Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Oct 2016, 9:14 am

Just another reason for 10% on all income over 40K, no deductions, regardless of dependants.

Oops, sorry, I am not supposed to be striving for equality among all. Or so I was told in another forum...
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Oct 2016, 11:20 am

The rough outlines of what Trump did are clear enough. He had to sell properties at a loss. The problem was that it wasn't his money he lost. He lost bank money. So the loans he did not pay back should have been income, right? That's where it gets fishy, at least to me. The banks lose a billion dollars on the sale of distressed properties and Trump gets a almost a billion dollars off his taxes? If that's legitimate then we need to change the tax code immediately.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us ... taxes.html
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 12:52 pm

not a Trump fan, not in the least!
But I have no problem with his paying no taxes, we all take whatever we can take to reduce our taxes. Be honest, if there were some box you could check off that made it so you paid no taxes, wouldn't you check it? Of course you would! He pays accountants a LOT of money to work their magic and they found a way to do so for him. That doesn't make him evil, it does not mean he does not support the troops, etc.

and who better to close these loopholes than someone who takes advantage of them?
(and YES, no doubt about it, he is "working the system" nor is it really "fair" but it IS legal and he IS being a smart businessman.

Lastly, be very careful what you wish for as far as flat taxes and forcing the rich to "pay their fair share". The way things are set up now, Treasury bills and municipal bonds are bought by these wealthy people in order to make less money on those investments but in doing so they lessen their tax load. If you give no reason for them to buy these, then your projects are not getting paid for, they don't get done! Nothing is simple here, it's not nearly as easy as some want us to believe!
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 05 Oct 2016, 2:25 pm

Really? If there is not investment in the Government then the scope of what they can do is diminished?

I wish I had thought of that... :angel:
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Oct 2016, 2:38 pm

Oh please, the government survived just fine when the wealth was not flowing mostly to the top 2% and tax rates were much higher. Every since surpluse came as a result of agriculture the top few percent of people want to sit on their ass taking in most of the wealth while peons do all of the work. After much fighting and loss of much blood workers were able to claw the ability to make a middle-class living. Now you guys are rushing to give it all back to guys like Trump who earn money mostly on the backs of other people losing money in his projects.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 3:19 pm

freeman3 wrote:The rough outlines of what Trump did are clear enough. He had to sell properties at a loss. The problem was that it wasn't his money he lost. He lost bank money. So the loans he did not pay back should have been income, right? That's where it gets fishy, at least to me. The banks lose a billion dollars on the sale of distressed properties and Trump gets a almost a billion dollars off his taxes? If that's legitimate then we need to change the tax code immediately.


If that's what happened the income from the bad debt would have likely hit in a later tax year. Freeman.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 3:24 pm

bbauska wrote:[Yes, he lost money. If you are begrudging him that, then you need to begrudge ALL people doing that.

The line of attack just seems partisan unless you want all people to have the same restrictions.


I agree. To be clear, I don't begrudge him at all for using the tax code to his benefit. This does, however, bring into question his business acumen, which he claims as his main qualification for the presidency. I mean, as the most accomplished business person of our lifetimes has said:

Rule No.1: Never lose money. Rule No.2: Never forget rule No.1.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 05 Oct 2016, 4:35 pm

I am sure he would say Rule 1 was not violated because he did not lose his money; he lost other people's money. Just like with the casinos that were abject failures but he made money because he paid himself a large salary. Trump has no ability to make businesses run well; he uses his brand name to get favorable deals so he wins even if the business goes belly-up. If you can make the case that such a skill is useful in the presidency, by all means vote for him.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Oct 2016, 10:00 am

This Washington Post article talks about Trump's tax avoidance. They talked to one tax expert that said there was one way Trump could have done avoided paying tax on loans forgiven while at the same time taking deductions and it had to with S Corporations and debt forgiveness which resulted in being able to double dip.They said was the process was upheld in 2001 but later disallowed by Congress. If that conjecture was correct then obviously the practice was skirting the edge of legality because the Supreme Court had to take up the issue and the practice was so ridiculous that it was later banned by Congress. Yeah, taking deductions for losses by banks would be pretty ridiculous. To say it was legal is more like saying it is a tax scheme that someone came up with to benefit rich people that was eventually declared legal by the US Supreme Court and who knows how that decision was subtly influenced by the views of the Establishment.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washin ... ent=safari
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7373
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 06 Oct 2016, 10:47 am

Considering your response to Mrs. Clinton's email issues where you and RickyP have said, "She didn't break the law"; now you say that Mr. Trump is a problem because he followed the law?

Wow. What a double standard. That is unless you can show what law it is that Mr. Trump violated...
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 06 Oct 2016, 3:19 pm

bbauska wrote:Considering your response to Mrs. Clinton's email issues where you and RickyP have said, "She didn't break the law"; now you say that Mr. Trump is a problem because he followed the law?

Wow. What a double standard. That is unless you can show what law it is that Mr. Trump violated...


