MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) 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. Try to comprehend the difference between working capital and assets, and income. capital only works with labor. lol. in fact, as proven before, labor quickly creates all new capital... thanks for the compliment, now i know your moral scruples are being moved around because of me. thanks! Edited June 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 (edited) 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. if your revenue fails to cover expenses for that fy, ie, the investments net less than zero, meaning you lost money, this creates a system where capitalists dont have to pay taxes because of poor market decisions. in fact, labor usually pays by getting fired , even though they created the original capital gains to begin with. you should pay taxes because you made a poor market decision and fired workers. you cant have it both ways, ie own capital, make a bad decision and then pay no taxes, whereas labor, has capital stolen, gets fired, and still pays taxes in relation to that capital, either through a pay cut or getting fired and having to find a new job to pay taxes on.... in fact even if a business is still around, the capital owner can claim losses, pay no taxes, but his workers who actually created the past capital, still pay taxes. Edited June 27, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 if your revenue fails to cover expenses for that fy, ie, the investments net less than zero, No need to go beyond that, given that it's so far from making any sense that the light from "sense" will take ten thousand years to reach it. At least it proves you're not retarded, though. Nothing that utterly ridiculous and convoluted could be rationalized by someone who was truly mentally deficient. capital only works with labor. lol. in fact, as proven before, labor quickly creates all new capital... TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND CAPITAL, YOU IDIOT. thanks for the compliment, now i know your moral scruples are being moved around because of me. thanks! Yeah, it wasn't a compliment. I suspect you were being sarcastic anyway. But, dumb as you are, I'm not betting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 No need to go beyond that, given that it's so far from making any sense that the light from "sense" will take ten thousand years to reach it. At least it proves you're not retarded, though. Nothing that utterly ridiculous and convoluted could be rationalized by someone who was truly mentally deficient. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND CAPITAL, YOU IDIOT. Yeah, it wasn't a compliment. I suspect you were being sarcastic anyway. But, dumb as you are, I'm not betting on it. I was just wondering if your immoral scruples were doing anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 No need to go beyond that, given that it's so far from making any sense that the light from "sense" will take ten thousand years to reach it. At least it proves you're not retarded, though. Nothing that utterly ridiculous and convoluted could be rationalized by someone who was truly mentally deficient. TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INCOME AND CAPITAL, YOU IDIOT. yeah, one is worked for , the other is stolen... Yeah, it wasn't a compliment. I suspect you were being sarcastic anyway. But, dumb as you are, I'm not betting on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts