Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?

[GH2001]

You can have that discussion with my accountant.   I'm not a two or three man shop.  Lots of employees, multiple locations and all kinds of shit.   My situation isn't unusual.  When I go to conferences or meetings I hear business owners from all walks of life making similar complaints. 

Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?

See, you think big picture and see where all this is heading. Which is the right way to look at all of this. I don't like the direction this is heading. All of the small details, tax credits, rhetoric from Obama - all red herrings. He has a general policy of wealth redistribution and hating on those who make money. Social engineering is his philosophy. This is 100% Alinsky material. If the people get bogged down too much in ground level and campaign rhetoric, they will miss the big idea. I think that is happening.

And Chad keeps making Blood Pressure med makers richer. I guess that means they need to get taxed more.

[AUTiger1]

Correct. They are marginal rates. But the top end is what we're talking about here. It doesn't change my point a bit. If he's going to raise taxes on one class, he needs to raise it on all. And I understand what tax brackets are for. You're just not understanding what I'm saying. I don't agree with singling out a single specific class of taxpayers and somehow magically deciding that they just aren't pitching in enough. I mean, how did we arrive at this conclusion? What math was involved in the decision? Or are we just eyeballing it? Like I said before, lower everybody, raise everybody, or don't even fuck with it.
So, let me get this straight. Everybody paying the same rate in taxes isn't fair. But singling out only one very specific bracket to raise taxes on is fair?

I want to get back at something said here about the flat tax and tax rates.  The goat fucker brings up a good point here.  Is everyone paying the same rate fair?  No, it's close, but not honestly fair.  Is what we have now fair?  Nope, no where close.   

What we need is a consumption tax.  Give me 100% of my salary set a sales tax and be done with it.  For everyone.  Those who make more will consume more, those who make less will consume less.  It also covers any illegals who are here and it might help curb them coming here.  You also get those who make their money illegally in the underground/black market economy.  You know a drug dealer doesn't report taxes, but he damn sure buys a car, rims for that car, food, hygiene products.  At least we would be getting that.   

[AUChizad]

I want to get back at something said here about the flat tax and tax rates.  The goat fucker brings up a good point here.  Is everyone paying the same rate fair?  No, it's close, but not honestly fair.  Is what we have now fair?  Nope, no where close.   

What we need is a consumption tax.  Give me 100% of my salary set a sales tax and be done with it.  For everyone.  Those who make more will consume more, those who make less will consume less.  It also covers any illegals who are here and it might help curb them coming here.  You also get those who make their money illegally in the underground/black market economy.  You know a drug dealer doesn't report taxes, but he damn sure buys a car, rims for that car, food, hygiene products.  At least we would be getting that.

Agree.

[AUTiger1]

Agree.

See you say something like that and I think there is hope for you yet.

Just let go of those liberal tendencies you have Chizad and embrace the power of the dark side!  You do that and you would almost be the perfect Libertarian.

[Kaos]

Agree.

Thirded.

[Snaggletiger]

It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning.  I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise.  I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.   

[AUTiger1]

It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning.  I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise.  I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.   

A for effort.  I managed to give a Grinch type smile.

[Kaos]

It's ironic that I was having this same discussion with the contractor who is building the rock formation and waterfall around my indoor pool this morning.  I told him I didn't think I could claim the wife's other S-Class Mercedes as a deduction but he seemed to think otherwise.  I plan on running this by the boys at the Country Club over cocktails this afternoon before our round.   

I don't have a Mercedes.  Obama says I can have yours so things will be "fair".   

What time do you want me to come by to pick it up?

[GarMan]

There is no B.S.  The chart indicates that the fiscal year ends September 30 (which it does for the government).  Thus, money spent after October 2008 for Bush's Wall Street Bailout is attributed to Obama's 2009 tenure on that chart.  How else do you explain that Bush was less than $500 billion in the hole for 2008 on this chart, yet had approved $700+ billion in spending that year?

Again, you've focused on the transition year, that first year of a new administration that should be following a budget that was passed by an exiting administration.  This would suggest that Obama was merely executing George Bush's budget for 2009.  Nevermind the fact that Democrats controlled the House and Senate at the time the budget was passed...  Nevermind the fact that the House and Senate were still controlled by Democrats when Obama took office...  Nevermind the additional spending bills were signed by Obama after Bush left office for the 2009 spending year...  Nevermind that the physical spending in 2009 was executed under Obama's leadership. 

This isn't to say that Obama hasn't done his fair share of spending; it's to point out (yet again) that charts can be misleading.  Neatly categorizing spending as part of the "Bush Years," but then failing to point out that spending done in the 2009 fiscal year (October 2008 through September 2009) is attributed to Obama, is extremely misleading, especially when you put that information into a graph which makes it appear as if Obama was the one who spent the $700+ billion in 2009. 

This is only partially true.  While a new Prez inherits the budget of the departing administration, that does not mean that the new administration cannot work with Congress to modify the spending plan for that first year in office.  By executing to the budget passed by the previous administration, the new administration is effectively accepting the spending plan.  For these reasons, the new administration typically takes responsibility over the spending during that transition year.  As we know, Barry went on to spend even more during the 2009 fiscal year. 

[Snaggletiger]

I don't have a Mercedes.  Obama says I can have yours so things will be "fair".   

What time do you want me to come by to pick it up?

I guess that would be okay.  Really, the only one who drives it is my son when he gets tired of the Ferrari 458...and how often does that happen, huh?

[GarMan]

See you say something like that and I think there is hope for you yet.

Just let go of those liberal tendencies you have Chizad and embrace the power of the dark side!  You do that and you would almost be the perfect Libertarian.

But, he'll still find young boys in dressed in choir uniforms sexy... 

[AUTiger1]

But, he'll still find young boys in dressed in choir uniforms sexy...

Chizad is Sandusky?

[Vandy Vol]

You can have that discussion with my accountant.   I'm not a two or three man shop.  Lots of employees, multiple locations and all kinds of shit.

That shouldn't matter.  There's not a limitation on the amount of employee wages you can deduct, or a limit on the amount of rent for locations you can deduct, etc.  The more expenses you have, the more you can deduct.

Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column?

Yes sir.

It's normally considered a capital expense, but for several years now there have been two exceptions which allow you to deduct the entire cost of a capital expense in one year (up to a certain amount, and $50,000 is way under that amount), as opposed to spreading it out over several years like you normally would treat a capital expense.

For those capital expenses which are too large for these exceptions, you still get to deduct the entire expense; it's just spread out over several years to represent the useful life of the asset.  Thus, you'll be able to include deductions for expenses in subsequent years when, in reality, you had no such expenses for those years.  "Fake numbers" sometimes work in your favor, even if it takes more than one year to realize the deduction.

[Vandy Vol]

Again, you've focused on the transition year, that first year of a new administration that should be following a budget that was passed by an exiting administration.

No, not really.  The bailout was passed on October 3, 2008.  Money was spent in October, November, and December of 2008, before Obama took office.  I can't find exact figures, but at least $150 billion was spent from what I can find.  More than that may have been spent, and must be taken into consideration because Obama was not even President at that time, yet the chart reflects that those expenses were his.

Sure, Obama continued the bailout after 2009, and amounts were paid in 2009.  But it was the previous President who signed it into law.  Once it's a law, it has to be followed until Congress repeals/alters it or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional; a President can't veto existing legislation.

Granted, Obama extended bailouts to new entities other than banks after the Wall Street bailout, and didn't fight too hard to try to end the Wall Street bailouts.  But contributing the entirety of that debt from a law enacted in 2008, and especially for amounts spent in 2008, is misleading.

There is a huge increase from 2008 to 2009, and from then on out, there isn't as large of an increase.  So for that "transitional year," it's very important to differentiate between who actually spent what if one is going to argue that Obama or Bush is solely responsibly for driving us X% further into a deficit.  The chart referenced fails to make that differentiation, as it blindly attributes expenditures according to the fiscal year, not the political term.

[Kaos]

That shouldn't matter.  There's not a limitation on the amount of employee wages you can deduct, or a limit on the amount of rent for locations you can deduct, etc.  The more expenses you have, the more you can deduct.

Yes sir.

It's normally considered a capital expense, but for several years now there have been two exceptions which allow you to deduct the entire cost of a capital expense in one year (up to a certain amount, and $50,000 is way under that amount), as opposed to spreading it out over several years like you normally would treat a capital expense.

For those capital expenses which are too large for these exceptions, you still get to deduct the entire expense; it's just spread out over several years to represent the useful life of the asset.  Thus, you'll be able to include deductions for expenses in subsequent years when, in reality, you had no such expenses for those years.  "Fake numbers" sometimes work in your favor, even if it takes more than one year to realize the deduction.

I'm sorry but you combine verbosity with cluelessness in a manner greater than I've ever seen. 

The fact that you honestly think you can simply take "cash in minus cash out" with a tweak here or there and come up with how much I "made" in the business is astounding. 

I'm not going to bore you with the details because you already know everything but I feel as if I spend half my fucking life going over this shit with my accountant and your simplistic examples are worthless and insulting. 

Been doing this about half of the time you've been on this earth.  If you count the time when I owned furniture stores I've probably done it for more than half your life.  I've bounced between cash and accrual methods trying to find the right fit.  I've paid people to scour the statutes to find ways to beat back the baying government hounds who think they deserve to rape half what I make (republican and democrat).   I have my books done by two different sets of accounting firms to make sure neither misses something.  I have a third go through them when he does my personal returns.   I don't leave stones unturned.

And I'm telling you that no matter how much you babble about this, that and the other, at the end of the fucking day when they hand me that sheet of paper, when we go through each line there's no real relational value between the money they say the companies "made" and the actual cash flow. 

I'm talking about PERCEPTION. 

When Obama says he's looking at people who "make" more than 250k he's talking about people like me.   My business may show 250k.  People hear that number and assume I'm taking that much out.  They figure I fill my gold plated swimming pool with dollar bills and swim in it.  But that number is NOT the motherfucking reality.  They may say I "made" $250k, but the reality is that the money is already tagged.  It's gone into development.   It's paid for that $50,000 server that I don't get to deduct except for a piece at a time.  It's paid salaries and benefits.  It's gone into research.  It disappeared up a lobbyist's ass.   Portions of that can be flagged in some future tax year or whatever, but I'm talking PERCEPTION. 

In the year they said I "made" say $600K do you really, honestly think that when I got to the end of the year that's how much I had sitting there to spend? 

Only Obama is that fucking dumb. 

It would have been a hell of a New Year's party.  All I got to say. 

The rich?  Anybody who shows more than 250k on a return is the rich and needs to give more?  Bullshit.  Fucking bullshit. 

[Vandy Vol]

I'm sorry but you combine verbosity with cluelessness in a manner greater than I've ever seen.

So sorry.  Here, let's make it simple so that you don't have to read more than three sentences:

Do you really think that when I spend $50,000 on a server I can just go to my tax form and wipe $50k from the income column? 

Yes.  Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation.  If your accountant hasn't heard of these and still claims that you can't deduct the entirety of $50,000 in capital expenses in the year that you spent it, then get a new accountant.

Been doing this about half of the time you've been on this earth.

I've been running my own business for 11 years.

Mathematics fail; 11 years is not half of my life.  I see now why you blindly accept what accountants tell you.

I've paid people to scour the statutes to find ways to beat back the baying government hounds who think they deserve to rape half what I make (republican and democrat).   I have my books done by two different sets of accounting firms to make sure neither misses something.  I have a third go through them when he does my personal returns.   I don't leave stones unturned.

If the people you pay are telling you that you can't deduct the expense of a $50,000 server on your return, then they're leaving stones unturned and you need to find new accountants.  Don't take my word for it; read the link I posted.

Your accountants are apparently not keeping up to date with changes in the law, and they are apparently telling you that you still have to amortize every capital expense over several years, which is no longer true.  It doesn't really matter whether you asked two accountants or fifty-two; the laws have changed whether your harem of accountants know it or not.

[GH2001]

I know one thing. Neither of you have made much money today.

So why dont you two go fuck and get it over with? Kaos can be the giver and can be the reciever since thats what he is used to anyway. Not disappoint you , but Ive heard Kaos has a small cock. The good news is, he'll dress up like a cat if that helps you climax any faster.

[GarMan]

No, not really.  The bailout was passed on October 3, 2008.  Money was spent in October, November, and December of 2008, before Obama took office.  I can't find exact figures, but at least $150 billion was spent from what I can find.  More than that may have been spent, and must be taken into consideration because Obama was not even President at that time, yet the chart reflects that those expenses were his.

You're splitting hairs...  We hated Bush's overspending.  Don't put me in a position to defend it.  Yes, there was a three and a half month period where the increased spending passed under the 2009 budget was executed under Bush.  However, after Bush, Obama directed and redirected those remaining funds to some of his pet spending projects (who got how much, etc.) under the guise of TARP, and he went further passing additional spending bills during and for the 2009 fiscal year. 

Sure, Obama continued the bailout after 2009, and amounts were paid in 2009.  But it was the previous President who signed it into law.  Once it's a law, it has to be followed until Congress repeals/alters it or the Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional; a President can't veto existing legislation.

No shit...  Focusing only on fiscal 2009, he also took responsibility over how that money was spent and even authorized additional spending above that amount during that year.  Congress didn't need to repeal or alter it.  They just gave him more to blow through. 

Granted, Obama extended bailouts to new entities other than banks after the Wall Street bailout, and didn't fight too hard to try to end the Wall Street bailouts.  But contributing the entirety of that debt from a law enacted in 2008, and especially for amounts spent in 2008, is misleading.

The new Prez can and has historically worked with Congress to adjust spending levels and reallocate funds through new legislation even after a budget has been passed.  Obama spent the money.  He decided where and what allocation of it to spend under the scope of the spending legislation, and he went back to Congress to get more, all for fiscal year 2009.  I haven't even addressed the overspending after 2009 where they did not pass any budgets as required under the Constitution. 

There is a huge increase from 2008 to 2009, and from then on out, there isn't as large of an increase.  So for that "transitional year," it's very important to differentiate between who actually spent what if one is going to argue that Obama or Bush is solely responsibly for driving us X% further into a deficit.  The chart referenced fails to make that differentiation, as it blindly attributes expenditures according to the fiscal year, not the political term.

The transition year argument is a farce.  This is a ridiculous assertion unless you can somehow show that Bush spent the majority of that $787B TARP and/or a significant portion of the other spending allocations during that initial three and a half month period.  We know that he did not, and many of the funds were distributed per Obama's direction.  The vast majority of the funds for fiscal year 2009 were spent while Obama was Prez. and he went back for more all during 2009.  I'm not even talking about TARP 2.0 or other shit-spending programs.  He went on to continue this horrendous level of overspending throughout 2010 and 2011, and he's doing it again for 2012.   You might have something here if Obama's spending levels dropped below an $800B deficit for 2011, but we know that's not going to happen. 

[AUChizad]

I know one thing. Neither of you have made much money today.

So why dont you two go fuck and get it over with? Kaos can be the giver and can be the reciever since thats what he is used to anyway. Not disappoint you , but Ive heard Kaos has a small cock. The good news is, he'll dress up like a cat if that helps you climax any faster.

Both parties in this conversation are business owners. Only one is a tax attorney.

[Kaos]

So sorry.  Here, let's make it simple so that you don't have to read more than three sentences:


Yes.  Section 179 and Bonus Depreciation.  If your accountant hasn't heard of these and still claims that you can't deduct the entirety of $50,000 in capital expenses in the year that you spent it, then get a new accountant.


Mathematics fail; 11 years is not half of my life.  I see now why you blindly accept what accountants tell you.


If the people you pay are telling you that you can't deduct the expense of a $50,000 server on your return, then they're leaving stones unturned and you need to find new accountants.  Don't take my word for it; read the link I posted.

Your accountants are apparently not keeping up to date with changes in the law, and they are apparently telling you that you still have to amortize every capital expense over several years, which is no longer true.  It doesn't really matter whether you asked two accountants or fifty-two; the laws have changed whether your harem of accountants know it or not.

11 years in this business.  Twice that is 22.  You're not over 30.   Add in the four years I owned a furniture store (and discount the time I spent managing expansion for a national chain) and you're up to 15.  Twice that is 30.  You're not over 30. 

And you're taking a random (not real) example and trying to pin your entire hopes on that one argument.   I don't know how much servers cost.  I have people who spec them out and have a budget.  If they spend all the budget on one, that's their deal.  I don't know.  I do know that when we look at the taxes I've got equipment from three or four years ago still on there and they all dwindle down at varying rates depending on what rule was in place at the time of purchase.   And I don't get to take full credit for the one I bought this year. 

So let me make this simple for you, okay? 

Let's say I bought $200,000 worth of equipment. Had to.  No choice.  Had to keep things going.   I don't know off the top of my head what the schedule is so let's say I can only count 25% of the cost for THIS year's taxes.   That's $50,000. 

Now let's assume my business had gross receipts of $500,000.   And I spend $150,000 on salaries and benefits.  Another $50,000 on rent, travel, etc. 

** Note:  These are not real figures so quit hanging your pointed hat on them **

For tax purposes:

$500,000
- 150,000
- 50,000
- 50,000
____________

Profit: $250,000.    Oh SHIT!!  It's the rich.  Let's tax the fuck out of this guy!!!

Reality:

$500,000
- 150,000
- 50,000
- 200,000
__________
Profit: $100,000   

That's what goes to the tax return.  Now consider for the moment that in that total I have yet to pay myself a dime.   

From Obama's perspective I "made" 250k and am a rich bastard who needs to be held upside down and have my pockets turned out.  In the reality of managing the business, however, my accessible cash is less than half what the Chairman sees. 

I realize that over a period of years I can keep knocking down the taxes by using dwindling portions of the equipment purchase.  I also realize that in subsequent tax years the same kind of thing will keep happening.  There will be shit to buy, things to do.  Blah, blah, blah, flippity fucking blah.  Please for the love of God quit trying to impress me with your whippersnapper knowledge of the tax code.  I could give a fuck. 

So I guess you can tell me that it will all even out one day.    Really?  Maybe if I sell it.  But no, they'll want to zap the SHIT out of any proceeds I might get from the sale.  So maybe if i retire.    Or maybe they just keep taxing us "rich" folks until we give up and do something else. 

And for the record?  What I do no longer has much impact on what I make on a day to day basis. It's sad actually.  I kill bears.  I look for new places to hunt.  I think of ways to do things differently.

Right now I've gunned down a nice bear and am in the process of skinning it and apportioning the pieces for others to use to make me more.