T1B

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:46 pm**

Mikey wrote:Where did I say anything about dead?

[IKYABWAI]You're not very smart.[/IKYABWAI]

The concept of you continuing to use up air as somehow being "good" is what's questionable.

You are one very obtuse and stupid motherfucker.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:54 pm**

Left Seater wrote:Nope I mean racist and homophobic, Board Bitch.

Except it was neither, but you posting fake news.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:11 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
Mikey wrote:Where did I say anything about dead?

[IKYABWAI]You're not very smart.[/IKYABWAI]

The concept of you continuing to use up air as somehow being "good" is what's questionable.
You are one very obtuse and stupid motherfucker.

Whoa

Well you're a big doo doo. So there.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:16 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
Mikey wrote:Where did I say anything about dead?

[IKYABWAI]You're not very smart.[/IKYABWAI]

The concept of you continuing to use up air as somehow being "good" is what's questionable.
You are one very obtuse and stupid motherfucker.
Whoa

Well you're a big doo doo. So there.

Nice melt. :grin:

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 5:09 pm**

Nice white flag.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:59 pm**

Run along, now, Corky. That black cock isn't going to suck itself.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:40 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Left Seater wrote:Nope I mean racist and homophobic, Board Bitch.
Except it was neither, but you posting fake news.

There is far more substance to your racism and homophobia than for your pedo claims in others.

Posted: **Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:34 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:Run along, now, Corky. That black cock isn't going to suck itself.

Whatever. GFY, old timer.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 6:48 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:I assume that most of you dickslaps that do your own taxes have already reviewed the implications for your 2018 taxes. I am apparently in the group that will see no benefit from these changes, and will be negatively affected as they are phased out.

Our itemized deductions for 2016 were about $25,000. With tax reform pushing us to the $24,000 standard deduction and the elimination of our 2 personal exemptions, our taxable income should increase by roughly $9,000. The 3% reductions in the bracket rates should make that a wash in terms of total tax paid. But our payroll withholding amounts will be going down (based on the recently released withholding schedules), and less withheld will probably mean taxes owed next January.

I intend to increase additional federal tax withheld from each check by whatever amount the current federal withholding decreases. My take home stays the same and I should not get any nasty surprises a year from now.

I was both right and wrong. I did our taxes yesterday. Our taxable income went up about $19,000, our tax only went up about $1,000, so I do see a (temporary) tax cut.

A year ago, I and my wife both started withholding an extra $50 per pay period. $2,400 total for the year. If we hadn't done that, we would be writing a check right now instead of filing for a modest refund. I'm guessing they intentionally screwed with the withholding rates to inflate middle America's paychecks. I talked with a couple of attorney friends yesterday at a local watering hole. They saw the same thing. Gonna be a whole shitload of pissed off taxpayers shortly.

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:47 pm**

Do you itemize?

Posted: **Thu Jan 31, 2019 7:54 pm**

For me, I don't know yet. I'm still waiting on some 1099s, but it will be hard for me to compare.

I usually itemize but with the limit on SALT deductions (I'm undoubtedly over the limit), and the increased standard deduction, I'm not sure at this point which option will be better.

I did enter my W2 into TurboTax and it shows me getting a small refund, so there's that. It's probably assuming at this point (I didn't check) that I'm taking the standard deduction.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:33 am**

Rack 88....again.

I would go even further. Pay your income tax from each check. You pay X% based on income. I would start it at maybe .5% on dollar one, step it up slowly, but I would not have the max rate, something close to todays rate, I guess, at somewhere around 10 mil a year. That would likely save 88 from paying the top rate...barely.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:47 am**

smackaholic wrote:Rack 88....again.

I would go even further. Pay your income tax from each check. You pay X% based on income. I would start it at maybe .5% on dollar one, step it up slowly, but I would not have the max rate, something close to todays rate, I guess, at somewhere around 10 mil a year. That would likely save 88 from paying the top rate...barely.

I do something similar. Being self employed, I get paid by the job, several times a month from various sources. I have a spread sheet that I enter the amount of the payment and it tells me how much federal and state tax to pay. I pay online at least once a month and more if I get decent payments. I keep a tab on expenses for deductions, but they amount to less than 25% expenses. I usually hit it pretty close each year and seldom have to pay more than a $ 1,000 at tax time.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 2:50 pm**

Your taxes are high so we can pay right wing stooges to participate in 7 wars.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 3:40 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Rack 88....again.

I would go even further. Pay your income tax from each check. You pay X% based on income. I would start it at maybe .5% on dollar one, step it up slowly, but I would not have the max rate, something close to todays rate, I guess, at somewhere around 10 mil a year. That would likely save 88 from paying the top rate...barely.

You are a fucking moron.

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:20 pm**

Papa Willie wrote: [Ocoona had 8 years to be Mr. Peace, and all that resulted in was more troop deaths than the other Presidents.

Which "other" Presidents are you talking about?

Posted: **Fri Feb 01, 2019 10:54 pm**

I'm surprised by those numbers. While he didn't do a lot to get us out, he did sort of inherit the quagmire from Dubya.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:20 am**

44 was an empty brown suit filled with old white war mongers.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:19 am**

Mikey wrote:Do you itemize?

Not any more. The $10,000 cap on deductions for state taxes put the kibosh on that.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:35 am**

Kierland wrote:44 was an empty brown suit filled with old white war mongers.

You vapid racist piece of shit.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 6:46 am**

88 wrote:
Carson wrote:
Kierland wrote:44 was an empty brown suit filled with old white war mongers.

You vapid racist piece of shit.
And 44 knob polisher.

Huh? Can you even read?

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 12:31 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Rack 88....again.

I would go even further. Pay your income tax from each check. You pay X% based on income. I would start it at maybe .5% on dollar one, step it up slowly, but I would not have the max rate, something close to todays rate, I guess, at somewhere around 10 mil a year. That would likely save 88 from paying the top rate...barely.
You are a fucking moron.

Care to address where I'm wrong?

We both agree there should be some level of progressiveness, do we not?

My biggest problem with this alleged progressiveness levels off at, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the 1/4 mil a year neighborhood.

Why is this so? Why not bump it up another percent or two for people making real money?

You a tax accountant? That would explain it, because the system I advocate would require these folks to seek productive employment.

Posted: **Sat Feb 02, 2019 3:25 pm**

88 wrote:You spent 8 years on your knees and probably still have calluses on your lips. One post acting as if you were not Obama’s buttt pirate does not remove the miles of his crank willingly shoved into you 4 inches at a time.

Then hook me up with any evidence you might have that that is true.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 1:04 am**

Why should SALT be deductible on fed returns anyway?

Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?

And why should those with more expensive homes be subsidized? I mean you libtards are all about payin' your "fair share", right?

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:47 pm**

smackaholic wrote:Why should SALT be deductible on fed returns anyway?

Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?

And why should those with more expensive homes be subsidized? I mean you libtards are all about payin' your "fair share", right?

Pretty much spot on. Why are any state or local taxes partially or completely deductible on Federal taxes? Why is mortgage interest deductible?

This is just another example of liberal hypocrisy, do what I say not what I do.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:52 pm**

smackaholic wrote: Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?

Because lower tax states would be broke if they weren't subsidized by high tax states.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 4:15 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?
Because lower tax states would be broke if they weren't subsidized by high tax states.

This probably makes the Screwy Dumbassed Take Hall of Fame.

Low tax states should subsidize high taxes states because high tax states subsidize low tax states? Can’t wait to see how Screwy claims Texas would be going broke without help from New York, Connecticut, etc.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:01 pm**

Left Seater wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?
Because lower tax states would be broke if they weren't subsidized by high tax states.
This probably makes the Screwy Dumbassed Take Hall of Fame.

Low tax states should subsidize high taxes states because high tax states subsidize low tax states? Can’t wait to see how Screwy claims Texas would be going broke without help from New York, Connecticut, etc.

He would call you a racist. Queerland would say " Nice white flag".

Nothing compelling out of either one.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:53 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?
Because lower tax states would be broke if they weren't subsidized by high tax states.

Are you implying that low tax states are low tax only because they get more than their fair share of fed dollars?

That does apply to West Virginia because that old racist POS Byrd raises pork barrel spending to an art form. It does not explain it in general.

The cause of high SALT is the decision to have higher levels of services and an out of control public sector union. CT wrote the book on the latter. Landing a state gig in CT is looked at like hitting the lottery.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 6:57 pm**

Left Seater wrote:
Screw_Michigan wrote:
smackaholic wrote: Why should those in lower tax states subsidize high tax states?
Because lower tax states would be broke if they weren't subsidized by high tax states.
This probably makes the Screwy Dumbassed Take Hall of Fame.

Low tax states should subsidize high taxes states because high tax states subsidize low tax states? Can’t wait to see how Screwy claims Texas would be going broke without help from New York, Connecticut, etc.

I was just thinking the same thing. The absolute stupidity of that statement is impressive. It’s as if someone asked Shakespeare to purposely write something as moronic as he possibly could.

That statement should be put in bronze and hung in the BBHOF, aka, the house that screwey built.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:53 pm**

I have some Shakespeare for you.

“Wisely and slow; they stumble that run fast". - R&J (Act II, Scene III).

If the states that charge high state taxes didn’t subsidize the states that pay low state taxes with higher federal (national) tax appropriations to the low state tax states, the low state tax states would go broke because they are mostly run by stupid right wing hacks.

You people are actually amazingly dumb.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 8:04 pm**

smackaholic wrote:I was just thinking the same thing. The absolute stupidity of that statement is impressive. It’s as if someone asked Shakespeare to purposely write something as moronic as he possibly could.

That statement should be put in bronze and hung in the BBHOF, aka, the house that screwey built.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I got it backward, but it doesn't stop you or Left Behinder from being intentionally obtuse.

Posted: **Sun Feb 03, 2019 11:47 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote:
smackaholic wrote:I was just thinking the same thing. The absolute stupidity of that statement is impressive. It’s as if someone asked Shakespeare to purposely write something as moronic as he possibly could.

That statement should be put in bronze and hung in the BBHOF, aka, the house that screwey built.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I got it backward, but it doesn't stop you or Left Behinder from being intentionally obtuse.

You got what backward? That statement is about as dumb as your previous statement. And you get paid to write?

Why should high tax states get to pay less in federal income tax?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:34 pm**

smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:Rack 88....again.

I would go even further. Pay your income tax from each check. You pay X% based on income. I would start it at maybe .5% on dollar one, step it up slowly, but I would not have the max rate, something close to todays rate, I guess, at somewhere around 10 mil a year. That would likely save 88 from paying the top rate...barely.
You are a fucking moron.
Care to address where I'm wrong?

We both agree there should be some level of progressiveness, do we not?

My biggest problem with this alleged progressiveness levels off at, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the 1/4 mil a year neighborhood.

Why is this so? Why not bump it up another percent or two for people making real money?

You a tax accountant? That would explain it, because the system I advocate would require these folks to seek productive employment.

Tax brackets are based on annual income. How could you logically ask people to pay tax out of each check? Particularly if they're hourly and their checks can be differing amounts? What if they stop working in September? Light going on yet? You authoritatively spout off with the most incredibly stupid ideas. Just STFU.

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:39 pm**

smackaholic wrote:That does apply to West Virginia because that old racist POS Byrd raises pork barrel spending to an art form. It does not explain it in general.

Sent from my iPhone using Tardtalk

You do realize that Robert Byrd died in 2010?

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:47 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:That does apply to West Virginia because that old racist POS Byrd raises pork barrel spending to an art form. It does not explain it in general.

Sent from my iPhone using Tardtalk
You do realize that Robert Byrd died in 2010?

Abraham Lincoln died in 1865 but that doesn't stop these guys from claiming to be the "Party of Lincoln."

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2019 3:59 pm**

Goober McTuber wrote:
smackaholic wrote:
Goober McTuber wrote: You are a fucking moron.
Care to address where I'm wrong?

We both agree there should be some level of progressiveness, do we not?

My biggest problem with this alleged progressiveness levels off at, if I'm not mistaken, somewhere in the 1/4 mil a year neighborhood.

Why is this so? Why not bump it up another percent or two for people making real money?

You a tax accountant? That would explain it, because the system I advocate would require these folks to seek productive employment.
Tax brackets are based on annual income. How could you logically ask people to pay tax out of each check? Particularly if they're hourly and their checks can be differing amounts? What if they stop working in September? Light going on yet? You authoritatively spout off with the most incredibly stupid ideas. Just STFU.

It would mean that your tax rate would vary.

So what?

It would be simpler and preferable to the ridiculously complex fukked up system we currently have.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Mon Feb 04, 2019 4:31 pm**

No it would not, you weapons-grade fucking moron. The fact that this is not obvious to you just reinforces what a complete fucking cretin you are.

Posted: **Tue Feb 05, 2019 12:45 am**

There is a place for an income tax. Granted it should be flat and no more than 10%, but there is a need for one.

Same for business taxes. Flat 10%. Zero deductions for individuals or businesses. No other federal taxes. Estate taxes, capital gains, etc all eliminated.

Occasional Cotex now prolly wants to fight me.

T1B

Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform

Re: Tax reform