[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They were originally a breeding pair , they are considered a rare breed . I had the female fixed . But we could try having puppies
[/quote]
Then the costs of breeding, and only the costs associated with breeding could be taken to reduce the income from sale of the puppies, yes.
This would be such small $, I doubt you would come under audit at all.[/quote]
I feed them raw diet , not terribly expensive but it would be nice to write it off
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
An alarm system is a leasehold improvement, it is written off over the course of 39 years.[/quote]
Really?
Do you know how fast they are practically worthless?[/quote]
Yeah, and so does the government. Without a cost seg study (and I believe alarms are still structural after the cost seg, but may be wrong) a wired alarm system is a structural improvement and depreciated over 39 year for non-residential real property, and 27.5 years for residential real property.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
They were originally a breeding pair , they are considered a rare breed . I had the female fixed . But we could try having puppies
[/quote]
Then the costs of breeding, and only the costs associated with breeding could be taken to reduce the income from sale of the puppies, yes.
This would be such small $, I doubt you would come under audit at all.[/quote]
I feed them raw diet , not terribly expensive but it would be nice to write it off
[/quote]
Look at it like this:
You only get the write off in one of two ways, 1) you made money on the sale of the puppies. Which means you have more income than expense and you are looking good. 2) You lost money on the puppies which means you spent more than you took in, the 20 cents or so you are saving on your tax bill won’t make up for the fact you are still out the real dollars spent on expenses you didn’t have income to cover.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
An alarm system is a leasehold improvement, it is written off over the course of 39 years.[/quote]
Really?
Do you know how fast they are practically worthless?[/quote]
Yeah, and so does the government. Without a cost seg study (and I believe alarms are still structural after the cost seg, but may be wrong) a wired alarm system is a structural improvement and depreciated over 39 year for non-residential real property, and 27.5 years for residential real property.[/quote]
Well 11 years here.
That is way too long.
I wanted to post this before but got busy.
Look having a tax deduction in and of itself, typically is not a good thing. In a perfect world you would be 100% profit and your only cash out the door would be a reasonable tax bill. Unlike the news would lead you to belive the IRC doesn’t typically give you stuff for free, you, your neighbor, the 1% and corporations, more often than not have to spend a dollar to save 30 cents in tax.
Look at it like this:
Charitable Contributions are the worst fucking money management or tax savings tool on Earth. Give because you want to give, because you think it is the right thing to do or it makes you feel good, otherwise you get zero benefit and end up paying more in the long run.
Facts: Single tax payer who makes 500k a year, pays an effective 20% tax bill. Current Bush Era tax Code (no itemized phase out). We’ll ignore limits on contributions for now as well. Also assume income is fixed and you can do the below mentioned palnning before year end.
Current tax bill is 100k. (500k x 20%) So with no action this person will cut a check for 100k to the Treasury.
Well, that sucks, Taxpayer says “I don’t want to pay that much tax”, and give 100k to charity. “I’ll show those assholes.” Great right? Wrong. While his tax bill is now only 80k (500k-100k x 20%) his total cash out the door is 180k. (80k tax bill + 100k to charity) So he spent an extra net 80k in the end.
All deductions work like this, you spend money to get a benefit. Spending to get a “writeoff” is often idiotic.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
We’re all small potatoe Pitt.[/quote]
You called me a little man so I am expecting you to be Goliath, you refer to your and Mitt’s money. That is fucking HUGE
[/quote]
That shows how much you pay attention.
I told you that I was referring to your grasp of political facts when I called you “little”.
I never once talked about MY money on this board. EVER!
Romney has made over 300 million dollars in the private sector. He is a HUGE! But why elect anyone who has ever been successful? Let’s stick with the community organizer and chief.
I hope this clears out more of those cob webs.
Maybe hes not releasing them because he doesn’t want the church looking into his affairs and putting the squeeze on him for more dosh hehehehe
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Maybe hes not releasing them because he doesn’t want the church looking into his affairs and putting the squeeze on him for more dosh hehehehe[/quote]
haha. Well he gave them 1.5 in 2010.
I want to believe he isn’t releasing them now because he believes it is a non-issue.
It is really a lose lose. He releases them, and even if he paid 85% in tax, well he caved and isn’t going to be a strong leader. He doesn’t and idiots call for his head and make up lies, when they couldn’t understand the return past the box you put your social in anyway.
So fuck it. Keep course and focus on governance.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I wonder if I perceive Romney as being a liar when he is fact a wimp. I would be nice to know him personally.[/quote]
I’m just waiting for someone to post what Harry Reid said on Tuesday so I can rebut it with reality.
[/quote]
Once again the media doing Obama’s dirty work. This time it is Newsweek, next time it will be another schill for the democratic party. CNN, MSNBC, or maybe they’ll feel that the youth vote is slipping and call out Jon Stewart or the many other so called “comedians.” It’s unfortunate but the republicans not only have to take on Obama, but about 85% of the media as well.
Hey Mufasa what do you say about Newsweek calling Romney a wimp?
How come they’ve never once run a cover story that was negative toward Obama?
Come on Mufasa tell us all about how there is no media bias.
HA![/quote]
I read MSNBC and Fox, and figure the truth is in the middle.
I notice MSNBC doesn’t run the same story all day very often, and on Tuesday and Wednesday ran articles that paint Romney negative, losing or otherwise in a bad light all day, and in 3 different spots on the page…
The Obama story about how he promised no negative ads, and then ran nothign but negative ads was up for less than an hour.
This shit works too. I like to go to “being liberal” on facebook and read just how retarded the general population can be, (I’m sure “being conservative” has just as many puppets) and am slightly taken back by how deluded some people are. I mean every time a tax subject comes up, joe plumber suddenly becomes a CPA with 20 years experience, parrotting what some journalist, who doesn’t know what he is talking about either, said in an un-sited article. [/quote]
I find Rachel Maddow and Bill O’Reiley to be the most tolerable of the news talk shows and get most general news from the local news, google, and the Houston Chronicle.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Maybe hes not releasing them because he doesn’t want the church looking into his affairs and putting the squeeze on him for more dosh hehehehe[/quote]
haha. Well he gave them 1.5 in 2010.
I want to believe he isn’t releasing them now because he believes it is a non-issue.
It is really a lose lose. He releases them, and even if he paid 85% in tax, well he caved and isn’t going to be a strong leader. He doesn’t and idiots call for his head and make up lies, when they couldn’t understand the return past the box you put your social in anyway.
So fuck it. Keep course and focus on governance.[/quote]
Don’t get me wrong, I think its a total non issue. But i do like the church angle, it feeds my inner conspiracy theorist.
Romney has GOT to start defining who is is and what his vision is, and not worry about this stuff.
(Maybe he is waiting for the Convention?)
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Romney has GOT to start defining who is is and what his vision is, and not worry about this stuff.
(Maybe he is waiting for the Convention?)
Mufasa
[/quote]
You are spot on again Mufasa. If it wasn’t for your blind eye to a liberal media you would be batting close to 1000.
Anyway, Romney has problems and they’re at a fundamental campaign level. That is, they feel that people like Obama even though he’s a horrible President and so they refuse to take this to a personal level like Obama has done to him. I feel that is a huge mistake as most people do not vote on the issues, but who they LIKE better. If they continue to allow Obama to define Romney as an out of touch rich guy who avoids paying taxes he will lose.
But as you say I think they are waiting for the convention to define Romney. I’m not impressed with this strategy as it gives the Obama people, like scum bag Harry (lying piece of shit) Reid a chance to continue to throw mud.
With something like 95 days to go Romney MUST start throwing mud back at Obama or he loses. You cannot continue to follow the Marquess of Queensberry rules when your opponent is kicking and biting.
Simple.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes. This information was obtained from 2 “liberal” sources of information which leads to a problem. Either the liberal information is right, or Zeb is about to be proved wrong.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes. This information was obtained from 2 “liberal” sources of information which leads to a problem. Either the liberal information is right, or Zeb is about to be proved wrong.[/quote]
Hey Pitt using your other screen name huh?
Actually the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression…so what? Are you somehow inferring that the government GAVE it to them? They earned it and now they are being over taxed.
If the top 1% are controlling 20% of the nations income but pay 37% of all taxes they are being over taxed. That simple enough so that even you can understand.
Furthermore, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income tax! Would you like to rationalize that away?
You better go back to the drawing board Pitt, or Sufiandy, whichever name you choose to use you’re still dumb!
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes. This information was obtained from 2 “liberal” sources of information which leads to a problem. Either the liberal information is right, or Zeb is about to be proved wrong.[/quote]
Hey Pitt using your other screen name huh?
Actually the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression…so what? Are you somehow inferring that the government GAVE it to them? They earned it and now they are being over taxed.
If the top 1% are controlling 20% of the nations income but pay 37% of all taxes they are being over taxed. That simple enough so that even you can understand.
Furthermore, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income tax! Would you like to rationalize that away?
You better go back to the drawing board Pitt, or Sufiandy, whichever name you choose to use you’re still dumb![/quote]
I’m a little confused by what you just said, let me try to simplify this a bit so I can try to understand what you are saying.
Me: Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes.
You: the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression
You: the top 1% … pay 37% of all taxes
You: you’re still dumb!
Based on the first 3 lines it’s really just the last one I’m confused about. This is like talking to a kid who can’t find a come back except “well… because your stupid!”
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes. This information was obtained from 2 “liberal” sources of information which leads to a problem. Either the liberal information is right, or Zeb is about to be proved wrong.[/quote]
Hey Pitt using your other screen name huh?
Actually the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression…so what? Are you somehow inferring that the government GAVE it to them? They earned it and now they are being over taxed.
If the top 1% are controlling 20% of the nations income but pay 37% of all taxes they are being over taxed. That simple enough so that even you can understand.
Furthermore, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income tax! Would you like to rationalize that away?
You better go back to the drawing board Pitt, or Sufiandy, whichever name you choose to use you’re still dumb![/quote]
I’m a little confused by what you just said, let me try to simplify this a bit so I can try to understand what you are saying.
Me: Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes.
You: the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression
You: the top 1% … pay 37% of all taxes
You: you’re still dumb!
Based on the first 3 lines it’s really just the last one I’m confused about. This is like talking to a kid who can’t find a come back except “well… because your stupid!”[/quote]
You are dumber than I originally thought Pitt err sufiandy.
How is asking the top 1% to pay more than what they are paying now fair? Why don’t you explain that to me?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I called you “little”.
because it is your way of debating when you lost , it is called attack mode [/quote]
That “little” comment bothered you for a reason. It was meant to point out your limited perspective and why you continue to make the same flaw in your reasoning each time we meet.
For example, “the rich don’t pay their fair share.” Most (even democrats) know that this is political rhetoric and utter nonsense. However, you actually repeat this nonsense here. You are only too gullible.
And speaking of “losing” you never did answer this question. How can the rich not be paying their fair share (and more) given the facts.
Top 1% pay 37% of all taxes
Top 10% pay 70% of all taxes
Want to try and answer “little” man?
Try to detach from the democratic talking points and actually answer the question.
[/quote]
Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes. This information was obtained from 2 “liberal” sources of information which leads to a problem. Either the liberal information is right, or Zeb is about to be proved wrong.[/quote]
Hey Pitt using your other screen name huh?
Actually the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression…so what? Are you somehow inferring that the government GAVE it to them? They earned it and now they are being over taxed.
If the top 1% are controlling 20% of the nations income but pay 37% of all taxes they are being over taxed. That simple enough so that even you can understand.
Furthermore, the top 10% of income earners pay 70% of all income tax! Would you like to rationalize that away?
You better go back to the drawing board Pitt, or Sufiandy, whichever name you choose to use you’re still dumb![/quote]
I’m a little confused by what you just said, let me try to simplify this a bit so I can try to understand what you are saying.
Me: Top %1 earn about 20% of the nations income but pay almost twice as much in taxes.
You: the top 1% have had about 20% of the nations income since the days of the great depression
You: the top 1% … pay 37% of all taxes
You: you’re still dumb!
Based on the first 3 lines it’s really just the last one I’m confused about. This is like talking to a kid who can’t find a come back except “well… because your stupid!”[/quote]
You are dumber than I originally thought Pitt err sufiandy.
How is asking the top 1% to pay more than what they are paying now fair? Why don’t you explain that to me?
[/quote]
I made no comments on fairness. I simply posted the numbers to show the differences from the tax rate. If the percentages are not equal its not fair, that should go without saying since its so obvious.
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
I made no comments on fairness. [/quote]
Regardless of which screen name you post under you can’t remember a damn thing that you say. Talking to you is like talking to my 4 year old nephew…
I said that the rich are already paying more than their fair share.
You then said this:
If you are “trying” to prove me wrong then you are trying to make a claim that the rich are
NOT paying their fair share.
And the numbers clearly demonstrate that the rich are IN FACT over taxed. While you “said” I would be proved wrong you in fact had proven me to be correct.
http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Is this sort of thing actually fun for you?
Oooookay.