No, no we don't.

I'd be interested in hearing the results of this investigation.

I'm sure it will be out in time to be relevant.

And Surcam, you are full of shit and you know it. The fact is that digging up dirt on people that speak truth to power is a time-honored tactic. It is so because those that do it know there are people out there that will buy the bullshit, and in this case, that would be you.

So-- it's your stance that Joe the Plumber is speaking "truth to power?"

I'm waiting for the truth part, myself.

That people should be able to ask pointed questions of people running for office? Yeah, absolutely. Do you disagree?

There you go again. Why are they even bothering with an investigation? They should have just asked you.

joxur, you're a fucking joke around here and you know it. First, joe was NOT speaking truth to power. Second, by saying Joe has sought out publicity here and as a result invited scrutiny/fact checking does not mean I condone illegal activities to dig up dirt. If your link is true, which considering your track record is not at all a given, then there should be appropriate punishment.

The fact that you're so willing to back Joe the Plumber is just one of the many reasons you're a fucking joke. Truth to power? Are you kidding me? Your blind hatred for Obama and his supporters has led you to ridiculousness. When you find yourself parroting right-wing talking points that even Michelle fucking Malkin won't touch, it's time for you to take a step back and regain your composure. Because you lost it so long ago, you fucking twat.

youre letting him troll you too easily

Still waiting for you to tell me where the line is, Surcam. Out of all the people on the boards, you're my favorite. You're an angry guy.

Joe invited "scrutiny" by "seeking out" publicity? I thought Obama supporters were about the issues. Bearne assures me of it. So, when we talk about Joe's personal life, his tax leins and whatever else you have been tossing around here, when are we talking about the actual point he raised? Have you talked at all about whether it is a good thing to raise taxes on small businesses making more then $250k per year? Isn't THAT the point of the question Joe raised?

Instead, you EMBRACED the talking points from the left. Joe's points aren't valid because he SOUGHT OUT the publicity.

These tactics work because people like you enjoy talking about who Joe is more than about the points he raised. You have not made a single, solitary point about issue of taxation that Joe brought up. Re-read the thread if you want a history lesson. YOU are the audience, and you bought it completely. YOU got manipulated. YOU got used. And the great thing? Not only did you get right in line, you're defending it!

Punishment? What does it even matter? The crime is that the tactics worked - they succeeded in diverting the point from Obama's ANSWERS to trivial, irrelevant bullshit. The answer was important. I wonder if you can even remember what Obama said without having to Google it.

Whenever you're ready to talk about the issue and stop name-calling, let me know.

Your unwarranted hostility towards me got to me, what can I say. As far as where the line is, I'm happy to give my opinion on a case by case basis, but as for an overall synopsis, not interesting for me.

Whatever else I've been tossing around here? Joe is completely uninteresting to me. I was highly annoyed that he somehow became the centerpiece of McCain's debate. Not on these boards, nor in my RL have I gone on and on about Joe. I really don't give a shit. So you're attributing things to me that is flat out false. And that's really the problem I have with you. You have this idea in your head of what an Obama supporter is, and you continually project it on to me. You're just flat wrong.

As far as taxes, they did pretty damn well under Clinton, we had a balanced budget. Honestly I'm no expert in finances or tax policy, but I do know that my government spends alot of money it doesn't have. We need to start paying now, and not continually plop down on the heads of future generations. The gap between the rich and poor has widened quite a bit, and I'm not sorry that I'm fine with businesses earning more than $250,000 in profits having to pay more.

No, what I've said is Joe is a joke and his points are bullshit because he was lying.

How about you re-read the thread Sir, you're projecting again. Again, Joe is just not important or interesting to me. I haven't defended a thing. And you're directing your indignation at the wrong person. It should really be directed at Senator McCain. I was shocked to find out that the McCain camp hadn't been in contact with Joe. Hadn't vetted him. Is that amazing to you? That McCain would use as pretty much the centerpiece of his debate someone he knew very little about? Sounds alot like his VP pick. Do you not agree that fact checking the debate involves fact checking Joe?

No thanks. I avoid name calling around here, I really do. But just as good ol Skycrasher is our resident Douche, you're our resident twat. Congratulations.

