Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.

The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed. I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

Our founding fathers and their brethren fought for the equality of all man, so that every individual that resides in this country has the ability, right, and responsibility to succeed. They understood a wealthy united nation has the ability to protect those that are persecuted against and provides them the freedoms that all Humans have a right to. Bring me your tired, your weak, your poor is not just a saying my friend, it is the American's cry to protect freedom to all those who desire it. It is the responsibility of great (wo)men to stand up for what is right, regardless of what is found popular.


They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.


The citizen must succeed for the state to succeed.

A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.


I suggest everyone understand the meanings of the language the beautiful document was written in. Much like the Magna Carta, people don't speak with as much eloquence and deep meaning as they previously did.

In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.

This "redistribution of wealth" is a form of taxation that the Founding Fathers would have been extremely appalled by

Are you a founding father? If not, how can you be so sure?
Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights. If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.So you're saying that it's your own fault that you're poor? that your own laziness caused your poverty? That's a very archaic and ignorant idea born from the flames of social Darwinism.
The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.Through your eyes, perhaps, but if you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, there are many passages that support socialism and other "leftist" ideas in some form or the other.

They also fought so that they could be free, having government dictate to you that you can't make over a certain amount without being punished is taking away rights.

How are you being punished? Aside from the fact I highly doubt you make +$250,000 I doubt you are going to be punished under Obama's presidency.

If I make X amount because I put in a lot of extra hours, I don't want that money taken away from me and given to someone that is too lazy to work.

Technically your tax money already goes to people that are "too lazy to work".
Mostly CEO's of corporations who drive around in ferrari's and have sex with European sex slaves.

Freedom also means freedom to succeed and freedom to fail, it's called personal responsibility.

Right, and this isn't interfering in that.


A citizen has to also want to succeed, something that they have absolutely no incentive to do in socialism.

You have shown no proof to this claim. I call fallacy.


In order to understand the meaning of the language, one also has to know the context in which it was written, you can only do that if you know what was going on when the document was written.

Way to rephrase what I said in a drawn out and boring way.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism.
The United States of America was founded on free distribution of wealth and the market was owned by citizens as they are the market. Now it's a business setup with many chains and branches down, you have to adapt to the changes made in society to better protect it.

Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

I'm not fully versed on American Political history, so I didn't know that. Thank you for pointing that out, Jae.

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.

The United States of America was founded on capitalism not socialism

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

Federal income tax wasn't enacted until the Civil War. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States) I don't know if they would have been appalled by it, but they chose not to write income tax into the Constitution when they wrote it.

One of the examples of why people of that era would balk at redistribution of wealth.

Chief Justice Marshall also determined that Maryland may not tax the bank without violating the Constitution. The Supremacy Clause dictates that State laws comply with the Constitution and yield when there is a conflict. Taking as undeniable the fact that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy", the court concluded that the Maryland tax could not be levied against the government. If states were allowed to continue their acts, they would destroy the institution created by federal government and oppose the principle of federal supremacy which originated in the text of the Constitution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCulloch_v._Maryland)

While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.

Furthermore, we could be looking at as many as 4 Supreme Court Justices dieing these next 4 years, and another 2 after that.

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.

I was commenting more on using long dead people to further an argument, which I don't agree with - it's very easy to say they would agree/disagree with something if they're not here to say for themselves.


The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.

I thought it was founded on Freedom from tyranny, and right to self governance? I've obviously been wrong in my history, then.

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.

Did you know taxes are on gross income not gross profits?Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

While congress does have the power to tax, the problem is they can use taxes to literally destroy people whom happen to be wealthy and shove them into poverty.They also have the power to give tax cuts to the wealthy and no relief to the middle and lower class, as we've seen in the current administration.

You have, a potential super-majority of Democrats in the Legislature (with the ability and will pass extremely left wing agenda), a socialist President (if Obama is elected), and potentially a supreme court that will potentially uphold anything that they pass (regardless of the fact it may not be Constitutional). Reasoning behind that is the radio interview from 2001, which has Obama advocating the courts should have implimented wealth redistribution.No one gawked at this when the same thing happened in 2000 when we had a Republican controlled Congress and a Republican controlled White House who led us into two wars and an economic recession, but hey, maybe it's just me.

That's the reason why people are scared of the fact Obama is a Socialist, because as President with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, he would effectively have the power to tax the 'wealthy' (whatever they define as wealthy) and the middle class out of existence.According to Obama's plan, the middle class isn't going to be taxed at all, in fact, they'll be given a tax cut. I fail to see the logic in your post. I thought that the general consensus agreed that taxing the wealthy was supposed to be a good thing, if I'm not mistaken.

The reason that the Constitution is a written document is to keep it from being reinterpretted on a whim. It is also why it is so difficult to amend the Constitution, the founding fathers recognized that there needed to be safeguards in place.Uh, it can be changed at any moment, as it's been done so in the past. The Constitution is reinterpreted all the time, as it should be, as society is always changing.

But a government even an elected one can become a tyranny, there are numorous examples in human history of that.I'm thinking of a word, one that starts with "buh" and ends with "ush".

Your not going to explain this? Did you mean “Did you know taxes are on net income not gross profits” or did you mean “Did you know taxes are on gross income not net profits.”

I am quite well aware of what the mean.

Gross: Is the total amount you've made

Net: is the amount you've made or lost (Gross - expenses = net)


The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing.

Net is the what you get after all the expenses including taxes.

Since you don’t seem incline to respond I’ll assume you meant “Did you know taxes are on net income and not gross profits”. Since that is correct.

Accusing fellow members of criminal activity is a flame, response snipped... - j7

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes.

@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax.

@garfield: mimartin appears to be discussing business income tax whereas you appear to be discussing personal income tax. QFT I thought GarfieldJL was talking business income too with his example.

mimartin, I'm not trying to sound condecending but do you actually pay income taxes? I'm guessing you don't because when I look at my pay stubs, it shows me the gross pay for the two weeks the amount I made before taxes, and then they take the taxes out and that is the net pay.

Gross income is the total amount of money I make in a year, and then the net income is the amount I've taken in after taxes. I’m a small business owner, I pay taxes, personal and employee taxes. I also have degrees in Finance and Accounting. You were talking about a small business owner in your example of the doctor. Thus, I corrected your mistake in post #99. Now you want to change the discussion to personal income tax, which is fine with me. Because the MALPRATICE INSURANCE has nothing to do with personal income, personal income is the income left over after paying business expenses.

In case you don’t know when you are self-employed, you don’t get a pay stub unless you or your accounting department makes it.

Thanks for answering my question, but I’ll look elsewhere for financial or accounting advice. :D

The term you're looking for in retail is Gross Sales I believe (Gross Income) which is what Obama is taxing. Your belief is unfounded. He would tax Business Income. Which is after business expenses, if you are talking personal (for people not self-employed) he would tax wages, which are on a W-2. Either way, from your example, the malpratice insurance expense would not be taxable.

Gross Income and Net Income really have very little meaning for people who don't make huge sums of money or run their own business as the figures aren't very different.For a small business owner the net income is the only number that matters at the end of the day.

To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

To be fair they want to make a constitutional ammendment to say marriage is between a man and a woman. Clearly the founding fathers thought it should be okay for dykes and queens to marry.

Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.

Yes, and honestly I wish this could be handled by the states because morals is something that really should generally be handled by the individual states.

Anyways the odds of an amendment like that going through isn't particularly high because of the difficulty in actually amending the Constitution (which is a good thing).

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

The point is based on the information I've found Obama is a socialist, and raising taxes in a recession will cause a depression.And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

You're right about that, Faux News is "right". ;)

And the point that we've all been trying to make is that you need to look for information in less biased places. You've done an admirable job of toeing the Fox News line, but that doesn't make you (or them) right.

See: New Thread on Media (http://lucasforums.com/showthread.php?p=2546484#post2546484)

So then what is making you so worried about Obama accomplishing such things?

In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

I honestly could go on all night, but a lot of these could all connect with the fact he's a socialist.

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).

Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

In answer to your question, if he controls all three branches of Government there are no checks & balances. Especially with the media being in the tank for him.The same scenario that you are describing has already happened with Bush, who has a totally different set of ideals than Obama.

The DC gun ban was overturned by only 1 vote, if it hadn't been overturned we could have seen the total loss of our second amendment rights.And in the process, thousands of lives would probably be spared, but that's for another another thread.

The Democrats want to reinstitute what is known as the "Fairness Doctrine" which in reality is an attempt to shut down all voices of dissent.Proof, por favor.

