You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US Presidential Election
November 23 2024 12.04pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

US Presidential Election

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 10 of 31 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

  

Ray in Houston Flag Houston 03 Oct 16 5.26pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

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.


Romney is massively rich (although not as rich as Trump claims to be). His tax returns revealed that the tax rate he paid on his stash averaged out to around 12%. This didn't go down with the middle classes who pay an average rate much higher than that - closer to 25%.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 03 Oct 16 5.41pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Correct. After Nixon (who released his returns while under audit) it became standard as part of the vetting process.

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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 03 Oct 16 8.34pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

Originally posted by Ray in Houston


Romney is massively rich (although not as rich as Trump claims to be). His tax returns revealed that the tax rate he paid on his stash averaged out to around 12%. This didn't go down with the middle classes who pay an average rate much higher than that - closer to 25%.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 03 Oct 16 8.35pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 03 Oct 16 9.14pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Ray in Houston Flag Houston 03 Oct 16 9.20pm Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston Add Ray in Houston as a friend

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.


Of course. That's the underlying problem and Businessman Trump has done nothing wrong (and has been corporately smart) in using and abusing the loopholes available to him. However, Candidate Trump has to square his corporate behaviour with his campaign trail rhetoric where he has railed on the 50% (his number) of Americans who don't pay federal income tax despite the country running an unhealthy deficit / debt.

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag 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"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 04 Oct 16 11.36am Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

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

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
nairb75 Flag Baltimore 04 Oct 16 1.31pm Send a Private Message to nairb75 Add nairb75 as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Stuk Flag Top half 04 Oct 16 1.44pm Send a Private Message to Stuk Add Stuk as a friend

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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 10 of 31 < 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > US Presidential Election