They'd make a cute couple, Surcam. Which one is Felix, and which is Oscar, do you think?

I'm not sure that I would call any business that is reporting a *net* profit of $250,000 "small." Most small business operate at a loss or with an extremely narrow profit, and business losses from early / lean years get carried forward for a number of years until used up. If your business is getting close to $100,000 net profit after carryforwards, it is really is past time to hire an accountant (assuming you don't already have one), because there are probably a fairly sizable number of tax avoidance strategies you haven't yet adopted.

Anyone repoting net profit of $250K who has a decent tax accountant is in no way an "average Joe."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I'm not sure that I would call any business that is reporting a *net* profit of $250,000 "small." Most small business operate at a loss or with an extremely narrow profit, and business losses from early / lean years get carried forward for a number of years until used up. If your business is getting close to $100,000 net profit after carryforwards, it is really is past time to hire an accountant (assuming you don't already have one), because there are probably a fairly sizable number of tax avoidance strategies you haven't yet adopted.

Anyone repoting net profit of $250K who has a decent tax accountant is in no way an "average Joe."

_________________
Hope is the new black.

That's pretty funny, I have to admit.




---
Your invective added. And 3 back to back to back posts about it. Sounds contradictory to me. Am I wrong?

You're the proud bearer of the I don't care torch now?

Don't look now, but you just made a policy point.

Myself? I lean to the left on some things, but don't subscribe to the populist demagoguery. We won't tax our way out of our problems, much as it might appeal to the masses to take "rich peoples" money and spread it around.

Bearne is on your schedule for a meeting - he has this thing about people that don't represent their own candidate but choose to tear down others. Careful though, he's about as angry as you are.

I'd argue that anyone slightly above that is in no way corporate America, too. I'd also argue that the effect it will have - that it will not stimulate growth - is a net loss for the country.

AFAIK, the raise above $250,000 is from 35% to 39% - which is what it was under Clinton. I don't really recall innovation being stifled in the 90s under an oppressive tax regime.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I'm sorry, you made very little sense to me.

I also don't recall those taxes being raised during a huge economic slump, amid fears of a global recession/depression, the collapse of the largest investment and banking companies and government takeover of the financial system.

I often hear this referenced, but I have no idea who Felix and Oscar are.

The Odd Couple. It was originally a play that was made into a successful television series.

_________________

One was a complete type A personality, and the other type B. And so forth.

We've spent 8 years increasing spending while cutting taxes. Such fiscal irresponsibility is a factor in the crisis we're currently facing. The U.S. Treasury can only put on a brave face for so long before inflationary influences start to take hold and US Treasuries no longer seem like such a good deal to foreign investors. At that point, there's going to be a stark choice between allowing inflation to run amock or increasing revenues to restore confidence in the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. government.

The whole "whose got the better tax plan" argument is silly, anyway. Neither one of them is going to be able to institute the cuts they're promising. We experienced unprecedented low tax rates during a time of war since 2003. The main reason revenues have kept up as well as they have is due to capital gains taxes paid on artificially high market values. Those revenues will be gone starting next year, since few people will be reporting gains.

It's 15 minutes before last call, the bill is due, and Bush & Friends are about to sneak out the back door, leaving us with the check and an angry bartender named China. Anyone planning on tax cuts is a damn fool.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

And, yeah, I am expecting tax rate increases across the board, honestly. Regardless of which one of them wins.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

I agree that neither is dealing honestly with what will REALLY happen when they are elected. Hell, Obama has admitted he will have to cut some things but won't say what.

But this point in particular stood out to me and illustrates our two differing philosophies:

Rather than increase taxes AND increasing spending with Obama's everything AND the kitchen sink programs, how about we take a critical look at what is actually there before deciding to increase spending. In case you missed it, his proposals call for significant NEW spending. When I'm in the hole financially, I definitely look at ways to grow income, but I don't also continue to increase my debt and spending. If Obama grows both tax revenue and spending, we're no better than we were before - just bigger and more bloated. How is that paying off our Chinese masters?

I completely agree, but I disagree that it's a burden ONLY the wealthy should share. It's populist pandering, and you know it.

Surcam (or anyone who hasn't seen it) I would definitely recommend watching The Odd Couple movie, the one with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau. Definitely a classic "old" movie, and still funny today.

