this kind of auto.

--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

Robert Davidson wrote:

My wife/
bookkeeper spent several hours figuring out
how to do the research tax credit and saved
us several thousand. And tought the tax
consultant how to do it...



Looks like you have lived through a bad experience, and learned from it.
Best of luck finding a competent tax advisor in the future...or learning
the skill yourself!

Well, it helps that we knew about the research
tax credit. Most, if not all, tax accountants
who work with smaller businesses never have a
need to use it. It's a pain to calculate as
you must have records of your R&D expenses
going back however many years you've been taking
it.

Luckily, we were associated with a bigger company
early in our history and we learned about it from
them and have kept the records.

I don't blame the tax accountant (though a discount
for teaching him would have been nice). It's just
something he hadn't dealt with before. Anyone
with his own business learns something from his
customers from time to time (:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:20:51 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:

"As of October 22, 2004, the maximum amount that can be claimed for
SUVs
weighing between 6,000 and 14,000 pounds is $25,000. The remaining
$77,000 can be used for other kinds of business equipment, including
vehicles weighing more than 14,000 pounds."

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/Edi...Stories/sec179
_deduction.asp

"However, when it comes to vehicles purchased utilizing the Section
179
break, legislators took back some of the benefit as it related to
large
sport utility vehicles. When the limit was originally increased,
business owners were allowed to select for company use one of several
light-truck models (which included many luxury SUVs) weighing more
than
6,000 pounds fully loaded and write off most, if not all, of the costs
on their tax returns. That changed on Oct. 22, when the American Jobs
Creation Act became law; now only company vehicles weighing 14,000 or
more are eligible for the larger deduction amount."


snip


So that'd be a Humvee then?


Mark Rand (in the UK)
RTFM

Please see my link/stats for a Humvee in my reply to Cliff. I think
this revision to section 179 is to specifically exclude all SUVs. It
re-defines a heavy work vehicle to more accurately account for the
purchase of a true 'heavy work' vehicle, not an SUV. Even the fattest
Hummer is prob . no more than 1/2 the GVW of this kind of auto.

GOOD NEWS !!!

For the 2006 model year they are raising the weight from (2004)
7608 lbs. to 8114 lbs (+506 lbs).

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.
--
Cliff

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 18:20:40 -0800, Jim Stewart
wrote:

Robert Davidson wrote:

My wife/
bookkeeper spent several hours figuring out
how to do the research tax credit and saved
us several thousand. And tought the tax
consultant how to do it...



Looks like you have lived through a bad experience, and learned from it.
Best of luck finding a competent tax advisor in the future...or learning
the skill yourself!

Well, it helps that we knew about the research
tax credit. Most, if not all, tax accountants
who work with smaller businesses never have a
need to use it. It's a pain to calculate as
you must have records of your R&D expenses
going back however many years you've been taking
it.

Luckily, we were associated with a bigger company
early in our history and we learned about it from
them and have kept the records.

I don't blame the tax accountant (though a discount
for teaching him would have been nice). It's just
something he hadn't dealt with before. Anyone
with his own business learns something from his
customers from time to time (:


This points out an important point about tax accountants. If at all
possible get one who is familar with your line of work.

My CPA does the taxes for a lot of writers and artists so he
understands my business very well. That fact alone has saved me a lot
of money over the years.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:20:51 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:


Please see my link/stats for a Humvee in my reply to Cliff. I think
this revision to section 179 is to specifically exclude all SUVs. It
re-defines a heavy work vehicle to more accurately account for the
purchase of a true 'heavy work' vehicle, not an SUV. Even the fattest
Hummer is prob . no more than 1/2 the GVW of this kind of auto.

GOOD NEWS !!!

For the 2006 model year they are raising the weight from (2004)
7608 lbs. to 8114 lbs (+506 lbs).

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.


Cliff:

"Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.

GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the
vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

cross posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
snip
I recieved an e-mail today regarding the section 179 tax deduction. I
thought it might be of interest to anyone thinking about buying a machine.
snip
As a follow up to my earlier comments in the of-shore sourcing
thread that the US economy becoming so ornate, baroque and arcane
that no one can tell the true cost of anything.

These obscure provisions in the U.S. tax code are exactly what I
am talking about.

Bear in mind that this is not "free" money. In order for one
taxpayer to pay less, another taxpayer must pay more, and/or the
deficit must increase, and/or everyone must do with slightly
fewer services (generally the children and poor).

Many of our most "successful" major corporations pay no federal
income tax, and indeed many receive "refunds," which segues into
the Ann Lander's question "are we better off with or without
them."

An important but unasked question "Is the US macro economy (i.e.
the general public) better off with marginal (and in too many
cases sub-standard) 'manufacturing' operations with obsolete
equipment/products that show a profit because of their excellence
in tax accounting or with world-class manufacturing operations
which show marginal profits (or even losses) because they pay
their fair share of taxes like everyone else?"

The free market works only if everyone must play by the same
rules and you can tell what things cost.

GmcD

Jim Stewart wrote in news:GIydneV7ytJqFJzfRVn-
:

Anyone
with his own business learns something from his
customers from time to time (:

I second that opinion!

P.S.

You certainly should have received a discount if your accountant missed a
major deduction (even if it wasn't in his area of expertise). IMHO

--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

F. George McDuffee wrote in
:


As a follow up to my earlier comments in the of-shore sourcing
thread that the US economy becoming so ornate, baroque and arcane
that no one can tell the true cost of anything.

These obscure provisions in the U.S. tax code are exactly what I
am talking about.

Bear in mind that this is not "free" money. In order for one
taxpayer to pay less, another taxpayer must pay more, and/or the
deficit must increase, and/or everyone must do with slightly
fewer services (generally the children and poor).




Very good observation. I totally agree, but am forced to expend my time
and energy in order to play the game I find myself in. sigh So we end
up with more of the same.


Many of our most "successful" major corporations pay no federal
income tax, and indeed many receive "refunds," which segues into
the Ann Lander's question "are we better off with or without
them."



Better off with them. Although the tax loopholes that these companies
exploit are unfair (and IMO should be closed), they create wealth on a
massive scale and are a major factor in our economy's 'money velocity'
(http://nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow041602.asp). These factors
combined, although no excuse for shrugging-off their tax burden, do
impact the national economy in a net positive way.


An important but unasked question "Is the US macro economy (i.e.
the general public) better off with marginal (and in too many
cases sub-standard) 'manufacturing' operations with obsolete
equipment/products that show a profit because of their excellence
in tax accounting or with world-class manufacturing operations
which show marginal profits (or even losses) because they pay
their fair share of taxes like everyone else?"


This is an excellent question, directed mainly to the manufacturing
community (and I'd love to hear others sound-off). IMO, I think I'm
better served with the superior manufacturers. In a free-market economy
with the tax burden distributed fairly, they would outperform their
competitors in all aspects of business, would they not? I think it is
self evident that the only way the "marginal (and in too many cases sub-
standard) 'manufacturing' operations" stay in business is on the backs
of the "world-class manufacturing operations." In other words it's a
parasitic relationship.


The free market works only if everyone must play by the same
rules and you can tell what things cost.


I only wish we were in a truly free-market economy. What we really have
is a mixed economy...with more and more every year flowing to the wrong
side of the mix.




--
Robert Davidson
President
Atlas Financial Corporation
877-750-9445

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:06:19 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:20:51 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:


Please see my link/stats for a Humvee in my reply to Cliff. I think
this revision to section 179 is to specifically exclude all SUVs. It
re-defines a heavy work vehicle to more accurately account for the
purchase of a true 'heavy work' vehicle, not an SUV. Even the fattest
Hummer is prob . no more than 1/2 the GVW of this kind of auto.

GOOD NEWS !!!

For the 2006 model year they are raising the weight from (2004)
7608 lbs. to 8114 lbs (+506 lbs).

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.


Cliff:

"Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.

GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the
vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.

BB,
You trying to spoil a bit of honest fun?

BTW, the *example* I posted/extracted was for the 2004 tax year.
Had you known of it then or in 2003 ....

This (usually annual) book actually is worth it's cost to most.
Changes are covered as well IIRC.

