| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/12/2008 04:19:36 PM · #351 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
But if I do declare it I should be able to file a Schedule C and depreciate the $5000+ in camera equipment I own, right? |
Only if you run it as a business with all the appropriate records etc. Then yes. Your local IRS can help you if you have specific questions. |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 04:47:34 PM · #352 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you think that Liberal DPC members that sell their photos are hypocritical tax evaders, whereas the Conservative DPC Members that sell their photos are not? Is that it? |
No. But I think that some of the liberal posters here may not be claiming all their income from print sales and when then call for me to pay higher taxes, then I think that they are a bit hypocritical. |
But those good ol' multinational corporations who register offshore so they can skip paying millions of dollars are just loyal Americans doing their part to help out, right?
Sorry, but in my mind "cheating" on $10 of print sales does not make one "just as guilty" as those who perpetuate multi-million dollar scams.
Incidentally, you seem to imply that all "liberals" don't pay all their taxes -- can we expect a personal apology to those who do? |
|
|
|
03/12/2008 05:15:00 PM · #353 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you think that Liberal DPC members that sell their photos are hypocritical tax evaders, whereas the Conservative DPC Members that sell their photos are not? Is that it? |
No. But I think that some of the liberal posters here may not be claiming all their income from print sales and when then call for me to pay higher taxes, then I think that they are a bit hypocritical. |
I think most posters, liberal or not, would be well under the hobby loss provisions in most cases, least that's the simplest way to write it off. I'm sure some are making more than their gear is worth, but round about then being a business makes a lot of sense, too. Am I allowed to have off-shore accounts if I don't have a conservative slant to my world view?
Message edited by author 2008-03-12 17:16:24.
|
|
|
|
03/12/2008 05:37:56 PM · #354 |
i havent read this whole thread but im pretty sure he won it for warning us of manbearpig
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:08:51 PM · #355 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
But those good ol' multinational corporations who register offshore so they can skip paying millions of dollars are just loyal Americans doing their part to help out, right? |
No.
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Sorry, but in my mind "cheating" on $10 of print sales does not make one "just as guilty" as those who perpetuate multi-million dollar scams. |
It is just as hipocritical.
[qoute=GeneralE] Incidentally, you seem to imply that all "liberals" don't pay all their taxes -- can we expect a personal apology to those who do?[/quote]
I do not imply that all liberals do not pay their fair share of taxes. If you reread my posts the words are very specific to NOT imply ALL. I did and do suspect that some of the proponents of liberal socialist policies did not, and that has been confirmed. Just as I suspected. For those that don't claim all their income, then don't preach to me about how I should pay more tax to support ever more social programs when YOU are not paying what is owed. Pay your share first, then we can discuss whether I need to pay more.
|
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:17:52 PM · #356 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I think most posters, liberal or not, would be well under the hobby loss provisions in most cases, least that's the simplest way to write it off. I'm sure some are making more than their gear is worth, but round about then being a business makes a lot of sense, too. Am I allowed to have off-shore accounts if I don't have a conservative slant to my world view? |
I think off shore accounts are disengenuious and an a demonstration of ones greed. I also think that some businesses choose that loophole as the tax requirements in the locals where they were operating became prohibitive. It would be my preference that manufacturing jobs remained in this country at a competitive wage with the parent corporations responsible to the communities where they reside. Although not discussed here - I have long advocated against the base corporate policy of profits first. (one reason I am not a successful business person). Although a business is in the business of making money, I personally feel some have taken greed to a new level. But that is a different topic. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:18:10 PM · #357 |
Originally posted by Flash:
I did and do suspect that some of the proponents of liberal socialist policies did not, and that has been confirmed. Just as I suspected. |
huh ? I think you are starting to lose the thread of your point here. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:23:35 PM · #358 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So, you think that Liberal DPC members that sell their photos are hypocritical tax evaders, whereas the Conservative DPC Members that sell their photos are not? Is that it? |
No. But I think that some of the liberal posters here may not be claiming all their income from print sales and when then call for me to pay higher taxes, then I think that they are a bit hypocritical. |
Is that any less hypocritical than the conservatives who would fail to pay those same taxes, and then support squandering $12billion/month on a war? Or does the fact that the conservatives seem to be OK with running up the national debt and ruining the country's credit vs. actually paying for things make it all better?
If the liberals wanted to fund social programs the same way the war has been funded (i.e. on the National Credit Card), would that make it OK?
How about paying for the war with tax increases?
Where do you think the money to pay off the debt racked up fighting the war is going to come from when the debt (plus interest) is due? I can guarantee you that the money will not simply fall from the sky, nor will those to whom the governmment has hocked our children's future simply forgive that debt out of the kindness of their hearts.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 16:33:23. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 04:28:39 PM · #359 |
| Anybody want to take bets on what the topic will be 25 posts from now? I'm guessing foosball. |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:00:08 PM · #360 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Anybody want to take bets on what the topic will be 25 posts from now? I'm guessing foosball. |
foosball blows |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:36:43 PM · #361 |
Originally posted by Flash:
... I personally feel some have taken greed to a new level. But that is a different topic. |
That's what the current Administration is all about -- that's why some of us our outraged at the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives" who are laying waste to the land and the economic system. They don't think they should pay taxes -- well, that deficit they are running up is a big ol' IOU that someone's taxes will have to pay for -- why should it be our kids' or grandkids' responsibility to pay for these spendthrifts' excesses? How is that responsible behavor?
Reagan ran up huge deficits. Bush has increased the national debt by several trillions of dollars. But they want lower taxes? What greater example of greed do you need? |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 05:45:08 PM · #362 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
... I personally feel some have taken greed to a new level. But that is a different topic. |
That's what the current Administration is all about -- that's why some of us our outraged at the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives" who are laying waste to the land and the economic system. They don't think they should pay taxes -- well, that deficit they are running up is a big ol' IOU that someone's taxes will have to pay for -- why should it be our kids' or grandkids' responsibility to pay for these spendthrifts' excesses? How is that responsible behavor?
Reagan ran up huge deficits. Bush has increased the national debt by several trillions of dollars. But they want lower taxes? What greater example of greed do you need? |
I suspect Bush is hoping the rapture will save him. From the bumper stickers I see around Texas, most people are expecting that in the next few years. (with the oh so smug 'come the rapture, this car will be empty' stickers and the like) |
|
|
|
03/13/2008 07:38:38 PM · #363 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
(with the oh so smug 'come the rapture, this car will be empty' stickers and the like) |
Hopefully, it's on the bumper of a Bugatti Veyron and the keys remain.
Message edited by author 2008-03-13 19:39:19. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 10:31:21 AM · #364 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That's what the current Administration is all about -- that's why some of us our outraged at the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives" who are laying waste to the land and the economic system. They don't think they should pay taxes -- well, that deficit they are running up is a big ol' IOU that someone's taxes will have to pay for -- |
And per the other thread, 86% is paid for by only 25% of taxpayers. Those with an adjusted gross of $62K or higher.
edit to add: I am not opposed to taxes, I simply do not want any more - especially to support more failed social programs that encourage the 75% that pay only 14% of Federal income tax, to be even more dependent on the 25% that are paying 86% of the funds.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 10:37:49. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 10:48:16 AM · #365 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
From the bumper stickers I see around Texas, most people are expecting that in the next few years. (with the oh so smug 'come the rapture, this car will be empty' stickers and the like) |
I don't feel like eating lunch now. :-( |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:10:19 AM · #366 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
... I personally feel some have taken greed to a new level. But that is a different topic. |
That's what the current Administration is all about -- that's why some of us our outraged at the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives" who are laying waste to the land and the economic system. They don't think they should pay taxes -- well, that deficit they are running up is a big ol' IOU that someone's taxes will have to pay for -- why should it be our kids' or grandkids' responsibility to pay for these spendthrifts' excesses? How is that responsible behavor?
Reagan ran up huge deficits. Bush has increased the national debt by several trillions of dollars. But they want lower taxes? What greater example of greed do you need? |
I suspect Bush is hoping the rapture will save him. From the bumper stickers I see around Texas, most people are expecting that in the next few years. (with the oh so smug 'come the rapture, this car will be empty' stickers and the like) |
If only Bush's rapture could have come a few years ago... |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:22:01 AM · #367 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
That's what the current Administration is all about -- that's why some of us our outraged at the hypocrisy of the so-called "conservatives" who are laying waste to the land and the economic system. They don't think they should pay taxes -- well, that deficit they are running up is a big ol' IOU that someone's taxes will have to pay for -- |
And per the other thread, 86% is paid for by only 25% of taxpayers. Those with an adjusted gross of $62K or higher.
edit to add: I am not opposed to taxes, I simply do not want any more - especially to support more failed social programs that encourage the 75% that pay only 14% of Federal income tax, to be even more dependent on the 25% that are paying 86% of the funds. |
Well, I don't want my country running up $12 Billion/month on the National Credit card to kill people. I'd rather help people at home than kill them abroad.
Evidently, you'd rather your money (and your children's money and your grandchildren's money) go towards paying off the fiasco in Iraq than be used to keep the kind of poverty seen in Somalia et. al. out of the US.
How exactly does your apparent lack of sympathy for the poor fit with the compassion supposedly demanded by your Christian faith?
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 11:50:25 AM · #368 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How exactly does your apparent lack of sympathy for the poor fit with the compassion supposedly demanded by your Christian faith? |
See - there you go thinking you know me. There is a distinction between mandated taxes and free giving to charitable causes. Although it is none of your business, I personally donate and have donated thousands and thousands of dollars over the last several years to inner city missions. Their specific target client is minority, drug addicted, and many are homeless. And more specifically, women and children are the priority recipients - just as Jesus directed. They receive food, shelter, clothing and even that "dreaded" christian message that Jesus loves them. I also choose to support both the International Red Cross and local chapters as I believe their intent is to be universally helpful regardless of politics. I do not support any name church or denomination. Instead, I choose to use the OT God tax (aka tithe = 10%) for what social programs that I feel are addressing specific needs and are accountable to me in the sense that if they become irresponsible with my donations, then I can simply choose another charity. That is very different than a government entity, (city, state, federal) forcing me to support some social program that has limited oversight, had for decades and decades squandered opportunities for improvement, is rift with corruption and deciet, and does not allow me to move my contribution elsewhere when those discoveries are revealed.
That is how I square it. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 01:04:17 PM · #369 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
How exactly does your apparent lack of sympathy for the poor fit with the compassion supposedly demanded by your Christian faith? |
See - there you go thinking you know me. There is a distinction between mandated taxes and free giving to charitable causes. Although it is none of your business, I personally donate and have donated thousands and thousands of dollars over the last several years to inner city missions. Their specific target client is minority, drug addicted, and many are homeless. And more specifically, women and children are the priority recipients - just as Jesus directed. They receive food, shelter, clothing and even that "dreaded" christian message that Jesus loves them. I also choose to support both the International Red Cross and local chapters as I believe their intent is to be universally helpful regardless of politics. I do not support any name church or denomination. Instead, I choose to use the OT God tax (aka tithe = 10%) for what social programs that I feel are addressing specific needs and are accountable to me in the sense that if they become irresponsible with my donations, then I can simply choose another charity. That is very different than a government entity, (city, state, federal) forcing me to support some social program that has limited oversight, had for decades and decades squandered opportunities for improvement, is rift with corruption and deciet, and does not allow me to move my contribution elsewhere when those discoveries are revealed.
That is how I square it. |
OK. I asked the question because of the apparent disconnect between your attitude about social programs that for the most part help people, despite some level of abuse, and your faith; both of which you have openly professed and shared in these forums. None of it is necessarily "my business", but if you are going to publicly state seemingly discordant views, you should be willing to address those discrepancies as well.
Given that, you can understand how I feel about being forced to pay (along with my children and their children) for a war that mostly kills and injures innocents, has destabilized the Middle East even more than it was before, ruined our country's global reputation, has limited oversight, squandered opportunities, is rife with corruption and deceit on an epic scale and does not allow me to withhold or move my contribution elsewhere.
That's not to mention the financial irresponsibility and hypocrisy of the Republicans, who are supposedly "fiscally conservative", running up the National Debt while offering "tax cuts". They aren't really tax cuts, more like tax deferments, since, at some point, that debt will need to be paid with taxpayer dollars along with a huge amount of interest.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 13:19:35. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:13:59 PM · #370 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK. I asked the question because of the apparent disconnect between your attitude about social programs that for the most part help people, despite some level of abuse, and your faith; both of which you have openly professed and shared in these forums. None of it is necessarily "my business", but if you are going to publicly state seemingly discordant views, you should be willing to address those discrepancies as well.
