If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1831
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
On 5/3/2011 9:44 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 5:46 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill wrote: Whisky-dave wrote: On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill wrote: Walter Banks wrote: Bill Graham wrote: So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break for taking on more employees? Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the United States. More employees are hired most frequently in response to an emerging market. Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes. w.. Most republicans would disagree with you. I disagree with you. Obama should give a tax break as an incentive to small businesses who hire more employees. A big enough break so that they can realize a profit by hiureing someone else. This would directly affect the unemployment rate. Instead he took $4000 of my tax money and gave it to that bum down the block to buy himself a new car with. You liberals are crazy....Stark raving mad! Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money is likely that money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it. if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ more burger flippers, surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up. Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040. We can see how knowledgeable you are, Bill. The form 1040 is for individuals, not corporations. The vast majority of small to medium-sized businesses are run through a flow-through entity such as: partnership; LLC; subchapter S corporation. Unless certain elections are made all tax attributes are taxed at the individual level. Thus Bill is correct in saying that a change could be made to form 1040 to implement his proposal. However, as I said earlier it is not the IRS who makes the change. The form 1040 is one of the best things the government has. It has taken over 80 yhears to perfect, by thousands of tax cdourts and their decisions. That's why I laugh when people want to replace it with a National sales tax system.. What a boon to the tax lawyers that would be! They can redo all that courtroom work for another 80 years! And, in the mneantime, the super rich, like Bill Gates and Opera Winfrey (and those of their ilk) would make out like bandits. If they were only taxed on what they spend, they would take over the world in about 5 years.....:^) Your statement has absolutely nothing to do with the original point. On one hand you say you like our system of taxation, while on the other hand you would somehow like to see it used as an instrument of economic policy. To my memory there were only two people who understood how to properly use the tax system as an instrument of economic policy. One was Wilbur Mills and the other was Rostenkowski, who ran a very far second two Wilbur Mills. Nobody else has ever come close. Your constant whining about money being taken out of your pocket is on a par with Rich Anderson's whining about nonexistent problems. For that reason my preference will be not to respond unless you get even more outrageous. Trust me, I could argue either side of the issue far more effectively than you would ever think. I do not choose to. I am more interested in learning and perfecting my photography. -- Peter |
#1832
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:40 PM, Bill Graham wrote: John A. wrote: On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:11:12 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: John A. wrote: On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:45:53 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: J. Clarke wrote: In article 2011043018143177923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, says... On 2011-04-30 17:27:40 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: Le Snip I once called my automobile insurance company and said, "Look. The most dangerous car on the road is a Corvette Sting Ray. (this was in 1963) Imagine that I am always driving one of these, and charge me for my liability policy accordingly. Then whenever I am driving any other car, you will be making money." And, of course, they said, "I'm sorry sir, but we can't do that." I think you might find the car you are referring to is the "Corvair" not the "Corvette." You have your old pal Ralph Nader to thank for that. Do you remember a little essay of his titled, "Unsafe at Any Speed"? Don't be too sure. Insurance companies aren't stupid and do have a large body of data to work from--they'd base their rates on the statistics, not on Ralp Nadir's uninformed opinion. Dunno why a 'vette would be exceptionally dangerous--even then they had good suspension and good brakes (by US standards anyway)--but they could go very fast and some owners tended to do so with regularity. Yes. They weren't dangerous. It was the drivers who were dangerous. That's why liability insurance should be written on drivers and not cars. Actuaries aren't stupid. They take all the information about a driver they can, and correlate it with average payouts for drivers who fit a particular driver's profile. One such piece of information is a person's driving record. Another is the kind of car they drive. But it doesn't take much more than common sense to figure that even if someone with a stellar driving record suddenly goes out and buys a corvette, there's a fair shot his driving habits might be about to change. I never said that everyone's liability premium had to be the same. Those with poor driving records would naturally have to pay more for their liability insurance. This is the case now, and there is no reason to change it. I am just suggesting that the liability insurance be written on the driver, and not the vehicle. Drivers cause accidents, not cars. (People kill people, not the guns.) Cars aren't all alike either. Some are more expensive to repair. Some will tend to do more damage to the other car in any given accident. Some give better or worse visibility. Some tend to be driven by people who live around people with more-expensive-to-repair cars. Gee. You sond just like that lobbiest many years ago who convinced some congressional committee to let (mandate) the insurance companies write liability policies on cars instead of people. Sorry. I don't buy it. It makes billions of dollars for the insurance companies every year. From all us poor slobs who have more cars than drivers in their families. Just another thing I bitch about that falls on deaf liberal ears........ Your knowledge of insurance company regulations is underwhelming. Insurance company existence, reserves, rate making and underwriting practices are set only by the states. I have no idea what this "lobbyist" was lobbying for, I suspect you don't either, but it certainly would have absolutely nothing to do with the subject you are ranting about. For you to call insurance company executives liberals is almost laughable. Indeed, if you bother to look through the forms filed on behalf of of publicly held insurance companies you will find that the vast majority of the upper echelon management is Irish. If it is the status quo, then you are going to defend it. For the life of me I don't understand why they call people like me, "conservatives" and people like you, "progressives". It is just the other way around. You are a schill for the government. anything it does and any law that is on the books has to be the word of God in your book. government can do no wrong. Insurance companies have been cheating me on their liability policies all of my driving life. I know it, and you are far to ignorant of my situation and experience to be able to convince me otherwise. My brother-in-law used to call his insurance company every morning and tell the secretary there which car to switch his liability policy to for that day. Do you think he did this because the insurance company had a realistic and fair billing practice? Of course not. and he was a brilliant engineer who owned his own firm in the Bay Area for many years. I think I am very tired of this discussion. I have better things to do than argue with idiots. Right now, I am trying to find out why the Social Security administration cheats every geezer out of a paycheck I have written several letters about this and I get no answer. It nets SS about 2.5 Billion dollars a year. But it takes time for me to do things like this, so I will have to bow out of this group for a while. You guys can go back to photography. I am sorry I disturbed you. |
#1833
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
On 5/3/2011 9:49 PM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 03 May 2011 20:26:28 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 7:56 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 03 May 2011 19:42:16 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 5:46 PM, tony cooper wrote: On Tue, 3 May 2011 12:11:28 -0700, "Bill wrote: Whisky-dave wrote: On May 3, 6:07 am, "Bill wrote: Walter Banks wrote: Bill Graham wrote: So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break for taking on more employees? Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the United States. More employees are hired most frequently in response to an emerging market. Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes. w.. Most republicans would disagree with you. I disagree with you. Obama should give a tax break as an incentive to small businesses who hire more employees. A big enough break so that they can realize a profit by hiureing someone else. This would directly affect the unemployment rate. Instead he took $4000 of my tax money and gave it to that bum down the block to buy himself a new car with. You liberals are crazy....Stark raving mad! Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money is likely that money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it. if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ more burger flippers, surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up. Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040. We can see how knowledgeable you are, Bill. The form 1040 is for individuals, not corporations. The vast majority of small to medium-sized businesses are run through a flow-through entity such as: partnership; LLC; subchapter S corporation. Unless certain elections are made all tax attributes are taxed at the individual level. Thus Bill is correct in saying that a change could be made to form 1040 to implement his proposal. However, as I said earlier it is not the IRS who makes the change. In these cases, the change would be made on Schedule C, then, wouldn't it? Not the 1040. Schedule C is a part of form 1040. Only a business that operates as either a sole proprietorship or a single member LLC would have its profits and losses reported on schedule C. The results of operations for the other flow-through entities would be reported on schedule E. Any special tax characteristics would not be listed on either schedules C or E, but would be reported somewhere else on form 1040, depending upon the nature of the characteristic. For example: premiums paid for self employed health insurance are reported on page 1 as an adjustment to gross income and on schedule SE as a reduction of self-employment income. For further information consult your own individual tax advisor. I always had one of those. I don't think anybody ever had justifiable grounds for calling you stupid. :-) -- Peter |
#1834
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:54 PM, Bill Graham wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 1:35 AM, Bill Graham wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote: On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill wrote: snip Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not flowing. So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break for taking on more employees? IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in the form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of the money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving money, and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it away. IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing his money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from blaming our current President. I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it. Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did. Yup! No Democrat authorized the killing of Bin Laden. That's not true. Both Democrats and Republicans have "authorized" his killing since 9-11-01. Your ability to recognize sarcasm is simply one more of your underwhelming characteristics. Do you prefer the above statement to "woosh?" If your sarcasm complimented some valid point or counterpoint, I would recognize it and accept it, but when it makes a lame attempt to substitute for that, or for an apology, then I am not interested. |
#1836
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:59 PM, Bill Graham wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 1:57 AM, Bill Graham wrote: Savageduck wrote: On 2011-05-02 22:21:31 -0700, "Bill Graham" said: snip Yes. about half of us are wimps today. (all the Democrats) Don't bet on that. Well, at least a significant number of republicans keep guns and ammo in their homes...... The truth comes out at last. Owning a gun sure makes you feel like a man. Is your gun a substitute for your penis? And where did you get, "the truth at last" from that? Where did that absurd conclusion come from? Did I hit a sensitive nerve? Only because I am incensed by your gross stupidity, and refusal to understand a simple point and address it meaningfully. You are just wasting my time, so I should go elsewhere and do other, more useful things...... |
#1837
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
PeterN wrote:
