When Donald Trump discriminated against African American tenants in 1973...

[Ebowed]

It is an enormous mystery how far back Donald Trump's history of tax evasion goes.  We know that he won't pay his taxes because of his immense greed.  Which started first, his public racism or his fraudulent financial practices?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Donald is a proud member of the 47%! And he would never discriminate against anyone. Not the Donald I know.

[Ebowed]

And he would never discriminate against anyone.

Did you see the part of the debate where Trump named one of his businesses in Florida and proclaimed that he was proud of how they didn't discriminate against blacks or Muslims there?

Only somebody with a long record of discrimination and racial vilification would tout that as an accomplishment in a last-ditch effort to bury his long past of bigotry.

It's fine that you support Trump, but the damage you do to your own credibility by saying that he doesn't discriminate against people can't be good.  You can't just ignore that people of color are routinely removed from his rallies.  Instead of adopting the dishonest tactics of your candidate, be a little more critical.

[mencken]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So much real estate back then was some form of tax shelter back then.

[Badger]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

about 90% of Americans want the tax code revamped so wealthy trust funders like Trump with a team of tax lawyers pay a lower rate than their secretaries. his cocky m effing attitude shows he is the last guy to change anything.

[mencken]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

about 90% of Americans want the tax code revamped so wealthy trust funders like Trump with a team of tax lawyers pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

You might want to rephrase that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What should Trump (or Romney or any other wealthy person) have done? Hire incompetent accountants who cannot find ways to minimize their tax receipts? That would be an abrogation of his duty to the shareholders to turn a profit for his enterprises. The tax issue is just a slightly more subtle way of demonizing him for his wealth.

Considering the vast risk involved in investment income versus salary income (turning a profit on an investment is not as guaranteed as punching in and performing a job description), is it not conducive to economic growth to subject investment income to a lighter tax burden?*

*Frankly, all income should be tax exempt, but that is a discussion for another day.

[Badger]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

about 90% of Americans want the tax code revamped so wealthy trust funders like Trump with a team of tax lawyers pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

You might want to rephrase that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What should Trump (or Romney or any other wealthy person) have done? Hire incompetent accountants who cannot find ways to minimize their tax receipts? That would be an abrogation of his duty to the shareholders to turn a profit for his enterprises. The tax issue is just a slightly more subtle way of demonizing him for his wealth.

Considering the vast risk involved in investment income versus salary income (turning a profit on an investment is not as guaranteed as punching in and performing a job description), is it not conducive to economic growth to subject investment income to a lighter tax burden?*

*Frankly, all income should be tax exempt, but that is a discussion for another day.

newsflash: despite my typo, vast majorities of Americans rightly despise the fact the tax code permits multi-millionaires like Trump to pay little to no taxes through exploiting loopholes consciously placed there by servants in Congress, and Trump has stated he's 101% hunky dorey with that.

That's bad economically, morally, and politically. Next question?

[afleitch]

Donald is a proud member of the 47%! And he would never discriminate against anyone. Not the Donald I know.

This shtick is getting tired. 'Ironic Trumpism' pretty much ended in March. You still on doge too?

[mencken]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

about 90% of Americans want the tax code revamped so wealthy trust funders like Trump with a team of tax lawyers pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

You might want to rephrase that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What should Trump (or Romney or any other wealthy person) have done? Hire incompetent accountants who cannot find ways to minimize their tax receipts? That would be an abrogation of his duty to the shareholders to turn a profit for his enterprises. The tax issue is just a slightly more subtle way of demonizing him for his wealth.

Considering the vast risk involved in investment income versus salary income (turning a profit on an investment is not as guaranteed as punching in and performing a job description), is it not conducive to economic growth to subject investment income to a lighter tax burden?*

*Frankly, all income should be tax exempt, but that is a discussion for another day.

newsflash: despite my typo, vast majorities of Americans rightly despise the fact the tax code permits multi-millionaires like Trump to pay little to no taxes through exploiting loopholes consciously placed there by servants in Congress, and Trump has stated he's 101% hunky dorey with that.

That's bad economically, morally, and politically. Next question?

Said vast majorities of Americans should not then complain when "multi-millionaires like Trump" move their businesses overseas to avoid such an onerous tax burden. Trump, on the other hand, has called for lowering business taxes domestically and raising them on importers. Since business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer anyway (something the economically-challenged fail to realize), this would provide tax relief to most Americans, in addition to the tax relief they would already be getting from his middle-class tax cuts.


If Trump's companies were paying millions of dollars more than necessary for a service that they could get at the same price for nothing less, would the Clinton campaign even hesitate to criticize him for his inefficient business practices? Why does the same logic not apply to his tax payments? If the deductions are already there, why not use them?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Donald is a proud member of the 47%! And he would never discriminate against anyone. Not the Donald I know.

This shtick is getting tired. 'Ironic Trumpism' pretty much ended in March. You still on doge too?

I've never been an ironic Trump fan. I voted for him in April to send him over the top, and I am voting for him in November as a very proud fan. Would an ironic supporters decorate his room with stuff from his store, donate to his campaign and take photo ops with Trump stuff at every opportunity? It is so obvious to me that we have never had a better candidate for the office of President. The majority of my family will be voting for him, and the vast majority of my friends will be too. Everyone around me can see it, I don't understand why people on here can't.

Let me assure you, I take politics extremely seriously, and this is the last chance for our nation.

[Sorenroy]

newsflash: despite my typo, vast majorities of Americans rightly despise the fact the tax code permits multi-millionaires like Trump to pay little to no taxes through exploiting loopholes consciously placed there by servants in Congress, and Trump has stated he's 101% hunky dorey with that.

That's bad economically, morally, and politically. Next question?

