- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Powerful forces all lining up to stop St. George
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:46 am to LSURussian
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:46 am to LSURussian
you really make a lot of effort to drive people towards SG
1
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:50 am to LSUMJ
quote:
you really make a lot of effort to drive people towards SG
He really does. His arrogant attitude and sense of entitlement here speak volumes.
Passing retroactive laws, changing the rules in midstream, and using name calling are all fair tactics when his little kingdom is threatened.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:50 am to doubleb
quote:
You have links to all these retroactive tax laws or did you just make all that up too?
If you're that ignorant, I'm not going to waste my time.
The Section 179 debate was on the front page of Yahoo.com this past weekend.
The retroactive tax rate changes had every employer and payroll servicing company in the U.S. scrambling to change their payroll withholding tables to comply with the retroactive changes.
Do you have aphasia? Serious question.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:50 am to LSURussian
quote:
There is a debate right now on restoring the Section 179 tax provisions retroactive to 1/1/14 after they expired on 12/31/13.
I think that is slightly different. But, I'll not quibble
quote:
Not long ago (within the last 4 or 5 years) the actual tax rates were changed in the middle of a tax year made retroactive to the first of that tax year.
I remember hearing that it happened during Clinton admin and a lot of people were pissed about it.
I can understand TAX issues, however, as it is complicated enough to determine tax burden. To be able to show what money was earned when within the year would be ridiculous.
Again, I am not here as "pro St G" or "anti St. G". I do like the discussion and the topics. But, I believe this proposed law being retroactive is improper (my opinion..not as a legal term)
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:50 am to doubleb
quote:
and using name calling are all fair tactics when his little kingdom is threatened.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:55 am to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:That's another good example.
I remember hearing that it happened during Clinton admin and a lot of people were pissed about it.
But it happened more recently than that, too.
My wife's company's payroll provider was seriously late in making the changes in the withholding tables and it caused some of their employees to under-withhold for the year. We just increased our quarterly estimated payments for the second half of that year.
But doubleb refuses to comply with those types of tax law changes. He's special.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:02 pm to LSURussian
quote:
If you're that ignorant, I'm not going to waste my time. The Section 179 debate was on the front page of Yahoo.com this past weekend. The retroactive tax rate changes had every employer and payroll servicing company in the U.S. scrambling to change their payroll withholding tables to comply with the retroactive changes. Do you have aphasia? Serious question.
So you couldn't find an example of a retroactive tax change passed by the La. legislature so you had to find something Congress did that was so technical that few of us knew what was going on.
Like I said earlier, there are very few examples of laws being passed retroactively. I never said there were none.
And btw, I am fortunate enough to have my CPa take care of these things for me so I don't have to run around not knowing what to do.
And furthermore, we made no changes to our payroll software.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:03 pm to doubleb
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:04 pm to LSURussian
quote:
He's special.
It's about time you recognized talent.
And for you to use an example like this to infer that changing incorporation laws retroactively is common place is ridiculous.
To get a second example you have to go back to the Clinton years which was over 15 years ago.
Sorry Charlie, you are being absurd with all this.
The next thing you'll tell us is that 9-2+2=11.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:08 pm to BlackHelicopterPilot
quote:
Young?
It is MID APRIL. What constitutes "young" in these instances?
...when the ends justify the means, of course.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:09 pm to doubleb
quote:NO, that was a third example brought up by BHP. Try to keep up.
To get a second example you have to go back to the Clinton years which was over 15 years ago.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:21 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yeah, sure. I was in favor of Central incorporating. Central was a long-established community that already had the tenets of being a town but without the legal standing.
SG does not fit that description. Not even close.
Opinions are like assholes.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:27 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Central was a long-established community that already had the tenets of being a town
Can you explain why this is so important?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:33 pm to moneyg
Yes, I can.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:37 pm to LSURussian
quote:
Yes, I can.
...translated:
I have no answer.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 12:51 pm to moneyg
quote:You're too much of a jerk for me to spend time explaining things.
...translated:
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:19 pm to doubleb
quote:
We have a Senator Nevers(D) from Bogalusa who wants to put a two year moratorium on ALL NEW INCORPORATIONS in Louisiana. The Louisiana Municipal Association is on his side. The moratorium if passed would go back in time and start on January 1, 2014.
Representative James of EBR parish wants to pass a bill allowing all voters in the affected parish to vote on incorporation and not just those in the proposed municipality as is the law now.
Representative Price(D)of Gonzales wants to pass a bill limiting the time(180 days)that municipal proponents have to collect signatures for their petition. Currently there is no time limit.
With Mayor Holden and the city actively fighting SG along with Councilman Delgado, it seems the SG folks have their work cut out for them as Democrats in the state legislature try and add on additional road blocks.
Reminds me of the Obama admin's backroom deals to ram Obamacare through. Where is the Advocate's editorial condemning this blatant corruption? Isn't that what the press is supposed to be doing?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 1:49 pm to LSURussian
quote:
You're too much of a jerk for me to spend time explaining things.
You are a child.
I didn't think you would be able to make a quality point. Thanks for proving that.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:01 pm to moneyg
And you confirmed my point.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 3:17 pm to LSURussian
quote:
And you confirmed my point.
You calling someone a jerk is like Rex calling someone a liberal idiot.
I was interested in seeing you explain why your statement was important and meaningful. My guess is that you can't do that, so you've resorted to the Ad Hominem.
Page 4 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News