Forget Wikileaks...this is the real October Surprise that is going to stop Hillary

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

I explained why it was stupid. Your link assumes low income earners pay their actual tax rate instead of their effective tax rate.

It's a stupid link, written by someone who doesn't understand tax brackets in the US...

As far as your edit about giving me the last word goes, it's obvious you are in over your head. You have zero knowledge of what you argue for or about. You used a stupid source and when it got pointed out you took your ball and went home.

I am not in over my head. It's just clear it's going to be a lot of work to continue discussing things with you, plus it's going to be unpleasant. You are unnecessarily argumentative and have no interest in finding common ground, but instead focus on ancillary topics that aren't even directly related to the point I'm making.

I was merely trying to give you a link that would explain the loophole Trump used. You chose to focus on their misapplication of tax brackets instead of acknowledging the loophole.

I could find you ANOTHER link that would explain the loophole, but it's clear you're not the least bit interested in actually discussing it.

Here's one from The NY Times: www.nytimes.com...



There is also the question of Mr. Trump’s debt. Mr. Trump personally guaranteed $832 million of debt related to his casinos and other assets. Under tax code provisions available to real estate developers, he could take the full amount as a deduction even if he didn’t invest a dime of his own money.

Ordinarily, that deduction would be recaptured when the debt was forgiven or the underlying assets sold. If the debt were forgiven, Mr. Trump would have to report that as income. But there are various exceptions. If Mr. Trump was insolvent at the time — if his debts exceeded his assets — he might have avoided having to report the forgiveness of debt as income.

There are other provisions, too, that might have allowed Mr. Trump to deduct the loans but never have to report them as income.



Yeah, yeah. I know. You've found something unsavory in the article and are all set to dismiss my claim that this particular loophole isn't available to people with lower incomes without actually addressing it.

a reply to: Greggers

There sure are a lot of maybes and mights in that hard hitting journalistic piece.

Since when is journalism based on assumptions acceptable?

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

There sure are a lot of maybes and mights in that hard hitting journalistic piece.

Since when is journalism based on assumptions acceptable?

Again, I'm trying to provide you with information on the loophole because I thought you wanted more information about it. From the first link I provided (you know, the stupid one) are you denying that the following is true:


All of this is thanks to a hard-won loophole that the real estate industry carved out in the tax code for itself. Before 1986, wealthier Americans of all stripes could invest money in real estate partnerships and then write off losses on their tax returns and lower their obligations. But then Congress decided to crack down on the practice and strictly limited the deductions that these passive investors could use.
This could have cut real estate off from an enormously beneficial tax break. So it fought back hard — and won. In the early 1990s, Congress passed a carve out that lifted any limits on deductions for those who qualify as “real estate professionals,” or spend 750 hours a year on such businesses.

“Real estate people are allowed to deduct losses against passive income because they have a special rule in the tax code,” Thornton pointed out.
While small business owners certainly benefit from these carveouts, the vast majority of beneficiaries are quite well off. Seventy percent of the income generated by partnerships and S corporations is captured by the richest 1 percent of Americans. Seventy percent also flows to big businesses.
“It’s dominated by hedge funds, real estate, private equity,” Brendan V. Duke, associate director of economic policy at CAP, pointed out, “financial vehicles that middle-class Americans have no access to.”

a reply to: mobiusmale

While your topic is most certainly valid, I take issue with your Subject Title only because the Wikileaks emails are most definitely NOT something to be ignored at this time. These are crucial documents that have already proven much wrongdoing amongst the Dem party and HRC and people have their lives at stake to release them unto the public.

The Wikileaks emails should not be "forgotten" nor taken lightly. If anything, they need a great deal more coverage and weight into this public investigation.

I just felt this needed to be said.

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Greggers

You advocate raising taxes on those making over 700k a year only?
And that will cover obamacare?

Yeah math and stuff........

Perhaps you'd like to present your math. What I do know is that the wealthiest one percent have socked away enormous reserves of cash at unprecedented amounts, while the rest of society gets poorer and poorer. The wealthiest handful of people have enough money to flat-out pay for the healthcare of a vast percentage of the American population.

America's wealthiest 20 people have more money than the bottom 152 million people.

www.marketwatch.com...


Incidentally, these are also the people who own our government.