IIRC In one year they even listed which sporting events/teams
had tax credits/deductions if you bought tickets .... there are
thousands of loopholes in the tax code that the special interests
had added. The instructions for the simple 1040 do not mention them
but all are legal. This covers many that may well be overlooked .. and
may help you plan for 2005 in the US ... or outside if a US resident
or citizen.

HTH
--
Cliff

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 11:19:13 -0600, Robert Davidson
wrote:

Many of our most "successful" major corporations pay no federal
income tax, and indeed many receive "refunds," which segues into
the Ann Lander's question "are we better off with or without
them."



Better off with them. Although the tax loopholes that these companies
exploit are unfair (and IMO should be closed), they create wealth on a
massive scale

Mostly only for those that *bought* the loopholes.
Someone somewhere else is paying for them with
higher taxes or inflation taxes or something.

Level the playing field & see what happens.

and are a major factor in our economy's 'money velocity'

Many firms are sitting on huge piles of cash, awaiting places
offshore to invest & move jobs. That money is not moving
in the US economy and probably never will.

The poor & middle class spend much of what they earn. They pretty
much have to.

(http://nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow041602.asp). These factors
combined, although no excuse for shrugging-off their tax burden, do
impact the national economy in a net positive way.

Please pass the salt.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:06:19 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.


Cliff:

"Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.

GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the
vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.

BB,
You trying to spoil a bit of honest fun?

Cliff:

Hmmmm, it's interesting that you call intentional misrepresentation
"honest fun" when YOU do it, but call others liars, idiots, wingers, and
what not when THEY do the very same thing. LMAO!

--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:36:42 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:06:19 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.


Cliff:

"Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.

GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the
vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.

BB,
You trying to spoil a bit of honest fun?

Cliff:

Hmmmm, it's interesting that you call intentional misrepresentation
"honest fun" when YOU do it, but call others liars, idiots, wingers, and
what not when THEY do the very same thing. LMAO!

Are YOU going to tell the lawyers, accountants & politicos
how to define "Fully loaded"?

Suggestion: Call a Hummer dealer G.
--
Cliff

Cliff wrote:

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 03:36:42 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 13:06:19 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Cliff wrote:

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

"Fully loaded" it goes from 15,300 lbs. (2004) to 17,300 lbs.
(+2000 lbs.) so perhaps there will be a safety margin G.


Cliff:

"Fully loaded"? I think you've misunderstood what is meant by GCWR.

GCWR (Gross Combined Weight Rating), means the total weight of the
vehicle itself, AND any towed trailer.

BB,
You trying to spoil a bit of honest fun?

Cliff:

Hmmmm, it's interesting that you call intentional misrepresentation
"honest fun" when YOU do it, but call others liars, idiots, wingers, and
what not when THEY do the very same thing. LMAO!

Are YOU going to tell the lawyers, accountants & politicos
how to define "Fully loaded"?

Cliff:

"Fully loaded" is a commonly used term meaning all options available on
the vehicle, it DOESN'T mean the combined weight of the vehicle and the
heaviest trailer a vehicle can possibly tow.

Your term "Fully loaded" wasn't even located anywhere on the Hummer
site you gave. So where did it come from other than from your
imagination? Go look for yourself if you doubt me.

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/


Let me try to give a graphic example of how bogus your particular
interpretation of "Fully loaded" is. Say someone has a 3,000 lb.
Porsche Boxster then hooks up a loaded 11,000 lb. trailer to it. Do you
think it would THEN meet the "vehicles weighing 14,000 or more"
requirement to get the maximum tax write-off? You DO see how this
sounds, don't you? I fail to see why you are spending any time at all
trying to support such a ridiculous point. Is this more of what you're
calling "honest fun"? LOL


--
BottleBob
http://home.earthlink.net/~bottlbob

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:12:16 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

"Fully loaded"

How loaded are you G?
--
Cliff

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 13:12:16 GMT, BottleBob
wrote:

Your term "Fully loaded" wasn't even located anywhere on the Hummer
site you gave. So where did it come from other than from your
imagination? Go look for yourself if you doubt me.

http://www.humvee.net/alpha/

GCWR: The maximum allowed GCW.

GCW: Gross Combined Weight: The total weight of everything - tow
vehicle, trailer, etc.

HTH

(BB always has problems with puns G.)
--
Cliff