On 5/3/2011 8:56 PM, Bill Graham wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 1:40 AM, Bill Graham wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/1/2011 11:01 PM, Walter Banks wrote: Bill Graham wrote: So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break for taking on more employees? Tax rates are not the deterring factor for small business to hire more employees. I have owned businesses in both Canada and the United States. More employees are hired most frequently in response to an emerging market. Most small business would like to earn enough to pay taxes. I used to represent many small - medium businesses. (Between four and twenty million gross.) I cannot recall any instance where a machinery purchase was made because of a tax credit. The credit might affect the timing of the purchase, but not whether to purchase. Well, I am suggesting that a large enough tax credit for hireing another employee might be the ticket to making a significant reduction in the unemployment rate. Certainly this would be a better way to spend my tax dollars than buying a new car for that bum down the block...... You mean the government paying a business to hire an employee to do nothing? Something like paying a "farmer" not to grow corn? No. But an incentive might be not having to pay his FICA, or deductions for the first couple of years. or something like that.... No accounting or fees, is a pretty good incentive..... let me put this in terms that I think even you will understand. You need to people to do your landscaping so you hire them at the going rate. The government will give you an incentive to hire more people. Three quarters of their salary will be paid by the government if you hire five more people than you really need. This three quarters of their salary will only be paid for the five additional people. You have now been given a good incentive to hire. Would you do that? I might consider buying that pick-up truck I saw the other day, and putting another crew to work, yes. If the market was there, or I suspected the market might be there. There are lots of ways that some businesses might use more employees, and some businesses could not use any more employees at all. But if the incentive is there, a lot more people would be put to work. After all we are talking about a nation of 300 million people. |
#1838
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 18:36:53 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/3/2011 3:11 PM, Bill Graham wrote: Whisky-dave wrote: Would that really work though, surely giving a company more money is likely that money would end up in the pockets of those in charge of it. if you cut the taxes to a burger chain would they really employ more burger flippers, surely you'd only employ more staff if demand went up. Not if you linked the tax break to the new employees. the IRS caqn do that easily. Just put it in their form 1040. "If you hired a new employee between such and such a date and such and such a date, then subtrack 10% of the amount on line such and such and add it to line such and such" This kind of thing is typical of the form 1040, and new instructions like this appear every year. You obviously have no idea how the IRS works. The forms are designed to conform to the Revenue Code, which BTW, is enacted by congress. Not any other entity. The IRS, after publication, notice to the public and hearings then promulgates regulations that interpret the Code. No! Billy boy, the IRS does not just put arbitrary boxes on forms. Indeed about six years ago they made an error in the design of a form (6251.) It was a real mess to straighten out. Of course its "e3nacted by congress". This is the same congress that authorizes Obama and company to spend trillions and bring us deeply into debt, is it not? What does that have to do with giving some incentive to businesses to hire more people? It is a uniquely liberal idea. Why are you against it? I can't even take credit for it. It is not my idea. I think you guys are just government schills. anything the government does, (or at least the democrats do) is A#1 in your book. No matter how stupid it is. I don't know the work history of the other people in this newsgroup, but I have been a business owner since the 70s (until I sold the business and retired a few years ago). While I later owned a couple of smaller businesses, the company I owned for the most time grew from two to over 40 employees. I would have never hired an employee based on any form of tax rebate or tax incentive. I won't begin to explain why since you just do not have the mental capacity understand. You know so little about it that it would a book to explain it, and you wouldn't be receptive to anything you don't already have an entrenched opinion about. What you propose is almost like featherbedding with the government being the union and the government subsidizing the extra employee. No point = no reply. |
#1839
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 17:43:14 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: John A. wrote: On Mon, 2 May 2011 22:35:52 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: PeterN wrote: On 5/1/2011 11:25 PM, John A. wrote: On Sun, 1 May 2011 18:49:21 -0700, "Bill wrote: snip Exactly. The money's there, for the most part. It's just not flowing. So the government needs to give small businesses some incentive to spend more on capital and start hireing again. Maybe a tax break for taking on more employees? IIRC they did something like that. On the other side of the getting-things-moving coin, most of the stimulus costs were in the form of a tax credit for everyone. The idea was that most of the money would go to people who couldn't afford to be saving money, and so were more likely to spend it rather than sock it away. IIRC in a prior rant our Billy called it something like stealing his money and giving it away. Even when the Stimulus funds went to certain banks, auto companies and financial service firms. That some of this started under Pres. Bush has not stopped Billy from blaming our current President. I am against giving my money to anyone, regardless of who does it. Bush was a half liberal, Obama is a 3/4 liberal. both of them are adept at spending other peoples money. Its just that Obama (and company) spends it like three times as fast as Bush did. And yet according to your other post you think businesses should be given tax breaks, for hiring new employees, in excess of the payroll costs for those new employees. It would be cheaper just to have the government hire more people. Well, that certainly is the Socialist answer: "let the government do it". But you want the government to pay for the people through tax incentives. That's letting the government do it. Yes, but my point is that even when you liberals do it, you do it wrong....:^) |
#1840
|
|||
|
|||
Sometimes stupid loses
tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 3 May 2011 17:48:24 -0700, "Bill Graham" wrote: Only the union members get their dues deducted. Not so in California in the 70's. I had dues deducted from my paycheck for a while, and I was not a union member. They conveniently seperated membership from paying dues...... But you got the same benefits as the union workers, didn't you? I got the, "benefit" of seeing my fellow workers of lesser ability make as much as I did for a while. (Until I was promoted out of the union.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | William Graham | In The Darkroom | 15 | November 12th 04 03:25 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | Ken Davey | Digital Photography | 11 | November 12th 04 03:25 AM |
Stupid Americans! -- Stupid... Stupid... STUPID!!! _____________ ovywfuju | Rev Brian | Digital Photography | 0 | November 10th 04 04:48 PM |