2016 Election

Thread Tools
 
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:00 am
  #11536  
Nuther day in paradise.ca
 
magnumpi's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Posts: 7,263
magnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond reputemagnumpi has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Leslie
Too bad the IRS doesn't have as many leakers with an agenda as does the FBI.
Leakers ? Lol, he used the democratic tax system to its fullest, I suppose they could have advised Obama to shut the tax loopholes?

I must admit I have used tax incentives handed out by the Gov here in Canada to off set some of my tax and I still sleep well at night
magnumpi is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:03 am
  #11537  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Do you really not see a difference between someone with an income of, say, $100K utilising tax incentives and deductions to minimise their tax bill vs. someone with an income of $400 million taking advantage of loopholes to pay nothing at all?
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:15 am
  #11538  
Account Closed
 
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 2
scrubbedexpat099 is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: 2016 Election

EXCLUSIVE: Trump's 13-year-old 'rape victim' dramatically DROPS her case. Woman withdraws legal claim she was assaulted at Jeffrey Epstein sex party
'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April this year
She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
She said she was 13 when she met Trump after leaving her home in Oklahoma in 1994 to try to pursue a modeling career in New York
On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
She spoke to DailyMail.com - and we have now learned that lawyers are pulling the case she filed against Trump and Epstein
She had no proof that her story is true and Trump has denied her claims
Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow


Read more: Trump rape accuser drops her case | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
scrubbedexpat099 is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:15 am
  #11539  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Wintersong
Yes - if I was a billionaire, you can bet your a$$ I'd be making sure I paid my fair share of taxes. Just because you *can* pay no taxes, why does that mean you should? Locating every tax loophole you can find to avoid paying your share of taxes while living in the lap of luxury is the very definition of gluttony and it's downright disgusting.
I have yet to hear anyone posting say they give up tax deductions or credits so they can pay more taxes.

I am not a sociologist so why people who are very wealthy don't give more back to the community I can't answer objectively. Hard to get consensus on what is "fair share".

I agree people who are super-wealthy with money to last for generations and don't contribute more to those who are hurting, I find hard to swallow as well- especially after having lived in the Menlo Park/Atherton area for a while. But Congress has the power to change the tax code and neither party in Congress has proposed significant changes to the tax code.

Last edited by morpeth; Nov 5th 2016 at 1:18 am.
morpeth is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:31 am
  #11540  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
dakota44's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Location: Nova Scotia Canada
Posts: 27,078
dakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond reputedakota44 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by morpeth
I still ask if you can pay -0- tax by taking a deduction , or pay $2,000 by not taking a deduction, what do you do ? Do you pay $2,000 because you would feel guilty not paying tax one year ? Why would you expect to him do something you wouldn't do ? Why do you avoid answering this question ??If you voluntarily more taxes than what you need to pay I give you all the credit in the world.

I do know wealthy people who have years they pay no taxes especially if they are involved in real estate, so that doesn't completely surprise me.

I am not a tax lawyer either though I have dealt with a lot of tax structuring issues involving businesses. I do agree with you that based on the commentary out there, and his own attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if he pushes the envelope on his deductions and how he runs his foundation. Having a foundation buy a huge portrait of himself as was reported does seems like a potential red flag to me.

While there seems like there are various issues involving the Clinton foundation that one might wonder about, at least the Clinton foundation did do a lot of good work.
Your attempt to compare the average working person to a gluttonous billionaire who never seems to be satisfied with his wealth is laughable and insulting to those who devote every month to finding a way to manage their budget and to reasonably provide for their families.
dakota44 is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:31 am
  #11541  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by morpeth
I have yet to hear anyone posting say they give up tax deductions or credits so they can pay more taxes.

I am not a sociologist so why people who are very wealthy don't give more back to the community I can't answer objectively. Hard to get consensus on what is "fair share".

