Sentences with phrase «arguments sake here»

That tax deduction, after your other deductions of contributions to your retirement, insurance, etc would take $ 2500 off your Adjusted Gross income, which for arguments sake here is $ 45000.

Not exact matches

I'm going to go out on a limb here «Bottom Line», and assume for the sake of argument that you've never been dead.How else can the readers of this blog ascertain how asinine your comment is if you haven't?

try to stick with the argument here... we are arguing for sake that God does exist..

However, just like the authors are conservative in allowing for other sources of this novelty, for the sake of argument I'll concede I could be wrong here.

He is here to argue for argument's sake.

Opinion on whether HS2 is a good or bad idea is divided to say the very least, and I don't propose to go into the arguments here although for the sake of full disclosure, I'm on the side of the antis, but it did annoy me that many people who were protesting that it would have a devastating effect on their lives were waved away with the flick of a railway engineer's hand.

Roughly speaking, here's how the vote is likely to break down in November: Upstate will count for from 45 percent to half of the vote on Election Day, while downstate (in this case, for argument's sake, everything south of Orange County) will make up the other half.

For the sake of argument I'm going to make up some numbers on the fly here.

Let's say for the sake of the argument that the CVT option (assuming we see that here) could cost an extra $ 2000 or thereabouts.

Most readers don't, but that's alright: We're only talking for the sake of argument here.

Hopefully it's pretty obvious why using this card for unbonused spend (1 Avios / $) is a poor idea but, for the sake of argument, let's assume you're someone who's going to book a few British Airways flights and therefore earn 3 Avios for every dollar you're spending... here's why the card still isn't as great idea.

I'm just speculating here, but assuming for the sake of argument that there is some contradiction between the 2002 Science papers and the new Soden Science paper, did it occur to you that maybe the science has advanced a bit in the 3-1/2 years between their publication dates?

If we accept that global warming will be a net negative impact for the global economy and human well - being (I don't accept that, but will proceed on that assumption for the sake of argument here), policies will have to be sustainable for many decades to a century.

I'm not 100 % sure that I got the sequence right here, but suppose for the sake of argument that's what happened.

I'll adopt the FTAs» estimates for the sake of argument, despite some flaws in their analyses, noted here.

But for the sake of argument, here is the US courts criminal complaint form.