How is austerity doing in Europe

[bripat9643]

Wow. What a surprise. Another con posting personal insults and a lie. Perfect.
Problem is, there is austerity in europe. And no, there are NUMEROUS countries that have implemented it.
Here is the post, again, explaining why you are, technically speaking:
1. Full of shit.
2. Incapable of reading and the use of cognitive processes.

Yes, Europe really is in the throes of austerity

Just continuing to post conservative lies does not change reality. Except, of course, in your tiny little mind. Now, try actually considering something. Thought, you see, can be really useful.

Tax hikes are not "austerity." No conservative has every endorsed tax hikes or ever called it "austerity."

Your article is just left-wing propaganda. "Austerity," according to the way libturds like you use the term, means actual cuts in government spending. No European government has done such a thing.

'Austerity' To Blame? But Where's The Austerity? - Forbes

The official Keynesian story is that the PIIGS of Europe (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) have been devastated by cutbacks in public spending. Austerity has made things worse rather than better – clear proof that Keynesian stimulus is the answer. Keynesians claim the lack of stimulus (of course paid for by someone else) has spawned costly recessions which threaten to spread. In other words, watch out Germany and Scandinavia: If you don’t pony up, you’ll be next.

Erber finds fault with this Keynesian narrative. The official figures show that PIIGS governments embarked on massive spending sprees between 2000 and 2008. During this period, their combined general government expenditures rose from 775 billion Euros to 1.3 trillion – a 75 percent increase. Ireland had the largest percentage increase (130 percent), and Italy the smallest (40 percent). These spending binges gave public sector workers generous salaries and benefits, paid for bridges to nowhere, and financed a gold-plated transfer state. What the state gave has proven hard to take away as the riots in Southern Europe show.

Then in 2008, the financial crisis hit. No one wanted to lend to the insolvent PIIGS, and, according to the Keynesian narrative, the PIIGS were forced into extreme austerity by their miserly neighbors to the north. Instead of the stimulus they desperately needed, the PIIGS economies were wrecked by austerity.

Not so according to the official European statistics. Between the onset of the crisis in 2008 and 2011, PIIGS government spending increased by six percent from an already high plateau. Eurostat’s projections (which make the unlikely assumption that the PIIGS will honor the fiscal discipline promised their creditors) still show the PIIGS spending more in 2014 than at the end of their spending binge in 2008.

Uh, thanks for proving my point. You quote an opinion piece from Forbes, written by a far, far, far right wing nut case by the name of Paul Roderick Gregory.
So, you are unable to find a single impartial source that believes the nut case statement that austerity in europe does not exist. As I said. What a surprise.

Relative to your statement that tax increases "are not austerity":
Technically, you are again full of shit. Again.
The economic definition of austerity follows:
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.
Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it is difficult for you, but if you would simply take your head out of your ass and research just a little tiny bit, you would not need to look like such an idiot.

In the first place, "austerity" isn't an economic term. It's a propaganda term coined by pinkos to paint policies they oppose negatively. Pinkos have never called tax increases "austerity." Pinkos favor tax increases. The only thing they oppose is cuts in government spending. No pinko Democrat ever called a single tax increase ever proposed in Washington "austerity." Only when someone proposed actually cutting government spending did they call it "austerity."

 

[bripat9643]

Rshermr is STILL here pretending to know something about economics? Gotta hand it to the little guy...he's not very believable...but he is persistent.

Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it... - YouTube

And oldstyle, as usual, is incapable of arguing economics. He just makes personal attacks. That it the best poor oldstyle can do. Which is why he is so easy to ignore.

You claim "austerity" is an economic term but you accuse oldstyle of not knowing anything about economics?

 

[Rshermr]

Tax hikes are not "austerity." No conservative has every endorsed tax hikes or ever called it "austerity."

Your article is just left-wing propaganda. "Austerity," according to the way libturds like you use the term, means actual cuts in government spending. No European government has done such a thing.

'Austerity' To Blame? But Where's The Austerity? - Forbes

Uh, thanks for proving my point. You quote an opinion piece from Forbes, written by a far, far, far right wing nut case by the name of Paul Roderick Gregory.
So, you are unable to find a single impartial source that believes the nut case statement that austerity in europe does not exist. As I said. What a surprise.

