No thank you, Obama will help them.

[WillowTree]

See? I told you so.. nanna nanna boo boo..

 

[Newby]

The number kept changing as well, each time they talked about it.

Somewhat of an exageration there, Newby. Every time? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

I heard 4 different numbers from both Obama and Biden, I'm guessing you didn't watch any of the debates or campaign speeches either?

 

[Newby]

It applies to a business as well, and the thread wouldn't teach you anything one way or the other, it's comprised of people's opinions or their understanding of 'the facts'. How old are you? I'm guessing not very old.

It doesn't apply to business. It applies to personal income tax.

I'm amazed, especially after you pretended to defend the OP for lying about this and claiming she just made a mistake, that you yourself can lie so blatantly about the exact same thing.

You also suck at being a troll.

You're not very bright. I try my best to be civil and not to insult people while debating, but you are simply not well enough informed to be discussing this topic. You really should quit. She made a mistake with gross versus net income, not that a proprietorship (small business) netting in excess of $250,000 would be taxed at a higher rate, which is entirely accurate. Education is the key.

 

[Newby]

See? I told you so.. nanna nanna boo boo..

You are entirely correct, and I typically avoid such conversations but sometimes I can't help myself.

 

[cunclusion]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

 

[Ravi]

You're not very bright. I try my best to be civil and not to insult people while debating, but you are simply not well enough informed to be discussing this topic.

Maybe you should start over since you started out calling people fools, etc.

You really should quit. She made a mistake with gross versus net income, not that a proprietorship (small business) netting in excess of $250,000 would be taxed at a higher rate, which is entirely accurate. Education is the key.

That's a BIG mistake to make and gives a distorted view of reality. But you are free to keep pretending that it doesn't.

It applies to the personal income tax of the business owner. It does not apply to the business gross, which she was implying.

 

[Ravi]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

Sure. How about the selfishness of not giving money to charity because of Obama's policies? My grocery store is currently donating bags of groceries to help feed kids that live in an area hard hit by layoffs. Should I tell them to stuff it because of Obama's policies? Or how about the March of Dimes...should I tell them to tell those lazy, sick kids to get off their asses and find a job because of Obama's policies?

Is there anything on this earth more selfish than a Republican? Is there anything on this earth that cares less about others than a Republican?

I'm beginning to think not.

 

[DiveCon]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

actually, they will
so will yours

 

[WillowTree]

See? I told you so.. nanna nanna boo boo..

You are entirely correct, and I typically avoid such conversations but sometimes I can't help myself.

they will deny it even while it's kicking them in the azz, either deny it or explain it or condone it or justify it..

 

[WillowTree]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

Sure. How about the selfishness of not giving money to charity because of Obama's policies? My grocery store is currently donating bags of groceries to help feed kids that live in an area hard hit by layoffs. Should I tell them to stuff it because of Obama's policies? Or how about the March of Dimes...should I tell them to tell those lazy, sick kids to get off their asses and find a job because of Obama's policies?

Is there anything on this earth more selfish than a Republican? Is there anything on this earth that cares less about others than a Republican?

I'm beginning to think not.

Selfish Republicans gave up giving a shit what you thought a loooooooong time ago,, now go make the fat lady a sammich!

 

[DiveCon]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

Sure. How about the selfishness of not giving money to charity because of Obama's policies? My grocery store is currently donating bags of groceries to help feed kids that live in an area hard hit by layoffs. Should I tell them to stuff it because of Obama's policies? Or how about the March of Dimes...should I tell them to tell those lazy, sick kids to get off their asses and find a job because of Obama's policies?

Is there anything on this earth more selfish than a Republican? Is there anything on this earth that cares less about others than a Republican?

I'm beginning to think not.

yeah, republicans are selfish
thats why they donate more than democrat
you are not being generous when you are giving SOMEONE ELSES MONEY

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubic:

Show me one post where anyone claimed that a business should be taxed on gross receipts.

And again, the OP claims to be in a bracket that will have its taxes raised while bringing home welfare wages. That is not true, hasn't ever been true, and will never be true.

Sure... as soon as the Gunny receives your $1000 deposit, which will set a tangible value to the degree that you stating that your position rests upon NO LEFTIST EVERY HAVING CLAIMED THAT A BUSINESS SHOULD BE TAXED ON WHAT AMOUNTS TO GROSS SALES....

It will take some time to find a post in the sea of posts... and I'm not going to go through the trouble of finding it, when this issue will be over in 24 hours... especially considering that you'd just change the subject...

