# US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever



## ScienceRocks

*US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.





> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.



Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Wind supplied 4% of US energy needs in 2014, currently it supplies 4.5%...it has a long way to go


----------



## Hugo Furst

And here I thought it was all the political speeches.

But, if it's increasing, all the better.

(the energy from wind, not the speeches)


----------



## SassyIrishLass

The problem with renewable energy is unreliability and cost. Alberta Canada is learning that lesson


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
Click to expand...


If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.


----------



## Dovahkiin

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...

Get over it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it.
Click to expand...


Wait til next year.


----------



## Dovahkiin

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait til next year.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the republicans are definitely going to win.. I mean, just look at Michigan. How many republicans are supporting trump and cruz? The party is not going to get anywhere this coming election.


----------



## OnePercenter

SassyIrishLass said:


> Wind supplied 4% of US energy needs in 2014, currently it supplies 4.5%...it has a long way to go



When you're looking a US energy needs, .5% in one year is huge.


----------



## OnePercenter

SassyIrishLass said:


> The problem with renewable energy is unreliability and cost. Alberta Canada is learning that lesson



How can you compare frozen tundra to the U.S.?

I smell another Canadian on a United States of America board.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.



How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait til next year.
Click to expand...


A message from the glass is half empty crowd.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Matthew said:


> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
Click to expand...



Losses declined, huh?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Dovahkiin said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait til next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, the republicans are definitely going to win.. I mean, just look at Michigan. How many republicans are supporting trump and cruz? The party is not going to get anywhere this coming election.
Click to expand...



Do you think Hillary is going to survive the primaries? She doesn't look so good.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
Click to expand...


Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dovahkiin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait til next year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A message from the glass is half empty crowd.
Click to expand...


A message from the tax cheat crowd.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Matthew said:


> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
Click to expand...


wind energy is not a dependable form of energy 

it can not handle peak usage for example


----------



## jon_berzerk

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.
Click to expand...


or stupid


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.
Click to expand...


Who says you are paying twice as much?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> A message form the tax cheat crowd.



I don't cheat on my taxes, I use all of the tax loopholes afforded me by the Republicans you voted in office. Thank You!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says you are paying twice as much?
Click to expand...


You wanted an example of how moving energy needs from fossil fuels would be a waste.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> A message from the tax cheat crowd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't cheat on my taxes, I use all of the tax loopholes afforded me by the Republicans you voted in office. Thank You!
Click to expand...


*I don't cheat on my taxes*

You lie about them.
Tell me the one again where your trust pays a lower rate than an individual would pay.
That's always funny.


----------



## ScienceRocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
Click to expand...



Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.
Click to expand...

europe returned to coal


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.
Click to expand...


*Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars
*
The coal industry pays taxes and generates useful amounts of reliable electricity.
The wind industry loses money, costs tax subsidies and doesn't generate reliable electricity.

*I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars
*
Wrong. Modern civilization is cool. It requires electricity that is consistent.
*
So please stop the internet the government helped create
*
Yeah, if we were dependent on a government run Internet, you might have a tiny point.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says you are paying twice as much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanted an example of how moving energy needs from fossil fuels would be a waste.
Click to expand...


I continue to wait for that answer.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I don't cheat on my taxes*
> 
> You lie about them.
> Tell me the one again where your trust pays a lower rate than an individual would pay.
> That's always funny.



No lie.
It's a corporation.
All US corporations pay less of their total income in taxes than you do.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't cheat on my taxes*
> 
> You lie about them.
> Tell me the one again where your trust pays a lower rate than an individual would pay.
> That's always funny.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No lie.
> It's a corporation.
> All US corporations pay less of their total income in taxes than you do.
Click to expand...


Of course that's not true.
And trusts also pay higher rates.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can moving energy needs from fossil fuels be a waste?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's see, if you pay twice as much for a less reliable source, that would be a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who says you are paying twice as much?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You wanted an example of how moving energy needs from fossil fuels would be a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I continue to wait for that answer.
Click to expand...


You act as though price means nothing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.
Click to expand...

*
Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit
*
You never explained how coal wastes tax dollars.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Of course that's not true.
> And trusts also pay higher rates.



Of course it is, I've already proven it. 
Trusts do, trust corporations don't. Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit
> *
> You never explained how coal wastes tax dollars.
Click to expand...


How many 100's of millions in taxpayer monies did it cost to rescue miners after their company broke safety rules?


----------



## ScienceRocks

Ok perfectly ok with subsidies and investments into our energy sector. I am not a loserterian!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course that's not true.
> And trusts also pay higher rates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it is, I've already proven it.
> Trusts do, trust corporations don't. Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?
Click to expand...

*
Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*

You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!

*Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*

There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If only they could make sales without wasting taxpayer dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit as it cost more per the amount of energy it produces then wind. Of course, I am replying to someone that thinks modern civilization is a waste of tax dollars. So please stop the internet the government helped create and go ride a horse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Coal is a bigger waste of tax dollars by quite a bit
> *
> You never explained how coal wastes tax dollars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many 100's of millions in taxpayer monies did it cost to rescue miners after their company broke safety rules?
Click to expand...


You'll have to show me. And then show me how that makes tax money wasted on wind power less of an issue.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Matthew said:


> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
Click to expand...


be realistic and cut the installed capacity by 2/3 to get actual output


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Matthew said:


> Ok perfectly ok with subsidies and investments into our energy sector. I am not a loserterian!



Yes, support for big government dollars shoveled to green cronies means you're not a losertarian, just a loser.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!



The reason a trust would incorporate is the rules of trusts extend only to the corporation. Past the corporation (the individual) would be corporate rules.

*



			Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?
		
Click to expand...

*


> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.



Tax savings is number one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason a trust would incorporate is the rules of trusts extend only to the corporation. Past the corporation (the individual) would be corporate rules.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax savings is number one.
Click to expand...


Income tax savings is not number one.
Why don't you post the rate schedule for these fantastical trust corporations?
To prove you aren't a lying sack of shit.
Thanks!


----------



## Old Rocks

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.

Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

*This is over a year old, and the prices for both wind and solar have come down considerably since then. And there are two big grid scale battery factories coming on line. *


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> Utility executives say the trend has accelerated this year, with several companies signing contracts, known as power purchase agreements, for solar or wind at prices below that of natural gas, especially in the Great Plains and Southwest, where wind and sunlight are abundant.
> 
> Those prices were made possible by generous subsidies that could soon diminish or expire, but recent analyses show that even without those subsidies, alternative energies can often compete with traditional sources.
> 
> In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
> 
> And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
> 
> “Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
> 
> “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
> 
> *This is over a year old, and the prices for both wind and solar have come down considerably since then. And there are two big grid scale battery factories coming on line. *




_Mr. Mir noted there were hidden costs that needed to be taken into account for both renewable energy and fossil fuels. Solar and __wind farms__, for example, produce power intermittently — when the sun is shining or the wind is blowing — and that requires utilities to have power available on call from other sources that can respond to fluctuations in demand.
_
Gosh, that's a shocker.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason a trust would incorporate is the rules of trusts extend only to the corporation. Past the corporation (the individual) would be corporate rules.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax savings is number one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income tax savings is not number one.
> Why don't you post the rate schedule for these fantastical trust corporations?
> To prove you aren't a lying sack of shit.
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

he read about trust corporations somewhere now he's fixated on them


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Skull Pilot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason a trust would incorporate is the rules of trusts extend only to the corporation. Past the corporation (the individual) would be corporate rules.
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tax savings is number one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Income tax savings is not number one.
> Why don't you post the rate schedule for these fantastical trust corporations?
> To prove you aren't a lying sack of shit.
> Thanks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he read about trust corporations somewhere now he's fixated on them
Click to expand...


They sounded cool, so he had to invent one.


----------



## 9aces

Matthew said:


> *US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever*
> US Wind Industry Posts Second Strongest Quarter Ever
> January 28th, 2016 by *Joshua S Hill*
> The US wind industry posted its second strongest quarter ever in the fourth quarter of 2015, with more installations than in all of 2014.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the American Wind Energy Association, which published its results in its _US Wind Industry Fourth Quarter 2015 Market Report_ this week, the US wind industry installed 8,598 MW during 2015, the third largest amount ever installed in a year, and a 77% increase over 2014. Specifically, the fourth quarter was the second strongest quarter ever recorded, installing 5,001 MW — in fact, developers installed more capacity during the fourth quarter than they did through the first three quarters of the year combined.
> This means that at the end of 2015, the US has 74,472 MW of installed wind capacity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Great news!!! Wind is roaring back, wahooo!!!
Click to expand...


Has it stopped losing money yet?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.



You're a one string banjo aren't ya? 

AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> They sounded cool, so he had to invent one.



I'd love to take credit for it, but the credit goes to Republican administrations.


----------



## 9aces

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
Click to expand...


What makes you think a republican passed this?  You might be surprised just how many fingerprints on things like this belong to people in both parties.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
Click to expand...


*You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
*
Highlighting your lies would make me a 10 or 12 string banjo, easily.

*The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible.*

Okay.

*If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit?*

Well, the corporation would have a tax liability of about $8200, on income of $25,000.
Almost 33%.

The recipient would have a tax liability of about $342,470, assuming no deductions, on the $975,000.
About 35%.

So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.


----------



## elektra

Wind Industry posts strongest lies yet.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> *
> Highlighting your lies would make me a 10 or 12 string banjo, easily.
> 
> *The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible.*
> 
> Okay.
> 
> *If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit?*
> 
> Well, the corporation would have a tax liability of about $8200, on income of $25,000.
> Almost 33%.
> 
> The recipient would have a tax liability of about $342,470, assuming no deductions, on the $975,000.
> About 35%.
> 
> *So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*
Click to expand...


The rules of the trust end at the corporation. Under corporate rules, any legitimate expenditure of the corporation, which in this case is the distribution of a trust, is deductible at 100%.


----------



## OnePercenter

9aces said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think a republican passed this?  You might be surprised just how many fingerprints on things like this belong to people in both parties.
Click to expand...


Name one.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> *
> Highlighting your lies would make me a 10 or 12 string banjo, easily.
> 
> *The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible.*
> 
> Okay.
> 
> *If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit?*
> 
> Well, the corporation would have a tax liability of about $8200, on income of $25,000.
> Almost 33%.
> 
> The recipient would have a tax liability of about $342,470, assuming no deductions, on the $975,000.
> About 35%.
> 
> *So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules of the trust end at the corporation. Under corporate rules, any legitimate expenditure of the corporation, which in this case is the distribution of a trust, is deductible at 100%.
Click to expand...


Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.


----------



## 9aces

OnePercenter said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think a republican passed this?  You might be surprised just how many fingerprints on things like this belong to people in both parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Name one.
Click to expand...


One of these days you morons will figure out....I've always got the data.

Let's start with the Path Act, since you're referencing corporations and tax law changes pertaining to.

Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]* 01/16/2015
Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH] 02/03/2015
Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] 02/25/2015
Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL] 04/29/2015
Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 07/21/2015

There's your bill sponsors.  3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.  Does this seem like a republican bill to you?

Then there's the 2009 Stimulus Bill....oh wait, you didn't know there were some goodies buried in there?  For shame.

Sponsored by 10 democrats.

If you've been paying attention, and it appears you have not, you'd find that a substantial percentage of the bills passed over the last 50 years have had "tweaks" to the tax code worked in.  Who has run congress for most of those years?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> *
> Highlighting your lies would make me a 10 or 12 string banjo, easily.
> 
> *The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible.*
> 
> Okay.
> 
> *If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit?*
> 
> Well, the corporation would have a tax liability of about $8200, on income of $25,000.
> Almost 33%.
> 
> The recipient would have a tax liability of about $342,470, assuming no deductions, on the $975,000.
> About 35%.
> 
> *So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules of the trust end at the corporation. Under corporate rules, any legitimate expenditure of the corporation, which in this case is the distribution of a trust, is deductible at 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.
Click to expand...


*Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.*

Only if the distribution is cash. 

*So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*

-A trust is funded with $1M/yr. 
-The trust is funneled through a corporation. 
-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%). 
-15% of 50k = $7,500.00
-$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%
A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax or .008%
Why are all wealthy people corporations? <sarcasm>


----------



## OnePercenter

9aces said:


> One of these days you morons will figure out....I've always got the data.
> 
> Let's start with the Path Act, since you're referencing corporations and tax law changes pertaining to.
> 
> Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]* 01/16/2015
> Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH] 02/03/2015
> Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] 02/25/2015
> Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL] 04/29/2015
> Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 07/21/2015
> 
> There's your bill sponsors.  3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.  Does this seem like a republican bill to you?
> 
> Then there's the 2009 Stimulus Bill....oh wait, you didn't know there were some goodies buried in there?  For shame.
> 
> Sponsored by 10 democrats.
> 
> If you've been paying attention, and it appears you have not, you'd find that a substantial percentage of the bills passed over the last 50 years have had "tweaks" to the tax code worked in.  Who has run congress for most of those years?



The PATH act benefits workers and small business.

The 'tweaks' are actually called 11th hour additions. Deregulating derivatives was an 11th hour addition to a budget bill. It's one of Republicans favorite ways to pass legislation that can't pass on it's own. 

Give the President line item veto and you'll eliminate the 'tweaks.'


----------



## 9aces

OnePercenter said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of these days you morons will figure out....I've always got the data.
> 
> Let's start with the Path Act, since you're referencing corporations and tax law changes pertaining to.
> 
> Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]* 01/16/2015
> Sen. Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH] 02/03/2015
> Sen. Isakson, Johnny [R-GA] 02/25/2015
> Sen. Kirk, Mark Steven [R-IL] 04/29/2015
> Sen. Carper, Thomas R. [D-DE] 07/21/2015
> 
> There's your bill sponsors.  3 Republicans, 2 Democrats.  Does this seem like a republican bill to you?
> 
> Then there's the 2009 Stimulus Bill....oh wait, you didn't know there were some goodies buried in there?  For shame.
> 
> Sponsored by 10 democrats.
> 
> If you've been paying attention, and it appears you have not, you'd find that a substantial percentage of the bills passed over the last 50 years have had "tweaks" to the tax code worked in.  Who has run congress for most of those years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The PATH act benefits workers and small business.
> 
> The 'tweaks' are actually called 11th hour additions. Deregulating derivatives was an 11th hour addition to a budget bill. It's one of Republicans favorite ways to pass legislation that can't pass on it's own.
> 
> Give the President line item veto and you'll eliminate the 'tweaks.'
Click to expand...


I seem to remember a guy named Reagan asking for a line item veto....a Democratic congress thought that was a horrible idea.

You say it's a Republican way to pass legislation, when the proof stares you in the face BOTH parties fingerprints are all over it.  Completely ignoring other legislation that is completely Democratic sponsored.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Trusts do, trust corporations don't.*
> 
> You'll have to show me the tax schedule for trust corporations. I can't wait!
> 
> *Why do you think that ALL wealthy people are corporations?*
> 
> There are lots of reasons. Single digit taxes rates aren't one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> 
> AGAIN! Rules of trust extend to, but not beyond the corporation. At the corporation are corporate rules including 100% deductions which aren't available under normal trust rules. The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible. If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit? Thank You Republicans!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You're a one string banjo aren't ya?
> *
> Highlighting your lies would make me a 10 or 12 string banjo, easily.
> 
> *The corporations business is to distribute funds from the trust, thus making those funds 100% deductible.*
> 
> Okay.
> 
> *If the corporation distributes $975K of $1M, what would the tax be on the original $1M? Single digit?*
> 
> Well, the corporation would have a tax liability of about $8200, on income of $25,000.
> Almost 33%.
> 
> The recipient would have a tax liability of about $342,470, assuming no deductions, on the $975,000.
> About 35%.
> 
> *So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The rules of the trust end at the corporation. Under corporate rules, any legitimate expenditure of the corporation, which in this case is the distribution of a trust, is deductible at 100%.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.*
> 
> Only if the distribution is cash.
> 
> *So tell me again how your "corporate trust" gives you single digit tax rates.*
> 
> -A trust is funded with $1M/yr.
> -The trust is funneled through a corporation.
> -Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%).
> -15% of 50k = $7,500.00
> -$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%
> A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax or .008%
> Why are all wealthy people corporations? <sarcasm>
Click to expand...


Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.*

Only if the distribution is cash.
*
What else would it be?

*-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%). 
-15% of 50k = $7,500.00
-$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%*

That's 0.75%.
*
A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax*

No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.
The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.

Almost exactly 34%, total


----------



## OnePercenter

9aces said:


> I seem to remember a guy named Reagan asking for a line item veto....a Democratic congress thought that was a horrible idea.



If you are middle class and a Republican President asks for line item veto you'd better get worried. 



> You say it's a Republican way to pass legislation, when the proof stares you in the face BOTH parties fingerprints are all over it.  Completely ignoring other legislation that is completely Democratic sponsored.



Ask yourself this; When has a Republican politician authored or supported a bill that helped the middle class and small business WITHOUT giving a bigger boost to big corporations and the wealthy?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> *
> Only if the distribution is cash.
> *
> What else would it be?
> 
> *-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%).
> -15% of 50k = $7,500.00
> -$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%*
> 
> That's 0.75%.
> *
> A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.
> The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.
> 
> Almost exactly 34%, total



*What else would it be?*

Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.

*That's 0.75%*.

That's 0.0075%

*No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.*

No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.

*The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.*

The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00. 

Corporations ARE NOT over taxed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> *
> Only if the distribution is cash.
> *
> What else would it be?
> 
> *-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%).
> -15% of 50k = $7,500.00
> -$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%*
> 
> That's 0.75%.
> *
> A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.
> The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.
> 
> Almost exactly 34%, total
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What else would it be?*
> 
> Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
> 
> *That's 0.75%*.
> 
> That's 0.0075%
> 
> *No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
> 
> *The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.*
> 
> The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT over taxed.
Click to expand...


*Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
*
Valid expenses are deductible. So?

*That's 0.0075%
*
7500/1000000=.0075 or 0.75%. Moron.
*
No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
*
Yes. Because double taxing the $950,000 distribution would be stupid.

*The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.*

The recipient wasn't you? In that case, the corporate tax was $323,000
$330,500 total.

That's awful! A 33% tax rate.

A far cry from your single digit claim .


----------



## 9aces

OnePercenter said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to remember a guy named Reagan asking for a line item veto....a Democratic congress thought that was a horrible idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are middle class and a Republican President asks for line item veto you'd better get worried.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say it's a Republican way to pass legislation, when the proof stares you in the face BOTH parties fingerprints are all over it.  Completely ignoring other legislation that is completely Democratic sponsored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask yourself this; When has a Republican politician authored or supported a bill that helped the middle class and small business WITHOUT giving a bigger boost to big corporations and the wealthy?
Click to expand...


And you think a Democratic president is trustworthy?  Maybe Bernie as he's about as honest as it gets as a politician, even if he is bat shit crazy.  You put your trust in a politician, you're a fool.  Note I didn't differentiate between parties.

Why not do both?  Since the middle class and businesses pay for everything.  Hell who do you think most of the middle class work for?  You seem to fail to realize, for everyone that works in the private sector whether worker or owner it's not the government's money, it's THEIR money.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> *
> Only if the distribution is cash.
> *
> What else would it be?
> 
> *-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%).
> -15% of 50k = $7,500.00
> -$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%*
> 
> That's 0.75%.
> *
> A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.
> The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.
> 
> Almost exactly 34%, total
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What else would it be?*
> 
> Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
> 
> *That's 0.75%*.
> 
> That's 0.0075%
> 
> *No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
> 
> *The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.*
> 
> The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT over taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
> *
> Valid expenses are deductible. So?
> 
> *That's 0.0075%
> *
> 7500/1000000=.0075 or 0.75%. Moron.
> *
> No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
> *
> Yes. Because double taxing the $950,000 distribution would be stupid.
> 
> *The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.*
> 
> The recipient wasn't you? In that case, the corporate tax was $323,000
> $330,500 total.
> 
> That's awful! A 33% tax rate.
> 
> A far cry from your single digit claim .
Click to expand...


Why would you pay $330,500.00 on $50,000.00 taxable income?

The trust ends at the corporation. The corporations job is to distribute proceeds. The corporation defers 75% for investment (usually in perpetuity) 20% for management of investment, and 5% taxable income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And the distribution is taxable for the recipient.
> *
> Only if the distribution is cash.
> *
> What else would it be?
> 
> *-Through deferment or distribution you reduce the taxable income of the corporation to the magic $50k (15%).
> -15% of 50k = $7,500.00
> -$7,500.00 ÷ $1,000.000.00 = .008%*
> 
> That's 0.75%.
> *
> A corporation with total income of $1M payed $7500.00 in federal tax*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.
> The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.
> 
> Almost exactly 34%, total
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *What else would it be?*
> 
> Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
> 
> *That's 0.75%*.
> 
> That's 0.0075%
> 
> *No. They paid $7500 on income of $50k.*
> 
> No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
> 
> *The recipient paid $332,569.05 on income of $950,000.*
> 
> The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT over taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Free rent, free transportation, corporate credit card.
> *
> Valid expenses are deductible. So?
> 
> *That's 0.0075%
> *
> 7500/1000000=.0075 or 0.75%. Moron.
> *
> No. They paid $7500 on TAXABLE income of $50k.
> *
> Yes. Because double taxing the $950,000 distribution would be stupid.
> 
> *The recipient is the corporation which paid $7500.00 on total income of $1,000,000.00.*
> 
> The recipient wasn't you? In that case, the corporate tax was $323,000
> $330,500 total.
> 
> That's awful! A 33% tax rate.
> 
> A far cry from your single digit claim .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would you pay $330,500.00 on $50,000.00 taxable income?
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation. The corporations job is to distribute proceeds. The corporation defers 75% for investment (usually in perpetuity) 20% for management of investment, and 5% taxable income.
Click to expand...

*
Why would you pay $330,500.00 on $50,000.00 taxable income?
*
You wouldn't.
You'd pay $7500 on $50,000 and $323,000 on the other $950,000.

*The trust ends at the corporation
*
So what?

*The corporations job is to distribute proceeds.
*
Yes, its job is to distribute taxable proceeds.

*The corporation defers 75% for investment (usually in perpetuity) 20% for management of investment, and 5% taxable income.
*
Your imaginary numbers left nothing for distribution.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Why would you pay $330,500.00 on $50,000.00 taxable income?
> *
> You wouldn't.
> You'd pay $7500 on $50,000 and $323,000 on the other $950,000.
> 
> *The trust ends at the corporation
> *
> So what?
> 
> *The corporations job is to distribute proceeds.
> *
> Yes, its job is to distribute taxable proceeds.
> 
> *The corporation defers 75% for investment (usually in perpetuity) 20% for management of investment, and 5% taxable income.
> *
> Your imaginary numbers left nothing for distribution.



The corporation distributed $950k; 750k investment deferred in perpetuity, and 200k in deductions  for maintaining the investment. The corporation pays $7500.00 on $1M in earnings. Corporations are not over taxed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Why would you pay $330,500.00 on $50,000.00 taxable income?
> *
> You wouldn't.
> You'd pay $7500 on $50,000 and $323,000 on the other $950,000.
> 
> *The trust ends at the corporation
> *
> So what?
> 
> *The corporations job is to distribute proceeds.
> *
> Yes, its job is to distribute taxable proceeds.
> 
> *The corporation defers 75% for investment (usually in perpetuity) 20% for management of investment, and 5% taxable income.
> *
> Your imaginary numbers left nothing for distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The corporation distributed $950k; 750k investment deferred in perpetuity, and 200k in deductions  for maintaining the investment. The corporation pays $7500.00 on $1M in earnings. Corporations are not over taxed.
Click to expand...


*The corporation distributed $950k;
*
The recipient owes taxes on $950k.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.



How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
Click to expand...


You owe taxes on the trust distribution.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
Click to expand...


The trust ends at the corporation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation.
Click to expand...


Cool story. Distributions are taxable.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool story. Distributions are taxable.
Click to expand...


Distributions funneled through a corporation are deductible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The corporation distributed $950k;
> *
> The recipient owes taxes on $950k.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool story. Distributions are taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distributions funneled through a corporation are deductible.
Click to expand...


And the recipient owes taxes.

It's weird that you don't know this.
It's like you've been lying about the whole thing.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you owe taxes on deferred income and legal deductions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool story. Distributions are taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distributions funneled through a corporation are deductible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the recipient owes taxes.
> 
> It's weird that you don't know this.
> It's like you've been lying about the whole thing.
Click to expand...


The recipient is the corporation.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You owe taxes on the trust distribution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The trust ends at the corporation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cool story. Distributions are taxable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Distributions funneled through a corporation are deductible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the recipient owes taxes.
> 
> It's weird that you don't know this.
> It's like you've been lying about the whole thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The recipient is the corporation.
Click to expand...


That means the corporation owes taxes on $950,000.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> That means the corporation owes taxes on $950,000.



All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.

The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income. 

US corporations ARE NOT overtaxed.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> That means the corporation owes taxes on $950,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
> 
> The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
> 
> US corporations ARE NOT overtaxed.
Click to expand...


*All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
*
You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.


*The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
*
No, your imaginary trust PAID $7500 on $50,000 in income.
The corporation pays $323,000 on their $950,000 receipt.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
> *
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> 
> 
> *The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
> *
> No, your imaginary trust PAID $7500 on $50,000 in income.
> The corporation pays $323,000 on their $950,000 receipt.



*You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.*

Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.

Maintenance for the investment is $200k which is a legal deduction at 100%.

Taxable income of $1m is $50k.

Federal corporate tax on $50k is $7500.00.

On total income of $1M you pay $7500.00 in federal tax

I have six properties of separate trust/corporations I use this method of tax savings.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
> *
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> 
> 
> *The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
> *
> No, your imaginary trust PAID $7500 on $50,000 in income.
> The corporation pays $323,000 on their $950,000 receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.*
> 
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> 
> Maintenance for the investment is $200k which is a legal deduction at 100%.
> 
> Taxable income of $1m is $50k.
> 
> Federal corporate tax on $50k is $7500.00.
> 
> On total income of $1M you pay $7500.00 in federal tax
> 
> I have six properties of separate trust/corporations I use this method of tax savings.
Click to expand...


*Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
*
Sorry, buying an investment property isn't a write-off.

Any other lies you'd like to try out?


----------



## IsaacNewton

A whole thread where cons find a way for wind to be evil. 

George Orwell why did you have to be so right you frigin punk.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

IsaacNewton said:


> A whole thread where cons find a way for wind to be evil.
> 
> George Orwell why did you have to be so right you frigin punk.



Wind isn't evil, just a waste of money.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
> *
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> 
> 
> *The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
> *
> No, your imaginary trust PAID $7500 on $50,000 in income.
> The corporation pays $323,000 on their $950,000 receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.*
> 
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> 
> Maintenance for the investment is $200k which is a legal deduction at 100%.
> 
> Taxable income of $1m is $50k.
> 
> Federal corporate tax on $50k is $7500.00.
> 
> On total income of $1M you pay $7500.00 in federal tax
> 
> I have six properties of separate trust/corporations I use this method of tax savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Sorry, buying an investment property isn't a write-off.
> 
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?
Click to expand...


I never wrote that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *All legally deferred in perpetuity or deductible.
> *
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> 
> 
> *The corporation payed $7500.00 on $1M in income.
> *
> No, your imaginary trust PAID $7500 on $50,000 in income.
> The corporation pays $323,000 on their $950,000 receipt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.*
> 
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> 
> Maintenance for the investment is $200k which is a legal deduction at 100%.
> 
> Taxable income of $1m is $50k.
> 
> Federal corporate tax on $50k is $7500.00.
> 
> On total income of $1M you pay $7500.00 in federal tax
> 
> I have six properties of separate trust/corporations I use this method of tax savings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Sorry, buying an investment property isn't a write-off.
> 
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never wrote that.
Click to expand...


You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.*

Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
*
Purchasing a $750k property does not let you off the hook for taxes on your $750k of income.
Any other lies you'd like to try out?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> *
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Purchasing a $750k property does not let you off the hook for taxes on your $750k of income.
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?



I never wrote that either. Quit misquoting.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> *
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Purchasing a $750k property does not let you off the hook for taxes on your $750k of income.
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never wrote that either. Quit misquoting.
Click to expand...


After you pay $323,000 in taxes on your $950,000 distribution, why do you still claim a single digit tax rate?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> *
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Purchasing a $750k property does not let you off the hook for taxes on your $750k of income.
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never wrote that either. Quit misquoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you pay $323,000 in taxes on your $950,000 distribution, why do you still claim a single digit tax rate?
Click to expand...


ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to explain how your magic trust distribution to your magic corporation magically defers taxes on your $950,000.
> *
> Sure. Purchase a property (investment) for $750k which tax can be deferred in perpetuity.
> *
> Purchasing a $750k property does not let you off the hook for taxes on your $750k of income.
> Any other lies you'd like to try out?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never wrote that either. Quit misquoting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After you pay $323,000 in taxes on your $950,000 distribution, why do you still claim a single digit tax rate?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.
Click to expand...


In your example, your corporation paid 34%.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> In your example, your corporation paid 34%.



In my example the corporation paid $7500.00 federal tax on $1M income. 

ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> In your example, your corporation paid 34%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my example the corporation paid $7500.00 federal tax on $1M income.
> 
> ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.
Click to expand...


*In my example the corporation paid $7500.00 federal tax on $1M income.
*
No, you claimed your trust paid $7500.00 federal tax on $50K income.
Having trouble keeping your lies straight?

*ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.
*
I love your misunderstanding of income.
WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.


----------



## elektra

Why not just post a real tax return from a real corporation


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *In my example the corporation paid $7500.00 federal tax on $1M income.
> *
> No, you claimed your trust paid $7500.00 federal tax on $50K income.
> Having trouble keeping your lies straight?
> 
> *ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.
> *
> I love your misunderstanding of income.
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.



*No, you claimed your trust paid $7500.00 federal tax on $50K income.
Having trouble keeping your lies straight?*

I wrote 'taxable income.'

*I love your misunderstanding of income.*

I don't have a misunderstanding, I've shown you how corporations pay very little in federal income tax.
*
WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.*

Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> Why not just post a real tax return from a real corporation



We did. 

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *In my example the corporation paid $7500.00 federal tax on $1M income.
> *
> No, you claimed your trust paid $7500.00 federal tax on $50K income.
> Having trouble keeping your lies straight?
> 
> *ALL corporations PAY single digit federal tax based on total income.
> *
> I love your misunderstanding of income.
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *No, you claimed your trust paid $7500.00 federal tax on $50K income.
> Having trouble keeping your lies straight?*
> 
> I wrote 'taxable income.'
> 
> *I love your misunderstanding of income.*
> 
> I don't have a misunderstanding, I've shown you how corporations pay very little in federal income tax.
> *
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.*
> 
> Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
Click to expand...

*
I wrote 'taxable income.'*

Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.

WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.

*Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
*
Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
What was their income?


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> We did.
> 
> WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance


*Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
*
OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.

I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.

Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.


----------



## Old Rocks

Toddsterpatriot said:


> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread where cons find a way for wind to be evil.
> 
> George Orwell why did you have to be so right you frigin punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind isn't evil, just a waste of money.
Click to expand...

So you say. But the utilities in Texas and Oklahoma installing them by the hundreds seem to think otherwise. And, since they are investing their money, and you are only investing your non-existent credibility, I think that I will go with the utilities opinion.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IsaacNewton said:
> 
> 
> 
> A whole thread where cons find a way for wind to be evil.
> 
> George Orwell why did you have to be so right you frigin punk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wind isn't evil, just a waste of money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say. But the utilities in Texas and Oklahoma installing them by the hundreds seem to think otherwise. And, since they are investing their money, and you are only investing your non-existent credibility, I think that I will go with the utilities opinion.
Click to expand...


*But the utilities in Texas and Oklahoma installing them by the hundreds seem to think otherwise.
*
Tax subsidies and stupid regulations cause many uneconomic actions to take place.
Doesn't make the money loss any smaller, just shifts it around.


----------



## Old Rocks

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.

And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.

“Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.

“We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

*And this is old news. The present prices of both solar and wind are even lower.*


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Old Rocks said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0
> 
> In Texas, Austin Energy signed a deal this spring for 20 years of output from a solar farm at less than 5 cents a kilowatt-hour. In September, the Grand River Dam Authority in Oklahoma announced its approval of a new agreement to buy power from a new wind farm expected to be completed next year. Grand River estimated the deal would save its customers roughly $50 million from the project.
> 
> And, also in Oklahoma, American Electric Power ended up tripling the amount of wind power it had originally sought after seeing how low the bids came in last year.
> 
> “Wind was on sale — it was a Blue Light Special,” said Jay Godfrey, managing director of renewable energy for the company. He noted that Oklahoma, unlike many states, did not require utilities to buy power from renewable sources.
> 
> “We were doing it because it made sense for our ratepayers,” he said.
> 
> According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.
> 
> *And this is old news. The present prices of both solar and wind are even lower.*



As long as your ignore the tax subsidies and the time they generate no power, they're really, really profitable. LOL!


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?



Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> *Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
> *
> OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.
> 
> I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.
> 
> Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.



It's an SEC filing that reflects all aspects of the finances of a corporation INCLUDING taxes.

The propaganda is that corporations are over-taxed.


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
> *
> OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.
> 
> I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.
> 
> Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an SEC filing that reflects all aspects of the finances of a corporation INCLUDING taxes.
> 
> The propaganda is that corporations are over-taxed.
Click to expand...


You are not that smart, I asked why not post a tax return, you said you did and gave me a link, to what you now call a SEC filing? Which at best is a financial statement. Why did you claim you posted a tax return? Then say it was a SEC filing? When it  is neither? It is simple, OnePercenter has no idea what a tax return is, what a financial statement, or a SEC filing.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
Click to expand...


None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.

OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"

You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
> *
> OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.
> 
> I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.
> 
> Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an SEC filing that reflects all aspects of the finances of a corporation INCLUDING taxes.
> 
> The propaganda is that corporations are over-taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not that smart, I asked why not post a tax return, you said you did and gave me a link, to what you now call a SEC filing? Which at best is a financial statement. Why did you claim you posted a tax return? Then say it was a SEC filing? When it  is neither? It is simple, OnePercenter has no idea what a tax return is, what a financial statement, or a SEC filing.
Click to expand...


I've proven that corporations aren't over-taxed. Tell your handlers you've failed.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
Click to expand...


Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.

Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.

Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> 
> Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> 
> Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
Click to expand...


*Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
*
You'll have to show when anyone, corporation or individual can defer taxes on investment.
Hey, look at me, I just bought $100,000 worth of stock. Let me deduct that from my taxes.

It sounds even dumber when you say it out loud.

*Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
*
Well, your imaginary non-deductible $750,000 income property can certainly deduct management costs versus the income generated by that property. But since you just bought it and it hasn't earned any income yet, that doesn't help you with the $950,000 in taxable trust distributions.

*Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
*
That was their revenue. What was their income?


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
> *
> OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.
> 
> I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.
> 
> Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an SEC filing that reflects all aspects of the finances of a corporation INCLUDING taxes.
> 
> The propaganda is that corporations are over-taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not that smart, I asked why not post a tax return, you said you did and gave me a link, to what you now call a SEC filing? Which at best is a financial statement. Why did you claim you posted a tax return? Then say it was a SEC filing? When it  is neither? It is simple, OnePercenter has no idea what a tax return is, what a financial statement, or a SEC filing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that corporations aren't over-taxed. Tell your handlers you've failed.
Click to expand...

Of course you THINK that, you don't know what a tax return is.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> 
> Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> 
> Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> *
> You'll have to show when anyone, corporation or individual can defer taxes on investment.
> Hey, look at me, I just bought $100,000 worth of stock. Let me deduct that from my taxes.
> 
> It sounds even dumber when you say it out loud.
> 
> *Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> *
> Well, your imaginary non-deductible $750,000 income property can certainly deduct management costs versus the income generated by that property. But since you just bought it and it hasn't earned any income yet, that doesn't help you with the $950,000 in taxable trust distributions.
> 
> *Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> *
> That was their revenue. What was their income?
Click to expand...


A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?

Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing but called different because of accounting (deductions).


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elektra said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Tax return is what I stated, That is not a tax return.
> *
> OnePercenter, that is not a tax return, not in the least bit.
> 
> I take it that OnePercenter is smart, being that he/she is smart, than this is a matter that OnePercenter is hiding the truth that a tax return contains and hopes people are stupid enough to believe in the propaganda in which OnePercenter presents.
> 
> Or maybe OnePercenter does not work hence Onepercenter has no idea what a tax return, is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's an SEC filing that reflects all aspects of the finances of a corporation INCLUDING taxes.
> 
> The propaganda is that corporations are over-taxed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are not that smart, I asked why not post a tax return, you said you did and gave me a link, to what you now call a SEC filing? Which at best is a financial statement. Why did you claim you posted a tax return? Then say it was a SEC filing? When it  is neither? It is simple, OnePercenter has no idea what a tax return is, what a financial statement, or a SEC filing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that corporations aren't over-taxed. Tell your handlers you've failed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you THINK that, you don't know what a tax return is.
Click to expand...


I don't think that, I know that, and have proven it. 

Walmart paid less percentage of all taxes on their total income/revenue than you did on federal alone.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I wrote 'taxable income.'*
> 
> Yes, your trust had taxable income of $50,000 and paid taxes of $7500.
> The taxable $950,000 distribution gave you a tax bill of $323,000.
> 
> WalMart had revenue (sales) of $485.6 billion last year.
> You think that was their "total income". That's why so many of us laugh at your ignorance.
> 
> *Yes. Didn't Walmart collect that amount?
> *
> Yes, WalMart had revenue of $485.6 billion.
> What was their income?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> 
> Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> 
> Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> *
> You'll have to show when anyone, corporation or individual can defer taxes on investment.
> Hey, look at me, I just bought $100,000 worth of stock. Let me deduct that from my taxes.
> 
> It sounds even dumber when you say it out loud.
> 
> *Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> *
> Well, your imaginary non-deductible $750,000 income property can certainly deduct management costs versus the income generated by that property. But since you just bought it and it hasn't earned any income yet, that doesn't help you with the $950,000 in taxable trust distributions.
> 
> *Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> *
> That was their revenue. What was their income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
> 
> Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing but called different because of accounting (deductions).
Click to expand...


*A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
*
You stopped talking about the trust when you said the trust made a distribution.

Now if you want to talk about the trust again, feel free to explain the taxes a trust would pay on $1,000,000 of income.

*Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing
*
And that's why we laugh at you.


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> I don't think that, I know that, and have proven it.
> 
> Walmart paid less percentage of all taxes on their total income/revenue than you did on federal alone.


This is just a simple forum, you can believe what you want, but when you treat Google like a stack and cards and believe the one you pull off the deck is a trump card, that is just plain old idiocy. 

Either way I just thought you may of linked or seen a tax return to make your claim, and when you said you did and linked to something that in no way resembled a tax, I thought you might of simply made a mistake, but when you returned with something else and called it SEC filing, which was wrong. It was simple to see you have no idea what your talking about.

Seriously, do you know what a tax return is?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Through legal deductions I showed you how to reduce a tax bill of $350,000.00 to $7,500.00. You are welcome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> 
> Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> 
> Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> *
> You'll have to show when anyone, corporation or individual can defer taxes on investment.
> Hey, look at me, I just bought $100,000 worth of stock. Let me deduct that from my taxes.
> 
> It sounds even dumber when you say it out loud.
> 
> *Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> *
> Well, your imaginary non-deductible $750,000 income property can certainly deduct management costs versus the income generated by that property. But since you just bought it and it hasn't earned any income yet, that doesn't help you with the $950,000 in taxable trust distributions.
> 
> *Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> *
> That was their revenue. What was their income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
> 
> Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing but called different because of accounting (deductions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
> *
> You stopped talking about the trust when you said the trust made a distribution.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the trust again, feel free to explain the taxes a trust would pay on $1,000,000 of income.
> 
> *Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing
> *
> And that's why we laugh at you.
Click to expand...


*You stopped talking about the trust when you said the trust made a distribution.

Now if you want to talk about the trust again, feel free to explain the taxes a trust would pay on $1,000,000 of income.*

No. I wrote that the trust ends at the corporation. That means rules. Corporate rules take over. A trust corporation is in business to invest and distribute trust proceeds. Any and all costs are either deferred (investment) or deducted (cost of maintaining the investment).

Revenue and income are the same thing. The reason for two different names is how revenue deduction rules are different where you can deduct the cost of the revenue vs. income you can't. Wouldn't it be great if a worker could deduct the cost of their income; mileage to and from work, lunch, clothes, all at 100%!


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that, I know that, and have proven it.
> 
> Walmart paid less percentage of all taxes on their total income/revenue than you did on federal alone.
> 
> 
> 
> This is just a simple forum, you can believe what you want, but when you treat Google like a stack and cards and believe the one you pull off the deck is a trump card, that is just plain old idiocy.
> 
> Either way I just thought you may of linked or seen a tax return to make your claim, and when you said you did and linked to something that in no way resembled a tax, I thought you might of simply made a mistake, but when you returned with something else and called it SEC filing, which was wrong. It was simple to see you have no idea what your talking about.
> 
> Seriously, do you know what a tax return is?
Click to expand...


So you're saying that SEC filings don't reflect all tax obligations and benefits? 

I believe that SEC filings are more exact than tax returns. If you screw up on a tax return, you owe penalties and interest. If you screw up on an SEC filing, and it's found deliberate, you pierce the corporate veil making shareholders and directors personally responsible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of the things you posted would drop your tax bill by one cent.
> 
> OP" My income is $950,000, I bought an investment property for $750,000"
> IRS "Thanks for the info, your tax bill is $323,000"
> 
> You never explained what you think WalMart's income was last year. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> 
> Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> 
> Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Corporations can't defer taxes on investment? Prove it.
> *
> You'll have to show when anyone, corporation or individual can defer taxes on investment.
> Hey, look at me, I just bought $100,000 worth of stock. Let me deduct that from my taxes.
> 
> It sounds even dumber when you say it out loud.
> 
> *Corporations can't deduct management costs? Prove it.
> *
> Well, your imaginary non-deductible $750,000 income property can certainly deduct management costs versus the income generated by that property. But since you just bought it and it hasn't earned any income yet, that doesn't help you with the $950,000 in taxable trust distributions.
> 
> *Walmart's income/revenue for 2015 was $485.6B
> *
> That was their revenue. What was their income?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
> 
> Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing but called different because of accounting (deductions).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *A trust corporation who's job it is to manage a trust can't defer taxes on monies used to advance gains?
> *
> You stopped talking about the trust when you said the trust made a distribution.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the trust again, feel free to explain the taxes a trust would pay on $1,000,000 of income.
> 
> *Total revenue and total income is exactly the same thing
> *
> And that's why we laugh at you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You stopped talking about the trust when you said the trust made a distribution.
> 
> Now if you want to talk about the trust again, feel free to explain the taxes a trust would pay on $1,000,000 of income.*
> 
> No. I wrote that the trust ends at the corporation. That means rules. Corporate rules take over. A trust corporation is in business to invest and distribute trust proceeds. Any and all costs are either deferred (investment) or deducted (cost of maintaining the investment).
> 
> Revenue and income are the same thing. The reason for two different names is how revenue deduction rules are different where you can deduct the cost of the revenue vs. income you can't. Wouldn't it be great if a worker could deduct the cost of their income; mileage to and from work, lunch, clothes, all at 100%!
Click to expand...


*No. I wrote that the trust ends at the corporation. That means rules. Corporate rules take over.
*
You said the trust distributes to a corporation.
After the trust distributes $950,000 out of $1,000,000 in earnings, the trust pays 15% on $50,000 in income.

Now the $950,000 distribution, which the trust did not get taxed for, gets taxed at the corporate level.
That's where the $323,000 tax payment comes from.