Relative to your statement that tax increases "are not austerity":
Technically, you are again full of shit. Again.
The economic definition of austerity follows:
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.
Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it is difficult for you, but if you would simply take your head out of your ass and research just a little tiny bit, you would not need to look like such an idiot.

In the first place, "austerity" isn't an economic term. It's a propaganda term coined by pinkos to paint policies they oppose negatively. Pinkos have never called tax increases "austerity." Pinkos favor tax increases. The only thing they oppose is cuts in government spending. No pinko Democrat ever called a single tax increase ever proposed in Washington "austerity." Only when someone proposed actually cutting government spending did they call it "austerity."

Uh, economists would disagree. Lets see, I could believe you, or a large group of economists studying the effects of austerity.
Uh, I will take the economists. They understand economics. You, on the other hand, are an economic idiot.

 

[Oldstyle]

Uh, thanks for proving my point. You quote an opinion piece from Forbes, written by a far, far, far right wing nut case by the name of Paul Roderick Gregory.
So, you are unable to find a single impartial source that believes the nut case statement that austerity in europe does not exist. As I said. What a surprise.

Relative to your statement that tax increases "are not austerity":
Technically, you are again full of shit. Again.
The economic definition of austerity follows:
In economics, austerity describes policies used by governments to reduce budget deficits during adverse economic conditions. These policies may include spending cuts, tax increases, or a mixture of the two.
Austerity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know it is difficult for you, but if you would simply take your head out of your ass and research just a little tiny bit, you would not need to look like such an idiot.

In the first place, "austerity" isn't an economic term. It's a propaganda term coined by pinkos to paint policies they oppose negatively. Pinkos have never called tax increases "austerity." Pinkos favor tax increases. The only thing they oppose is cuts in government spending. No pinko Democrat ever called a single tax increase ever proposed in Washington "austerity." Only when someone proposed actually cutting government spending did they call it "austerity."

Uh, economists would disagree. Lets see, I could believe you, or a large group of economists studying the effects of austerity.
Uh, I will take the economists. They understand economics. You, on the other hand, are an economic idiot.

Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"? There is an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed. You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results

 

[Rshermr]

In the first place, "austerity" isn't an economic term. It's a propaganda term coined by pinkos to paint policies they oppose negatively. Pinkos have never called tax increases "austerity." Pinkos favor tax increases. The only thing they oppose is cuts in government spending. No pinko Democrat ever called a single tax increase ever proposed in Washington "austerity." Only when someone proposed actually cutting government spending did they call it "austerity."

Uh, economists would disagree. Lets see, I could believe you, or a large group of economists studying the effects of austerity.
Uh, I will take the economists. They understand economics. You, on the other hand, are an economic idiot.

Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"? There is an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed. You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Uh, economists would disagree. Lets see, I could believe you, or a large group of economists studying the effects of austerity.
Uh, I will take the economists. They understand economics. You, on the other hand, are an economic idiot.

Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"? There is an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed. You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

 

[Rshermr]

Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"? There is an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed. You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

Right. You lie too much, me boy. Perhaps you can show me, or an auditor, how revaluing your inventory based on the purchase of a single bottle of expensive liquor is legal. Dipshit. You call someone an idiot, but unable to tell anyone why changing the value of your cost of goods sold in such a way as to decrease profits is not illegal. Nice try, me boy. Bring that proof forward, will you, old accounting expert.
You do not get to change "accounting methods" at the drop of a hat, just to make your profits look better for your particular purpose. You have to work within the GAAP rules, me boy. And what you were refering to was NOT within GAAP rules. Far from it. If not, show me the ruling. By the way, you were not talking about accounting methods, but about inventory valuation. Not much room for creative valuation there. But then, you do lie a lot. Almost sounds good, until you are cornered. And as usual, all you have left at that point is bluster. Attacks. Funny. Watch the clown perform.
You are at least entertaining. Watching you turn yourself in knots over that little mistake has been fun to watch.

 

[itfitzme]

Coming from the economics major that didn't understand the meaning of "school of economics"? There is an "economic idiot" posting in this thread, Tommy...and he's looking you in the mirror every morning when you roll out of bed. You always have been...and you will continue to be...the George Costanza of this board.
george costanza architect video - AVG Yahoo! Search Results

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.

 

[Rshermr]

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.

