Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Paul Thomas still refuses to answer a simple question.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Paul Thomas still refuses to answer a simple question.

    For all of his self proclaimed expertise, I warn lurkers and others seeking good
    tax advise that Thomas has a woeful lack of logic, and is actually quite
    disingenuous. For example, why does he refuse to answer the simple questions
    posed below?

    I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a
    promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner
    status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on
    one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress,
    time, travel, etc...) on the other.

    But on the follow-up question, Thomas won't say if he agrees that the term
    *money* refers to the actual money that the person making that judgment would
    receive (IOW, the net pay), or if he clings to the notion that it refers to the
    gross amount (i.e., before taxes)?

    Simple question, isn't it?

    But that's not all. He also made other claims that he has not been able to back
    up. Here they are:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    You can't carve out one thing (like taxes) and apply that in a universal manner to all workers.
    You're getting way ahead of yourself. Where, in the above, have I ever
    mentioned taxes? Please provide a direct and relevant reply.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    In some cases the "other side" (the non-cash side) carries such weight that it can't be overcome by dollars.
    Where have I ever given any indication of anything else? Please
    provide a direct and relevant reply.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


    Why does he have so much trouble answering such simple questions?

    Please answer these questions, Paul. Thank you.


  • #2
    who knows, but maybe you should just have a simple question. Your question is simple to you, but it may not be to someone else.

    Comment


    • #3
      Paul Thomas still refuses to answer a simple question.


      "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
      I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other.


      If you go back and look, that's what I've been saying all along.

      See the thread Subject: Re: Overreaching government strangles innovation!




      --
      Paul A. Thomas, CPA
      Athens, Georgia
      taxman at negia.net


      Comment


      • #4
        Paul Thomas still refuses to answer a simple question.


        "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
        I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other.


        If you go back and look, that's what I've been saying all along.

        See the thread Subject: Re: Overreaching government strangles innovation!




        --
        Paul A. Thomas, CPA
        Athens, Georgia
        taxman at negia.net


        Comment


        • #5
          Paul Thomas still refuses to answer yet again.


          "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
          news:[email protected]
          "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
          I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other.
          If you go back and look, that's what I've been saying all along. See the thread Subject: Re: Overreaching government strangles innovation!
          Tisk, tisk, tisk. Caught you again, red-handed. You and I both know, as well
          as many others, that although you replied, you never came close to answering
          this basic question.

          So in case there's any confusion, on the follow-up question, do you agree that
          the term *money* (as used in the model below) refers to the actual money that
          the person making a value judgment would
          receive (IOW, the net pay), or do you cling to the notion that it refers to the
          gross amount (i.e., before taxes)?

          ~~~~~~~~~~~
          I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a
          promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner
          status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on
          one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress,
          time, travel, etc...) on the other.
          ~~~~~~~~~~~

          p.s., I'll refrain from showing how you've refused to answer the other questions
          I posed..........for now.



          Comment


          • #6
            Paul Thomas still refuses to answer yet again.


            "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
            news:[email protected]
            "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
            I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress, time, travel, etc...) on the other.
            If you go back and look, that's what I've been saying all along. See the thread Subject: Re: Overreaching government strangles innovation!
            Tisk, tisk, tisk. Caught you again, red-handed. You and I both know, as well
            as many others, that although you replied, you never came close to answering
            this basic question.

            So in case there's any confusion, on the follow-up question, do you agree that
            the term *money* (as used in the model below) refers to the actual money that
            the person making a value judgment would
            receive (IOW, the net pay), or do you cling to the notion that it refers to the
            gross amount (i.e., before taxes)?

            ~~~~~~~~~~~
            I finally taught Paul that when considering whether or not to accept a
            promotion, or work overtime, or some similar decision (e.g., second earner
            status in a family, etc....), the value judgment can be defined as the money on
            one side of the equation, and all of the other considerations (e.g., stress,
            time, travel, etc...) on the other.
            ~~~~~~~~~~~

            p.s., I'll refrain from showing how you've refused to answer the other questions
            I posed..........for now.



            Comment


            • #7
              Paul Thomas still refuses to answer yet again.


              "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
              Tisk, tisk, tisk. Caught you again, red-handed.

              Oh geeze Louise. Give it a rest.


              It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross
              pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a
              secretary out front is none of my concern.



              --
              Paul A. Thomas, CPA
              Athens, Georgia
              taxman at negia.net






              Comment


              • #8
                Paul Thomas still refuses to answer yet again.


                "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                Tisk, tisk, tisk. Caught you again, red-handed.

                Oh geeze Louise. Give it a rest.


                It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross
                pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a
                secretary out front is none of my concern.



                --
                Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                Athens, Georgia
                taxman at negia.net






                Comment


                • #9
                  Paul Thomas fans, you've got to read this one.


                  "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                  It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a secretary out front is none of my concern. Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is almost always an important one,

                  If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the additional
                  dollars. Since many people turn down such offers, then your statemetns is
                  wrong.


                  you'd actually advise someone that it's just as valid to consider the raise in gross pay as it is the raise in the actual money received?
                  What the hell are you talking about?

                  A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". I don't think a
                  scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the
                  "actual money received".

                  Besides, there are many variable factors in the withholding formula. Take
                  two people earning the exact same gross pay. Yet, in many instances the
                  checks they receive (the "actual money received") are dramatically
                  different.

                  LOL! You'll go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong. You'd rather be viewed as stupid than wrong. How much more prideful can you be?

                  Why don't you decide for me.


                  --
                  Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                  Athens, Georgia
                  taxman at negia.net


                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Paul Thomas fans, you've got to read this one.


                    "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                    It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a secretary out front is none of my concern. Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is almost always an important one,

                    If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the additional
                    dollars. Since many people turn down such offers, then your statemetns is
                    wrong.


                    you'd actually advise someone that it's just as valid to consider the raise in gross pay as it is the raise in the actual money received?
                    What the hell are you talking about?

                    A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". I don't think a
                    scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the
                    "actual money received".

                    Besides, there are many variable factors in the withholding formula. Take
                    two people earning the exact same gross pay. Yet, in many instances the
                    checks they receive (the "actual money received") are dramatically
                    different.

                    LOL! You'll go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong. You'd rather be viewed as stupid than wrong. How much more prideful can you be?

                    Why don't you decide for me.


                    --
                    Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                    Athens, Georgia
                    taxman at negia.net


                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Paul Thomas fans...ya gotta see this one.


                      "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                      news:[email protected]
                      "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                      It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a secretary out front is none of my concern. Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is almost always an important one,
                      If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the additional dollars. Since many people turn down such offers, then your statemetns is wrong.
                      L:OL! So if a factor is important, it should be the only one considered? After
                      all, that's what you said. I said that it was an important one, and your reply
                      is that if that's true, it should be the only one. Have I got that right?
                      you'd actually advise someone that it's just as valid to consider the raise in gross pay as it is the raise in the actual money received? What the hell are you talking about?
                      You know full well what I'm taking about, Paul. You've dragged this out and
                      parsed and snipped so that you could get to this point of pretending that you
                      don't know the point. OK, so here it is again:

                      Of all the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to take a
                      promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is an important one. Therefore, in
                      terms of considering the financial factor, should the person use the net amount
                      (i.e., the amount which will actually make a lifestyle difference), or should
                      they use the gross amount (i.e., much of which will make no difference at all)?

                      It's just that simple.

                      A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received".
                      So you're now claiming that when a person gets a raise in Gross pay, they'll get
                      the whole amount? If that's not what you're saying, then your answer is a
                      little silly given the question is the difference between gross and net pay,
                      isn't that right?
                      I don't think a scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the "actual money received".
                      Lurker note #1: Paul is once again trying desperately to create smoke and
                      mirrors because he's desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth that he's wrong.
                      He'd rather be stupid than wrong.
                      Besides, there are many variable factors in the withholding formula. Take two people earning the exact same gross pay. Yet, in many instances the checks they receive (the "actual money received") are dramatically different.
                      Lurker note #2: refer to Lurker note #1.

                      Paul, Paul, Paul. No matter how the net is derived, in considering the issue
                      referenced above, should the person consider the gross amount, or the net
                      amount? Simple question, really.
                      LOL! You'll go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong. You'd rather be viewed as stupid than wrong. How much more prideful can you be? Why don't you decide for me.
                      Isn't it obvious?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Paul Thomas fans...ya gotta see this one.


                        "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                        news:[email protected]
                        "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                        It's an individuals decision to make, and whether they decide based on gross pay or net pay, or whether they get a corner office, a fancy title, or a secretary out front is none of my concern. Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is almost always an important one,
                        If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the additional dollars. Since many people turn down such offers, then your statemetns is wrong.
                        L:OL! So if a factor is important, it should be the only one considered? After
                        all, that's what you said. I said that it was an important one, and your reply
                        is that if that's true, it should be the only one. Have I got that right?
                        you'd actually advise someone that it's just as valid to consider the raise in gross pay as it is the raise in the actual money received? What the hell are you talking about?
                        You know full well what I'm taking about, Paul. You've dragged this out and
                        parsed and snipped so that you could get to this point of pretending that you
                        don't know the point. OK, so here it is again:

                        Of all the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to take a
                        promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is an important one. Therefore, in
                        terms of considering the financial factor, should the person use the net amount
                        (i.e., the amount which will actually make a lifestyle difference), or should
                        they use the gross amount (i.e., much of which will make no difference at all)?

                        It's just that simple.

                        A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received".
                        So you're now claiming that when a person gets a raise in Gross pay, they'll get
                        the whole amount? If that's not what you're saying, then your answer is a
                        little silly given the question is the difference between gross and net pay,
                        isn't that right?
                        I don't think a scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the "actual money received".
                        Lurker note #1: Paul is once again trying desperately to create smoke and
                        mirrors because he's desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth that he's wrong.
                        He'd rather be stupid than wrong.
                        Besides, there are many variable factors in the withholding formula. Take two people earning the exact same gross pay. Yet, in many instances the checks they receive (the "actual money received") are dramatically different.
                        Lurker note #2: refer to Lurker note #1.

                        Paul, Paul, Paul. No matter how the net is derived, in considering the issue
                        referenced above, should the person consider the gross amount, or the net
                        amount? Simple question, really.
                        LOL! You'll go to any lengths to avoid admitting you were wrong. You'd rather be viewed as stupid than wrong. How much more prideful can you be? Why don't you decide for me.
                        Isn't it obvious?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Paul Thomas fans...ya gotta see this one.


                          "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                          L:OL! So if a factor is important, it should be the only one considered?

                          Not at all, as I've stated in earlier posts, there are many factors that go
                          into any decision. What those factors are, and what values a person places
                          on them is an individual decision to be sure.

                          After all, that's what you said.
                          Not at all.


                          I said that it was an important one, and your reply is that if that's true, it should be the only one. Have I got that right?

                          No, you do not have that right.


                          What the hell are you talking about? You know full well what I'm taking about, Paul. You've dragged this out and parsed and snipped so that you could get to this point of pretending that you don't know the point.

                          I really don't know the point you are trying desperartely to make.


                          Of all the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to take a promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is an important one.
                          Says you. Someone else may place a higher importance on other factors.


                          A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". So you're now claiming that when a person gets a raise in Gross pay, they'll get the whole amount?

                          If that's the way you want to read, then I'll slap your third grade reading
                          teacher.


                          If that's not what you're saying,

                          Re-read what I posted.


                          then your answer is a little silly given the question is the difference between gross and net pay, isn't that right?
                          That's not what I said.

                          A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received".

                          Then I went on to say
                          I don't think a scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the "actual money received". Lurker note #1: Paul is once again trying desperately to create smoke and mirrors because he's desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth that he's wrong.

                          How so? How am I wrong to point out that there are many factors that go
                          into any decision and that what those factors are, and what values a person
                          places on them is an individual decision to be sure.

                          There's no smoke there, just plain facts. No two people will value things
                          the same way.


                          Why don't you decide for me. Isn't it obvious?

                          Not really.



                          --
                          Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                          Athens, Georgia
                          taxman at negia.net


                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Paul Thomas fans...ya gotta see this one.


                            "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                            L:OL! So if a factor is important, it should be the only one considered?

                            Not at all, as I've stated in earlier posts, there are many factors that go
                            into any decision. What those factors are, and what values a person places
                            on them is an individual decision to be sure.

                            After all, that's what you said.
                            Not at all.


                            I said that it was an important one, and your reply is that if that's true, it should be the only one. Have I got that right?

                            No, you do not have that right.


                            What the hell are you talking about? You know full well what I'm taking about, Paul. You've dragged this out and parsed and snipped so that you could get to this point of pretending that you don't know the point.

                            I really don't know the point you are trying desperartely to make.


                            Of all the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to take a promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is an important one.
                            Says you. Someone else may place a higher importance on other factors.


                            A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". So you're now claiming that when a person gets a raise in Gross pay, they'll get the whole amount?

                            If that's the way you want to read, then I'll slap your third grade reading
                            teacher.


                            If that's not what you're saying,

                            Re-read what I posted.


                            then your answer is a little silly given the question is the difference between gross and net pay, isn't that right?
                            That's not what I said.

                            A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received".

                            Then I went on to say
                            I don't think a scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the "actual money received". Lurker note #1: Paul is once again trying desperately to create smoke and mirrors because he's desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth that he's wrong.

