|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
|
|
On October 04 2016 06:11 plasmidghost wrote:Read this short article from 1999: Trump says he would take 15% net worth from those worth $10 million or more to end the national debt and use the money saved on interest payments to go half into Social Security and the other half to reduce middle-class tax payments. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.htmlNot gonna lie, it sounds pretty nice but next to impossible to pass due to the special interests. Plus, I actually have no idea if it's even legal for the government to take 15% of someone's total net worth
isn't that what the estate tax does even though its after they pass?
|
|
|
On October 04 2016 06:15 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:13 CorsairHero wrote:On October 04 2016 06:11 plasmidghost wrote:Read this short article from 1999: Trump says he would take 15% net worth from those worth $10 million or more to end the national debt and use the money saved on interest payments to go half into Social Security and the other half to reduce middle-class tax payments. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.htmlNot gonna lie, it sounds pretty nice but next to impossible to pass due to the special interests. Plus, I actually have no idea if it's even legal for the government to take 15% of someone's total net worth isn't that what the estate tax does? No idea actually. Who sets the tax rates of the country, is it the president, or is it Congress?
The assessment of taxes is administered by the IRS (whose head is appointed by the President), but Congress has the ability to shape and change the IRS's statutory mandate. So the answer is both.
|
|
|
|
|
United States44403 Posts
On October 04 2016 06:15 plasmidghost wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:13 CorsairHero wrote:On October 04 2016 06:11 plasmidghost wrote:Read this short article from 1999: Trump says he would take 15% net worth from those worth $10 million or more to end the national debt and use the money saved on interest payments to go half into Social Security and the other half to reduce middle-class tax payments. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/11/09/trump.rich/index.htmlNot gonna lie, it sounds pretty nice but next to impossible to pass due to the special interests. Plus, I actually have no idea if it's even legal for the government to take 15% of someone's total net worth isn't that what the estate tax does? No idea actually. Who sets the tax rates of the country, is it the president, or is it Congress?
The Executive plans the route and the Legislative decides if it wants to walk it. So a bit of both.
|
On October 04 2016 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:17 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 04:58 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 04:32 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:
A billionaire playboy (turned politician) commented about a woman's ass and which women he'd like to take home. And that's a valid news story for some people. This mischaracterization of what Donald did had already been rebutted 5 or so times before your post. You could at least respond to the rebuttal, right?  Rofl those are rebuttals? The entire news story is a farce on its face. Trump voters know what a billionaire playboy and beauty show host is likely to have done. But let's raise the debate to what you think passes for a rebuttal. Confess to thinking rape is less of a deal than unwelcome sexual remarks. News stories tell us the extent of things a playboy/beauty show host running for president has done. Saying "I knew he probably did this" is not a response to an argument that says he shouldn't do it and it's part of a pattern in him. Nor is "Hillary's cover up of rape is worse than Donald's actual rape of his wife" an actual response. The argument wasn't the should/shouldn't, try again. He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope. And maybe you should quote the whole post of mine if you're so poor at reading comprehension to think I was bringing up rape in respect to Donald. One highlight of a successful rebuttal is to show you've read and understood the original argument by your response. Don't immediately launch into mischaracterizing the framing and content of the post you're responding to. It will just confirm you intend to forge the controversy and not debate the topic. Lol right, our argument was "it was unpredictable that Donald did this in the past, therefore this is a valid news story". Except not. "He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope." Red herring there. You brought up rape in respect to Hillary ("lol yeah Donald did that but Hillary is worse on women cuz rape"), so on the assumption rape was relevant to the topic I hand, I brought up rape in respect to Donald. But perhaps you're right, you weren't saying anything relevant when you brought up rape in respect to Hillary.
Wrong again. I can't really spoon feed you here; I've seen how fruitless the exercise is when another regular poster tried. So if you want to talk about unpredictable past events, whatever that means, you'll have to find someone espousing them.
|
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanellis/2016/10/03/trump-tax-return-story-exposes-policy-ignorance-of-political-reporters/
In fact, a net operating loss is very common in businesses. As Alan Cole of the Tax Foundation pointed out this morning, about 1 million taxpayers had an NOL in 1995. It results from business deductions exceeding business income in a particular year. Under tax rules, this loss can be carried back up to two years, and carried forward up to twenty years. If this is a “loophole,” what are these political reporters suggesting? That a business loss should simply be eaten by the taxpayer? That Uncle Sam should be a full partner in your profits but not in your losses? How is that fair?
|
On October 04 2016 05:50 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying. That part was pretty clearly a joke, though if you struggle in perceiving that, well...
Try remembering how three people seriously compared Trump's actions to those of comic book villains in the space of two pages of thread. Anyways, slight chuckle.
|
Pretty much everyone not involved in tax law or administration is ignorant relative to tax (which is why having a good "tax guy" is essential to being a good businessman). That the media shares in this ignorance is not really surprising.
|
|
|
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space.
|
On October 04 2016 06:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:57 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 05:34 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:17 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 04:58 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 04:32 Doodsmack wrote:On October 04 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:
A billionaire playboy (turned politician) commented about a woman's ass and which women he'd like to take home. And that's a valid news story for some people. This mischaracterization of what Donald did had already been rebutted 5 or so times before your post. You could at least respond to the rebuttal, right? Rofl those are rebuttals? The entire news story is a farce on its face. Trump voters know what a billionaire playboy and beauty show host is likely to have done. But let's raise the debate to what you think passes for a rebuttal. Confess to thinking rape is less of a deal than unwelcome sexual remarks. News stories tell us the extent of things a playboy/beauty show host running for president has done. Saying "I knew he probably did this" is not a response to an argument that says he shouldn't do it and it's part of a pattern in him. Nor is "Hillary's cover up of rape is worse than Donald's actual rape of his wife" an actual response. The argument wasn't the should/shouldn't, try again. He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope. And maybe you should quote the whole post of mine if you're so poor at reading comprehension to think I was bringing up rape in respect to Donald. One highlight of a successful rebuttal is to show you've read and understood the original argument by your response. Don't immediately launch into mischaracterizing the framing and content of the post you're responding to. It will just confirm you intend to forge the controversy and not debate the topic. Lol right, our argument was "it was unpredictable that Donald did this in the past, therefore this is a valid news story". Except not. "He isn't running on the strength of his moral character nor is he hoping to be elected pope." Red herring there. You brought up rape in respect to Hillary ("lol yeah Donald did that but Hillary is worse on women cuz rape"), so on the assumption rape was relevant to the topic I hand, I brought up rape in respect to Donald. But perhaps you're right, you weren't saying anything relevant when you brought up rape in respect to Hillary. Wrong again. I can't really spoon feed you here; I've seen how fruitless the exercise is when another regular poster tried. So if you want to talk about unpredictable past events, whatever that means, you'll have to find someone espousing them.
You're not very good at following along with an argument.
|
Loophole really isn't a technical term (AFAIK). Saying that the tax code is written in a way that benefits people like Trump is certainly true though.
I don't blame him for using NOL's to his benefit any more than I would blame a regular person for deducting their retirement contributions. Well, maybe slightly more due to the fact that the wealthy can use said wealth to lobby to protect the code that favors them.
However, Trump's ability to lose a billion plus during an economic boom on NY real estate and casinos is quite exceptional.
|
The other thing that bears mentioning about the release of Trump's tax returns is this: the collusion between Hillary and the media should be crystal clear now. There is no way that it was coincidental that she speculated that Trump paid no taxes during the debate without knowing about the pending NYT story.
|
United States44403 Posts
On October 04 2016 06:32 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 05:50 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:47 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:35 ticklishmusic wrote:On October 04 2016 05:27 Danglars wrote:On October 04 2016 05:01 xDaunt wrote:On October 04 2016 04:52 LegalLord wrote:
The issue is, the party that is supposed to represent those people is more interested in lying and coercing their vote and prop up the wealthy at their expense. You asked me last week to elaborate on where I thought that the Republican Party went wrong, and this is basically it right here. At some point during the latter half of the 1990s, the Republican Party ceased to be effect advocates for the interests of a majority of its constituents. By the time that W became president, the party was basically a coalition that advocated for the material interests of its elite membership while dragging along the base by soliciting support on a few social issues. Throw in the Republican Party's failure to develop an effective, affirmative agenda (as opposed just opposing everything that the Democrats wanted to do), and the seeds were sewn for various populist and insurgent grass roots movements to rock the party and reshape it. All of this. Trump is the beta test, like it or not, for reshaping the party and there's a lot not to like about how effective he is personally as an agent of change and which policies need to be at the forefront of a new GOP. In any case, change will take many years because of incumbency and donor systems. So Trump is the hero the GOP deserves, not the one it needs? Or instead of batman is he the league of shadows coming to blow shit up because it's pretty much irredeemable. I disagree Trump is really much different in substance, though he is certainly a departure w/r/t to style. More tax cuts for the wealthy, less regulation (except where it enforces "family values"), more military spend... So xDaunt outlined how the GOP ignored it voting base and insulated itself from representing core interests. This is the beta test of the cure. No hero/villain necessary, though if you perceive struggles in comic book storylines you'll certainly struggle to understand what I'm saying. That part was pretty clearly a joke, though if you struggle in perceiving that, well... Try remembering how three people seriously compared Trump's actions to those of comic book villains in the space of two pages of thread. Anyways, slight chuckle.
He literally did the same thing as the villain in Marvel's Daredevil season 1. If you don't want to be compared to comic book villains then don't do comic book villain stuff. It wasn't an inaccurate comparison, he's just a pretty shady businessman.
|
The Tax Code is full the brim with exceptions, exemptions, and deductions of all kinds. But as ticklish says, the term "loophole" isn't really appropriate because all of the aforementioned aspects of the code are intentionally codified that way. There are very, very few "loopholes" in federal law, and those few that exist are almost always governed by a controlling SC case or a rule promulgated by the IRS.
|
On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space.
What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney?
|
On October 04 2016 06:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2016 06:38 Plansix wrote:
This article on Forbes shows the ignorance of the author in regards to reporting. That few people care about this expertise in the field and even fewer care who else used the same tax instrument that Trump did. The point is that he paid no taxes for decades while others who make a lot less them him did. That he is a free loader on the middle classes dime, all because he suffered a big loss one year and stiffed his employees.
In a vacuum what Trump did is fine. But we are not voting in space. What about if someone were to represent a child rapist in her career as an attorney?
evidently someone is unaware of the sixth amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