Bearne:

Can you tell me a few? I'm not trying to be snide, I'm honestly asking. I keep hearing about these tax avoidance strategies, but I don't seem to be able to get in on any of them. Yes, I have an accountant, he actually is very good in my book. However, other than the usual things I can do which I could have figured out on my own (pay all gas for car thru the business, lease my car thru the business rather than buying, pay meals thru business account).....there hasn't been a tax shelter saving me significant money. Am I missing something?

Your business ledgers have to be reconciled quarterly, so it's not like you can somehow take money out and put it in some offshore account without someone noticing. Maybe my accountant is too honest I don't know lol. That's what I like about him actually, he's ethical so I'm not worried one bit about being audited. I'm just curious if there are legal tax avoidance strategies out there I'm missing. You say "fairly sizable" so I wonder if you can quantify that by naming a few.

A couple of things I can think of off the top of my head:

Most small businesses can expense the vast majority of their capital expenditures through Section 179, rather than having to take straight line depreciation expense over a number of years. There's a phase-out for it, so you would want to check out the rules in specific. Something like expenses the first $100,000 or so of tangible property each year if your net income is under $400,000 (those aren't specifics, just a general idea).

Making sure that you have the most advantageous business structure given the nature of business (balancing both tax treatment and legal / liability treatment). Depending on if you put all of your income back into your business, or if you take profits to live off of, you may be better off being taxed as corporation versus a partnership versus a sole proprietorship.

Retirement benefits. This is something I honestly haven't had to research in a while, but there are employee benefits that are deductible for employees that are not deductible for owners (I believe insurance benefits and the employer half of FICA/Medicaire). Ties back in to the structuring of the entity.

If you have a flow-through entity, you generally want to put as many expenses through the business rather than as personal expenses (legitimately, of course). The reason is that all operating expenses are fully deductible against your business income, but personal expenses have to meet AGI floors, and are less tax advantageous. Example - if you're still doing the cleft-palate surgery, I'd investigate whether the expenses for that - and the charitable contributions - should run through the business or individually.

Renting versus owning business property. I'm not really qualified to discuss the full ramifications of renting vs owning from a tax perspective, but there are differences worth investigating, especially regarding passive activity gains & losses (i.e. is it worth it to buy the building your business is in? If so, should you buy it as an individual and then lease it to your business and to any other tenants?).

It is also helpful to have an accountant who understands the type of business your run so that they have a better chance of knowing any industry-specific tax ramifications. I know there are rules specific to professional services firms, such as doctors, lawyers, architects. And if you're doing any business that has nexus with another state, making sure s/he understands that as well.

If you do any consulting or teaching in addition to running your business, you definitely want to look at whether you are doing that as part of the course of the business or as personal income. For example, if you were to give a lecture on plastic surgery at a conference for which you got paid, is that something you're doing on behalf of the practice or as an individual?

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Something very specific that I just thought of. If you're still doing the cleft palate surgeries overseas, it is possible that any expenses that you incur that the organization doesn't pick up can be considered in-kind charitable giving and pooled with your other charitable deductions. So airfare, meals, lodging, insurance and shipping for any surgical stuff you cart back and forth, required immunizations, etc. In addition, you might be able to take a deduction for the fair value of each surgery performed as an in-kind service.

It is further possible that any deductions you take would follow the standard rules for business / personal travel. What I mean is, if you go to a business conference for four days and stick around for the weekend for pleasure, you can still deduct 100% of the airfare. It is possible that, if you *can* take a charitable deduction for the volunteer work, the airfare rules would apply. So... you fly into Rio, spend a week in a clinic doing surgery, and then four days frolicking with the Girls from Ipanema and drinking umbrella drinks, and the entire airfare is considered charitable.

I honestly don't know if these are actual deductions. It isn't something that I've ever worked on, and if I were to research it, that would be billable hours. But my "accountant sense" tells me that if there is a precedent for something similiar, a good tax accountant could make the fact pattern fit and justify the deduction.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Lot's of good stuff Bearne, but unfortunately I was hoping for more tax avoidance techniques on "net" income. You were mentioning that when your net income gets high, then an accountant can help shelter the money some.

