US Presidential Election

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 11 of 31 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Stuk Top half 04 Oct 16 1.45pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 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'. I do, as are religious tax breaks. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Oct 16 1.45pm

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

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'.

I do, as are religious tax breaks.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk Top half 04 Oct 16 1.47pm
Originally posted by Kermit8 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. You don't have to abolish the tax free allowance, you could give everyone the same amount in keeping to the fairness of the strategy. So if it was £10K, he'd pay tax on £290,000 and she'd pay tax on the £3,000. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Oct 16 1.47pm

Originally posted by Kermit8

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.

You don't have to abolish the tax free allowance, you could give everyone the same amount in keeping to the fairness of the strategy.

So if it was £10K, he'd pay tax on £290,000 and she'd pay tax on the £3,000.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 04 Oct 16 2.07pm
Originally posted by Stuk You don't have to abolish the tax free allowance, you could give everyone the same amount in keeping to the fairness of the strategy. So if it was £10K, he'd pay tax on £290,000 and she'd pay tax on the £3,000. Ok so Rooney would be paying roughly 20% less tax (if it were 15%) on £290,000 which gives him an extra £60k a year and the lady still pays her £450 tax on that £3,000 of her £13,000 salary. Seems fair. I'm in. Don't need Rooney's tax money anyway. Waste of time Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 04 Oct 16 2.07pm

Originally posted by Stuk

You don't have to abolish the tax free allowance, you could give everyone the same amount in keeping to the fairness of the strategy.

So if it was £10K, he'd pay tax on £290,000 and she'd pay tax on the £3,000.

Ok so Rooney would be paying roughly 20% less tax (if it were 15%) on £290,000 which gives him an extra £60k a year and the lady still pays her £450 tax on that £3,000 of her £13,000 salary.

Seems fair. I'm in. Don't need Rooney's tax money anyway. Waste of time

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.03pm
Originally posted by jamiemartin721 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. No it can't. The foundation was suspended because, in New York where it's based, you need a license - which comes with significant scrutiny of the books - if you receive donations from outside of more than $25,000. The Trump Foundation has been flouting this regulation since 2008 at least (the last year Trump himself donated to his charity). The financial scrutiny would have shown up the charity's illegal "self-dealing" long before now had it complied with New York licensing regulations. Trump has been using the foundation - funded entirely by the charitable largesse of other people - as a personal slush fund, which is as grotesque as it is illegal. 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.03pm

Send a Private Message to Ray in Houston

Originally posted by jamiemartin721

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.

No it can't. The foundation was suspended because, in New York where it's based, you need a license - which comes with significant scrutiny of the books - if you receive donations from outside of more than $25,000. The Trump Foundation has been flouting this regulation since 2008 at least (the last year Trump himself donated to his charity).

The financial scrutiny would have shown up the charity's illegal "self-dealing" long before now had it complied with New York licensing regulations. Trump has been using the foundation - funded entirely by the charitable largesse of other people - as a personal slush fund, which is as grotesque as it is illegal.

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

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.16pm
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. Romney's income was derived almost entirely from carried interest, which is taxed at a top rate of 20% (it's a loophole available only to those who make their money operating hedge funds). Contrast that to regular old income, which is taxed at a top rate of 39.6%. Romney had a head start on the rest of us before he even donated a cent to charity. Oh, and the 25% average rate paid by the rest of us is the average rate paid by the rest of us after deductions for property taxes, mortgage interest, etc. In fact, 90% of taxpayers don't even qualify to itemise deductions, so they pay what they pay without any opportunity to offset anything. The tax code is rigged to benefit the super-wealthy. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were so finely tuned that you had to be in the top 10% of the top 1% in order to benefit; being in the bottom 90% of the top 1% meant you merely stood still. Everyone else, of course, got screwed and continues to be screwed by people who can afford to pay lawyers to to move/hide money (e.g. in Panama) so that it avoids taxes now and in the future. Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Oct 2016 4.17pm) 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.16pm

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.

Romney's income was derived almost entirely from carried interest, which is taxed at a top rate of 20% (it's a loophole available only to those who make their money operating hedge funds). Contrast that to regular old income, which is taxed at a top rate of 39.6%. Romney had a head start on the rest of us before he even donated a cent to charity.

