US Presidential Election
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Ray in Houston  Houston 03 Oct 16 5.26pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Unless Obama or Clinton ran multiple large companies, I'd say he's probably raised more tax revenues than either of them had before election.
If, as it appears, Trump has paid next to nothing in federal taxes while living his very lavish lifestyle, that's going to be very poorly received by much of the electorate.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
jamiemartin721  Reading 03 Oct 16 5.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
You mean avoids. Evades equals prison. And there wouldn't be a single person you could employ were that the rule. Sorry, yes, avoidance. If say the average citizen is paying 25% or so in tax, and maybe chips off a percentage here and there, its ok, even if that citizen is someone earning superbucks. That's 'wrong' but its 'ok because everyone else kind of does it wrong'. But when you have people who are on much lower incomes paying two or three times the percentage in tax, then its a different story (the example of Romney paying 12%taxation, when other people are paying 25%). Even as a lefty I'm more inclined towards the ideaology of 'reasonable fairness' of contribution to society from its members. The reality is, if we want a society, we have to pay for it, and collectively, rich or poor, the only fair way is as a percentage, not as a sum total.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 03 Oct 16 5.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
In Trump's case, it's even more important. He's a businessman with far-reaching interests; seeing his returns will allow us to validate his claims of business acumen, net worth and charitable giving. All of these claims are becoming less credible by the day. I'm more interested in the breaking of the US Cuban Embargo...
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 03 Oct 16 8.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Ray in Houston
If, as it appears, Trump has paid next to nothing in federal taxes while living his very lavish lifestyle, that's going to be very poorly received by much of the electorate. In part due to giving $4m to charity and also that his tax affairs are far more complex than simply earnings on payroll, which is not the case for most of the middle classes. They also don't pay 25% however, once they've had deductions and credits. It wasn't the bottom line for why he didn't win either. I doubt it will be for Trump too.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 03 Oct 16 8.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I'm more interested in the breaking of the US Cuban Embargo... That's sooooo last week. Just today, he's accused of breaking the Iran embargo, had the operation of his charitable foundation suspended due to unlicensed activity and has called veterans suffering from PTSD "weak". Keep up! Edited by Ray in Houston (03 Oct 2016 8.36pm)
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 03 Oct 16 9.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Sorry, yes, avoidance. If say the average citizen is paying 25% or so in tax, and maybe chips off a percentage here and there, its ok, even if that citizen is someone earning superbucks. That's 'wrong' but its 'ok because everyone else kind of does it wrong'. But when you have people who are on much lower incomes paying two or three times the percentage in tax, then its a different story (the example of Romney paying 12%taxation, when other people are paying 25%). Even as a lefty I'm more inclined towards the ideaology of 'reasonable fairness' of contribution to society from its members. The reality is, if we want a society, we have to pay for it, and collectively, rich or poor, the only fair way is as a percentage, not as a sum total. Change the system and close the loopholes then. I'd argue that flat rates across the board, equal allowances and deductions/credits would be far more successful than the complex system we have, including higher rates which encourage people to want to evade it.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Ray in Houston Houston 03 Oct 16 9.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Change the system and close the loopholes then. I'd argue that flat rates across the board, equal allowances and deductions/credits would be far more successful than the complex system we have, including higher rates which encourage people to want to evade it.
That went badly for Romney, and he was paying at least some federal taxes (12% average); Trump appears to be paying federal taxes at a rate of zero point zero.
We don't do possession; we do defense and attack. Everything else is just wa**ing with a football. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Oct 16 11.30am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Change the system and close the loopholes then. I'd argue that flat rates across the board, equal allowances and deductions/credits would be far more successful than the complex system we have, including higher rates which encourage people to want to evade it. Well yes, but there in lies the problem, to change the system, you kind of have to win elections, and you win elections on the basis of wealth, who's interests are not in changing a tax system that disproportionally benefits them, except in their favour. I think every citizen has an obligation to contribute equally to society, and the only way to achieve that is a flat rate across the board, no exceptions, on all income, as a percentage.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 04 Oct 16 11.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
In part due to giving m to charity and also that his tax affairs are far more complex than simply earnings on payroll, which is not the case for most of the middle classes. They also don't pay 25% however, once they've had deductions and credits. It wasn't the bottom line for why he didn't win either. I doubt it will be for Trump too. Charitable donations in many cases, means paying money to a charitable trust, which mostly gets spent on solicitors and only maybe 10-15% will end up being spent on the actual cause. The Trump Charitable Foundation for example, can leaglly spend donated money, fight and settling legal disputes involving the parent company. You think charity in the UK is a scam, you should see what you can get away with in the US. You have charitable foundations spending less that 10% on direct causes, with 60-80% going to solicitors and legal fees (and effectively back out to foundation members through different companies, family members, friends etc). One of the make a wish foundations in the US, spent less that 1% in a year, on 'making wishes come true'.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Kermit8  Hevon 04 Oct 16 11.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well yes, but there in lies the problem, to change the system, you kind of have to win elections, and you win elections on the basis of wealth, who's interests are not in changing a tax system that disproportionally benefits them, except in their favour. I think every citizen has an obligation to contribute equally to society, and the only way to achieve that is a flat rate across the board, no exceptions, on all income, as a percentage. Wouldn't work as it would obviously make the poor poorer and the rich richer. Rooney now paying 15% on £300,000 a week and Mrs Yorks now 15% on £13000 per year without the tax free allowance is something to be expected and championed from virulent right-wing capitalist types not anarchists.
Big chest and massive boobs |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nairb75 Baltimore 04 Oct 16 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stuk
Change the system and close the loopholes then. I'd argue that flat rates across the board, equal allowances and deductions/credits would be far more successful than the complex system we have, including higher rates which encourage people to want to evade it. you'll never get a flat tax that doesn't have loopholes. just another way to screw the little guy.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 04 Oct 16 1.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Well yes, but there in lies the problem, to change the system, you kind of have to win elections, and you win elections on the basis of wealth, who's interests are not in changing a tax system that disproportionally benefits them, except in their favour. I think every citizen has an obligation to contribute equally to society, and the only way to achieve that is a flat rate across the board, no exceptions, on all income, as a percentage. No you don't. The IRS don't have elections.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.