Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.checkmate > #245411 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2019-01-05 01:53 +0000 |
| Last post | 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000 |
| Articles | 16 on this page of 196 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to alt.checkmate
Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 01:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-04 20:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-04 20:03 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 06:07 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Meteorite Debris <WTF@whoknows.com> - 2019-01-05 15:03 +1030
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mitchell Holman <noemail@verizont.net> - 2019-01-05 07:32 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 13:59 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2019-01-05 06:42 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks bookwurm <bookwurm8@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 14:22 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Meteorite Debris <WTF@whoknows.com> - 2019-01-05 15:05 +1030
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 03:11 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 12:48 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Klaus Schadenfreude <klausschadenfreude@null.net> - 2019-01-05 04:57 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 13:04 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-05 09:20 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 14:27 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:28 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 23:41 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:43 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-05 23:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 15:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 00:11 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 16:24 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 00:57 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 21:20 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 14:44 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 15:06 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:12 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:42 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:36 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:45 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:02 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:00 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:13 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:23 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:25 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 22:43 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 22:53 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:02 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:00 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:34 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:47 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:42 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:43 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:07 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:31 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:51 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:58 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:07 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:13 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 15:16 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:28 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:02 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 17:19 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 16:49 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 17:57 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 17:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 18:40 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 22:28 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 07:01 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 23:09 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:58 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 11:48 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 13:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-08 15:25 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "DoD" <danskisanjar@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:26 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "DoD" <danskisanjar@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:59 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb - 2019-01-08 14:01 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 14:25 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Patrick <PBARKER002@woh.rr.com> - 2019-01-08 15:22 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 12:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-08 14:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:46 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:07 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:27 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:33 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:06 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:42 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:47 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:54 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:57 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 19:08 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 18:13 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 12:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-06 20:21 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Just Wondering <JW@me.com> - 2019-01-07 01:18 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 14:11 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:00 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Clave <ChrisShitbagious@TheMonastery.com> - 2019-01-07 19:24 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks "Scout" <me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net> - 2019-01-07 22:59 -0500
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-08 06:18 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 18:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 17:56 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:09 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 02:16 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:41 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 03:06 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 20:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 03:35 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 20:50 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:12 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:36 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 22:00 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 09:22 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 10:16 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:03 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:07 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-06 23:32 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 16:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:48 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 01:12 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:35 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:12 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:30 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:58 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:04 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:09 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:32 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:40 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:45 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 17:52 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 19:03 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-06 18:12 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:30 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 12:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 22:05 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 14:10 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 16:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Rudy Canoza <cap@philhendrie.con> - 2019-01-07 15:29 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:14 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-07 13:17 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 04:17 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 00:45 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 15:51 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:11 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 16:30 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 17:36 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:03 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:30 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:37 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:41 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 17:47 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:55 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:08 -0800
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-06 18:39 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:43 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Ted <ted@sam.street> - 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 20:05 -0600
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:16 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks % <persent@gmail.com> - 2019-01-05 19:18 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-05 19:27 -0700
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-06 13:18 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2019-01-06 18:13 +0000
Re: Bernie Sanders' fans can't be allowed to poison another Democratic primary with personal attacks Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> - 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fp36Fu1t8U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246086 |
On 1/6/19 6:37 PM, Mattb wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:30:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>> >>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>> >>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>> >>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>> >>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. >>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>> >>>>> Goal post moving? >>>> >>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>> >>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >> >> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, no, >> you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay the >> full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. > > OK do you believe a company should have to include the cost of > employee wages and benefits in it's taxable income. Yes or NO. > > >> >>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>> >>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>> >>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>> >>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>> >>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>> utterly without merit. >>> >>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >> >> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we >> need taxes. > > Well seems you don't want to answer this question. I did answer the question. > Many liberals no > doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for > more freebies. Liberals tend to have higher IQs, have better education, and make more money. Red states tend to be the takers... and have the higher percentage of people on SNAP and the like. Also many large corporations do not pay taxes. Those large corporations tend to be conservative. Seems you are just making things up at this point. >>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>> correct? >> >> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >> living expenses and get it deducted. > > Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. Here you toss in the towel and decide you just want to make things up. Got it. > She won't get what she want anyway. Not in the short term, that is for sure. In the long run hopefully we move in the direction she is encouraging. We have to if we want to remain a super power. We are already moving away from that. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 17:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <clb53ehure7iahmjd9spc5butk3l2ibigf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246089 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:41:57 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/6/19 6:37 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:30:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>>> >>>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. >>>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>>> >>>>>> Goal post moving? >>>>> >>>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>>> >>>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >>> >>> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, no, >>> you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay the >>> full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. >> >> OK do you believe a company should have to include the cost of >> employee wages and benefits in it's taxable income. Yes or NO. >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>>> >>>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>>> >>>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>>> utterly without merit. >>>> >>>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >>> >>> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we >>> need taxes. >> >> Well seems you don't want to answer this question. > >I did answer the question. > >> Many liberals no >> doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for >> more freebies. > >Liberals tend to have higher IQs, have better education, and make more >money. Red states tend to be the takers... and have the higher >percentage of people on SNAP and the like. So you claim. > >Also many large corporations do not pay taxes. Those large corporations >tend to be conservative. Then the problem is with the deductions allowed. Dems had full power under Obama for 2 years why didn't they fix this? > >Seems you are just making things up at this point. > >>>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>>> correct? >>> >>> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >>> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >>> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >>> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >>> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >>> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >>> living expenses and get it deducted. >> >> Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. > >Here you toss in the towel and decide you just want to make things up. >Got it. We were talking about taxes and you went this way and that. Taxable income is part of taxes to which if you include or deduct wages are a part. If you pay a good wage and benefits package a important part. This socialist want to raise that cost by about 70%. > >> She won't get what she want anyway. > >Not in the short term, that is for sure. > >In the long run hopefully we move in the direction she is encouraging. >We have to if we want to remain a super power. We are already moving >away from that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fprvFubogU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246094 |