Oh, and the 25% average rate paid by the rest of us is the average rate paid by the rest of us after deductions for property taxes, mortgage interest, etc. In fact, 90% of taxpayers don't even qualify to itemise deductions, so they pay what they pay without any opportunity to offset anything.

The tax code is rigged to benefit the super-wealthy. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were so finely tuned that you had to be in the top 10% of the top 1% in order to benefit; being in the bottom 90% of the top 1% meant you merely stood still. Everyone else, of course, got screwed and continues to be screwed by people who can afford to pay lawyers to to move/hide money (e.g. in Panama) so that it avoids taxes now and in the future.

Edited by Ray in Houston (04 Oct 2016 4.17pm)

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

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.23pm
Originally posted by nairb75 you'll never get a flat tax that doesn't have loopholes. just another way to screw the little guy. The first hurdle on apply a flat tax to income is defining what you mean by the word "income". 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.23pm

Originally posted by nairb75

you'll never get a flat tax that doesn't have loopholes. just another way to screw the little guy.

The first hurdle on apply a flat tax to income is defining what you mean by the word "income".

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

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.24pm
Originally posted by Stuk No you don't. The IRS don't have elections. Their bosses do, though. 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.24pm

Originally posted by Stuk

No you don't. The IRS don't have elections.

Their bosses do, though.

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 04 Oct 16 4.30pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Their bosses do, though. Not really. Nominated by the pres and voted on by the senate. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Oct 16 4.30pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Their bosses do, though.

Not really. Nominated by the pres and voted on by the senate.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.39pm
Originally posted by Stuk Not really. Nominated by the pres and voted on by the senate. ...who are all elected. 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.39pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Not really. Nominated by the pres and voted on by the senate.

...who are all elected.

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 04 Oct 16 4.41pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston ...who are all elected. Which isn't the same as electing the head of the IRS. But even if they were they could still change the systems or close some loopholes during their period in charge. Each action they take isn't voted on. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Oct 16 4.41pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

...who are all elected.

Which isn't the same as electing the head of the IRS. But even if they were they could still change the systems or close some loopholes during their period in charge.

Each action they take isn't voted on.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Ray in Houston Houston 04 Oct 16 4.45pm
Originally posted by Stuk Which isn't the same as electing the head of the IRS. But even if they were they could still change the systems or close some loopholes during their period in charge. Each action they take isn't voted on. Which brings us back to the original premise: if you want to change the tax code, you have to do it through the ballot box. It's Congress that sets the tax code, the rules by which the IRS operates and the personnel (at least the senior ones) at the IRS who make sure that it does what Congress wants. The IRS is merely a tool of our elected government. 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

Ray in Houston

Houston 04 Oct 16 4.45pm

Originally posted by Stuk

Which isn't the same as electing the head of the IRS. But even if they were they could still change the systems or close some loopholes during their period in charge.

Each action they take isn't voted on.

Which brings us back to the original premise: if you want to change the tax code, you have to do it through the ballot box. It's Congress that sets the tax code, the rules by which the IRS operates and the personnel (at least the senior ones) at the IRS who make sure that it does what Congress wants.

The IRS is merely a tool of our elected government.

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 04 Oct 16 5.07pm
Originally posted by Ray in Houston Which brings us back to the original premise: if you want to change the tax code, you have to do it through the ballot box. It's Congress that sets the tax code, the rules by which the IRS operates and the personnel (at least the senior ones) at the IRS who make sure that it does what Congress wants. The IRS is merely a tool of our elected government. I'd be amazed if it were the case that no taxes (codes or rates) can be adjusted mid-term. You can't wait for an election if things need to be changed, for whatever reason. Optimistic as ever
Alert a moderator to this post

Stuk

Top half 04 Oct 16 5.07pm

Originally posted by Ray in Houston

Which brings us back to the original premise: if you want to change the tax code, you have to do it through the ballot box. It's Congress that sets the tax code, the rules by which the IRS operates and the personnel (at least the senior ones) at the IRS who make sure that it does what Congress wants.

The IRS is merely a tool of our elected government.

I'd be amazed if it were the case that no taxes (codes or rates) can be adjusted mid-term. You can't wait for an election if things need to be changed, for whatever reason.

Optimistic as ever

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 11 of 31 < 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

US Presidential Election

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors