Presidential Candidates Debate

[Hacker James]

43 minutes ago, 14ledo81 said:

 

I realize the article I cut and pasted is long, but I would like to get your opinion of it.  And if you think it applies here.

at the risk of sparking further debate, It seems to me that the long article above is a fair definition of communism in its barest form. I did not read it carefully however, as it was a bit "taxing" on the eyes. 

[Golfingdad]

1 hour ago, 14ledo81 said:

I realize the article I cut and pasted is long, but I would like to get your opinion of it.  And if you think it applies here.

It's fascinating.  I think I agree with his main premise ...

1 hour ago, 14ledo81 said:

At the very core, the reason for this vast gulf lies in a fundamental difference in personal philosophical belief.

However, I don't know that I agree with the specific philosophies he's talking about.  I don't think that what I earned belongs to anybody else.  I'm not more willing to part with my money (for taxes) because I think it doesn't belong to me.  I'm more willing to part with it because I believe that helping everybody helps me as well.  I guess you could call me a utilitarianist.

(I don't really think about this stuff too much so I don't know how to explain it well.)

P.S.  Thanks for sharing the article, it was interesting.

[newtogolf]

3 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

This is where the difference arises.  You say that a poor person who takes advantage of a government program is "undeserving" but a rich person is just smart.  Why is there a difference?   I agree with @phillyk here because your views on the two seem to conflict with each other.

Here's how I see it.  I work hard for my money.  I understand that in accordance with US Tax Laws I must pay a portion of my earnings in the form of taxes to the government.  The U.S. Tax Code identifies what deductions I'm entitled to take.  If I take full advantage of the tax code I'm effectively reducing the amount of money I'm legally required to pay in the form of taxes, I'm not taking money from anyone, just reducing what I pay legally.  

When a person that is entitled to request public assistance under a government program does so, they are taking money from the pool of tax payer money that is dedicated within our fiscal budget for such programs.  When those who are not entitled to request assistance submit fraudulent applications they are not only stealing from American tax payers but also reducing the amount of funds that are available to those who really need help.  

It's the difference between haggling for a good price when buying a car and stealing it.  

[14ledo81]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

It's fascinating.  I think I agree with his main premise ...

However, I don't know that I agree with the specific philosophies he's talking about.  I don't think that what I earned belongs to anybody else.  I'm not more willing to part with my money (for taxes) because I think it doesn't belong to me.  I'm more willing to part with it because I believe that helping everybody helps me as well.  I guess you could call me a utilitarianist.

(I don't really think about this stuff too much so I don't know how to explain it well.)

P.S.  Thanks for sharing the article, it was interesting.

I found it interesting as well. Especially the last part where each side is "right". And how they feel about the other.

[Golfingdad]

42 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

Here's how I see it.  I work hard for my money.  I understand that in accordance with US Tax Laws I must pay a portion of my earnings in the form of taxes to the government.  The U.S. Tax Code identifies what deductions I'm entitled to take.  If I take full advantage of the tax code I'm effectively reducing the amount of money I'm legally required to pay in the form of taxes, I'm not taking money from anyone, just reducing what I pay legally.  

When a person that is entitled to request public assistance under a government program does so, they are taking money from the pool of tax payer money that is dedicated within our fiscal budget for such programs.  When those who are not entitled to request assistance submit fraudulent applications they are not only stealing from American tax payers but also reducing the amount of funds that are available to those who really need help.  

It's the difference between haggling for a good price when buying a car and stealing it.  

I (and I would bet) a whole crapload of other people agree with everything here.  However what's the point of the bold?  Who here has said otherwise?

[jamo]

4 hours ago, 14ledo81 said:

 

I realize the article I cut and pasted is long, but I would like to get your opinion of it.  And if you think it applies here.

What's the source?

[nevets88]

10 minutes ago, jamo said:

What's the source?

Yeah, I did a search on it, nary to be found anywhere. Maybe it's behind a paywall.

[iacas]

11 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

What I don't understand is how/why so many people would consider that a negative.

Because if you show that you're likely to be ineffective at something, that's a negative.

11 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

Pretty much every possible profession out there, people would unanimously consider experience as vital to their ability to handle the job, but somehow when we get to (one of) the most important job(s) in the country, people think that less experience is better.  And no experience is best.

That's putting words in my mouth (you quoted me). I never said anything about how no experience is best. Heck, I never even said I was ever going to vote for Trump, or "no experience." I'm not. I simply said I understood what he was saying about that stuff.

[14ledo81]

1 hour ago, jamo said:

What's the source?

Someone I know wrote it for a class a few years back.

[newtogolf]

2 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

I (and I would bet) a whole crapload of other people agree with everything here.  However what's the point of the bold?  Who here has said otherwise?

It's the difference between deserving and not deserving which you called into question in my earlier post.  

[rkim291968]

IMO, the real point about DT's tax return is 1) he lost $1B in that year (how could a finanical "genius" do that?), 2) he made a mere $3M that year (what kind of $10 Billionaire does that?), and 3) and the fact that the usually a "boastful" Trump won't reveal his tax return says that everything Trump said in the debate is very likely to be true.

[newtogolf]

8 hours ago, rkim291968 said:

IMO, the real point about DT's tax return is 1) he lost $1B in that year (how could a finanical "genius" do that?), 2) he made a mere $3M that year (what kind of $10 Billionaire does that?), and 3) and the fact that the usually a "boastful" Trump won't reveal his tax return says that everything Trump said in the debate is very likely to be true.

This is about manipulating your tax returns to minimize tax obligations, which is why he said an audited financial statement provides more insight to ones financial stability than tax returns.  

When a corporation decides to declare bankruptcy, they not only write off all their losses but their severance agreements with their employees, continuing health insurance benefits, costs to shut down the business, prorated rent, building costs, existing contracts, etc.  If this particular tax return was when he closed some significant businesses, such as casino's, the paper losses could have been tremendous, even $1B.  

One thing Trump said that is disconcerting is that he gets audited annually, which isn't normal, even for a large business.  My guess is he gets audited because he's written off those losses over a period of time and the government is making sure that there isn't income hiding in other places.  If he has been audited every year over the last 10 years his financials will be spotless as an audit is no joke.  

[rkim291968]

The tax report isn't going to add any votes to DT's side.  OTOH, it will alienate many who are on the fence.  They will likely go to HC or others.   Please note that he has been very negatively vocal about 1/2 of Americans not paying tax.   You put those videos/audios and his tax report side by side and it will make a very good superpac ad.   This will also be very bad for the future debates.  I can see HC goading DT on this.   It speaks to his narcissistic ego and that's all she wrote.

[Dave2512]

It doesn't have to be an awesome tax manipulation or total disaster to have a bad year, it can simply be a bad year due to factors out of your control. Nobody, not even the wisest biz people on the planet, would take so many deductions they report no income or losses so great it makes them look like they are an unworthy, high risk borrower going forward. Chances are the truth about what happened to DT in 1995 can't be determined without seeing more of his taxes.

Where it gets sticky is carrying it over for 18 years and how he got to that number. I saw a couple different explanations from CPA's and tax lawyers on cable news last night and it seems the high loss is related to being able to deduct the entire loss of a development project despite having significantly less personal or corp $$ invested. The loophole mentioned was the debt has to be charged off. That raises a different question, who got stiffed or who was colluding because it's safe to assume no bank or investor wants to lose money. The lending risk comes with an expectation there is a certain return on their money, lenders don't make anything writing off a bunch of bad debt there has to be enough good loans out-performing the bad. Either way it's not good for Trump because a reasonable explanation now requires more than lip service.

[rkim291968]

Agreed.  Well said.

There may be more anonymous info bad to DT delivered to media outlets before this is over.  DT has been around for a long time, and I don't think all of his "dirt" is out yet.

[CarlSpackler]

If you (anyone here) has a legitimate tax deduction, would you not claim it.

 

[Golfingdad]

4 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

If you (anyone here) has a legitimate tax deduction, would you not claim it.

The problem isn't that he's taking advantage of the tax system to benefit himself, but rather that he's running on a typical Republican tax platform of everybody should pay their fair share - the earners shouldn't have to support the freeloaders WHILE taking advantage of the tax system.  He's literally doing exactly what he's complaining about poor people doing.  There is no difference.

You don't pay taxes because you only make 12,000 a year and that's how the system is set up?  Fine.

You don't pay taxes for 18 years because you lost nearly one billion dollars one year because that's how the system is set up?  That's fine too.

But when you do that and you say this:

Quote

Well, I don’t mind sacrificing for the country, to be honest with you. But you know, you do have a problem because half of the people don't pay any tax. And when he's talking about that he's talking about people that aren't also working, that are not contributing to this society. And it's a problem. But we have 50 percent. It just hit the 50 percent mark. Fifty percent of the people are paying no tax.

...

The problem we have right now—we have a society that sits back and says we don't have to do anything. Eventually, the 50 percent cannot carry—and it's unfair to them—but cannot carry the other 50 percent.

Then there is a disconnect with a lot of people.

[CarlSpackler]

1 minute ago, Golfingdad said:

The problem isn't that he's taking advantage of the tax system to benefit himself, but rather that he's running on a typical Republican tax platform of everybody should pay their fair share - the earners shouldn't have to support the freeloaders WHILE taking advantage of the tax system.  He's literally doing exactly what he's complaining about poor people doing.  There is no difference.

You don't pay taxes because you only make 12,000 a year and that's how the system is set up?  Fine.

You don't pay taxes for 18 years because you lost nearly one billion dollars one year because that's how the system is set up?  That's fine too.

But when you do that and you say this:

Then there is a disconnect with a lot of people.

If he took a legitimate deduction in line with the tax code, is he not paying his fair share? He didn't write the tax code after all. He was just following it.