I agree people who are super-wealthy with money to last for generations and don't contribute more to those who are hurting, I find hard to swallow as well- especially after having lived in the Menlo Park/Atherton area for a while. But Congress has the power to change the tax code and neither party in Congress has proposed significant changes to the tax code.
We donated our car last year and didn't claim the deduction.
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:35 am
  #11542  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Wintersong
Do you really not see a difference between someone with an income of, say, $100K utilising tax incentives and deductions to minimise their tax bill vs. someone with an income of $400 million taking advantage of loopholes to pay nothing at all?
First, how does one establish at what income leve should people determine they should forgo tax deductions because they are not paying what they consider a fair share ? There are people hurting in the Midwest who would consider someone making $100,000 certainly should forgo some deductions and credits to pay more of their fair share.

Second, I do know some wealthy people who aggressively seek every deduction/credit/loophole they can find to pay the least amount of taxes possible because they disagree with how government spends its money- but then donate a lot to charities they believe in. ( I doubt this is Trump's situation)

Third, from anecdotal evidence from my time in Bay Area there were many wealthy people I ran across in area I lived in, and I doubt many whether making $500,000 or $1 million or $50 million a year didnt take every loophole and deduction they could find. They may speak differently than Trump, vote differently than Trump, but it just seems that is the way most people with serious money are.

The tax code needs to be changed, perhaps an asset tax would bypass the loopholes in the tax code which politicians don't seem to want to address.
morpeth is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:35 am
  #11543  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Boiler
EXCLUSIVE: Trump's 13-year-old 'rape victim' dramatically DROPS her case. Woman withdraws legal claim she was assaulted at Jeffrey Epstein sex party
'Katie Johnson's' shocking allegations first emerged in a lawsuit filed in California in April this year
She claimed she was lured to a sex party by pedophile Jeffrey Epstein where she was forced into rough role-play sex with presidential candidate
She said she was 13 when she met Trump after leaving her home in Oklahoma in 1994 to try to pursue a modeling career in New York
On Wednesday Johnson suddenly cancelled a press conference at which she was set to reveal herself for the first time
She spoke to DailyMail.com - and we have now learned that lawyers are pulling the case she filed against Trump and Epstein
She had no proof that her story is true and Trump has denied her claims
Clinton supporters had seized on the story as a possible knock out blow


Read more: Trump rape accuser drops her case | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Probably has nothing to do with the alleged death threats and the hacking of her lawyer's email account and website.
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:39 am
  #11544  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by morpeth
First, how does one establish at what income leve should people determine they should forgo tax deductions because they are not paying what they consider a fair share ? There are people hurting in the Midwest who would consider someone making $100,000 certainly should forgo some deductions and credits to pay more of their fair share.

Second, I do know some wealthy people who aggressively seek every deduction/credit/loophole they can find to pay the least amount of taxes possible because they disagree with how government spends its money- but then donate a lot to charities they believe in. ( I doubt this is Trump's situation)

Third, from anecdotal evidence from my time in Bay Area there were many wealthy people I ran across in area I lived in, and I doubt many whether making $500,000 or $1 million or $50 million a year didnt take every loophole and deduction they could find. They may speak differently than Trump, vote differently than Trump, but it just seems that is the way most people with serious money are.

The tax code needs to be changed, perhaps an asset tax would bypass the loopholes in the tax code which politicians don't seem to want to address.
Yes, the tax code needs to be changed. However, it is my personal opinion that anyone who is undeniably wealthy and yet does everything they can to avoid paying tax is categorically a total wanker. Where to draw the line between wealthy and not wealthy? I don't know... but I do know that Trump is way over it and since he's the person we're discussing here, that makes him a wanker.
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:49 am
  #11545  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Steerpike's Avatar
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,111
Steerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond reputeSteerpike has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Wintersong
We donated our car last year and didn't claim the deduction.
Thanks for reminding me ... we donated a shit-load of stuff to goodwill over the past several months - closet's worth of clothing, as well as a ton of other stuff we were clearing out. The guy at the Goodwill counter kept offering us receipts for our stuff, and I declined. Not sure exactly why - it just seems cheesy to give something away and then turn around and 'claim' it. I also hate dealing with taxes, so spending an extra hour figuring out how to claim the deduction is not good use of my time ... (as an aside, I f**ing hate it when doing my taxes I find that some mutual fund had foreign income, and now I have to go through a whole extra set of steps as a result, and in the end I find that I saved $1 or similar, or that it made no difference!).

Last edited by Steerpike; Nov 5th 2016 at 1:53 am.
Steerpike is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 1:54 am
  #11546  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by dakota44
Your attempt to compare the average working person to a gluttonous billionaire who never seems to be satisfied with his wealth is laughable and insulting to those who devote every month to finding a way to manage their budget and to reasonably provide for their families.
All I am saying is that I find it illogical to criticize someone for using the tax code when we all dothe same to reduce our taxes, and singling out Trump when I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of the wealthy and politicians, maybe 99% do the same thing.

What is insulting to average working people in my opinion ( and I live in an area where workers are really hurting), is that politicians of both parties do not address the tax code that allows wealthy people to avoid taxes in these ways. Or the attitude of people who are better off who don't help those who are unfortunate directly themselves. Or people who complain about the wealthy not paying more taxes, yet themselves have more material possessions than they need, and accept poverty in their midst. I was astounded when I lived in California how often people who had money seemed oblivious to the poor and lower income in their midst.
morpeth is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 2:02 am
  #11547  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by morpeth
All I am saying is that I find it illogical to criticize someone for using the tax code when we all dothe same to reduce our taxes, and singling out Trump when I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of the wealthy and politicians, maybe 99% do the same thing.

What is insulting to average working people in my opinion ( and I live in an area where workers are really hurting), is that politicians of both parties do not address the tax code that allows wealthy people to avoid taxes in these ways. Or the attitude of people who are better off who don't help those who are unfortunate directly themselves. Or people who complain about the wealthy not paying more taxes, yet themselves have more material possessions than they need, and accept poverty in their midst. I was astounded when I lived in California how often people who had money seemed oblivious to the poor and lower income in their midst.
Unfortunately the ones who benefit from the tax code as it is are also the ones funding election campaigns.
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 2:11 am
  #11548  
Return of bouncing girl!
 
Joined: Sep 2004
Location: The Fourth Reich
Posts: 4,931
Wintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond reputeWintersong has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

And also...

Originally Posted by morpeth
All I am saying is that I find it illogical to criticize someone for using the tax code when we all dothe same to reduce our taxes,
No we don't, as I already explained. I have never claimed a charitable donation as a tax deduction in my life, and have no intention of ever doing so. The hundreds of $$$ I spent while fostering rescue dogs, the hundreds of $$$ I spent cooking food for a homeless shelter, the hundreds of $$$ of car we gave away to benefit homeless outreach... none of it has ever been mentioned on my tax return, even though it could have been. I don't need or want to reduce my tax burden.

and singling out Trump when I have no doubt the overwhelming majority of the wealthy and politicians, maybe 99% do the same thing.
Even if that were true, he's the one who's running for president. He's the one who's setting himself up as the morally superior candidate. How likely do you think it is that he'll change the tax code from which he has so stunningly benefited?

Of course, we do know the changes he'll make to the tax code... and guess what? The biggest cuts go to the richest people. Quelle surprise.
Wintersong is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 2:19 am
  #11549  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Thread Starter
 
sir_eccles's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2010
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 8,106
sir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond reputesir_eccles has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

I'm not answering your question because I'm not talking about taking legal deductions to minimise taxes.

I'm talking about pretending your income is minimal while funnelling cash through your foundation. I'm talking about listing other people's losses as your own...
sir_eccles is offline  
Old Nov 5th 2016, 2:28 am
  #11550  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Joined: Jul 2016
Posts: 10,009
morpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond reputemorpeth has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: 2016 Election

Originally Posted by Wintersong
Yes, the tax code needs to be changed. However, it is my personal opinion that anyone who is undeniably wealthy and yet does everything they can to avoid paying tax is categorically a total wanker. Where to draw the line between wealthy and not wealthy? I don't know... but I do know that Trump is way over it and since he's the person we're discussing here, that makes him a wanker.
Well from my own observation when I lived and worked in a wealthy part of the Bay Area most people who were doing well acted no differently in minimizing their tax bill or not contributing what they could easily afford to the well off, often living just several blocks from them- so perhaps I am not as offended by Trump as I should be- he is more obnoxious personally, but he doesn't seem much different in minimizing his taxes or not helping the poor than what I saw in the Bay Area.
morpeth is offline  


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.