Posts by Nathan Kelly5

ruggedscout76 said:I’m sorry if things ended on such a sour note. An admin will reach out regarding the ban and everything else so you can work it out then.

It’s fine, it isn't personally directed at you. It was more just the last straw. I simply don't see the point in engaging in debates that inevitably devolve into this kind of gutter behavior. Given that posts like that aren't sanctioned, it's clearly the policy of the forum and the "moderation" team. That's your prerogative, of course—you get to decide what level these discussions take.

There has to be some standard for me. If we're going to communicate at a "you're a piece of trash" level, then I have no interest in participating. It's just a waste of time.

I find a good "mind battle" entertaining, provided there are at least some basic ground rules. Without them, you're just reducing the forum to low-level insults, and I honestly don't see the value in any of it, aside from helping certain people vent their frustrations.

Jeremy Johnson18 Asks:
You’ve been on this forum long enough to know that permanent ban requests don't get approved like this; you're clearly just looking for attention.

Go to the religion board and start a thread claiming you're the reincarnation of Jesus Christ.
Tell them you're looking for some wayward forum users to slide into your DMs and beg for forgiveness.

That’s how I’ll handle things, should I ever decide to move on from this group one day. ☕

There’s no way that was their call. Given that everything is tied to a private email and a specific IP address, you should have the right to request a total deletion of both your profile and all your posts.

I am requesting a ban for the longest duration possible under the forum rules. Additionally, please provide the appropriate contact information for deleting my profile and all associated data to ensure my privacy is protected.

I have no interest in participating in a community governed by this style of "moderation."

Please issue a permanent ban or delete my profile.

Thank you.

To be honest, I don’t care whether you choose to delete my posts or censor me. What I want to know is why you’re refusing to sanction the post mentioned above, where I was called a pile of crap, an idiot, and a fool. You just responded by saying "some statements here are poorly phrased." Is that really how moderation works?

Go ahead and find the courage to admit the mistake and actually sanction the post. It shouldn't be that difficult.

Furthermore, don't try to claim I was the one being insulting. My post was simply a reaction to being insulted myself and to the way they were lecturing everyone about parenting (lest it look like I was the one bringing upbringing into the debate). I was targeted under the guise of their "parenting expertise," acting as if they are somehow superior or possess all the wisdom in the world just because they have children:

"It’s interesting how the moderator refuses to sanction this outburst of personal frustration and complexes. Instead, he just comments that 'some statements here are poorly phrased.' And that's while another mother is basically co-signing the post. Are these really the people raising children? People supposedly full of life experience, wisdom, and self-control that others should emulate? Really?"

The moderator waited until after this thread was already live to post my entry and issue a warning about off-topic posting. It seems she's implicitly admitting I had a point.

Yet, she still refuses to take action against this post that’s nothing but insults directed at me. She’s acting like she didn't see phrases like "you're a pile of garbage" or "you're an idiot." Are these kinds of vulgar insults actually permitted under the forum rules?

I’ve contributed far more to this forum than the entire moderation team combined. There are easily over 1,000 posts under my belt addressing tax, entrepreneurial, and accounting questions—usually stepping in when everyone else was stumped. In many cases, I’ve provided answers that even most professional tax consultants couldn't figure out.

So, I’m asking that this targeted harassment, seemingly coordinated with the "moderation" team, stops immediately. If it doesn't, then just go ahead and issue a permanent ban and delete all my posts if that's an option.

Essentially, I’ve been targeted with a string of insults. Please feel free to review my history; I haven't insulted anyone, nor have my posts violated any forum rules.

The post (which the moderator refuses to delete or penalize):

Yet, I am the one being sanctioned and censored simply for quoting this gentleman and his insults.

notyourtype said:You don't have anything (...)
You have no clue (...)
you have no clue (...)
you have no clue (...)
you haven't even experienced (...)
To be even stupider (...)
you won't realize even 1% of this (...)
I am the one who chooses for myself (...)
unlike you, for example, I have lived through (...)
the idea that I'll ever bother with someone like you (...)
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND (...) oh
you lack experience and knowledge (...)
you don't even have an opinion (...)
it's not an opinion, it's nonsense (...)
you have no clue what you're talking about (...)
I'm calling you an idiot (...)
Because you have no idea how limited you are (...)g
you have zero practical experience (...)
we don't live in your world, you live in ours (...)
Your examples are garbage (...)
none of them have any practical or real application
you are a pile of crap (...)
you will never understand (...)
you simply can't grasp it (...)
your backward idealizations (...)
you aren't qualified to discuss this at all(...)
which one of you is going to be the bigger idiot?! (...)

