Rest iN peace, Mr. Jobs

Page 4 of 10  


I'm not critizing anyone who plays by the rules, except that those who write the rules could be implicated in making those favorable rules. Anyways, the rules should be amended, and if you ask me, all those exceptions should have an automatic expiration date within (say) 5 years.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like SawStop? ;-)

*All* those exceptions? Like COGS? Better to get rid of *ALL* corporate taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Here's just one who burst your whole bubble, Leon. http://goo.gl/Kl2lg Somehow, I doubt he's alone in paying actual taxes. He did, as you saw, take a whole lot more deductions than we can.

I think we both want the same thing but we haven't removed all of our masks and filters yet. DO research that little concept, please.

Ahem. The last bloody revolution did that nicely. I wonder if the gov't would give GE grants toward -that- goal, too...

Nix that grabbing concept, too. See below.

Agreed.
The "grabbing whatever the gov't will give me" concept is one of the largest trashers of our country.

And it is up to We The People to change that. Let's begin.

Too true. A dumb electorate is a manipulable electorate.
-- Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as I have received and am still receiving. -- Albert Einstein
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:04:01 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

In case nobody noticed, that's exactly the way our government was set up. Each state tries to grab as much as it can. For example, here in Washington there is great joy over the new free trade pacts. Being a coastal state, we stand to gain quite a bit. Not good for the rest of the country - who cares?
And corporations certainly aren't adverse to the "greed is good" philosophy :-).
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/13/2011 6:40 AM, Leon wrote:

You're contradicting yourself. What you're actually saying is that a single woman with no children would pay X dollars while a single women with one child would pay 2X dollars, and the child would pay 0 dollars. That's three people, each paying three very different amounts. For everyone to pay the exact amount, a 40 year old CEO making $2 million a year and a 3 month old orphan would each be required to pay the same amount in taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/14/2011 3:42 PM, Just Wondering wrote:

No what I am actually saying is that a family of 5 pays 5 times what a single person pays. That was not that hard to understand was it?
To simplify that for you, the single mom goes to the movies and pays $5.
A mom and her child go to the movies and pays $10.
You actually have to use a bit of "common" sense and think in a way a "reasonable" person would think.
You finally get it on the last sentence of you overly stated paragraph.
And to help you with that example, the same $2m CEO goes to the movies and pays the same amount as the orphan. Fair is fair. Right?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

You haven't done your research yet, I see.
-- Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/15/2011 6:13 AM, Leon wrote:

Actually, the 3 month old would get in free.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
@swbelldotnet says...

Except that there are not men with guns dragging either the CEO or the orphan to the movies. Movies are elective, taxes are not.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 21:37:57 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

There's that BS non-statistic again. The real number is 14% who paid neither federal income tax or payroll tax. A far cry from 50%. And many of that 14% paid sales and other taxes. It's hard to live in any developed country today and not pay taxes of some sort or nother.
In 2009, there were 51% who paid no federal income tax because of some temporary recession-fighting measures that have since expired. That's been seized upon and twisted into the 50% chant.
[ my spell checker informed me that "seized" is another exception to the "i before e" rule :-) ]
An article in todays paper gave numbers for Warren Buffet's tax numbers for 2009. He paid only 17.4% of his taxable income in federal taxes because a lot of it was capital gains. That's less than most folks who make $100,000 or so, about 600 times less than Buffet. It is to his credit that he at least points this out.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 17:51:32 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

Payroll taxes are *supposed* to pay for SS. These same people get much more of that money back in SS payments.
The number is correct.

The number has steadily been climbing for decades.

He (BH) also owes $1B in back taxes, so don't start telling us again what a great guy he is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

I apologize for my shorthand. Please allow me to rephrase and perhaps you'll have a cogent comment on the new rendition: "The REAL inequity is that 49% of the wage-earning population pays NO income taxes at all! In fact, many get a check from the government, the "earned income tax credit", for holding a job instead of paying income taxes on that job. Buncha free-loaders, you ask me."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 16:40:13 -0500, HeyBub wrote:

Oh, I think I can come up with something :-). Like your figure is still wrong - it was approximately true for one year only (2009) as I stated.
OTOH, with the "greying" of the population, I would expect the number who owe no federal income tax to go up. For example, since our SS benefits are not taxable, our "taxable" income last year was well below the 21K threshold that would require me to file a return. Guess I'm just another freeloader.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:36:22 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard

BZZZT! Wrong answer! SS benefits most certainly *ARE* taxable.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

As almost always, it depends. Check first with the IRS, like here: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id 9091,00.html
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

SS is, in general, taxable income.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

IRS says here: <http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id 9091,00.html>
The Social Security benefits you received in 2010 may be taxable. You should receive a Form SSA-1099 which will show the total amount of your benefits. The information provided on this statement along with the following seven facts from the IRS will help you determine whether or not your benefits are taxable.
How much if any of your Social Security benefits are taxable depends on your total income and marital status.
Generally, if Social Security benefits were your only income for 2010, your benefits are not taxable and you probably do not need to file a federal income tax return.
If you received income from other sources, your benefits will not be taxed unless your modified adjusted gross income is more than the base amount for your filing status.
Your taxable benefits and modified adjusted gross income are figured on a worksheet in the Form 1040A or Form 1040 Instruction booklet.
You can do the following quick computation to determine whether some of your benefits may be taxable: First, add one-half of the total Social Security benefits you received to all your other income, including any tax exempt interest and other exclusions from income. Then, compare this total to the base amount for your filing status. If the total is more than your base amount, some of your benefits may be taxable.
The 2010 base amounts are: $32,000 for married couples filing jointly. $25,000 for single, head of household, qualifying widow/widower with a dependent child, or married individuals filing separately who did not live with their spouses at any time during the year. $0 for married persons filing separately who lived together during the year.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't forget to check your state laws too. In CT, SS income is taxable, assuming you are in the taxable brackets.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Indeed, but we were dealing with federal income taxes, I thought.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:58:22 -0500, snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

And once again you prove the adage "fools rush in ..." - SS benefits are only taxable if the recipients non-SS taxable income exceeds 25K. And only half are taxable until it exceeds 34K. The corresponding numbers for a married couple filing jointly are 32K and 44K.
The numbers are for 2010 taxes.
I'm going to quit responding to your posts. Time and time again I and others have corrected your errors of fact and you never change. I have to assume that you deliberately ignore the facts to generate controversy.
--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.