|
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 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:31 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:21 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. Okay, so the corruption is that Bill and Hillary are desperate to spend $10+ million to buy an apartment just for Hearts, and will go through the clinton foundation to possibly pay only 10million? Am I understanding this right? I don't know about "corruption", "desperate", or even what "just for Hearts" is.. But yes I am saying that under the assumption that they are going to spend $10m on an apartment they could get an even better apartment ($15m+) by just donating the $10m to the CF and building a library around it (totalling, say $135m) for "charitable purposes". My only point being that maybe you shouldn't receive tax benefits from donating to a charity that you help run. ... I mean, assuming these assumptions are true. Is it not established that whatever the suite cost came from the $10m they donated to the foundation? I guess not actually, but I do think it's fair to say. No, it's not. That's what makes this whole theory so strange. The idea that they donated $10m that they didn't have to in order to get an apartment that they would have gotten anyway as a way of saving money is really strange. Think of it this way: I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back? Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. There has to be a $7m gain over what he could already do with the $125m he already had to put him ahead by putting $10m of his own in.
My tax professor wrestles with this kind of conceptualization problem during most classes lol.
|
poor kellyanne is probably at the end of her rope and counting down to the day her engagement with the trump campaign ends. you can see a little less life in her eyes every time she has to spin.
|
On October 20 2016 06:07 ticklishmusic wrote:
poor kellyanne is probably at the end of her rope and counting down to the day her engagement with the trump campaign ends. you can see a little less life in her eyes every time she has to spin.
The msnbc interview with her earlier where she was asked how she could face her kids at night was pretty brutal.
In a lengthy and combative interview on MSNBC this morning, Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway took offense to anchor Stephanie Ruhle’s question on how she looks at her kids at night after defending her boss’s behavior.
As the conversation shifted to WikiLeaks, with Ruhle bringing up Marco Rubio’s statement that the Hillary Clinton email leaks are an effort to impact this election by a foreign government, Ruhle then asked Conway about the multiple accusations of sexual assault made against Donald Trump. Basically, the MSNBC host wanted to know why the unverified email dumps were on solid ground but not the allegations made by at least ten women.
Conway responded by saying that Melania Trump agrees with her husband that these are unfounded claims made by the women, prompting Ruhle to respond, “Hold on — his wife agrees with the fact that he didn’t cheat on her? That’s crazy!”
Conway said it wasn’t and noted that most of the allegations occurred prior to Melania and Donald getting married and then proceeded to launch into a mini-filibuster about what was seen in the recent email leaks, including the Clinton’s campaign’s wish that the San Bernardino shooter was a white guy.
Ruhle then asked Conway, “You’re a mother, you’re a woman — are you more offended by the phrase ‘average America’ or grabbing a woman’s genitals?” When Conway verified it was the latter, Ruhle then asked her about the People writer’s story that’s been verified by several other people and why Conway still takes Donald Trump’s words over the woman’s.
Before the veteran pollster could answer, the MSNBC anchor then wondered, “You’ve got to look at your kids when you go home at night.” Taken aback, Conway exclaimed, “Stephanie, that’s not fair!” Ruhle merely responded with “how’s that not fair?”
The morning host then noted that she wasn’t going to let her kids watch the debate tonight because she couldn’t verify that the Republican presidential nominee wasn’t going to say something offensive about women.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/thats-not-fair-kellyanne-conway-responds-to-msnbc-anchor-asking-how-she-faces-her-kids/
|
On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:31 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:21 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:09 Barrin wrote:
[quote]
I think it's more fair to look at it from the perspective of them buying the apartment either way. Okay, so the corruption is that Bill and Hillary are desperate to spend $10+ million to buy an apartment just for Hearts, and will go through the clinton foundation to possibly pay only 10million? Am I understanding this right? I don't know about "corruption", "desperate", or even what "just for Hearts" is.. But yes I am saying that under the assumption that they are going to spend $10m on an apartment they could get an even better apartment ($15m+) by just donating the $10m to the CF and building a library around it (totalling, say $135m) for "charitable purposes". My only point being that maybe you shouldn't receive tax benefits from donating to a charity that you help run. ... I mean, assuming these assumptions are true. Is it not established that whatever the suite cost came from the $10m they donated to the foundation? I guess not actually, but I do think it's fair to say. No, it's not. That's what makes this whole theory so strange. The idea that they donated $10m that they didn't have to in order to get an apartment that they would have gotten anyway as a way of saving money is really strange. Think of it this way: I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back? Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. There has to be a $7m gain over what he could already do with the $125m he already had to put him ahead by putting $10m of his own in.
You're misunderstanding Barrin.
What we are trying to figure out is cause--why would Bill want to go through these hoops. The how will come later.
Find motive.
Find evidence.
Show narrative.
If we assume that the Clintons, Bill in this case, are being corrupt. Step one is show how/why they're doing it. Once we have that, we can look for evidence to prove the hypothesis. Once we have that, then the whole library finance report will have the new contextualized narrative showing how Bill was being corrupt.
How effective the plan is (whether its cheaper to do one plan or another to get the apartment) does not compute with his attempt at being corrupt. One can fuck up at being corrupt and end up being behind on cash at the end.
EDIT
Assuming we find that Bill is actually being corrupt with this whole penthouse thing, you are still right that it seems like he has chosen one of the shittiest ways to cut costs.
|
Are there any political parties in the US that have a socialist economic lean? I'm thinking of a model like Yugoslavia where the government has mild to moderate oversight of businesses and the workers directly control how the business is run
|
The closest thing we have to socialism is Massachusetts.
|
On October 20 2016 06:42 plasmidghost wrote:
Are there any political parties in the US that have a socialist economic lean? I'm thinking of a model like Yugoslavia where the government has mild to moderate oversight of businesses and the workers directly control how the business is run
Short answer is many:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_political_parties_in_the_United_States
|
On October 20 2016 06:42 plasmidghost wrote:
Are there any political parties in the US that have a socialist economic lean? I'm thinking of a model like Yugoslavia where the government has mild to moderate oversight of businesses and the workers directly control how the business is run
not that I'm aware of. at least not notable parties, there's some tiny parties that never get much of anything.
|
|
|
On October 20 2016 06:45 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 06:42 plasmidghost wrote:
Are there any political parties in the US that have a socialist economic lean? I'm thinking of a model like Yugoslavia where the government has mild to moderate oversight of businesses and the workers directly control how the business is run not that I'm aware of. at least not notable parties, there's some tiny parties that never get much of anything.
The "Democratic Party" and the "Republican Party" are both merely amalgamations of minor parties grouped together to form a large primary party. When voting locally you are not actually really voting for a "democrat" as much as you are voting for the your local region's idea of a democrat.
That general identity shifts and evolves and the philosophies and ideals of the mini-parties within the amalgamation gain more or less traction. So it really depends on how granular you want your answer to be.
|
|
|
Never thought that McMullin guy would ever be a factor, and now he might be the dagger.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Maybe he'll be the one to win electoral votes for a third party for the first time in 48 years.
|
On October 20 2016 06:45 farvacola wrote:
The closest thing we have to socialism is Massachusetts.
Mostly the Boston area. The communist capital of Massachusetts is Cambridge, where debt collection is impossible. The west part of the state is where the rebellion is being planned.
|
United States42691 Posts
On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:31 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 20 2016 05:21 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Okay, so the corruption is that Bill and Hillary are desperate to spend $10+ million to buy an apartment just for Hearts, and will go through the clinton foundation to possibly pay only 10million?
Am I understanding this right? I don't know about "corruption", "desperate", or even what "just for Hearts" is.. But yes I am saying that under the assumption that they are going to spend $10m on an apartment they could get an even better apartment ($15m+) by just donating the $10m to the CF and building a library around it (totalling, say $135m) for "charitable purposes". My only point being that maybe you shouldn't receive tax benefits from donating to a charity that you help run. ... I mean, assuming these assumptions are true. Is it not established that whatever the suite cost came from the $10m they donated to the foundation? I guess not actually, but I do think it's fair to say. No, it's not. That's what makes this whole theory so strange. The idea that they donated $10m that they didn't have to in order to get an apartment that they would have gotten anyway as a way of saving money is really strange. Think of it this way: I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back? Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way.
Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget.
Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise.
The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
United States42691 Posts
On October 20 2016 07:00 Barrin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2016 06:57 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:51 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 06:04 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 06:00 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:53 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:48 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:37 KwarK wrote:On October 20 2016 05:31 Barrin wrote:On October 20 2016 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
... I mean, assuming these assumptions are true. Is it not established that whatever the suite cost came from the $10m they donated to the foundation? I guess not actually, but I do think it's fair to say. No, it's not. That's what makes this whole theory so strange. The idea that they donated $10m that they didn't have to in order to get an apartment that they would have gotten anyway as a way of saving money is really strange. Think of it this way: I have to eat tonight. Tonight we're going out to eat together. I gave you $10 a while ago, not really expecting you to pay me back. My dinner tonight cost $15. You pick up the entire bill. How much do you expect me to pay you back? Not a perfect analogy I guess, but do you get the idea? Sorry, I don't get it, not even slightly. Could you please paint me a scenario in which the Clintons come out ahead from donating the $10m to the CFF due to the apartment? For the purposes of simplicity lets assume the CFF starts with $125m of other peoples' money in it and that donating $10m to the CFF costs them $7m (-$10m + $3m tax break). What I'm looking for is an explanation of how the benefits gained from donating that additional $10m were greater than the $7m cost of it. So, for example, a scenario in which the $125m fund has $0 value to the Clinton family but a $135m fund has $10m value to them would qualify. Easy. 1) Mr. Clinton wanted an apartment anyway. 2) The cost of the penthouse apartment is greater than $7m. $10m, for example. You're still not understanding. 1) Mr. Clinton wants an apartment. 2) Mr. Clinton has $125m to build a presidential library, apartment optional. 3) Mr. Clinton builds a presidential library with an apartment. 4) Mr. Clinton now has an apartment. 5) Mr. Clinton still has his $7m What you explicitly need to explain is why there was an increase of over $7m in the utility provided to the Clintons from the pre-existing utility of the money in the fund through their additional donation of $10m. That's what you're missing. Your explanation of him wanting an apartment anyway and buying one through his donations to the foundation doesn't make sense because if he wanted to save money on the cost of the apartment he'd just buy one with the money already in the foundation without putting more of his own in. I see what you mean now. But I still think you're missing some things. A) It's not that he's trying to save as much money as possible, but rather to make the most effective use of the $10m that he owes $3m taxes on. B) He doesn't really need the remaining $7m. He has plenty more. C) He also wants to maximize the amount of money available for the library itself. So instead of cutting into the library funds, he simply gives the $10m to the library fund meaning he no longer has to pay $3m in taxes. He's effectively saving the $3m not just for himself but also for the library. $3m that would have gone towards taxes now can go towards the combination of his apartment and the library instead. Essentially I think you're wrong in completely detaching the library from the utility provided to the Clintons. Assuming he's aiming for BOTH the library and an apartment, he is saving $3m by doing it this way. Only if you assume he was exactly $10m short of the amount needed for a library with an apartment and that no further money could be raised elsewhere and that no cutbacks could be made to the library while safeguarding the apartment budget. Once you have him trying to donate to the library fund for the library's own sake and not caring if it gives him less money at the end of it, well, that's the entire argument out of the window. The starting point was that Bill donated $10m to the CFF as a tax dodge because the library had an apartment in it and he was greedy and wanted an apartment but didn't want to pay taxes. My counterpoint was that there was no reason he couldn't have both the $10m (taxed down to $7m) and the apartment so if he truly was greedy then he wouldn't have made any donation at all. If you're going to respond by saying "sure, but it wasn't about money, he doesn't care about losing the $10m, he just wants to make an awesome library" then we're no longer disagreeing, but only because you abandoned the starting premise. The starting premise from GH was that the donation to the CFF was a tax dodge designed to benefit Bill, not the library. Once you're arguing that Bill donated to the library to improve the library at his own expense, well, that's how it should be. I know I didn't say that he was aiming for both the library and the apartment until now, but I was getting around to it. I mean shit, don't you want a badass library right outside your place?
If you offered me a $125m library/apartment combo and told me you could make it even better if I gave you $10m I'd say that it was probably already pretty good and that I'd keep the $10m. Even if I had to pay taxes on the $10m. Even if giving away the $10m would be tax free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
