People don't get "net worth" vs "income"

[NoSaint]

I'm not so sure about that. I think he just has a very bizarre view on this stuff.

its such fundamental basic levels that hes blatantly disregarding -- that it leads me to believe that hes really just giving you a hard time for the sake of getting attention.

 

Its entirely possible to "know" as much Marxist propaganda as MDP and have no understanding of the real world. I'd say its even requisite, otherwise you would probably put the book down. All of his schtick comes down to simple regurgitation, which is why his responses have little or nothing to do with the post he replies to. I haven't seen any evidence that MDP really understands the first thing about finance or economics, which is why he keeps repeating (copying and pasting) the same Marxist nonsense, and never addresses the most damning arguments against Marx.

 

No matter how many arguments blasting holes in Marxism he's presented with, he responds with "thats not true, Das Kapital says this..." Its like discussing the DNA evidence of evolution only to have someone refer you to the Bible, over, and over, and over, because "I have this book you should read."

 

right but given that atleast minimal understanding of his marxist nonsense - its odd he cant grasp the basic math, and wont acknowledge the difference between a credit and deduction. to even regurgitate some of what he has implies to me that he should reasonably be able to grasp some of what hes putting out is just made up. it seems more likely those arguing are buying his game than him being totally authentic..

[DC Tom]

its such fundamental basic levels that hes blatantly disregarding -- that it leads me to believe that hes really just giving you a hard time for the sake of getting attention.

 

...and then I remember when Chef got into an argument about BF about cooking. Then I remember that BF couldn't successfully fry noodles on the first try.

 

 

Yeah...MDP could actually be this dumb.

[RI Bills Fan]

If you want to do something helpful, try to get MDP to discuss politics over at OTW. Everyone knows Simon doesn't tolerate politics there.

 

You know, it seems like all the "Libs" are smarter than that.

 

In fact, I can't think of anyone dumb enough...

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

Its entirely possible to "know" as much Marxist propaganda as MDP and have no understanding of the real world. I'd say its even requisite, otherwise you would probably put the book down. All of his schtick comes down to simple regurgitation, which is why his responses have little or nothing to do with the post he replies to. I haven't seen any evidence that MDP really understands the first thing about finance or economics, which is why he keeps repeating (copying and pasting) the same Marxist nonsense, and never addresses the most damning arguments against Marx.

 

No matter how many arguments blasting holes in Marxism he's presented with, he responds with "thats not true, Das Kapital says this..." Its like discussing the DNA evidence of evolution only to have someone refer you to the Bible, over, and over, and over, because "I have this book you should read."

 

 

it's actually very simple. if you didnt work for something, its not yours.

[DC Tom]

it's actually very simple. if you didnt work for something, its not yours.

 

And how you get from there to taxing a capital loss...?

 

 

(Note: it's a rhetorical question. I really don't want you to answer. I've had enough of your nonsense.)

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

And how you get from there to taxing a capital loss...?

 

 

(Note: it's a rhetorical question. I really don't want you to answer. I've had enough of your nonsense.)

 

 

i wasnt responding to you. relax, we know you got this big ego. everything will be alright.

[DC Tom]

i wasnt responding to you. relax, we know you got this big ego. everything will be alright.

 

But I've earned my ego.

 

Paid for it with labor, in fact.

[Chef Jim]

it's actually very simple. if you didnt work for something, its not yours.

 

I'm sorry I can't help myself. Are you looking at it this way? You borrow $500k to start a business and the business fails but you sell it for $250k. Are you saying that the $250k netted out of the business was part of the loan and therefore not taxed?? Because that's the only thing I can think of that you're even remotely referring to.

[DC Tom]

I'm sorry I can't help myself. Are you looking at it this way? You borrow $500k to start a business and the business fails but you sell it for $250k. Are you saying that the $250k netted out of the business was part of the loan and therefore not taxed?? Because that's the only thing I can think of that you're even remotely referring to.

 

What he means is: if you borrow $500k to start a business, and it loses $250k, you should be taxed on the lost $250k because it was stolen from labor using the loan that wasn't real money to begin with, because the bank created it. And he said nothing about selling a business...if the value of the bar drops from $500k to $250k, that's a $250k capital loss, whether you sell it or not.

 

You're trying to assign rational meaning to his statements? Seriously? Give it up, really.

 

 

 

(And don't argue with me. It's his bull ****. I'm just translating it from potato-head to English for you.)

[Jauronimo]

it's actually very simple. if you didnt work for something, its not yours.

So is the theory that burning cats is viable source of renewable energy. But when you get into the specifics it just doesn't work very well in real life. Poor rate of combustion, inputs exceed outputs, how to farm cats on a mass scale, convert engines to run on cats, etc. Get it?

[Joe Miner]

So is the theory that burning cats is viable source of renewable energy. But when you get into the specifics it just doesn't work very well in real life. Poor rate of combustion, inputs exceed outputs, how to farm cats on a mass scale, convert engines to run on cats, etc. Get it?

 

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to save the planet.

 

I'm all on board the burning cats movement for a greener tomorrow!

 

Get in the oven mittens!

 

Oh, by the way, feel free to invest your charitable donation to my cat farm for a greener tomorrow. $20 buys you a cat that I'll set on fire to save the planet. Remain carbon neutral by purchasing 1 cat per tank of gas that you burn. Trust me, I've done the math, and this will save the planet.

 

 

 

 

Remember burning a kitten gives the energy of 2 adult cats!

[Jauronimo]

It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to save the planet.

 

I'm all on board the burning cats movement for a greener tomorrow!

 

Get in the oven mittens!

 

Oh, by the way, feel free to invest your charitable donation to my cat farm for a greener tomorrow. $20 buys you a cat that I'll set on fire to save the planet. Remain carbon neutral by purchasing 1 cat per tank of gas that you burn. Trust me, I've done the math, and this will save the planet.

 

 

 

 

Remember burning a kitten gives the energy of 2 adult cats!

Its very simple, I assure you.

[Chef Jim]

So is the theory that burning cats is viable source of renewable energy. But when you get into the specifics it just doesn't work very well in real life. Poor rate of combustion, inputs exceed outputs, how to farm cats on a mass scale, convert engines to run on cats, etc. Get it?

 

You are so wrong here. Firing up *ussies has engergized me for years.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

But I've earned my ego.

 

Paid for it with labor, in fact.

 

 

on a bills message board? are you that insecure?

 

better yet, are you that detached from reality?

 

I'm sorry I can't help myself. Are you looking at it this way? You borrow $500k to start a business and the business fails but you sell it for $250k. Are you saying that the $250k netted out of the business was part of the loan and therefore not taxed?? Because that's the only thing I can think of that you're even remotely referring to.

 

 

if a person takes a paycut, do they still pay taxes? can you carry losses forward on a paycut over 3gs to the next fy? if this is the case, then im all for capitalists not paying taxes or a reduced tax rate. nevermind subsidies...

Edited June 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER

[Jauronimo]

on a bills message board? are you that insecure?

 

better yet, are you that detached from reality?

 

 

 

 

if a person takes a paycut, do they still pay taxes? can you carry losses forward on a paycut over 3gs to the next fy? if this is the case, then im all for capitalists not paying taxes or a reduced tax rate. nevermind subsidies...

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. Its not a 10% decrease in earnings that earns you a carry forward but negative earnings. Teh question isn't if a person takes a paycut do they pay taxes, but if an individual makes no money in a fiscal year and ends up running at a net loss, do they pay income taxes? The answer is obviously no. In fact, using your terminology, our government actually subsidizes these individuals who are earning no income with unemployment insurance, disability, and a host of other social programs depending on the situation.

 

Speaking of insecurity, don't you have some jumping jacks to do?

[GG]

 

Speaking of insecurity, don't you have some jumping jacks to do?

 

Hard to do that with only one leg.

[Chef Jim]

on a bills message board? are you that insecure?

 

better yet, are you that detached from reality?

 

 

 

 

if a person takes a paycut, do they still pay taxes? can you carry losses forward on a paycut over 3gs to the next fy? if this is the case, then im all for capitalists not paying taxes or a reduced tax rate. nevermind subsidies...

 

Goodbye. You got me, you win You can't seriously be this dumb.

[MARCELL DAREUS POWER]

You couldn't have picked a worse comparison. Its not a 10% decrease in earnings that earns you a carry forward but negative earnings.

Teh question isn't if a person takes a paycut do they pay taxes, but if an individual makes no money in a fiscal year and ends up running at a net loss, do they pay income taxes?

The answer is obviously no. In fact, using your terminology, our government actually subsidizes these individuals who are earning no income with unemployment insurance, disability, and a host of other social programs depending on the situation.

 

Speaking of insecurity, don't you have some jumping jacks to do?

 

You are trying to hide the nature of non-labor income. when you say net loss, is this compared to last fy? or the original property bought and then sold for less?

 

one could have net loss and still stay in business.

 

what you are trying to say is if a business suffers capital loss, like some of their stores go under for that fy, and they suffer a net loss compared to last fy, those capitalistS should not be taxed, BUT LABOR SHOULD.

[DC Tom]

on a bills message board? are you that insecure?

 

better yet, are you that detached from reality?

 

I hesitate to say you are one of the dumbest people to ever post here, as I'd be doing Holcomb's Arm and conner a great disservice.

 

But you are certainly far and away the most obtuse and clueless.

 

You are trying to hide the nature of non-labor income. when you say net loss, is this compared to last fy? or the original property bought and then sold for less?

 

one could have net loss and still stay in business.

 

what you are trying to say is if a business suffers capital loss, like some of their stores go under for that fy, and they suffer a net loss compared to last fy, those capitalistS should not be taxed, BUT LABOR SHOULD.

 

Try to comprehend the difference between working capital and assets, and income.

[Jauronimo]

You are trying to hide the nature of non-labor income. when you say net loss, is this compared to last fy? or the original property bought and then sold for less?

 

one could have net loss and still stay in business.

what you are trying to say is if a business suffers capital loss, like some of their stores go under for that fy, and they suffer a net loss compared to last fy, those capitalistS should not be taxed, BUT LABOR SHOULD.

You have no idea what I'm "trying to say", clearly. When I say net loss, I mean a business lost money in a given year. Negative earnings, not less than previous year but less than zero. Revenue fails to cover expenses. Under those conditions a company can carry the loss forward up to 7 years and reduce their tax liability in another period.

 

In your example, the individual took a "paycut". A paycut is not equivalent to negative earnings. Nor is a paycut equivalent to a capital loss. This is where you derailed your own argument by switching from capital loss to an example which only fits net income. You cemented the switch by using the term carry forward.

 

A paycut in a business setting would be a reduction in net income, which would not result in a carry forward. As long as earnings are positive, all other things equal, a business pays tax. Thus my response.

 

I'm not hiding the nature of anything. You're tossing out terms intermittently while switching back and forth between capital gains/loss and earnings. The words you use so haphazardly have meanings. Until you understand what these words mean then you're not fit to discuss this topic. What you think you're saying and what you're actually saying are entirely different, which would explain why less half of what you type on the matter of economics and finance makes any sense to me whatsoever. In this instance I understood your example and responded. Its clear that you didn't fully understand your latest example and what you were actually communicating.