*Revenue and income are the same thing. 
*
No.
*
The reason for two different names is how revenue deduction rules are different where you can deduct the cost of the revenue vs. income you can't.
*
Income is revenue after deducting expenses.

*Wouldn't it be great if a worker could deduct the cost of their income; mileage to and from work, lunch, clothes, all at 100%!*

If a worker is self-employed, some of those things are deductible.


----------



## waltky

Is prob'ly from all the windbags...

... runnin' fer Prez'dent.


----------



## elektra

OnePercenter said:


> So you're saying that SEC filings don't reflect all tax obligations and benefits?
> 
> I believe that SEC filings are more exact than tax returns. If you screw up on a tax return, you owe penalties and interest. If you screw up on an SEC filing, and it's found deliberate, you pierce the corporate veil making shareholders and directors personally responsible.



You ain't posted a SEC filing, that is what I pointed out.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

elektra said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that SEC filings don't reflect all tax obligations and benefits?
> 
> I believe that SEC filings are more exact than tax returns. If you screw up on a tax return, you owe penalties and interest. If you screw up on an SEC filing, and it's found deliberate, you pierce the corporate veil making shareholders and directors personally responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ain't posted a SEC filing, that is what I pointed out.
Click to expand...


He thinks revenue and income are the same thing. SEC filings and tax returns are way beyond his level of comprehension.


----------



## OnePercenter

elektra said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're saying that SEC filings don't reflect all tax obligations and benefits?
> 
> I believe that SEC filings are more exact than tax returns. If you screw up on a tax return, you owe penalties and interest. If you screw up on an SEC filing, and it's found deliberate, you pierce the corporate veil making shareholders and directors personally responsible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ain't posted a SEC filing, that is what I pointed out.
Click to expand...


Where did Yahoo compile the numbers? 

WMT Income Statement | Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Common St Stock - Yahoo! Finance


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He thinks revenue and income are the same thing. SEC filings and tax returns are way beyond his level of comprehension.



Revenue and income ARE the same. The only difference is that revenue has more and greater deductions.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks revenue and income are the same thing. SEC filings and tax returns are way beyond his level of comprehension.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Revenue and income ARE the same. The only difference is that revenue has more and greater deductions.
Click to expand...

*
Revenue and income ARE the same.*

Nope revenue is sales.
Income is profit after all expenses have been subtracted.

If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, only a moron, that'd be you, would claim my income was $11,000. Only a moron, you again, would claim my income tax paid divided by my $11,000 revenue number, was proof that corporations were not overtaxed.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Revenue and income ARE the same.*
> 
> Nope revenue is sales.
> Income is profit after all expenses have been subtracted.
> 
> If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, only a moron, that'd be you, would claim my income was $11,000. Only a moron, you again, would claim my income tax paid divided by my $11,000 revenue number, was proof that corporations were not overtaxed.



If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.

In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.

Corporations ARE NOT OVER-TAXED!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue and income ARE the same.*
> 
> Nope revenue is sales.
> Income is profit after all expenses have been subtracted.
> 
> If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, only a moron, that'd be you, would claim my income was $11,000. Only a moron, you again, would claim my income tax paid divided by my $11,000 revenue number, was proof that corporations were not overtaxed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> 
> In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT OVER-TAXED!
Click to expand...


*If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
*
The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.

*In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
*
What was the income number?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue and income ARE the same.*
> 
> Nope revenue is sales.
> Income is profit after all expenses have been subtracted.
> 
> If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, only a moron, that'd be you, would claim my income was $11,000. Only a moron, you again, would claim my income tax paid divided by my $11,000 revenue number, was proof that corporations were not overtaxed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> 
> In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT OVER-TAXED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?
Click to expand...


Funny how he's so rich but doesn't understand revenue, gross profit or net profit


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?



*The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.*

I never stated they did. I stated what was paid.

*What was the income number?*

It doesn't matter, it's what you actually pay.


----------



## OnePercenter

Skull Pilot said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Revenue and income ARE the same.*
> 
> Nope revenue is sales.
> Income is profit after all expenses have been subtracted.
> 
> If I buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, only a moron, that'd be you, would claim my income was $11,000. Only a moron, you again, would claim my income tax paid divided by my $11,000 revenue number, was proof that corporations were not overtaxed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> 
> In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> 
> Corporations ARE NOT OVER-TAXED!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how he's so rich but doesn't understand revenue, gross profit or net profit
Click to expand...


*Funny how he's so rich but doesn't understand revenue, gross profit or net profit*

What I do understand is what you actually pay. That's why I'm wealthy.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.*
> 
> I never stated they did. I stated what was paid.
> 
> *What was the income number?*
> 
> It doesn't matter, it's what you actually pay.
Click to expand...


The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.

*I never stated they did.
*
You implied.

*You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.*

What was the income number?

*It doesn't matter,*

Since the government charges tax on income, not revenue, of course it matters.

If you had $128 million in revenue and $128 million in expenses, $2.8 million is a very high tax rate.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.*
> 
> I never stated they did. I stated what was paid.
> 
> *What was the income number?*
> 
> It doesn't matter, it's what you actually pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *I never stated they did.
> *
> You implied.
> 
> *You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.*
> 
> What was the income number?
> 
> *It doesn't matter,*
> 
> Since the government charges tax on income, not revenue, of course it matters.
> 
> If you had $128 million in revenue and $128 million in expenses, $2.8 million is a very high tax rate.
Click to expand...


I thought Rabbi was the poster boy for ignorance. Truly I was wrong.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *If you buy $10,000 worth of goods and sell them for $11,000, you have income of $11,000 with a $10,000 deduction. You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.
> *
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *In 2015, the largest corporation I own made $128M in revenue and paid $2.8M in federal tax.
> *
> What was the income number?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.*
> 
> I never stated they did. I stated what was paid.
> 
> *What was the income number?*
> 
> It doesn't matter, it's what you actually pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The government doesn't charge income tax on revenue. Sorry.
> 
> *I never stated they did.
> *
> You implied.
> 
> *You'd pay $150.00 in federal tax on $11,000.*
> 
> What was the income number?
> 
> *It doesn't matter,*
> 
> Since the government charges tax on income, not revenue, of course it matters.
> 
> If you had $128 million in revenue and $128 million in expenses, $2.8 million is a very high tax rate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought Rabbi was the poster boy for ignorance. Truly I was wrong.
Click to expand...


Poster boy, heal thyself.


----------

