• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

Coronavirus (COVID-19) is too exciting for adults to discuss (CLOSED)

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
buckeyebri said:
Noticed not many people in Ohio were wearing masks in the area I was in this past week.
Click to expand...
Where were they? In a store? Just out walking? Here on Oahu everyone wears their masks in stores, restaurants (pickup, of course), and any place else where they are in true close proximity to others, but when out walking, jogging, and cycling almost on one wears them since they are not close to anyone else.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Where were they? In a store? Just out walking? Here on Oahu everyone wears their masks in stores, restaurants (pickup, of course), and any place else where they are in true close proximity to others, but when out walking, jogging, and cycling almost on one wears them since they are not close to anyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, I don’t care about people out and about. This was shoppers in stores like grocery, Home Depot, or at gas stations. Most staffers were wearing them though.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Then it's on the stores as much as it is the knuckleheads going in without masks. Refuse service if they aren't wearing a mask.
Click to expand...
I think this is kind of one of those things where the stores want the revenue. Someone made rules that are relatively unenforceable by many places, especially when you’re in smaller communities.

just knowing how well Ohio has done with their COVID-19 numbers I thought it was odd to see this. Again, maybe it’s because of it being a smaller community.
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye said:
Any tax experts please comment on accuracy of this...

The Stunning IRS Ruling That May Bankrupt Small Businesses That Took PPP Loans
Click to expand...

It’s an overly dramatic article, which actually is surprising from Kiplinger. I’m a longtime subscriber of their newsletter and their takes are usually solid, but that article is quite over the top and definitely over simplified. The 37% number is just some random number picked from a hat — if the business is paying tax at a rate anywhere near that, then they are obviously quite profitable, even with any losses sustained during the shutdown. I expect better from Kiplinger, but that’s just a clickbait headline.

And it’s not the IRS’s fault Congress wrote a shitty law. It’s long held that expenses attributable to tax-exempt income are non-deductible, so if the PPP loan forgiveness is non-taxable, then the expenses paid with it have to be non-deductible, too. It may have been Congress’s intent to override that in this situation, but they didn’t write it into the law, so the existing laws apply.

The author is correct that the answer to the issue is to write to Congress, but it should be to chastise them for writing bad law, not to rail on the IRS for interpreting the law correctly.
 
Upvote 0
Taosman said:
Most drones have a "default" mode to get them back home if there is a a problem so the only safe way to handle a "problem" drone would be to shoot it down with some bird shot or so I've heard. Obviously I'm not recommending such potentially hazardous action. Be a good neighbor. A safe neighbor.

Click to expand...


When Taos is right, Taos is right. Remember kids, lead is toxic... ajd hazardous.

wm_2570792.jpg


Luckily this 3.5 inch nitro magnum shell delivers a 93 .190 caliber shot payload to vaporize most drones with one shot, all steel, no toxic mess.
 
Upvote 0
Fungo Squiggly said:
It’s an overly dramatic article, which actually is surprising from Kiplinger. I’m a longtime subscriber of their newsletter and their takes are usually solid, but that article is quite over the top and definitely over simplified. The 37% number is just some random number picked from a hat — if the business is paying tax at a rate anywhere near that, then they are obviously quite profitable, even with any losses sustained during the shutdown. I expect better from Kiplinger, but that’s just a clickbait headline.

And it’s not the IRS’s fault Congress wrote a shitty law. It’s long held that expenses attributable to tax-exempt income are non-deductible, so if the PPP loan forgiveness is non-taxable, then the expenses paid with it have to be non-deductible, too. It may have been Congress’s intent to override that in this situation, but they didn’t write it into the law, so the existing laws apply.

The author is correct that the answer to the issue is to write to Congress, but it should be to chastise them for writing bad law, not to rail on the IRS for interpreting the law correctly.
Click to expand...
Mucho mahaloz...
 
Upvote 0
Fungo Squiggly said:
It’s an overly dramatic article, which actually is surprising from Kiplinger. I’m a longtime subscriber of their newsletter and their takes are usually solid, but that article is quite over the top and definitely over simplified. The 37% number is just some random number picked from a hat — if the business is paying tax at a rate anywhere near that, then they are obviously quite profitable, even with any losses sustained during the shutdown. I expect better from Kiplinger, but that’s just a clickbait headline.

And it’s not the IRS’s fault Congress wrote a shitty law. It’s long held that expenses attributable to tax-exempt income are non-deductible, so if the PPP loan forgiveness is non-taxable, then the expenses paid with it have to be non-deductible, too. It may have been Congress’s intent to override that in this situation, but they didn’t write it into the law, so the existing laws apply.

The author is correct that the answer to the issue is to write to Congress, but it should be to chastise them for writing bad law, not to rail on the IRS for interpreting the law correctly.
Click to expand...
And the bad version of this hypothetical is still getting over 350k for free.

It's not surprising that it was poorly written and explained. Apparently the guidelines for owner net income, announced weeks into the program, right before they ran out of money, were there from the start.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top