Post #77,525
1/28/03 9:38:04 AM
|
You're still avoiding the topic
You implied that, by definition, all ranches are businesses. You have yet to provide anything to support that position. Instead of taking cheap shots at me, like questioning whether I was raised in a rural setting or not, try debating your point of view in an intelligent manner.
Unless you CAN'T support your position with any real facts.
If Scott's parents want to go into hock to buy a business, which he didn't say it was in his original post, that's their choice. He called it a ranch without telling us what kind of business it is. He states that his parents have already purchased an SUV to use for the business, but must have "leather seats because of the dogs". Unless they run a kennel, that option is not relevant to their business. They can use the current tax code to depreciate the vehicle at a rate set by the IRS. President Shrub, your buddy, wants to increase the value of said SUVs that can be purchased and depreciated at a faster rate than is current.
Tell me how jacking up the value of "business" SUVs to the level of buying a Range Rover with leather seats, power seat covers, electric ashtrays (both $700 options from Detroit SUV builders, dontchaknow) is good for the economy and necessary to put our government's budget back into a surplus. And are only used on "business" ranches.
lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #77,537
1/28/03 10:12:47 AM
|
You are the one denigrating ranchers and farmers
If someone tells me they live on a ranch I assume they are working it until they tell me otherwise. Apparently to you if someone tells you they live on a ranch they are rich and dont need tax breaks. Fine, that is a perception issue. Now lets go to the tax issue. If you run a business you are entitled to claim expenses against income. Doesnt matter if you are a rancher or a movie producer. Expenses are written off. A rancher can justify a SUV in many ways, load hauling, crew hauling, dog hauling. A movie producer can also justify an SUV, crew and equipment hauling. Upscale SUV's are a good business investment as "assumably" the quality is better so the last longer and hold value better. So the only problem here is that you do not beleive anyone owning a chunk of land should get a tax break because they are already rich. Again that is a perception problem that isnt mine. thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,555
1/28/03 11:21:34 AM
|
Y'know, I beg to differ with that.
Expenses shouldn't be tax-deductible. It's basically a way of hiding costs from the purchaser and passing them along in tax increases to other folks. If a business can't make enough money to cover it's expenses and it's taxes, then it probably shouldn't be in business, either because somebody else is producing the goods at a cheaper rate, there isn't a demand for the product, or the price is artificially low due to the tax subsidy.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
|
Post #77,561
1/28/03 11:38:30 AM
|
okay then all fast food restaurants are out of business
since the profit margin is 2% of gross income but they are taxed on 100% of gross income then they is no business case to remain open. You should only tax profit not sales. thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,564
1/28/03 11:46:47 AM
|
So they raise prices 10-15%.
I doubt that would put them out of business completely, and it might actually encourage people to look at what they eat a little more than they do currently.
I'm pretty much for abolishing all tax "breaks" - they're too easily manipulated. If you earn it, it counts as income, you pay a tax on it. Something like 30%*(total income - avg. cost of living in region - maybe by county?). That's open to being gamed as well, but less so than the current system.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
|
Post #77,567
1/28/03 11:57:21 AM
|
so now they have a 17% profit margin and you are taxing 100%
also you are taxing 15% more income at a corporate rate of 30% they can never make money. So you have shut down any business that doesnt make 70% profit or more to be able to pay tax. No more transportation industry, agricultural, no more computer industry nothing except insurance salesmen and stock traders will be working. What did you do to our economy? :-) thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,574
1/28/03 12:34:29 PM
|
Just showing how skewed our econ is.
Actually, I have an issue with corporate taxes and citizenship. Corporations shouldn't be citizens, and they shouldn't be taxed - all "profits" should be disbursed to the shareholders as income, with the option to "reinvest" the income back into the company in exchange for a greater share of the company.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989
|
Post #77,592
1/28/03 2:29:11 PM
|
Corporate taxes are actually a sales tax
any costs always get passed onto the consumer. Dividends are the actual income to real people which should be taxed as ordinary income. My big gripe is the flurry of non profit groups that use donations as income and never get taxed. Any charity that uses less than 30% of donations for direct assistance to the purported endneeder should be deemed a profit making enterprise and be taxed as such, religious groups excepted. thaqnx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,621
1/28/03 3:53:27 PM
|
nice post of your Straw Man
If someone tells me they live on a ranch I assume they are working it until they tell me otherwise. Apparently to you if someone tells you they live on a ranch they are rich and dont need tax breaks.