Section 179 relates to expenditures, so that has more to do with operating costs. My accountant has me doing that, depreciating my initial purchases over 5 years I think. In any case, this helps a lot with starting businesses and running them, but it's already factored in before I arrive at net income.

Same goes with retirement plans. I do a employee matching thing through one of my businesses, but that is all factored in before I arrive at net profits.

All my businesses are flow-through entities, C-Corps to be precise, and yes, I try and take advantage of what tax benefits I know of, like the ones I mentioned earlier (putting gas, meals, car through the business).

The renting vs. owning is a good point, and I will have to bring that up with my accountant, thank you. I currently lease all my office space, it's obviously all deducted, but I wonder if there would be any additional tax benefit to owning, especially with the real estate market down as it is, it might be a good time to buy commercial property, if it's advantageous.

And as far overseas trips, etc......I am intimately familiar with those tax deductions =) Honestly, it doesn't really add up to much, it's not like I'm going to the Phillipines to spend tons of money when I'm busy doing reconstructive surgery. I'm also required to attend conferences annually (Continuing Medical Education, you need a certain number of units/year to remain certified), and I obviously deduct those trips. You mentioned the girls from Ipanema, and I have to say the amount you can deduct legally, even though it might be a little shady, is still quite a bit. For example, when I go to meetings, if I have dinner with a old colleague of mine, I can deduct that dinner, as long as we talk about something medical. So I get to catch up with an old friend, ask him what's new in his field (ie spend 5 minutes talking about medicine, then next 60 minutes about how he/she has been) and get it expensed, which is nice.

Still.....all that comes out and we arrive at our "net" income. Obviously, the thing to do is shrink the net income as much as possible prior to arriving at the figure to lower the amount of taxes. I think that is what you are getting at, and I think that's where I need to improve more. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that if your "net" income is high, there isn't much you can do about it....the whole trick is to shrink that number through expenses and deductions prior to tax time, correct?

Add me to the list; still waiting for an answer on how increasing spending while increasing taxation is a recipe for economic prosperity in the current climate.

no-edit.......my bad, I meant S-Corps.

Jox, there are no recipes for economic success in the current environment. None. We're going to be in the shitter for a good long while.

The biggest macro risk right now, in the US, is inflationary risk, IMHO. And there's only so many tools in the toolbelt to deal with inflationary risk. Since interest rates are about as low as they can go, that's one tool that totally worn out.

So, then... spending. We used spending to good effect historically (building dams, interstate highways, etc) to decrease unemployment and stimulate consumer demand. Spending cuts won't really help at this point, IMHO.

However, too much debt issuance is a huge factor in inflation. New government debt issued without the retirement of old debt runs the risk of increasing supply beyond the quantity demanded has a negative affect on the difference between the coupon rate and the amount the government can get for its debt. Once you cross that threshold, any new debt suffers from dimishing returns. And any money that appears by the magic of the printing press without backing dilutes the value of the existing money supply, which is inflationary by definition.

As evidenced directly by the increase in the differences between revenues and expenditures since 2001 (both annually and cumulatively), our current tax base is totally insufficient to meet current spending. And spending cuts in a recessionary period tend to prolong the downturn, not stimulate it. So to cover that spending we need either more revenue or more debt or magic money.

So are increases in tax and increases in spending some magic panacea? No. Not at all. They're just the least worst option on a long list of bad options. If we had continued with the budgetary dispcipline of the 90s, we might have other tools still. But we don't.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Just to add, there are no certainties in economics. That's my "I went to business school" perspective, but I certainly do not have a mastery of economic theory. So I have absolutely no doubt that anyone with 15 minutes and access to google could find enough quotes from guys with Econ Ph.D.s to poke more holes in it than a chunk of Swiss cheese.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Joe the Plumber is on the campaign trail for McCain. I wish this story would go away. Had he asked a hypothetical question then the flap afterward would have never happened. I was 100% against the kind of scrutiny he was under at the start but some people don't know when to STFU.

My hope is it becomes a non issue but I have the feeling that the networks who should be doing real reporting are never going to let it die.

Yeah the fucker is a lying piece of shit too. A criminal to boot.

Because its still appropriate.

blah, here's a better one:

Is "tax and spend" good?

