He took the bait.Mad? Showed incredible tremendous Presidential judgement, the best judgement in not taking the bait, believe me.
Trump would lose a pay to play debate in humiliating fashion. Yea and go ahead and try to compare foundations. Good luck.She had help, not one question about the Clinton foundation but questions on his tax return. No questions about pay to play, seriously?
So he bought politicians by donating g to their campaigns, 100% legal, if the politicians did anything to repay him, that is on them. Now compare that to selling the office of Secretary of State. I'm sure in your mind that is okay.Trump would lose a pay to play debate in humiliating fashion. Yea and go ahead and try to compare foundations. Good luck.
You sound ridiculous.How wou
So he bought politicians by donating g to their campaigns, 100% legal, if the politicians did anything to repay him, that is on them. Now compare that to selling the office of Secretary of State. I'm sure in your mind that is okay.
Both candidates' foundations are shady. And both engage in pay to play. Trumps non answer on the tax returns basically admits he doesn't pay taxes.
Because Trump says things from the gut/heart instead of the usual phony focus group politician speak. Just has to keep hammering her as all talk no action establishment politician. Slam dunk Trump win. Too easy.
Just remember, no matter what happens tonight, Trump was cheated.
WHere did I say that?
And since he won't release the returns and admit s he gets audited yearly, I'd bet he's not real good at following those US tax laws. He probably ends up paying something, but he not what he should, and I'd bet you'd be willing to support that position based on some sort of business sense bullshit. He paid thousands out of his charity to garner favors. He's also taken a shitload of foreign money in his campaign. He's no better than Clinton.
You sound ridiculous.
I'll take a do nothing politician over the absolute crazy that comes out of his "gut/heart."
.
Trump would lose a pay to play debate in humiliating fashion. Yea and go ahead and try to compare foundations. Good luck.
I'm a pro-military fiscal conservative and I didn't see it that way. Trump was terrible, didn't answer the questions, no substance.Because Trump says things from the gut/heart instead of the usual phony focus group politician speak. Just has to keep hammering her as all talk no action establishment politician. Slam dunk Trump win. Too easy.
It's called the Trump Foundation and he hasn't donated to it since 2008. I'm not aware that they've actually paid out anything in legitimate program expenses, but it's a good shield for Trump's tax fraud.I would hope he is paying as little as he can in taxes. If he is not taking advantage of EVERY legal deduction, he is an idiot.
I was not aware trump had a charity, He gives to them.. What is his non profit called??
A good charity passes thru 70% or more of what they take in, The Clintons pass thru under 30%.
Not Trump.One Foundation was involved with brokering the sale of US uranium to Russia, via a Canadian shell company, which paid a Foundation family member huge sums of money afterwards, that required approval from the sitting US Secretary of State who happened to also be a family member of the Foundation's namesake.
Can you guess which this is?
It's called the Trump Foundation and he hasn't donated to it since 2008. I'm not aware that they've actually paid out anything in legitimate program expenses, but it's a good shield for Trump's tax fraud.
And while I support him using the law to his advantage, I do not believe a man who claims to make $600M+ should be able to pay zero in income taxes, especially when he is as unphilanthropic as Drumpf. And yet here he is claiming that the rich need more tax breaks!! A man who admittedly pays no taxes asking for tax breaks. Wow.
I never considered this. Would Trump immediately start rebranding DC? Would it become the District of Trump? Would Arlington become Trump National Cemetery? Would the military drive Trump-Vees?Not Trump.
Trump would only sell Trump Uranium. The best uranium, tremendous uranium, believe me.
5.3 trillion added to the debtI'm not a Trump supporter but this is an extremely simpleton way of looking at his tax plan. I've never once heard him say that "he" needs more tax breaks- you do realize there are wealthy people beyond Trump right?
His Corporate Tax plan is also infinitely better than Hillary's. Her plan is to yet again view corporations as evil, tax them even more, then try to scream at them and shame them when they dare to move to a lower tax country. His plan lowers the rate to 15% and offers a repatriation incentive to bring offshore money back home.
One plan is an actual growth based, incentive based plan that would bring new capital back to the country. The other plan is more of the same- screaming for companies to pay more in taxes while demanding they stop moving to countries like freaking Canada that tax companies lower rates.
Funny I live in New York now. I can't walk around the city without running into a military monument that didn't have a Trump plaque on it. The Vietnam veterans memorial by the financial district has a plaque stating "Special benefactor" with Trumps name. I guess he did that before Hillary decided to be a New Yorker.It's called the Trump Foundation and he hasn't donated to it since 2008. I'm not aware that they've actually paid out anything in legitimate program expenses, but it's a good shield for Trump's tax fraud.
And while I support him using the law to his advantage, I do not believe a man who claims to make $600M+ should be able to pay zero in income taxes, especially when he is as unphilanthropic as Drumpf. And yet here he is claiming that the rich need more tax breaks!! A man who admittedly pays no taxes asking for tax breaks. Wow.
No shit there are wealthy people beyond Trump. His tax plan is more than just corporate tax reform (which is really just spitting into the wind as far as trying to mess with overall tax revenue, as corporate taxes only account for about 11% of the overall tax revenue) though. He advocates a reduction of taxes on the wealthiest as well, compacting the tax brackets in an awful manner and lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. I say awful because the leaps in tax rate compared to income between tax brackets make getting a raise from one tax bracket to the next an actual decrease in take-home pay, unless you increase your salary by 18% at the $75K level or increase your salary by 12% at the $225K level. It's actually a huge hit to the upward mobility of the middle class.I'm not a Trump supporter but this is an extremely simpleton way of looking at his tax plan. I've never once heard him say that "he" needs more tax breaks- you do realize there are wealthy people beyond Trump right?
His Corporate Tax plan is also infinitely better than Hillary's. Her plan is to yet again view corporations as evil, tax them even more, then try to scream at them and shame them when they dare to move to a lower tax country. His plan lowers the rate to 15% and offers a repatriation incentive to bring offshore money back home.
One plan is an actual growth based, incentive based plan that would bring new capital back to the country. The other plan is more of the same- screaming for companies to pay more in taxes while demanding they stop moving to countries like freaking Canada that tax companies lower rates.
No shit there are wealthy people beyond Trump. His tax plan is more than just corporate tax reform (which is really just spitting into the wind as far as trying to mess with overall tax revenue, as corporate taxes only account for about 11% of the overall tax revenue) though. He advocates a reduction of taxes on the wealthiest as well, compacting the tax brackets in an awful manner and lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. I say awful because the leaps in tax rate compared to income between tax brackets make getting a raise from one tax bracket to the next an actual decrease in take-home pay, unless you increase your salary by 18% at the $75K level or increase your salary by 12% at the $225K level. It's actually a huge hit to the upward mobility of the middle class.
5.3 trillion added to the debt
it simplifies the taxes, so by your logic if you have 8 tax brackets and they bump 6% that is better? Anytime the government gets less taxes and has to be smart with the money they get, that is an improvement.you focus on taxes paid, to improve the economy you should focus on government spends.No shit there are wealthy people beyond Trump. His tax plan is more than just corporate tax reform (which is really just spitting into the wind as far as trying to mess with overall tax revenue, as corporate taxes only account for about 11% of the overall tax revenue) though. He advocates a reduction of taxes on the wealthiest as well, compacting the tax brackets in an awful manner and lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. I say awful because the leaps in tax rate compared to income between tax brackets make getting a raise from one tax bracket to the next an actual decrease in take-home pay, unless you increase your salary by 18% at the $75K level or increase your salary by 12% at the $225K level. It's actually a huge hit to the upward mobility of the middle class.
They are not bringing the money back.I'm not a Trump supporter but this is an extremely simpleton way of looking at his tax plan. I've never once heard him say that "he" needs more tax breaks- you do realize there are wealthy people beyond Trump right?
His Corporate Tax plan is also infinitely better than Hillary's. Her plan is to yet again view corporations as evil, tax them even more, then try to scream at them and shame them when they dare to move to a lower tax country. His plan lowers the rate to 15% and offers a repatriation incentive to bring offshore money back home.
One plan is an actual growth based, incentive based plan that would bring new capital back to the country. The other plan is more of the same- screaming for companies to pay more in taxes while demanding they stop moving to countries like freaking Canada that tax companies lower rates.
Corporate tax reform is spitting in the wind? It's 11% yet it's one of the main reasons that companies are basing their HQs in Canada, Ireland, UK, Singapore, etc.
Your last part makes no sense. His plan calls for fewer tax brackets and a reduction in deductions; the latter part would NOT make it detrimental to get a raise into another tax bracket.
The economy grows when the people drive it by buying things, not when the government spends less. If the last 8 years (and the recovery from the Great Depression) have taught you anything it's that government spending actually helps spur this. Without a strong middle class willing to spend money, the economy will sputter.it simplifies the taxes, so by your logic if you have 8 tax brackets and they bump 6% that is better? Anytime the government gets less taxes and has to be smart with the money they get, that is an improvement.you focus on taxes paid, to improve the economy you should focus on government spends.
I am hoping you know how the brackets work:No shit there are wealthy people beyond Trump. His tax plan is more than just corporate tax reform (which is really just spitting into the wind as far as trying to mess with overall tax revenue, as corporate taxes only account for about 11% of the overall tax revenue) though. He advocates a reduction of taxes on the wealthiest as well, compacting the tax brackets in an awful manner and lowering the top rate from 39.6% to 33%. I say awful because the leaps in tax rate compared to income between tax brackets make getting a raise from one tax bracket to the next an actual decrease in take-home pay, unless you increase your salary by 18% at the $75K level or increase your salary by 12% at the $225K level. It's actually a huge hit to the upward mobility of the middle class.