Then there was the treatment of "Joe the Plumber" where people are now being charged concerning the accessing of his private information (at least one is an Obama donor).Proof?


snipped flamebait --Jae

Again Europe, can keep it's socialism, they're having just as many economic problems that we are right now. I don't like the idea of big brother or the state is mother the state is father garbage.

You have the CIA, FBI, NIA - and you think your not being watched? Furthermore please tell me how universal education (which you have) and universal healthcare constitute being watched?

Do you have a source for that? The previously sourced article determined that the access was not politically motivated - so you must mean somebody else?

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004)

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004)

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.Thank you for providing articles with headlines such as "Liberals declare war on Joe the Plumber" and "Obama donor ordered Big Brother probe of Joe the Plumber". Now while I'm slam dunking these articles into the nearest rubbish bin, I'd like you to provide some real sources without any hate speech and right-wing bias.

I don't really care if the story line is it wasn't for political purposes.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=79308)

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081019/OPINION03/810190306/1004)

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.
Got any sources that source what they are saying and aren't obviously biased towards one side?

Jones-Kelley said such background checks are not unusual.

And

"Based on what we know to this point, we don't have any reason to believe the information was improperly accessed or disclosed by a state employee,"

I have a feeling that had it not been for the coincidence that she donated money to Obama's campaign, this wouldn't even be news.

I expect this to be all over the place in a few hours at least on Fox News, I first heard about it on Fox & Friends.

Of course it'll be on a network whose sole purpose at the moment is to jump all over Obama and the Democrats for the slightest little thing.

And


It wouldn't be unusual if he was trying to get a job which you'd get a criminal background check for, the only thing he did was ask Obama a question. Since there was no legitimate reason for the background check, it was illegal and people are facing criminal charges.



I have a feeling that had it not been for the coincidence that she donated money to Obama's campaign, this wouldn't even be news.


Probably not, unless she worked on the Obama Campaign, because there wouldn't be anything really there except she acted on her own. The fact she's a maxed out donor, ties her to the Obama Campaign.



Of course it'll be on a network whose sole purpose at the moment is to jump all over Obama and the Democrats for the slightest little thing.

You notice any other networks bothering to even report on this fact, regardless of what you may think it is newsworthy. If something similar happened only we substituted John McCain in for Obama, the Mainstream Media would be going nuts.

Probably not, unless she worked on the Obama Campaign, because there wouldn't be anything really there except she acted on her own. The fact she's a maxed out donor, ties her to the Obama Campaign.

Right. She gave them money - it doesn't mean she's working for them, or doing anything untoward on their behalf.

There is a fair amount of snarkiness going on in this thread and I've deleted some of the more egregious posts. Keep it civil in accordance with the amended Kavar's rules, please.

Discussion of Joe the Plumber needs to relate back to the topic, otherwise they're off-topic posts. Thanks.

Discussion of Joe the Plumber needs to relate back to the topic, otherwise they're off-topic posts. Thanks.

To tie Joe the Plumber into this discussion, the revelation of Obama's socialist viewpoints first surfaced when he went into Joe's neighborhood for a photo op and Joe asked him a question. Up until that point Obama and the mainstream media managed to keep it hidden.

Obama Explains His Tax Cut Plans to Plumbing Business (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=vFC9jv9jfoA)

The response Obama gave, was brought up repeatedly by Senator McCain in the third debate. Obama's response then was to attack and smear 'Joe the Plumber', which indicates that there is something to this.
Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4&NR=1) I'm going to see if I can find a video that just has Obama's statements with the crowd.
And Biden also Mocked 'Joe the Plumber for not having a license which as Jae and myself have pointed out he didn't need to work as a plumber.
Biden Mocks Joe the Plumber on Leno for Not Having Actual Plumbing License (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=c2NqqVinzk4)

All this points out to me is that this Socialism charge has struck a nerve and has real merit. The Presidential Candidates mocking each other and complaining about the media is one thing, but Joe isn't running for office, he wasn't at an Obama rally, Obama entered Joe's neighborhood and all Joe did was ask a question.

To tie Joe the Plumber into this discussion, the revelation of Obama's socialist viewpoints first surfaced when he went into Joe's neighborhood for a photo op and Joe asked him a question. Up until that point Obama and the mainstream media managed to keep it hidden.

Hang on, you've already claimed that Obama's socialist viewpoints came about a few years ago - with the distribution of wealth comments.

