Bladewillisisdead Posted October 2, 2016 Share Posted October 2, 2016 It still makes Trump a piece of shit. Exploiting loopholes is not something to be celebrated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abovetheearth Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) i mean, he keeps bitching about the national debt, paying his taxes would have at least put payments towards the interest of it. he also loves this countries vets (as we all should) but paying those taxes sure would have helped them out when they get their benefits. if there are loop holes and he legally avoided doing them then its whatever. but i dont see anyone being a winner with verbal support and nothing else. the gov't will do whatever they want with whoever is in office. Edited October 3, 2016 by abovetheearth futures and nancy_raygun 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipyourbartender Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 It's not really exploiting anything. Look at what happened. Trump claimed a nearly 1 billion dollar loss in 95. Under the tax law, anyone who lost that much money was exempt from paying income taxes for a certain amount of years. Why on Earth would you not take advantage of that? You would have to be a complete idiot. Do the Clinton's pay more in income taxes than they are legally required? Does anyone? I don't think so, so why should Donald Trump? A lot of people may not remember but the Clinton's tried their hand in real estate once. It was called the Whitewater Development Corp and it was an epic disaster. WAXXX and Tommy 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 there seems to be a giant misunderstanding in this thread on the difference between a tax loophole and the law. Tommy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 19 hours ago, WAXXX said: how's this for hypocrisy: the new york times pays nothing in corporate taxes. http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/01/31/new-york-times-hypocrisy-on-corporate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#f4e2df965775 this is relevant because they are owned by time warner, who owns/operates CNN, HBO (john oliver), politifact, and the washington post. all of whom constantly bash trump for trying to pay less in taxes. LOL. its not hypocritical because the NY Times is not running for president, and is not hiding their tax returns/filings, or their ties to foreign entities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boops_popmarket Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 u all sound like the idiot in this article who cries every time someone takes advantage of legal tax breaks https://thinkprogress.org/7-tweets-by-trump-about-taxes-that-are-very-awkward-now-75b500ea4f45#.jt5ja45dv fact is: trump is a genieus and he is right- the tax codes that allowed him to be a brillient business man need to be changed. we can't have anymore genieuseis. it's bad for this country. china is not paying taxes. europe is not paying taxes. she was a columbian drug lord. where are the emails thank you ~ rds nancy_raygun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Just now, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: its not hypocritical because the NY Times is not running for president, and is not hiding their tax returns/filings, or their ties to foreign entities. yes, it's hypocritical. although you are correct that the NY times is not running for president. hy·poc·ri·sy həˈpäkrəsē/ noun the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform; pretense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 the NY Times has never denied that they follow the same practice, it is not hypocritical. The reporters reporting are not the legal filing entity. nancy_raygun 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipyourbartender Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 2 minutes ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: its not hypocritical because the NY Times is not running for president, and is not hiding their tax returns/filings, or their ties to foreign entities. It would be more hypocritical if the CEO or the officers in charge of the paper didn't pay personal income tax. It's a bit different but overall the same. They took advantage of tax laws to not pay income taxes. Trump did the same thing. NYT however illegally obtained his taxes and illegally published them. Nothing wrong with that though right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 they didnt illegally obtain anything. someone mailed the tax forms to them, they reported on what they received, that is not illegal. stl_ben 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) taxation is still theft. Edited October 3, 2016 by WAXXX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abovetheearth Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) If its illegal (NYT), Donald will probably not sue because then he will have to release them. Edited October 3, 2016 by abovetheearth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipyourbartender Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 4 minutes ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: they didnt illegally obtain anything. someone mailed the tax forms to them, they reported on what they received, that is not illegal. Publishing someone's personal taxes without their consent is very much illegal. They did it to sell papers not to be heroes. The NYT gets tens of millions in tax breaks and has even gotten millions back in refunds. They are just placing their bet on Clinton. 