Whenever I comment on a post like that, I end up getting penalized or deleted. My response isn't an insult; it’s more along the lines of, "Your post is beneath any level of decency."

I am asking that the moderator who refuses to act against this, as well as the individual responsible, be held accountable. Instead, I am being silenced for responding civilly to such vitriol. We need to maintain some semblance of decent discourse here.

Personally, I find the moderator's bias quite embarrassing. It seems they are turning a blind eye to this outburst of insecurity and insults because I expressed my view that I wouldn't date a divorced woman with children. Surely I am entitled to my own opinion without being subjected to insults and biased moderation just because someone finds my stance disagreeable?

urbanwalker72 said:Who would actually fall for the idea that individual workers are to blame for low productivity levels?

Perhaps someone who lacks even a basic understanding of economics. Such a claim shouldn't even be present in a professional PDF report.

Ultimately, if you know how to interpret the data correctly, the graph itself is perfectly fine.

I believe I have laid this out clearly enough for those unfamiliar with the subject.

I fail to see what the controversy is about.

Look, I'm not talking about you specifically. But anyone—ask your mom, your sister, or a friend with no background in this—will interpret it that way. When they hear some big shot on the news claiming there's no room for wage growth in America because our worker productivity is among the lowest in the European Union, they'll interpret that as "American workers aren't doing enough in their eight-hour shifts." And then they see a graph like this presented as definitive proof.

Just look at the comment above from the guy working as a technician/installer (not being mean, it's just how people perceive productivity). Fundamentally, his logic makes sense to him, but these graphs have nothing to do with that. They actually have almost no connection to the actual performance of individual workers.

urbanwalker72 said:Shall we approach this from the perspective of microeconomics or macroeconomics?

Let's start with micro. Labor productivity can be measured as output per worker—for instance, revenue per worker or value added per worker, where $p = q/l$.

What influences productivity? Primarily technology, worker skill levels, and capital investment.

For example, imagine a crew digging with hand shovels versus a single worker operating a tractor.

Clearly, the output of the person on the tractor is far greater than the entire crew with shovels combined. This is the direct result of technology (the tractor), skill (the operator knows how to use it), and capital equipment (the investment in the machine).

So, if I understand you correctly, are you upset that the person on the tractor has higher productivity? Are you suggesting it's unfair that the people with shovels are being overworked?

Or is it simply a matter of chance that their manual labor doesn't generate enough value to command a decent wage?

No one is claiming the workers are to blame, but discussing labor productivity is basic Economics 101.

Could you please address my example before we move into analyzing actual datasets?

Which part of this do you disagree with?

Does this example address your points regarding Exelon and Pakistan?

What exactly is political or dangerous about this?

The issue is that the data is framed to imply that American workers "don't work hard enough" or have low "productivity," which is then used to justify lower wages. That is how someone who misinterprets the data views it, and it has nothing to do with intelligence.

These charts don't actually support that claim; in fact, they suggest quite the opposite. This is about political agendas, not economic reality.

urbanwalker72 said:When considering wage levels, there is a mechanism far more critical than simple market forces: labor productivity.

Regardless of how market relations fluctuate, wages cannot realistically sustain long-term growth without a corresponding increase in productivity.

How exactly was this productivity calculated? Is it total GDP per employee?

This graph doesn't actually prove anything other than the fact that workers were heavily exploited back in 2000 due to labor supply and demand. If we look at 2016 as a baseline after the American labor market opened up following integration with the European Union, can anyone explain why wages have lagged behind productivity for an entire decade? Isn't that gap just extra profit for capitalists, fueled by the supply and demand conditions within a closed economy? It’s essentially unpaid labor.

