Mjd33 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 hours ago, noonereal said: Tell me just why 3 hours ago, noonereal said: millions of illegals voted Why would illegals vote? Is that your Q are you serious? Without illegals you think the nancy pelosi’s, deblasio’s and chuck schumer’s of the world would Win elections? Im sure you’re ok with the Oakland mayor warning illegal criminals that ice was going to do raids this past Saturday night in the SF Bay Area ? And we’re not talking about jaywalking crimes ... illegals involved in violent assaults, crimes against children, weapons charges etc this mayor Libby should be arrested, charged with obstruction of justice and put in general population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/380387002 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HawgGoneIt Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 8 hours ago, zulu1128 said: The GOP will lose the standard number of off-year seats...probably in the 10-12 range. My track record is a little better than electionbettingodds.com, FWIW. I read somewhere that 28 is what the incumbent party typically loses in it's first off year election. The Democrats need to flip 24 and the Republicans are defending seats in 23 districts that Hillary won. Now, I know these are far from exactly normal times, but, it doesn't really seem that far out of reach. evidence of presidents party losing seats in the mid term elections between 1962 and 2010, the president's party has lost an average of 23 house seats and between two and three senate seats Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 55 minutes ago, Mjd33 said: Why would illegals vote? Is that your Q are you serious? Without illegals you think the nancy pelosi’s, deblasio’s and chuck schumer’s of the world would Win elections? Im sure you’re ok with the Oakland mayor warning illegal criminals that ice was going to do raids this past Saturday night in the SF Bay Area ? And we’re not talking about jaywalking crimes ... illegals involved in violent assaults, crimes against children, weapons charges etc this mayor Libby should be arrested, charged with obstruction of justice and put in general population. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/380387002 DOJ looking into obstruction charges for the mayor of Oakland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: DOJ looking into obstruction charges for the mayor of Oakland I hope ... That would send a message to these sanctuary city politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 hours ago, dbcaptiron said: Dude I thought you would at least be realistic, given the great planner vs preparer quip....(very, very good advise) But as far as conjecture goes, I'm quite certain that there are 'some effected'.... Maybe you could just share with the class the income level of anyone (you know these actual cases your working on) who actually loses one red cent on the year total and pays more overall taxes....say straight salary family of four...by my calculations it's about the 24 K Thousand range in itemized write-offs right? Sure some get much more than that......what's the top line on those?.. I am not going to get down to your level. For clearly you are an ass. That said, I will leave you with a simple example. Married, filing jointly with one dependent child. Joint Adjusted Gross Income of $75,000, itemizable deductions of 24,000 (both 2017 and 2018). 2017 2018 Adjusted Gross Income 75,000 75,000 Minus: Personal & Dep exemptions (12,150) 0 Itemized & Standard Deduction (24,000) (24,000) Taxable Income 38,850 51,000 Income Tax Liability 5,451 7,159 (calculated based on rates for each year) As you can see, this simple family is clearly worse off due to losing the Personal and Dependent exemptions and not benefiting from the increase in the standard deduction since it was already itemizing $24,000 in 2017. However, since W-4s historically were designed to use the number of exemptions as a basis for calculating tax withholdings and since they have not been reconfigured to reflect the fact that these exemptions have now gone away, most likely the employer (using IRS guidance), would have started withholding less from their paychecks. So, using the above, the hapless taxpayers would be getting more in their pay checks currently only to realize that their overall tax liability had gone up. Hence, the year end surprise when they file their taxes. The only way this would not occur is if adjustments to tax withholding were made not just based on the reduction in rates, but also based on whether the household itemized or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, Mjd33 said: I hope ... That would send a message to these sanctuary city politicians. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28/doj-looking-into-possible-obstruction-charge-against-oakland-mayor-who-warned-ice-raid.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 hour ago, HawgGoneIt said: I read somewhere that 28 is what the incumbent party typically loses in it's first off year election. The Democrats need to flip 24 and the Republicans are defending seats in 23 districts that Hillary won. Now, I know these are far from exactly normal times, but, it doesn't really seem that far out of reach. evidence of presidents party losing seats in the mid term elections between 1962 and 2010, the president's party has lost an average of 23 house seats and between two and three senate seats And democrats are defending seats in 13 districts won by Trump. 