user9915: Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me:
As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed.
Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma.
This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana.
Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?

user10100: Person A has unwholesome kamma, so unwholesome kamma make him get immorality resultant. Person A's kamma never force person B  to do unwholesome kamma to person A.
person A can get immorality resultant from anyway such as back pain himself, no one pain him. So although if person B pain person A: there is just person A's kamma give immorality resultant to person A, not to person B. And there is just person B's kamma give immorality resultant to person B, not to person A.
Kamma give immorality/morality resultant to it's person. Kamma will not give immorality/morality resultant to the others.
There are the other causes by person A (except kamm-cause) that let's person B do kamma to person A. But person B get those other causes because of person B's kamma. There is still not person A' kamma give resultant to person B to let him meet person A and get those other causes work.
See kamma-paccaya and vipākapaccaya in paṭṭhāna. Learn abhidhamma to get the easiest way to understand tipitaka.

user-1: "Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed."
That's not Buddhist doctrine of Karma. According to buddhist texts, bad and good karma fruits from past deeds come to be when conditions for them arise. The way out of experiencing karma fruits is Nirvana. While in samsara, karma fruits are experienced differently according to the development of the person.

"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such & such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.
[...]
"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."
"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"
"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."
"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
[...]
"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here & now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.
-- An 3.99

Also, the person who suffers bad deed from someone else does not have their own karma "removed". There's the possibility, however, of the suffering experienced to create conditions to develop good karma.
"Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma"
Reaching Nirvanas requires the cessation of the fetters, the abandonment of karma (through "karma to end all karma").

9915: <p>Ok, so i am kind of an outsider on this topic, so i assume i got something basic wrong. But even if thats not the case, please try to explain this to me:</p>

<p>As i understand it at this point, Karma works somewhat like this: Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed.</p>

<p>Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma.</p>

<p>This setup leads me to one conclusion: Once basically everyone has reached nirvana, in the end there has to be one individual being that holds all the combined karma, and this one being has thus no chance of ever reaching neutrality and thus nirvana.</p>

<p>Now, i am pretty sure something in my setup is false, so can someone please explain it to me?</p>
 10100: <p>Person A has unwholesome kamma, so unwholesome kamma make him get immorality resultant. Person A's kamma never force person B  to do unwholesome kamma to person A.</p>

<p>person A can get immorality resultant from anyway such as back pain himself, no one pain him. So although if person B pain person A: there is just person A's kamma give immorality resultant to person A, not to person B. And there is just person B's kamma give immorality resultant to person B, not to person A.</p>

<p>Kamma give immorality/morality resultant to it's person. Kamma will not give immorality/morality resultant to the others.</p>

<p>There are the other causes by person A (except kamm-cause) that let's person B do kamma to person A. But person B get those other causes because of person B's kamma. There is still not person A' kamma give resultant to person B to let him meet person A and get those other causes work.</p>

<p>See kamma-paccaya and vipākapaccaya in paṭṭhāna. Learn abhidhamma to get the easiest way to understand tipitaka.</p>
 -1: <p><strong><em>"Person A has bad/negative karma so Person B does something bad to them. Through this, Person As negative karma is quasi removed and Person B aquires negative karma for their bad deed."</em></strong></p>

<p>That's not Buddhist doctrine of Karma. According to buddhist texts, bad and good karma fruits from past deeds come to be when conditions for them arise. The way out of experiencing karma fruits is Nirvana. While in samsara, karma fruits are experienced differently according to the development of the person.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>"Monks, for anyone who says, 'In whatever way a person makes kamma, that is how it is experienced,' there is no living of the holy life, there is no opportunity for the right ending of stress. But for anyone who says, 'When a person makes kamma to be felt in such &amp; such a way, that is how its result is experienced,' there is the living of the holy life, there is the opportunity for the right ending of stress.</p>
  
  <p>[...]</p>
  
  <p>"Suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into a small amount of water in a cup. What do you think? Would the water in the cup become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"</p>
  
  <p>"Yes, lord. Why is that? There being only a small amount of water in the cup, it would become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink."</p>
  
  <p>"Now suppose that a man were to drop a salt crystal into the River Ganges. What do you think? Would the water in the River Ganges become salty because of the salt crystal, and unfit to drink?"</p>
  
  <p>"No, lord. Why is that? There being a great mass of water in the River Ganges, it would not become salty because of the salt crystal or unfit to drink."</p>
  
  <p>"In the same way, there is the case where a trifling evil deed done by one individual [the first] takes him to hell; and there is the case where the very same sort of trifling deed done by the other individual is experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.</p>
  
  <p>[...]</p>
  
  <p>"Now, a trifling evil deed done by what sort of individual is experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment? There is the case where a certain individual is developed in [contemplating] the body, developed in virtue, developed in mind, developed in discernment: unrestricted, large-hearted, dwelling with the immeasurable. A trifling evil deed done by this sort of individual is experienced in the here &amp; now, and for the most part barely appears for a moment.</p>
  
  <p>-- <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.099.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">An 3.99</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Also, the person who suffers bad deed from someone else does not have their own karma "removed". There's the possibility, however, of the suffering experienced to create conditions to develop good karma.</p>

<p><strong><em>"Reaching nirvana requires one to reach karmic neutrality, having neither positive nor negative karma"</em></strong></p>

<p>Reaching Nirvanas requires the cessation of the fetters, the abandonment of karma (through "karma to end all karma").</p>
