Comments
15,641 - 15,660 of 30,256 Comments Last updated 25 min ago

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17073
Jan 1, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
Oh really?

http://www.thetrustees.org/places-to-visit/no...
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17074
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
It is amazing that you believe you have the ability to speak for other people.
why not...you do it daily.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17075
Jan 1, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
we need to tax spoons 4000% because they make people fat raising the healthcare costs for the rest of us, by having to have fattie on all kinds of medication.
swxxxt

Rochester, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17076
Jan 1, 2013
 
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17077
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are dense, aren't you?
woof
Why? Do you see me making ridiculous excuses for every single thing my politicians do in the federal government?
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17078
Jan 1, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".

woof
xxxrayted

Cleveland, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17079
Jan 1, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Because beaches aren't a pay per use, consumable vanity product?
This seems fairly easy to understand.
Then why not swim wear? How many go to the beach in jeans and a tee shirt? Come to think of it, shorts should have been taxed as well.

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17080
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
In both cases people are paying for access to a place to expose themselves to UV radiation.
Nobody needs to go to a beach any more than a tanning salon.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17081
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
like glasses?

sneakers?

jeans?

shoes?

hairspray?

toothpaste?

shaving cream?

perfume?

hair straightener?

all above.....500% tax using your flawed ignorant theory.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17082
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
Guess you missed the phrase "consumable vanity product".
woof
so happy that beginning today I earn ZERO income in the USA; and just live here.

Raise the tax to 100%....my income is ZERO. Won't apply....all I have is expenses.

guess you will have to find another stooge to feed you now.

PS: over the past 60 days over 1000 corporations have moved HQ out of the states.

Best get busy raising taxes on the poor because all those with money are leaving.

PS: notice France changed their mind on tax rate after they lost the population with the money.
too late....they already left.

reap what you sow......nothing.
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17083
Jan 1, 2013
 
xxxrayted wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Do you see me making ridiculous excuses for every single thing my politicians do in the federal government?
No, because you ask a ridiculous rhetorical question involving beaches that has nothing to do with the logical reasons why legislators might decide to enact a tax on tanning bed usage.

Assuming that you really are that dense, I will further explain:

The sun comes up every single day, and shines upon nearly all portions of the Nation for nearly 1/2 of each day. Nobody can control that.

Research has shown that exposure to sunshine is well known and documented to have both beneficial and detrimental effects upon human health.

People living within the borders of the Nation are either within the physical confines of structures, or are not, each day. Structures offer protection from the sun's harmful effects, one of which is known to be skin cancer from overexposure to the sun's rays. People in this nation have a fundamental right to travel which offers them the ability to either be outside, or inside a structure, generally.

Some people enjoy going to the beach as a recreational activity. Some people who engage in this activity also go there for the purpose of "tanning" "naturally", in the sun. The exact same tanning effects could also be obtained anywhere outdoors, and tanning naturally need not be done at a beach to achieve those effects. Some beaches charge a fee for use, but those beaches represent a miniscule portion of beaches available to the public, and the fees charged are not used to fund any governmental interest in reducing or addressing the health risks or costs of tanning.

Some people instead choose to use modern technology to tan, paying a fee for the use of that technology to private owners. Tanning in this manner is quicker than tanning naturally, but it also imposes the same sort of risks to individual health as naturally tanning does. Typically, the people who use these services are those with expendable income who feel that they look better with a tan, and don't have time to do it naturally.

Recognizing that there are public health costs associated with the risks involved in tanning, and looking for revenue streams to address those risks, legislators look at the practicalities involved in taxing those who tan, either naturally, or using tanning beds.

Recognizing that recreational use of beaches or other places outdoors involves a multitude of other beneficial activities beyond the purposeful exposure to harmful rays to bronze one's skin, the legislators decline to tax the use of beaches as a means of addressing the public health risks of tanning.

Instead, recognizing that the use of tanning beds is a vanity driven activity that is performed solely for the purpose of tanning, and has no other beneficial purpose, legislators decide to tax it as a means of addressing the increased health risks related to tanning.

There. All of that, simply because you pretend to be dense.

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17084
Jan 1, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
we need to tax spoons 4000% because they make people fat raising the healthcare costs for the rest of us, by having to have fattie on all kinds of medication.
While your example is slightly juvenile in scope, there have been several proposals to target foods which contribute heavily to the obesity epidemic for taxes with an eye to shaping behaviour in the same way that taxes on smoking (or tanning) have!
Duke for Mayor

Canton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17085
Jan 1, 2013
 
Hugh Victor Thompson III wrote:
<quoted text>In both cases people are paying for access to a place to expose themselves to UV radiation.
Nobody needs to go to a beach any more than a tanning salon.
You're as stupid as X and Bubba. You should all stay inside, under adult supervision, for your own protection.

woof

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17086
Jan 1, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
so happy that beginning today I earn ZERO income in the USA; and just live here.
Raise the tax to 100%....my income is ZERO. Won't apply....all I have is expenses.
guess you will have to find another stooge to feed you now.
PS: over the past 60 days over 1000 corporations have moved HQ out of the states.
Best get busy raising taxes on the poor because all those with money are leaving.
PS: notice France changed their mind on tax rate after they lost the population with the money.
too late....they already left.
reap what you sow......nothing.
As someone who paid US taxes for income earned overseas for several years, I assure you that if you're making more than 80k a year income (unless the rate has changed in the past year or two!) that the income becomes taxable in the United States as well as in the area you're earning money in! Which can really suck.

But, you already knew this, before moving operations to the Netherlands, or the Caribbean, or some other pipe dream of where you think business people move their assets?

“Larchmont's Leading Citizen”

Since: Dec 12

Hilliard, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17087
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
You're as stupid as X and Bubba. You should all stay inside, under adult supervision, for your own protection.
woof
Poor Dukie...his opponents all make sense, deflating his position, and he cries like a little girl.
You're a child. And foul one at that.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17088
Jan 1, 2013
 
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
No, because you ask a ridiculous rhetorical question involving beaches that has nothing to do with the logical reasons why legislators might decide to enact a tax on tanning bed usage.
Assuming that you really are that dense, I will further explain:
The sun comes up every single day, and shines upon nearly all portions of the Nation for nearly 1/2 of each day. Nobody can control that.
Research has shown that exposure to sunshine is well known and documented to have both beneficial and detrimental effects upon human health.
People living within the borders of the Nation are either within the physical confines of structures, or are not, each day. Structures offer protection from the sun's harmful effects, one of which is known to be skin cancer from overexposure to the sun's rays. People in this nation have a fundamental right to travel which offers them the ability to either be outside, or inside a structure, generally.
Some people enjoy going to the beach as a recreational activity. Some people who engage in this activity also go there for the purpose of "tanning" "naturally", in the sun. The exact same tanning effects could also be obtained anywhere outdoors, and tanning naturally need not be done at a beach to achieve those effects. Some beaches charge a fee for use, but those beaches represent a miniscule portion of beaches available to the public, and the fees charged are not used to fund any governmental interest in reducing or addressing the health risks or costs of tanning.
Some people instead choose to use modern technology to tan, paying a fee for the use of that technology to private owners. Tanning in this manner is quicker than tanning naturally, but it also imposes the same sort of risks to individual health as naturally tanning does. Typically, the people who use these services are those with expendable income who feel that they look better with a tan, and don't have time to do it naturally.
Recognizing that there are public health costs associated with the risks involved in tanning, and looking for revenue streams to address those risks, legislators look at the practicalities involved in taxing those who tan, either naturally, or using tanning beds.
Recognizing that recreational use of beaches or other places outdoors involves a multitude of other beneficial activities beyond the purposeful exposure to harmful rays to bronze one's skin, the legislators decline to tax the use of beaches as a means of addressing the public health risks of tanning.
Instead, recognizing that the use of tanning beds is a vanity driven activity that is performed solely for the purpose of tanning, and has no other beneficial purpose, legislators decide to tax it as a means of addressing the increased health risks related to tanning.
There. All of that, simply because you pretend to be dense.
woof
You should change your name to Job.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17089
Jan 1, 2013
 
Reality Speaks wrote:
<quoted text>
so happy that beginning today I earn ZERO income in the USA; and just live here.
Raise the tax to 100%....my income is ZERO. Won't apply....all I have is expenses.
guess you will have to find another stooge to feed you now.
PS: over the past 60 days over 1000 corporations have moved HQ out of the states.
Best get busy raising taxes on the poor because all those with money are leaving.
PS: notice France changed their mind on tax rate after they lost the population with the money.
too late....they already left.
reap what you sow......nothing.
Why weren't you smart enough to do that before today?
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17090
Jan 1, 2013
 
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who paid US taxes for income earned overseas for several years, I assure you that if you're making more than 80k a year income (unless the rate has changed in the past year or two!) that the income becomes taxable in the United States as well as in the area you're earning money in! Which can really suck.
But, you already knew this, before moving operations to the Netherlands, or the Caribbean, or some other pipe dream of where you think business people move their assets?
His story is a complete fabrication. Dude is a plumber. But I hope he did do what he said. He could use some time in a federal prison.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17091
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
As someone who paid US taxes for income earned overseas for several years, I assure you that if you're making more than 80k a year income (unless the rate has changed in the past year or two!) that the income becomes taxable in the United States as well as in the area you're earning money in! Which can really suck.
But, you already knew this, before moving operations to the Netherlands, or the Caribbean, or some other pipe dream of where you think business people move their assets?
well you being a member of a $25 billion in annual sales legal team that is Head Quartered overseas that advised me to invest in property and open an LLC overseas to be paid for my services by a foreign national company into their bank which I have a new account in was wrong?

and my pipe dream is a reality that just over a month ago you liberal dirtbags wanted Romney's overseas accounts taxed.

Guess what...it can't happen.

My income generated is a foreign interest.

yes I will pay property and sales tax here in the USA.

city, state; and federal tax....none

I guess you dirtbag liberals feel you can tax who ever, where ever you want.

I will leave the heavy lifting to the legal team that KNOWS tax law, not some chump who lives in the UK on a Columbus Ohio forum who thinks they know tax law better than 45 company lawyers.
Reality Speaks

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17092
Jan 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
Why weren't you smart enough to do that before today?
I was....6 months ago.

Today is a new year starting.
The company runs on a calendar year.

are you not smart enough to figure that out, or did you just eat some bad kibble?

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••
•••

Cleveland Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Cleveland People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Cleveland News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Cleveland
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••