Taxes

I'm looking for recommendations for tax preparers in Hays. Thanks.

Save yourself some money and do it yourself.

Bob Wolf in Hays is highly recommended by some.

Personally I just use the H&R Block website. But my taxes are relatively simple.

Turbo tax here.

SciFi wrote:

I'm looking for recommendations for tax preparers in Hays. Thanks.

Taxact.com free federal filing

and the state has a free filing on their website as well

The Other One wrote:

“I lean toward a flat tax. But I want to make it real flat, like zero.” -- Ron Paul

Hope springs eternal.

Bighead wrote:

Bob Wolf in Hays is highly recommended by some.

Personally I just use the H&R Block website. But my taxes are relatively simple.

Thanks, all.

Bob Wolf did better for me than H&R. I didn't save more from H&R and they charged more so last year I had about $100 left in my pocket with Wolf and will be about $150 in the hole with Block this year. I can't use the free simple federal form and the simple is all that H&R does free.

EP wonders why millionaires getting tax breaks PO's me so much. Maybe it's because I get penalized for money made on things that are a community service and can't declare losses on certain property that makes me no money while they get tax breaks for bogus business losses and charitable contributions that are no more than PR and advertising.

I guess if you want big tax breaks you gotta be wealthy enough to buy the best crooks, er I mean tax consultants.

Ratzilla wrote:

Bob Wolf did better for me than H&R. I didn't save more from H&R and they charged more so last year I had about $100 left in my pocket with Wolf and will be about $150 in the hole with Block this year. I can't use the free simple federal form and the simple is all that H&R does free.

EP wonders why millionaires getting tax breaks PO's me so much. Maybe it's because I get penalized for money made on things that are a community service and can't declare losses on certain property that makes me no money while they get tax breaks for bogus business losses and charitable contributions that are no more than PR and advertising.

I guess if you want big tax breaks you gotta be wealthy enough to buy the best crooks, er I mean tax consultants.

I don't know how you make that assumption. I want everyone's income taxes to be zero.

keep dreaming.

EP, you just recently accused me of being jealous of wealth. I'm just pissed they are allowed by our government to use their money to buy their way out of things I can't.

Ratzilla wrote:

EP, you just recently accused me of being jealous of wealth. I'm just pissed they are allowed by our government to use their money to buy their way out of things I can't.

And how does that equate to me wanting the rich to get unfair tax advantages? The FairTax was reintroduced in the House last week. If it is adopted, the IRS and the income tax would go away. Nobody would have an unfair advantage.

But Bignose is probably right. It's probably just a dream.

Of course I'm right.

Billionaires already pay far less than you do in income tax, on a percentage basis. Yes, I know how a 'progressive' income tax works; I know what the numbers are. But reality ain't near that simple. The current tax system is DESIGNED to put most of the burden on the middle class. I can clarify if you're as dense as I think you are.

Your so-called 'Fair Tax' would shift that burden even further from the wealthiest among us and put even more burden on the middle class. If that wasn't the case, the Kochtopus wouldn't support it.

Now before you go off half-cocked, do a little reading on capital gains taxes. And please explain to us all why income that one literally 'works' for should be taxed at a higher rate than income generated by investments.

Bighead wrote:

Of course I'm right.

Billionaires already pay far less than you do in income tax, on a percentage basis. Yes, I know how a 'progressive' income tax works; I know what the numbers are. But reality ain't near that simple. The current tax system is DESIGNED to put most of the burden on the middle class. I can clarify if you're as dense as I think you are.

Your so-called 'Fair Tax' would shift that burden even further from the wealthiest among us and put even more burden on the middle class. If that wasn't the case, the Kochtopus wouldn't support it.

Now before you go off half-cocked, do a little reading on capital gains taxes. And please explain to us all why income that one literally 'works' for should be taxed at a higher rate than income generated by investments.