12 max is the democrat pickup...you won’t be winning the House this cycle. Absent an unforeseen economic downturn between now and November, feel free to head to the bank and fill out a deposit slip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 55 minutes ago, DarterBlue said: I am not going to get down to your level. For clearly you are an ass. That said, I will leave you with a simple example. Married, filing jointly with one dependent child. Joint Adjusted Gross Income of $75,000, itemizable deductions of 24,000 (both 2017 and 2018). 2017 2018 Adjusted Gross Income 75,000 75,000 Minus: Personal & Dep exemptions (12,150) 0 Itemized & Standard Deduction (24,000) (24,000) Taxable Income 38,850 51,000 Income Tax Liability 5,451 7,159 (calculated based on rates for each year) As you can see, this simple family is clearly worse off due to losing the Personal and Dependent exemptions and not benefiting from the increase in the standard deduction since it was already itemizing $24,000 in 2017. However, since W-4s historically were designed to use the number of exemptions as a basis for calculating tax withholdings and since they have not been reconfigured to reflect the fact that these exemptions have now gone away, most likely the employer (using IRS guidance), would have started withholding less from their paychecks. So, using the above, the hapless taxpayers would be getting more in their pay checks currently only to realize that their overall tax liability had gone up. Hence, the year end surprise when they file their taxes. The only way this would not occur is if adjustments to tax withholding were made not just based on the reduction in rates, but also based on whether the household itemized or not. What I see here is a charlatan and a fraud....your 'patient' is dead...I would not want to be the one sitting there in the chair claiming to be the doctor in victory.....(especially if your pitch is to take money from them for advise money) As again I thought you might even be reasonable ...you 'double down on silliness trite....Try living in the real world....NY and NJ is the poster boy here and I'm sitting on the numbers you scratch for...pulling them out of your ass will do no good but to expose your charade. But I can play a while.... 1) what's your guy got in 24k in deductibles?? you can start by listing them get's popcorn... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 3 hours ago, HSFBfan said: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/28/doj-looking-into-possible-obstruction-charge-against-oakland-mayor-who-warned-ice-raid.html Not only that .... if any of the 800 or so that fled when she played look out do commit crimes in the future and are caught she should be charged with aiding and abetting. Let her get some clown from the ACLU with a NYU or Harvard law degree to defend her.... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 13 hours ago, dbcaptiron said: What I see here is a charlatan and a fraud....your 'patient' is dead...I would not want to be the one sitting there in the chair claiming to be the doctor in victory.....(especially if your pitch is to take money from them for advise money) As again I thought you might even be reasonable ...you 'double down on silliness trite....Try living in the real world....NY and NJ is the poster boy here and I'm sitting on the numbers you scratch for...pulling them out of your ass will do no good but to expose your charade. But I can play a while.... 1) what's your guy got in 24k in deductibles?? you can start by listing them get's popcorn... Dude, I am retired. That's the reason I started posting on here last June to begin with. And in any event I have never made my money as a financial adviser, although most of my working career was spent in Finance and Accounting. I have time on my hands. I have never and would never try and "solicit business" here or elsewhere. For me, the remainder of my life is dedicated to doing what I want to do with my time. In that sense, I consider myself, at last, "truly free." Now regarding my example, I live in the South East, Central Florida to be exact. And I can assure you that there are many individuals down here and in other Southern States in exactly this situation. They don't pay most people very well down here (it is not the tri-state area; I know, as I have lived there too). You ask for examples of the 24,000 of itemized deductions for a couple with an AGI of $75,000. Try the following: Home Mortgage Interest 12,000 Property Taxes 2,000 Sales Taxes - Simplified Method 900 Un-reimbursed Employee Bus exp 2,000 (Not unusual here in the South) Charitable Contributions 5,100 (Lots of tithing, born again Christians in SE) Medical Expenses in excess of 7.5% AGI 2,000 (Lots of uninsured that would not qualify for subsidized Obama Care or Medicaid) Total 24,000 There are many other situations including casualty losses as many southerners don't carry adequate insurance (un-affordable or they can't get insurance); State Income taxes (not Florida but some southern states do have state taxes); etc. It is rather instructive that CNN/Money actually just put up a generalized write-up on the issue of under withholding of Taxes under the new laws, a link to which I have provided: http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/28/pf/taxes/new-irs-calculator/index.html Of course, I am sure in your world CNN has little credibility. But