2016 Presidential Horse Race

[Legacy]

I just don't see how Trump's numbers on his fiscal policies and other policies that impact the cost of governing add up. I also think that's a fair criticism of Bernie's.

I'd also like to see Trump's tax returns in that he has take advantage of many tax loopholes in the past. He's said his income was $557 million. At a flat tax of 15%, he would have paid about $83 million in taxes.

We all pay as little tax as possible and taking advantage of every deduction he can can't be faulted. Not submitting his return makes you wonder if he paid less than 15%, if he paid no taxes or what. While saying he would lower top tier tax rates, I don't think he has said he would get rid of loopholes.

I just don't see how his fiscal policy numbers add up and wouldn't worsen our economy. Those would lower tax revenue by $10 trillion to a debt of $19 trillion. GDP would improve, but then he predicts a massive recession and has some areas where he would increase spending. Is he going to lower corporate tax rates to 15% but keep all the loopholes? What's the cumulative effect on the debt including the interest rate costs?

On Donald Trump’s confusing explanation of his tax reform strategy (American Enterprise Institute)

Donald Trump Has Mastered the Art of the Tax Break (National Review)

GOP Debate: The weaknesses and chutzpah in Trump's tax plans (Brookings Institute)

 

[EddytoNow]

Gary Johnson is a fraud.

We could easily substitute Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or any of the other candidate's names into your sentence and get another statement just as accurate. The question remaining is: Do you want the fraud you know (Hillary) or the fraud you don't know (the Donald)? Hillary is not ideal by any means, but the country could survive a Hillary presidency. We'd stumble along for four years, but we wouldn't jump right into another war without first trying diplomacy. Afterall, we survived the last 16 years with Barack and George. Trump's speak first and think later approach could set back international relations for many years to come. Do we really want to do away with NATO? Encourage South Korea and Japan to develop a nuclear arsenal? Drop bombs as the first solution to any international disagreement? Make our neighbor to the south an enemy? Escalate racial tension in the US through rhetoric and pitting one group against another?

 

[NDinL.A.]

At the Trump rally in SB the protesters were waving Mexican flags. It was clear which country they were loyal to (a country they liked so much that they left it). Maybe Trump supporters are sick of all this?

We all wish that politics could be arranged so that the candidates were ideal fits for *us*- but that is not how electoral politics works. This is not Australia; you don't have to vote. So don't.

Thanks, but I'll do what I want, and I'll vote for who I want. As much as Trump loves Putin and Russia, fortunately the people have a choice here to keep that moron out of office, and hopefully we will.

And I was at that (peaceful) protest. I was there when the Trump supporters came out and started goading the protesters with bigoted chants. I also talked to two people with the Mexican flags, and their loyalties were to the US, but they also wanted to show Trump that they also loved their homeland and that they were deeply offended by his lies and hateful rhetoric towards Mexicans and Mexico.

So maybe instead of making shit up (actually, no wonder you support Trump) and/or just assuming things you know nothing about, you might want to do a deep dive on WHY people are disgusted by Trump, and why they raise those flags. As I've said, the violent ones should be arrested, and the paid hacks that burn the American flag should get everything they deserve, but that's a tiny minority of the people who see through this fraud and are offended/incensed by his words and actions.

 

[wizards8507]

I just don't see how Trump's numbers on his fiscal policies and other policies that impact the cost of governing can work. I also think that's a fair criticism of Bernie.

I'd also like to see Trump's tax returns in that he has take advantage of many tax loopholes in the past. He's said his income was $557 million. At a flat tax of 15%, he would have paid about $83 million in taxes.

We all pay as little tax as possible and taking advantage of every deduction he can can't be faulted. Not submitting his return makes you wonder if he paid less than 15%, if he paid no taxes or what. While saying he would lower top tier tax rates, I don't think he has said he would get rid of loopholes.

I just don't see how his fiscal policy numbers add up and wouldn't worsen our economy. Those would lower tax revenue by $10 trillion to a deficit of $19 trillion. GDP would improve, but then he predicts a massive recession and has some areas where he would increase spending.

On Donald Trump’s confusing explanation of his tax reform strategy (American Enterprise Institute)

Donald Trump Has Mastered the Art of the Tax Break (National Review)

"Loophole" is a term used by politicians to trick people who don't know any better into thinking someone is getting away with something they shouldn't be. There's no such thing as a tax loophole. The implication of "tax loophole" is that all money is, by default, the government's and that you only get to keep what you can get away with keeping. On the contrary, income belongs to the earner unless the government specifically taxes it. If the tax laws are written in such a way that exempts certain income from taxation, that's not the individual's fault. There are also no "loopholes" that are only "for the rich" as the left implies all the time.

The problem is that most voters are too stupid and they believe idiotic arguments like "PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!"

 

[wizards8507]

We could easily substitute Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, or any of the other candidate's names into your sentence and get another statement just as accurate. The question remaining is: Do you want the fraud you know (Hillary) or the fraud you don't know (the Donald)? Hillary is not ideal by any means, but the country could survive a Hillary presidency. We'd stumble along for four years, but we wouldn't jump right into another war without first trying diplomacy. Afterall, we survived the last 16 years with Barack and George. Trump's speak first and think later approach could set back international relations for many years to come. Do we really want to do away with NATO? Encourage South Korea and Japan to develop a nuclear arsenal? Drop bombs as the first solution to any international disagreement? Make our neighbor to the south an enemy? Escalate racial tension in the US through rhetoric and pitting one group against another?

Familiarity isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes, we "know" Hillary, and we "know" that she sucks. She doesn't suck less just because we "know" her suckiness.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Thanks, but I'll do what I want, and I'll vote for who I want. As much as Trump loves Putin and Russia, fortunately the people have a choice here to keep that moron out of office, and hopefully we will.

Putin is extremely popular in Russia, and not without reason. The country was a corrupt, incompetent disaster during the 1990s. Russia won World War II for the Allies- I don't think we are entitled to lecture them about anything.

And I was at that (peaceful) protest. I was there when the Trump supporters came out and started goading the protesters with bigoted chants. I also talked to two people with the Mexican flags, and their loyalties were to the US, but they also wanted to show Trump that they also loved their homeland and that they were deeply offended by his lies and hateful rhetoric towards Mexicans and Mexico.

So maybe instead of making shit up (actually, no wonder you support Trump) and/or just assuming things you know nothing about, you might want to do a deep dive on WHY people are disgusted by Trump, and why they raise those flags. As I've said, the violent ones should be arrested, and the paid hacks that burn the American flag should get everything they deserve, but that's a tiny minority of the people who see through this fraud and are offended/incensed by his words and actions.

I don't recall any bigoted chants from Trump supporters, but whatever. I also don't recall seeing a single American flag at the protest. I do recall quite a bit of pot in the air, but there you have it.

The immigrants love America, but only if America completely dissolves is borders and hands them benefits at great cost to the taxpayer. Assimilation is not the goal: they are here to make money and send it home. The Mexican government depends heavily on these remittances, which is why it encourages mass immigration.

Of course, the bigger problem is that these immigrants come from a country with a very different culture from our own: just to offer a few examples, there is a much lower age of consent, no gun rights, and no "rule of law" to speak of. Of course, the immigrants then come and vote for the same policies here. We can do without that, thanks.

 

[EddytoNow]

Thanks, but I'll do what I want, and I'll vote for who I want. As much as Trump loves Putin and Russia, fortunately the people have a choice here to keep that moron out of office, and hopefully we will.

And I was at that (peaceful) protest. I was there when the Trump supporters came out and started goading the protesters with bigoted chants. I also talked to two people with the Mexican flags, and their loyalties were to the US, but they also wanted to show Trump that they also loved their homeland and that they were deeply offended by his lies and hateful rhetoric towards Mexicans and Mexico.