Said vast majorities of Americans should not then complain when "multi-millionaires like Trump" move their businesses overseas to avoid such an onerous tax burden. Trump, on the other hand, has called for lowering business taxes domestically and raising them on importers. Since business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer anyway (something the economically-challenged fail to realize), this would provide tax relief to most Americans, in addition to the tax relief they would already be getting from his middle-class tax cuts.

According to the Tax Foundation, the current top tax rate on incomes is 39.6% (Clinton would raise this to 43.6% for anyone making over five million dollars). During the debate, Trump said he made $694,000,000 last year. As such, making the broad assumption that the 39.6% tax rate would apply to every dollar of that, we find Trump would should have payed $274,824,000 in taxes. That would have left him with $419,176,000. Now, I apologize if I'm offending you but, to me, it does not seem like that "onerous tax burden" would leave Trump a poor man.


And all this coming from a man who says that NATO countries need to pay their fare share.

[mencken]

newsflash: despite my typo, vast majorities of Americans rightly despise the fact the tax code permits multi-millionaires like Trump to pay little to no taxes through exploiting loopholes consciously placed there by servants in Congress, and Trump has stated he's 101% hunky dorey with that.

That's bad economically, morally, and politically. Next question?

Said vast majorities of Americans should not then complain when "multi-millionaires like Trump" move their businesses overseas to avoid such an onerous tax burden. Trump, on the other hand, has called for lowering business taxes domestically and raising them on importers. Since business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer anyway (something the economically-challenged fail to realize), this would provide tax relief to most Americans, in addition to the tax relief they would already be getting from his middle-class tax cuts.

According to the Tax Foundation, the current top tax rate on incomes is 39.6% (Clinton would raise this to 43.6% for anyone making over five million dollars). During the debate, Trump said he made $694,000,000 last year. As such, making the broad assumption that the 39.6% tax rate would apply to every dollar of that, we find Trump would should have payed $274,824,000 in taxes. That would have left him with $419,176,000. Now, I apologize if I'm offending you but, to me, it does not seem like that "onerous tax burden" would leave Trump a poor man.

Trump (and, moreover, legitimate businessmen) would not obtain the investors needed to finance their projects (and consequently, the high incomes you speak of), if they did not take every effort to cut expenses in their enterprises. Choosing to produce domestically with a ~35% corporate tax rate or overseas with a dramatically lower tax burden could make the difference between an expected profit and an expected loss, especially with ventures in which success is not guaranteed. Even assuming a businessman were a complete altruist and did not mind paying a higher tax burden if it meant producing entirely domestically, that attitude would not attract many investors, and thus his venture would never get off the ground to begin with.

[Badger]

Do liberals have any statistics as to how many individuals fill out the voluntary donation section of the tax return? Do any of them? Why is it assumed that failing to pay any more taxes than one is legally required to do is considered greed?

about 90% of Americans want the tax code revamped so wealthy trust funders like Trump with a team of tax lawyers pay a lower rate than their secretaries.

You might want to rephrase that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What should Trump (or Romney or any other wealthy person) have done? Hire incompetent accountants who cannot find ways to minimize their tax receipts? That would be an abrogation of his duty to the shareholders to turn a profit for his enterprises. The tax issue is just a slightly more subtle way of demonizing him for his wealth.

Considering the vast risk involved in investment income versus salary income (turning a profit on an investment is not as guaranteed as punching in and performing a job description), is it not conducive to economic growth to subject investment income to a lighter tax burden?*

*Frankly, all income should be tax exempt, but that is a discussion for another day.

newsflash: despite my typo, vast majorities of Americans rightly despise the fact the tax code permits multi-millionaires like Trump to pay little to no taxes through exploiting loopholes consciously placed there by servants in Congress, and Trump has stated he's 101% hunky dorey with that.

That's bad economically, morally, and politically. Next question?

Said vast majorities of Americans should not then complain when "multi-millionaires like Trump" move their businesses overseas to avoid such an onerous tax burden. Trump, on the other hand, has called for lowering business taxes domestically and raising them on importers. Since business taxes are ultimately passed on to the consumer anyway (something the economically-challenged fail to realize), this would provide tax relief to most Americans, in addition to the tax relief they would already be getting from his middle-class tax cuts.


If Trump's companies were paying millions of dollars more than necessary for a service that they could get at the same price for nothing less, would the Clinton campaign even hesitate to criticize him for his inefficient business practices? Why does the same logic not apply to his tax payments? If the deductions are already there, why not use them?

We are talking about personal tax rates; you are yammering on about corporate rates (in a superficially senseless manner, until one notices your Castle/Bradley banner ). Again, economically, morally, and politically, a tax code strewn with loopholes requiring ordinary "non-smart" people like me--or essentially every damn non-trust funder among us--a higher real tax rate than the uber-wealthy is very very very bad. But Trump is among the 10th of a percent who benefits AND loves it.
 
He'd gladly give the rest of the country's economy and social fabric a giant F U to preserve every economically inefficient but precious to him loophole in the code.

[Ebowed]

He'd gladly give the rest of the country's economy and social fabric a giant F U to preserve every economically inefficient but precious to him loophole in the code.

Exactly right.  If anything positive can come out of this embarrassing campaign, hopefully we finally see the political will to repeal the Trump Loophole once and for all.

Everyone knows Trump is not going to shake up Washington.  He's spent years and years shaking it down!

[Kingpoleon]

"What is your factual opinion on this factual question that cannot be proven?"

[Ebowed]

"What is your factual opinion on this factual question that cannot be proven?"

Don't be ridiculous.  Donald Trump could put this issue to rest right now by releasing his tax returns.

He won't, because he doesn't pay federal income tax.