I suspect it is just Oldstyle trying to sound important. He said he made his bosses happy by buyiing an expensive bottle of booze. The obvious thing was, he was able to help his restaurant reduce taxes by decreasing profits on paper, by increasing cogs as it was reported. Only a complete fool of an accountant would put his signature on that one. And only a fool would propose it. But, then, there is Oldstyle. Denying he ever said it. Trying to say it was a different accounting methodology. Apparently he spends his time with really stupid people.

 

[Oldstyle]

How does changing the valuation of inventory for internal cost controls have ANYTHING to do with taxes? You actually think that a decision to assign the value of the last item purchased to all items in inventory is some devious scheme to defraud the government?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkoPq5AOCOA]Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Oldstyle]

I thought that since you admitted to committing fraud by falsifying costs of goods sold at the restaurant for which you work that you were done. Funny.
And as I predicted, you would just continue to try personal attacks as soon as your economic "argument" died a death of ignorance, (which it did, of course). Back to ignore for you, me boy. You are a waste of time.

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

 

[itfitzme]

God, but you're an idiot! I didn't admit to committing fraud...I simply pointed out that different accounting methods lets you arrive at different numbers when you figure costs. Somehow that's news to you...which obviously means that you learned as much about accounting as you did about economics while you were "supposedly" in college. At this point it begs the question of what you DID learn while you were in college? You've already admitted to needing a secretary to proof what you write and that you were an economics major but that you don't remember much about what you took. I think you might have a strong case to sue said college for "failure to perform".

Run along, Tommy...the waste of time here is you with your rants about "Con dogma" and "personal attacks". The majority of what you post is liberal talking points and personal attacks. If all of that was deleted, you'd have little left.

Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

 

[Oldstyle]

Sure, if you are commiting fraud, tax evasion, or your name is Bernie Madoff, then I suppose it is "a matter of opinion".

How about you loan me $1000 and next week, I'll give you my opinion of how much I owe you.

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

With all due respect, Fitz? Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

 

[Oldstyle]

And as for knowing "bs" when you hear it? When someone tells you that they taught college level economics classes as an undergrad but don't have the faintest idea what a "school of economics" refers to...THAT person is shoveling some Grade A bull shit.

 

[Rshermr]

How does changing the valuation of inventory for internal cost controls have ANYTHING to do with taxes? You actually think that a decision to assign the value of the last item purchased to all items in inventory is some devious scheme to defraud the government?

Animal House - Fat, drunk and stupid - YouTube

No. But that is not what you were saying. Nice try. No integrity at all. No ability to support what you actually said. Just change the statement.
Perhaps a little math is in order. Try to understand what happens when you change the cost of all the goods sold over a period of time to a higher unit price. Which is what you were saying.
But then, you do lie a lot. Seems not to bother you at all.

 

[Rshermr]

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? Yeah, me neither! But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

With all due respect, Fitz? Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

Look at Oldstyle squirm trying to change what he said. Rather entertaining. But getting really boring. All the IRS wants is a consistent and honest accounting of what occurred. What you ACTUALLY paid would be the actual numbers they would want to see. Because, me boy, if you INCREASE the cost of inventory on paper, and report it that way in your financial statements which back up your tax documents, you have, in fact, decreased the profit that you are required to pay taxes on. Which is, of course, FRAUD. When your willingly provide wrongful numbers to the IRS in order to decrease your tax liability, you have, obviously, committed fraud. And, me boy, no amount of distortion of the facts will change that.
But then, even you know that. Which is why you are trying so diligently to restate what you said. And hell, lies or truth, all the same to you.

 

[Oldstyle]

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

With all due respect, Fitz? Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

Look at Oldstyle squirm trying to change what he said. Rather entertaining. But getting really boring. All the IRS wants is a consistent and honest accounting of what occurred. What you ACTUALLY paid would be the actual numbers they would want to see. Because, me boy, if you INCREASE the cost of inventory on paper, and report it that way in your financial statements which back up your tax documents, you have, in fact, decreased the profit that you are required to pay taxes on. Which is, of course, FRAUD. When your willingly provide wrongful numbers to the IRS in order to decrease your tax liability, you have, obviously, committed fraud. And, me boy, no amount of distortion of the facts will change that.
But then, even you know that. Which is why you are trying so diligently to restate what you said. And hell, lies or truth, all the same to you.

Which goes to show that you know as little about accounting practices as you do about economics.
What I'm talking about has zero to do with what is reported to the IRS as profit. It's done to simplify figuring costs. Rather than have to keep track of the cost of each single type of item which may have been purchased dozens of separate times, a decision is made to assign the value of the latest purchase to all inventory held. That isn't "FRAUD", you ignorant buffoon...it's a simple common sense accounting practice. It doesn't change what you paid for goods, hence it doesn't change your profits and the IRS could care less. Duh?

 

[Rshermr]

And Oldstyle, again on the attack, says:

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes?

And you lie again, Oldstyle. What I said was not that I taught economics classes, as you well know. I worked for an econ professor. It was his class, not mine. But then, you know that. You just keep on making that statement. Lying does not bother you in the least, me boy. You just keep on lying.
The problem you have, Oldstyle, is that I never, ever lie in my posts. That is your purview.

 

[itfitzme]

Your first mistake is taking ANYTHING that "Tommy" says at face value, Fitz. *He's told so many lies at this point he can't keep any of them straight. *Remember all the undergrads that taught your college classes? *Yeah, me neither! *But amazingly...Rshermr taught economics while an undergrad at HIS college! *That should tell you everything you need to know about the George Costanza of the US Message Board.

I really couldn't care less who taught what where, or who graduated with what degree. *I know enough to know the difference between a well supported idea and bs. *All I'm interested in are well supported ideas, because, unfortunately, my grad work got screwded when the economy tanked. *I at least got far enough to know bullshit when I read it.

And accounting has two different methods, but you pick or the other. *And when it comes to the IRS, they don't care what your "opinion" is. *If they audit you, and you can't prove, they will tell you what your "opinion" is, as they slap you with a fine.

With all due respect, Fitz? *Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? *How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? *They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! *I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

Gee wiz, I just can't imagine why the IRS would expect a company to report the actual revenue instead of a fabricated number.

You're so right. *I was just reading the IRS tax form and it says, "In your opinion how much earnings do you believe you made last year?"

Doh!!

 

[Rshermr]

With all due respect, Fitz? Why would the IRS give a rat's ass about whether a company used the price of the last item purchased to set a value for all items of the same kind in inventory...or the used the price for which each individually bought for? How does THAT alter the tax that you pay as long as you're consistent in how you apply value? They aren't going to audit you for doing that...and they certainly aren't going to fine you for it! I take it that your graduate studies didn't include any accounting?

Look at Oldstyle squirm trying to change what he said. Rather entertaining. But getting really boring. All the IRS wants is a consistent and honest accounting of what occurred. What you ACTUALLY paid would be the actual numbers they would want to see. Because, me boy, if you INCREASE the cost of inventory on paper, and report it that way in your financial statements which back up your tax documents, you have, in fact, decreased the profit that you are required to pay taxes on. Which is, of course, FRAUD. When your willingly provide wrongful numbers to the IRS in order to decrease your tax liability, you have, obviously, committed fraud. And, me boy, no amount of distortion of the facts will change that.
But then, even you know that. Which is why you are trying so diligently to restate what you said. And hell, lies or truth, all the same to you.

Which goes to show that you know as little about accounting practices as you do about economics.
What I'm talking about has zero to do with what is reported to the IRS as profit. It's done to simplify figuring costs. Rather than have to keep track of the cost of each single type of item which may have been purchased dozens of separate times, a decision is made to assign the value of the latest purchase to all inventory held. That isn't "FRAUD", you ignorant buffoon...it's a simple common sense accounting practice. It doesn't change what you paid for goods, hence it doesn't change your profits and the IRS could care less. Duh?

And he keeps on twisting and turning. You can not change the value of the product you sell. That has to do with the cost of goods sold. Which has to do with the profits you show in your accounting statements. You know, me boy, income statements, source and application of funds, and balance sheets. Which you are now trying to say were done for only internal reasons. But, problem is, you are not allowed to under report, or over report for that matter, your income. Nice try.
Funny thing is, you actually accuse others of not understanding accounting. But it is funny, at any rate, to see you trying to explain what you said.
Apparently you think that the IRS and SEC just want you to produce statements that say whatever you would like them to say. You are a riot, me boy.
A true ignorant, but rather funny, riot. Those 10Q's are just for the fun of it, in Oldstyle's opinion.