Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_mDTLphIVY"]YouTube - Pulp Fiction - English Motherfucker Do You Speak It[/ame]
Is 200/250K enough? What about the small business?
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Pure unadulterated bullshit!
Since a sole proprietor can only deduct half of their SE tax it would be impossible to have 0 liability. This deduction only affects income tax. It does not affect either your net earnings from self-employment or your SE tax. Not to mention the FACTS that I posted show what LLC's in this country actually pay.
1) There are many deductions available to LLC's.
2) Just because you read something on the internet does not render what you read a "fact."
1) You can spend the money on something other than income.
2) The other SE tax, the part you cant deduct is not the LLC's responsability its the owners responsability thus resulting in the LLC's liability becoming 0, in the senario you presented.
You have once again proven your own ignorance.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I guess you have to be in the top 0.0000000000000001% to be considered "wealthy" in oncies book.
cawacko
Well-known member
I guess you have to be in the top 0.0000000000000001% to be considered "wealthy" in oncies book.
Dude, making $200k or $250k a year in even South Dakota doesn't make one close to wealthy.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
It's ridiculous that people consider Warren Buffett and Bill Gates wealthy.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Being in the top 1% doesn't make one close to wealthy. Just like being smarter than 99% of people doesn't make one even close to smart, and being a girl who sleeps with more guys than 99% of people doesn't make one even close to a slut. I'm sorry, I'm going to have to take a few more shots before what you're saying makes anything even close to sense.
It's all in perspective. The wife and I together make around 75K per year. We have a simple life. We live comfortably and can usually buy everything we need and even can afford a lot of things we want. That same salary in the NE or the NW and several other places in the country wouldn't afford the same lifestyle we are acustomed to. Someone making 200K here would definitely be considered "well off" if not "wealthy," whereas someone making the same salary in Los Angeles or NYC wouldn't. Perspective and location....they make a big difference.
cawacko
Well-known member
Jager?
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
If it's family income it's kind of different. My family makes 110k a year together, but we have to split that amongst five people. That's like 20k per person.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
In the north people tend to be liberal no matter what their income level is - income has little effect on how liberal or conservative you are. So a lot of northern liberals wouldn't mind raising their own taxes. In the south, of course, political affiliation is heavily dependant on income (I'd really wonder if it weren't more of a racial issue though, since the white people tend to all be conservative and blacks tend to all be liberal, and the blacks are usually poorer than the whites).
Chapdog,
I don't think there's anything communistic about letting affluent people making more than a quarter million bucks a year go back to paying the tax rate they paid in the prosperous Clinton years.
I don't even think it's particularly controversial. The overwhelming majority of americans support letting the bush tax cuts end for high income earners, or letting all of them expire period. Even almost half of republicans support letting the tax cuts expire in some permutation. Check it out....Gallup data below.
Why? Because in my opinion, most americans know that bush tax cuts didn't do shit for them, and it mostly helped billionaires out. They probably understand at a visceral level that the Shrub tax cuts did more harm than good. The problem with message boarding, is that as a demographic we are overwhelmingly white, professional or affluent, and we have an over-representation of ivory white dudes who are adherents to the Chicago Boys school of tea bagging economic theory. And its in that message board context you get a lot of dudes who are prone to hand wringing and fainting at the prospect of losing the Bush tax cuts. But, I seriously doubt that in working class white-brown-black-hispanic-caucasian america, most people were helped by the Bush tax cuts (overwhelmingly weighted) for the rich, or think they were a good idea. There was never a popular constituency for them, even when they were passed.
I don't think there's anything communistic about letting affluent people making more than a quarter million bucks a year go back to paying the tax rate they paid in the prosperous Clinton years.
I don't even think it's particularly controversial. The overwhelming majority of americans support letting the bush tax cuts end for high income earners, or letting all of them expire period. Even almost half of republicans support letting the tax cuts expire in some permutation. Check it out....Gallup data below.
Why? Because in my opinion, most americans know that bush tax cuts didn't do shit for them, and it mostly helped billionaires out. They probably understand at a visceral level that the Shrub tax cuts did more harm than good. The problem with message boarding, is that as a demographic we are overwhelmingly white, professional or affluent, and we have an over-representation of ivory white dudes who are adherents to the Chicago Boys school of tea bagging economic theory. And its in that message board context you get a lot of dudes who are prone to hand wringing and fainting at the prospect of losing the Bush tax cuts. But, I seriously doubt that in working class white-brown-black-hispanic-caucasian america, most people were helped by the Bush tax cuts (overwhelmingly weighted) for the rich, or think they were a good idea. There was never a popular constituency for them, even when they were passed.
Last edited: