Reply to Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]

I do give to charity but certainly nothing close to 30% but charitable giving is voluntary and taxes are not.

As I said, all Americans except those who are at poverty level should pay a certain minimum percentage of their income in the way of federal taxes because we all benefit from certain government services. But to castigate someone who uses the tax laws to avoid taxes is ridiculous whether it is Trump or anyone else.

Someone like Trump who does pay taxes despite his income may be penalized in the court of public opinion or by voters. I personally would not vote for Trump for other reasons but the fact that he pays little or no taxes is not a factor for me in how I'd vote.

What is missing in this entire thread is any sense of outrage that we have tax laws in effect that allows someone like Trump not to pay any taxes. Tax laws can be changed but it requires a resolve by voters that extends beyond anger at Trump or anyone else who takes advantage of existing tax laws.

[/quote]

You are kidding, right?  This whole election is about that outrage.  Unfortunately, the people who are most screwed are also stupid and picked Trump.  If only they had coalesced around somebody sane.  For this election, though, if we want to avoid WWIII, we are doomed, and most of us realize this.  We won't forget this outrage, though, and hopefully we'll get somebody good to run in 4 years.

And if you think that obeying the rules makes you a good person, then you are morally bankrupt.  Our society will fall apart if all of us does whatever we can do to better ourselves without breaking the rules.  Nobody, no congress, nothing can write rules that are so iron clad that they cannot be avoided.  The only way to have a stable sane society is if our intelligent, ambitious, strong men and women follow the spirit behind the law and not just the letter.[/quote]

I am not kidding: we have two candidates who are deeply flawed and who are promising things that cannot be delivered.

If anyone seriously believes that the tax code will be revised to eliminate tax loopholes irrespective of who becomes president is living in a dreamland. The one candidate who really wanted to create a more equitable society was Bernie Sanders and he subsequently lost and caved to become a Hillary supporter and his sole rationale is that she is the lesser of two evils.

Sanders is the person who lambasted her on so many issues ranging from an inherently corrupt and rigged system to waging foreign wars - and now he wants his supporters to back her! 
[/quote]

The fact that you would call straight forward carrying forward of operating loses a "tax loophole" illustrates to me that you have no understanding of the issues at hand. If you are going to be outraged, at least make sure your outrage has a rational basis. [/quote]

I used the tax loophole terminology because that is how the average person sees NOL carried forward. You are not going to convince most Americans that there is a legitimate reason why NOL carry forwards can be offset against future income.

Now there are modifications that may make sense for example limiting the NOL offset in each future year to a predetermined amount or percentage similar to the limitation that currently exists for individuals in offsetting capital losses.[/quote]

Common ignorance is not a good excuse for using incorrect terminology to describe something. The ability to carry over net operating losses is a direct intended effect of the law and a key component that allows a company to make near term investments for long term rewards.  Under no rational circumstance would it make sense to limit NOL carry forward to offset future gains. However, I want to point out that the tax law does actually place a limit of carry forward to 20 years. Why 20 years, I don't know.

I want to point out that there is no limitation on personal capital losses for offsetting future capital gains. The only limit is using capital loss to off-set ordinary income. The limit is put in place, I suppose, is because the two income classes are treated differently under tax law, and the US government does not want ordinary tax revenue to be used to over-subsidize risk taking of private individuals. Also, I can imagine a scheme where I "lose" my investments to "someone", who pays a lower capital gains rate of tax, and I then use the capital losses to deduct against my ordinary income, which is at a higher rate. Pinching it at $3K effectively prevents those types of shenanigans.  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics