2012 Election Thread
- Thread starter IRHari
- Start date
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='Thekrakrabbit']Why do people even comment on the debates when all that is ever said is:
Democrats: "my guy won, the other guy is a douche".
Republicans: "my guy won, the other guy is an idiot and a douche".[/QUOTE]
Who is saying Ryan won? Are you high?
Democrats: "my guy won, the other guy is a douche".
Republicans: "my guy won, the other guy is an idiot and a douche".[/QUOTE]
Who is saying Ryan won? Are you high?
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
What I liked most about this debate was that Biden did what I've been wanting to see Dems do for the past few years: call conservatives out on the sheer amount of bullshit they try to pass off as fact. I'm tired of the this political climate where, if you're on the left, you're 'too aggressive" if you actually have the balls to say that your opponent is flat out lying. This always leads to Dems having to walk on eggshells when it comes to most issues and they always lose in the end.
I hope Biden's performance last night starts to set a precedent on the front.
I hope Biden's performance last night starts to set a precedent on the front.
[quote name='Clak']If only, that's been one of the problems with the party, no backbone. Knowing the other side is bullshitting you is one thing, saying so is another.[/QUOTE]
Deval Patrick for Pres 2016
I'm half-joking because he's a bit too neo-liberal for my tastes, but he's the Obama prototype.
Deval Patrick for Pres 2016
I'm half-joking because he's a bit too neo-liberal for my tastes, but he's the Obama prototype.
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
[quote name='camoor']Who is saying Ryan won? Are you high?[/QUOTE]
I've heard people on both sides say their man did well, as a matter of fact.
Who's saying this was Obama/Romney? Are you high?
I've heard people on both sides say their man did well, as a matter of fact.
Who's saying this was Obama/Romney? Are you high?
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='dohdough']Uhhh...nobody?[/QUOTE]
Yeah I think he is high (the name should have tipped me off) :lol:
Krakhead - lmk the news figure / pundit who says that Ryan won, that he increased Romney's chances for a win with his performance.
Besides Obama's my choice but I'll admit he didn't do well in his debate against Romney. So no, all people do not just blindly get behind their candidate and claim he won no matter what, reasonable people assess each situation on it's own merits. Romney is a douche though, you have that one right.
Yeah I think he is high (the name should have tipped me off) :lol:
Krakhead - lmk the news figure / pundit who says that Ryan won, that he increased Romney's chances for a win with his performance.
Besides Obama's my choice but I'll admit he didn't do well in his debate against Romney. So no, all people do not just blindly get behind their candidate and claim he won no matter what, reasonable people assess each situation on it's own merits. Romney is a douche though, you have that one right.
[quote name='nasum']Listen dafoomie, there is a finite amount of corn in this world to be popped and only so much room in my belly...[/QUOTE]
Maybe you could afford more corn without that ethanol mandate.
I stand by my remarks. To say that a tax hike would "only" impact 2% of small businesses is deceptive as that 2% is responsible for 53% of small business income and more than 50% of small business jobs. Most of what they are calling small businesses are people making a little money on the side on top of their day jobs, such as the people with eBay income the IRS is cracking down on now. Many of those businesses in that 2% are already going to be hit hard by the Obamacare employer mandate.
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?
Maybe you could afford more corn without that ethanol mandate.
I stand by my remarks. To say that a tax hike would "only" impact 2% of small businesses is deceptive as that 2% is responsible for 53% of small business income and more than 50% of small business jobs. Most of what they are calling small businesses are people making a little money on the side on top of their day jobs, such as the people with eBay income the IRS is cracking down on now. Many of those businesses in that 2% are already going to be hit hard by the Obamacare employer mandate.
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?
[quote name='dafoomie']Maybe you could afford more corn without that ethanol mandate.
I stand by my remarks. To say that a tax hike would "only" impact 2% of small businesses is deceptive as that 2% is responsible for 53% of small business income and more than 50% of small business jobs. Most of what they are calling small businesses are people making a little money on the side on top of their day jobs, such as the people with eBay income the IRS is cracking down on now. Many of those businesses in that 2% are already going to be hit hard by the Obamacare employer mandate.
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?[/QUOTE]
You know, there's actually a formal definition of what a small business is in the eyes of the government. I'm guessing that's what nasum was hinting at, but you just waffled the holy hell out of.
I stand by my remarks. To say that a tax hike would "only" impact 2% of small businesses is deceptive as that 2% is responsible for 53% of small business income and more than 50% of small business jobs. Most of what they are calling small businesses are people making a little money on the side on top of their day jobs, such as the people with eBay income the IRS is cracking down on now. Many of those businesses in that 2% are already going to be hit hard by the Obamacare employer mandate.
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?[/QUOTE]
You know, there's actually a formal definition of what a small business is in the eyes of the government. I'm guessing that's what nasum was hinting at, but you just waffled the holy hell out of.
[quote name='dopa345']True. The fact that he donates almost a third of his income to charity also accounts for his lower tax rate.[/QUOTE]
I'd just like to point out to Knoell that this is why we mock some of you. You all act a lot dumber than you really are, and it's aggravating.
I'd just like to point out to Knoell that this is why we mock some of you. You all act a lot dumber than you really are, and it's aggravating.
[quote name='dopa345']True. The fact that he donates almost a third of his income to charity also accounts for his lower tax rate.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...you mean tithing? I also didn't realize that taxes were considered "charity." You're not a very good libertarian, are you?
LOLZ...you mean tithing? I also didn't realize that taxes were considered "charity." You're not a very good libertarian, are you?
[quote name='dohdough']You know, there's actually a formal definition of what a small business is in the eyes of the government. I'm guessing that's what nasum was hinting at, but you just waffled the holy hell out of.[/QUOTE]
Hay guise... this phrase has a formal definition and it is important that we use it and nothing else. Because we care about things like formal definitions and such here. Hold them in the highest regards, yes sir-ee.
Hay guise... this phrase has a formal definition and it is important that we use it and nothing else. Because we care about things like formal definitions and such here. Hold them in the highest regards, yes sir-ee.
[quote name='UncleBob']Hay guise... this phrase has a formal definition and it is important that we use it and nothing else. Because we care about things like formal definitions and such here. Hold them in the highest regards, yes sir-ee.[/QUOTE]
As someone that claimed to have tutored statistics, you should know the difference between quantitative and qualitative. Considering that the conversation is about actual taxes, a quantitative subject, and it's relation to small businesses, another quantitative qualifier for the purpose of taxation, your analogy is completely inaccurate. We're talking about actual tax policy; not sociology.
Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.
As someone that claimed to have tutored statistics, you should know the difference between quantitative and qualitative. Considering that the conversation is about actual taxes, a quantitative subject, and it's relation to small businesses, another quantitative qualifier for the purpose of taxation, your analogy is completely inaccurate. We're talking about actual tax policy; not sociology.
Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.
[quote name='dohdough']You know, there's actually a formal definition of what a small business is in the eyes of the government. I'm guessing that's what nasum was hinting at, but you just waffled the holy hell out of.[/QUOTE]
If he'd like to cite a formal definition that refutes anything I said he's free to do so.
If he'd like to cite a formal definition that refutes anything I said he's free to do so.
I've caught the sound bites where Biden blames the Republicans for the debt because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan while claiming he voted against them... Awesome.
http://www.examiner.com/article/joe...d-against-afghanistan-iraq-wars-during-debate
I wish someone would ask him if we couldn't afford that then, why in the sam hell he thinks we can afford all the bloated, expanded military spending now...
http://www.examiner.com/article/joe...d-against-afghanistan-iraq-wars-during-debate
I wish someone would ask him if we couldn't afford that then, why in the sam hell he thinks we can afford all the bloated, expanded military spending now...
[quote name='dafoomie']
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?[/QUOTE]
This depends on who in the rich you are talking about. The group of people this forum considers the "rich" do sometimes pay a higher effective rate than the "superrich" yes, however what the people in this forum consider the "middle class" do not pay higher effective rates than either the "rich" or the "superrich". Do not let them browbeat you into believing either categories of "rich people" pay less than "regular" people.
[quote name='Clak']I'd just like to point out to Knoell that this is why we mock some of you. You all act a lot dumber than you really are, and it's aggravating.[/QUOTE]
I am not privy to this whole election thread. What was dumb about Romney donating to charity? Is this the whole "the charities he donates to aren't worthy of my approval" gotcha moment or the "he only donates to charity so that he doesn't have to pay taxes" deal?
If you want to talk about tax fairness, the rich currently paying a lower effective rate than regular people, is that not what Romney's tax plan addresses by eliminating the deductions and credits for the rich that enable it?[/QUOTE]
This depends on who in the rich you are talking about. The group of people this forum considers the "rich" do sometimes pay a higher effective rate than the "superrich" yes, however what the people in this forum consider the "middle class" do not pay higher effective rates than either the "rich" or the "superrich". Do not let them browbeat you into believing either categories of "rich people" pay less than "regular" people.
[quote name='Clak']I'd just like to point out to Knoell that this is why we mock some of you. You all act a lot dumber than you really are, and it's aggravating.[/QUOTE]
I am not privy to this whole election thread. What was dumb about Romney donating to charity? Is this the whole "the charities he donates to aren't worthy of my approval" gotcha moment or the "he only donates to charity so that he doesn't have to pay taxes" deal?
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']Did Biden say that he voted "against them" or did he say something about voting against funding the wars with our credit card?[/QUOTE]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0TSvwv8X4[/youtube]
"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S0TSvwv8X4[/youtube]
"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='chiwii']Did Biden say that he voted "against them" or did he say something about voting against funding the wars with our credit card?[/QUOTE]
[Had a Youtube link of the actual reply here, but dang, it royally messed up the entire thread... Biden's BS is even too much for VS. - S0TSvwv8X4 is the video ID]
"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.
[Had a Youtube link of the actual reply here, but dang, it royally messed up the entire thread... Biden's BS is even too much for VS.
- S0TSvwv8X4 is the video ID]"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.
[quote name='UncleBob'][Had a Youtube link of the actual reply here, but dang, it royally messed up the entire thread... Biden's BS is even too much for VS. - S0TSvwv8X4 is the video ID]
"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.[/QUOTE]
While Biden's statement could have been more clear, I think his meaning was obvious. Here's the full quote:
“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Biden never said that he didn't want the wars to be funded, he specifically said that he didn't want them paid for with the credit card. He wanted the wars and the prescription drug benefit to be paid for in the budget, not to be excluded from the budget and added to the debt. He did not want revenue to be cut while the government needed to pay for two wars and a new prescription drug plan. Do you really disagree with him?
- S0TSvwv8X4 is the video ID]"I was there, I voted against them." Sounds pretty clear to me. And Biden also said "But I always say what I mean.", so he didn't misspeak.
Seriously though, IF that is what he meant (voting for not funding the wars), I'm not sure that's any better. If you're going to vote to support a military action, you've got to realize that it's going to be a costly endeavor. If you don't realize that, I don't want you in any kind of position of power.
And I love Biden's next line about the Republicans being concerned about the debt they created - like that's a bad thing. Not that I really believe that the Republicans who are in power actually care - but Biden's comment just shows so much disconnect.[/QUOTE]
While Biden's statement could have been more clear, I think his meaning was obvious. Here's the full quote:
“By the way, they talk about this great recession like it fell out of the sky–like, ‘Oh my goodness, where did it come from?’” Biden said. “It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card, at the same time, put a prescription drug plan on the credit card, a trillion dollar tax cut for the very wealthy. I was there, I voted against them,” Biden continued. “I said, no, we can’t afford that.”
Biden never said that he didn't want the wars to be funded, he specifically said that he didn't want them paid for with the credit card. He wanted the wars and the prescription drug benefit to be paid for in the budget, not to be excluded from the budget and added to the debt. He did not want revenue to be cut while the government needed to pay for two wars and a new prescription drug plan. Do you really disagree with him?
[quote name='chiwii']Biden never said that he didn't want the wars to be funded, he specifically said that he didn't want them paid for with the credit card. He wanted the wars and the prescription drug benefit to be paid for in the budget, not to be excluded from the budget and added to the debt. He did not want revenue to be cut while the government needed to pay for two wars and a new prescription drug plan. Do you really disagree with him?[/QUOTE]
I disagree with him in that he voted for the wars in the first place.
But more to your point, including the wars "in the budget" doesn't help when "the budget" is in the red. "I want these two costly wars, but I want you to come up with some way of paying for everything at once." Doesn't pass the smell test.
I disagree with him in that he voted for the wars in the first place.
But more to your point, including the wars "in the budget" doesn't help when "the budget" is in the red. "I want these two costly wars, but I want you to come up with some way of paying for everything at once." Doesn't pass the smell test.
Sorta like when Romney is pro-choice before he's pro-life before he's anti-choice but after he's pro-choice although still not pushing any abortion agenda if he's elected while being pro-life?
dafoomie - Running ebay on the side IS NOT a small business. There is no legal filing for "hey, this is my ebay cash from selling that camera I bought three years ago to take pictures of yer mom". What you sort of elude to as "the IRS is cracking down on that" actually isn't the IRS, it's your local state sales tax people. This has nothing to do with income tax. This isn't limited to eBay either. Any online trading marketplace for consumers (Amazon, half.com and many others that I don't care about) is a target for such things. Here's the problem: there is no definition for what level of sale of personal property constitutes a business. Ergo, there is no need for (using a very simple and all encompassing term here) "vendor status". At a farmer's market, you're paying a booth fee but no sales taxes (well at least in MN since we don't have sales tax on real food) and the owner of the market pays taxes on the income from the booth fees.
At any rate, you didn't just waffle on that answer, you
ing IHOPped to the point where you own three franchise restaurants now. You throw a bunch of %'s out there making it sound like some scientific fact (that usually doesn't work out very well by the way) yet you fail to even begin to answer the question.
And your obamacare taxes dig is complete BS since the upper 2% of small businesses would offer health insurance anyway, thus avoiding a tax, OR they're small enough to (less than 25 FTE employees) qualify for $0 and 0% taxes due to their size (because you know, stifling growth and upward mobility and all that...).
Also, finite means limited supply, not limited availability to pay for it.
dafoomie - Running ebay on the side IS NOT a small business. There is no legal filing for "hey, this is my ebay cash from selling that camera I bought three years ago to take pictures of yer mom". What you sort of elude to as "the IRS is cracking down on that" actually isn't the IRS, it's your local state sales tax people. This has nothing to do with income tax. This isn't limited to eBay either. Any online trading marketplace for consumers (Amazon, half.com and many others that I don't care about) is a target for such things. Here's the problem: there is no definition for what level of sale of personal property constitutes a business. Ergo, there is no need for (using a very simple and all encompassing term here) "vendor status". At a farmer's market, you're paying a booth fee but no sales taxes (well at least in MN since we don't have sales tax on real food) and the owner of the market pays taxes on the income from the booth fees.
At any rate, you didn't just waffle on that answer, you
ing IHOPped to the point where you own three franchise restaurants now. You throw a bunch of %'s out there making it sound like some scientific fact (that usually doesn't work out very well by the way) yet you fail to even begin to answer the question.And your obamacare taxes dig is complete BS since the upper 2% of small businesses would offer health insurance anyway, thus avoiding a tax, OR they're small enough to (less than 25 FTE employees) qualify for $0 and 0% taxes due to their size (because you know, stifling growth and upward mobility and all that...).
Also, finite means limited supply, not limited availability to pay for it.
Thekrakrabbit
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 15 (100%)
*sigh* These threads are pretty boring to be in. Arguments, arguments. Just go to the polls and make your vote, then come and complain when the "wrong" guy wins.
[quote name='nasum']
dafoomie - Running ebay on the side IS NOT a small business. There is no legal filing for "hey, this is my ebay cash from selling that camera I bought three years ago to take pictures of yer mom". What you sort of elude to as "the IRS is cracking down on that" actually isn't the IRS, it's your local state sales tax people. This has nothing to do with income tax. This isn't limited to eBay either. Any online trading marketplace for consumers (Amazon, half.com and many others that I don't care about) is a target for such things. Here's the problem: there is no definition for what level of sale of personal property constitutes a business. Ergo, there is no need for (using a very simple and all encompassing term here) "vendor status". At a farmer's market, you're paying a booth fee but no sales taxes (well at least in MN since we don't have sales tax on real food) and the owner of the market pays taxes on the income from the booth fees.
[/QUOTE]
Dafoomie is right about the IRS cracking down on people who sell on ebay, amazon, etc. (probably even farmer's markets, if they take credit cards). It has nothing to do with the states and sales tax. If a seller meets certain sales criteria (something like 20k in gross sales and 200 transactions), ebay has to file a 1099-k for that seller.
dafoomie - Running ebay on the side IS NOT a small business. There is no legal filing for "hey, this is my ebay cash from selling that camera I bought three years ago to take pictures of yer mom". What you sort of elude to as "the IRS is cracking down on that" actually isn't the IRS, it's your local state sales tax people. This has nothing to do with income tax. This isn't limited to eBay either. Any online trading marketplace for consumers (Amazon, half.com and many others that I don't care about) is a target for such things. Here's the problem: there is no definition for what level of sale of personal property constitutes a business. Ergo, there is no need for (using a very simple and all encompassing term here) "vendor status". At a farmer's market, you're paying a booth fee but no sales taxes (well at least in MN since we don't have sales tax on real food) and the owner of the market pays taxes on the income from the booth fees.
