CDZ Trump,"You've bailed me out 4 times, some years I pay no taxes, I need to lower taxes on the rich"?"

[Toronado3800]

Oh, and he gets audited alot but never convicted because he is good.

This man is going to drive us to another socialist revolution if he keeps talking folks. I have paraphrased 3 separate quotes from last night (for the sake of making a title that fit) and combined them, but still, is that his economic plan?
While I admire his intelligence to find people and loopholes I don't know if his type of economic genius can work on a national level when other rich folks and countries are out to get you.

There maybe should be a place in a President's cabinet for Donald though. He isn't a "yes man" and he is intelligent. Even if I wouldn't ever, ever risk the nuclear football by making him my Designated Survivor.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Odd ain't it, that a sizeable contingent of americans will vote for a guy who floats on all the stuff they're angry about, yet he can convince them he's an outsider; a "1%er" who's gonna stick it to the man for them. Incredible.

“This man is going to drive us to another socialist revolution if he keeps talking folks.”

Very well could, I say we keep a mic directly in front of his uncontrollable mouth. Still, one must always bear in mind, the downward trajectory of the middle and working class that provides the wealth that the substantial people mine for their own glorification will continue under both possibilities. By utterly bipartisan design.

 

[Syriusly]

I am not sure what the debate is that you are looking for here.

Trump doesn't want voters to see his tax returns. The only Presidential candidate in decades to refuse to show voters his tax returns.
There is no legal issue preventing him- he admitted it last night. He just doesn't want voters to see his tax returns.

Why?

Because he thinks voters won't like what they see. The only thing we don't know is what the details are that he thinks we will object to.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm not sure on the debate either. Its fact I suppose that he pays no taxes some years, wants a tax cut to attract businesses and declares bankruptcies other so we can bail him out.

The debate must be on the different issue

-if he is a good businessman or a man with a good accountant.
-if we as a country can survive with more of that type of business going on

 

[Onyx]

This man is going to drive us to another socialist revolution if he keeps talking folks.

Donald Trump is the socialist revolution.

 

[leftwinger]

If you have income you will have to pay taxes. The IRS is very good. Trump has paid what is due. If you have no taxable income during "that" tax year you do not pay any tax.

Trump did not write the Tax code, people like HRC massage it every year. can you say special favors?

 

[Onyx]

I'm not sure on the debate either. Its fact I suppose that he pays no taxes some years, wants a tax cut to attract businesses and declares bankruptcies other so we can bail him out.

There is more to his business history than that.

Many times suspected of breaking federal law, organizing his development projects by putting other investors heads on the line, lobbying the government to advantage his businesses, and destroying historical architecture and ancient preserved land to build towers and golf courses on.

The debate must be on the different issue

-if he is a good businessman or a man with a good accountant.
-if we as a country can survive with more of that type of business going on

Also whether he is broke, and using the election to restore his coffers. It was speculated on right away that Donald Trump was not as wealthy as he claimed, and outside his fixed assets he was only believed to have been making about ten million a year.

 

[rdean]

Fact check said it was six bankruptcies, not four. Again he lied.

 

[rdean]

If you have income you will have to pay taxes. The IRS is very good. Trump has paid what is due. If you have no taxable income during "that" tax year you do not pay any tax.

Trump did not write the Tax code, people like HRC massage it every year. can you say special favors?

how can you defend that. All he talks about is how much he made. The IRS only fined him because the Democrats made a deal of his illegal activity.

 

[leftwinger]

how can you defend that. All he talks about is how much he made. The IRS only fined him because the Democrats made a deal of his illegal activity.

Like I said....."If you have income you will have to pay taxes".

Defend what? If he made a lot...........and did not have massive legal deductions......then he will be taxed on resultant AGI (adjusted Gross Income).

Forbes had him ranked in top 400 recently at $4.5B wealth. Bill Gates is at $76B.

 

[leftwinger]

Dizzy Dean.........I don't know how Trumps companyTaxes and his personal Taxes are mingled?

Under his & wife name, did they make any income? salary? IRA withdrawel? SSI? Gambling profits? Stock sales?

Add all that personal income (from W2).......take off ALL legal deductions, remainder is your "personal" AGI....taxable.

 

[Toronado3800]

So apparently the effictive tax rate on Donald Trump is near zero.

Does anyone think we somehow lowered the tax rate on Donald it would encourage him create more jobs?

 

[jwoodie]

Hillary Clinton is lying about Trump's taxes, just as Harry Reid lied about Romney's taxes. Both Clinton and Reid are despicable human beings.

 

[320 Years of History]

Odd ain't it, that a sizeable contingent of americans will vote for a guy who floats on all the stuff they're angry about, yet he can convince them he's an outsider; a "1%er" who's gonna stick it to the man for them. Incredible.

That is precisely what astounds me to some extent. It doesn't insofar as I know the man is a marketing genius...All people who make "big money" by licensing a brand are, but sometimes there's "there" there, and other times there is not. The thing with Trump is that time and time again we see the man has connived his way to "winning."

People say he "tells it like it is." He does not. He, like every outstanding marketer, tells it like he wants the consumer, in this case voters, to see it. When it comes to marketing, "how it is" is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the consumer feel like it is as the marketer/seller says it is.

Think of a typical marketing campaign. What is the message? In some way, shape or form, it is essentially that the product is "the best thing since sliced bread." Now think about how many of those products you've actually closely scrutinized and found out they are (1) not the best things since sliced bread, (2) no better than a competing product, (3) worse than the alternative, or (4) the features and benefits they've touted don't actually produce a tangible result to you the buyer.

Well, Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to. And yet what we do have portends disaster. The man has used "every trick in the book" to avoid delivering on his side of deals. Hell, the man has all but bragged about paying no federal income taxes, and to boot, he has no intention of making that be the circumstance for "average people," yet if there's anyone who deserves to pay no taxes, it is "average people." And why is that? Because we already know that the majority of the government's revenue doesn't come from "average people."

​

Now look at Trump's current tax proposal.

Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers
(Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts)

Taxable income: Rate
Less than $75,000 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000 25%
More than $225,000 33%​

Only the most basic aspects of it is shown above. I discussed the rates above and additional details of his plan (from the perspective of a CPA more so than that of an economist) in the "income inequality" section of my post here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15399131/. Read the post and you'll see why his proposal is grossly inequitable for "average people."

FWIW, his proposal would be great for my wallet, but I'm not an average earner by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm a business owner not an employee. I just don't want to live in a nation full of pissed off "average people" -- more pissed off than they are now -- suffering from what is sure to be most extreme case of buyer's remorse ever observed. Quite frankly, for me, it comes down to "do unto others as I'd have them do unto me." There's just no way in hell, were I an average earner in the U.S. that I'd want to live with the inequity of Trump's tax plan because it's more, vastly more inequitable than are the current tax provisions. It practically ensures that folks like me -- folks on the low to low middle rungs of the 1% -- and folks wealthier than I will, at most, pay taxes at 15%, and most folks in my situation will pay at 10%. How can that constitute "doing right" by our countrymen who earn, what, about 10-15% of what we do? It can't!

Click on the link in the preceding paragraph and you'll see that entry into the 1% doesn't take "Wall St." and "CEO" earnings. It's what doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, reasonably successful small business owners, and more make, and I'm not even talking about the most senior of them. "Rank and file" professionals earn that much. We don't look (to the man on the street) like the mega rich folks about whom one hears of in the news...for obvious reasons...we aren't that well off. But make no mistake, when the accountant, doctor, or attorney, for example, who last year paid $400K in taxes will under Trump's proposal pays something less than $200K, s/he's going to notice it. Now consider the fellow who last year earned $80K and paid $8K in taxes finds himself paying more than that. Even if it's just $50 more, he's going to be furious.

The "Wall St-ers" and CEOs are the folks we hear about in the news, but they aren't the bulk of the 1%. Hell, they don't even comprise "a lot" of the 1%. They merely serve as the most egregious illustrations of the advantages everyone in the 1% have and that makes them good "whipping boys" and "strawmen."

So what is the impact of what Trump's tax policies on folks in the lower rungs of the 1%? Basically to push them out of the 1% so that the controlling interest the 1% have is consolidated among an even smaller group of individuals. He knows, just as I do, that folks like me who are on or near the bottom of the 1% are numerous and more likely to favor tax policy that favors "average people" because, for the most part, we consider ourselves to be "average people," who through our hard work happen to earn enough to be comfortable.

But what's the big difference? People like me don't look at money as the determinant between who's won and who's lost. People like me don't look at the hairdresser or the administrative assistant and consider them to be losers. Trump and the people in his cohort do. Hell, they consider many folks in the lower half of the 1% also to be losers. Quite simply, in Trump's mind, money is the scorecard.

​

So you tell me. If money is the scorecard, have all the folks who haven't amassed $30M, or $15M or even just $2M, winners or losers? Now think about how you feel about losers in general. Are you of a mind to do anything for them? Would you sooner just see them disappear and let the winners get on with playing "for real ?" Think about that and you'll understand how Trump and his cohort view.

As that applies to taxes, it's quite simple. One doesn't give tax breaks to losers because they have not demonstrated that they'd do much of anything "useful" with the money so as to grow their and the nation's fortunes. What one does is give the "losers" just enough money so they'll run out and spend it and a little bit more on the new things one and the other "real" players have made available in the marketplace. One does that so that it's possible to tell which of the "real" players have won and which have lost any given contest in the overall battle for supremacy within a given playing field (in an industry, in a geographic market, in a nation, overall, etc.).

