mixing light bulbs

[invalid unparseable]

Same here. Our traitor does not understand this.

[rbowman]

I don't think the 9th Circuit has found the time in their busy schedule to screw with that one yet.

[Rod Speed]

Oh bullshit. It was functioning fine in Germany, Britain, Canada, Australia, India, Japan, etc etc etc.

It was in fact doing so well in Japan that the US had enough sense to buy quite a bit of the simpler military hardware used in the Korean War from Japan and that helped the Jap economy very effectively indeed.

That's bullshit too. Yes, quite a bit of europe did and japan and russia, but that wasn't done by the US.

Not from rebuilding the world it didn't.

That's bullshit too with the casualtys of WW2 and the massive free education of vets.

But the vet system wasn't cheap at that time.

Because it hadn't been going long and most didn't qualify for payouts yet.

The real reason the immense govt debt that WW2 incurred was paid down so quickly is because income tax rates were MUCH higher and the economy really boomed after WW2 had ended with lots of building of new houses and buying of cars that wasn't possible during the war.

That's wrong with the military budget alone and the non military discretionary is about the same amount.

Nope.

Nope, it would have ended then anyway. It was never going to work while ever the Vietnamese were fighting for their country and most of you yanks couldn't see any reason for the US to be involved there getting your kids killed there.

That ended because the US no longer needed lots of kids in boots running around with guns in their hands. War changed. Almost everyone else ended the draft then too, for that reason.

That isnt what is happening now with HALF not paying any net income tax.

That is completely and utterly barking mad. No other modern first world country is actually THAT stupid.

Wont work when the only two partys with any chance of being the govt only differ in the detail about the tax rates.

[rbowman]

Is that your famous Canadian medical system? A couple of years ago the optometrist saw something he couldn't quite figure out and bounced me to the eye doctors. It was a macular hole. The repair was done within 3 weeks and that was partly because I scheduled it for the downtime around Christmas week. One of the side effects of the gas they use to temporarily replace the vitreous fluid is accelerating cataract formation. He told me to come back when it got annoying.

Earlier I had a small retinal tear. The emergency room sent me to the same place and I was seen immediately for a little laser spot welding.

Both incidents were covered by Medicare. I think I was out of pocket for about $100 combined.

[Clare Snyder]

"emergency surgery such as a macular tear is usually scheduled and done within 24 hours. "elective" surgery takes a little longer. The specialist has a bank of hours in the OR - generally one day a week, and he schedules cataract surgeries for that day. He may do 20 or so in one go. It's such a common surgery now that there is a pretty good waiting list. We have a shortage of specialists locally. I could likely have it done in 3 weeks if I was 150 miles away - possibly even just 70 in the right direction.

Same goes with knees and hips.

If I go with the standard lens it won't cost me a penny. I can upgrade at my expense. If I had astigmatism the special lens required would be covered.

[gfretwell]

That would be me. I really prefer a bunch of S20 15w 130v bulbs to a couple of 100w or the CFL/LED equivalent. My pool deck is lit with 14 of them. I also have Par38s and 600w of underwater light that will light the place up like the Berlin wall but I seldom turn them on, particularly since the kids are gone. The underwater lights are on dimmers and when they are on it is at a pretty low level..

[Rod Speed]

The world didn't by US manufactured goods after WW2 had ended.

Another pig ignorant lie with Germany alone. And after the war had ended, even germany didn't import US manufactured goods and cars to replace what the war had destroyed.

Neither did Japan.

It was only germany and japan that needed to do that.

Britain was still producing crap cars at that time too.

Japanese cars werent any better either.

Wasn't so true of germany, but that's because they were stamping out the very decent pre war design, the beetle, that so many kids in the world decided was just what they needed, including me. And went on to produce much better designs like the Golf/Rabbit and the mercs and beemers.

Yes, because of the very high income tax rates at that time. Top rate of 94% in fact.

Bullshit with those actually involved in WW2.

Those were the only ones who needed it with those involved in WW2.

And yet the immense govt debt was paid off very quickly. Because the average wage slave was paying much more income tax then. There are never enough rich to pay down that immense govt debt that quickly, even in america.

Yes, it was the wage slaves that paid off that immense federal debit so quickly. Mostly with income tax.

Nope.

Bullshit.

There never was popular support for US kids getting killed there.