As soon as you actually read the FairTax book and give me an informed opinion of it.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

EP, you just recently accused me of being jealous of wealth. I'm just pissed they are allowed by our government to use their money to buy their way out of things I can't.

And how does that equate to me wanting the rich to get unfair tax advantages? The FairTax was reintroduced in the House last week. If it is adopted, the IRS and the income tax would go away. Nobody would have an unfair advantage.

But Bignose is probably right. It's probably just a dream.

You have criticized me in the past for just about anything negative I had to say about the wealthy. In the past you have leaned more towards the Limbaugh philosophy than Ron Paul's

Ratzilla wrote:

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

EP, you just recently accused me of being jealous of wealth. I'm just pissed they are allowed by our government to use their money to buy their way out of things I can't.

And how does that equate to me wanting the rich to get unfair tax advantages? The FairTax was reintroduced in the House last week. If it is adopted, the IRS and the income tax would go away. Nobody would have an unfair advantage.

But Bignose is probably right. It's probably just a dream.

You have criticized me in the past for just about anything negative I had to say about the wealthy. In the past you have leaned more towards the Limbaugh philosophy than Ron Paul's

Such as?

How are capital gains taxed in your flat-tax fantasy?

EP, while I commend you on your thoughts about Ron Paul and fair government there is no need for me to cite specific discussions because everyone who frequents this forum has known you as the champion of anything anti-liberal. Your continual opposition to robert no matter how much sense he's making suggests a little rightist loyalty.

As far as fair tax goes, the only fair tax is a flat no deductions allowed sales tax on all money spent. You scrape through dresser drawers and couch cushions for loose change to buy a 40 ouncer and a pack of smokes and you pay "X" %. You buy a mansion and a Rolls you pay "X" %.

What about 10,000 shares of Goldman Sachs? Will you pay "X" % tax on that?

I don't care if you buy stocks, or a steaming pile of cow crap. The only fair sales tax would equally cover any and all purchases.

Really? I'd be willing to bet that stock purchases will NOT be taxed under the Fair Tax that EP is touting. My understanding is that it will be a tax on retail purchases only. The middle class spends a much MUCH larger percentage of their money on retail purchases than billionaires do (billionaires 'spend' much of their money buying investments to make more money).

Even with a tax exemption for living expenses, you'll end up paying a higher tax rate than Donald Trump does... just like you do now.

But that does beg the question: what KIND of purchases are we gonna tax? If we're gonna tax 'everything'... does that include wholesale purchasing between businesses? Those generally aren't taxed right now.

What if I buy tacks?

The business to business tax exemption is kind of lame too. I used it when dealing antiques but never understood why the sellers shouldn't have to pay taxes if they taxed the retail customer.

Ratzilla wrote:

The business to business tax exemption is kind of lame too. I used it when dealing antiques but never understood why the sellers shouldn't have to pay taxes if they taxed the retail customer.

Seriously?

Ratzilla wrote:

The business to business tax exemption is kind of lame too. I used it when dealing antiques but never understood why the sellers shouldn't have to pay taxes if they taxed the retail customer.

In Europe, there is a Value Added Tax (VAT) that taxes purchases at each step. That is, if a wholesaler sells a product to a retailer, the retailer pays the tax. When the retailer turns around and sells the product to the end user, the purchaser again pays the tax on the amount they are charged. The problem is that businesses aren't going to just pay that tax. They're going to add it to the price when they resell the product. In the end, the consumer will pay the tax thre or four times over. So a 10% VAT ends up adding 30% to 40% to the price of a product. Makes sense if you want to kill an economy.

Yeah, that's true republican thinking. If I can't buy the 100 foot yacht instead of the 80 footer because of taxes I'll just raise prices and make those dumb bastards on minimum wage pay for my boat. But if some person of neanderthal level thinking were in politics, you know to raise intelligence, they could "LOWER" overall tax rates so that everyone would pay a fair share and then put penalties on predatory selling.