The funny thing is Hillarys tax plan won't change that. She's beholden to the rich, just look at her donors. Give me one reason all the companies that benefit from large healthcare premiums would donate millions to a candidate trying to take money away from them.

a reply to: kruphix

That's weird beause my premium doubled and my out of pocket max went up $4000 after the employee mandate hit, plus I lost 5% coverage. I work for a non profit hospital so I'm inclined to believed it's because of the former.

a reply to: Greggers

I already know what you are referring to. I knew as soon as you put up your first link. The problem is you have a problem with someone using existing laws to pay as little taxes as possible. You realize this is exactly what TurboTax does right? Or are you got good citizen who is in the 20% tax bracket and pays 20% and claims no deductions for a lower effective tax rate?

I take as many deductions as I can, and I intentionally lose just enough money on a rental properties to negate state taxes and lower my federal effective tax rate. I also donate the maximum allowed to charities because I get another tax break and I get to give money to good causes.

Is what I'm doling illegal? Nope. Is it unethical? Nope. The law allows it because I'm providing housing and charity l, something the US government values highly. If I was funneling cash off of it illegally and claiming it was used for something it wasn't that's one thing, but that's not what I'm doing.

Trump may have access to rules we don't have access to because he is in the real estate investment business, not because he is rich. Every person in the United States has access to the same tax code if their situation calls for it.

So to recap: 1) You're jealous you aren't a real estate developer. 2) You used a source that had a pitiful appeal to emotion by dishonestly mischaracterizing the tax situation if the Everyman. 3) When that didn't work out you then use another highly slanted article that made at least a dozen assumptions. 4) When that didn't work out you finally included just the pertinent information and guess what? Turns out it's not a big deal...

originally posted by: raymundoko

I already know what you are referring to. I knew as soon as you put up your first link.

Then you could have dispensed with the unnecessary questions. I thought you actually wanted help understanding it. That would have saved us both a lot of hassle.

The problem is you have a problem with someone using existing laws to pay as little taxes as possible.

No I don't. I don't hold that against Trump at all. I would have done the same thing in his position.

Trump may have access to rules we don't have access to because he is in the real estate investment business, not because he is rich. Every person in the United States has access to the same tax code if their situation calls for it.

You're missing my point. That particular tax loophole was requested by the rich and powerful real-estate lobby AFTER the government had already decided to crack down on it, and the vast majority of the benefit of that tax break goes directly TO the rich and powerful. There's a huge source of potential revenue there that the wealthy get to keep merely because they are wealthy and can purchase influence in our government via lobbyists and campaign donations.

We could debate whether the system works, or whether the result is good -- that's not my point. My point was to give you an example of the kind of tax loophole I had mentioned.

So to recap: 1) You're jealous you aren't a real estate developer.

No, I'm not.

2) You used a source that had a pitiful appeal to emotion by dishonestly mischaracterizing the tax situation if the Everyman.

You seem to have acknowledged the only part of that article that was relevant to my argument, or at least haven't disputed it. Since that was the only part I actually read in detail, I'll have to take your word for the point you're making now.

3) When that didn't work out you then use another highly slanted article that made at least a dozen assumptions.

It didn't make assumptions. It offered possibilities, all of which were relevant to the underlying loophole (remember, that's what I was trying to help you understand).

4) When that didn't work out you finally included just the pertinent information and guess what? Turns out it's not a big deal...

It is an example of a tax loophole lobbied for by the real-estate industry that primarily benefits the wealthy.

Since we've gotten that one out of the way, would you like to move on to discussing other taxes that tilt the tax code disproportionately in favor of the wealthy?

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad

originally posted by: Greggers

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Greggers

You advocate raising taxes on those making over 700k a year only?
And that will cover obamacare?

Yeah math and stuff........

Perhaps you'd like to present your math. What I do know is that the wealthiest one percent have socked away enormous reserves of cash at unprecedented amounts, while the rest of society gets poorer and poorer. The wealthiest handful of people have enough money to flat-out pay for the healthcare of a vast percentage of the American population.

America's wealthiest 20 people have more money than the bottom 152 million people.

www.marketwatch.com...


Incidentally, these are also the people who own our government.

The funny thing is Hillarys tax plan won't change that. She's beholden to the rich, just look at her donors. Give me one reason all the companies that benefit from large healthcare premiums would donate millions to a candidate trying to take money away from them.