Cutting down scrub brush, i.e., "working the land", still has nothing to do with a ranch being a business. You're avoiding the issue, again. If you run a business you are entitled to claim expenses against income.
Which I never disputed. Remember, Scott never mentioned his parent's ranch was a business in his original post. Doesnt matter if you are a rancher or a movie producer. Expenses are written off. A rancher can justify a SUV in many ways, load hauling, crew hauling, dog hauling. A movie producer can also justify an SUV, crew and equipment hauling.
And it can also be used for driving to church, going to Grandma's, picking up groceries for your Super Bowl party, and this mileage can be written off too. After all, who's going to know that these aren't "official business" activities? Uncle Sam sure won't. Good deal for those owning an SUV; bad deal for American taxpayers who help subsidize its purchase and annual usage. So the only problem here is that you do not beleive anyone owning a chunk of land should get a tax break because they are already rich.
Your straw man again. I said nothing about tax breaks ON THE LAND, I'm miffed that President Shrub wants to up the tax breaks ON PURCHASING SUVs and making them available to more people, with a larger grey area in the definition of what is a "business". And you're still not providing any facts to back up your assertation that ALL RANCHES ARE BY DEFINITION "BUSINESSES".
lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #77,636
1/28/03 5:44:47 PM
|
so how far apart do you plant your rows of steaks?
you are the one insisting ranching isnt a business. I linked to where Bush's ranch is a business. You stated only farms grew food. That is patently incorrect. To me and a lot of people a ranch by definition is a business. If you own a lot of land and sit in a house in the middle of it and do not use the land to either A: grow crops B: graze cattle C: mix of either of A or B you do not have a ranch, you have an estate. If you do A,B, or C it is a business that either produces profit or loss. In eiher case you must file a tax return wherin there is deductions you can take. Now you have a valid point here And it can also be used for driving to church, going to Grandma's, picking up groceries for your Super Bowl party, and this mileage can be written off too. After all, who's going to know that these aren't "official business" activities? Uncle Sam sure won't. Good deal for those owning an SUV; bad deal for American taxpayers who help subsidize its purchase and annual usage. now lets extrapolate can we. Were you at work when you posted that? If you were does your employer take a deduction for all the equipment, connect charges etc? When I did my taxes I claimed non re-imbursable expenses charged by the mile for the 8 months I was commuting from West Palm to Tampa. I am supposed to differentiate between personal miles and work miles. I had a separate vehicle for that purpose. I have other vehicles for personal use. I could have bought an SUV and otten depreciation. I just hate having car payments. Either the law is for all people or non. You cant discriminate against rural people. thanx, Bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,778
1/29/03 10:28:36 AM
|
You're still wrong
you are the one insisting ranching isnt a business
No I am not. I'm saying that a ranch DOES NOT HAVE TO BE A BUSINESS. You're the one saying that a ranch MUST be a business. I linked to where Bush's ranch is a business.
No, you linked to where Shrub is a "gentleman rancher" STRICTLY for the tax break it provides his personal residence. Go check his tax returns; look at the line that says "profession" - does it say "rancher" on it? You stated only farms grew food.
No, I stated that a farm GROWS food, i.e., crops, while a ranch RAISES animals, which MAY be turned into food. To me and a lot of people a ranch by definition is a business
Which is nothing more than your OPINION, something that you have yet to PROVE. If you own a lot of land and sit in a house in the middle of it and do not use the land to either A: grow crops B: graze cattle C: mix of either of A or B you do not have a ranch, you have an estate.
Once again, from[link|http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary|http://www.m-w.com/] Main Entry: es\ufffdtate Pronunciation: is-'tAt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English estat, from Old French -- more at STATE Date: 13th century 1 : STATE, CONDITION 2 : social standing or rank especially of a high order 3 : a social or political class; specifically : one of the great classes (as the nobility, the clergy, and the commons) formerly vested with distinct political powers 4 a : the degree, quality, nature, and extent of one's interest in land or other property b (1) : POSSESSIONS, PROPERTY; especially : a person's property in land and tenements "a man of small estate" (2) : the assets and liabilities left by a person at death c : a landed property usually with a large house on it d British : PROJECT 4 5 British : STATION WAGON Your position is that an estate is a large piece of property that is not worked. When I visited heard George Washington's Mount Vernon home, the tour guide called it an "estate", yet he grew tobacco for profit. Jefferson's "Monitcello" estate? Ditto - slaves tended his crops. There are plenty of residences of rich people in the northeast states that are called estates and do not grow crops or raise animals. There's nothing in Merriam Webster's definition about an estate being land NOT worked, leaving open the potential for an estate to BE worked. now lets extrapolate can we. Were you at work when you posted that? If you were does your employer take a deduction for all the equipment, connect charges etc?