But that is the problem with both business and government. Instead of lowering taxes and spreading the burden out over a wider basis they think they have to protect the ones who have the most and increase prices and taxes to avoid a loss because some greedy bastard won't take a penny less. Be a damn shame if a man only made $900,000 instead of a full million wouldn't it?

You are wrong, Ratz.

If a Mom and Pop gas station has to purchase a load of gas for say $3.25 a gallon(market price at time of purchase) with hopes of making a whopping $.10 per gallon, but has to pay a 10% flat tax per gallon($.16), they will have to raise their prices or go out of business. How will that help? How will that feel on your wallet?

Ratzilla wrote:

Yeah, that's true republican thinking.

No, dumbass, it's economics. The costs are always passed on to the end user. It's not a political thing.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

You are wrong, Ratz.

If a Mom and Pop gas station has to purchase a load of gas for say $3.25 a gallon(market price at time of purchase) with hopes of making a whopping $.10 per gallon, but has to pay a 10% flat tax per gallon($.16), they will have to raise their prices or go out of business. How will that help? How will that feel on your wallet?

I don't think you are looking at the whole picture. If government did away with all taxing except a flat sales tax that applies to everyone then sellers at the upper levels, AKA oil companies and refineries, could sell at prices more favorable to retailers if they were also prevented from price gouging.

"If" our politicians quit thinking gasoline was just the tax gravy train for them and instead regulated fair pricing and fair taxation everyone could be better off.

The Other One wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Yeah, that's true republican thinking.

No, dumbass, it's economics. The costs are always passed on to the end user. It's not a political thing.

You think politics has nothing to do with gasoline and taxation and you call me the dumbass. Just for your information brainchild, the US government typically collects more tax on gasoline in an average year than any seller makes and they also control pricing. The conservatives always claim the wealthiest 1% pay the most taxes, but in the case of sales tax the wholesalers and retailers pay nothing in sales tax and we do as consumers. Try and think about what that means just once.

Here's some additional info that I'm sure you can relate to nitro. Of course this varies but as of July 2009 this was what the Department of Energy had to say. 54.2 percent of gasoline prices went to the oil companies. They estimated the refineries added another 43 cents per gallon to the price. Then taxes that vary state to state and ethanol subsidies come into it. Then those who transport and sell retail come into play with retailers at the bottom of the profit list.

Maybe you guys think the oil companies and refineries making the big profits while the retailers make a few pennies and the consumer gets stuck with the taxes is just economics but I call it a hose job that our politicians have allowed to happen.

Limit price gouging at the top and make them cover some of the taxes and forbid them from sticking the next guy with their tax bill. It appears they can afford a 10% tax without losing profits and it's damn sure nobody pays my damn sales tax for me. Then maybe mom and pop stores could make a few extra pennies to make up for paying a sales tax and the consumer would benefit too by not paying oil company and refinery owners taxes for them.

Ok, I'll bite. At which level do they tax? Only the top, or at every step?

Your arguments are very telling, Ratz, even though you won't admit it.

You have never owned or ran a sucessful business.

You have no understanding of economics.

You can find anything on the internet to try and support your beliefs.

You are way more liberal than anything.

You support wealth distribution.

You hate rich people.

I have an idea. If you give up smoking, you would have plenty of money to support a poor family living on the street. Will you?

Ratzilla wrote:

You think politics has nothing to do with gasoline and taxation and you call me the dumbass. Just for your information brainchild, the US government typically collects more tax on gasoline in an average year than any seller makes and they also control pricing. The conservatives always claim the wealthiest 1% pay the most taxes, but in the case of sales tax the wholesalers and retailers pay nothing in sales tax and we do as consumers. Try and think about what that means just once.

So what do you want? Price controls? Profit controls? Gee, you're sounding a lot like the USSR, not the USA, comrade. And by the way, I said nothing, absolutely nothing, about gasoline prices. You made that jump based on Nitro's post. I was talking in general terms.