The problem with these boards is that everyone is so definitive on subjects where there is no definitive answer.

From a simple GDP point of view, saving is bad and government spending is good. $100,000 put into savings may create capital.
But, $100,000 spent to build a road gives $100,000 to workers who spend $100,000 on iPods, which give retailers $100,000 that they spend on porn... etc.

I don't want to get bogged down into the complexities, but cash cycling through the economy can be good - even when forced by the government.

I hear things about "class warfare", but we are facing a fairly severe challenge today in the fact that the middle class continues to erode. Tax and spend can address this somewhat, although in a global economy, it becomes more precarious.

I get that. Which is why an across the board tax increase works better than a targeted increase at the rich and business owners. The effect of increasing taxes on business owners will, at least somewhat, offset the new jobs that are created from those programs. If you're a business owner who may have to lay off one or two employees because of the tax increase, what have we gained?

I'll give you an example. About two weeks ago here in atlanta, one of the biggest auto dealers simply shut down. No warning, nothing. Something like 3,000 employees at all these dealers across GA and other states. Peoples' cars, left in service garages. Broadcasts on public radio telling people that if they have a car in the service shop, they better go secure their vehicles ASAP. I guarantee you that company made more than $250k in profits, and I guarantee you that increasing their taxes would NOT help the job situation, or the economy, at all. Making healthcare cheaper will NOT create enough jobs to offset those reductions.

And that's just one industry. There are layoffs and downsizing across the board - some industries are in their death throes. All of them are run by large, 'evil' corporations.

Then their business was not good, my friend. Natural selection, my friend.

Makes you wonder how that business could have gone under with the very non-socialist republican administration running the country.

_________________

I'm curious. If you feel this way, and you believe in letting selective forces dictate consequences.....then how do you feel about poor people who are poor because of poor decision making in their lives? Tough luck, natural selection, my friend?

If you feel these people shouldn't receive help, then I think you are consistent.

If you feel these people should receive help, then I'm curious to know what your differentiation is between people who are poor because of poor decision making and businesses that fail because of poor decision making.

It was a sarcastic comment referring the philosophy of the "real-American anti-socialist" republican party of which Joxur appears to represent.

I thought the over-use of McCain's catch phrase "my friend" would clue people in. It is early though, so I will give you a pass =P

_________________

Nek -

Yeah, the concept of tax avoidance is all about using deductions to lower net (taxable) income, and then using credits to negate those taxes that you do have to pay.

I don't know of any legal means to shelter money other than that. When I said that you should be using tax strategies via a good accountant, what I meant was that by the a small business is at the point where it is turning a profit, and has eaten through all of its carryforward losses from early years, it should by that point have an accounting system in place designed to report all allowable expenses and maximize deductions and credits.

What I was thinking of - given the initial topic of the thread - was the idea that Joe the Plumber would somehow have his taxes increased under the Obama plan because the business took in $260,000 per year in gross receipts. Which, well, you'ld have to be either an idiot or a sucker to not be able to reduce that down to 100K or less through deducting legitimate business expenses (depreciation of vehicles and equipment, expensing insurance, business-related utilities, cost of inventory, employee wages, home office, etc.).

One thing that can really hit anyone with ownership in any flow-through entity versus a C-Corp is what I call "income that really isn't income." Basically, all net income from an S-Corp, LLP, LLC, etc. directly hits the individual taxpayer whether than income is retained by the partnership for future growth or not. Whereas with a c-corp, only dividends paid out are taxed to the individual and retained earning accumulate with the corporation.

Other than deliberately trying to incur more expenses during the period the income is earned, there's not a whole lot that can be done to mitigate that.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Thanks again Bearne. I guess nothing I can change really.

As far as Joe The Plumber, I don't know anything about his business. If his business grosses only $260,000, then yeah, he has no right to complain, since his take-home will only be about $78,000, assuming he's like most small businesses with a 30% margin, and obviously he won't see any additional taxes. If his personal net income is $260,000, then he will. It's more like the former rather than the later though because I don't see plumbers making 6 figures on a routine basis.

Checks on 'Joe' more extensive than first acknowledged
Tax, welfare info also sought on McCain ally
http://dispatch.com/live/content/local_ ... ml?sid=101

I have a lot of concern about corporate tax.