So let's post an example. I'm a brand new employee and my employer will put a desktop PC in my assigned cubicle for me to perform my duties. I can easily be productive with a Pentium II or Pentium III but, thanks to a proposed change in the tax laws by President Shrub, my employer decides to purchase a loaded-to-the-gills Pentium IV workstation with dual CPUs, 1 gig RAM, dual 160 gig hard drives. Lots of options, completely unnecessary, and never would have occured if it weren't for a useless incentive provided by President Shrub. The tax break accomplishes nothing but to get people to purchase more expensive things and will not help put unemployed people back to work. Same thing with a work truck and SUVs. If Scott's parent's need to haul people or stuff around, they had other choices like pick-up trucks, work minivans, or panel trucks. Instead, he states that they purchased it with leather seats "for the dogs". It probably came with a great stereo system and other nice options too. That doesn't sound like my definition of a "work vehicle" unless their business is raising dogs or running a kennel. You cant discriminate against rural people.
And who says I am? Your remark is completely off topic. I'm against a proposed tax break that is designed to do nothing more than get President Shrub into the good graces with the Democratic party voting United Auto Workers. I'm still waiting for you to PROVE your contention that a "ranch by definition is a business".
lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #77,782
1/29/03 10:36:34 AM
|
calling all rich people, send this guy a check so his envy
go away Same thing with a work truck and SUVs. If Scott's parent's need to haul people or stuff around, they had other choices like pick-up trucks, work minivans, or panel trucks. Instead, he states that they purchased it with leather seats "for the dogs". It probably came with a great stereo system and other nice options too. That doesn't sound like my definition of a "work vehicle" unless their business is raising dogs or running a kennel. so now you are in charge of deciding what folks can drive, what they can or cant grow on their property as well as giving me the barest minimum to do my work at the office(if I had any) Jawol Her Direktor. thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|
Post #77,786
1/29/03 10:54:09 AM
|
Boy, you're full of assumptions.
Same thing with a work truck and SUVs. If Scott's parent's need to haul people or stuff around, they had other choices like pick-up trucks, work minivans, or panel trucks. Instead, he states that they purchased it with leather seats "for the dogs". It probably came with a great stereo system and other nice options too. That doesn't sound like my definition of a "work vehicle" unless their business is raising dogs or running a kennel. They have a pickup truck. It isn't sufficient. A van would not be sufficient. A panel truck would not be sufficient. You don't know fuck-all about my parents' situation, yet you feel perfectly qualified to say, "they don't need an SUV". Until you get over yourself, I feel no need to explain in detail why they chose the vehicle they chose, and why it was the only real choice they had.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #77,630
1/28/03 5:10:22 PM
|
Bush's Crawford "ranch" is NOT a business
From Google:
[link|http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa021901a.htm|http://austin.about.com/library/weekly/aa021901a.htm] nothing in there about Shrub running a business on his Crawford ranch. It just talks about how he built a house there as his retreat from Washington, DC.
[link|http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.mencimer.html|http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0209.mencimer.html] "The president is one of Crawford's "gentleman ranchers," who raise cattle for fun (and tax breaks)." Hits the nail squarely on the head. Not a business; it's a residence with the opportunity for a tax break.
[link|http://www.factmonster.com/spot/georgewbush2.html|http://www.factmonster.com/spot/georgewbush2.html] Doesn't sound like much of a businessman, does he? Except for the gratuituous profit from selling his shares in the Texas Rangers, when he came in as nothing more than the ex-President's son.
[link|http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-01zzf.html|http://www.spacedaily.com/news/bmdo-01zzf.html] Bush may not just give him a tour of the property but may encourage him to indulge in his favorite ranch pastimes, which include clearing cedar and chopping wood. A real businessman, owning 1600 acres, would have somebody else doing the grunt work.
I could cite more, but you get the picture...
lincoln "Four score and seven years ago, I had a better sig"
|
Post #77,637
1/28/03 5:46:29 PM
|
for the link following impaired
[link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=76800|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=76800] thanx, bill
will work for cash and other incentives [link|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html|skill set]
"The Mafia was preferable to the state, because it survived by providing services people actually wanted" Murray Rothbard
|