|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by morpeth
(Post 12096232)
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.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by sir_eccles
(Post 12096230)
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... The huge tax loss I do find very curious, not that he carried-it forward, but what was original basis and why not affected by the bankruptcy ? |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Wintersong
(Post 12096228)
And also...
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. 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. My impression is Trump's "tax plan" was first adopted primarily because he thought a good sales pitch. Then later the justification for it developed. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by morpeth
(Post 12096244)
My impression is Trump's "tax plan" was first adopted primarily because he thought a good sales pitch. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Wintersong
(Post 12096235)
You really know how "most people" filed their taxes and what deductions they claimed? I've lived in the Bay Area for almost 12 years and I haven't a clue what anyone other than myself puts on their tax forms :blink:
I did though have a close relationship with a CPA firm through my work, and worked with them structuring corporate entities and taxes for my boss. We often spoke about methods the wealthy and better off used in the area where they had clients. In 10 years of conversations they never indicated they ever had a client who wanted to pay more taxes, or would avoid taking a legitimate deduction so they would pay their "fair share", though sometimes a client of theirs might avoid a tax strategy that might generate an audit. Generally my impression was in the area I was in was that the wealthy and better-off certainly didn't show the concern for the poor or the working class as much as I see in the area of the Midwest I am currently in. It maybe because there is less segregation between the economic classes here. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by morpeth
(Post 12096252)
From anecdotal evidence of conversations I never remember hearing anyone saying they would not take a tax deduction or credit because they felt they should pay more taxes. Often I heard even middle income people say they would start paying someone to do their taxes so they could get every deduction or credit available.
I did though have a close relationship with a CPA firm through my work, and worked with them structuring corporate entities and taxes for my boss. We often spoke about methods the wealthy and better off used in the area where they had clients. In 10 years of conversations they never indicated they ever had a client who wanted to pay more taxes, or would avoid taking a legitimate deduction so they would pay their "fair share", though sometimes a client of theirs might avoid a tax strategy that might generate an audit. Generally my impression was in the area I was in was that the wealthy and better-off certainly didn't show the concern for the poor or the working class as much as I see in the area of the Midwest I am currently in. It maybe because there is less segregation between the economic classes here. |
Re: 2016 Election
Trump's accountant wouldn't even sign off a proper mltn letter.
In other news, looks like evidence has been found proving Melania worked before her visa came through. |
Re: 2016 Election
So what's the big deal over Melania working without a visa? There are probably a few million working without visas and Hillary wants to give them an easy passage to legalization and citizenship.
Although I'm a dyed in the wool Democrat and have already voted for Hillary I'm dead against people crossing the border, breaking the law by working and staying illegally then qualifying for amnesty. My sister in England had to wait ten long years before she finally got her Green Card |
Re: 2016 Election
Well the whole thing with Trump wanting Americans to get the jobs (except when he hires Polish laborers to build his buildings with Chinese steel or Bangladesh factories to make his suits). A bit hypocritical.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 12096294)
So what's the big deal over Melania working without a visa?
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 12096294)
I'm dead against people crossing the border, breaking the law by working and staying illegally then qualifying for amnesty.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Boiler
(Post 12096206)
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
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 12096294)
So what's the big deal over Melania working without a visa? There are probably a few million working without visas and Hillary wants to give them an easy passage to legalization and citizenship.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by Giantaxe
(Post 12096613)
Except the Clinton campaign wouldn't touch this one with a bargepole. And the media organizations that did look at it never published anything because there was nothing to substantiate it.
|
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12096434)
You have a remarkable talent for being inconsistent.
While I was waiting for my green card I had a part time job. The day I received it the INS official asked me if I was employed. I answered yes and he was quite happy that I did have a job instead of becoming an instant liability on the welfare system |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by dc koop
(Post 12096696)
I don't see Melania working without a visa while doing a little modeling is worth even mentioning.
Previously, you claimed that you are "dead against people crossing the border, breaking the law by working and staying illegally then qualifying for amnesty." So you should be dead against Melania Trump, yet you aren't. I can only presume that you're giving her a pass because she isn't Mexican. |
Re: 2016 Election
Originally Posted by RoadWarriorFromLP
(Post 12096799)
It's pretty obvious that she didn't obey the law, and it's easy to guess that she knew that she was violating the law.
Previously, you claimed that you are "dead against people crossing the border, breaking the law by working and staying illegally then qualifying for amnesty." So you should be dead against Melania Trump, yet you aren't. I can only presume that you're giving her a pass because she isn't Mexican. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 10:41 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.