Election 2010: Teabaggin' the Ds & Rs

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'm fine with that. It would save a shitload on audits. A guy not paying his taxes would receive a bill for the tax on what he failed to claim and have 30 days to pay it or explain why it's incorrect or sent in error. No need to piss money away going through his records. Aldo, it would remove the calculation, "Well... I haven't been 1099'd, so maybe I can get away with hiding this income" calculation from the tax cheat's mind. He wouldn't know what was being reported and would have to err on the side of payment.

ETA: This would also lead to a lot more use of cash by the sorts of people who routinely cheat on taxes. This is good, and stimulative, because: (a) less use of credit is a good thing; and, (b) cash that can't be put in a bank gets spent.

These are all very good points in favor of that approach which, of course, means that it has no chance in hell of being implemented.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

So you are saying that Chevy's firm is a long-time tax felon?

That is between him and his accountant. I'm sure there's a reasonable basis somewhere....

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

(b) cash that can't be put in a bank gets spent.

Prop Joe hasn't introduced you to Levy yet?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

I like you, but I have to conclude that you're not involved in the day-to-day details of running a business. My shop deals with a LOT of vendor invoices. This has been part of our discussion re accounting staffing for the upcoming year. Everyone is running lean, and this is just one more time-suck headache for a multi-hundred million/year operation with thousands of qualifying transactions annually.

Believe it or not, this stuff does add up -- particularly when you consider all the other hoops we have to jump through. God forbid a few forms get screwed up or lost and you have to deal with an audit.

I agree with you on it not being a stealth issue, though.

CDF

you produce more retarded stuff than sarah Palin's vagina.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you produce more retarded stuff than sarah Palin's vagina.

I am your father, Hank. Join me, and we can rule the red dwarf star system that is your worldview forever.

CDF

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That is between him and his accountant. I'm sure there's a reasonable basis somewhere....

I had understood there was a limit that is now being lowered and applied to more services. We've done 1099's for consultants, experts, etc. for years.

CDF

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I don't understand why Irish taxpayers should be willing to pay so much to bail out bondholders who made bad decisions, and it seems to me that the inevitable populist backlash is going to be very difficult for the EC to manage, since it doesn't have a ton of legitimacy. Someone tell me why Irish taxpayers should feel so much pain and investors should feel so little?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

I had understood there was a limit that is now being lowered and applied to more services. We've done 1099's for consultants, experts, etc. for years.

CDF

applied to goods.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

I had understood there was a limit that is now being lowered and applied to more services. We've done 1099's for consultants, experts, etc. for years.

CDF

From my understanding, it applies to pretty much every business transaction over $600 AND any bussiness transactions with the same vendors that total $600.

Frankly, I think it's sort of silly to send a 1099 to the Omni hotel for putting up my office's staff for our annual meeting in Austin every year. Omni reports that sort of shit.

This is the most unbiased source I could come up with (lawyers in the Congressional research service) to explain what the issue is. That Congress knows it's a major problem but can't fix because of the partisan bullshit (on both sides) it is better illustration of how fucked up Congress is right now than the flaws of the health law.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

I had understood there was a limit that is now being lowered and applied to more services. We've done 1099's for consultants, experts, etc. for years.

CDF

It's being applied to goods as well as services and corporate as well as individual and partnership recipients are now covered.

Same $600 limit. That has not changed.

But, yeah, your accounting people work hard, and you should know how tough they have it and how thin they are stretched, especially at bonus time.

[cheval de frise]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It's being applied to goods as well as services and corporate as well as individual and partnership recipients are now covered.

Same $600 limit. That has not changed.

But, yeah, your accounting people work hard, and you should know how tough they have it and how thin they are stretched, especially at bonus time.

Yes, thank you and RT (and even Hank). I didn't use proper language. I tend to think in terms of "service providers," regardless of whether they're furnishing brain product or tangible items. That obviously isn't accurate when dealing with tax issues, but the additional burden point still stands.

Oh well -- just one more thing to deal with.

CDF

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by cheval de frise

Yes, thank you and RT (and even Hank). I didn't use proper language. I tend to think in terms of "service providers," regardless of whether they're furnishing brain product or tangible items. That obviously isn't accurate when dealing with tax issues, but the additional burden point still stands.

Oh well -- just one more thing to deal with.

CDF

Yeah, I like regulations more when they require lawyer time to comply. Ah, well. Even the bookkeepers and accountants need revenue. But if I were them, I wouldn't book that vacation in Paris based on this one.

On the plus side, there seem to be several other changes keeping the ERISA folks busy. I don't know what they are, but they seem sublimely burdensome....

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I don't understand why Irish taxpayers should be willing to pay so much to bail out bondholders who made bad decisions, and it seems to me that the inevitable populist backlash is going to be very difficult for the EC to manage, since it doesn't have a ton of legitimacy. Someone tell me why Irish taxpayers should feel so much pain and investors should feel so little?

'cause the ECB, and more importantly German, say so?

ETA: Btw, it isn't just the populist backlash. Even if it had political support, there isn't any way Ireland will be able to repay the loans. It's filled with properties for which there is no demand, which is only going to get worse as emigration picks up again. Ireland is fucked, at least until Germany realizes that it has to allow them to restructure.

[Adder]

Juan Williams is neither a liberal nor anyone whose views are worthy of your attention.

[Cletus Miller]

Originally Posted by Adder

'cause the ECB, and more importantly German, say so?

ETA: Btw, it isn't just the populist backlash. Even if it had political support, there isn't any way Ireland will be able to repay the loans. It's filled with properties for which there is no demand, which is only going to get worse as emigration picks up again. Ireland is fucked, at least until Germany realizes that it has to allow them to restructure.

There's enough demand if the pricing reflected the resources of those wanting to live in Ireland. The problem is the level of debt (under)secured by those properties. If they could write off ~75% of the mortgage debt, they'd be okay on the demand.