whatever ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 14 hours ago, zulu1128 said: The country is a union of states, not individuals. The founders wisely wanted all states equally represented in one branch of government. In the HOR, the more populous states are significantly more represented. It's basic Civics 101 stuff. Again with the elitist claptrap. Since 1855, the GOP has held the Senate for 82 total years, and the democrats have held it for 80. Doesn't sound too much like "minority rule" to me. Wisely? It's ridiculous. It should be one country not 50 states. I recall being in grammar school and told how wonderful this was by a teacher and I just looked at him like he was out of his mind. It was done to maintain power in the hands of those that already had it. If calling backwoods folks backwards looking is not politically correct, how should I describe them? I mean this question seriously. I have no desire to speak as an elitist, that is for the GSB's of the forum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 11 hours ago, Mjd33 said: Why would illegals vote? Is that your Q are you serious? Dead serious, answer it. It's ridiculous to think they would endanger themselves, by the millions , by "surfacing like that. Quote Without illegals you think the nancy pelosi’s, deblasio’s and chuck schumer’s of the world would Win elections? I personally don't vote fort Schumer's or Deblasio's but to think "illegals" folk put them in power is just a total disregard of realities in favor of propaganda. Quote Im sure you’re ok with the Oakland mayor warning illegal criminals that ice was going to do raids this past Saturday night in the SF Bay Area ? Why are you sure? That question is rhetorical as I know the answer. Unfortunately, for you, it's an indictment on your shallow thoughts and victimization by radical propaganda. . Quote this mayor Libby should be arrested, charged with obstruction of justice and put in general population. I can't believe I am saying this but we are in agreement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 9 hours ago, DarterBlue said: Dude, I am retired. That's the reason I started posting on here last June to begin with. And in any even I have never made my money as a financial adviser, although most of my working career was spent in Finance and Accounting. I have time on my hands. I have never and would never try and "solicit business" here or elsewhere. For me, the remainder of my life is dedicated to doing what I want to do with my time. In that sense, I consider myself, at last, "truly free." Darter, that's totally cool, enjoy your retirement and I mean that...I'm happy that I can drop the machete and use a butter knife... 9 hours ago, DarterBlue said: Now regarding my example, I live in the South East, Central Florida to be exact. And I can assure you that there are many individuals down here and in other Southern States in exactly this situation. They don't pay most people very well down here (it is not the tri-state area; I know, as I have lived there too). You ask for examples of the 24,000 of itemized deductions for a couple with an AGI of $75,000. Actually I asked for the 'top line' on a couple w/24kD, and would suggest to you, that the number 75 K would not make it or 'cut the mustard' (it most certainly would not here, and is unsustainable in most parts of the woods...It would need to be CONSIDERABLY higher to maintain those types of expenses, and 'probably' does not exist)...if it does here, then the 'arguments' win/win portion is the financial stupidity of the person...or their advise LOL) As I am the 'poster child' for the left's 'losing money' argument and do not...you can see why I take issue. I may have in the past (where I was more stupidly spendthrift) but that is not 'sustainable' either..... either way the 'patient' is dead... BTW: I am not finance either, but a long career of designing and implementing the systems that those accountants and actuarial's use, have led to many debates....apologies if my thinking you were one was taken insultingly. You actually had a REALLY good post(s) on the 'market' a while back and I pegged you as 'someone' who has a better approach than most 'financial analysts', so in that light maybe you could just take it as a compliment... My take was, 'Don't try and use ME' to prove any conjecture when I'm the one paying the $, and know what I write on the checks. I have called many out to give examples (as I'm sure that 'some' do exist), and most don't even try. Your numbers seem more reasonable (even if asspulled or exaggerated), and a butter knife says that 'you would about break even' if you consider that all your 'charitable expenses' are now being paid to the government instead (which you can highlight for future arguments) and one point that I have not argued, as it is true.... Your 'medical expenses' also tip to the fact that a person with those so high, is most likely not actively working full time with insurance (or patient severely wounded at least LOL). I was more into 'numbers' yesterday, but have no problem sharing my experience. We can debate, as that is good as people can see it, but I prefer to debate actual numbers not conjecture as most do.... cool? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 5 hours ago, noonereal said: I personally don't vote fort Schumer's or Deblasio's but to think "illegals" folk put them in power is just a total disregard of realities in favor of propaganda. If the illlegals don’t put them In power why do they pander to illegals over legal tax paying citizens ? To be Compassionate? This mayor in Oakland? Why did she blow the dog whistle ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 5 hours ago, noonereal said: Wisely? It's ridiculous. It should be one country not 50 states. I recall being in grammar school and told how wonderful this was by a teacher and I just looked at him like he was out of his mind. It was done to maintain power in the hands of those that already had it. If calling backwoods folks backwards looking is not politically correct, how should I describe them? I mean this question seriously. I have no desire to speak as an elitist, that is for the GSB's of the forum. Well you are wrong once again 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Here you go. Here are the power of the federal government. If it is not one of these power it should and was supposed to be set up for the states Not only were the powers granted to the federal government small in number, but the Founders were also very clear about what those powers were: Military acts, foreign commerce, international negotiations, along with some others. Basically, federal powers were granted mostly for external affairs, such as war, that are best executed when states come together and pool their resources toward a larger effort like funding a national military that would defend all of the states. The Founders believed very strongly in states’ rights because they understood that the surest way to maintain individual liberty was to instill safeguards against centralized power. Not only would establishing several smaller governments (the states) afford people the ability to move elsewhere, but they would also have more of a say in the public affairs of their surroundings. More simply, citizens would be closer to the people who were making decisions on their behalf. Why do you think the states were pissed off about slavery?? Lincoln overstepped his boundaries. Slavery was not up to him to go after. it was a state right issue. If you read the federalist papers with Madison he made things very clear. And people praise Lincoln for keeping this country together but he was the one who divide it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, HSFBfan said: Well you are wrong once again Well in sorry, but I just MUST interrupt here.... Would not want nooner falling into your set pitfall trap of 'desire verses REALITY'........ He has proven that although he's a master at setting those traps....he has no ability to see them.... Most likely why the very same trap was employed....What a keen eye for a good hunter.... That's how you 'box em' for dinner 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 2 minutes ago, dbcaptiron said: Well in sorry, but I just MUST interrupt here.... Would not want nooner falling into your set pitfall trap of 'desire verses REALITY'........ He has proven that although he's a master at setting those traps....he has no ability to see them.... Most likely why the very same trap was employed....What a keen eye for a good hunter.... That's how you 'box em' for dinner I cant even respond im laughing so hard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 24 minutes ago, Mjd33 said: If the illlegals don’t put them In power why do they pander to illegals over legal tax paying citizens ? To be Compassionate? because so many legal citizens are immigrants and have relatives of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: because so many legal citizens are immigrants and have relatives of course That really is no answer. Legal citizens stay...Illegals dont. If you wanna be with your family go back to your country and be with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 11 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: That really is no answer. LOL how is it not an answer to his question? Oh, 12 what are we gonna do with you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 Just now, noonereal said: LOL how is it not an answer to his question? Oh, 12 what are we gonna do with you? He brought up a point of why these politicians cater to ILLEGALS if not from a voting perspective and you brought up because they have families who are legals or something around those lines. No politician should ever cater to any ILLEGALS and should be handing them over left and right to ICE agents. It is not the politicians job to protect cater or anything of that nature to any ILLEGALS in the country and they should be fighting for LEGAL citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: He brought up a point of why these politicians cater to ILLEGALS if not from a voting perspective and you brought up because they have families who are legals or something around those lines. No politician should ever cater to any ILLEGALS and should be handing them over left and right to ICE agents. It is not the politicians job to protect cater or anything of that nature to any ILLEGALS in the country and they should be fighting for LEGAL citizens. K, I agree, so? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: K, I agree, so? I must have missed the point where you agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted March 1, 2018 Report Share Posted March 1, 2018 1 hour ago, noonereal said: because so many legal citizens are immigrants and have relatives of course And those relatives are illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.