Knowing that is another part of why I don't support Trump.

 

[Toronado3800]

Odd ain't it, that a sizeable contingent of americans will vote for a guy who floats on all the stuff they're angry about, yet he can convince them he's an outsider; a "1%er" who's gonna stick it to the man for them. Incredible.

That is precisely what astounds me to some extent. It doesn't insofar as I know the man is a marketing genius...All people who make "big money" by licensing a brand are, but sometimes there's "there" there, and other times there is not. The thing with Trump is that time and time again we see the man has connived his way to "winning."

People say he "tells it like it is." He does not. He, like every outstanding marketer, tells it like he wants the consumer, in this case voters, to see it. When it comes to marketing, "how it is" is irrelevant; what is relevant is that the consumer feel like it is as the marketer/seller says it is.

Think of a typical marketing campaign. What is the message? In some way, shape or form, it is essentially that the product is "the best thing since sliced bread." Now think about how many of those products you've actually closely scrutinized and found out they are (1) not the best things since sliced bread, (2) no better than a competing product, (3) worse than the alternative, or (4) the features and benefits they've touted don't actually produce a tangible result to you the buyer.

Well, Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to. And yet what we do have portends disaster. The man has used "every trick in the book" to avoid delivering on his side of deals. Hell, the man has all but bragged about paying no federal income taxes, and to boot, he has no intention of making that be the circumstance for "average people," yet if there's anyone who deserves to pay no taxes, it is "average people." And why is that? Because we already know that the majority of the government's revenue doesn't come from "average people."

​

Now look at Trump's current tax proposal.

Brackets & Rates for Married-Joint filers
(Brackets for single filers are ½ of these amounts)

Taxable income: Rate
Less than $75,000 12%
More than $75,000 but less than $225,000 25%
More than $225,000 33%​

Only the most basic aspects of it is shown above. I discussed the rates above and additional details of his plan (from the perspective of a CPA more so than that of an economist) in the "income inequality" section of my post here: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/15399131/. Read the post and you'll see why his proposal is grossly inequitable for "average people."

FWIW, his proposal would be great for my wallet, but I'm not an average earner by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm a business owner not an employee. I just don't want to live in a nation full of pissed off "average people" -- more pissed off than they are now -- suffering from what is sure to be most extreme case of buyer's remorse ever observed. Quite frankly, for me, it comes down to "do unto others as I'd have them do unto me." There's just no way in hell, were I an average earner in the U.S. that I'd want to live with the inequity of Trump's tax plan because it's more, vastly more inequitable than are the current tax provisions. It practically ensures that folks like me -- folks on the low to low middle rungs of the 1% -- and folks wealthier than I will, at most, pay taxes at 15%, and most folks in my situation will pay at 10%. How can that constitute "doing right" by our countrymen who earn, what, about 10-15% of what we do? It can't!

Click on the link in the preceding paragraph and you'll see that entry into the 1% doesn't take "Wall St." and "CEO" earnings. It's what doctors, lawyers, accountants, consultants, reasonably successful small business owners, and more make, and I'm not even talking about the most senior of them. "Rank and file" professionals earn that much. We don't look (to the man on the street) like the mega rich folks about whom one hears of in the news...for obvious reasons...we aren't that well off. But make no mistake, when the accountant, doctor, or attorney, for example, who last year paid $400K in taxes will under Trump's proposal pays something less than $200K, s/he's going to notice it. Now consider the fellow who last year earned $80K and paid $8K in taxes finds himself paying more than that. Even if it's just $50 more, he's going to be furious.

The "Wall St-ers" and CEOs are the folks we hear about in the news, but they aren't the bulk of the 1%. Hell, they don't even comprise "a lot" of the 1%. They merely serve as the most egregious illustrations of the advantages everyone in the 1% have and that makes them good "whipping boys" and "strawmen."

So what is the impact of what Trump's tax policies on folks in the lower rungs of the 1%? Basically to push them out of the 1% so that the controlling interest the 1% have is consolidated among an even smaller group of individuals. He knows, just as I do, that folks like me who are on or near the bottom of the 1% are numerous and more likely to favor tax policy that favors "average people" because, for the most part, we consider ourselves to be "average people," who through our hard work happen to earn enough to be comfortable.

But what's the big difference? People like me don't look at money as the determinant between who's won and who's lost. People like me don't look at the hairdresser or the administrative assistant and consider them to be losers. Trump and the people in his cohort do. Hell, they consider many folks in the lower half of the 1% also to be losers. Quite simply, in Trump's mind, money is the scorecard.

​

So you tell me. If money is the scorecard, have all the folks who haven't amassed $30M, or $15M or even just $2M, winners or losers? Now think about how you feel about losers in general. Are you of a mind to do anything for them? Would you sooner just see them disappear and let the winners get on with playing "for real ?" Think about that and you'll understand how Trump and his cohort view.

