***Official Political Discussion Thread***

8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Since I work for a large international firm, I doubt it but I haven’t checked?

You keep trying with this parallel but it makes no sense. AMEX is offering extra perks to customers during a recession. What the hell does paying taxes have to do with it? The same small business owners who the PPP was intended for who haven’t been able to receive it — they also pay taxes.
If you work for a large international firm, they probably did. Several of the V100 did. But who's counting.

After you check, let us know.

And I can guarantee it was far far more than $1,000.

The taxes thing was only in reference to you saying I pay for the amex. I didn't get a PPP loan, or a loan at all, so the entire discussion is off base.
 
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
If you work for a large international firm, they probably did. Several of the V100 did. But who's counting.

After you check, let us know.

And I can guarantee it was far far more than $1,000.

The taxes thing was only in reference to you saying I pay for the amex. I didn't get a PPP loan, or a loan at all, so the entire discussion is off base.
I'm doubting that many large international firms have less than the requisite 500 employees to qualify for the loan/grant. If they did qualify, they likely laid off just enough employees to get under the 500 employee threshold to qualify which at very minimum is extremely shady/unethical and many of the companies who did it were rightfully shamed into paying the money back. The large international accounting firm I worked for did not take the grant money because they did not qualify as they had 120,000 employees, hence them being classified as a large international employer.

The only real large ones I've worked with previously were firms like Skadden and Quinn and both of those firms had well over 500 employees. I don't think they would be well received if they laid off 50-75% of their staff so they could qualify for a loan intended to keep people employed and off of unemployment.
 
Last edited:
16,234
12,494
Joined Jan 20, 2006
If you work for a large international firm, they probably did. Several of the V100 did. But who's counting.

After you check, let us know.

And I can guarantee it was far far more than $1,000.

The taxes thing was only in reference to you saying I pay for the amex. I didn't get a PPP loan, or a loan at all, so the entire discussion is off base.
Got it. Nope, my firm is V20 and I don’t see them on this list. What exactly was the point of that other than to deflect from you?

The tax parallel remains nonsensical.
 
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
I'm doubting that many large international firms have less than the requisite 500 employees to qualify for the loan/grant. If they did qualify, they likely laid off just enough employees to get under the 500 employee threshold to qualify which at very minimum is extremely shady/unethical and many of the companies who did it were rightfully shamed into paying the money back. The large international accounting firm I worked for did not take the grant money because they did not qualify as they had 120,000 employees, hence them being classified as a large international employer.

The only real large ones I've worked with previously were firms like Skadden and Quinn and both of those firms had well over 500 employees. I don't think they would be well received if they laid off 50-75% of their staff so they could qualify for a loan intended to keep people employed and off of unemployment.
As a starting point large international law firms have far less employees than large international accounting firms. Obviously some are too large to be eligible. But the discussion is about eligible businesses.

But you don't have to take my word on it as it relates to large law firms:

 
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Got it. Nope, my firm is V20 and I don’t see them on this list. What exactly was the point of that other than to deflect from you?

The tax parallel remains nonsensical.
Black man doing corporate work at a V20 (ongoing disagreements aside... respect, fr).

But the point was that a business getting a PPP loan isn't some unethical thing.
 
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
As a starting point large international law firms have far less employees than large international accounting firms. Obviously some are too large to be eligible. But the discussion is about eligible businesses.

But you don't have to take my word on it as it relates to large law firms:

I don’t doubt that there a big law firms out there that have taken PPP loans, but generally for them to be forgiven, 75% of the loan has to be used to pay employees and keep them on their payroll so they can continue business as normal when this slowdown ends. That’s the point of the program and no one debates that. The issue I take in many of these larger businesses is the ones who intentionally lay-off employees to get under the 500 employee threshold. That is not the intent of the program and is borderline fraud.

Most law firms don’t have large amounts of emergency savings built up as they distribute most their income to partners/shareholders yearly so it wouldn’t surprise me that some of them would be hurting. The same thing happened with my wife’s clinic. They distributed almost all of their funds out at year end and when they had to turn into a triage unit for COVID cases they didn’t have enough revenue coming in to maintain their staff level. In these cases it’s very much justified as the alternative is layoffs and having people claim unemployment. Most people are pointing out they hypocrisy is the individuals who vote for small government or lambast individuals on welfare while simultaneously receiving government assistance themselves (the case of the Aryn Rand foundation and Devin Nunez)

But on the flip side, you selling dunks in your spare time when you are not being a lawyer and have self admittedly not experienced any of the effects of the downturn while taking funds meant for Full-time gig workers or part time gig workers who rely on that cash flow to pay their bills is laughable. The fact that you still can’t see the difference speaks louder than anything you actually say.
 
Last edited:
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
But on the flip side, you selling dunks in your spare time when you are not being a lawyer and have self admittedly not experienced any of the effects of the downturn while taking funds meant for Full-time gig workers or part time gig workers who rely on that cash flow to pay their bills is laughable. The fact that you still can’t see the difference speaks louder than anything you actually say.
Look, I understand your gripe. But you are adding things to the eligibility requirements that simply aren't there.

I don't mind conceding that this is a case where we disagree on "right" v. "wrong."

But I think fraud and unethical are simply too far.
 
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
Look, I understand your gripe. But you are adding things to the eligibility requirements that simply aren't there.

I don't mind conceding that this is a case where we disagree on "right" v. "wrong."

But I think fraud and unethical are simply too far.
ITS IN THE ****ING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOAN/GRANT

Here are the requirements:

Capture.JPG


Here are the IRS rules on Hobby versus Business

Capture2.JPG


But you can continue to claim that I made assumptions about you for asking you the exact same ****ing questions that the IRS will ask you if you ever get audited and have to payback the loan/grant.

Do I need these discounts to survive? No. Is taking advantage of them unethical? No.
You made assumptions about my sneaker/streetwear sales, whether I pay taxes on them, the time I spend doing it, my intent on making a profit from it, etc.

Yes, I am fortunate to have an income above the level I stated based on my career. I also am fortunate to still be able to work from home and did not need to rely on this advance for household expenses. Not denying any of that.

But needing to rely on it for household expenses wasn't a part of the eligibility requirements.
It is literally in the requirements:

Question
How do you distinguish between a business and a hobby?

Whether you depend on income from the activity for your livelihood.
 
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
ITS IN THE ****ING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE LOAN/GRANT

Here are the requirements:

Capture.JPG


Here are the IRS rules on Hobby versus Business

Capture2.JPG


But you can continue to claim that I made assumptions about you for asking you the exact same ****ing questions that the IRS will ask you if you ever get audited and have to payback the loan/grant.




It is literally in the requirements:

Question
How do you distinguish between a business and a hobby?

Whether you depend on income from the activity for your livelihood.
You can’t summarily classify my sales as a hobby based on your assumptions.

As you know, no one single factor of the hobby test is dispositive. It literally states that above the portion you highlighted.

To imply that solely because I don't depend on it for my livelihood that is not a business is simply inaccurate. That is what the phrase "no one factor alone is decisive" means.

You don’t know how much I buy, how much I sell, whether I intend to profit, about the books I keep, etc.

Yet you have decided to assume that I am attempting to “game” a system. Like I said earlier that is dangerous rhetoric, especially as it relates to black people, and I would like to know why you think it applies to me considering you lack the necessary information to make an assessment of my selling as a business vs. a hobby.
 
Last edited:
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
You can’t summarily classify my sales as a hobby based on your assumptions.

As you know, no one single factor of the hobby test is dispositive.

You don’t know how much I buy, how much I sell, whether I intend to profit, about the books I keep, etc.

Yet you have decided to assume that I am attempting to “game” a system. Like I said earlier that is dangerous rhetoric, especially as it relates to black people, and I would like to know why you think it applies to me considering you lack the necessary information to make an assessment of my selling as a business vs. a hobby.
While this is true I don't know every single one of the facts here, but I do know that one of the very classifications is whether or not you rely on the income for you lively hood and you have openly stated in here multiple times that you do not. That's not an assumption I have made, that's a fact that you yourself have presented. A fact that would certainly be looked at unfavorably upon audit. I've dealt with enough hobby versus business audits to know that the IRS is pretty ****ing stringent in what they determine to be a business versus a hobby, especially when people are consistently claiming losses from said business. I have had gig musicians who had their income classified as a hobby for tax purposes because they simply did not maintain adequate records or generate a steady enough profit from said gig and the did this **** full-time for income. Those people also made significantly less than you do as well.

Just because they gave you the grant/loan doesn't mean you are in the free and clear. I could claim a billion dollars worth of deductions but I would still have to support/defend the deductions upon audit. The IRS could still look at it upon audit and determine that the business is a hobby and that you erroneously claimed it as a business. It happens all the time and its frequently a trigger for audit, especially when people are claiming fairly significant losses/expenses from said business soon to be classified as a hobby. Based on what you yourself have said in here I am comfortable enough to know it would be an issue in a IRS audit if you are claiming losses or in this case, claiming a forgivable loan.

So yes, I will continue to stand by my assertion that you are a scumbag and took money from businesses/people who really needed the assistance. The program has a finite amount of money in it and when people take money who don't need it, it leaves the truly needy holding the bag at the end of the day.

Not once did you stop to ask should I do this even though I could do this and how it would affect others. Think about that for a little bit before you come back with some condescending response that will as usual find a way to skew the issue to make it seem less scummy on your part.
 
Last edited:

aepps20

Supporter
21,760
40,399
Joined Feb 8, 2004
Yea, this is definitely the minority of Am Law 200 firms. And so many of them aren't really "international". Some of these firms are probably actually cash strapped and are using this money to avoid layoffs.
Agreed, every firm is laying folks off and cutting pay (associate, staff and partners) but most Am Law 200 firms didn't accept PPP loans. That's a horrible look IMO for firms that size.
 
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
While this is true I don't know every single one of the facts here, but I do know that one of the very classifications is whether or not you rely on the income for you lively hood and you have openly stated in here multiple times that you do not. That's not an assumption I have made, that's a fact that you yourself have presented. A fact that would certainly be looked at unfavorably upon audit. I've dealt with enough hobby versus business audits to know that the IRS is pretty ****ing stringent in what they determine to be a business versus a hobby, especially when people are consistently claiming losses from said business. I have had gig musicians who had their income classified as a hobby for tax purposes because they simply did not maintain adequate records or generate a steady enough profit from said gig and the did this **** full-time for income. Those people also made significantly less than you do as well.

Just because they gave you the grant/loan doesn't mean you are in the free and clear. I could claim a billion dollars worth of deductions but I would still have to support/defend the deductions upon audit. The IRS could still look at it upon audit and determine that the business is a hobby and that you erroneously claimed it as a business. It happens all the time and its frequently a trigger for audit, especially when people are claiming fairly significant losses/expenses from said business soon to be classified as a hobby. Based on what you yourself have said in here I am comfortable enough to know it would be an issue in a IRS audit if you are claiming losses or in this case, claiming a forgivable loan.

So yes, I will continue to stand by my assertion that you are a scumbag and took money from businesses/people who really needed the assistance. The program has a finite amount of money in it and when people take money who don't need it, it leaves the truly needy holding the bag at the end of the day.

Not once did you stop to ask should I do this even though I could do this and how it would affect others. Think about that for a little bit before you come back with some condescending response that will as usual find a way to skew the issue to make it seem less scummy on your part.
This is the goal shifting again.

You stated that my selling was a hobby, period. You didn't simply stop at saying it could be classified as one.

Now you are conceding that you don't know every factor as it relates to my business and it "could" create an issue. Of course it could. That is totally fair to say. But to say that you somehow just know that it is a hobby is highly offensive. And it means that you decided to make assumptions about me.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you made those assumptions based on your professional experience instead of what you thought of me based on my posts, race, etc.

We can agree to disagree on the scumbaggery, but that part is a fair assessment as well. I often think it is "wrong" to make what I make while there are people living on the streets.

But like I said earlier, the fraud implication is simply too far. It is completely fair for you to say that once you make x amount you "shouldn't" do or accept y. I can't really argue your personal ethics.
 
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
This is the goal shifting again.

You stated that my selling was a hobby, period. You didn't simply stop at saying it could be classified as one.

Now you are conceding that you don't know every factor as it relates to my business and it "could" create an issue. Of course it could. That is totally fair to say. But to say that you somehow just know that it is a hobby is highly offensive. And it means that you decided to make assumptions about me.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say that you made those assumptions based on your professional experience instead of what you thought of me based on my posts, race, etc.

We can agree to disagree on the scumbaggery, but that part is a fair assessment as well. I often think it is "wrong" to make what I make while there are people living on the streets.

But like I said earlier, the fraud implication is simply too far. It is completely fair for you to say that once you make x amount you "shouldn't" do or accept y. I can't really argue your personal ethics.
To be clear, I 100% think its a hobby and its completely unethical and you are a scumbag. Unless you are a part-time lawyer I doubt you would meet the hour requirements for it to be classified as a business upon audit either. Most lawyers I know work 40-60 hour weeks and simply do not have the 500+ hours to meet the hours requirement in the time an effort test.

But continue railing on welfare for those who actually need it while taking welfare while not actually needing it yourself. No hypocrisy there at all.
 
Last edited:
8,938
1,570
Joined Dec 30, 2006
To be clear, I 100% think its a hobby and its completely unethical and you are a scumbag.
And also to be clear you base the 100% hobby classification on just 1 of 9 factors, and admit you have no idea how the other 8 factors apply to my business. And concede that no one factor is decisive. Cool :lol:

I can't argue your personal ethics and scumbag assessment criteria. We can just agree to disagree on that.
 
15,734
22,043
Joined Dec 15, 2012
And also to be clear you base the 100% hobby classification on just 1 of 9 factors, and admit you have no idea how the other 8 factors apply to my business. And concede that no one factor is decisive. Cool :lol:

I can't argue your personal ethics and scumbag assessment criteria. We can just agree to disagree on that.
That's fine, go ahead and post your website, business plan, financial records, etc and I'll shut the **** up. Until then you are scumbag taking money you don't need because you can until proven otherwise
 

kdawg

Staff member
7,336
4,724
Joined Jun 25, 2003

:lol:

The atom was split by a New Zealander, Alexander Graham Bell was Scottish, Tim Berners-Lee was English, both WWs were huge multinational efforts.

I’m not sure I’d be bragging about genocide but the moon thing was impressive (unless you worry about the use of Nazi technology?)
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now