Mindlessly silly. The war was in fact lost when it became clear that nothing the US did there worked, particularly after Tet.

Sure, but that is just a detail of how the war was lost. It was never going to be winnable there.

Nothing like Malaya which worked, Vietnam was never going to.

And that didn't survive the vietnamese winning.

Not once the US crawled away with its tail between its legs it didn't.

Doesn't explain why the rest of the west binned it at the same time. That happened because there was no point in it anymore. The military world had moved on, as it always does.

That's silly with Korea alone.

Half isnt the seniors.

So voting wont do a damned thing about tax rates except in the sense that voting for the dems will see a need for higher taxes and the young voters wont see much in the way of lower taxes even if they do vote for the repugs, which hardly any of them do.

[trader_4]

No, you're the one who's stupid and I hope Fretwell will chime in too. He proposed a 2% new tax on people's INCOMES, not on business revenue. A small business that isn't taxed as a corporation passes it's INCOME onto the owner;s personal tax return, where that income is treated like income from a job would be. A business owner would see the same effect of the 2% new tax as someone making the same amount of money.

Business has revenue of $300K, expenses of $250K, $50 shows up on personal return as unadjusted gross income. Another guy has a job, earns $50, he also has $50K of unadjusted gross income. Then you have exemptions,' deductions, and wind up with say, $35K taxable income. Got it now? Of course not, you're a moron troll. Fretwell can weigh in if he intended his new

2% tax to apply to the $50K unadjusted or the $35 adjusted income. But either way, it affects the small business just like the guy with the job, both would pay the same increase.

It is the owner;s unadjusted gross income on his personal tax return, moron. It flows in from Schedule C, been there, done that.

Amazing the balls of the moron troll from Australia, claiming to know how small business profits are taxed, when I'm the one who has filled out the forms and paid them. Fretwell proposed a new 2% tax on personal INCOME, not on business REVENUE. Hope he chimes in, I'm sure he understands the difference. You really should just stop, instead of digging an ever deeper hole, like that Mr. T guy.

[gfretwell]

I had no intent of delving into the details of an idea that will never happen I was just advancing the idea that we don't pay enough taxes and everyone should be paying something. The problem is we make it far too easy to kick the debt problem down the road and eventually it is going to do serious damage to the dollar. That is a tax everyone will pay.

[rbowman]

My father had a hernia repaired in the VA in the '50s. Since he was a Marine on the Oklahoma in WWi I doubt it was combat connected.

[Rod Speed]

And with a sole trader self employed, THEIR TOTAL TURNOVER IS THEIR GROSS INCOME, f****it.

<none of the rest of your even sillier shit worth bothering with, all flushed where it belongs>

[Clare Snyder]

like the handiman who was hired to repaint the porch out back, and came in after finishing the job and said it easn;t a porch, it was an Audi

[Clare Snyder]

Lets not

[gfretwell]

That just means more SPs would form a type S corporation. It is actually a pretty trivial thing to do. When I did it the lawyers charged me a few hundred bucks.

[trader_4]

You really are a total moron. I've filled out the income tax returns for a small business many times. The revenue, the gross receipts of the business are not and never were considered the gross income to the owner. Revenue is not income, only the PROFIT is. Revenue is not taxed by the feds, only PROFITS. The new 2% tax Fretwell proposed would clearly apply to INCOME not to business gross receipts. It is, after all, an INCOME tax, moron. If you had a new 2% tax on INCOME like Fretwell proposed, it would apply to someone who had $50K in profits from a business the same way it would apply to someone who made $50K from a job. The fact that the business had $300K in revenue to earn that $50K is irrelevant. And to top it off, you're in Australia. I would never sit here in America and try to tell someone in Australia how their taxes work. You're just like that Mr. T fellow, an ignoramus who can't be educated. Fundamentally, you don't understand the definition of income.

