Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010?

[xxxrayted]

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.

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

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]

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]

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]

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

[tranpsosition]

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]

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

[tranpsosition]

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?

[Hugh Victor Thompson III]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

[Reality Speaks]

Che Reagan Christ wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

playing witch again I see.

if I am a plumber, you are a paperboy.

and prisons are full with your family, why would they put a law abiding citizen in jail for living in the USA; but works with foreign entities overseas?

maybe you need jailed for being stupid?

[xxxrayted]

tranpsosition wrote:

<quoted text>
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!

Yes indeed. Our founders wrote on taxing the population into submission many times. They debated it endlessly. Our government is one where they are to make our meals, bathe us, make sure we don't watch too much television or gain too much weight. What else is a government of a free country supposed to do? People are not intelligent enough to take care of themselves, that's why we have a federal government. Just look up the words of James Madison.

First tobacco, then alcohol, now tanning beds and finally to food. Government needs to control our actions using these products. Food is dangerous you know. And when our federal government fears for our safety, they should tax us until we are no longer interested in hurting ourselves.

Oh if only the founders could see their country today. Would they be so proud. Now with Commie Care, who knows where that will lead us? Oh yes, I know where it will go:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/...

[tranpsosition]

If you're being paid for services rendered, that's income. All income generated overseas, including most types of interest, is to be declared and may be taxable.

I don't think you're being given bad advice, I think you're fabricating a narrative based on what you think banking and business on an international scale would look like. You've heard people talk about overseas accounts and have decided that overseas = untaxable. In order to try and style yourself as well-heeled and well informed, you're parroting back half remembered and half understood nonsense.

While somewhat charming, makes little sense to anyone who has ever had to file a FBAR.

[tranpsosition]

xxxrayted wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes indeed. Our founders wrote on taxing the population into submission many times. They debated it endlessly. Our government is one where they are to make our meals, bathe us, make sure we don't watch too much television or gain too much weight. What else is a government of a free country supposed to do? People are not intelligent enough to take care of themselves, that's why we have a federal government. Just look up the words of James Madison.
First tobacco, then alcohol, now tanning beds and finally to food. Government needs to control our actions using these products. Food is dangerous you know. And when our federal government fears for our safety, they should tax us until we are no longer interested in hurting ourselves.
Oh if only the founders could see their country today. Would they be so proud. Now with Commie Care, who knows where that will lead us? Oh yes, I know where it will go:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/13/world/asia/...

I think the outrage would make a bit more sense were the government not already indelibly linked to the prices and market for foodstuffs in the US market. Simply incredible amounts of public funds are spent to support agricultural industries which result in some pretty unique trends. The corn syrup with seems to be in most everything served in the US flows directly through the treasury via subsidies. While I agree that a more natural, hands off approach might be more elegant, pretending that controlling the price of high risk foods through taxation is an outrage while ignoring the fat that the current prices are set through subsidies against many of our best interests hardly seems intellectually honest.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Your stories get better every day. 45 lawyers. Wow. Tell us another one.

[Che Reagan Christ]

Reality Speaks wrote:

<quoted text>
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?

Let me say it another way so maybe you can understand it.

Why weren't you smart enough to do this last year? Or 5 years ago? Or 10?

(6 months ago? Really? You told us all you did it after the election. You aren't keeping your stories straight.)