America’s wealthiest families smash income ceiling, middle-class left far behind

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why would we want to discuss anything again Bubba, Dubya took US revenues of the treasury from the 20% of GDP to 15%, Korean war (pre Medicare taxes) levels. Wht's so hard for you to understand?

It's awful! He took it from 20% of GDP to 17%, just by dropping every bracket by 1%.

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

 

[Dad2three]

20% TO 15% BUBBA, BY GUTTING REVENUES AS HE RAMPED UP SPENDING AND WENT TO TWO WARS AND CREATED MEDICARE PART D, WITHOUT FUNDING OF COURSE. 1% HUH? LOL



Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

20% TO 17% BUBBA, just by dropping rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Awful!
It's amazing what such a tiny cut can do, all by itself.
Especially using liberal math.

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

Yes, I see the pattern of your stupidity.

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Bubba, you are confusing the percentage of tax burden the rates were dropped (ONLY using the marginal rates and ignoring the capital gains tax cuts) and thinking GDP is the same as income. Weird how Dubya/GOP tax cuts reduced revenues to the treasury by 25% as they ramped up spending right Bubs?

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

Yes, I see the pattern of your stupidity.

Got it, you'll stick to your ignorance that's willful and "believe" in the conservative policy that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I'm shocked Bubba, shocked I tell you!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Feel free to post the decrease, from 2000 to 2002, in capital gains revenues and rates that somehow makes your whining less hilarious.

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

Yes, I see the pattern of your stupidity.

Got it, you'll stick to your ignorance that's willful and "believe" in the conservative policy that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I'm shocked Bubba, shocked I tell you!

And you'll stick to your ignorant belief that cutting rates 1% over 2 years was enough to reduce revenues by 3% of GDP.
Because liberals are really bad at math.

 

[Dad2three]

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already, I can't help it if you want to be willfully ignorant on Dubya's tax cuts. How'd the tax cuts work out again, they were supposed to create millions of jobs??? lol

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP (near where Carter had US before Ronnie's tax cuts for the rich gutted revenues as he ramped up s[pending) And Dubya/GOP tax cuts took US revenues to 15% of GDP. That's a 25% reduction in federal revenues AS THEY RAMPED UP SPENDING. See a pattern with the GOPers? lol

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

Yes, I see the pattern of your stupidity.

Got it, you'll stick to your ignorance that's willful and "believe" in the conservative policy that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I'm shocked Bubba, shocked I tell you!

And you'll stick to your ignorant belief that cutting rates 1% over 2 years was enough to reduce revenues by 3% of GDP.
Because liberals are really bad at math.

I get it Bubba, you can't understand what the GDP is versus wages. Sorry. You are a tool, nothing else.

Yeah, it's the liberals who claim tax cuts bring in more revenues, lol

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry Bubba, I posted the percentage of GDP Dubya/GOP policy decreased revenues already,

I know. You posted that revenue dropped 3% of GDP between 2000 and 2002.
And you blame that on Bush cutting rates 0.5% a year, for 2 years.
Because you're an idiot.

AGAIN, Clinton got US back up to 20% of GDP

Yes, unsustainable bubble revenue was high.

SEE A PATTERN UNDER CLINTON VIA GDP AND REVENUES? SEE THE OPPOSITE UNDER DUBYA? LOL

Yes, I see the pattern of your stupidity.

Got it, you'll stick to your ignorance that's willful and "believe" in the conservative policy that is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. I'm shocked Bubba, shocked I tell you!

And you'll stick to your ignorant belief that cutting rates 1% over 2 years was enough to reduce revenues by 3% of GDP.
Because liberals are really bad at math.

I get it Bubba, you can't understand what the GDP is versus wages. Sorry. You are a tool, nothing else.

Yeah, it's the liberals who claim tax cuts bring in more revenues, lol

It's the idiots who claim a 1% cut in rates, over 2 years, would cause a 3% of GDP drop in revenues.

 

[OnePercenter]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

 

[RKMBrown]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

So now his trust isn't distributing income, it's loaning him money?
Why would it loan him anything, I thought it was paying for his stuff?
It's hard to keep up with all his lies.

 

[RKMBrown]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

So now his trust isn't distributing income, it's loaning him money?
Why would it loan him anything, I thought it was paying for his stuff?
It's hard to keep up with all his lies.

Apparently he thinks he can avoid reporting income by calling his income a loan ROFL. Can't wait to hear how he pays his loan back. Cash from drug sales maybe?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

So now his trust isn't distributing income, it's loaning him money?
Why would it loan him anything, I thought it was paying for his stuff?
It's hard to keep up with all his lies.

Apparently he thinks he can avoid reporting income by calling his income a loan ROFL. Can't wait to hear how he pays his loan back. Cash from drug sales maybe?

If the trust forgives the loan, he has to report it as income.
I wonder what his next lie will claim?

 

[RKMBrown]

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

So now his trust isn't distributing income, it's loaning him money?
Why would it loan him anything, I thought it was paying for his stuff?
It's hard to keep up with all his lies.

Apparently he thinks he can avoid reporting income by calling his income a loan ROFL. Can't wait to hear how he pays his loan back. Cash from drug sales maybe?

If the trust forgives the loan, he has to report it as income.
I wonder what his next lie will claim?

And he has to show he's paying it back with interest on a regular basis. ROFL

 

[OnePercenter]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

Since when is a loan income?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When your "family trust corporation" distributes assets to your family they pay income tax.

Extrapolating from this context... when you claimed low effective tax rates what you were really doing is "deferring" taxes on income to some later time by not distributing accruing assets of the family trust. IOW your trust is acting like a 401k where you don't have to pay taxes till you take the money out for personal use. The business of your family trust is to grow the family trust for later withdrawals.

Since last year? Huh? Who's talking about next years taxes?

It's called a private family trust. In Nevada, a private family trust is completely unregulated AND untaxed by the State. When you tie a private family trust with a corporation, the corporation is 100% responsible for all taxes. Distributions are seen by the IRS as using savings, which aren't taxable.

Nevada, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming, and now with the help of a guy named Bush, Florida has become the latest State to save the wealthy most of their money.

Oh god I hope no one reports you to the IRS. What you said it not "legal." You might be able to come up with a way to avoid "STATE INCOME TAX" but you owe the IRS dude. Which is what we've been talking about, FEDERAL INCOME TAX rates, not state income tax rates.

Perfectly legal. Loans made by the trust aren't regulated. Why do you think Fisher Island, Fl has an average income of 830k, an average home price of over 1 million, and a 13% unemployment rate?

Huh? No it is not legal to LIE about your INCOME to the IRS.

What makes you think you can hide your income through an unregulated loan process?

Dude, you are gonna be so screwed when the IRS finds you.

What does Fisher Island have to do with your lie that hiding income from the IRS is legal? So what if a bunch of rich people live on a small piece of property in Miami?

Since when is a loan income?

Since it is written off and not repaid.

 

[OnePercenter]

Let me help the enquiring minds.

Properties in NYC, South Beach, Vegas, San Diego, and Avalon, Ca are managed all-enclusive, and are owned and paid by the trust as investments. My personal expences are paid via credit card to a 50 year interest only loan of $1.00/yr. The loan is paid by my estate via life insurance paid by the trust.

Welcome to the world of private non-regulated trusts and the Republicans that made it possible.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me help the enquiring minds.

Properties in NYC, South Beach, Vegas, San Diego, and Avalon, Ca are managed all-enclusive, and are owned and paid by the trust as investments. My personal expences are paid via credit card to a 50 year interest only loan of $1.00/yr. The loan is paid by my estate via life insurance paid by the trust.

Welcome to the world of private non-regulated trusts and the Republicans that made it possible.

You're right, before Republicans, you could never live in a house you bought, pay with a credit card, take out a loan or use life insurance.

Or lie about any or all of the above. LOL!

 

[OnePercenter]

Let me help the enquiring minds.

Properties in NYC, South Beach, Vegas, San Diego, and Avalon, Ca are managed all-enclusive, and are owned and paid by the trust as investments. My personal expences are paid via credit card to a 50 year interest only loan of $1.00/yr. The loan is paid by my estate via life insurance paid by the trust.

Welcome to the world of private non-regulated trusts and the Republicans that made it possible.

You're right, before Republicans, you could never live in a house you bought, pay with a credit card, take out a loan or use life insurance.

Or lie about any or all of the above. LOL!

The isssue is private trusts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Let me help the enquiring minds.

Properties in NYC, South Beach, Vegas, San Diego, and Avalon, Ca are managed all-enclusive, and are owned and paid by the trust as investments. My personal expences are paid via credit card to a 50 year interest only loan of $1.00/yr. The loan is paid by my estate via life insurance paid by the trust.

Welcome to the world of private non-regulated trusts and the Republicans that made it possible.

You're right, before Republicans, you could never live in a house you bought, pay with a credit card, take out a loan or use life insurance.

Or lie about any or all of the above. LOL!

The isssue is private trusts.

You still haven't explained how the trust drops your tax rate into low single digits, despite multi-million dollar annual incomes.
Perhaps you could do that now?

 

[RKMBrown]

Let me help the enquiring minds.

Properties in NYC, South Beach, Vegas, San Diego, and Avalon, Ca are managed all-enclusive, and are owned and paid by the trust as investments. My personal expences are paid via credit card to a 50 year interest only loan of $1.00/yr. The loan is paid by my estate via life insurance paid by the trust.

Welcome to the world of private non-regulated trusts and the Republicans that made it possible.

You're right, before Republicans, you could never live in a house you bought, pay with a credit card, take out a loan or use life insurance.

Or lie about any or all of the above. LOL!

The isssue is private trusts.

You still haven't explained how the trust drops your tax rate into low single digits, despite multi-million dollar annual incomes.
Perhaps you could do that now?

ROFL.. now's he's a trust baby living in an expensive home gifted to him, probably by his parents, managed by a trust that is "gifting" him some expense money and managing the "investment for him." Make sure to keep that cash under what 14k / year? Or your gonna have gift taxes to pay.