Which is it?

All this points out to me is that this Socialism charge has struck a nerve and has real merit.

There's no charge - unless you're claiming that Obama is a criminal? So far all there has been are accusations.

Hang on, you've already claimed that Obama's socialist viewpoints came about a few years ago - with the distribution of wealth comments.


The comments were out there, but the general public really didn't know about them for the most part till 'Joe the Plumber' asked Obama the question. That's what kicked up the search for other instances where he made similar comments. That's how 'Joe the Plumber' caused Obama's socialist viewpoints to come to the public's attention.



There's no charge - unless you're claiming that Obama is a criminal? So far all there has been are accusations.

That isn't the only meaning of the word 'charge.' (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charge)


6. to accuse formally or explicitly (usually fol. by with): They charged him with theft.
7. to impute (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/impute);) ascribe the responsibility for: He charged the accident to his own carelessness.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/charge)

Obama Mocks Joe the Plumber, Crowd Laughs (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqis9mRcWl4&NR=1)Well), if you take the quote completely out of context and put a negative spin on it, sure, that sounds like he's mocking Joe. But if you look at the entire quote he is not. Not even close. (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=NbukEk8JBTY&feature=related)

OK, Garfield, we've established that the 'redistribution of wealth' comment that Obama made to Joe is viewed by conservatives at least as a socialist tenant. We've not only beaten that dead horse, we've squashed the poor thing into little bits and then smeared it into a paste across the highway. Time to move on both here and in other threads.

I'd also like to add that everyone drop the subject of "Joe the Plumber", leave the poor guy alone. Whether or not his specific county has requirements about operation with a plumbers license does not matter, as well it's not relevant to anything of worthy discussion. That is, unless you want to start a debate about the restrictions and protections for customers the local representation has as far as contract labor. It's not too alien of an idea for a town to want to hold some old values of good local labor, the local plumber, mechanic/car-buff, the local carpenter, the accountant, etc.

Point is, leave Joe alone.

My point is if you listen to the Radio Interview from 2001: Interview (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

Then listen to what he said with Joe, these are two different instances where he talks about spreading the wealth around.

And to that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. And one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which to bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.
--Blog (http://iwilly.wordpress.com/2008/10/27/2001-obama-audio-tragedy-that-redistribution-of-wealth-not-pursued/)

It goes on to say:
Maybe I’m showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. Y’know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.


Now put that in context with, the first video I posted in post #129 (http://lucasforums.com/showpost.php?p=2546712&postcount=129).

You realize personal income and the total earnings of a business are seperate things, right?

The $250,000 is income, not business. Two completely different things.

You realize personal income and the total earnings of a business are seperate things, right?

The $250,000 is income, not business. Two completely different things.

It actually depends on what kind of a business that we're referring to?

Are we talking about a Sole Proprietorship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sole_proprietorship), a Partnership (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partnership), a Corporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation), or a Cooperative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative)?) Because if I remember correctly from my business law class, each one has different tax codes.

Additionally with the legal differences and size of the business they react in different ways to tax hikes, for instance, a Corporation just passes the cost on to the consumer or lays off employees or both.

Okay, but my income tax is different from my business tax.

Okay, but my income tax is different from my business tax.

You didn't answer the question, depending on the type of business you have, affects whether or not it falls under your personal income taxes or not.

The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

There are several groups that would be directly affected by the tax plan Obama has proposed one of which is sole proprietorships, which is one of the more common kinds of small business.

No matter how you slice it or dice it, you are only taxed on profits. Sales + other income – expenses = profits (this is simplified). That is the same for any business.The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in. Anyone preparing their own taxes please disregard this or you will be seriously overpaying your taxes. I’ve prepared taxes for myself, my father and friends that own small business, sole proprietorships, partnerships and LLC and this is not true. However, we all know the government needs money so if you want to do it this way that is fine with me.

If this was true, most small business owners would be working for someone else and we would never hire anyone.

You didn't answer the question, depending on the type of business you have, affects whether or not it falls under your personal income taxes or not.

The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

There are several groups that would be directly affected by the tax plan Obama has proposed one of which is sole proprietorships, which is one of the more common kinds of small business.

Except the $250,000 is only in regards to income tax, not business. Discussing business profit and what is taken from there has no bearing on an employees income tax.

If I work at Target and earn $250,000+ a year, I'll be taxed at a higher percentage. I'd have no problem with that, that's a lot of money. Mind you I'd have to be some sort of Head Executive of some area branch to make anywhere near that much.

The key to remember though is that Federal Taxes are on Gross income or the gross amount of money that the business takes in. The net is after all of the expenses are figured in.

I know mimartin already noted it's wrong, but I'm chiming in and agreeing with him that this couldn't be more incorrect. Fed taxes are paid on net, not gross. I see patients in my own small practice, and I do my taxes myself (love Turbotax). I know without a doubt that I pay taxes on my net, not my gross. Please don't spread this misinformation anymore.

I know mimartin already noted it's wrong, but I'm chiming in and agreeing with him that this couldn't be more incorrect. Fed taxes are paid on net, not gross. I see patients in my own small practice, and I do my taxes myself (love Turbotax). I know without a doubt that I pay taxes on my net, not my gross. Please don't spread this misinformation anymore.

Jae, I must respectfully point out that based on sources I've found, both you and mimartin are mistaken. Just so there isn't any misunderstanding, I'm not saying either of you filed your taxes incorrectly, I'm just saying you and mimartin have gotten your terminology wrong, if we want to be technical it's taxable income that mimartin, you, and myself were thinking of. However, taxable income is calculated from the adjusted gross income which is calculated from gross income. Net Income is what you get after all expenses including taxes have been factored in.

According to dictionary.com (www.dictionary.com) Net Income is defined as:

1. A company's total earnings, or profit. Net income is calculated by taking revenues and adjusting for the cost of doing business, depreciation, interest, taxes and other expenses. This number is found on a company's income statement and is an important measure of how profitable the company is over a period of time. The measure is also used to calculate earnings per share.

Often referred to as "the bottom line". In the U.K., net income is known as "profit attributable to shareholders".

2. An individual's income after deductions, credits and taxes are factored into gross income. Deductions and credits are subtracted from gross income to arrive at taxable income, which is used to calculate income tax. Net income is income tax subtracted from taxable income.
--Net Income (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Net%20Income)


Additional source Legal Dictionary: Income Taxes (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Income+taxes) (which is a nonpartisan site).

Regardless of the changes made by legislators since 1913, the basic formula for computing the amount of tax owed has remained basically the same. To determine the amount of income tax owed, certain deductions are taken from an individual's gross income to arrive at an adjusted gross income, from which additional deductions are taken to arrive at the taxable income. Once the amount of taxable income has been determined, tax rate charts determine the exact amount of tax owed. If the amount of tax owed is less than the amount already paid through tax prepayment or the withholding of taxes from paychecks, the taxpayer is entitled to a refund from the IRS. If the amount of tax owed is more than what has already been paid, the taxpayer must pay the difference to the IRS.


Additional Sources include:
wikipedia.org: Income tax in the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States)
wikipedia.org: State Income Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax)

GarfieldJL you are wrong. If you would have even looked at the links I posted you would have noticed that you do start with Gross Receipts or Sales in part 1 -Line 1 of the Schedule C, but Schedule C (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf)–) Profit or Loss From Business (sole proprietorship) then deducts BUSINESS EXPENSES.

Tax preparation 101. (I usually get paid for this). :D

Line 5 is your Gross Profit after subtracting Returns and Allowances and Cost of Goods Sold.

You then add Gross Profit to Other Income to get GROSS INCOME on Line 7.

Lines 8 through 27 is where you add up your TOTAL EXPENSES.

You put TOTAL EXPENSES on line 28.

You then SUBTRACT line 28 from line 7 to get Net Profit or Net Loss. Net Profit or Net Loss is what you put on your 1040.

Your tax rate is base on your NET PROFIT or NET LOSS after adding Personal Income and Subtracting Personal Deductions.

In this example the Sole Proprietorship is taxed based on Net Profit or Net Loss.

This is from the United State Department of Treasury.

(love Turbotax). I love it too. No use getting audited over a simple arithmetic error. This reminds me, GarfieldJL I believe I’m doing my taxes correctly as I have been audited twice in the past 8 years.

GarfieldJL you are wrong. If you would have even looked at the links I posted you would have noticed that you do start with Gross Receipts or Sales in part 1 -Line 1 of the Schedule C, but Schedule C (http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f1040sc.pdf)–) Profit or Loss From Business (sole proprietorship) then deducts BUSINESS EXPENSES.