Given that, you can understand how I feel about being forced to pay (along with my children and their children) for a war that mostly kills and injures innocents, has destabilized the Middle East even more than it was before, ruined our country's global reputation, has limited oversight, squandered opportunities, is rife with corruption and deceit on an epic scale and does not allow me to withhold or move my contribution elsewhere.
That's not to mention the financial irresponsibility and hypocrisy of the Republicans, who are supposedly "fiscally conservative", running up the National Debt while offering "tax cuts". They aren't really tax cuts, more like tax deferments, since, at some point, that debt will need to be paid with taxpayer dollars along with a huge amount of interest. |
The problem with your argument for me, is that it reads as though you are defending the liberal tax polices to support decades of failed social programs since it is less "sinful" than the current administrations future tax liabilities. If someone else is sinning (as an analogy only), it does excuse or redeem yours. As a defender of liberal polices, namely tax and spend on social programs, which includes taxing the 25% that pay 86% of the tax anyway - even MORE, you cannot excuse that position simply by pointing out another sinner's sin. Either you agree with increasing taxes to further support adding more failed social programs or you do not. I do not and have stated such rather plainly. Your war argument is another matter entirely - in my opinion. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 02:41:13 PM · #371 |
Flash, since you didn't reply in the other forum, I'll post it here
The problem is your math. You are comparing the percentage of tax payers (people) to the percentage of tax collected (dollars). Those do not corrolate directly. It sounds good, but it is flawed comparative math.
Compare the percentage of income earned (dollars) to the percentage of tax paid (dollars). Then you are comparing apples to apples, or in the case, dollars to dollars.
Care to comment?
And since other direct questions were posed and you never answered directly, I respectfully ask you the following:
1. How can you rationalize the increased spending brought on my the Iraq war and a tax break for the weathiest citizens? I'm not asking you to justify the war, just what is the fiscal rational?
2. How can you rationalize this administration's decision to deficit spend in order to cover the cost of the war and the tax break? Ronald Reagan campaigned and won on the evils of deficit spending.
3. You stated that you are not oppsed to taxation, then please explain how basing the amount taxed as a direct reflection of the tax payers percentage of the over all income earned is not the fairest way to determine the amount of taxes owed? (See above)
I ask these questions with all due respect. I look forward to your replies.
Message edited by author 2008-03-14 14:41:27. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 03:01:58 PM · #372 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
OK. I asked the question because of the apparent disconnect between your attitude about social programs that for the most part help people, despite some level of abuse, and your faith; both of which you have openly professed and shared in these forums. None of it is necessarily "my business", but if you are going to publicly state seemingly discordant views, you should be willing to address those discrepancies as well.
Given that, you can understand how I feel about being forced to pay (along with my children and their children) for a war that mostly kills and injures innocents, has destabilized the Middle East even more than it was before, ruined our country's global reputation, has limited oversight, squandered opportunities, is rife with corruption and deceit on an epic scale and does not allow me to withhold or move my contribution elsewhere.
That's not to mention the financial irresponsibility and hypocrisy of the Republicans, who are supposedly "fiscally conservative", running up the National Debt while offering "tax cuts". They aren't really tax cuts, more like tax deferments, since, at some point, that debt will need to be paid with taxpayer dollars along with a huge amount of interest. |
The problem with your argument for me, is that it reads as though you are defending the liberal tax polices to support decades of failed social programs since it is less "sinful" than the current administrations future tax liabilities. If someone else is sinning (as an analogy only), it does excuse or redeem yours. As a defender of liberal polices, namely tax and spend on social programs, which includes taxing the 25% that pay 86% of the tax anyway - even MORE, you cannot excuse that position simply by pointing out another sinner's sin. Either you agree with increasing taxes to further support adding more failed social programs or you do not. I do not and have stated such rather plainly. Your war argument is another matter entirely - in my opinion. |
Your opinion is that government funded social programs are corrupt failures and you object to your tax dollars being used to support such things.
I hold the same opinion about the war in Iraq. I object to my tax dollars being used to fund such an enterprise.
I will acknowledge that there is some level of corruption in the social programs sponsored by the government, I do not believe that the corruption is at a level sufficient to justify turning out into the cold all of the people who truly need those programs to survive. That would be, despite the lunatic rantings of others, much more cruel than releasing squirrels into unfamiliar woods. Those social programs you condemn, despite their faults, are the reason that there is not poverty on the scale seen in Somalia and other third world countries. Perhaps you would be in favor of mandatory birth control and a limit of one child per couple like in China? How about starving babies? Old people freezing to death because they can't pay their electric bill? How about kids dying in droves from diseases like TB, smallpox, influenza?
I'm all for eliminating corruption and abuse of social programs, but eliminating the programs themselves isn't practical, there is a societal need to help those who need help.
As for spending within our means, I have to do it with my budget, I don't see why the government shouldn't have to as well.
|
|
|
|
03/14/2008 04:18:38 PM · #373 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
As for spending within our means, I have to do it with my budget, I don't see why the government shouldn't have to as well. |
On this it seems that we agree.
As for the war concerns, that to me is a separate tax rant, and no way excuses any liberal's attempt to raise my taxes to support decades old failing programs that are administered (typically) by liberals. Doing good is a fine objective, as long as once it is discovered that the results are not there, then we have enough sense and in some cases courage, to say enough is enough. We will not condone generation after generation of the same familes to remain on welfare. The same groups to have multiple children out of wedlock, the same men to father more and more babies that they do not support etc etc etc. They can rely on the charity of their communities but not on the government.
And yes - at some point very hard choices require decisions - regardless of how they "square" with mine or anyone's christian principles. You cannot keep giving and giving and giving without some measure of accountability to thsoe receiving the benefit. Are there specific case exceptions where society may choose to support longterm care for specific recipients - yes. But able bodied persons can perform work for their benefits. Thus teaching them responsibility not dependency. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 04:28:20 PM · #374 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Doing good is a fine objective, as long as once it is discovered that the results are not there, then we have enough sense and in some cases courage, to say enough is enough...The same groups to have multiple children out of wedlock... |
Out of curiosity, exactly how would you propose saying "enough is enough"? Not knowing which "liberal taxes" you feel are being summarily handed over to undeserving welfare cases, I'm wondering what you would do if you were in a position to do something. Force welfare recipients to work? Cut off their payments if they didn't, or send them to jail?
I'm particularly interested in how you would stop "groups" from having children out of wedlock. Jail unmarried parents? Remove the children from the home? Or simply stop paying welfare to single parents, or unmarried couples?
Which "groups" are you referring to? Blacks? Hispanics? Be as specific as you are able. |
|
|
|
03/14/2008 04:32:44 PM · #375 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Flash, since you didn't reply in the other forum, I'll post it here
The problem is your math. I see your point. You are comparing the percentage of tax payers (people) to the percentage of tax collected (dollars). Those do not corrolate directly. It sounds good, but it is flawed comparative math.
Compare the percentage of income earned (dollars) to the percentage of tax paid (dollars). Then you are comparing apples to apples, or in the case, dollars to dollars.
Care to comment? Only to state that regardless of the income earned, there is no denying that 86% of tax monies collected come from only 25%. Thus 75% only contribute 14% which to my math means a whole lot of folks are not paying much. I do not se how someone making 90K/year and paying say 20% and another making 200K/year and paying 25% is deserving of an even higher rate (say 40%) siimply because they had the good fortune to have a higher income. I would hope that they would choose to be philanthropic with some of their moneys, however I do not see that as a government role or mandate.
And since other direct questions were posed and you never answered directly, I respectfully ask you the following:
1. How can you rationalize the increased spending brought on my the Iraq war and a tax break for the weathiest citizens? I'm not asking you to justify the war, just what is the fiscal rational? These are completely separate from my argument on failed liberal policies.
2. How can you rationalize this administration's decision to deficit spend in order to cover the cost of the war and the tax break? Ronald Reagan campaigned and won on the evils of deficit spending. I don't. I find running a deficit counter to the core principle of fiscal responsibility. However, adding more failed socialist programs doesn't make it any better.
3. You stated that you are not oppsed to taxation, then please explain how basing the amount taxed as a direct reflection of the tax payers percentage of the over all income earned is not the fairest way to determine the amount of taxes owed? (See above)
I am not exactly sure I understand your question - however, to me the fairest tax would be a flat tax (say 10-15%) with some sort of a use tax associated with various goods and services. But that still requires government to live within their budget just like I do. There are things I can't do because I have to choose between this or that. Its life.
I ask these questions with all due respect. I look forward to your replies. |
|
|