                            How so? How am I wrong to point out that there are many factors that go
                            into any decision and that what those factors are, and what values a person
                            places on them is an individual decision to be sure.

                            There's no smoke there, just plain facts. No two people will value things
                            the same way.


                            Why don't you decide for me. Isn't it obvious?

                            Not really.



                            --
                            Paul A. Thomas, CPA
                            Athens, Georgia
                            taxman at negia.net


                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Paul Thomas fans...now he's outright lying.


                              "Paul A Thomas" <[email protected]> wrote in message
                              news:[email protected]
                              "AllYou!" <[email protected]> wrote
                              L:OL! So if a factor is important, it should be the only one considered?
                              Not at all, as I've stated in earlier posts, there are many factors that go into any decision. What those factors are, and what values a person places on them is an individual decision to be sure.
                              But that's not what you said. Here's your lie exposed:

                              Me: Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is
                              almost always an important one,

                              Paul Thomas: If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the
                              additional dollars.


                              See? You now say not at all, but clearly, that was not what you said before.
                              Another lie exposed.
                              After all, that's what you said. Not at all.
                              Me: Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is
                              almost always an important one,

                              Paul Thomas: If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the
                              additional dollars.

                              I said that it was an important one, and your reply is that if that's true, it should be the only one. Have I got that right? No, you do not have that right.
                              Me: Yes, there are many, many other considerations, but the financial one is
                              almost always an important one,

                              Paul Thomas: If that were true, then the only thing that would matter is the
                              additional dollars.

                              What the hell are you talking about? You know full well what I'm taking about, Paul. You've dragged this out and parsed and snipped so that you could get to this point of pretending that you don't know the point. I really don't know the point you are trying desperartely to make.
                              Then refer to the new thread. This one is getting too deep, and I want to keep
                              this very fresh for all to see.
                              Of all the factors to be considered in deciding whether or not to take a promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is an important one. Says you. Someone else may place a higher importance on other factors.
                              I didn't say it was the most important one, nor did I say that quatity of money
                              needs to be significant for the consideration of the money to be important. It
                              could be that a promotion comes with no raise, but the fact that it does not is
                              an important consideration. Are you denying that in most cases, whether or not
                              to take a promotion, or change jobs, or work OT, money is not an important one?
                              A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". So you're now claiming that when a person gets a raise in Gross pay, they'll get the whole amount? If that's the way you want to read, then I'll slap your third grade reading teacher.
                              I'm sure you would, yet your interpretation of most everything I've posted here
                              stikes me that you must be borderline retarded. But no worries, I'll keep on
                              you until there's no escape for you. Now, back to the issue. Now that you
                              agree with me that there's virtually always a difference between gross pay and
                              net pay, should the person consider the gross pay, or the net pay?
                              If that's not what you're saying, Re-read what I posted.
                              I did, and it shows your fear in answering a simple question.
                              then your answer is a little silly given the question is the difference between gross and net pay, isn't that right? That's not what I said.
                              Yes it is. I took your advise, and re read your post, and that's what you said.
                              A raise in gross pay IS a raise in "actual money received". Then I went on to say
                              But I'm raising the question concerning the difference between those, as you
                              know. Therefore, to say that an increase in one is an increase in the other is
                              irrelevant to the issue of the difference between them, wouldn't you agree?
                              I don't think a scenario can be created where an increase in gross causes a decrease in the "actual money received". Lurker note #1: Paul is once again trying desperately to create smoke and mirrors because he's desperately trying to avoid the ugly truth that he's wrong. How so? How am I wrong to point out that there are many factors that go into any decision and that what those factors are, and what values a person places on them is an individual decision to be sure.
                              I said smoke and mirrors, agreed? I'm simply saying that your response has
                              nothing at all to do with the question asked. I'm asking about the difference
                              between net and gross, and you say that when one raises, the other does as well.
                              That's smoke and mirrors.
                              There's no smoke there, just plain facts. No two people will value things the same way.
                              But the smoke and mirrors part is that this statement is totally unresponsive to
                              my question.
                              Why don't you decide for me. Isn't it obvious? Not really.
                              Then this proves you to be an idiot.

                              Comment

                              The LaborLawTalk.com forum is intended for informational use only and should not be relied upon and is not a substitute for legal advice. The information contained on LaborLawTalk.com are opinions and suggestions of members and is not a representation of the opinions of LaborLawTalk.com. LaborLawTalk.com does not warrant or vouch for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any postings or the qualifications of any person responding. Please consult a legal expert or seek the services of an attorney in your area for more accuracy on your specific situation.
                              Working...
                              X