Now if you feel strongly that this point is ROCK SOLID, that you KNWO FOR A FACT that it's never happened... just paypal the Gunny the thousand bucks... and when he E-mails me that he's got it on deposit, I will happily go to work getting you numerous posts where Leftists have taken such a position... They're all over the place... dozens of boards, including this one.

Now I will give the Gunny $150 of the grand that I earn for humiliating you WHEN I provide those posts... IF I should NOT... then the gunny will refund you the Grand, I will pay him the $150 he would otherwise have retained and the 6% in fees which would PP will deduct (3% both ways...) which exposes me to the potential liability of roughly 20%... SO YOU'RE GIVING 5:1 odds...

That's a deal I can work with... 5:1 on a sure bet.

Now either pony up... or shut up.

It's your call sis.

Public, thanks for admitting to being too much of a coward to admit you are wrong.

ROFL...

Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted...

(Note to Board: This member makes an assertion which sets at risk absolutely ZERO. She then requires that her opposition compile evidence in support of that which she has rejected, from an endless sea of hundreds of thousands of posts, potentially requiring hours of research. Now how many of you have witnessed individuals making a given claim; you KNOW it happened, hammered the dumbass without mercy for it, and moved on? As was the situtation in this case, you've done this dozens of times, across numerous boards... but you didn't save the thread; and you can't just 'click a link' and return to it... so to find it, you'd have to go back through God only knows how many threads to find it... ; you'd have to wade through the endless texts... Well this is what we're looking at here. The member wants this simple point, and she wants it on absolutely NOTHING but her rejection... So I've CHALLENGED her to put some skin in the game... a concept that HER PRESIDENT HAS SUPPORTED... THAT HER PRESIDENT HAS ADVANCED AS BEING CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF HIS POLICY... Yet where SHE is asked to set HER OWN ASSERTION AGAINST A TANGIBLE VALUE OF RISK... SHE OPTS TO SIMPLY LET IT SLIDE...


And she claims victory in doing so.

The fact is she lost. She made an assertion, was asked to risk a tangible value, to prove her faith in that assertion and she summarily fled from the challenge.

The fact is DEMOCRATS ARE WORKING RIGHT NOW TO CUT THE DEDUCTIONS FROM COSTS, THE VERY DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE USED TO DETERMINE THE BUSINESS "NET" or "PROFIT" ... and this idiot wants to deny that.

Net is not a simple calculation wherein costs are simply subtracted from receipts, BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THOUSANDS OF COSTS ILLEGAL TO DEDUCT... and THIS IS THE POINT OF THE OP... The DEMOCRATS WANT TO LIMIT, TO THE MEANS THAT THEY ARE ABLE, THE MEANS OF THE BUSINESS TO DEDUCT COSTS FROM GROSS RECEIPTS. DEMOCRATS HAVE STATED THOUSANDS OF TIMES, IN THOUSANDS OF WAYS, THAT DEDUCTIONS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A BUSINESSES ATTEMPT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

Ravi wants to play the 'Centrist' as most Leftists do these days... "We understand the difference between Gross and net and only want to tax the business on the Net..." Then they inform you what you are NOT ALLOWED TO DEDUCT FROM YOUR GROSS, to establish your taxable NET... Substantially increasing YOUR TAX LIABILITY, substantially increasing your COST and substantially LOWERING YOUR AFTER TAX: NET INCOME

It's not complicated kids... all ya have to do is to reject the false premises which are always intrinsic in the position of every leftist; proving that premise false and delivering yet another humiliating defeat to yet another leftist position. And that is what we've done here...

What a coward you are, Pubic.

After claiming that hundreds of leftists in hundreds of posts have stated that business should not be allowed to deduct business expense you now cry that to find even one of these countless posts is harder than finding a needle in a haystack.

Ditto with coming up with one quote by Obama stating the same.

You may well be the most cowardly liar I've ever run across.

ROFL...

Your SECOND CONCESSION to my argument is duly noted and summarily accepted...

(Note to Board: This member COMES AGAIN TO MAKE THE SAME ASSERTION TO WHICH SHE JUST CONCEDED... Thus the same argument which stymied her last time should simply be restated, until such time that she ponies up sufficient skin to make the effort worthwhile... Let's recall that her assertion hopes to IMPLY refutation without ANY authority to do so... The member wants to PROJECT that no Leftist has argued that business should be taxed on it's net, DEMANDING THAT THOSE WHO TESTIFY TO PERSONAL EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS OF JUST SUCH HAPPENING... ARE NOT JUST WRONG, BUT TESTIFYING FLASELY, OVERTLY SEEKING TO DECEIVE THE BOARD...

My position is a simple one: The Opposition would subject the argument to the burden of extensive research to substantiate the claim, which I am prepared to do... I simply demand that IF the member is certain in her claim that no such position has been taken by the Left, that she risk substantial personal loss; loss well beyond that to which she subjects her opposition to in substantiating the claim... and the potential for profit should I

Yet she steadfastly refuses to pony up the risk capital, which has been required of her...

She refuses because she is NOT confident in her assertion; thus she knows FULL WELL that she is dead ass wrong and simply wants to settle on this pathetic ad populum farce.

Now she can acknowledge the Ideological Left's CHRONIC and CONTINUOUS EFFORT TO OUTLAW DEDUCTIONS FROM THE COSTS TO WHICH BUSINESS IS EXPOSED... AS THEY ARE DOING AS WE SPEAK or CONCEDE for the A THIRD TIME:

We will never accept her advancing this position at absolutely ZERO risk, which requires extensive effort to substantiate, in that the assertion is a GIVEN... On the par with the revisionist nonsense which has been continuously and vehemently rolled out that the Left never held or advanced any hatred of GW Bush... It's indisputable...

I've CHALLENGED this member to put some skin in the game... a concept that HER PRESIDENT HAS SUPPORTED... THAT HER PRESIDENT HAS ADVANCED AS BEING CRITICAL TO THE SUCCESS OF HIS POLICY... Yet where SHE is asked to set HER OWN ASSERTION AGAINST A TANGIBLE VALUE OF RISK... SHE OPTS TO SIMPLY LET IT SLIDE...


And she continuously wants to claim victory in doing so; claims which amount to default concessions each and every time she does it... Thus the simple fact is she has TWICE lost this debate. She made an assertion, was asked to risk a tangible value, to prove her faith in that assertion and she summarily fled from the challenge.

The fact is DEMOCRATS ARE WORKING RIGHT NOW TO CUT THE DEDUCTIONS FROM COSTS, THE VERY DEDECTIONS WHICH DETERMINE WHAT A BUSINESSES "NET" IS... and this idiot wants to deny that. Net is not a simple calculation wherein costs are subtracted from receipts, BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS HAVE MADE THOUSANDS OF COSTS ILLEGAL TO DEDUCT... and THIS IS THE POINT OF THE OP... The DEMOCRATS WANT TO LIMIT, TO THE MEANS THAT THEY ARE ABLE, THE MEANS OF THE BUSINESS TO DEDUCT COSTS FROM GROSS RECEIPTS. DEMOCRATS HAVE STATED THOUSANDS OF TIMES, IN THOUSANDS OF WAYS, THAT DEDUCTIONS ARE LITTLE MORE THAN A BUSINESSES ATTEMPT TO AVOID PAYING TAXES.

Ravi wants to play the 'Centrist' as most Leftists do these days... "We understand the difference between Gross and net and only want to tax the business on the Net..." Then they inform you what you are NOT ALLOWED TO DEDUCT FROM YOUR GROSS, to establish your taxable NET... Substantially increasing YOUR TAX LIABILITY, substantially increasing your COST and substantially LOWERING YOUR AFTER TAX: NET INCOME

It's not complicated kids... all ya have to do is to reject the false premises which are always intrinsic in the position of every leftist; proving that premise false and delivering yet another humiliating defeat to yet another leftist position. And that is what we've done here...

 

[Ravi]

Again, such a coward.

Normally someone that makes a claim can back it up instead of write thousand word essays on why they can't.

 

[manu1959]

Every single meal is a tax deduction.

I hope you get audited, you lousy cheat.

That's not cheating. Cheating is saying you only made x amount of money when you really made z amount.

you do know entertainment expenses are not 100% deductible and that which is not deductible is reported on your k-1 as income.....

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

That's right, New Balance as well...they headquarter right outside of Boston now, in Newton, Mass, I believe...

there were many more companies than what i mentioned, all up here... I think Dexter was here also at one time...

well, we still have Quoddy and LL Bean
but with the way the state is driving business away, we might not have them for much longer

Nonsense.

The great sucking sound you're hearing is the sound of Mainer's jobs going to low wage workers in Asia.

There isn't a bleedin' thing the STATE can do about it, either.

ROFLMNAO.. this cracks me up...

ANY JOB that goes to Asia, must go to Asia on a basis wherein it is EASIER TO EOMPLOY ASIANS THAN IT IS MAINERS or anyone else...

Thus something happened in Maine which made it, not just plausible, BUT PREFERRABLE to take the manufacturing plant to ASIA... You idiots look at the fact that the plant left... and deny your own responsibility in ADVOCATING POLICY WHICH MADE IT PREFERRABLE TO PICK UP AND LEAVE MAINE AND MOVE TO ASIA!

But that's what idiots DO! Now isn't it?

 

[Article 15]

*lunatic rant snipped*

It looks like someone never played sports as kid.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Their taxes will not be increased! There now we can talk about something else.

Sure. How about the selfishness of not giving money to charity because of Obama's policies? My grocery store is currently donating bags of groceries to help feed kids that live in an area hard hit by layoffs. Should I tell them to stuff it because of Obama's policies? Or how about the March of Dimes...should I tell them to tell those lazy, sick kids to get off their asses and find a job because of Obama's policies?

Is there anything on this earth more selfish than a Republican? Is there anything on this earth that cares less about others than a Republican?

I'm beginning to think not.

ROFLMNAO... OH GOD! Now that is precious...

The ENTIRE LEFTIST IDEOLOGY IS ROOTED IN THE UNDERMINING OF PRIVATE CHARITIES... Yet this imbecile wants to PRETEND that the left is all about supporting the private charity... Charity has a limit... it comes with accountability... SOCIAL ENTITLEMENTS DO NOT! PERIOD. The entire thesis, the whole of the left's preference of Social Entitlements over charity IS JUST THAT. 'PEOPLE DESERVE THESE THINGS! They shouldn't have to subject themselves to accepting CHARITY...'

This is the FULL SCOPE of the argument of "THE RIGHT TO HEALTHCARE!" A person shouldn't have to think that they're accepting "charity" just because they're asking for SOMEONE ELSE TO PAY FOR THEIR HEALTHCARE!

Ravi is a liar and a theif... as are ALL LEFTISTS. The entire scope of the ideological left is little more than organized theivery.

And the OP didn't mistake Gross for Net... she stated the her husband EARNED 250K... from his small business... Which if he grossed 250K he DID earn that money... and it is a certifiable FACT that he is putting LESS of that 250K in his families well being BECAUSE OF THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT HAVING MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR HIM TO DEDUCT THE FULLS COPE OF LIABILITY TO WHICH HE SUBJECTED HIMSELF FROM HIS GROSS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEFINING HIS PROFITS. Meaning that RAVI AND HER COMRADES HAVE DRIVEN UP THE COST, ARTIFICIALLY, THROUGH GOVERNMENT FIAT... OF OPERATING THAT BUSINESS AND IN DOING SO: HAVE TENKEN FOOD OFF OF THAT FAMILIES TABLE<<< SO THAT SOMEONE WHO DID NOT EARN THAT MONEY CAN PUT FOOD ON THEIR TABLE...

Meaning that Ravi and the left have MADE IT SO THAT CHARITY IS AN ENTITLEMENT... and they've DONE SO ON THE BACKS OF THE AUTHOR OF THE OP AND MILLIONS OF OTHERS WHO GET OUT THERE AND MAKE IT HAPPEN... even while they cry and complain about the JOBS WHICH "MAINERS" NOT LONGER ENJOY... Jobs which LEFT MAINE BECAUSE MAINERS FORCED BUSINESSES TO CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR CHARITIES!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

*lunatic rant snipped*

It looks like someone never played sports as kid.

Her concession is duly noted and accepted....

She lost, but that's what losers do... now isn't it kids?

 

[Ravi]

If he's spending close to $250,000 to turn a profit that is welfare wages...like she says...he's probably doing something wrong.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

See? I told you so.. nanna nanna boo boo..

You are entirely correct, and I typically avoid such conversations but sometimes I can't help myself.

they will deny it even while it's kicking them in the azz, either deny it or explain it or condone it or justify it..

ROFLMNAO... Exactly Willow...

All we're waiting on now is the "I worked harder than I ever HAVE to cut your taxes like I promised..." speech...

That's the speech which explains how everyone is going to have to take a bite of the leftist shit sandwich... meanig "YOUR TAXES ARE GOING UP!"

The OP can expect MASSIVE increases in the tax liability of her husband's little business... because the means to deduct costs to which he exposed himself in DOING BUSINESS will be rejected in the new Hussein Tax law... and it will be justified by claiming that "Business needs to do their fair share..."

It's theft... plain and simple and it's theft which will cost more Mainers their jobs... and encourage MORE Mainers to depend MORE ON THE CHARITY OF GOVERNMENT; which they'll try to make Mainers feel better about by renaming the charity an: ENTITLEMENT!