I want the tax code to address problems like GE that tells the stockholders they are making billions but they can still tell the IRS they are losing money and pay no tax. We could argue that there should not be a corporate tax but I still would like to see it fairly assessed. I suspect if Trump's returns ever see the light of day he will have a similar situation.
Most obvious with stock market speculators/day traders and property flippers etc.
But not if its gambling or speculation.
This is from the clueless clown that can't even manage to work out how to stop Avast from putting its sig on all its posts, or even get its news client to post its own drivel properly.
I thought we already decided that. Income is profit for a business. (after Schedule C expenses). If they are an "S" we would not even be having this conversation. It is certainly a symptom on this group that I put a simple concept out there and suddenly we are rewriting the whole tax code.
I've heard a lot of good things about the VA. A friend is working towards getting a knee replacement there. Another had kidney cancer surgery there. Cancer was discovered when VA was working him up for cyber knife prostate cancer surgery. First they did the kidney then the prostate.
Why is every off hand idea worth 1000 lines of bullshit? You people just like to argue.
Some of us choose to point out the massive downsides of your mindlessly simplistic proposal. You get to like that or lump it.
It your proposal was viable, some country world wide would have done it that way. No one did, for a reason.
I imagine it depends on where you are like any other hospital.
So sad. YOU made a proposal for a new 2% tax. Why do you make proposals, toss out ideas, if you don't want them discussed? And 90% of the arguing would have been avoided if you'd just answer the very simple question I quickly asked. Instead, you're still diverting and now implying that the problem is not with your lack of clarity or response to a simple question. The question is right there in the post you just responded to and instead of answering it, you instead to attack others here?
Here it is again:
So again Fretwell, with your proposed new 2% tax, did you intend A or B? Why is it that you won't answer that simple, direct and very pertinent question? It can be answered with one letter, A or B.
That's a lie, he never said anything about corporations when he made the proposal and we were talking about Trump's personal tax cuts, tax refunds to individuals, not corporate taxes. Only later did he drag corporations into it and then he did not say anything about his 2% tax applying to them.
Again you demonstrate your ignorance of the tax code. With a Sub S you don't lose anything with regard to normal individual income tax deductions. A Sub S simply flows the business PROFIT into the top of your 1040, just like the PROFIT from a sole proprietorship, limited partnership, etc flows into the GROSS INCOME of your personal return, just like it would from a salary, interest, etc. But keep digging that hole of ignorance ever deeper.
Irrelevant diversion, because again you've been trapped in your ignorance hole. You claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for "speculating", that was the issue, because it's not true.
No, just having fun see you spin around in your hole of ignorance that you keep digging ever deeper. First it was Sub S can't be used for speculation. This post it was that with a Sub S you lose your normal individual income tax deductions. What's coming next?
Yes? Oh, so what you said last post, that Sub S can't be used for speculation, was wrong. That';s what happens when you sit in Australia and try to explain to us, argue with us, about what goes on in America. I've filled out the forms, paid the taxes, you haven't. How deep is that ignorance hole and when will you stop?
We'll see...
Yes, but later said that he wanted corporations included.
<reams of your repetitive shit and lies flushed where they belong>
Again, that's a lie. He only made some vague reference to wanting to see big corporations who pay no taxes now, pay some kind of tax. He did not say it was his 2% new tax, which again, he clearly proposed in the context of individual income taxes. And now, Fretwell is playing cute, refusing to answer the very simple question I've asked several times now.
You mean like when you claimed that a Sub S corp can't be used for speculation? WRONG. They are used all the time for real estate speculation and day trading.
Or when you claimed that Sub S income means you lose normal income tax deductions that an individual has? WRONG. Sub S income flows into an individual return just like small business PROFIT from a sole proprietorship, salary, or interest income.
Or when you claimed that the IRS doesn't define gross income on an individual return to include only small business PROFT, not their revenue? Wrong, as shown by the IRS forms and instructions.
Or when you accepted the BS premise that a new 2% tax should be used to pay down the deficit? How stupid is that? The deficit is ~$1 tril a year, in order to pay down the national debt, you'd have to first eliminate the $1 tril deficit, which a 2% tax isn't going to do.
But heh, keep digging that hole of ignorance ever deeper. And maybe someday Fretwell will decide to answer the simple question and tell us what he actually meant. But he's hiding out. The last post he made seems to suggest that he wasn't sure WTF he meant, it was just some flapping in the wind.
Never ever said anything even remotely like that, you silly little pathological liar. And since all you can do is lie thru your f****ng teeth, here goes the chain on all the rest of your bare faced lies.
Senile or lying or both again?
Fretwell:
Rod: But not if its gambling or speculation.
Other ignorant BS you posted restored below. Since you only disputed the one above, obviously you accepted the ones below. And I just proved the one above. QED
You claimed that Sub S income means you lose normal income tax deductions that an individual has? WRONG. Sub S income flows into an individual return just like small business PROFIT from a sole proprietorship, salary, or interest income.
You claimed that the IRS doesn't define gross income on an individual return to include only small business PROFT, not their revenue? Wrong, as shown by the IRS forms and instructions.
You accepted the BS premise that a new 2% tax should be used to pay down the deficit? How stupid is that? The deficit is ~$1 tril a year, in order to pay down the national debt, you'd have to first eliminate the $1 tril deficit, which a 2% tax isn't going to do.
That’s talking about a BUSINESS OR TAX REASON, not saying that it can't be done, f****it.
<all the rest of your pathological lying flushed where it belongs>Some gutless f****it/pathological liar desperately cowering behind trader_4 snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote just the shit you'd expect from a desperately cowering gutless f****it/pathological liar.
Corporations file the same 1040 as the crack dealer in the hood looking for his EIC
I'm a big fan of AFCI/GFCI breakers and Siemens makes it very easy to neatly install them so a Siemens panel is my "main" choice.
To the core of the issue of the last two days here, I see this buried in above, but I didn't see the post where it came from:
"OK I will make it simple. 2% of line 10 on your 1040. Add that to line 15."
Did you post that? Seems logical it would have been you. If so, then you agree with my interpretation of what you first posted, ie that your new 2% "gross" tax would be a tax on the person's gross income, which, per 1040 and the statement above, only includes the PROFIT from a business, not the businesses gross revenue/sales. That 2% would apply to the individual's gross income, which includes salaries, interest, alimony, etc and PROFIT from a business. In which case it makes sense and there is no tax hit to small businesses bases on their sales. So, was that from a post you made?
I posted a new thread. Let's see how long it takes for that good deed to go unpunished. ;-)
HomeOwnersHub website 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.