Ah, ok. I'm wrong. I thought it was all or nothing. My bad. Still, a huge jump and make those who pay taxes on < $10K (I know it's not a very large number because most of those get exemptions to not pay any taxes or even receive EIC) go from 10% to 12% isn't great either.I am hoping you know how the brackets work:
Couple with taxable income (after deductions) of $74,999 would pay: 0.12*($74,999) = $8999.88 in taxes and take $65,999.12 home (minus other taxes and fees)
Couple with taxable income of $75,001 would pay: 0.12*($75,000) + 0.25*($1) = $9,000.25 in taxes and take $66,000.75 home (minus other taxes and fees)
The $2 difference ends up being a $1.63 take home increase. Every $1 on top of that means $0.75 take home increase (I know with Medicare, SS, etc is less)
I would like to know where he is going to get the money that is not going to be collected by going from 39.5% to 33%. Poor single people with taxable income between $1 and about $12,500 would pay more but I don't think it is going to be enough (sarcasm)Ah, ok. I'm wrong. I thought it was all or nothing. My bad. Still, a huge jump and make those who pay taxes on < $10K (I know it's not a very large number because most of those get exemptions to not pay any taxes or even receive EIC) go from 10% to 12% isn't great either.
The most popular answer every time top-end tax cuts are suggested is that more people on the lower end of the spectrum will have more income because more jobs will be created and then pay more taxes to make up for the shortfall. The problem is that has never come true.I would like to know where he is going to get the money that is not going to be collected by going from 39.5% to 33%. Poor single people with taxable income between $1 and about $12,500 would pay more but I don't think it is going to be enough (sarcasm)
Same for corporate taxes.
The most popular answer every time top-end tax cuts are suggested is that more people on the lower end of the spectrum will have more income because more jobs will be created and then pay more taxes to make up for the shortfall. The problem is that has never come true.
And that also correlated to a huge drop in interest rates from the FED, which allowed more liquidity and investment - and the government was spend happy in the beginning of that cycle. I don't think you can point to the drop in tax rates as the lone factor.Really? Because from 1985 until 1998, the top marginal rates fell by the largest amount in US history and this period also featured some of the most robust job growth in US history, paired with one of the few times when income inequality actually decreased due to the growth rate and massive constriction in the labor market.
We also had a balanced budget in the 90's with a Republican Congress and Clinton WH during that same period.
And that also correlated to a huge drop in interest rates from the FED, which allowed more liquidity and investment - and the government was spend happy in the beginning of that cycle. I don't think you can point to the drop in tax rates as the lone factor.
Actually, your example isn't true. The top marginal tax rate's biggest drop was in 1982 when it went from 69% to 50% and had a limited short-term effect on the economy (GDP growth rate was actually negative in 1982). It fell another 11% in 1987 and another 10% in 1988, but then went back up 11% in 1993 - during really the start of the 90's boon (there was a mild recession in 1990-91) and it stayed there until 2001, during the longest non-wartime sustained growth of our economy.No, but you just made a definitive statement of "that has never been true" when I just showed you that it's most certainly been true. Changes to the tax code don't existing in a vacuum, of course they're coupled with other factors in the economy. Just like when people falsely claim that the top marginal rate increase 3 years ago is responsible for tax revenue growth, when in fact, it's been determined that growth is thanks to growth and higher incomes.
They're both complete shitbags but I can't fathom how any college educated person could think Trump won that. She brutalized him.
Where do you get your facts from. This is the first presidency in American History that GDP has not reached 3% so whatever the government is doing is not working. The average actual paid tax rate for corporations in 2012 was at 12.6% after deductions. You need to do your own research rather than listening to msnbc.The economy grows when the people drive it by buying things, not when the government spends less. If the last 8 years (and the recovery from the Great Depression) have taught you anything it's that government spending actually helps spur this. Without a strong middle class willing to spend money, the economy will sputter.
Missed you around here.EXACTLY. I honestly have NO idea how any educated person can think Trump won that. He says nothing of substance, talks in circles, loses his train of thought half the time and then yells at you when you try to correct him.
Look, as you all know, I am a liberal. However, I can respect a conservative view point, IF it is an educated, well thought out point of view. Conservatives think a different way than I do and that's fine, different opinions are good for the country. He has NO substance at all though. He covers his ears and just screams whenever you try to tell him he is wrong (when he is, factually wrong).
Anytime Trump is asked anything: "Listen, the past 30 years have been bad, really bad. I know, I have properties there. I have a friend who knows some people, a great friend. I did great things, ask my friend. We're gonna do great things, amazing things."
I can respect Paul Ryan, McCain, even Bush. How anyone backs this clown of a man blows my mind.