So maybe instead of making shit up (actually, no wonder you support Trump) and/or just assuming things you know nothing about, you might want to do a deep dive on WHY people are disgusted by Trump, and why they raise those flags. As I've said, the violent ones should be arrested, and the paid hacks that burn the American flag should get everything they deserve, but that's a tiny minority of the people who see through this fraud and are offended/incensed by his words and actions.

Excellent post.

I'd also like to point out an obvious bit of hypocrisy by the Trump supporters. How is it that Mexican-Americans can be called disloyal for maintaining allegiance to both their country of origin (Mexico) and their chosen country (United States), yet Jewish-Americans are not being criticized for lobbying for pro-Israeli policies and Irish-Americans are not being criticized for their sentimental attachment to the home country. Do the Trump supporters also think that Jewish-Americans and Irish-Americans are disloyal for maintaining ties to Israel and Ireland respectively?

 

[IrishLax]

Familiarity isn't necessarily a good thing. Yes, we "know" Hillary, and we "know" that she sucks. She doesn't suck less just because we "know" her suckiness.

I, personally, disagree. That's why I'm voting for Hillary, and voting enthusiastically. We all have a pretty good grasp of how Hillary Clinton operates. It's pretty repulsive, IMO, but she's not going to do anything to destroy this country.

I have no idea what Trump would do, and he'd be hated internationally.

 

[wizards8507]

I'd also like to point out an obvious bit of hypocrisy by the Trump supporters. How is it that Mexican-Americans can be called disloyal for maintaining allegiance to both their country of origin (Mexico) and their chosen country (United States), yet Jewish-Americans are not being criticized for lobbying for pro-Israeli policies and Irish-Americans are not being criticized for their sentimental attachment to the home country. Do the Trump supporters also think that Jewish-Americans and Irish-Americans are disloyal for maintaining ties to Israel and Ireland respectively?

1. Illegal immigrants are not Mexican-Americans. They're Mexicans.

2. They have zero loyalty to the United States and show no interest in assimilating to our culture. They want to transform America, not become a part of it as it exists.

3. "Jewish" is a religion, not a nationality.

4. Pro-Israeli policies are not a product of anti-American sentiments. Pro-Israeli policies are called supporting our only democratic ally in the most messed up part of the world.

5. Irish-Americans celebrate their heritage by wearing green shirts and having a few beers once a year. These people are kicking cars, intimidating dissenters, and yelling "fuck America."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[NDgradstudent]

Excellent post.

I'd also like to point out an obvious bit of hypocrisy by the Trump supporters. How is it that Mexican-Americans can be called disloyal for maintaining allegiance to both their country of origin (Mexico) and their chosen country (United States), yet Jewish-Americans are not being criticized for lobbying for pro-Israeli policies and Irish-Americans are not being criticized for their sentimental attachment to the home country. Do the Trump supporters also think that Jewish-Americans and Irish-Americans are disloyal for maintaining ties to Israel and Ireland respectively?

Israel is a pretty unique case, because of the particular history of the Jewish people, and the way it is constantly under threat. That said, there are strong arguments that the focus on Israel of at least some people has contributed to major U.S. foreign policy mistakes.

What is an "Irish-American"? Who thinks of themselves this way? How many "Irish-Americans" root for Ireland against America in the World Cup?

My great-grandparents emigrated to the U.S. from Germany in the 1920s. My grandmother, born in the early 1930s, does not know any German today, even though her parents spoke German at home. They did not want her to learn German; they expected her to learn English only. Meanwhile my cousin teaches ESL at an elementary school in Bridgeport, CT, and the students don't understand why they need to learn English- they point out that "nobody speaks English" where they live. Entirely different view of assimilation and one's obligations to the new country.

 

[Legacy]

"Loophole" is a term used by politicians to trick people who don't know any better into thinking someone is getting away with something they shouldn't be. There's no such thing as a tax loophole. The implication of "tax loophole" is that all money is, by default, the government's and that you only get to keep what you can get away with keeping. On the contrary, income belongs to the earner unless the government specifically taxes it. If the tax laws are written in such a way that exempts certain income from taxation, that's not the individual's fault. There are also no "loopholes" that are only "for the rich" as the left implies all the time.

The problem is that most voters are too stupid and they believe idiotic arguments like "PAY YOUR FAIR SHARE!"

That's fair, though I think you know what everyone - politicians, Congress, the National Review article, etc. - means. I do disagree that there are no "loopholes" that are only for the rich, as you say.

What about the "hedge fund loophole" or the so-called "carriage interest rate loophole"? What about the Second home mortgage interest rate deduction? What about the tax break for sending jobs overseas? What about foreign tax breaks? There's quite a few more.

In the National Review article I posted above, Trump received a $163 million tax break for Trump Towers.

 

[Bishop2b5]

Have you ever watched the IQ videos on YouTube? Mark Dice, Jay Lenno...I'm sure others have them. They just ask people basic questions and (with a lot of editing, I'm sure), show how F'n dumb people are.

Just to show how dumb all too many voters are: Back in '89 a day or so after the Berlin Wall came down, a co-worker told us about encountering a woman we all knew at a ballgame the night before. When he said to her, "Holy cow! The Berlin Wall is down!" she replied, "I didn't know there was a wall around Berlin." He thought she was making a joke. She wasn't. He soon realized she had no idea what the Berlin Wall was, why it was built, what the Cold War was about, how WWII had led to the Cold War, nor even when WWII was and who'd been the principal adversaries in it. She had a vague notion that it had been a few decades in the past and thought it was the US, England and Germany against Russia, with no idea Japan had been involved. She was shocked when he told her we'd dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

After he gave her a 3 minute history lesson about all of it, her reply was, "Well I don't see why any of that stuff's important or what it has to do with anything today." Yeah, and she gets to vote. No wonder so many of our elected officials are lying, incompetent, power-hungry, self-serving, crooked POS. People like her vote for whoever has the best sound bites, empty slogans, promises them the most stuff, and tells them they'll solve all the world's problems knowing they can't or that the cure will be even worse than the disease.

As a follow-up, a couple of months later I was telling this story to a neighbor. Instead of laughing, he acted irritated and said he didn't see why "all that junk" was important either, then asked me who the woman was. When I told him, he said, "That's my cousin!" and stomped off mad.

 

[wizards8507]

That's fair, though I think you know what everyone - politicians, Congress, the National Review article, etc. - means. I do disagree that there are no "loopholes" that are only for the rich, as you say.

What about the "hedge fund loophole" or the so-called "carriage interest rate loophole"? What about the Second home mortgage interest rate deduction? What about the tax break for sending jobs overseas? What about foreign tax breaks? There's quite a few more.

Those aren't loopholes, they're just the rules. "Loophole" implies you're getting away with something dishonest. If people don't like the rules, then we can debate them on their merits. I just object to the term "loophole" because it's used as a trick to make regular folks who don't know any better hate the rich.

The VAST majority of Americans have no idea what a hedge fund is, let alone carried interest and how it should be taxed. Baiting them with one-liners and catch-phrases like "pay your fair share" and "loopholes for the 1%" are despicable and dishonest.

 

[NDgradstudent]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Protests have moved out onto San Carlos st <a href="https://t.co/0JmUTmZP9c">pic.twitter.com/0JmUTmZP9c</a></p>— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) <a href="https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/738562105733873669">June 3, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Welcome to "America," 2016.

 

[Legacy]

Just to show how dumb all too many voters are: Back in '89 a day or so after the Berlin Wall came down, a co-worker told us about encountering a woman we all knew at a ballgame the night before. When he said to her, "Holy cow! The Berlin Wall is down!" she replied, "I didn't know there was a wall around Berlin." He thought she was making a joke. She wasn't. He soon realized she had no idea what the Berlin Wall was, why it was built, what the Cold War was about, how WWII had led to the Cold War, nor even when WWII was and who'd been the principal adversaries in it. She had a vague notion that it had been a few decades in the past and thought it was the US, England and Germany against Russia, with no idea Japan had been involved. She was shocked when he told her we'd dropped atomic bombs on Japan.