This is where I disconnect from Democrats.

I personally think corporate tax should be close to zero, but personal income, dividends, etc should be higher.

I don't have time to give a fully thought out response, but the gist is that I we desperately need to narrow the gap between the haves and have-nots, it's getting too wide.

Oh noze, the media investigated Joe the Plant, who purposefully thrust himself into the public spotlight. Outrage!

I still love listening to the stuff he said about social security and the Iraq war. Clearly this man was undecided!

We do have a S corporations where the corporation pays no income tax. They have to follow special rules, and the profit is taxed as normal income. When You see those silly headlines on how 2/3rds of all corporations pay no income tax they are talking about S corporations owners paying the standard income tax instead of the C corporations paying the corp income tax and the owners paying capital gains.

LEAVE JOE THE PLUMBER ALONE! JUST LEAVE HIM ALONE!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... ain-event/

Unless you're McCain or Palin, who are still using him at campaign stops.

_________________

I love some of the comments there. XD

How is it a witch hunt if McCain and Palin keep putting him on the stage?

Or is it like your Obama supporter "attack", where you bitched and moaned despite the GOP being the ones pushing the "story". And ironically you were the first to post it here...when you thought it supported your agenda.

Not that you'll have a real answer for that or anything. If you want to go for Monty Python references, you're like the Black Knight.

_________________

You're NOT outraged that officials illegally searched his records? Here, let me spell it out for you:



Seriously, you don't see anything wrong with that?

There are 3 things to this story.

1) What he said to Obama, and Obama's answer. GASP, the actual substance of the issue.
2) The fact that multiple government systems were checked illegally in an effort to dig up private information to discredit him.
3) The fact that he has been outspoken and taken advantage of his celebrity.

Now, seriously, you really think that number 3 is the most serious?

And of course, I hope you also realize that McCain and Palin put him "on the stage" well after all of the dirt came out about him, right? Or do you really think that referencing him at the debate is putting him on the stage? If scum like Jones-Kelley did that to every Tom, Dick and Harry that politicians talk about in debates, the databases would crash.

If this were a criminal proceeding, wouldn't Jones-Kelley's max contribution to the Obama campaign be considered probable cause?

Here's the thing, joxur.

You may well be right (I honestly haven't bothered to research the issue, so I don't know). But you've pissed off the majority of the posters here by getting in peoples' faces over really immaterial stuff and being just plain unpleasant over the course of the past eight or nine months. So at this point, I don't really think that people are taking what you post seriously, even if the issue at hand is a serious one.

You've kind of screwed up your own credibility, even if the issue at hand is credible.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Bearne, dude.. why do you still bother? If posts like that were going to work, wouldn't it have worked already? Your opinion of how I post doesn't really matter to me. It's odd, though, that I'm one of about 2-3 McCain supporters, and similar things have been written about them, too. Maybe it's not me. Maybe it's you guys. Either way, seriously, save yourself the time and stop with the sanctimonious judgments.

Hahahahaha! That's probably the fairest and most open post to you you've GOTTEN and you can only see it as a judgement?

JESUS. No wonder people can't get through to you.

joxur is a fucking comedian, I wonder if he knows it?

Honestly? Because I remember a time when I enjoyed reading what you wrote, even when I disagreed with it. And it kind of sucks that that isn't true anymore.

_________________
Hope is the new black.

Ok.

I'm supposed to lay down for the altruism of a guy who said I should go fuck myself with a sandpaper-covered chainsaw?

Or perhaps I'm supposed to lay down for the half dozen people who have insinuated I'm a racist? An especially offensive thing considered I was married to a black woman for 7 years.

Or perhaps I'm supposed to lay down for the people who called the second woman to ever run on a major party presidential ticket a "cunt".

Or maybe I should lay down for the guy said I who was in the same league as a guy who calls everyone faggots - and more?

Yeah. Your side. Really taking the high road. Be grateful I'm giving you so much red meat in this post. I have no doubt that you'll take more time responding with outrage than to any of the points I raised, and actually blame ME for that.

More lessons in how to read what you want to be there, rather than what's actually written, in Joxur's next post!