All Perfectly Legal, Ethical, and with the Mayor's Blessings....

[muff528 3]

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

[marks2065 0]

Quote

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

But why would we talk about gross missuse of tax/pension money by the left?

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

But why would we talk about gross missuse of tax/pension money by the left?

Yeah. Your usual idiotic gratuitous bash, without any cogent point.


Anyhow, believe it or not, I for one feel pretty strongly that this deserves to be fought in court, all the way up the chain of appellate courts, as essentially the perpetration of a fraud.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

Nice misrepresentation.

The thread, and the criticism of that Congressman, was not to begrudge him his accomplishment or self-pride in his success, but to call him out for his callous insensitivity for publicly whining that taxes left him with a paltry $400,000 to support his family.

Believe it or not, fact really does have more value than than spin.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

But why would we talk about gross missuse of tax/pension money by the left?

Because it makes a change from talking about, for example, how G.W. Bush and his right wing cronies milked $200 MILLION in exemptions from the taxpayers of Arlington, TX.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bertt 0]

1) that "scumbag Republican" needs to get an accountant who knows that taxes are paid on profits, not business expenses.
2) Now to the point of the Chicago article. Fighting this sort of thing begins with educating the voters. The "city" didn't hire the labor leader; someone in city government hired him. If the reporter who filed the story follows up and names that person, at least the voters will know who they're dealing with. Unfortunately, reporters too often don't.
Since a special waiver was necessary, that might be challenged in court, if there's a lawyer or group with the time and inclination to do it. Too often, this stuff gets politicized to the point that people don't see the wrong, they just see the fight. Once again, this is where the press can help by bringing facts to light without editorialising.
All you can do is try. Voters tend to be pretty apathetic until things go too far.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[muff528 3]

Quote

....

Nice misrepresentation......

Thanks! ...But, hey! I didn't set the standard here. Geeez! ...someone needs to publish the rules for SC.

[DougH 270]

More bullshit with public pensions go figure.

Hopefully they go away soon, they are all underfunded, and unsustainable. Defined benefit plans are going to way of the dodo and they should!

This is one example of the problem with them. The other problem is the way many are structured so that a state worker can get put into a high overtime position for three years and the whole pension gets based on that high three. It is just another way of gaming the system.

Get a 401K like the rest of us instead of raping the taxpayers.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

The thread, and the criticism of that Congressman, was not to begrudge him his accomplishment or self-pride in his success, but to call him out for his callous insensitivity for publicly whining that taxes left him with a paltry $400,000 to support his family.

I have to think you never watched the video of the MSNBC interview and instead chose to believe the spin from the Huffington Post. Please tell us exactly where in the interview (here it is again)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNIQvxo0JT0

is this congressman whining that $400,000 is not enough to support his family. Tell us what minute:second mark do we start and then stop watching in this video where he whines that $400,000 is not enough money to support his family with. There is a difference between saying "He would have less money to reinvest in his businesses if government was to all of a sudden take more from him in taxes" versus what you are alleging he said. Nowhere in this video does he say what you and the Huffington Post have alleged him saying.

Since when has being a successful business entrepreneur become such a bad thing?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

1) that "scumbag Republican" needs to get an accountant who knows that taxes are paid on profits, not business expenses.

Another person who did NOT watch the interview but was all too happy to label the congressman as a scumbag. Hey if you have evidence that this congressman is an actually scum bag, please present it and I will be happy to call him a scum bag if he is indeed one. But to remind you of what was said in the interview, the congressman grossed over 6 million dollars from all his LLC businesses. Once expenses were applied, he made a profit of $600k (the interview does not say if this $600k was already taxed or if it was simply taxable income, based on other things he said I assumed it was $600k of taxable income). He then goes on to say he used about $200k to pay for his personal family expenses. The dude paid his taxes. All he is saying is if the government took more taxes from him he would have less money to possibly reinvest in his businesses. I wonder what world some of you are demanding where you question where this man was allowed to spend his money especially when there are a number of Left leaning Dizzy.commers here who themselves own their own personal airplanes and/or own massive boats and own massive trucks to tow their boats. If the guy wants to spend $200k of his own after tax money, what business is it of yours how he spends his money?

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Tell us what minute:second mark do we start and then stop watching in this video where he whines that $400,000 is not enough money to support his family with.

I didn't say he said that. So the spin is yours, of my words.

Quote

Since when has being a successful business entrepreneur become such a bad thing?

I didn't say that, either; in fact, I emphasized exactly the opposite, in this thread, where I said my point "...was not to begrudge him his accomplishment or self-pride in his success..." So again, it is you who are spinning - my words.

[muff528 3]

Quote

Quote

1) that "scumbag Republican" needs to get an accountant who knows that taxes are paid on profits, not business expenses.

Another person who did NOT watch the interview but was all too happy to label the congressman as a scumbag. Hey if you have evidence that this congressman is an actually scum bag, please present it and I will be happy to call him a scum bag if he is indeed one. But to remind you of what was said in the interview, the congressman grossed over 6 million dollars from all his LLC businesses. Once expenses were applied, he made a profit of $600k (the interview does not say if this $600k was already taxed or if it was simply taxable income, based on other things he said I assumed it was $600k of taxable income). He then goes on to say he used about $200k to pay for his personal family expenses. The dude paid his taxes. All he is saying is if the government took more taxes from him he would have less money to possibly reinvest in his businesses. I wonder what world some of you are demanding where you question where this man was allowed to spend his money especially when there are a number of Left leaning Dizzy.commers here who themselves own their own personal airplanes and/or own massive boats and own massive trucks to tow their boats. If the guy wants to spend $200k of his own after tax money, what business is it of yours how he spends his money?

Man! ....We REALLY need a sarcasm icon!

[CanuckInUSA 0]

Quote

Quote

Tell us what minute:second mark do we start and then stop watching in this video where he whines that $400,000 is not enough money to support his family with.

I didn't say he said that. So the spin is yours, of my words.

ROFLMAO ... you just wrote this today:

Quote

The thread, and the criticism of that Congressman, was not to begrudge him his accomplishment or self-pride in his success, but to call him out for his callous insensitivity for publicly whining that taxes left him with a paltry $400,000 to support his family.

you are calling him out for whining that taxes left him with a paltry $400,000 to support his family.

Nowhere in the video does he say anything close to what you are alleging he said. Once again please show me exactly where in the video that he is whining that $400k is a paltry sum to support his family.

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

He then goes on to say he used about $200k to pay for his personal family expenses. The dude paid his taxes. All he is saying is if the government took more taxes from him he would have less money to possibly reinvest in his businesses.

The term he used, twice, was "feed my family"; but OK, let's presume that was his metaphor for personal family expenses. The point of the criticism of him is not to challenge whether he might kick-in an extra 10 grand in taxes as a pay-forward to the country that gave him the opportunity to prosper, and still be able to re-invest the same $400K into his businesses. The point was that he was acting like an insensitive asshat for seeming to whine about his circumstances when most of the socially-conservative working slobs who put him in office support their families on a whole hell of a lot less than $200,000.

ETA: one oopsie on my part - paltry $200K to "feed his family", not paltry $400K. Oh, you're right, he didn't use the word "paltry"; he just implied it in the minds of all the $45K wage-earners who voted for him and now think he's a fucking jerk. Gosh, my bad. We should all be that strapped.

[Bertt 0]

"scumbag Republican" is a quote from the first post of this thread. That's why I put it in quotes.
I did watch the interview, and the nice Republican businessman actually said that if he paid more in taxes, he would have less money available to invest in his business and open new locations. This is in contradiction to the fact that business expenses are deducted before taxes. If his accountant has led him to believe otherwise, his accountant is wrong. Hence, my advice that he get a new accountant.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[muff528 3]

Quote

"scumbag Republican" is a quote from the first post of this thread. That's why I put it in quotes.
I did watch the interview, and the nice Republican businessman actually said that if he paid more in taxes, he would have less money available to invest in his business and open new locations. This is in contradiction to the fact that business expenses are deducted before taxes. If his accountant has led him to believe otherwise, his accountant is wrong. Hence, my advice that he get a new accountant.

First, my "scumbag" comment in my original post was meant as sarcasm. Second, business expenses are deducted before taxes. An investment is not necessarily a "business expense" per se. It can be an investment with new, already-taxed money. So, less taxes on taxed-money = more money to invest for growth, etc. as contrasted with paying the electric bill, buying raw materials, payroll, etc. I think we are actually agreeing.

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

"scumbag Republican" is a quote from the first post of this thread. That's why I put it in quotes.
I did watch the interview, and the nice Republican businessman actually said that if he paid more in taxes, he would have less money available to invest in his business and open new locations. This is in contradiction to the fact that business expenses are deducted before taxes. If his accountant has led him to believe otherwise, his accountant is wrong. Hence, my advice that he get a new accountant.

There's no contradiction between the two.

Even when paid all at once capital costs usually must be depreciated over a period of years.

Example: I have an LLC which opted to be taxed under subchapter S with corporate profits taxed as share holders' personal income.

By July I've made $1M in profits of which the government would let me keep $650,000.

I decide to invest all I can in more offices which are real property with a 39 year depreciation schedule and am allowed to write off just 1.391% which is $9042 this year for a negligible $3164 tax savings allowing my to put about $653,000 into new locations.

If the government decided to up the top tax rate to 50% I'd be able to put about $503,500 into my business, which is $149,500 less to invest.

Over the remaining years I'll be able to reduce my income by the depreciation, although that money in the future has little to do with the cash I have available to invest today.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

...not at all like that scumbag Republican businessman who makes a whopping $600K/year after sticking his neck out to create a successful business and a few crummy jobs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-pensions-gannon-20110922,0,913026.story

Wait a second...do you mean to tell us that there was a sneaky deal between a union man and a Chicago politician? Who woulda thunk!
It may be legal...barely. And it doesn't surprise me that the mayor says it's ok. But ethical? Not in a million years.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.