After he gave her a 3 minute history lesson about all of it, her reply was, "Well I don't see why any of that stuff's important or what it has to do with anything today." Yeah, and she gets to vote. No wonder so many of our elected officials are lying, incompetent, power-hungry, self-serving, crooked POS. People like her vote for whoever has the best sound bites, empty slogans, promises them the most stuff, and tells them they'll solve all the world's problems knowing they can't or that the cure will be even worse than the disease.

As a follow-up, a couple of months later I was telling this story to a neighbor. Instead of laughing, he acted irritated and said he didn't see why "all that junk" was important either, then asked me who the woman was. When I told him, he said, "That's my cousin!" and stomped off mad.

That's why so many people vote for candidates with isolationist policies, if they vote.

 

[wizards8507]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Protests have moved out onto San Carlos st <a href="https://t.co/0JmUTmZP9c">pic.twitter.com/0JmUTmZP9c</a></p>— john r stanton (@dcbigjohn) <a href="https://twitter.com/dcbigjohn/status/738562105733873669">June 3, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Welcome to "America," 2016.

Trump or Milo?

 

[Legacy]

Those aren't loopholes, they're just the rules. "Loophole" implies you're getting away with something dishonest. If people don't like the rules, then we can debate them on their merits. I just object to the term "loophole" because it's used as a trick to make regular folks who don't know any better hate the rich.

The VAST majority of Americans have no idea what a hedge fund is, let alone carried interest and how it should be taxed. Baiting them with one-liners and catch-phrases like "pay your fair share" and "loopholes for the 1%" are despicable and dishonest.

I understand. I think you have said this already. They are "tax breaks". But arguing that the rich get no more tax breaks than the rest of us is not accurate, is it? As any corporate accountant knows.

Why Doesn’t Obama End the Hedge Fund Tax Break?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Trump or Milo?

I assume if it were Milo they'd be burning the Union Jack.

 

[wizards8507]

They are "tax breaks".

Again, that implies that all money is the government's and that getting to keep your own money is a "break." The burden shouldn't have to be on a taxpayer to prove why he "only" paid 15% of his income. The burden should be on the government to prove why they deserved any more than 0%.

But arguing that the rich get no more tax breaks than the rest of us is not accurate, is it?

Is that a serious question? The poor, working, and middle classes get WAY more tax breaks than the wealthy.

• Personal exemption - Phase out begins at $258K
• Itemized deductions - Phase out begins at $258K
• Earned Income Tax Credit - Phase out between $8K and $15K (single, no children), $18K and $39K (single, one child), etc.
• Child Tax Credit - Phase out begins at $75K
• Child and Dependent Care Credit - Phase out between $15K and $43K
• Adoption credit - Phase out between $200K and $241K
• American Opportunity Credit - Phase out between $80K and $90K
• Lifetime Learning Credit - PHase out between $55K and $65K
• Tuition and fees deduction - Phase out between $65K and $80K
• Coverdell Educational Savings Accounts - Phase out between $95K and $110K
• Student loan interest deduction - Phase out between $65K and $80K
• Education Savings Bonds - Phase out between $77K and $92K
• Saver's Credit - Phase out between $18K and $30K
• Roth IRA contributions - Phase out between $114K and $129K
• Traditional IRA - Phase out between $114K and $129K
• Deductible IRA spouse contribution - Phase out between $183K and $193K
• Social security benefit exemption - Phase out between $25K and $34K
• AMT exemption - Phase out begins at $119K

Mitt Romney got slammed for his "47%" comment, but he was absolutely right. 47% of households (now revised to 45%) pay ZERO in federal income taxes.

As any corporate accountant knows.

Disney had income taxes of $5 billion in Fiscal Year 2015 on net income of $13.9 billion for an effective rate of 36%. Of the two of us, which is the corporate accountant?

 

[EddytoNow]

1. Illegal immigrants are not Mexican-Americans. They're Mexicans.

2. They have zero loyalty to the United States and show no interest in assimilating to our culture. They want to transform America, not become a part of it as it exists.

3. "Jewish" is a religion, not a nationality.

4. Pro-Israeli policies are not a product of anti-American sentiments. Pro-Israeli policies are called supporting our only democratic ally in the most messed up part of the world.

5. Irish-Americans celebrate their heritage by wearing green shirts and having a few beers once a year. These people are kicking cars, intimidating dissenters, and yelling "fuck America."

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/-uRiExRJ5AI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

How conveniently you converted my "Mexican-Americans" designation into "illegal immigrants"? Did you overlook the large numbers of legal Mexican-Americans in your rush to label all Mexican-Americans as illegal immigrants? And could you please tell me what physical characteristic to look for in the Trump demonstrators that lets you know they are illegally in the country? Was it their brown skin? I've watched the TV newscasts and viewed the photographs, and I can't for the life of me tell who's here illegally. I didn't see any signs or T-shirts saying "I'm an illegal Mexican immigrant." Are we to assume that all brown-skinned people are in the country illegally until they can produce the proper paperwork?

I will concede that Jewish-Americans could be called Israeli-Americans, but the main point remains. They lobby heavily for pro-Israeli causes. Does that make them un-American?

As for the Irish. It's true that many of the Irish-Americans limit themselves to the green beer and shamrocks celebration on March 17. However, there are many more Irish-Americans that have maintained a sincere interest in the well-being of the Irish homeland. They learn Irish dances, attend Irish music concerts, study Gaelic, and much more. And as recently as the 1990's, the Irish-American lobby was pressuring the United States government into playing a more active role in the negotiations between the British and the Irish over the Northern Ireland conflict. President Clinton sent former Senator George Mitchell to assist the British and Irish in negotiating a peaceful solution to the conflict in Northern Ireland. And the United States has heavily invested in Ireland's future economy.

 

[connor_in]

Shouldn't the media be calling for Hillary and Bernie and President Obama to denounce this violence and rioting by Democrats against Republicans.

Isn't that how it has worked when anyone tied to Republicans over the last number of years has said or done something, the leaders of the Republicans have been called out by the media to denounce such occurrences?

 

[Legacy]

Trump has every right to take advantage of tax breaks and pay as little tax as possible. It's also the right of a journalist or anyone else to point these out. He takes advantage of real estate tax breaks, for instance. These tax breaks are not something every American can take advantage of.

How Trump got big tax break by not building houses (Marketwatch, on his 2005 tax return)

But, back to his proposed fiscal policies, I don't see how his numbers add up.

Trump’s economic plan would need 11% annual GDP growth to balance the budget. Hmm… (American Enterprise Institute)

I believe all my links posted are from business or conservative sources.

 

[wizards8507]

How conveniently you converted my "Mexican-Americans" designation into "illegal immigrants"? Did you overlook the large numbers of legal Mexican-Americans in your rush to label all Mexican-Americans as illegal immigrants?

Because that's a goddamn strawman! Nobody is protesting Mexican-Americans. Trump supporters have no beef with Mexican-Americans. I can't answer your question of why people have a problem with Mexican-Americans because nobody does. I do have a problem with illegal immigrants and those who support illegal immigration, so I answered your question in that context.

And could you please tell me what physical characteristic to look for in the Trump demonstrators that lets you know they are illegally in the country?

It has nothing to do with physical characteristics. What are they protesting? They're protesting border security. On that fact alone, they're pro-illegal immigration since there's no other basis for opposing a secure border.

Was it their brown skin?

Get the fuck out of here with that.

I've watched the TV newscasts and viewed the photographs, and I can't for the life of me tell who's here illegally. I didn't see any signs or T-shirts saying "I'm an illegal Mexican immigrant."

Whether they're illegal immigrants or simply pro-illegal immigration, I don't see much difference. I also don't give a shit what color they are. If I see a white guy with a Mexican flag saying "fuck Trump," I'll say the same thing to him.