On 1/6/19 6:47 PM, Mattb wrote: ... >>> Many liberals no >>> doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for >>> more freebies. >> >> Liberals tend to have higher IQs, have better education, and make more >> money. Red states tend to be the takers... and have the higher >> percentage of people on SNAP and the like. > > So you claim. So the evidence backs. And notice you do not have evidence to back your claim about liberals. >> Also many large corporations do not pay taxes. Those large corporations >> tend to be conservative. > > Then the problem is with the deductions allowed. Dems had full power > under Obama for 2 years why didn't they fix this? There are problems with the deductions. No doubt. As far as why Dems did not fix it there are two reasons that come to mind: 1) They are paid for and beholden to the very rich, as I have noted. 2) You are simply wrong about the Dems having control for two years (if by control you mean having a super majority). https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html ----- President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators to support his agenda. He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months. The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority. But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was hospitalized and was basically out of commission. So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really working with just 58 Senators. Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd was still out. In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat in September. ----- > >> >> Seems you are just making things up at this point. >> >>>>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>>>> correct? >>>> >>>> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >>>> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >>>> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >>>> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >>>> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >>>> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >>>> living expenses and get it deducted. >>> >>> Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. >> >> Here you toss in the towel and decide you just want to make things up. >> Got it. > > We were talking about taxes and you went this way and that. I am not the one who went to the bizarre and unsupported idea that: ----- You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. ----- That was you just giving up. And you did so in response to my comments about taxes: ----- Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are different). No more having people create corporations to pay their living expenses and get it deducted. ----- But why go in such circles? > Taxable > income is part of taxes to which if you include or deduct wages are a > part. If you pay a good wage and benefits package a important part. > This socialist want to raise that cost by about 70%. >> >>> She won't get what she want anyway. >> >> Not in the short term, that is for sure. >> >> In the long run hopefully we move in the direction she is encouraging. >> We have to if we want to remain a super power. We are already moving >> away from that. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <h1d53e9blfr3vcgvgbvug6564kqe4b1t7h@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #246098 |
On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:55:10 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/6/19 6:47 PM, Mattb wrote: >... >>>> Many liberals no >>>> doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for >>>> more freebies. >>> >>> Liberals tend to have higher IQs, have better education, and make more >>> money. Red states tend to be the takers... and have the higher >>> percentage of people on SNAP and the like. >> >> So you claim. > >So the evidence backs. And notice you do not have evidence to back your >claim about liberals. California has the biggest welfare budget. > >>> Also many large corporations do not pay taxes. Those large corporations >>> tend to be conservative. >> >> Then the problem is with the deductions allowed. Dems had full power >> under Obama for 2 years why didn't they fix this? > >There are problems with the deductions. No doubt. As far as why Dems did >not fix it there are two reasons that come to mind: > >1) They are paid for and beholden to the very rich, as I have noted. Yes. > >2) You are simply wrong about the Dems having control for two years (if >by control you mean having a super majority). You mean they did not have that when they passed Obamacare? > >https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-m-granholm/debunking-the-myth-obamas_b_1929869.html >----- >President Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009 with just 58 Senators >to support his agenda. > >He should have had 59, but Republicans contested Al Franken’s election >in Minnesota and he didn’t get seated for seven months. > >The President’s cause was helped in April when Pennsylvania’s Republican >Senator Arlen Specter switched parties. > >That gave the President 59 votes — still a vote shy of the super majority. > >But one month later, Democratic Senator Byrd of West Virginia was >hospitalized and was basically out of commission. > >So while the President’s number on paper was 59 Senators — he was really >working with just 58 Senators. > >Then in July, Minnesota Senator Al Franken was finally sworn in, giving >President Obama the magic 60 — but only in theory, because Senator Byrd >was still out. > >In August, Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died and the number went >back down to 59 again until Paul Kirk temporarily filled Kennedy’s seat >in September. >----- > > > > >> >>> >>> Seems you are just making things up at this point. >>> >>>>>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>>>>> correct? >>>>> >>>>> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >>>>> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >>>>> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >>>>> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >>>>> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >>>>> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >>>>> living expenses and get it deducted. >>>> >>>> Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. >>> >>> Here you toss in the towel and decide you just want to make things up. >>> Got it. >> >> We were talking about taxes and you went this way and that. > >I am not the one who went to the bizarre and unsupported idea that: >----- >You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. >----- > >That was you just giving up. And you did so in response to my comments >about taxes: >----- >Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >living expenses and get it deducted. >----- > >But why go in such circles? > >> Taxable >> income is part of taxes to which if you include or deduct wages are a >> part. If you pay a good wage and benefits package a important part. >> This socialist want to raise that cost by about 70%. >>> >>>> She won't get what she want anyway. >>> >>> Not in the short term, that is for sure. >>> >>> In the long run hopefully we move in the direction she is encouraging. >>> We have to if we want to remain a super power. We are already moving >>> away from that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <561962677568519250.109470ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246086 |
Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:30:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>> >>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>> >>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>> >>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>> >>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. >>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>> >>>>> Goal post moving? >>>> >>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>> >>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >> >> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, no, >> you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay the >> full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. > > OK do you believe a company should have to include the cost of > employee wages and benefits in it's taxable income. Yes or NO. > > >> >>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>> >>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>> >>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>> >>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>> >>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>> utterly without merit. >>> >>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >> >> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we >> need taxes. > > Well seems you don't want to answer this question. Many liberals no > doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for > more freebies. >> >>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>> correct? >> >> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >> living expenses and get it deducted. > > Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. > > She won't get what she want anyway. You guys are discussing this as though your opinions can affect outcome. Just curious. - Where do you learn to do that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9fsbrFbbjU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246107 |
Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: > Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 18:30:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. Business >>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? Are the rules >>>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all income >>>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this service >>>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is 20K do >>>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the 20K? >>>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow businesses to >>>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>>> >>>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>>> >>>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can afford it. >>>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>>> >>>>>> Goal post moving? >>>>> >>>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>>> >>>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >>> >>> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, no, >>> you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay the >>> full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. >> >> OK do you believe a company should have to include the cost of >> employee wages and benefits in it's taxable income. Yes or NO. >> >> >>> >>>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>>> >>>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>>> >>>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>>> >>>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>>> >>>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>>> utterly without merit. >>>> >>>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >>> >>> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we >>> need taxes. >> >> Well seems you don't want to answer this question. Many liberals no >> doubt pay no taxes except sales tax. They are the ones that yell for >> more freebies. >>> >>>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>>> correct? >>> >>> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >>> if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >>> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) >>> and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be >>> deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are >>> different). No more having people create corporations to pay their >>> living expenses and get it deducted. >> >> Forget it. You just want freebies to buy votes for the dems. >> >> She won't get what she want anyway. > > > You guys are discussing this as though your opinions can affect outcome. > Just curious. - Where do you learn to do that? > What outcome do you mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsr05b.mdc.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246080 |
On 2019-01-06 6:30 p.m., Snit wrote: > On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all >>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>> >>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>> in taxes? >>>>> >>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>> >>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>> >>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >> >> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>> >>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>> >>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can >>>>> afford it. >>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>> >>>> Goal post moving? >>> >>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >> >> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. > > As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, no, > you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay the > full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. > >>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>> >>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>> >>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>> >>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>> >>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>> >>>> You watch to much CNN. >>> >>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>> >>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>> utterly without merit. >> >> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >> expenses before you figure your taxable income? > > I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we > need taxes. > >> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >> correct? > > Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that > if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual > business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living expenses) > and that we should have personal income also have personal expenses be > deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of course are > different). No more having people create corporations to pay their > living expenses and get it deducted. > > does snit know snipe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9fp6tFu1t8U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #246087 |
On 1/6/19 6:39 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-01-06 6:30 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit >>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>>> amount that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that >>>>>>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on >>>>>>>>>> all income >>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay >>>>>>> 70K >>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>> >>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>> >>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>> >>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>> >>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can >>>>>> afford it. >>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>> >>>>> Goal post moving? >>>> >>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>> >>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >> >> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, >> no, you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay >> the full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor >> costs. >> >>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>> >>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>> >>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>> >>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>> >>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>> utterly without merit. >>> >>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >> >> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we >> need taxes. >> >>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>> correct? >> >> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is >> that if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual >> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living >> expenses) and that we should have personal income also have personal >> expenses be deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of >> course are different). No more having people create corporations to >> pay their living expenses and get it deducted. >> >> > does snit know snipe Snit snipes at snipe snits. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ted <ted@sam.street> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <363875244568519888.494566ted-sam.street@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #246087 |
% <persent@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2019-01-06 6:30 p.m., Snit wrote: >> On 1/6/19 6:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:36:24 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/6/19 5:30 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 17:11:23 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:51 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>> On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 16:07:03 -0700, Snit >>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 1/6/19 4:03 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:30:10 GMT, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 6 Jan 2019 18:13:11 GMT, Snit >>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Mattb <trdell12345@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 22:00:13 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 9:36 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 19:09:31 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 6:56 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> articles exposing Bernie >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and whom Russia >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them on request), so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shenanigans in 2020. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> him and other Russian >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> freedom depends on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting person. We >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knew-found celebrity >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> status get to her? I hope not. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Think it already has suggesting a 70% tax rate. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, that is what the highest tax rate was before the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1980s when our >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> economy started to really tank, so I would be open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> back to what >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we know worked. I would also be open to other ideas and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> techniques... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> including taxes NOT so high but blocking shelters and the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would suggest a flat tax that way if liberals want this >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that they can help pay for it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you going with no deductions, no corporate tax >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> benefits, no allowed >>>>>>>>>>>>>> offshore shelters, no games at all? And then a minimum >>>>>>>>>>>>> amount >>>>>>>>>>>>>> that is >>>>>>>>>>>>>> not taxed (or we help those who cannot pay it). If so I am >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> open to >>>>>>>>>>>>>> seeing the research on it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd set the starting amount just above the poverty level. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Business >>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes on profit only. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Personal taxes on profit only, too ? or do you want that special >>>>>>>>>>>> entitlement only for those with their own corporations? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Define what you mean by "Personal taxes on profit only"? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Same thing you meant for businesses. You did not define it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do we tax only profit (however we define that) or all income? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Are the rules >>>>>>>>>> the same go me and for Walmart? Or do I get stuck paying on all >>>>>>>>> income >>>>>>>>>> where they do not? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> OK Say I am hired to do a service and will get 100K for this >>>>>>>> service >>>>>>>>> yet the cost of supplies and wages cost me 80K so my profit is >>>>>>>> 20K do >>>>>>>>> you want me to pay a 70% tax rate on the whole 100K or just the >>>>>>>> 20K? >>>>>>>>> What do you believe is fair and right? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why would you pay 70% on that amount at all? Makes no sense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you did not answer my question: do you want to allow >>>>>>> businesses to >>>>>>>> deduct their expenses but people to not be able to? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Then what you are saying is I charge 100K for services I need pay 70K >>>>>>> in taxes? >>>>>> >>>>>> When did you say you wanted your flat tax to be 70%? I do not recall >>>>>> that and certainly do not back that. >>>>> >>>>> Are you saying Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is calling for a flat tax? >>>> >>>> Of course not... I am in reference to this discussion where you said "I >>>> would suggest a flat tax" and we started talking about it. >>> >>> Ok Where did I suggest a 70% flat tax? >>>> >>>>>>> Do you have ant idea what I would have to charge to supply >>>>>>> these services? Should I cut wages and benefits? >>>>>> >>>>>> If you want labor you should cover the full cost and not have the >>>>>> government subsidize it, esp. for a large corporation who can >>>>> afford it. >>>>>> The fact we allow that now is insane. >>>>> >>>>> Goal post moving? >>>> >>>> You brought up wages. I am noting if you want to buy labor you can... >>>> but we should stop having government subsidize it for large >>>> corporations. Did you miss how that applies? >>> >>> Yes I did as it applies to taxable income. Somehow we went from >>> Taxable income to government subsidized wages. >>> As I said, I was responding to your comment on wages. The answer is, >>> no, > you should not cut wages. If you want to buy labor you should pay >>> the > full cost and not expect the government to keep subsidizing labor costs. >>>>>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. All you see a >>>>>>> freebies from taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Your conclusion there is based on GIGO. You make things up about my >>>>>> views and then assume your conclusions are based on my actual views. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not a very reasonable thing for you to do. >>>>> >>>>> You keep going this way and that. >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe you understand how a business works. >>>>> >>>>> You watch to much CNN. >>>> >>>> Based on your failures you make up stories about me. Got it. >>>> >>>> Oh, and both my wife and I have had our own businesses... your claim is >>>> utterly without merit. >>> >>> The you do not want to deduct the wages you pay employees, the cost of >>> employee benefits, the cost of materials and other business related >>> expenses before you figure your taxable income? >>> I *want* to pay no taxes at all. But I understand the reality that we > need taxes. >>>> You do know we are talking taxable income and how to figure it here >>> correct? >>> Taxable income for businesses and individuals. What I am noting is that >>> > if we have deductions for business expenses they should be actual > >>>> business expenses (not food and entertainment and other living >>>> expenses) > and that we should have personal income also have personal >>>> expenses be > deducted. Same rules for both (though the details of >>>> course are > different). No more having people create corporations to >>>> pay their > living expenses and get it deducted. > does snit know snipe LOL. No doubt. They're cousins, right?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob Robertson <bobrobertsontsy66@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 20:05 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <mdo23et19sa28pp3r4psjrbdvl7hv9pej0@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #245775 |
On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote: >On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >> >>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >> >> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >> > >She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >status get to her? I hope not. She's already a little narcissistic bitch. Yeah, Trump's got that too. But, at least he was able to do something with it. LOL
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d6o2FcubcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245803 |
On 1/5/19 7:05 PM, Bob Robertson wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>> >>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>> >>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>> >> >> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >> status get to her? I hope not. > > She's already a little narcissistic bitch. Yeah, Trump's got that > too. But, at least he was able to do something with it. LOL She is responding to right wing attacks, mostly with grace. I have no issue with that. The whole dance attack was just absurd... though I have not even looked to see who pushed that. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | % <persent@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bsoe2e.8i1.17.2@news.alt.net> |
| In reply to | #245803 |
On 2019-01-05 7:05 p.m., Bob Robertson wrote: > On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> > wrote: > >> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>> >>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing Bernie >>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on request), so >>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in 2020. We >>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other Russian >>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>> >>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>> >> >> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >> status get to her? I hope not. > > She's already a little narcissistic bitch. Yeah, Trump's got that > too. But, at least he was able to do something with it. LOL > bernie , bernie , bernie
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-05 19:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <g9d7cgFd2p4U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245809 |
On 1/5/19 7:18 PM, % wrote: > On 2019-01-05 7:05 p.m., Bob Robertson wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 18:48:00 -0700, Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles >>>>> exposing Bernie >>>>> Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom Russia >>>>> supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on >>>>> request), so >>>>> it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his shenanigans in >>>>> 2020. We >>>>> have to take whatever steps are necessary to silence him and other >>>>> Russian >>>>> stooges like Jill Stein and Julian Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>>> >>>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>>> >>> >>> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >>> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found celebrity >>> status get to her? I hope not. >> >> She's already a little narcissistic bitch. Yeah, Trump's got that >> too. But, at least he was able to do something with it. LOL >> > bernie , bernie , bernie I would be happy to see him... though I think the corporate side of the Democratic party would throw a fit. They are already starting. -- Personal attacks from those who troll show their own insecurity. They cannot use reason to show the message to be wrong so they try to feel somehow superior by attacking the messenger. They cling to their attacks and ignore the message time and time again. <https://youtu.be/H4NW-Cqh308>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 13:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA9CF5496BBE06greyghost471bazinga@144.76.35.198> |
| In reply to | #245775 |
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in news:g9d52gFckshU1@mid.individual.net: > On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >> >>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing >>> Bernie Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom >>> Russia supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on >>> request), so it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>> shenanigans in 2020. We have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>> silence him and other Russian stooges like Jill Stein and Julian >>> Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >> >> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >> > > She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We > shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found > celebrity status get to her? I hope not. > It already has, stupid. She is inexperienced, uneducated and a socialist.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-06 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g9eupmFom1tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #245861 |
Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> wrote: > Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote in > news:g9d52gFckshU1@mid.individual.net: > >> On 1/5/19 4:28 PM, Mattb wrote: >>> On Sat, 5 Jan 2019 01:53:06 +0000 (UTC), Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote: >>> >>>> I've already posted links to NYT, HuffPo, and WaPo articles exposing >>>> Bernie Sanders as a misogynist who ignores people of color and whom >>>> Russia supported during the 2016 primary (and I'll repost them on >>>> request), so it's obvious that we can't allow him to repeat his >>>> shenanigans in 2020. We have to take whatever steps are necessary to >>>> silence him and other Russian stooges like Jill Stein and Julian >>>> Assange. Our freedom depends on it. >>> >>> Would you rather Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez run? >>> >> >> She is too young to be able to... but she is an interesting person. We >> shall have to see where she goes. Will she let her knew-found >> celebrity status get to her? I hope not. >> > > It already has, stupid. She is inexperienced, uneducated and a socialist. > Trump’s celebrity status made him think he would be able to be a decent president. I have not heard anything close to that level of insanity from her. And her “celebrity” status largely comes from how much the Republicans fear her. They are working to make her be popular.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Avenging Angel <Not.fucking.likely@NoWay.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2019-01-07 04:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XnsA9CFEAF43C908greyghost471bazinga@144.76.35.198> |
| In reply to | #245411 |
Ted <ted@sam.street> wrote in news:2010102370568344718.072599ted- sam.street@news.alt.net: > > So basically you oppose democracy if it doesn't go your way.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10]
Back to top | Article view | alt.checkmate
csiph-web