Tax preparation 101. (I usually get paid for this). :D

Line 5 is your Gross Profit after subtracting Returns and Allowances and Cost of Goods Sold.

You then add Gross Profit to Other Income to get GROSS INCOME on Line 7.

Lines 8 through 27 is you TOTAL EXPENSES.

You put TOTAL EXPENSES on line 28.

You then SUBTRACT line 28 from line 7 to get Net Profit or Net Loss. Net Profit or Net Loss is what you put on your 1040.

In this example the Sole Proprietorship is taxed based on Net Profit or Net Loss.

This is from the United State Department of Treasury.

I'm taking it that you're not keeping your business and your personal income seperate then, or its your sole source of income? And that this business is a business where you sell actual goods like a small retail store.

I was going off the idea that your business is being treated as a legal entity similar to a small corporation in which case I don't think we're even looking at the same tax codes.

I was talking about personal taxes here, as it relates to your business. As I said though it really depends on how your business is set up, that determines what taxes you pay.

Going off of other tax forms involving personal income such as: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f4852.pdf)

It looks more like we're referring to Gross Income as far as business this is giving me a headache, and we could keep arguing back and forth on this till our fingers finally fall off and there is a bloody mess on the keyboard. And since this is the IRS we're talking about we could probably find sources to argue back an forth for probably the next 100 years, about the current tax code.

Getting back to topic I was trying to point out taxes under the Obama Tax plan, which seems to be fluctuating all over the place.

An article of interest getting back to topic: Another Change in the Obama Tax Brackets? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/)

Also trying to find a video copy of the interview where an Obama Advisor said the taxes would be figured for businesses on gross income.

I'm taking it that you're not keeping your business and your personal income seperate then, or its your sole source of income?
Then you are not talking about a sole proprietorship or a partnership! Although you mentioned sole proprietorship more than once, you are talking about a LLC! Still does not matter, you get to deduct business operating expenses and cost of good sold.

I don't have the time or the patience to do show you how to properly use those tax forms right now, but most small business go into a Limited Liability Corporation in order to save on taxes and limit their exposure to losses. I’ve looked into it, but it is not worth the paper work to me as it would require the Corporation to be licensed with the State and Federal Government. It would save on my taxes, but not enough to make up for the extra $900.00 it would cost to license myself and the Corporation with the SEC.

mimartin in my post above I suggested we drop it, cause given time I could probably find something to contradict your statements (once I recover from being cross-eyed reading through IRS tax forms and documents (they really need larger font)) and it would keep going back and forth for weeks.

Getting back to topic I was trying to point out taxes under the Obama Tax plan, which seems to be fluctuating all over the place.

An article of interest getting back to topic: Another Change in the Obama Tax Brackets? (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/31/low-richardson-pegs-middle-class-making/)

Also trying to find a video copy of the interview where an Obama Advisor said the taxes would be figured for businesses on gross income.

Okay so now we have a third tax cutoff.

$250,000 to $150,000, to $120,000?

It looks like the term 'rich' is getting smaller and smaller.

mimartin in my post above I suggested we drop it, cause given time I could probably find something to contradict your statements (once I recover from being cross-eyed reading through IRS tax forms and documents (they really need larger font)) and it would keep going back and forth for weeks.
No, you wouldn't and no we would not go back in forth for weeks. Because I will go straight to the source and you will continue to go to bias and wrong interruptions of the source. In case you did not read it the first time, I have a degree in Accounting. I am not bragging because I don’t believe a piece of paper makes someone more intelligent than anyone else, but I have a degree in Accounting/Finance and a Masters in Finance. I know a little about the subject even though it is not my source of income. I did nine sets of returns last year for dinner and beer.

It looks like the term 'rich' is getting smaller and smaller.The way you that said it made it sound as if that was a bad thing...

Well, I was led to believe that discrimination of any kind was a bad thing. What do you think penalizing people for being wealthy is?

Actually, the shrinking taxable income cutoff is nothing new. They've made this same BS "tax the rich; stick it to the man" claim in every election as far back as I can remember (which is quite a long time now) and the cutoff amount always shrinks in a most predictable and rather drastic fashion. In short, they lie.

I'm not saying that the Republicans don't. It just pains me to see people that I respect buying into this same old crap over and over again like it was gospel, and always like it was something brand spanking new. It isn't. It's just the same old crap. :indif: