Maybe you all should go back to citing blog quotes after all?

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Actually, some of the answer as to why the tax burden fell so abrubtly is that they didn't get taxed on all their profits, thanks to carry-over losses. If there were no changes to the tax code, the tax burden would probably drift up a bit because of that.

Obama can still say that tax rates and burdens are at an historic low during his term, lower than during Bush, lower than during Reagan, lower than at any time since Truman.

That's the earn out on my vote.

[sgtclub]

Originally Posted by Adder

And you and your partners don't make any more money that you pay taxes on?

If either you or your firm aren't paying more in taxes, you might want to consult Wonk on the legality of your accounting.

He zeroes out by 12/31 each year. Remember, you have never run a business, so you wouldn't understand.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

That's the earn out on my vote.

It ought to have great appeal to Sebby as well.

Remember, too, he got to this level with Pelosi's help. I'm betting the burden increases during Boehner's term.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I run a company. we make no profits, even in a great year we break even. weird.

So when Rs talk about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, the fraud refers to tax fraud?

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So when Rs talk about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, the fraud refers to tax fraud?

No, that's what they mean by "enforce the laws already on the books".

And we've both provided the opening for a Chuck Rangel reference, so let's just stipulate that, yes, there are many unsavory D politicos who should go to jail for tax fraud, too.

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

No, that's what they mean by "enforce the laws already on the books".

And we've both provided the opening for a Chuck Rangel reference, so let's just stipulate that, yes, there are many unsavory D politicos who should go to jail for tax fraud, too.

I can stipulate to that on behalf of the independent centrist moderates on the Board.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller

No, that's what they mean by "enforce the laws already on the books".

And we've both provided the opening for a Chuck Rangel reference, so let's just stipulate that, yes, there are many unsavory D politicos who should go to jail for tax fraud, too.

Neither one of us provided that opening. I didn't say anything about R politicos committing tax fraud, and neither did you.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Neither one of us provided that opening. I didn't say anything about R politicos committing tax fraud, and neither did you.

Rs talking about tax fraud = talking about tax fraud by Ds.

Plus, I like an opportunity to dog on entrenched, past-date Ds like Rangel.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Neither one of us provided that opening. I didn't say anything about R politicos committing tax fraud, and neither did you.

Well, Hank's certainly not going to talk about what the IRS might discover if he had to send in all those 1099s. I mean, it's ok to pay the home oil delivery out of the office account, right?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sgtclub

He zeroes out by 12/31 each year. Remember, you have never run a business, so you wouldn't understand.

I've never run a business, thus I don't know what you mean by "zeros out." Feel free to explain.

I've had a few accounting classes, though, and in fact worked on some accounting fraud investigations. Based on that paltry experience, I'm assuming that the company makes no profits due to management doing a good job of making sure it matches what it pays its employees (i.e., "partners" in Hank's incorporated firm) to its earnings, thus no accounting profits for the firm. But leaving aside various strategies to make sure those payments are as tax-advantaged as possible, somebody should be earning something off of the enterprise.

To put it differently, if Hank's cut costs and kept output the same, but provided no additional return to the "equity" owners, something isn't right. Perhaps you mean he's been embezzling? Or he spent it all on artwork for the office that he's going to take with him when he retires (i.e., embezzling)?

For Hank's sake, I certainly hope it isn't that his firm has losses to carry forward.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

I've never run a business, thus I don't know what you mean by "zeros out." Feel free to explain.

I've had a few accounting classes, though, and in fact worked on some accounting fraud investigations. Based on that paltry experience, I'm assuming that the company makes no profits due to management doing a good job of making sure it matches what it pays its employees (i.e., "partners" in Hank's incorporated firm) to its earnings, thus no accounting profits for the firm. But leaving aside various strategies to make sure those payments are as tax-advantaged as possible, somebody should be earning something off of the enterprise.

To put it differently, if Hank's cut costs and kept output the same, but provided no additional return to the "equity" owners, something isn't right. Perhaps you mean he's been embezzling? Or he spent it all on artwork for the office that he's going to take with him when he retires (i.e., embezzling)?

For Hank's sake, I certainly hope it isn't that his firm has losses to carry forward.

the HCR savings cost my firm pretty heavily

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So when Rs talk about cutting waste, fraud, and abuse, the fraud refers to tax fraud?

we started taking on lots of contingency-pawn shop files, and those files got complicated by the scandal surrounding the ownership assignment glitch issues

[Penske 2.0]

Originally Posted by Adder

I've never run a business, thus I don't know what you mean .......[A BUNCH OF STUFF EVIDENCING THE FOREGOING].

You should have stopped there. Admitting your ignorance is good for the soul.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0

You should have stopped there. Admitting your ignorance is good for the soul.

I wouldn't mind their ignorance if only addsidgggtys would thank "bosses", even if generically, for the fact of their paychecks instead of insulting us. They remind me of my children when they were younger.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Check your definitions. Transfer payments (e.g., most of the entitlements) are specifically excluded from GDP. Yes, the label used in the formula is "Government Spending", but the definition of Government Spending for calculating GDP only includes certain types of spending (e.g., purchases of equipment and government salaries). That is, it doesn't include everything in the budget, and doesn't even include everything in the stimulus package.

I think your main beef is with a roughly $800 billion stimulus package that consisted of roughly $300 billion in tax cuts and $500 billion in spending. Even if the full $500 billion were added to the GDP, and it were all spent in one year, you don't think the negative $300 billion would have more impact on the tax burden figure?

Also, you somehow think that the $500 billion, spent mostly over 3 years, or maybe the TARP payments that have pretty much made a round trip circuit and landed back in the coffers, will have a mamoth impact on a GDP that exceed $14 trillion annually. That math doesn't add up, especially at a time when state spending was dramatically declining.

You seem highly reluctant to acknowledge that tax burdens have fallen during the Obama administration. Why?

I'm not reluctant. I was reading what you wrote to see if you were correct on that point. I thought I was right. I was not. Your assessment holds up. Good job.

Whether Hank's point beats you is another matter.