[/QUOTE]
Dafoomie is right about the IRS cracking down on people who sell on ebay, amazon, etc. (probably even farmer's markets, if they take credit cards). It has nothing to do with the states and sales tax. If a seller meets certain sales criteria (something like 20k in gross sales and 200 transactions), ebay has to file a 1099-k for that seller.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Cage017']http://www.inquisitr.com/360213/completely-wrong-mitt-romney-is-google-showing-its-political-colors/
Well I'm convinced.[/QUOTE]
Romney and his campaign certainly have the cash if they want to be placed search results with Yahoo/Google/MSFT (Bing)/Ask Jeeves/Alta Vista/etc... This isn't a liberal media conspiracy, this is just another example of GOP technological luddites blaming instead of learning. Sound familiar?
Well I'm convinced.[/QUOTE]
Romney and his campaign certainly have the cash if they want to be placed search results with Yahoo/Google/MSFT (Bing)/Ask Jeeves/Alta Vista/etc... This isn't a liberal media conspiracy, this is just another example of GOP technological luddites blaming instead of learning. Sound familiar?
[quote name='chiwii']Dafoomie is right about the IRS cracking down on people who sell on ebay, amazon, etc. (probably even farmer's markets, if they take credit cards). It has nothing to do with the states and sales tax. If a seller meets certain sales criteria (something like 20k in gross sales and 200 transactions), ebay has to file a 1099-k for that seller.[/QUOTE]
IRS form XYZ = Tacksez!!!
A 1099-K is an informational form for credit card transactions (3rd party payment systems, kind of a key part)
A 1099 only needs to be filed if one single individual receives a payment over $650 (another key part)
I won't get into the minutiae of this because heads will spin and eyes will glaze over. Here's a very simple version of what the "eBay 1099-K" actually means:
You accept a lot of paypal (3rd party payment), paypal pays the credit card company, charges you a fee and has to report that fee as earnings. 1099-K is how they justify those payments/fees. The IRS (which needs 50k new agents but only for Obamacare :eyeroll assumes $x in fee based transactions will occur. See last sentence.
So 1099-K as an individual:
Oh! Tackzezz!?!!!2@@
Nope. 1099 is informational, not a statement of earnings. As an individual you'll do a schedule C based on "potential" earnings from the 1099K but then write off the paypal/shipping/listing/etc... fees as loss of income and then reduce that by cost of goods sold.
If you really are a small business (www.americanguitarbotique.com for instance) that does a large amount of transactions on eBay, then you're doing all of that filing anyway as part of your revenue reporting.
tl:dr
1099-K for eBay is a scare tactic.
So if anyone is very active in selling on eBay and the like, share your story of 200 sales or roughly $100 each went for you!
Back to my original point, this is federal govt helping local govt find revenue in the form of sales tax to reduce the local aid to the states from the fed govt.
IRS form XYZ = Tacksez!!!
A 1099-K is an informational form for credit card transactions (3rd party payment systems, kind of a key part)
A 1099 only needs to be filed if one single individual receives a payment over $650 (another key part)
I won't get into the minutiae of this because heads will spin and eyes will glaze over. Here's a very simple version of what the "eBay 1099-K" actually means:
You accept a lot of paypal (3rd party payment), paypal pays the credit card company, charges you a fee and has to report that fee as earnings. 1099-K is how they justify those payments/fees. The IRS (which needs 50k new agents but only for Obamacare :eyeroll
assumes $x in fee based transactions will occur. See last sentence.So 1099-K as an individual:
Oh
! Tackzezz!?!!!2@@Nope. 1099 is informational, not a statement of earnings. As an individual you'll do a schedule C based on "potential" earnings from the 1099K but then write off the paypal/shipping/listing/etc... fees as loss of income and then reduce that by cost of goods sold.
If you really are a small business (www.americanguitarbotique.com for instance) that does a large amount of transactions on eBay, then you're doing all of that filing anyway as part of your revenue reporting.
tl:dr
1099-K for eBay is a scare tactic.
So if anyone is very active in selling on eBay and the like, share your story of 200 sales or roughly $100 each went for you!
Back to my original point, this is federal govt helping local govt find revenue in the form of sales tax to reduce the local aid to the states from the fed govt.
[quote name='dafoomie']None of this rambling nonsense has anything to do with what I said.[/QUOTE]
It really doesn't. I haven't read anything that refutes your claim. But as usual they will give you their evidence when you stop contradicting what they believe.
[quote name='dohdough']
Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']
Back to kindergarten argumenation I see...
[/QUOTE]
You showed him....only act like a kindergartner after you believe you made a good point!
It really doesn't. I haven't read anything that refutes your claim. But as usual they will give you their evidence when you stop contradicting what they believe.
[quote name='dohdough']
Stick your head back up your ass where it belongs.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']
Back to kindergarten argumenation I see...
[/QUOTE]
You showed him....only act like a kindergartner after you believe you made a good point!
Last edited by a moderator:
Feeding the Abscess
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/07/iran-santions-suffering
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']if "terrorism" means the use of violence aimed at civilians in order to induce political change from their government, what is it called when intense economic suffering is imposed on a civilian population in order to induce political change from their government?[/quote]
I'm so glad we have vastly competing worldviews in the two viable presidential candidates.
[quote name='Glenn Greenwald']if "terrorism" means the use of violence aimed at civilians in order to induce political change from their government, what is it called when intense economic suffering is imposed on a civilian population in order to induce political change from their government?[/quote]
I'm so glad we have vastly competing worldviews in the two viable presidential candidates.
[quote name='dafoomie']None of this rambling nonsense has anything to do with what I said.[/QUOTE]
Oh? So you bring up how the IRS is going after non-small business small businesses with 1099-K as your foundation for that, I dispel that and it has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Okie dokie.
Oh? So you bring up how the IRS is going after non-small business small businesses with 1099-K as your foundation for that, I dispel that and it has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Okie dokie.
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/no...ng-obama-back-to-kenya-kd77l38-174121401.html
I hate to show another piece of evidence that my great State of Wisconsin continues to fall away from its once proud progressive tradition.
Video of Jason Thompson (son of former WI governor, Secretary of Health and Human Services and current Rep. candidate for Senate Tommy Thompson) at a fundraiser talking about sending President Obama back to "Kenya".
I hate to show another piece of evidence that my great State of Wisconsin continues to fall away from its once proud progressive tradition.
Video of Jason Thompson (son of former WI governor, Secretary of Health and Human Services and current Rep. candidate for Senate Tommy Thompson) at a fundraiser talking about sending President Obama back to "Kenya".
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']I have to say that this election has brought out more ignorance and hate than I have ever seen before in an election. And yes, much of it is due to racism. You all can cover your ears and eyes and hum all you want, it's there, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
More than the last one? I dunno man...
More than the last one? I dunno man...
cancerman1120
CAGiversary!
[quote name='EdRyder']I cant figure Wisconsin out. I lived in Milwaukee from 99 to just about 01. I dont know what the hell happened there. Did all those hippies move away?
That state goes red this year and I'm turning in my didgeridoo.[/QUOTE]
I was born here and went to College in Milwaukee. I graduated in 97 and moved away for grad school/post-doc/job till 2010. I am amazed at how this state has turned. Even at a pretty conservative Jesuit University (Marquette) there was plenty of Liberal leaning people to associate with. I think they all moved back to Illinois. It is pretty funny driving around the well to do neighborhoods around here. Signs saying Romney + Ryan = Recovery. Dude you have 3 cars and a speedboat in front of your house. seems to me the people doing ok have no idea whether the recovery was weak or not.
That state goes red this year and I'm turning in my didgeridoo.[/QUOTE]
I was born here and went to College in Milwaukee. I graduated in 97 and moved away for grad school/post-doc/job till 2010. I am amazed at how this state has turned. Even at a pretty conservative Jesuit University (Marquette) there was plenty of Liberal leaning people to associate with. I think they all moved back to Illinois. It is pretty funny driving around the well to do neighborhoods around here. Signs saying Romney + Ryan = Recovery. Dude you have 3 cars and a speedboat in front of your house. seems to me the people doing ok have no idea whether the recovery was weak or not.
[quote name='62t']http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...nhappy-about-paul-ryan-soup-kitchen-photo-op/[/QUOTE]
I will pull the meaningful points out for you, because just skimming the first few paragraphs, the owner or author really describes a vicious Ryan campaign forcing their way in for a photo op. Which wasn't what it was at all.
The campaign knew people had already left, and they may have been only attempting to get a photo op, but there is no harm or no foul.
Sounds like the owner just doesn't like political candidates.
I will pull the meaningful points out for you, because just skimming the first few paragraphs, the owner or author really describes a vicious Ryan campaign forcing their way in for a photo op. Which wasn't what it was at all.
The campaign knew people had already left, and they may have been only attempting to get a photo op, but there is no harm or no foul.
Sounds like the owner just doesn't like political candidates.
bread's done