4 minutes ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: they didnt illegally obtain anything. someone mailed the tax forms to them, they reported on what they received, that is not illegal. Publishing someone's personal taxes without their consent is very much illegal. They did it to sell papers not to be heroes. The NYT gets tens of millions in tax breaks and has even gotten millions back in refunds. They are just placing their bet on Clinton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 let's not forget the time hillary clinton laughed about helping a group of rebels murder a guy by repeatedly shoving a bayonet up his rectum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boops_popmarket Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) ok so trump laughed in that clip. liberals are so sensitive about words. we need someone strong who will stand up to other countries and not be afraid to laugh at them. where are the emails thank you ~ rds Edited October 3, 2016 by rds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boops_popmarket Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 my mistake that was hillary in the clip. i meant to say that its shameful to see her laugh and mock others who she disagrees with. liberal hypocrisy is the reason ISIS exists. she looks weak and sick in that clip. where are the emails thank you ~ rds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museummouth Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Okay but you Trump supporters still are supporting a racist. Thus you're supporting racism. Defend that. Okay but you Trump supporters still are supporting a racist. Thus you're supporting racism. Defend that. stl_ben, futures and nancy_raygun 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boops_popmarket Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 Rac-ist (noun) someone who calls someone else racist example: "If you really think about it, black people and white people who are liberals are the real racists." where are the emails the ny times is a criminal newspaper thank you ~ rds Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
museummouth Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 21 minutes ago, rds said: Rac-ist (noun) someone who calls someone else racist example: "If you really think about it, black people and white people who are liberals are the real racists." where are the emails the ny times is a criminal newspaper thank you ~ rds You are a bizarre person. What's wrong with you? 21 minutes ago, rds said: Rac-ist (noun) someone who calls someone else racist example: "If you really think about it, black people and white people who are liberals are the real racists." where are the emails the ny times is a criminal newspaper thank you ~ rds You are a bizarre person. What's wrong with you? WAXXX 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WAXXX Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 36 minutes ago, museummouth said: Okay but you Trump supporters still are supporting a racist. Thus you're supporting racism. Defend that. Okay but you Trump supporters still are supporting a racist. Thus you're supporting racism. Defend that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 2 hours ago, tipyourbartender said: Publishing someone's personal taxes without their consent is very much illegal. They did it to sell papers not to be heroes. The NYT gets tens of millions in tax breaks and has even gotten millions back in refunds. They are just placing their bet on Clinton. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1687 This Supreme Court case ruling applies to this situation, and states that it would not be illegal for the NY Times to publish documents it obtained if it was not involved in the illegal act of getting them. So whatever accountant/firm mailed in the documents was the party committing the crime, not the NY Times, and the NY Times is allowed to print and report on the documents as protected by the 1st Amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipyourbartender Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) 50 minutes ago, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ said: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/99-1687 This Supreme Court case ruling applies to this situation, and states that it would not be illegal for the NY Times to publish documents it obtained if it was not involved in the illegal act of getting them. So whatever accountant/firm mailed in the documents was the party committing the crime, not the NY Times, and the NY Times is allowed to print and report on the documents as protected by the 1st Amendment. This does not apply to tax returns as they are protected differently than illegally obtained phone conversations. Let's assume the NYT tries to cite this case anyway. Are the contents of Donald Trump's taxes a matter of public concern? That is highly debatable. They'll need to prove by releasing his taxes against his will, there was a significant benefit to the public that outweighed Trump's privacy. That may sound easy, but they will need to provide actual facts and hard evidence not speculation. This https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/7213 plainly states it is a felony for any person to publish someones tax returns in any manner without their consent. NYT isn't denying that it was illegal. Someone from the paper said a week ago they would risk jail time to publish his tax returns. Edited October 3, 2016 by tipyourbartender ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boops_popmarket Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 There's no precedent for someone in Trump's position to release their tax returns. It's preposterous and unlawful and another in a long line of Clinton's unconstitutional Marshall law crimes. where are the emails taxation is theft thank you ~ rds camilla anne hughes click to see profile Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abovetheearth Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) doesnt matter. october surprise is scheduled for tomorrow so clinton will lose all her debate points and we start again at 0 until the next discovery. Edited October 3, 2016 by abovetheearth WAXXX and tipyourbartender 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tipyourbartender Posted October 3, 2016 Share Posted October 3, 2016 The reason the tax code allows people who lose money in investments to pay less income tax is to entice people to make investments in the first place. The government wants people investing their money in the economy, especially rich people. Trump was building hotels and casinos. Things that funneled huge amounts of cash into the local economies. No doubt he and his Corp paid less in taxes for this reason alone. It's the same reason NFL stadiums are built with taxpayer money. Bringing NFL games and other events to a city is supposed to drive up crazy amounts of tax revenue around the stadium and bring in thousands of new jobs. That's the argument at least. It doesn't make sense to get angry at Donald Trump for losing a billion dollars of his own money in investments that were meant to drive the economy and create jobs. These kinds of acts should be encouraged, not discouraged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.