Agreed. As for the former, legality is much less an issue with regard to the email problem than judgement and forthrightness. It was not really a matter of whether it was legal, though that is how it was played up and, unfortunately, where many critics have focused their attention. It seems to me that Clinton was very deficient in both judgement and forthrightness; and, to me, that makes her very questionable to be President. These are categories Trump also seems to be light on. Judgement and forthrightness are as important in a President as any other quality, and maybe more than others.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 06 Oct 2016, 4:01 pm

The Atlantic endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. This is the third time in 156 years they have endorsed a candidate for president. In their editorial they issue a devastating critique of Trump and demolish any attempt to equate any weaknesses of Hillary with the staggering deficiencies of Trump. One last point about Trump: from this latest tax dodge (even if it turned out to be upon some thorough examination to be legally defensible) to stiffing banks and and stockholders of his companies, his is a long record of greed and self-interest with no indication that he has any real concern for the public interest (his only concern is himself and his family) He has no record of public service. Why would we trust such a person with the most-important job in America, where the sole purpose is to look out for the public interest? Hillary Clinton does have a long record of public service, she does pay her taxes, the policies she favors are not liked by Wall Street (even if she has accepted contributions from them), she has relevant experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, and has the education and knowledge to do the job. Her failings would be more relevant if there were not a laughing stock of an opponent against her.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arc ... mp/501161/
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 07 Oct 2016, 5:40 am

Please try to stay non-partisan. I can't stand either person so I feel I am in the middle here.
Trump indeed played games with his taxes, but he broke no laws. He is not "unpatriotic" for doing so either. I would stop attacking that angle and simply focus on him being shady and his record of always being shady and uncaring, etc. Focus on him being a buffoon and a blowhard, all fine, all spot on! But unpatriotic because he has a good accountant???

This part about Trump not having a record of "public service"?
What you are saying here is to Vote for Clinton simply because she is a politician. Trump is an outsider and that is exactly what many like about him, a political outsider isn't a bad thing necessarily (again, I'm not saying TRUMP is a good answer!). I think this "reason" is just so very wrong, vote for me because I'm a politician, I have never worked in my life?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 07 Oct 2016, 10:37 am

Hillary Clinton worked as a lawyer for quite a while. so she was not just a politician. But just like anything else It helps to have some experience working in some capacity in the legislative or executive branch. This is just common sense. People get better the longer they do something so they better have some pretty overwhelming intellectual gifts or maybe an exceptional ability to handle and persuade people to make up for that. Skepticism about politicians makes it appear that an outsider can do a better job, but it does not solve the lack of experience problem. Also, there are deep divisions between parties (and the country) that makes it harder to get things done, so it is not primarily the fault of politicians in Washington--Republicans or Democrats--that there is gridlock. Trump would not solve that problem, either.

Public or other-directed service is done through many jobs, not just being a politician. Lawyers owe fiduciary duties to their client; they cannot favor their interests over that of the client. Certainly doctors, nurses, teachers help others. Trump has a record of helping himself while other people involved in his ventures are losing. Maybe that is good business--I don't agree, I think you can and should make money without doing so at the expense of your partners--but it certainly is totally self-directed. Everything about his personality is about him, his ego.

I don't agree with not criticizing him over taxes. This is his country; he received the benefits of staying in this country, living like a king. And he is not going to pay anything, NOTHING to keep it going when the tax dodge he used even if legal did not represent real losses in income? No one should be president if they use a tax dodge like that. I would not vote for a Democrat who did that. It shows an exceptional amount of greed to sign on to that. I don't care if an accountant came up with that, he signed on to that. He knew it was a tax fiction, not real losses. He knew it was questionable conduct, that is why he has kept his tax returns secret. It's disqualifying. Other disagree, that's fine. I think if you're going to be the president you need to pay taxes when you have reaped incredible benefits from living here. Trump is take, take, take. There is no give.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 08 Oct 2016, 8:22 am

bbauska
Considering your response to Mrs. Clinton's email issues where you and RickyP have said, "She didn't break the law"; now you say that Mr. Trump is a problem because he followed the law?

Wow. What a double standard. That is unless you can show what law it is that Mr. Trump violated...

Trump didn't break any laws. And the use of carried losses is a useful tax law because it encourages risk.
However, the way Trumps tax accountant (who says Trump had no notion of what was in his returns or the code, only the bottom line) was unethical - and should be illegal.
Because Trump didn't lose his own money.
He lost his stockholders money. Stock holders in his casinos were destroyed. But Trump claimed the losses.
(Mark Cuban explains this on Bill Maher's latest show succintly.)But there's a lengthy description of his finangling with his casinos. Everyone else lost money except Donald.
here.... http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyreg ... -city.html
So when Trump says he had a fiduciary duty to his business and familiy but he ignores the fiduciary duty to his stock holders who he screwed over. And his ethical responsibilities to suppliers and employees who were also screwed over...

When Trump says, he knows the tax code and knows best how to fix it ..there's two problems.
1) His own tax lawyer says he didn't know the code.
2) His current tax policies don't indicate any significant changes in the tax code that would change things - either with this particular law nor generally for working families. For the very rich, however .... many benefits.

The people that support Hillary most, are people that have done business with Trump. Who know him best.
The people that support Trump most, just see his tv persona and the myths he propogates and believe he offers knowledge, acumen and talent that he obviously hasn't got. They are projecting on him their own wishes. Perfect example; Peter Thiel, who supports Trump because Trump once said something postivie about single payer health care, of which Thiel is a huge supporter.

The recent revelations (Billy Bush tapes) about his attitudes to women, should doom him completely. But who knows.