We also need to view the private sector separately from the public sector. It’s fairly obvious who the real source of inefficiency is in this country. Once you see the data specifically for private-sector employees, it will likely look even more dramatic.

Charts like these feel politically motivated and don't say much on their own; the real question is who is analyzing them, for what purpose, and what kind of narrative they are trying to push.

Looking at the chart itself, the intentions don't seem positive. It feels like a pure deception for the 99.99% of the population who aren't deep enough into economics to interpret it correctly.

Furthermore, the metric itself tells us nothing about actual productivity. Based on these indicators, you could argue that workers in factories in Pakistan or India—who work themselves to death for a few dollars—have lower productivity than some bureaucrats at an entity like Exelon. That's only because one group is being exploited by the West for low output, while the other holds a monopoly.

One should be cautious with these types of graphs. On their own, they rarely tell the whole story.

Wages get slashed the moment the market allows it. The government consistently sides with big capital to drive down labor costs—think work permits for retirees or loosening restrictions on foreign labor. To them, "the market" only exists as long as supply and demand force workers into a corner where they’ll accept nothing more than basic housing and food just to survive. Once that balance shifts in favor of the worker—which is how a free market is actually supposed to function—they suddenly scramble to implement emergency measures to protect corporate interests.

I recently went in for a job interview—we're at that stage now where they just call you out of the blue. I honestly have no idea how they even find my resume; it’s clearly being passed around by recruiters and agencies building up databases just to sell them off to the highest bidder. When the topic of salary finally came up, their response was basically, "We just need to make sure we survive the fall." My thought was, well, you called me, didn't you? lol...

unknown, I’ve only ever been in a position where I was paying someone else for their work once, and it wasn't exactly like I was looking to turn a profit on the deal, so I can't really speak to that specific mindset. All I know is I once paid a college student. $13 Even for me, an hour felt like a bit of an undersell. It seemed like she was working around the clock—dropping in for five or six hours whenever she could find the time—really pushing herself, only to end up with just three.$1.25 Monthly. I suppose that might pass for a college student, but let’s be honest—it's hardly a living. I can't imagine how people surviving on minimum wage manage.

Douglas Grant26 said:1. I've set up a sole proprietorship while maintaining my full-time job at another firm. Under current tax laws, being in the highest bracket while employed elsewhere means paying roughly $2500 in payroll taxes and $2500 in income tax annually. Since this type of small business isn't registered for sales tax, there's no 25% sales tax applied to the invoices I issue.
2. What happens once a sole proprietor hits the $300 $0.00 threshold and is forced to register for sales tax? It’s clear they’ll have to start keeping formal books, but what does the actual tax burden look like then? Does the payroll tax stay the same as it was in the highest bracket, or does the math change entirely? If it changes, how is it calculated?
3. In that scenario, you have to add 25% sales tax to every invoice, which means you lose the ability to claim sales tax credits like a standard LLC would, right?

The part that really trips me up is how business expenses work when you already have a steady paycheck coming from somewhere else, and what the legal limits are regarding labor laws.

@urbanwalker72 Is that a bit clearer now?

If you cross the threshold:
1. You enter the sales tax system. Sales tax is collected, and you can finally claim credits on your business purchases.

2. Taxes and contributions are based on net annual income (not just gross revenue, but revenue minus expenses). Taxes are paid via estimated quarterly payments, with the final year-end liability settled based on total earnings. Self-employment contributions are settled annually based on income. There is a cap; last year it was around $3.75 for annual contributions, though it's slightly higher this year.

Edward Stewart said:I’ve been pouring over the IRS instructions, and even though this was touched upon earlier in this thread—specifically on page 223—I’m still feeling a bit lost regarding 🤔 where exactly one is supposed to enter the depreciation amount within Part II ("Expenses") of the PPI form.
Item II.9. states that the total expenses are calculated as 1+2+3-7-8. Now, Item II.4. ("write-off rate expenses") seems like the logical place for depreciation, but since it isn't added to the sum, the figure doesn't actually impact the total expenses, which ultimately means it doesn't touch the net income. So, where (and more importantly, why) should the depreciation amount be recorded? Should it go under II.3 ("in-kind expenses") or II.4 ("write-off rate expenses")? (I recall a fellow forum member previously suggesting it belongs in II.4)
I didn't have any depreciation to deal with in previous years, so I never really noticed this quirk, but I seem to remember from a few years back that the breakdown of receipts and expenses was much more intuitive—it showed subtotals alongside depreciation, making the total expense figure, and consequently the final total (income = receipts - expenses), perfectly clear.

Since I’m already burning through my ink 🙂 I have one more question... when entering the depreciation percentage into the DI form on the IRS website, does the number of decimal places matter? (For instance, I have 7 months of a 2-year depreciation cycle, which would work out to 29.16666% of the value). Does that mean next year I'll be entering 29.17 + 50, or just a flat 50% for 2019?

All benefits in kind—including depreciation—fall under "in kind." Depreciation (doubled) also figures into write-off expenses.

The same applies, for example, to tax incentives for purchasing long-term assets. First, it's listed under receipts in kind (receipt for the depreciated amount), and then again under receipts regarding Section 31, Subsection 7.

The reason it isn't summed there is because it's already factored into the components being summed. Honestly, it would probably take an IRS employee an hour of work just to write a coherent explanation under those lines.

Brandon Jackson4 said:Following a lawsuit, the invoice was settled along with some late interest. I’ve already recorded the invoice in the sales invoice book, but now I'm wondering... should those late interest charges be entered into the sales invoice book as well?
Late interest isn't subject to sales tax, though it does show up under receipts in the KPI.
Since there's no sales tax on them, do I still need to list those collected interest charges in the sales invoice book?
Thanks in advance for the help.

No, don't enter them.

Carol Price4 said:If you're looking for pedigree, go buy some dog food—that's my answer to your nonsense!

The elected president has everything you need—the knowledge, the energy, and the drive to move this profession forward.

And honestly, if anyone asks about Balthazar, Libertas, or those specialized accounting and finance programs—they actually provide way more foundational knowledge than a standard business degree. Besides, in our line of work, real expertise comes from experience—something the president definitely has, considering he’s been in the game since he was 15 (it runs in the family).

If you're going to be this analytical, try comparing the actual coursework between specialized studies and general business degrees before you start judging education—though it seems you'd rather just talk big without having a clue.

I really wonder who would ever trust you with their controlling/auditing given that attitude. 🤣

That college doesn't even offer a degree in accounting or auditing. 😁

Fine, but what actual credentials does he have after high school and that private management course at the college (which has zero to do with accounting)? Does he hold a CFA or an AICPA certification? Is there anything at all that would make him respected in this industry? Or is his only credential being "second generation," essentially riding on his parents' coattails?

The President of the Professional Accounting Initiative, yet he can't even be considered a professional accountant himself because he lacks any relevant qualifications. But then again, this is America; what else should we expect? As long as he's just as ambitious as everyone else at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So, did you really pick someone for the association presidency who only has a high school diploma and some degree from Balthazar?

I have nothing against the man personally—I believe he’s as capable as anyone else serving in positions at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce ( 😁 )—but for a role in an organization that claims to advance the "profession," highlight its issues, and represent its interests, isn't there anyone actually from within the field with a real pedigree?

"Quote:"

Henry Edwards33 said:Everyone sees things through their own lens.

Since the Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and all those consulting firms are supposedly all on the same page regarding scrapping licensing... Are you telling me they're all just fundamentally out of sync?

Fine, let's say they are. But what about the mountain of studies out there—and I'm sure you don't need links since you know how to use Google—and the fact that the European Union recommended against implementing licensing in the first place? And we're talking about a bunch of hairdressers making these calls, right?

Man, those hairdressers certainly have some clout. 😂

Also, leaning on personal insults is a bit pathetic. Work on that; I know you can do better. 😉

Aren't they? It’s just a collection of political appointees. Interested. There’s nothing quite like living off the sweat and expertise of others. You know you’ve hit the jackpot when the National Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce finally see eye to eye. It doesn't get any easier than that.

I think you realize that everyone here is simply looking out for their own interests. financial interestsAnd whose are they? Financial interests. It doesn't take much brilliance to see through this. At the very least, one should be honest with themselves and the public—both individually and as part of those bloated groups of unnecessary people—about exactly who is pulling the strings and where they're coming from. Interested. They’re talking big, but they're really just hiding behind the interests of the accounting profession. Lol.