As that applies to taxes, it's quite simple. One doesn't give tax breaks to losers because they have not demonstrated that they'd do much of anything "useful" with the money so as to grow their and the nation's fortunes. What one does is give the "losers" just enough money so they'll run out and spend it and a little bit more on the new things one and the other "real" players have made available in the marketplace. One does that so that it's possible to tell which of the "real" players have won and which have lost any given contest in the overall battle for supremacy within a given playing field (in an industry, in a geographic market, in a nation, overall, etc.).

Knowing that is another part of why I don't support Trump.

You are an interesting man.

I had always seen that graph showing the percentage paid by those who earn 250,000 plus. Now after hearing Donald brag I'm curious how it would break down if we had more divisions. 250,000 to 299,999 then 300,000 to 349,999 and so on to 100,000,000 plus I suppose.

Perhaps it would be best to show it as "Percentage of income paid" for each.

Graphs are something I love and hate. Love because they visually show information, hate because you can skew your own opinion based on arbitrary division and with this one I do not know what is the best way to show it.

 

[jwoodie]

Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

 

[Fenton Lum]

Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

Has the universe accepted this premise as to who was and who was not effective, and who exactly amongst the population were they effective and/or ineffective for? Certainly not all of society, so who matters? Who decides? Carter was clearly the closest to a man of God we’ve had in a nation obsessed with religion. And yet, the “liberal” media has demonized him.

 

[Toronado3800]

Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

Trump has been bankrupt. Four times by his own word. Doesn't that mean he needed big government you and me to bail him out?

You wouldn't call the folks who rode GM into the success of new GM on our backs successful would you?

 

[320 Years of History]

Now after hearing Donald brag I'm curious how it would break down if we had more divisions. 250,000 to 299,999 then 300,000 to 349,999 and so on to 100,000,000 plus I suppose.

Perhaps it would be best to show it as "Percentage of income paid" for each.

Graphs are something I love and hate. Love because they visually show information, hate because you can skew your own opinion based on arbitrary division and with this one I do not know what is the best way to show it.

Graphs are great for visually summarizing; that's what they are for, really. What you want -- your $50K brackets going from $250K to $100M -- would make for 2000 bars or lines. That's hardly a summarized presentation of anything...it's just more summarized than is using smaller cohorts. I'm sure the information would be interesting to read and analyze, but I'm certain that putting it, at that level of detail, into anything other than a spreadsheet or database would be of little to no value; that'd be the case for me, anyway.

Graphically depicting the information would be useless with 2000 different bars, pie sections, or lines, unless perhaps (and that's a big stretch, for 2000 delineations is still way too many for a graph) the graph is presented on something the size of a large and tall building. Maybe you can find someone who'll project it for you as a hologram draw across the nighttime sky?

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump's message is no different; however, unlike most services and product marketers, one cannot "try before you buy." The man has zero prior public governance experience we can look to.

Well, as Trump said during the debate, there is good experience and bad experience. I have observed that politicians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected.

As far as "try before you buy" goes, we already know what Hillary's election would portend: Massive corruption at the highest levels of government, plus the very real threat of blackmail by foreign adversaries. Trump, on the other hand, has been a very successful chief executive of a huge commercial enterprise.

This contrast begs the question of what qualities makes effective Presidents (e.g., Reagan and Clinton), as opposed to ineffective Presidents (e.g., Carter and Bush Sr.) Isn't it clear that outlining broad policy objectives and giving subordinates the authority to carry them out is better than obsession with policy details and secrecy?

Has the universe accepted this premise as to who was and who was not effective, and who exactly amongst the population were they effective and/or ineffective for? Certainly not all of society, so who matters? Who decides? Carter was clearly the closest to a man of God we’ve had in a nation obsessed with religion. And yet, the “liberal” media has demonized him.

Fenton Lum, did you miss the hilarity of the post to which you replied or were you just being "kind" in not addressing it. The remark to which I'm referring is this: "[P]oliticians who have made bad decisions in the past will continue to make them in the future. After all, it keeps getting them elected."

Let's look at that:

Sentences broken down:

• Some politicians make bad decisions.
• Those who do will continue to do so.
• They do so because making bad decisions gets them re-elected.

Logical thoughts/inferences to draw from them:

• As incumbents of both parties tend to get re-elected rather than ousted, it stands to reason that those politicians' voters -- no matter their party preference -- can't tell a good idea from a bad one.
• Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what ideas are good or bad.
• Observations about politicians' re-election are no use in assessing what politicians have or promote good or bad ideas.

So what does that mean for those sentences? They express thoroughly inconclusive ideas that lead literally to nothing of merit; thus they are pointless.