rico1

Having been born in Oregon and living there for 48 years before moving to New Mexico I can tell you that at first they said that the spotted owl only could survive in old growth timber and blocked logging in old growth areas. Then they found them in second growth. I guess they where wrong. This is the tree huggers way of stopping logging in the northwest. Logging has been going on in the northwest for more that 100 years and the reason why is because the land owners have been good stewards of the land by replanting harvested areas. There are areas that now have third grow on them to be harvested. Loggers are just like farmers. They plant a new crop after they have harvested the old. it just doesn't grow as fast as corn. Wood is a renewable resource. And they don't need easterners that have logged all there forests to tell them how to manage theirs. Save a logger eat a spotted owl.

Been there didn't do that. Don't want to loss my security clearance.

Try this line. The laws where written in 2004 and amended November 18th this year. I don't know what the changes are. http://www.iraq-lg-law.org/en/content/iraqi-banking-law-order-no94-2004 :rolleyes:src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif">

Thank you. I tried to +1 but it gave a neg instead. Sorry

I predict your right.

I went to the link in her post and if I am correct this is the law that she is talking about. Iraqi Banking Law Order No.94 of 2004 in Federal Banks and Market Law / Document Number (ID) : Order No.94 of 2004 Type of Law: Law Date Issued: 9 Jun 2004 Date Published: 9 Jun 2004 Status: In force Summary : --------------- I didn't put the whole law in her as it is way to long. As you can see it has been in force since 2004. But as you can see below it was updated on the 18th of November 2012 what changes they made I don't know. Maybe someone smarter that me can figure that out. Most Recent Federal Documents Title Language Document Type Date Updated The Law of Lawyers No. 173 of 1965 with all its amendments English Law 19 Nov 2012 Instructions No. 1 of 2000 on the Commercial Agency English Original Document 19 Nov 2012 Regulation No. 5 of 1989 of Branches and Offices of Foreign Companies and Economic Establishments English Original Document 19 Nov 2012 The Registration of Companies No.196 of 2004 English Original Document 19 Nov 2012 Iraqi Labor Code No.71 of 1987 English Law 18 Nov 2012 Company Law No. 21 of 1997 (as amended in 2004) English Law 18 Nov 2012 Iraqi Banking Law Order No.94 of 2004 English Law 18 Nov 2012

I don't dressage with you at all. I do believe thought that there is enough blame to go around. Between the management and the union. :)src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif">

http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonynitti/2012/11/19/five-tax-planning-strategies-for-minimizing-the-additional-3-8-obamacare-tax-on-investment-income/3/ Like it or not, the Affordable Health Care and Patient Protection Act — or less formally, Obamacare – is here to stay, so it’s time to get proactive and start planning for its tax provisions. And since the enactment of Obamacare, no one element of the President’s signature legislation has spawned more country club consternation and misleading e-mails than the additional 3.8% Medicare tax to be imposed upon a taxpayer’s “net investment income” beginning in 2013. As a quick primer, net investment income includes: 1. Income from interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents, net of applicable deductions, 2. Income from a passive activity, and 3. Gain from the sale of property other than property held in a trade or business in which the taxpayer materially participates. While that may seem relatively straightforward, as the ensuing discussion indicates, determining when the surtax applies is rarely as simple as it seems. What follows are five planning opportunities designed to minimize your exposure to the new tax and hopefully, clear up any confusion surrounding this oft-misunderstood provision. Manage your income. If the Bush tax cuts expire at year-end, the top marginal tax rate will increase from 35% to 39.6%. As a result, savvy tax advisors have been urging wealthy taxpayers to accelerate year-end compensation and bonus income from 2013 into 2012. But there’s a secondary motivation for keeping income out of 2013. The 3.8% Medicare tax applies only when your modified adjusted gross income, or MAGI (unless you have foreign earned income, this will be the same as your adjusted gross income) exceeds certain thresholds: $200,000 for a single taxpayer, $250,000 for a married couple filing jointly, and $125,000 for a married couple filing separately. Thus, the lower your MAGI, the less likely you are to incur the additional tax: Example: Ted Striker, a single taxpayer, earns $195,000 in compensation and $30,000 of dividend and interest income during 2013. These are his only items of income or loss. A taxpayer with both net investment income and MAGI in excess of the applicable threshold, like our friend Ted here, is subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax on the lesser of: 1. MAGI ($225,000) less the applicable threshold ($200,000) or $25,000, or 2. Net investment income, or $30,000. Assume further that $25,000 of Ted’s 2013 income was a 2012 year-end bonus received on January 3, 2013. If Ted accelerates the receipt of the bonus to December 2012, he will owe the 3.8% tax in 2013 on the lesser of: 1. MAGI ($200,000) less the applicable threshold ($200,000) or $0, or 2. Net investment income of $30,000. Despite the fact that there has been no change to Ted’s investment income, by accelerating his bonus into 2012 and reducing his 2013 AGI, he has avoided the 3.8% surtax and saved $950 ($30,000 *.038). Harvest stock gains, rather than losses, prior to year-end. Taxpayers have long been trained to sell loss-generating stock prior to year-end in an effort to offset otherwise taxable capital gains. In the waning days of 2012, however, you should consider selling appreciated stock, not only to lock in the soon-to-expire 15% preferential rate currently afforded long-term capital gains, but to avoid the impending 3.8% Medicare tax as well. Note, however, that net investment income does not include capital gains resulting from the sale of stock in an S corporation or an interest in a partnership in which the taxpayer materially participates. Thus, for example, if you participate full time in an S corporation (more on this later), the sale of the corporation’s stock will generally not be subject to the 3.8% surtax. All other sales of stock, however, will generally be considered net investment income for purposes of the additional tax. If you’re worried about losing your investment position in the stock, fear not. The “wash-sale” rules of Section 1091 — which prevent a taxpayer from deducting a capital loss when they purchase the same stock 30 days before or after the sale – do not apply to gains. Thus, you can sell the stock for a gain and repurchase the same amount of shares the next day if you wish. Example: Marcellus and Mia earn $600,000 per year in wages and hold appreciated publicly-held stock that would generate a $30,000 gain if sold. If the stock is sold during 2013, the entire $30,000 gain would be subject to both the tax rate in place at the time (20% if the Bush tax cuts expire) and the additional 3.8% Medicare tax. If instead, Marcellus and Mia sell the stock in December 2012, the $30,000 gain will be taxed at only the 15% long-term capital gains rate. Because the wash sale rules don’t apply to capital gains, Marcellus and Mia can purchase the same stock immediately after the sale. Take a hard look at tax-exempt bonds. Assuming the Bush tax cuts expire at year-end, wealthy taxpayers will pay tax on interest income at a maximum rate of 39.6% plus the 3.8% Medicare tax in 2013 and beyond. Net investment income, however, does not include tax-exempt income. As a result, if you reside in the highest tax bracket, a 3% tax-exempt bond will now earn you the equivalent after-tax return of a 7% taxable bond (3%/(1-.434)). Meet the material participation test for your S corporation or partnership. In general, when a taxpayer is merely a passive investor in an S corporation or partnership, any loss allocated to the taxpayer cannot be used to offset non-passive income from other sources. As a result, taxpayers who are allocated losses from a flow-through entity will typically prefer that their involvement in the activity be considered non-passive, so they can offset the losses against other taxable income without limitation. In 2013, however, taxpayers with income from an S corporation or partnership will also have a vested interest in avoiding a passive classification, because as mentioned in the introduction, the 3.8% Medicare tax will apply to income earned from a passive activity, but not from a non-passive activity. In simple terms, your interest in an S corporation or partnership is passive unless you meet one of seven “material participation” tests found in the Section 469 regulations: 1. You participate in the activity for more than 500 hours during the year, 2. Your participation in the activity constitutes substantially all of the participation by all individuals (including nonowners) in the activity for the year, 3. Your participation is more than 100 hours during the year, and no other individual (including nonowners) participates more hours than the taxpayer, 4. The activity is a significant participation activity in which you participate for more than 100 hours during the year and your annual participation in all significant participation activities is more than 500 hours. [A significant participation activity is generally a trade or business activity (other than a rental activity) that you participate in for more than 100 hours during the year but do not materially participate in (under any of the material participation tests other than this test),] 5. You materially participated in the activity for any five tax years (whether or not consecutive) during the 10 immediately preceding tax years, 6. For a personal service activity, you materially participated for any three tax years (whether or not consecutive) preceding the current tax year, or 7. A generic facts and circumstances test. In 2013, pumping a few extra hours into your S corporation or partnership activity could be the difference between saving or shelling out an extra 3.8% in tax on the resulting income. Example: Danny Noonan, a single taxpayer, is employed full-time as caddy at a prestigious country club, where he draws a $200,000 annual salary. On the side, Danny also owns 50% of an S corporation that serves burritos outside of a local bar from 2-4 AM every Saturday night. The stand is quite profitable, generating $50,000 of flow-through income to Danny every year. During 2012, Danny put in 90 hours building and serving burritos. The other 50% shareholder, Tony, contributed only 70 hours. The S corporation has no other employees. Assume Danny did not materially participate in the S corporation under any of the regulatory tests during 2012. In 2013, there is tremendous motivation for Danny to work an extra 10 hours at the burrito stand. Doing so would allow Danny to satisfy material participation test #3 because he would have 1) worked 100 hours, and 2) worked more hours than anyone else in the burrito stand activity. By meeting the material participation test, Danny would remove the $50,000 of income allocated to him from the S corporation from the definition of net investment income, as the activity is no longer passive under the meaning of Section 469. As a result, Danny saves $1,900 in additional Medicare tax. There are additional complexities when the activity is conducted through a limited partnership or LLC. Under Section 469(h)(2), an interest in a limited partnership as a limited partner is generally treated as a passive activity, regardless of the partner’s level of participation. Until recently, this rule had been unilaterally been applied to members in an LLC, but in two recent court cases — Garnett v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 639 (2009) and Thompson v. Commissioner, 87 Fed Cl 728 (2009) — the Tax Court and Federal Court of Claims, respectively, ruled that interests in an LLC were not automatically treated as passive. Rather, if state law grants the LLC member the right to participate in management, the courts concluded that the LLC more closely resembles a general partnership, and the members are permitted to look to the seven regulatory tests in order to establish material participation. Thus, courtesy of Garnett and Thompson, an LLC member who materially participates in the partnership will not be treated as a passive investor, and as a result, will avoid the 3.8% Medicare tax on the resulting flow-through income. Be advised, however, that if you materially participate in an LLC, it will likely sentence you to reporting any income as subject to self-employment tax. So in effect, you may be trading an additional 3.8% tax on a small portion of income for a 15.3% tax on a lot of income. Example: Dignan, a single taxpayer, owns an interest in a LLC that conducts an active trade or business. Each year, Dignan is allocated $300,000 of income from the LLC, comprising all of his income. During 2012, Dignan worked 495 hours for the activity and did not meet any of the other material participation tests. In 2013, assuming the state in which the LLC was formed permits members to participate in management; Dignan can establish that he materially participated in the LLC to avoid passive treatment of the $300,000 income. If Dignan does not materially participate in the LLC, $100,000 of the LLC income ($300,000 – $200,000 threshold) will be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax. As a result, Dignan will pay an additional $3,800 in tax. By not materially participating in the LLC, however, Dignan will likely take the position that the $300,000 of income is not subject to self-employment tax under the proposed Section 1402 regulations. If instead, Dignan makes a concerted effort to work 500 hours in the activity during 2013, the LLC income will no longer be passive, and no portion of the income will be subject to the additional 3.8% Medicare tax. It will, however, become subject to self-employment tax of approximately $23,000. Satisfy the real estate professional test. A taxpayer’s net rental income is generally subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax. The Obamacare legislation provides an exception, however, for net rental income that is earned in a trade or business that is not a passive activity. Unfortunately, pursuant to Section 469©(2), all rental activities are de facto passive. So if all rental activities are passive, but only-non passive rental activities can avoid the tax, what is a taxpayer to do? The answer is found in Section 469©(7), which provides an exception to this default treatment of all rental activities as passive to certain “real estate professionals.” In the past, the benefit of this exception was that it allowed a taxpayer who spends substantially all of his time working in “real property trades or businesses” to use losses generated from those activities without restriction under the passive activity rules. With the advent of the 3.8% Medicare tax, however, there is now an additional reason to meet the standards of Section 469©(7): rental income earned by a real estate professional will not be subject to the additional surtax. In order to be treated as a real estate professional, you must satisfy two tests: 1. More than one-half of the your personal services performed throughout the year must be performed in real property trades or businesses in which you materially participate, and 2. You must perform more than 750 hours of services during the year in real property trades or businesses in which the you materially participates. These tests are designed to ensure that only those taxpayers who truly devote their time to their real estate activities and depend on them for income — such as developers, landlords, or brokers — are able to take advantage of the favorable treatment. As a result, the court’s have repeatedly attacked the arguments of purported real estate professionals who were employed in non-real estate vocations, challenging the taxpayer’s contention that they worked more than half of their hours in a real estate activity. Looking at it logically, if you work full-time as say, an accountant, it’s nearly impossible to satisfy this first test. The average full-time employee works 2,000 hours per year; in order to meet the “more than half” test, you would have to spend 2,001 hours on your real estate activities, which isn’t particularly likely. A hopeful real estate professional faces additional hurdles aside from the “more than half” test, however, as the courts have stringently applied the rules of Section 469©(7). A full discussion of all the potential pitfalls is beyond the scope of this post, but if you’re interested in reading more, click here, here, or here. Assuming you can meet the standards, however, 2013 is the year to do it: Example: Enrico Palazzo works 1,000 hours per year as an opera singer. He also owns and manages three rental properties that kick off significant rental income each year. In 2012, Enrico materially participates in each activity– spending 300 hours on property A, 300 on property B, and 300 on property C — but does not meet the standards of a real estate professional because he has not worked more than half of his total hours in his real estate activities (1,000 versus 900). In 2013, if Enrico can find the time to devote an extra 101 hours to his rental real estate — or if he can spend less time in his opera business — he will qualify as a real estate professional under Section 469©(7). As a result, the net rental income generated by the properties will not be subject to the 3.8% Medicare tax. Even better, pursuant to Section 1402(a)(1), any rental income earned by a real estate professional will also not be subject to self-employment tax. Hopefully, this discussion will have cleared up any misconceptions you may have had about the impending 3.8% surtax on net investment income. There are two other considerations worthy of note: first, the additional tax must be taken into account when preparing your required 2013 quarterly estimated tax payments. In addition, any income that is subject to self-employment tax — for example, your Schedule C activity from a sole-proprietorship — is not subject to the 3.8% surtax. In other words, the same income will never be subject to both SE tax and the additional 3.8% Medicare tax.

On the surface, militant unions drove Hostess Brands, the maker of American icon Twinkie, to liquidation, while reckless managers and visionless corporate leaders had been paving the way for a long time. On a closer examination, this liquidation could have been deferred and probably avoided altogether, if it wasn’t for Obamacare that made it increasingly difficult for labor and management to come into terms. It is one thing, for instance, to ask unions to get an 8% pay cut. It is another thing to raise their healthcare contributions by 17% at the same time. Should Unions Interests Come Before Customer Interests? While this seems to be the trend around the country, affecting small and large corporations in every industry, it is more burdening to low-earnings industries, where healthcare premiums count for a larger portion of the overall compensation, as I suspect to be the case in the bakery industry. What is most disturbing to me is that this trend is just beginning rather than about to end. Healthcare costs will continue to spin out of control, as Obamacare focuses more on boosting healthcare premiums rather than expanding the supply of healthcare services. Most notably, the new policy has failed to rationalize and modernize the healthcare system, as the higher costs don’t seem to benefit the ultimate health providers, according to my doctor. The bottom line: While Obamacare wasn’t the primary cause of the decline and fall of an iconic American brand, it certainly has contributed to it, as it threw another impediment into an already bitter dispute between unions and management. http://www.forbes.co...y-of-obamacare/

Not that I doubt what you say but is there some place that we can find this information?

Door bell is broken. And no one is home. :Dsrc="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif">

Umbertino, My God look over you and your family and give you comfort in your time of sorrow. Rico1

Ok, I'll take your side for one moment. Let's say he takes it down and LIB's can go and by a gun(LOL). Do you really believe that they are going to be breaking down his door to buy a gun? The reason I ask is from your post I would guess you wouldn't so what the fuss. If a *** bar was to put up a sign in the window saying strait guy's not allowed I don't think that I would make a fuss saying that they are discriminating against me. I don't want to go in one, so why would I care? It doesn't bother me. The only reason I think you are upset is that you are a closet conservative and you want to buy a gun, why else would you be so upset? ;)src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif">

Unless I am mistaken he hasn't refused there rights to free speech. He is exercising his. Just as a restaurant doesn't say you can't go bare foot. They just tell there customers that they can't come into there biz bare foot. ;)src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif">

Well they may not be down and out yet. It looks like the union blinked. :osrc="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif"> By Ben Popken, TODAY contributorTwinkie the Kid’s ride into the sunset hit a hurdle Monday when Hostess Brands, unions and lenders agreed to mediation to try to save the company, and its spongy, yellow cake, from liquidation. The decision staves off, for a couple of days at least, Hostess’ plans to shut down its 33 factories and lay off 18,500 workers after an acrimonious labor dispute that could lead to the end of the 82-year-old company and its well-known brands such as Twinkies, Ho-Hos, Sno-Balls and Wonder bread. During the hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain urged the parties to come to an agreement through mediation rather than through a public, and costly, hearing. The court called a short recess while the lawyer for the baker's union phoned his client to see if the union would agree to a mediation process tomorrow. Hostess, maker of the iconic Twinkie cake, will have a hearing before a bankruptcy judge on Monday to begin the work of shutting down and selling off its assets. Meanwhile, many loyal customers are rushing to ****** up what may be the last of its products. NBC's Mara Schiavocampo reports. After the recess, the sides agreed to a mediation session Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET to try to work things out. If they can't resolve it, and come to an understanding of the underlying motives behind the worker strike that the company said crippled its business, the bankruptcy hearing will resume Wednesday at 11 a.m ET. The sides will probably come to an agreement on Tuesday, John Pottow, a bankruptcy law professor at the University of Michigan, told TODAY. The biggest sign, he said, is that the Teamsters were on board. "The Teamsters aren't pussycats," said Pottow. "If they're saying 'this is as good as it gets,' that's a pretty strong signal to me." Wait a moment, so they were playing poker with our childhood memories all along? "The bakery union probably thought management was bluffing," Pottow said. After Hostess filed for permission to liquidate Friday, it became clear they weren't. Court filings show that the company is asking for permission to pay $1.75 million in retention bonuses to 19 different managers as an incentive for sticking around during the liquidation process. Hostess Brands CEO Gregory Rayburn has publicly blamed the unions for the company's demise. The U.S. trustee, Hope Davis, an official appointed by the Justice Department to protect the interest of creditors, objected to this idea, filing a motion this morning which argued that Hostess officials "have failed to demonstrate that the proposed bonuses are true incentive bonuses and not disguised retention payments." Davis also moved to convert the bankruptcy from a chapter 11 to a chapter 7. That would take control of the winddown proceedings away from Hostess and into the hands of a court-appointed trustee. Cnbc's Kayla Tausche reports that Hostess and the baker's union have agreed to mediation, putting a temporary hold on a shutdown of the company. In their joinder filed today, the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union said that "blaming the BCTGM for the Company’s liquidation is no more credible than blaming an isolated gust of wind for blowing over a tree, when it was the tree’s shallow, rotted root structure that was actually responsible." But kids, both young and old, don't care about the blame game. They want to know whether they'll still be able to find their favorite creme-filled yellow cake treat on the shelves. The decades-old brand is legendary in consumers' minds and evokes strong feelings of nostalgia in every bite. Some still remember the brand's signature character "Twinkie The Kid" lassoing it up on early television commercials and proclaiming "Big Delight in Every Bite!" The foodstuff has even entered the legal canon. "The Twinkie Defense" was famously, and successfully, used to argue that a suspect on trial for murder suffered from depression and that his high-sugar diet was a symptom of this mental state. In advance of the interim hearing, Hostess Brands spokesman Tom Becker told TODAY he "wasn't going to comment on what could happen" or speculate on the proceeding's outcome. While today's results are likely to be minimal, in the coming months several different scenarios could play out, depending on who the buyer is, or if there is a buyer at all. "There's a lot of Goodwill that comes with the brand name," said Pottow, "A lot of companies could buy the name and recipe for Twinkies and make them." They wouldn't have to make them at the Twinkies factories either. They could make them in new facilities not burdened under old worker agreements that, for instance, required employing separate drivers for two different kinds of Hostess products rather than trucking them together. Twinkies get absorbed by a big American conglomerate Some of the likely suitors include ConAgra, Tastycakes maker Flowers Food, or McKeeFoods, makers of Little Debbie. These companies would likely seek to attach the Twinkies to a more efficient delivery system. For instance, does it really make sense to deliver Twinkies in their own special Twinkies trucks? "Twinkie The Kid" trades his cowboy hat for a sombrero... A Mexican firm, like Grupo Bimbo, which Forbes reports put in a bid for Hostess several years ago, could move production south of the border. A South American company could get access to lower sugar prices and a cheaper non-unionized workforce. Or, they could keep product in the US, but made in a non-unionized factory. ...or develops a Canadian accent. A Canadian company called Saputo has the Canadian rights to Hostess brand products. They're not affected at all by the Hostess liquidation and they could conceivably arrange it to sell Twinkies in America. Twinkies dies Pure speculation: No one buys the Twinkies recipe. Fans are forced to make their own at home. Prices for unopened boxes of Twinkies skyrocket on eBay. An "Occupy Twinkies" movement launches to build an unauthorized Twinkies knockoff factory with no leaders and online-only sales... and is surprisingly profitable. http://lifeinc.today.com/_news/2012/11/19/15279605-twinkies-last-stand-its-up-to-a-mediator?lite&gt1=43001

My wife and I love Ruidoso and Cloudcroft. We like to go to the Inn of the Mountain Gods in Ruidoso. And have stayed and the resort next to the golf course in Cloudcroft.

Mexican Invasion... A Navy destroyer stops four Mexicans in a row boat, rowing towards California. "The captain gets on the bull horn and shouts, "Ahoy, small craft, where are you heading?" One of the Mexicans stands up and shouts, "We are invading the United States!" The crew of the destroyer all start laughing and when the captain finally stops laughing, he gets back on the bull horn and says, "Just the four of you?" The Mexican stands up again and shouts, "No, we're the last four, the rest are already there!"

Great post. Thanks ;)src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif">

I live in New Mexico in Las Cruses near the Texas border not far from El Paso. I love it. Not as cold in the winter as Santa Fe. But if this were to hit my wife and I would move to ether Texas, Washington, Nevada or Florida. No state income tax.

I find it ironic that a government official is complaining that they cant get projects done because of government corruption. :lol:src="http://dinarvets.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif"> LMAO

I am not Insulted at all. And I love Green bay. I still have a Bret Farve jersey at home that I put on for the games(when I am home). I was working at Redstone Arsenal when Oregon played Auburn and was watching that game in a cigar store in Hunstvill( loved that town ) with some Tide Fans that where rooting for the Oregon because they hated Auburn so much LOL. And they gave that game away by turning over the ball twice and auburn was able to capitalize on the mistakes that they made. I was hoping for a Duck Tide match this time but maybe not.

We will see.

Rod, not a problem. Last time I looked this was a fun thread and not serious. We all have our teams that we follow and support. It's time that you guy's learn that the SEC is not the only conference in the country.

I like that but we will have to what and see what the BCS standings are to see what has changed. GO DUCKS;)

It is my understanding from the news that I have read their are two companies that are interested. One is PBR and the other is a Mexican company. Yep, I can just hear it now. What does the CEO and the Bakers union of Hostess Brands have in common? THEIR BOTH DING DONGS