It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Maybe Trump Did Cheat

page: 22
144
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:06 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

I understand what you're saying but the rest of that IRS posting says:

'from whom: Income, social security, or Medicare tax was withheld.'

You get a W2 only AFTER you sign a W4 which gives the company permission to withhold taxes. A company is not legally allowed to withhold taxes without the W4.

Self employed don't necessarily get W2s. They may receive 1099s or other forms stating income. Normally you pay estimated taxes throughout the year based on your projected income.

Here's an analogy: I could work every week of the year for $599.00 each week for a different person each week. No one is required to file 1099s for under $600. So I could make $599*52=$31148.00 and not claim a dime in income. Since they didn't file their 1099s there is no proof I made anything! Of course you end up screwed on Social Security if you need it when you retire!




posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

The IRS had it 21 years ago.

So why beating a dead horse to call something 'fraudulent' that isn't.

The IRS doesn't look kindly on that.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Them having it doesn't indicate if they believe it's fraudulent or not.

If they thought it was, they would audit him.

Did they?

Yes.

Is the audit finished?

No.
edit on 6-10-2016 by imjack because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




So why beating a dead horse to call something 'fraudulent' that isn't.

I didn't say it was fraudulent.
I said that if someone had the W-2 it would prove that it was. So why would they hold on to the W-2?



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: imjack

There is no reason to think that the 1995 return is being, or was audited.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




I said that if someone had the W-2 it would prove that it was.


Someone does.

If those 3 pages are 'authentic' they have it.

And yet conviently left it out.

And make it a 'slam dunk'.

There's nothing here.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




Someone does.

Trump.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I've heard him say it.... COULD be lying...let's say he is....PROBABLY is...I don't know.....let's say he owes a half a BILLION dollars.... WOULDN'T, couldn't and won't vote for the Clinton's, I mean Mrs Clinton, and her cesspool mafia of friends. ...BUT regardless the IRS IS UP HIS ANUS.... and if there was anything there.....IT WOULD BE ON EVERY NEWS CHANNEL ON THE PLANET EARTH. ...there is only two candidates that have a REAL chance of winning. ...would I, would have liked to have had a different REPUBLICAN or an INDEPENDENT WITH A REAL CHANCE OF WINNING. ....Sure..... BUT I WILL BE VOTING FOR... Mr Trump , and hoping for so many reasons....I've stated elsewhere. ...supreme Court judges, Military, etc..etc..etc..and too many to list here...at this time....



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: THEREDUNDANT1
Your post is impossible to read.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

That political hack site Fortune.

After all they used a headline that was nothing more than supposition, and left enough room for already preconceived BIAS to fill in the blanks.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96




After all they used a headline that was nothing more than supposition, and left enough room for already preconceived BIAS to fill in the blanks.

Actually, no.
There is quite a bit more in the article than what I posted in the OP.

But you're right, unless Trump releases his returns all we can do is raise questions that won't be answered.


edit on 10/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Actually YES.

Trump's Tax Records Show He May Have Understated His Salary by Millions to the IRS

Are those 'records' complete ?

No.

Supposition with no FACTS other than 3 pages of a cheery picked return.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: OrganizedChaos

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: OrganizedChaos


Again, no! You cannot accurately predict the outcome of an emotionally charged event with such a small sample size.


What outcome are you talking about?



You have the right to think what you want, that's the beauty of America!

And you have the right to have no grasp of statistics whatsoever.


Ok, mister math police.

If you ask 1500 people their opinion and use that info to predict what the other 146 million peoples opinion is, that result is the outcome. It's that simple.

A poll is done to produce an outcome. Everything in life is done to produce an outcome for pity sake. This outcome happens to suggest that more than half of voters want Trump's taxes released based on the opinions of 1500 people. Why is this so hard for you to understand, and why are you being so anal about statistics? Real life experience with polls related to emotional issues are always skewed. I'll once again for the last time ask that you refer to the polls that were conducted before the Presidential primaries. Pretty much all of them said Trump would never make it, high numbers predicted the outcome and they were wrong.

Any poll is a prediction of an outcome. And if you keep thinking that a poll has no outcome, and that using probability is not predicting an outcome then I don't know what to say.






Well, when you said it was predicting an outcome, it sounded like you were trying to say that this poll was a forecast of some future event, like (for example) a poll predicting the outcome of a presidential election. Even a poll like that doesn't predict the outcome of the election -- it merely estimates the percentage of people who say they will (or won't) vote for a particular candidate with a given margin of error at a given point in time. Which is essentially the same thing we're talking about here, only with regard to whether people care about Trump's taxes.

So, now that I know what you mean, I suppose I have no qualms with your usage.

However, if you recall, Nate Silver managed to call the last Presidential election with pretty good accuracy. He did this by applying statistics to a wide range of reputably collected polls. This in and of itself ought to be proof that it's possible to estimate a vast population with a much smaller sample, provided one pays attention to sample size and confidence level, and the population is sampled properly.


edit on 6-10-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96
Yes. That is the title of the Fortune article. And what is the title of this thread?



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The media will never see a single page released by Trump.

Did you see those 3 giant stacks of papers ?

The media would feast on every word.

Demand this, request that, FOI everything else.

He will never release them.

He would rather lose.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Greggers

No doubt, but Nate Silver uses quite a bit more technique including simulations.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wardaddy454

He had a billion dollars worth of losses,
Operating losses are reported separately from salaries and wages. You didn't actually read the OP, did you?



especially considering he is audited annually,
Actually the letter from his attorney says:


Your personal tax returns have been under continuous examination by the Internal Revenue Service since 2002


This return is from 1995 and did you notice that the word "audit" is not mentioned? Those tricky attorneys.
assets.donaldjtrump.com...



Um an audit is an examination. C'mon Phage do better.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

Ok

Chapter 4 of the "IRS Manual," "Examining Process," includes processes for examining tax returns to select which ones should be audited. It also includes guidelines for auditors when examining information during an actual audit.



The term "tax audit" more closely defines a specific process: checking an actual tax return for accuracy and credibility while asking the filer specific questions. If the examination of a return reveals unusual or suspicious entries or claims, the filer is called into IRS offices to clarify the situation. In such cases, the IRS may concentrate on specific aspects of the return, or audit the return in its entirety. Although the filer may consider this an examination, its technical definition is a tax audit.

finance.zacks.com...

So, is Trump being audited? His attorneys didn't say he is. Did he *gasp* lie?


edit on 10/6/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Wardaddy454

How to say it,

All Audits are examinations, but all Examinations are not audits.



posted on Oct, 6 2016 @ 09:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage
Let's see if I can make this one easier to read. Anyone that's worried over does he have a billion dollars, owes 3 billion to the irs, cares how much money he has or doesn't have. By all means vote for Mrs Hillary Clinton..... and quit bitching about money...I have never ask anyone to vote for Mr Trump...vote for the person that comes closer to your beliefs, is what I would say. ..or don't vote at all if that makes you happy....Life's to short to bitch all day.... good luck to all.......



new topics

top topics



 
144
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join