[trader_4]

Instead of helping to clarify this and get it back on track, you're instead adding to the confusion, which is sad. This is what you posted:

"Personally I would go for an across the board 2% surtax on EVERYONE's taxes (based on your gross)"

I would take that to mean that you wanted a 2% tax on GROSS INCOME, is that not correct? I gave you credit for having some reasonably sane proposal. Now you seem to be saying that it's not an INCOME tax, because if you're self-employed, running a small business, it instead applies to the business revenue? Federal income tax has never worked that way, business INCOME to the owner shows up from Schedule C, AFTER the logical and rational accounting process of subtracting all the business costs to determine profit and that is then INCOME to the owner. So, if that is what you proposed and meant, then it doesn't matter if it's a subchapter S or a self-employed guy running a food cart with no corporation. Both would be taxed on the profit, which shows up as GROSS INCOME to the owner. They generate $50K in business PROFIT, they would pay an additional 2% tax on that, just like the guy with a job would pay on his $50K. Isn't that what you proposed and meant? Or did you propose the crazy nonsense that the troll is claiming, whereby if you're a small business with $300K in sales, $50K in profit, you want your new 2% tax to apply not on $50K, but on $300K?

[Rod Speed]

That is precisely what he has done, more politely than I did.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you actually are that terminal a f****it that has never had a f****ng clue about anything at all, ever.

Precisely. And the EVERYONE includes a small business owner who isnt operating as a corporation, whose GROSS would in fact be his turnover, not his net income after the cost of doing business has been deducted from his GROSS.

Yes, and even a terminal f****it such as yourself should be able to work out that that is the total amount he has received from his customers for the goods or services he has provided.

To that individual's TOTAL income which may include other non business income like say the winnings from the lottery, the winnings from betting on horse races etc etc etc.

Completely and utterly irrelevant TO THAT NEW SURTAX that Fretwell is proposing.

<reams more of your irrelevant shit flushed where it belongs>

[trader_4]

It's largely irrelevant because any knowledgeable person familiar with US income taxes and our tax return forms and definitions, would take a statement proposing a new 2% gross income tax to mean a 2% tax on gross income. We were talking about INCOME taxes, not business revenue taxes, you know. And that's how it's done now, Form 1040 starts off with GROSS INCOME, where salary, business PROFIT, interest earned, etc are added up as GROSS INCOME. $50K in business profit shows up there just like $50K from a job. We don't screw people who have a small business by taxing them on the business revenue, never have. Taking "gross" to mean "gross income", when discussing personal income taxes is reasonable, anything else yields stupid results, as you just found out. So, clearly that puts you in the dope class. For starters, it's dopey for someone in Australia to be trying to tell me how US income tax works.

[trader_4]

Well if that's what Fretwell really meant, he can step up to the plate and tell us with a simple yes. And then it's obviously a stupid concept, which is why I would never think a knowledgable person would suggest such a dumb thing.

So now you speak for Fretwell?

and even a terminal f****it such as yourself should be

No, it's not as defined by our Form 1040. Business PROFITS show up as GROSS INCOME, fool. But then you wouldn't know, because you're an Australian. I would never be so stupid as to try to tell someone in Australia how your taxes work. But stupid is as stupid does.

Well, make up your mind. Lottery winings, salaries, interest earned, AND BUSINESS PROFIT (not revenue) are defined as GROSS INCOME and are reported at the very beginning of Form 1040.

It's very relevant, because he was talking about an additional tax on "gross". He didn't say gross what, but since we are talking about INCOME taxes, only a moron would think he intended to tax small businesses on their REVENUE, rather than the owner on the profit. So, how it works today is relevant. Talking about a new INCOME tax and using just the term "gross", only a moron would think the intent was to tax a business on it's revenue. A small business has $3 mil in sales, makes just $50K profit. If you follow the existing forms, the existing procedure, only the $50K shows up as GROSS INCOME at the start of the individual's tax return. Only your stupid interpretation leads to stupid results.

[trader_4]

I see, back to dig your ignorance hole deeper still. And again, we're talking about PERSONAL income tax, the INDIVIDUAL's GROSS INCOME, not the gross income of the business fool. Look at 1040.

This really is simple. Fretwell can weigh in and either

A - Acknowledge that he was intending to apply a 2% tax to an individual's gross income, which includes PROFIT from a business. $50K profit from a business is taxed $1000 extra, just like a $50K salary.

B - Tell us that he intended for it to apply to the total sales/gross income of small businesses. In which case a business that had sales of $3 mil, but only had a profit of $50K, pays $60K in extra tax.

A leads to truth, logic, fairness, compatibility with the current tax laws and accounting. There is no "problem". B leads directly to stupidville, where you're the mayor. B is so stupid, I can't believe it's what Fretwell intended, but you sure went that route.