Are we to assume that all brown-skinned people are in the country illegally until they can produce the proper paperwork?

Nope. We're to assume that people protesting border security support illegal immigration.

ETA: Maybe you didn't notice they "brown pride" signs they're touting. They're the racists, not Trump.

 

[wizards8507]

Trump has every right to take advantage of tax breaks and pay as little tax as possible. It's also the right of a journalist or anyone else to point these out. He takes advantage of real estate tax breaks, for instance. These tax breaks are not something every American can take advantage of.

How Trump got big tax break by not building houses (Marketwatch, on his 2005

"Donald Trump followed the law when he paid his taxes" is not a news story. The only reason such a story would be published would be to stoke the flames of envy, implying "Donald Trump is rich and you're not so you should hate him for it."

But, back to his proposed fiscal policies, I don't see how his numbers add up.

Trump’s economic plan would need 11% annual GDP growth to balance the budget. Hmm… (American Enterprise Institute)

I believe all my links posted are from business or conservative sources.

What's worse? Trump says he wants to balance the budget but uses a model with overly optimistic projections. Hillary Clinton doesn't even fake like she wants to balance the budget.

 

[Legacy]

Again, that implies that all money is the government's and that getting to keep your own money is a "break." The burden shouldn't have to be on a taxpayer to prove why he "only" paid 15% of his income. The burden should be on the government to prove why they deserved any more than 0%.


Is that a serious question? The poor, working, and middle classes get WAY more tax breaks than the wealthy.

• Personal exemption - Phase out begins at $258K
• Itemized deductions - Phase out begins at $258K
• Earned Income Tax Credit - Phase out between $8K and $15K (single, no children), $18K and $39K (single, one child), etc.
• Child Tax Credit - Phase out begins at $75K
• Child and Dependent Care Credit - Phase out between $15K and $43K
• Adoption credit - Phase out between $200K and $241K
• American Opportunity Credit - Phase out between $80K and $90K
• Lifetime Learning Credit - PHase out between $55K and $65K
• Tuition and fees deduction - Phase out between $65K and $80K
• Coverdell Educational Savings Accounts - Phase out between $95K and $110K
• Student loan interest deduction - Phase out between $65K and $80K
• Education Savings Bonds - Phase out between $77K and $92K
• Saver's Credit - Phase out between $18K and $30K
• Roth IRA contributions - Phase out between $114K and $129K
• Traditional IRA - Phase out between $114K and $129K
• Deductible IRA spouse contribution - Phase out between $183K and $193K
• Social security benefit exemption - Phase out between $25K and $34K
• AMT exemption - Phase out begins at $119K

Mitt Romney got slammed for his "47%" comment, but he was absolutely right. 47% of households (now revised to 45%) pay ZERO in federal income taxes.


Disney had income taxes of $5 billion in Fiscal Year 2015 on net income of $13.9 billion for an effective rate of 36%. Of the two of us, which is the corporate accountant?

Noted. Let's agree on the number of tax breaks that are targeted for "non-rich", for now. I won't point out the cumulative impact of these such breaks vs those only a few of Americans can take advantage of.

But, in your example with Disney, we understand that Disney falls within that tax rate. Of course, Disney does not pay 36% of its income in taxes, right? How much taxes do they pay after deductions and tax breaks? For those of us not in the 47%, does Disney pay less taxes than we do with those tax breaks?

Their corporate accountant has every right to take advantage of every tax break possible.

 

[Legacy]

Six Tests for Corporate Tax Reform:
Reform Should Help Shrink Long-Term Deficits, Reduce Biases and Preferences in the Tax Code, and Discourage Tax Sheltering (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities)

How does Trump's fiscal proposals address these?

 

[wizards8507]

Noted. Let's agree on the number of tax breaks that are targeted for "non-rich", for now. I won't point out the cumulative impact of these such breaks vs those only a few of Americans can take advantage of.

I'm not really concerned with the cumulative impact, I'm concerned with right or wrong. Certainly, 1% of a rich person's income is much more than 1% of a poor person's income, but the relative impact to the federal budget doesn't create a moral imperative to take more of the rich person's money.

But, in your example with Disney, we understand that Disney falls within that tax rate. Of course, Disney does not pay 36% of its income in taxes, right? How much taxes do they pay after deductions and tax breaks? For those of us not in the 47%, does Disney pay less taxes than we do with those tax breaks?

That's not the tax bracket, that's the effective tax rate, i.e. the amount actually paid after all deductions and tax rates. Disney ACTUALLY paid 36% of its net income, which amounted to ACTUALLY $5 billion in Fiscal 2015.*

*Accounting rules are extremely complicated and book income is calculated differently than tax income. Without getting too deep into it, there may be some timing differences on when the $5 billion cash actually leaves the door, but it gets paid eventually. Plus, deferrals from prior periods get pushed into the current fiscal year, which generally offsets any deferrals pushed out of the current fiscal year into future years.

 

[Legacy]

I'm not really concerned with the cumulative impact, I'm concerned with right or wrong. Certainly, 1% of a rich person's income is much more than 1% of a poor person's income, but the relative impact to the federal budget doesn't create a moral imperative to take more of the rich person's money.


That's not the tax bracket, that's the effective tax rate, i.e. the amount actually paid after all deductions and tax rates. Disney ACTUALLY paid 36% of its net income, which amounted to ACTUALLY $5 billion in Fiscal 2015.*

*Accounting rules are extremely complicated and book income is calculated differently than tax income. Without getting too deep into it, there may be some timing differences on when the $5 billion cash actually leaves the door, but it gets paid eventually. Plus, deferrals from prior periods get pushed into the current fiscal year, which generally offsets any deferrals pushed out of the current fiscal year into future years.

Ok. Just wanted you to clarify that.

As far as the "moral imperative", I assume you are in favor of some progressive tax. I also would like Trump or anyone else to pursue the six tax principles in the article I linked above.

The main issue is whether Trump's policies would be good for America. The numbers don't add up as in this article from AEI.

 

[NDinL.A.]

Putin is extremely popular in Russia, and not without reason. The country was a corrupt, incompetent disaster during the 1990s. Russia won World War II for the Allies- I don't think we are entitled to lecture them about anything.

My Russian American friends laugh at that, as do their families back in Russia. They can't stand him. I'll lecture Putin and his POS ways, and you, about anything I feel like.

I don't recall any bigoted chants from Trump supporters, but whatever. I also don't recall seeing a single American flag at the protest. I do recall quite a bit of pot in the air, but there you have it.

You missed it then. Perhaps you were too high? You keep believing that many Trump supporters aren't racists. Hear no evil see no evil.

The immigrants love America, but only if America completely dissolves is borders and hands them benefits at great cost to the taxpayer. Assimilation is not the goal: they are here to make money and send it home. The Mexican government depends heavily on these remittances, which is why it encourages mass immigration.

Of course, the bigger problem is that these immigrants come from a country with a very different culture from our own: just to offer a few examples, there is a much lower age of consent, no gun rights, and no "rule of law" to speak of. Of course, the immigrants then come and vote for the same policies here. We can do without that, thanks.

Dude, you are so lost and out of touch with immigrants it boggles the mind. I won’t even waste my time responding to this. Enjoy living in your Trumpian fantasy world (you know, the world where everyone is out to get you, where a 3rd world country is going to pay you 25 billion dollars to build a wall, etc etc etc.).

 

[wizards8507]

As far as the "moral imperative", I assume you are in favor of some progressive tax.

A flat tax is already progressive. If you take 10% of everyone's money, the guy making $200K is going to pay $20K in taxes and the guy making $50K is going to pay $5K in taxes.

I also would like Trump or anyone else to pursue the six tax principles in the article I linked above.

The irony of those six principles is that the one thing that accomplishes all six is eliminating the corporate tax entirely.