However, if you want a specific on how taxing at multiple levels works, let's use liquor taxes in Kansas as an example. In our bass-ackwards state, retail liquor stores also act as wholesalers. Actual wholesalers are not allowed to sell to restaurants and bars. Not only does this add another layer of middle man, it also creates an opportunity for hidden tax collection. So let's say that you go to the Horseshoe or to Applebee's and buy a bottle of beer. The price that you pay includes a 10% retail tax. Not the prevailing local sales tax. For liquor, it's always 10%. What you probably don't know is that the price that you're paying the 10% tax on also includes an 8% tax that the business owner paid when he bought the beer from the liquor store, who was acting as a wholesaler. So the price you pay actually includes 18% for the state government to squander. But in your demented world, the business owner would not be allowed to up the price he charges for the beer to cover the 8% tax that he pays to the liquor store. No problem, right? Wrong. The average profit margin the the restaurant/bar industry is about 5%. Some do better. Many do a lot worse. So if you have even a 6% (not the 10% you suggested) multi-level tax and the business can not pass the expense on, the business loses money on the transaction. Extend that to everything that a place like Applebee's buys, or even to what the Horseshoe buys, and the business closes down in very short order. Like I said, great idea if you want to kill the economy.

Ok nitro, I don't ever want to hear the owner pf a gas station, especially you, tell me how they never make any profit on gas again. Your parents know damn well that the high prices in convienence stores are to balance the low profits on gas, yet at the same time oil companies report record profits. You may see taxing them as unfair, and understandably so, but I can't believe you think it's right to continue to allow the oil business and refineries make all the profits at their, and our expense.

I gave my source as to the distrubution of wealth on oil and gasoline. That being The Department Of Energy. I think they are legit. I do not need to own a business of any kind to know that the gas and oil business is like the drug companies in that while the ones at the top make record profits the comsumer gets squeezed.

That isn't economics, it's Reaganomics. Keep the man at the top happy and fat and sqeeze every penny possible out of the one at the bottom to do it. I'm not proposing that the oil companies and refineries give it away, but rather that they be required to take some of the tax burden, lose the subsidies, and make a better deal for the retailer and consumer alike.

I'm sure correcting things in a fair manner would take alot of thinking, but if you don't understand how economics is an imbalanced joke in our day and age then there is no point in talking to you. And if suggesting that our government not base their decisions on who has the most money to buy their votes is being liberal then republicans better quit complaining how the media and legal professions own the democrats.

Just one more question. Considering how the oil and gas business is just "economics" to you, if you pay $100 in Hays for the same exact prescription made by the same exact drug company that sells for $10 in Canada, is that just good economics too?


Oh and EP, you aren't paying attention either. I said a ONE TIME flat sales tax to each buyer. Your comparison of the Kansas liquor laws is an example of government greed gone mad which is exactly the opposite of what I'm talking about.

And you're full of crap on the taxation verses profit on alcohol too. A liquor store owner told me they averaged about $2 profit on a case of beer. At that time the average bar was charging about $1.50 for a bottle of Bud making a case of beer bought there $36 to the consumer. Some places were charging $3 or more a bottle making it $72 a case.

So a case of beer you buy at the liquor store for $15 to $20 is $36 to $72 in bars and resturants and you say they are just trying to cover an extra tax? You need a new calculator.

Ratzilla wrote:

So a case of beer you buy at the liquor store for $15 to $20 is $36 to $72 in bars and resturants and you say they are just trying to cover an extra tax? You need a new calculator.

No, I'm saying that if they aren't allowed to cover the cost of an extra tax, it would be taking away the small profit margin that they have.

I agree with Nitro. You have no clue about running a business. Have you ever seen a P&L statement? Here are some of the other expenses that have to be covered in that "obscene" profit you decry:

Employee salaries
State Unemployment Taxes
Federal Unemployment Taxes
Real Estate Taxes
Property Taxes
Workers' Comp Insurance
Group Insurance (soon to be mandated unless you have an exemption from Oblahblahcare)
FICA and Medicare Taxes
Public Liability Insurance
Insurance on the building and contents
Utilities
Smallwares
Uniforms
Telephone
Equipment Maintenance
Building Maintenance
Bank Charges
Bad Checks
Credit Card Charges
Office Supplies
Licenses and Permits

And these are just what I could think of off the top of my head. There are others, and each business has its unique costs. While you may think of the "gross profit" as obscene, you don't have any idea about the reality of net profits.

Gee guys, you are right. The oil company execs taking in multimillion dollar salaries while the small gas station and consumers struggle to pay bills is really what makes America great.....

And I don't need business lessons from you. I don't know what you do EP except follow sports as if life depended on it, but I don't recall nitro being part of the Fortune 500. My only reason I never ran a "successful" business was because I refused to screw the customer like my competitors were doing. It was my downfall in each endeavor I made and I'm sure I can live with that shortcoming.

Oh and by the way. They just had a recent report on the news about Wichita bars closing because of the smoking bans. I don't recall you screaming about the right to make a dollar there.

Ratzilla wrote:

Gee guys, you are right. The oil company execs taking in multimillion dollar salaries while the small gas station and consumers struggle to pay bills is really what makes America great.....

And I don't need business lessons from you. I don't know what you do EP except follow sports as if life depended on it, but I don't recall nitro being part of the Fortune 500. My only reason I never ran a "successful" business was because I refused to screw the customer like my competitors were doing. It was my downfall in each endeavor I made and I'm sure I can live with that shortcoming.

Oh and by the way. They just had a recent report on the news about Wichita bars closing because of the smoking bans. I don't recall you screaming about the right to make a dollar there.

When you go into a restaurant, a real restaurant, not McDonald's, you're considered a jerk if you don't tip the server 15%. Yet the owner ends up with 5%, and the owner is the one taking the risk. If you call coming out of it with a 5% profit "screwing the customer," then you're deluded.

By the way, I don't smoke and I don't go to bars, so I really don't give a rat's ass about the smoking ban. However, I do feel that the old way was much better. The owner should have the right to decide. But I do know a bar owner in Hays who was smart enough to put in a smoking patio when the smoking ban came around and he says that his business has increased since last July.

Several bar owners installed outdoor patios in Hays. Did the bar owner increase traffic because of the patio or was it a shift in bar preferences by the younger crowd? Perhaps a better way to gauge the effect of the smoking ban is to look at the numbers for all of the bars in a community rather than one cherry picked example.

Aha, resturant owners only make 5% of a servers tip and that is their entire income. Thanks EP, I didn't know that.

A smoking patio is a fine idea when it's not -20 wind chills, snow, rain, thunderstorms, 40 MPH winds or 105 degrees. And you can call it cherry picked examples that lost money if you want, but the truth doesn't change. Smokers, many of them elderly, had a choice of going out in the weather or staying home and some of the bars they frequented lost money.

Saying it's all cool because bars threw out the old farts and gained a better young crowd is wrong, but I won't bother to explain why because mistreating one part of society in favor of another seems to be the popular thing to do in this conversation.

Ratzilla wrote:

Ok nitro, I don't ever want to hear the owner pf a gas station, especially you, tell me how they never make any profit on gas again. Your parents know damn well that the high prices in convienence stores are to balance the low profits on gas.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Prices are higher due to the extra distributor they must go through because they cannot order in quantity from the manufacturer.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

Ok nitro, I don't ever want to hear the owner pf a gas station, especially you, tell me how they never make any profit on gas again. Your parents know damn well that the high prices in convienence stores are to balance the low profits on gas.

Sorry, but you are wrong again. Prices are higher due to the extra distributor they must go through because they cannot order in quantity from the manufacturer.

Damn, You mean The Department Of Energy lied about that?

But you do bring up a valid point nitro. I knew a station owner who had to quit selling batteries because Walmart was selling them as cheap as he could buy them. Another example of "It's just economics" for ya.

The Other One wrote:

When you go into a restaurant, a real restaurant, not McDonald's, you're considered a jerk if you don't tip the server 15%. Yet the owner ends up with 5%, and the owner is the one taking the risk. If you call coming out of it with a 5% profit "screwing the customer," then you're deluded.

Ratzilla wrote:

Aha, resturant owners only make 5% of a servers tip and that is their entire income. Thanks EP, I didn't know that.

Where did you make that jump?

Let me tell you again, and this time I'll type very slowly so you'll have half a chance to understand. When you eat at Applebee's and spend $10.00, you would be expected to leave the server a 15% tip. That means that you're really spending $11.50, and the server gets $1.50 of that. The owner gets none of the server's tip, unless the owner is a real sleaze. The owner, in a typical case, ends up with a 5% profit on the $10.00 that you spent, or about 50 cents. Granted, the owner is getting 5% of every sale and the server is getting 15% based on only his or her own sales, but like I said before, the owner is the one taking the risk. Also, the server goes to work, makes money, goes home, drinks a twelve-pack, smokes a joint and doesn't think about work until it's time to go back.

The owner never really leaves. The business is the first thing he thinks about in the morning and the last thing he thinks about before going to sleep, if he's able to sleep. The business consumes his thoughts throughout the day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. He is constantly trying to think of ways to make things better, do things a little differently to improve products or customer service, which might in turn help his bottom line ever so slightly. He's at the business when it opens in the morning and when it closes in the evening. If there's not an owner there, it's a manager or partner who has the same drive and ambition. And had you have ever owned or run a business, you'd know what that's like. But obviously you haven't, which is why you think these people should be punished for their success.

My sister had a small bar/diner in Hoxie. She said her profit was an average of $80-$100 a day with some more, some less. She says most franchises pay the company 3 to 5 percent so I guess if he only makes 5% profit the Applebee's guy must live off stuff out of the dumpster.

Sorry if that's not slow enough for you EP.

Oh, and if you had learned to read instead of just always assuming what someone thinks, you'd have read that I have had businesses. I gave those in need such as seniors living on SS and being gouged to the hilt by pharmaceutical companies too many breaks instead of emptying their pockets like my competitors so I found it easier to go back to working for someone else. Yeah, I was a bad businessman but my conscience was clear at the end of the day.

Ratzilla wrote:

My sister had a small bar/diner in Hoxie. She said her profit was an average of $80-$100 a day with some more, some less. She says most franchises pay the company 3 to 5 percent so I guess if he only makes 5% profit the Applebee's guy must live off stuff out of the dumpster.

Sorry if that's not slow enough for you EP.

Oh, and if you had learned to read instead of just always assuming what someone thinks, you'd have read that I have had businesses. I gave those in need such as seniors living on SS and being gouged to the hilt by pharmaceutical companies too many breaks instead of emptying their pockets like my competitors so I found it easier to go back to working for someone else. Yeah, I was a bad businessman but my conscience was clear at the end of the day.

Franchises pay off thetop, not the bottom.

Might I suggest a different topic for you while you're behind?

Something you have knowledge about?

Maybe something in lawn care?

I'm sure you've mowed a lawn.

nitromaxx98 wrote:

Ratzilla wrote:

My sister had a small bar/diner in Hoxie. She said her profit was an average of $80-$100 a day with some more, some less. She says most franchises pay the company 3 to 5 percent so I guess if he only makes 5% profit the Applebee's guy must live off stuff out of the dumpster.

Sorry if that's not slow enough for you EP.

Oh, and if you had learned to read instead of just always assuming what someone thinks, you'd have read that I have had businesses. I gave those in need such as seniors living on SS and being gouged to the hilt by pharmaceutical companies too many breaks instead of emptying their pockets like my competitors so I found it easier to go back to working for someone else. Yeah, I was a bad businessman but my conscience was clear at the end of the day.

Franchises pay off thetop, not the bottom.

Might I suggest a different topic for you while you're behind?

Something you have knowledge about?

Maybe something in lawn care?

I'm sure you've mowed a lawn.

I really don't think he has any idea what a Profit & Loss Statement is.

Now nitro, EP claimed there was only 5% profit in a resturant. Doesn't matter if a franchise pays off the top or bottom, it still means less for the person running it. A calculator might help you understand that. And a franchise usually takes a couple years to get into any real profits to begin with so obviously we aren't talking about an average person operating one unless they have fantastic credit with their bank.

The only thing about a franchise that is good is that you get to use an established company name and product to attract customers which you also have to pay up front for before making a dime. Most who buy into a franchise are not figuring on driving a used car and living in a trailer house. Most who begin a franchise had money to begin with or they wouldn't be doing it.

I also know enough about franchises to know I wouldn't risk one in Hays unless I had very deep pockets because they have repeatedly failed. A good one in the KC area however might provide a very nice income at 5% profit.

Now all that aside, I already stated that my thoughts on sales taxing would need some serious thought to make it work. But at least it wouldn't be allowing the ones at the top to avoid taxes while the consumer on minimum wage had to pay all of them.

By the way nitro, I just rented one of my three houses and my banker says my credit rating is great. How you doing?

Ratzilla wrote:

Now nitro, EP claimed there was only 5% profit in a resturant. Doesn't matter if a franchise pays off the top or bottom, it still means less for the person running it. A calculator might help you understand that. And a franchise usually takes a couple years to get into any real profits to begin with so obviously we aren't talking about an average person operating one unless they have fantastic credit with their bank.

Damn, you're dense. The 5% is left over after the franchise fee, if there is one. A bottom line is a bottom line. It has to be after all expenses.

Ratzilla wrote:

By the way nitro, I just rented one of my three houses and my banker says my credit rating is great. How you doing?

The only way to have a good credit score is to go into debt, stay in debt, and continually pay your accounts perfectly—without adding too much debt or paying too much off. In other words, stay in debt for as long as you can. How ridiculous is that?

You're a bigger idiot than I thought. You don't have to be in perpetual debt to have a good score. A high credit score means you have successfully paid all your debts on time. Just having a credit card and keeping it paid off without accumulating interest will do that. Can you pay off a home in full out of your bank account? Very few do and without good credit you either won't get a loan or you'll pay higher rates. Can you buy a vehicle and pay cash in full? Not many do.

A low credit score means either denial or higher rates on loans, insurance, etc. You may be denied housing if a landlord decides you are high risk. If that means nothing to you then it's not me that doesn't know what I'm talking about.

As far as your 5% routine on a resturant goes it doesn't pertain to the conversation anyways. If you can't deal with overhead you don't get into a franchise. My whole point in this was that spreading the sales taxes out could lessen them for everyone. But you're so friggin worried that I'm trying to take the supper out of a millionaires mouth that you won't listen.

First businesses pay no sales tax and then use their purchases as deductions on their income tax. Among those deductible expenses are rent, salaries, advertising, consultation expenses, contract labor, delivery charges, employee benefits, equipment rentals, insurance, maintenance, uniforms, postage, etc,. etc., etc.

Don't you suppose that the high taxes we pay might just be because so many are good at not paying taxes? Wouldn't it be nice if instead of paying an 8 or 10% sales tax on everything we might spread the burden so it could be lowered to maybe 2 or 3% for everyone? Or are you just going to keep crying because a rich man might have to pay a tax?

I don't know, nor care what my credit score is. If I can't buy it outright, I don't buy it.

Got tired of paying interest on my money years ago.