916 Million Reasons Trump Won't Release His Taxes

[Alpo]

Yeah. We get it. We are deplorable and Trump is horrible for paying what he owed in taxes.

The point, mi amigo, is that to earn a 900 million deduction, one has to LOSE 900 million in real dollars. The fella you want to entrust with the keys to the White House is a real estate huckster in the casino business.

Now, if you want him to take the GDP and put it on red......

 

[Vigilant]

Funny how threads end up trending that way, 'eh?

Really not trending that way! Trump had close to a billion to lose, he lost it, then found a way to LEGALLY, claim his losses against his tax liability, and did so. He found a legal means to keep the government out of his pocket for awhile, and everyone has their panties all bunched up because it's him. Personally, I need to find a way to make more money, so I can then have my accountant reduce my tax liability to where I get their hands out of my pockets too? No one is trying to crucify Hitlery for damned near the same ploy?

 

[Vigilant]

The point, mi amigo, is that to earn a 900 million deduction, one has to LOSE 900 million in real dollars. The fella you want to entrust with the keys to the White House is a real estate huckster in the casino business.

Now, if you want him to take the GDP and put it on red......

Hell I'm all for it,elect Trump,inaugurate him, and let him run right down the federal bankruptcy court and declare bankruptcy on the US. We divide up the assets, the White House and Capitol building have to be worth something, and we start over!

 

[Alpo]

Yeah, it sorta fits with your prior comments on economics.

But, not everyone can be Stiglitz.

 

[BugI02]

how about a consumption tax? Solves any and all inequities... Bonus for getting rid of income tax.

That's a highly regressive form of taxation

 

[spec4]

The problem I see with a consumption tax is that, like income taxes, it won't stay what it starts out as.

Say a bi-partisan Congress decides on 12%. Then a few years later, we have a Dem Congress and POTUS who decide 12% isn't enough and they raise it to 18%. I would only support it if it was a maximum of 10% and a Constitutional amendment that it can't be changed.

 

[Vigilant]

Yeah, it sorta fits with your prior comments on economics.

But, not everyone can be Stiglitz.

Which would those be, the one's where I want the money I earned to stay as completely mine as I can get it? Not wanting to subsidize others who don't work as hard? Not wanting to be forced to provide a participation trophy(in the form of $$'s) to some "program" every time I turn around? Calling on the government to live within their means, rather than take more to cover their bad ideas? I'm not sure which ones you mean, but me keeping my money mine is the only economic policy I have.

 

[BugI02]

I'm not convinced on the consumption tax, although I do think it is inherently fairer than income tax. I'd rather see everyone have skin in the game than only the top 70% earners. I'm sure it wouldn't take long to have carve-outs. To make it fairer, food products would be exempted. Then of course we want to keep the green industrial complex going so we'll exempt them. Then medicine. Women's birth control. Junkies' needles. It's impossible to prevent people from social engineering through tax code.




So what? Why is a marginal tax rate system "fairer" than a flat rate system, or a system based on services consumed? I was disappointed that you didn't comment on that in the other thread. If Gates earned his money fairly, then why does that even matter?

So what about this? Since rich people contribute so disproportionately more to the national treasury, shouldn't they get more say-so than you or I in how it is spent? If it is a societal responsibility for rich people, society's givers, to fund the government, what is the societal responsibility for takers? Just to consume and vote for Democrats?

jamil*(NHRN) I don't think you give sufficient consideration to the argument that, based on services and infrastructure use, perhaps the rich deserve to pay more taxes. For example, if their corporation ships its products, they have a much higher utilization rate of such things as ports (funded and maintained by local and federal gov't), the interstate system (heavily subsidized by gov't) and airports and the airspace system (90% funded by the feds) than you, I or our families for the next ten generations ever will.

I think a cogent argument can be made for a not quite flat tax with the rates steepening somewhat at the top while being vastly simplified from the current system, based on the disproportionate load placed on the national infrastructure by our differing lifestyles

 

[BugI02]

Yeah, it sorta fits with your prior comments on economics.

But, not everyone can be Stiglitz.

Nor Stieglitz, either (picturing 'Georgia On My Mind' playing softly in the background)

 

[Alpo]

Not sure what you mean. Hoagy wrote that. Joseph is an Indiana boy. So is Hoagy. That's as close as I can connect the two.

 

[pudly]

The point, mi amigo, is that to earn a 900 million deduction, one has to LOSE 900 million in real dollars. The fella you want to entrust with the keys to the White House is a real estate huckster in the casino business.

Now, if you want him to take the GDP and put it on red......

I have no problem with Trump or any other capitalist risking their own money and those who choose to invest with them to either profit or lose depending on how they run their business. Trump has had far more successes than losses and America has been enriched by his efforts. He has produced far more than that 900 million in GDP during his career, unlike either of us.

On the other hand, our government will "safely" overspend it's massive income year after year after year. It would be an infinite improvement if we had as many surplus years as Trump has had in his business career. Our children and grandchildren will not be burdened for decades into the future by Trumps business ventures. It is a shame we can't say the same about the status quo in government.

 

[Alpo]

Save me the government spending trope. And the false equivalency to a casino huckster. Republicans spend as much as democrats. That's why you guys formed the Tea Party (whose greatest success is putting more sand in the wheel-bearings of bureacracy).

Building a fortune on legalized gambling isn't what I would want most to aspire to, unless their name was Corleone.

 

[CHCRandy]

Delta has not paid any cash federal income taxes since at least 2011, according to its annual reports. Delta had net operating loss carryforwards of approximately $7.5 billion at the end of 2004. Then in September 2005 it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization. In October 2008 it merged with Northwest Airlines Corp. Delta subsequently lost $8.9 billion in 2008 and lost another $1.2 billion in 2009, before returning to profitability. It earned a profit of $593 million in 2010, $854 million in 2011, $1 billion in 2012, $10.5 billion in 2013, $659 million in 2014, and $4.5 billion in 2015.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...x-tool-as-trump-not.html?ana=yahoo&yptr=yahoo

 

[jamil]

jamil*(NHRN) I don't think you give sufficient consideration to the argument that, based on services and infrastructure use, perhaps the rich deserve to pay more taxes. For example, if their corporation ships its products, they have a much higher utilization rate of such things as ports (funded and maintained by local and federal gov't), the interstate system (heavily subsidized by gov't) and airports and the airspace system (90% funded by the feds) than you, I or our families for the next ten generations ever will.

I think a cogent argument can be made for a not quite flat tax with the rates steepening somewhat at the top while being vastly simplified from the current system, based on the disproportionate load placed on the national infrastructure by our differing lifestyles

Oh, but I gave it full consideration in another thread:

The fairest, most objective standard of "fair share" of taxes would be based on value consumed. Let's assume for a moment that everyone consumed an equal value of government (infrastructure, national defense, law enforcement/judicial system, etc.) Assuming that, the fairest way to divvy up each person's "fair share" of the tax burden would be to divide the cost of government by the number of consumers. Each person would pay their fair share of what they consumed.

But people consume different amounts of government. So in reality, the fairest tax would be one where taxes would be proportional to the value one receives from government. If you consume more government, you should pay more for government. But that's not workable, and not because it's not fair. It's impractical. Rich individuals and corporations arguably consume more government than most, so it's fair that they should pay more in the absolute. And they can afford it, so that's practical. But obviously poor people, especially the ones living on entitlements, can't possibly pay for all the government they consume.

Since it's impractical for poor people to pay for all the government they consume, I accept the concept that people who make more will have to pay more in taxes. A flat rate does that. But you think that's unfair because you tie "quality of life" to fairness. I think quality of life has nothing to do with fairness.

And you think fairness has nothing to do with value. I tie fairness to value, you tie fairness to outcome. We fundamentally disagree. There is no middle ground between our two worldviews. This is why our nation is torn now. You insist from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. I think that idea is insane, impractical, and not sustainable by humans.

 

[Alpo]

 

[Alpo]

About 61% of the Federal budget is paid for with a flat tax, with a cap and only charged against wages.

 

[jamil]

About 61% of the Federal budget is paid for with a flat tax, with a cap and only charged against wages.

Well, yes and no. If you're self-employed your flat tax rate is twice the rate as people who work for someone else. And if you employ people you have to pay a percentage for each employee you have. So not exactly a flat tax. Also for the "unemployment" part of that Federal budget item, employees don't pay that. Employers do. And that's also per employee.

 

[Alpo]

Yeah. Lets argue about the lima beans and not tackle the soup.

 

[foszoe]

That was educational....I thought the Debt Interest would have been much higher.

 

[jamil]

Yeah. Lets argue about the lima beans and not tackle the soup.

Oh, I'm game to start talking about dismantling social security.