Those pathetic little pamphlets you call studies—is it even worth trying to debunk them? It feels like watching a task force conduct a "study" on how harmful growing grass is to a meadow. Even if every single point in your nonsensical pamphlet were easily disproven, what would actually change? Do you honestly think the accounting profession will suddenly gain some newfound vision and start speaking out against its own? financial interests?

It’s worth continuing the conversation on altruism, kindness, diligence, and integrity.

Eric Grant3 said:Well said. Honestly, if you’re just looking for the physical act itself, this covers all the bases. It feels like the author isn't just interested in a quick one-off encounter—it seems like they're aiming for something much more substantial than just a fleeting moment.

I can't quite wrap my head around why people seem to think there's some grand mystery here—it’s honestly a bit baffling! I mean, I know I tend to overthink things—it's a bit of a curse, really—but sometimes you just have to step back and look at the big picture. It feels like we're all spinning our wheels on the small stuff when the actual answer is staring us right in the face. Anyway, just my two cents... probably not worth much, but there it is. kaže:
The real hurdle—the absolute mountain most guys have to climb if they actually want a woman to take notice—is coming to terms with a hard truth: he isn't actually interested in her as a whole human being. Instead, he’s looking at her as an object of desire... you know, just a "thing" that she’s supposedly supposed to provide or tolerate in his life. It’s a tough pill to swallow, honestly—realizing that the foundation is built on craving rather than actually connecting with who she is.

It’s funny how we’re being taught lately—you know, that whole modern shift in how guys are supposed to carry themselves—that we really need to move away from this habit of objectifying women. The idea is that we have to start seeing them as actual human beings, complete with their own complex emotions and personal ambitions, rather than just... well, you know. And the theory goes that if we actually approach them with that kind of genuine respect and empathy, we’ll find that it naturally sparks a much deeper interest on their end. It’s about treating people like people—simple, right? But apparently, it’s a lesson many of us are still working through. It’s honestly a massive uphill battle most of the time—and I mean that sincerely—because you run into so many women who just don't seem to have much going on beneath the surface. It feels like they aren't particularly interesting at all, and frankly, their only real draw is their physical appearance... which, let's be honest, is usually the only thing that gets men to show any interest in them as actual human beings. It just feels like there’s this pervasive, unfortunate assumption—if I’m being honest—that any woman who happens to be physically attractive is automatically shallow or "empty." It’s such a reductive way to look at people, especially when you’re forced to descend to that level of purely non-verbal, superficial communication just to get through a conversation. It’s frustrating, really.
It works exactly the same way in reverse, really—because, let’s be honest, women aren't typically wired to be instinctively interested in men as individuals right out of the gate. It’s more like... well, the man has to actively spark that interest. He basically has to curate this version of himself—presenting his best qualities—to show her that he’s actually someone worth having around in her life. It’s all about making that case, I suppose. It’s funny—and honestly, a little bit tragic—how things work out sometimes. There’s this specific moment when a man finally lets his guard down and shows his emotional side—you know, when he actually admits he has needs or feels vulnerable—and instead of bringing him closer, it often does the exact opposite. For a lot of women, that sudden glimpse behind the curtain completely shatters the illusion they had built up about him. It’s like the pedestal just cracks, and suddenly, that spark of interest just... vanishes. They lose that fascination because the "perfect" image they were holding onto doesn't match the reality of a human being with feelings.
So, how does a man actually go about winning over a woman? It’s funny—we spend so much time overthinking the "moves" or looking for some secret playbook—but if you really sit down and think about it, it comes down to being... well, let's just say there isn't one single magic trick. But if I had to pin it down, he needs to be genuine. Just completely, unapologetically himself. No masks, no acting like someone out of a Hollywood rom-com—because, let's face it, that kind of stuff is exhausting to maintain and, frankly, most people see right through it anyway. He has to be attentive—not just listening to the words she says, but actually *hearing* her—and he needs to show a level of consistency that builds real trust. It’s the little things, really—the steady presence, the small gestures, the ability to be a reliable partner when things get messy. It's less about the grand, sweeping gestures you see in movies and more about that quiet, steady strength of character. Subject It’s about her motives—not who she actually is.

If you genuinely believe that women are nothing more than walking sexual outlets meant to satisfy a man's urges—well, honestly, you aren't going to get very far in life. It’s just not a sustainable way to live. You might manage to brag about a fling or two here and there, sure, but that’s really where the road ends. And even then—let’s be realistic—that only works if she actually finds you attractive in the first place.

Honestly, I think that whole part about emotions just doesn't hold water—not even a little bit. If a woman actually finds you interesting for something more than just physical stuff, she’s going to be looking closely at the emotional connection. It's just how it works. Any woman out there who's looking for something real—something deeper than just a hookup—is going to notice pretty quickly if the emotional side is missing. And once she realizes there's no heart in it? She’s going to walk away. Period.

Look, if I can offer you a little bit of unsolicited advice—and please, bear with me here—I’d say just take a breath and stop overthinking the whole "how to win women over" thing. Honestly, all that deep philosophy about dating strategies? It’s exhausting. Just be yourself. It sounds like a cliché, I know, I know—don't roll your eyes—but truly, if you're genuine, you'll find someone who actually clicks with you. But—and this is a big "but"—you really do need to check that ego at the door. You have to ditch the narcissism and stop viewing women as nothing more than objects meant to play out your own little sexual fantasies. That’s a dead end, trust me. Just be a decent human being, and things will fall into place.

So, what is the average woman actually aiming for when she dresses today? You hit the nail on the head—she’s striving for that idealized look designed purely to trigger male fantasy. It's likely not even a conscious strategy to maximize her options by appealing to the widest possible demographic; it's often framed as just "feeling good in her own skin." 😁 Or perhaps it's just emphasizing "natural beauty," though in practice, that usually means a specific kind of beauty engineered to meet those exact masculine preferences.

It’s always been a bit amusing to me how someone can wake up, throw a bucket of white paint over themselves, and then immediately start lecturing everyone on objectivity and the nature of perception.

Honestly, maybe try fixing the fake lashes or the veneers first before diving into those deep topics. Until then, you just look like a walking caricature of everything you're trying to talk about.

Henry Edwards33 said:There’s nothing more pathetic than this kind of nonsense. It’s honestly shameful how you can just spit on so many skilled, honest, and brilliant professionals like that.
I, for one, am proud that we stood together and that I had the chance to meet so many capable and outstanding people along the way.

Cut the philosophy and the sentimentality. You sound like a politician. Our party consists of hardworking, honest, and dedicated individuals.

Be honest for once—how many accountants who take money from entrepreneurs have actually read even five or six basic laws relevant to their field? I’d wager that number is less than 1%. That isn't being hardworking or honest; it’s just pure incompetence.

Don't try to sell me that story; save it for your clients. When I started working in the service industry, veterans with 30 years of experience laughed at me when I said I studied one law or regulation every month, since nobody else bothers. Within a year, they were all coming to me for advice, telling me I was on a different level.

It isn't about being on a "different level"; it's simply standard practice anywhere in the world to spend the first few years of a career getting acquainted with the regulations of the country where you intend to work.

People are lazy, including accountants, and that is the crux of the matter. They know how to send an invoice, but they don't know the first thing about taking responsibility. Just collect the cash—that seems to be the motto across the entire North America.

And then there's the selling of these pathetic stories about experience, knowledge, honesty, and diligence. It’s nauseating. Anyone can see what the accounting profession looks like here.

Explain to me what is wrong with pursuing more education? Even if it is formal training? Are you just too lazy to learn? It benefits the employees themselves—they get free education from employers, probably some time off, and they actually understand their jobs. Even if knowing everything is considered "unnecessary" (though most don't even grasp the concept).

It is also in the interest of entrepreneurs to have educated accountants; they won't go broke over the cost of a few thousand dollars in lifetime training for their staff!

The market, the state, the banks, the investors, and the citizens all benefit from it.

The only ones who don't benefit are the licensed hairdressers and waitresses. So, congratulations on your victory; who can stand against you when you hold the majority?