Presidential Candidates Debate

[Abu3baid]

1 minute ago, CarlSpackler said:

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.

I think that's the exact point Drew is making.  The people he is complaining about not paying taxes are also doing it because they didn't make enough ect.  They also didn't write the tax code, just following it.

[phillyk]

4 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

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.

He is paying his fair share, sure. But, also says that what he did isn't right and needs to be stopped in the future.

[CarlSpackler]

1 minute ago, Abu3baid said:

I think that's the exact point Drew is making.  The people he is complaining about not paying taxes are also doing it because they didn't make enough ect.  They also didn't write the tax code, just following it.

This is what I don't get. It's the democrats that want "everyone to pay their fair share". The republicans want everyone to pay less and the government to spend less. 

[Golfingdad]

52 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

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.

As are all of the people who don't make enough to have to pay taxes.  That is the point.  You can't deride a group of people for following the tax code in the same way that you are following the tax code.

Thank you @Abu3baid.  I responded before reading down to see other responses. :)

47 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

This is what I don't get. It's the democrats that want "everyone to pay their fair share". The republicans want everyone to pay less and the government to spend less. 

No, the Democrats want the rich people to pay more ... and this loophole Trump is using is probably a pretty good example of why.  And the Republicans don't want everybody to pay less - they want rich people to pay less and poor people to pay more.

[rkim291968]

Post the debate, all the Trump surrogates learned to pivot (to Clinton) better every time DT's stupid thing (he did) comes up in interview, talk show, etc..   I watch Pence to do the a lot of that in today's debate.   Would it work?   It may stop the bleeding, IMHO, until the 2nd presidential debate where DT will put his foot in his mouth again.  

 

[Dave2512]

 

1 hour ago, CarlSpackler said:

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

 

Yes, no, maybe. Every year I have charitable deductions I toss out if they take me above what doesn't have to be supported with detailed documentation. It's not worth the hassle in certain instances because deductions aren't 1:1 as it relates to taxable income. If you need a binder of receipts to prove the $800 (thrift store value) items you donated to the local shelter are really worth $800 it's easier and safer to claim whatever doesn't need that much detail. The difference between taking $800 compared to $500 may be $28.52 when it comes to the actual reduction of taxable income.

But that isn't how Trump got to his number. The news used vague examples last night and I'll repeat one I saw from a tax pro. Because of the code at the time developers could have put up 1 million of their own dough on a 100 million project, the other money funded by banks/investors, that ultimately went bust and were able to deduct/write off the entire loss of the development if the debt was charged off. Without his returns nobody knows how it actually worked out but apparently the 916 million is legit and so is the 18 years so...

[CarlSpackler]

12 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

As are all of the people who don't make enough to have to pay taxes.  That is the point.  You can't deride a group of people for following the tax code in the same way that you are following the tax code.

Thank you @Abu3baid.  I responded before reading down to see other responses. :)

No, the Democrats want the rich people to pay more ... and this loophole Trump is using is probably a pretty good example of why.  And the Republicans don't want everybody to pay less - they want rich people to pay less and poor people to pay more.

I'm afraid not. I paid much less when GW was president. I still have the output saved from Obama's initial campaign site showing how much less I would pay with his tax plan, but I saw a significant tax increase once the "tax cuts for the wealthy" went away. I don't even come close to $250K annual salary that is often quoted as the delimiter for "the wealthy". How do you explain that?

[jgreen85]

4 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I'm afraid not. I paid much less when GW was president. I still have the output saved from Obama's initial campaign site showing how much less I would pay with his tax plan, but I saw a significant tax increase once the "tax cuts for the wealthy" went away. I don't even come close to $250K annual salary that is often quoted as the delimiter for "the wealthy". How do you explain that?

are you sure?

Tax Rates

Obama was first elected in 2008 on a promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year in family income. That’s a promise he’s fulfilled with only minor exceptions, such as a 10 percent tax on tanning salons included in the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, his 2009 stimulus package delivered temporary tax cuts for most working people, and for all of 2011 and 2012, he secured a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax.

For his entire first term, the federal income tax cuts signed by Bush in 2001 and 2003 remained in effect, with no increase on anyone. As of 2013, a result of the “fiscal cliff” dealstruck with House Republicans at the end of last year, the top income tax rate will go up by 4.6 percentage points, to 39.6 percent — the same top rate that applied during Clinton’s administration.

The new top rate only applies to family income over $450,000, or single income over $400,000. Income under those limits will be taxed at the same rates set by the Bush tax legislation, plus a bit more in many cases.

Persons with more than $250,000 in family income (and singles with over $200,000 income) also face some additional taxes under the Affordable Care Act, including an additional 3.8 percent tax on net “investment income” and a 0.9 percent add-on Medicare tax on payroll income exceeding $200,000. Both of those new taxes took effect Jan. 1.

We’ll file our next quarterly update on statistics reflecting the Obama presidency in early June.

— by Brooks Jackson

[rkim291968]

Friendly reminder, let's stay on topic - debate related (what was said in the debate, consequences, etc). 

[Dave2512]

5 minutes ago, CarlSpackler said:

I'm afraid not. I paid much less when GW was president. I still have the output saved from Obama's initial campaign site showing how much less I would pay with his tax plan, but I saw a significant tax increase once the "tax cuts for the wealthy" went away. I don't even come close to $250K annual salary that is often quoted as the delimiter for "the wealthy". How do you explain that?

Then something else changed (for you). I have been on the same job since 1994 without a salary increase since 2005 and my 05-16 W2's are almost identical. The only variable is I am paid a once a month bonus based on how much our receivables pay and that is a moving target but my weekly withholding is within cents or dollars through 11 years.

[CarlSpackler]

9 minutes ago, jgreen85 said:

are you sure?

Tax Rates

Obama was first elected in 2008 on a promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year in family income. That’s a promise he’s fulfilled with only minor exceptions, such as a 10 percent tax on tanning salons included in the Affordable Care Act. Meanwhile, his 2009 stimulus package delivered temporary tax cuts for most working people, and for all of 2011 and 2012, he secured a 2 percentage point reduction in the Social Security payroll tax.

For his entire first term, the federal income tax cuts signed by Bush in 2001 and 2003 remained in effect, with no increase on anyone. As of 2013, a result of the “fiscal cliff” dealstruck with House Republicans at the end of last year, the top income tax rate will go up by 4.6 percentage points, to 39.6 percent — the same top rate that applied during Clinton’s administration.

The new top rate only applies to family income over $450,000, or single income over $400,000. Income under those limits will be taxed at the same rates set by the Bush tax legislation, plus a bit more in many cases.

Persons with more than $250,000 in family income (and singles with over $200,000 income) also face some additional taxes under the Affordable Care Act, including an additional 3.8 percent tax on net “investment income” and a 0.9 percent add-on Medicare tax on payroll income exceeding $200,000. Both of those new taxes took effect Jan. 1.

We’ll file our next quarterly update on statistics reflecting the Obama presidency in early June.

— by Brooks Jackson

Quite sure.

4 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Then something else changed (for you). I have been on the same job since 1994 without a salary increase since 2005 and my 05-16 W2's are almost identical. The only variable is I am paid a once a month bonus based on how much our receivables pay and that is a moving target but my weekly withholding is within cents or dollars through 11 years.

I only recently changed jobs. I was at my previous job throughout GW and Obama. I did get standard raises, but nowhere near the $250K "wealthy" level.

[mcanadiens]

I think a lot of this goes to show that a couple of facts taken from a 1995 tax return (and a state return at that) does not show a complete picture. The size of the NOL is a bit shocking to people, but the speculation on how long that carried over for is pure speculation as far as I've read. ... At the end of the day, the big question is whether or not Trump really had the amount of those losses at risk. An NOL this large would logically draw an annual IRS audit, so its up to the Service to do its job.

This also looks like another case where the media may have been a bit irresponsible in reporting this tidbit, without really having the context.

 

[Dave2512]

2 minutes ago, mcanadiens said:

This also looks like another case where the media may have been a bit irresponsible in reporting this tidbit, without really having the context.

 

It's an issue because he made it an issue by not releasing his returns and it going to come up in the next debate.

[Jeremie Boop]

4 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

It's an issue because he made it an issue by not releasing his returns and it going to come up in the next debate.

I remember some other candidate causing a fuss by not releasing some personal documentation before... 

I don't understand the fascination with his tax information myself.

[newtogolf]

3 minutes ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I remember some other candidate causing a fuss by not releasing some personal documentation before... 

I don't understand the fascination with his tax information myself.

It's a smoke screen.  The more Hillary can deflect the media away from the Clinton Foundation scandal and e-mail scandal and push them to Trump's tax return the better it is for her.  Unfortunately all the media with the exception of Fox is in her pocket and few voting for Hillary watch Fox.  

[mcanadiens]

1 minute ago, Dave2512 said:

It's an issue because he made it an issue by not releasing his returns and it going to come up in the next debate.

Sure, but that shouldn't give the media carte blanche to put out an incomplete story like that. Trump may or may not have done something improper. We've got an entire branch of the government that's supposed to sort that out.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Golfingdad said:

No, the Democrats want the rich people to pay more ... and this loophole Trump is using is probably a pretty good example of why.

I kind of doubt you really understand "the loophole [he's] using." And why should "rich people" pay more? They already pay a lot of taxes, generally speaking. Again, the tax brackets just increase in percentages. Never mind the fact that rich people employ people.

1 minute ago, Jeremie Boop said:

I don't understand the fascination with his tax information myself.

I don't either. Anti-Trump people seem to be latching onto it while simultaneously ignoring the things Clinton's done which actually have global and political effects.

---

This thread isn't about taxes or whatever, so let's wrap this up and get back to discussing the debates. There's another one tonight, IIRC?

[newtogolf]

14 minutes ago, iacas said:

I kind of doubt you really understand "the loophole [he's] using." And why should "rich people" pay more? They already pay a lot of taxes, generally speaking. Again, the tax brackets just increase in percentages. Never mind the fact that rich people employ people.

I don't either. Anti-Trump people seem to be latching onto it while simultaneously ignoring the things Clinton's done which actually have global and political effects.

---

This thread isn't about taxes or whatever, so let's wrap this up and get back to discussing the debates. There's another one tonight, IIRC?

Exactly, the federal government doesn't send extra military to protect the higher tax brackets, set aside inter-state roads that only the wealthy can drive on, the wealthy don't benefit form any of the things our federal taxes goes toward so why shouldn't the lower income citizens contribute too?