Questions regarding Obama's tax plan

Is the $250,000 mark net or gross profit?

Will this include inventory?

If someone makes $249,500 are they going to get a tax cut?

nitromaxx98 wrote:

1. Is the $250,000 mark net or gross profit?

2. Will this include inventory?

3. If someone makes $249,500 are they going to get a tax cut?

(numbered for convenience)



1. If you honestly don't know the answer to this first question, then you're financially illiterate.

2. See #1.

3. Don't know. Doubt it.

Taxes are not going down. No matter who says what. It is just not going to happen.

Bighead wrote:

nitromaxx98 wrote:

1. Is the $250,000 mark net or gross profit?

2. Will this include inventory?

3. If someone makes $249,500 are they going to get a tax cut?

(numbered for convenience)



1. If you honestly don't know the answer to this first question, then you're financially illiterate.

2. See #1.

3. Don't know. Doubt it.

This seems to be the same assumption no matter where you look. Has anyone asked Obama?

Probably not many. Because most people have a basic understanding of how income taxes work.

Bighead wrote:

Probably not many. Because most people have a basic understanding of how income taxes work.

Maybe try answering instead of insulting.

By the way I am fully versed in how income taxes work. Do you have an answer yet?

I answered your question. Sorry if you didn't like my answer.

I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

You didn't answer. You took a side-step. Does the question frighten you?

I can ask an easier one if it does.

Where did Bighead go?

I gave you an acceptable answer.

guess you SCARED him!!!!!

mikecc wrote:

I gave you an acceptable answer.

Yes you did, thank you bald guy who stares through the soul.

jessks75 wrote:

guess you SCARED him!!!!!

Yes, in a sense, he did. The sheer ignorance displayed in this thread and by quite a few of Nitro's fellow Amerikans IS downright scary. A good friend of mine asked me essentially the same question the other day... and refused to believe my answer until I gave him a link that explained taxes for dummies. The other day, some gal called in to the Rush Limbaugh show and asked pretty much the same thing... he reluctantly corrected her. And for fuck's sake... Joe the Plumber's 15 minutes of fame started with a question based on the same idiotic premise.

Ok, kids... gather 'round me like I'm Jesus. I'm gonna tell you how income taxes work!

See, when you grow up big and strong, you get a job- say you flip burgers like Nitro- or maybe you'll sell used cars like EP. Either way, you'll get a paycheck. From that paycheck, your friendly government will confiscate- under threat of force- some of your income. They'll take out Social Security and Medicare payments... what's left (after health insurance, etc.) is called TAXABLE INCOME. That's the number that your income tax is based on.

However, if you're ambitious and successful enough to own your own business- unlike Nitro or Joe the Plumber- then you will be paid directly or indirectly via the PROFITS of your business. Profits are not sage old religious seers warning us of Gawd's impending wrath. Profits are what money is left over AFTER expenses (including but by no means limited to inventory... not sure why all this isn't obvious). So on a small business- let's say a Plumbing business- if gross revenue is $250,000... and your expenses (including inventory) are $200,000... then your TAXABLE INCOME is $50,000. It ain't rocket science.

On the other hand, let's say Jim the Mechanic in a more profitable business, where his gross revenue is $1,000,000 and expenses are $750,000. In that case, his TAXABLE INCOME would be $250,000. I don't know how much Obama will raise taxes... but let's say that folks making this income will see an increase of $50,000 per year (which is a ridiculously high assumption... but useful for the sake of discussion). That means that Jim the Mechanic will now have to somehow learn to live on $200,000 per year. Cry me a fucking river.

thanks for clearning that up for us dear LORD

Bighead wrote:

jessks75 wrote:

guess you SCARED him!!!!!

Yes, in a sense, he did. The sheer ignorance displayed in this thread and by quite a few of Nitro's fellow Amerikans IS downright scary. A good friend of mine asked me essentially the same question the other day... and refused to believe my answer until I gave him a link that explained taxes for dummies. The other day, some gal called in to the Rush Limbaugh show and asked pretty much the same thing... he reluctantly corrected her. And for fuck's sake... Joe the Plumber's 15 minutes of fame started with a question based on the same idiotic premise.

Ok, kids... gather 'round me like I'm Jesus. I'm gonna tell you how income taxes work!

See, when you grow up big and strong, you get a job- say you flip burgers like Nitro- or maybe you'll sell used cars like EP. Either way, you'll get a paycheck. From that paycheck, your friendly government will confiscate- under threat of force- some of your income. They'll take out Social Security and Medicare payments... what's left (after health insurance, etc.) is called TAXABLE INCOME. That's the number that your income tax is based on.

However, if you're ambitious and successful enough to own your own business- unlike Nitro or Joe the Plumber- then you will be paid directly or indirectly via the PROFITS of your business. Profits are not sage old religious seers warning us of Gawd's impending wrath. Profits are what money is left over AFTER expenses (including but by no means limited to inventory... not sure why all this isn't obvious). So on a small business- let's say a Plumbing business- if gross revenue is $250,000... and your expenses (including inventory) are $200,000... then your TAXABLE INCOME is $50,000. It ain't rocket science.

On the other hand, let's say Jim the Mechanic in a more profitable business, where his gross revenue is $1,000,000 and expenses are $750,000. In that case, his TAXABLE INCOME would be $250,000. I don't know how much Obama will raise taxes... but let's say that folks making this income will see an increase of $50,000 per year (which is a ridiculously high assumption... but useful for the sake of discussion). That means that Jim the Mechanic will now have to somehow learn to live on $200,000 per year. Cry me a fucking river.

So when Jim the mechanic starts cooking the books or buys excessive inventory at years end to avoid going above the 250 grand, how is your great leader going to pay for his hand-outs to those who sit on their ass and live off the government. It will be Nitro the burger flipper and EP the used car salesman and everyone else.

Or

Jim will have to lay off people who will also be flipping burgers and selling cars.

Or

The actual tax bill will fall on LARGE corporations who will offset it by raising the cost of their products, therefore making it harder for everyone to make ends meet causing more people to go on welfare.

See the circle?

Or are you so blinded by the halo of the messiah that is blowing smoke up your ass that you cant see?

Yeah, ok. Now that we've established your complete and utter financial illiteracy... you're butchering Reganomics.

I suppose you prefer the Republican model of pointless, expensive wars and vast expansion of government... with UNPRECEDENTED budget deficits and a doubled national debt. Obviously the solution is to keep the same people in charge.

Bighead wrote:

Yeah, ok. Now that we've established your complete and utter financial illiteracy... you're butchering Reganomics.

I suppose you prefer the Republican model of pointless, expensive wars and vast expansion of government... with UNPRECEDENTED budget deficits and a doubled national debt. Obviously the solution is to keep the same people in charge.

Your advair is looking really mean when you talk like that.

Do you have diabeetus?

'Cause I do. And I get all my diabeetus supplies delivered right to my door.

Liberty Mutual won't charge you for shipping. And they'll remind you when it's time to re-order.

Bighead wrote:

Yeah, ok. Now that we've established your complete and utter financial illiteracy... you're butchering Reganomics.

I suppose you prefer the Republican model of pointless, expensive wars and vast expansion of government... with UNPRECEDENTED budget deficits and a doubled national debt. Obviously the solution is to keep the same people in charge.

I'm thinking at this point of time it's not going to much matter who you vote for ...we are f#$@* yet I'm trying to be optimistic and vote in the RIGHT MAN for the job.

Bighead wrote:

Do you have diabeetus?

No, but I'm trying to find out about the "normal" blood sugar levels. Any leads? OPP"S

Yep, we are fucked. When Obama is elected, he'll spend the next 4 years dealing with problems caused largely by the better part of a decade of Republican control.

But we AmeriCANs have been in worse messes before and came out smellin' like a rose. I expect that we'll do it again.

jewelz wrote:

Bighead wrote:

Do you have diabeetus?

No, but I'm trying to find out about the "normal" blood sugar levels. Any leads? OPP"S

I don't actually have diabeetus... I just felt like saying that.

but here ya' go: Look at the second page of this article

reality shows get more votes than the president. I dont think America really cares!!

If American Idol gets more votes than either candidate... then shouldn't they be president?

Bighead wrote:

Yeah, ok. Now that we've established your complete and utter financial illiteracy...

How long you been in business?

Do you really find that much bilss in ignorance?

mikecc wrote:

Taxes are not going down. No matter who says what. It is just not going to happen.

Mikecc is correct. The Democrats are almost certain to maintain control of Congress. So even if McCain pulls off an Elway-esque comeback and wins, the Bush tax cuts are going to expire, and tax rates will return to previous levels. The extension of the Bush tax cuts is what the messiah is deceptively calling a "tax decrease for the rich." However, if the messiah succeeds in running out the clock, the best hope to avoid a massive tax increase, no matter what your income level is, will be the Republicans maintaining at least 41 seats in the Senate, thereby making it impossible for any vote to take place on the Senate floor.

My personal biggest fear is that the Republicans will give up and allow the messiah's plan to be implemented. There are some who advocate this, thinking that people will turn on him when they see the results. If this happens, the nation's economy will look like it did in the late Carter years by the end of the messiah's first term. For those of you who don't remember, the Jimmy Carter triple-double was 21.5% prime interest rates, 12.5% inflation and 10% unemployment. Hopefully the Republicans will not be obsessed enough with regaining power to let this happen. There are some things more important than who resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. in the District of Columbia.

Bighead wrote:

Yep, we are fucked. When Obama is elected, he'll spend the next 4 years dealing with problems caused largely by the better part of a decade of Republican control.

But we AmeriCANs have been in worse messes before and came out smellin' like a rose. I expect that we'll do it again.

You must be unaware of the roots of the subprime mess dating back to Carter’s CRA and Clinton’s escalation of that program. The government pushed banks to do predatory loans for poor folks to get them into homes. It was further complicated by groups like ACORN, with the aid of lawyers including Obama, to lower standards and sell even more of those loans. Democrats in Congress like Frank and Dodd blocked efforts from Bush and McCain to head off the pending disaster. The attempts to put all of the blame on Bush are just Democrat BS.

During the Bush years you had Pelosi et al telling us how wonderful Fannie and Freddie were being run and there was no need to fix it as the republicans claimed.

Justoo wrote:

You must be unaware of the roots of the subprime mess dating back to Carter’s CRA and Clinton’s escalation of that program. The government pushed banks to do predatory loans for poor folks to get them into homes. It was further complicated by groups like ACORN, with the aid of lawyers including Obama, to lower standards and sell even more of those loans. Democrats in Congress like Frank and Dodd blocked efforts from Bush and McCain to head off the pending disaster. The attempts to put all of the blame on Bush are just Democrat BS.

During the Bush years you had Pelosi et al telling us how wonderful Fannie and Freddie were being run and there was no need to fix it as the republicans claimed.

This exhibits a complete lack of understanding about what really happened.

Rog wrote:

Justoo wrote:

You must be unaware of the roots of the subprime mess dating back to Carter’s CRA and Clinton’s escalation of that program. The government pushed banks to do predatory loans for poor folks to get them into homes. It was further complicated by groups like ACORN, with the aid of lawyers including Obama, to lower standards and sell even more of those loans. Democrats in Congress like Frank and Dodd blocked efforts from Bush and McCain to head off the pending disaster. The attempts to put all of the blame on Bush are just Democrat BS.

During the Bush years you had Pelosi et al telling us how wonderful Fannie and Freddie were being run and there was no need to fix it as the republicans claimed.

This exhibits a complete lack of understanding about what really happened.

And the CSPAN video evidence is not relevant or what?

Have a little more messiah kool-aid, Rog.

Please provide a link to the evidence.

Obama, Pelosi,Ried...they're a winning team.....hey, I just stepped in dog doo

In the house!


alg8tr!

Rog wrote:

This exhibits a complete lack of understanding about what really happened.

It exhibits evidence evidence of being a regular talk-radio listener.

When I was a young and dumb Republican, I never realized the extent to which facts were cherry-picked to support my worldview. Now that I see it from a different perspective, it's kinda disturbing.

link: Interesting stuff... tangentially related to Mike's half-truths

"Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief," said Greenspan


Liberal middle manmagement entitlement generation idiots giving money away like it grows on trees only caring to feather their own nests on the backs of people dumb enough to live entirely and blatently beyond their means. lol. But why should the fellow who has been unlike the grass hopper, and more like the ant, have to foot the bill?

Excessive Government Spending.

Excessive Government.

Anarchy and Paganism to us all!

Long live the Revolution.

mikecc wrote:

Long live the Revolution.

We need a revival of the Reagan Revolution.

For all the talk these days of Messiahs and such... ya'll Repubs sure long for the Second Coming of Regan.

But much like the second coming of that other Messiah fondly remembered via revisionist history... I woudn't hold my breath.

Bighead wrote:

Second Coming of Regan.

Would that be Donald Regan or Judith Regan?

"The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act since the 1980s, if not earlier. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.[1]

The bills were introduced in the U.S. Senate by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and in the U.S. House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa). The third lawmaker associated with the bill was Rep. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. (R-Va), Chairman of the House Commerce Committee from 1995 to 2001. [2] On May 6, 1999, the Senate passed the bills by a 54-44 vote along party lines (53 Republicans and one Democrat in favor; 44 Democrats opposed).[3] On July 20, the House passed a different version of the bill on an uncontested and uncounted voice vote. When the two chambers could not agree on a joint version of the bill, the House voted on July 30 by a vote of 241-132 (R 58-131; D 182-1) to instruct its negotiators to work for a law that ensured that consumers enjoyed medical and financial privacy and also "robust competition and equal and non-discriminatory access to financial services and economic opportunities in their communities" (i.e. protection against exclusionary redlining) [4] [5] The bill then moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns; the conference committee then finished its work by the beginning of November.[4] [6] On November 4, the final bill resolving the differences was passed by the Senate 90-8 [7] and by the House 362-57.[8] This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.[9]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act

And just so you know that unlike most of you I get that crooks come in Red and Blue:

"If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.

But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks.

The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

They’ve stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama’s original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html

Our entire political system is inundated with people whom we can not, nor should not trust on both sides of the aisle. Neither party can be absolved from blame and to suggest it is only on Dems or Repubs is not only ludicrous; it is insane. The one thing you can be assured of is that any time they meet in the middle "We the People" get F$*ked. Other One, Justoo; I would recommend you start looking for truth instead of party line talking points. It is a disservice to both your apparent intellect, and the greater good of this Democracy.

Rog, that's WAY too complicated. You gotta learn to reduce it to two or three sound-bytes AT MOST.

Of course, even convenient packaging won't matter much if it doesn't fit the talk-show narrative.

I am aware that it is a bi-partisan problem. I know more than I let on sometimes.


And you have to let those barefoot ridgerunners get worked up into a lather if you want them to play arguement with you. If they can't shoot bullets in a fued, they throw a few barbs. It keeps 'em happy.