Hillary's bought and paid for. I've said this multiple times.

a reply to: mobiusmale

Hillary's lead in the polls is already shrinking by the day.

a reply to: StargateSG7

I have no idea how wonderful it is with healthcare in Canada. I live in the US.

but here is my point:
www.npr.org...

If you look at the bottom of that page you see the median income for each state. Notice they are all about 40-50K a year. Now at that level of pay for a family, you don't qualify for any subsidies, yet you will have to pay the price for an insurance plan, and for a family of 4, it could top $2,000 a month. And will likely increase with the new Obamacare increases we just heard about.

I am not sure how your math skills are, but if you take a family, and look at their House payment, vehicle payments, saving for kids going to school, saving for retirement, and then ask them to come up with an extra 2 grand each and every month, it's kind of difficult. It didn't use to be that high. In fact, I remember paying about $450 for the whole family when I was first starting my business in 2000. And that was a family of 5.

So enjoy what you have up north there, I'm glad you are happy. Just know that here, things aren't like that at all.

A reply to: Greggers

And there is your problem again. A "tax loophole" is nothing more than a pejorative term used solely as a talking point to make people who use the Tax Laws as corrupt cheaters.

You do realize that "offering possibilities" is a different way of saying "let's make assumptions" right?

Even with the tax law as is, the wealthy can't avoid taxes indefinitely and in fact pay the MAJORITY of our taxes. You are THOROUGHLY confused.

Top 1% pay nearly half of federal income taxes

The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.

According to a projection from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, the top 1 percent of Americans will pay 45.7 percent of the individual income taxes in 2014—up from 43 percent in 2013 and 40 percent in 2012 (the oldest period available). (Tweet this)

The bottom 80 percent of Americans are expected to pay 15 percent of all federal income taxes in 2014, according to the study. The bottom 60 percent are expected to pay less than 2 percent of federal income taxes.

So please, continue to use logical fallacies to support a failed position. Apparently the rich pay far more taxes than you think they do.

The issue is not getting the rich to pay more or to take away these NEFARIOUS "loooooopppphooooles" (said in ghostly voice). The issue is the US government is a failed business and wastes the money they do get. The USA get's MORE than enough income from taxes that if they just ran their business better we could have free healthcare as is...

originally posted by: raymundoko
A reply to: Greggers

And there is your problem again. A "tax loophole" is nothing more than a pejorative term used solely as a talking point to make people who use the Tax Laws as corrupt cheaters.

That's not the way I intended it. Call it a tax "rule" if you like. Call it whatever you want -- it's ancillary to my point.

You do realize that "offering possibilities" is a different way of saying "let's make assumptions" right?

No it's not. Offering possibilities, in this context, is suggesting things that might have happened -- all of which were relevant to understanding the rule. Making "assumptions" would be drawing actual conclusions about which of those options actually did happen.

You are THOROUGHLY confused.

If anyone is thoroughly confused here, it's you.

The top-earning 1 percent of Americans will pay nearly half of the federal income taxes for 2014, the largest share in at least three years, according to a study.

The top 1 percent of income earners isn't really what interests me. It's the top fraction of one percent of wealth owners, the ones who have managed to consolidate wealth and power at unprecedented levels. For example, an NBA player could very easily be in the top 1% of income earners, but that NBA player has very little power over our tax code.

The ultra wealthy make most of their money from investments, which is why Warren Buffet can claim correctly that he pays fewer taxes than the average American.

So please, continue to use logical fallacies to support a failed position. Apparently the rich pay far more taxes than you think they do.

So please, continue arguing with yourself. You clearly don't need me in this conversation, since most of the points you've made for the last several pages are only tangentially related (at best) to any argument I've put forth.

A few other relevant points (Not intended for Ray, but rather for anyone who might actually be interested):

From: en.wikipedia.org...

A 2014 study by researchers at Princeton and Northwestern concludes that government policies reflect the desires of the wealthy, and that the vast majority of American citizens have "minuscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy . . . when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organized interests, they generally lose."[56]

There is an important distinction between income and wealth. Income refers to a flow of money over time in the form of a rate (per hour, per week, or per year); wealth is a collection of assets owned. In essence, income is specifically what people receive through work, retirement, or social welfare whereas wealth is what people own.[28] While the two are seemingly related, income inequality alone is insufficient for understanding economic inequality for two reasons:
It does not accurately reflect an individual's economic position
Income does not portray the severity of financial inequality in the United States.

a reply to: Greggers

So if I am a top 1% earner and I invest correctly and turn my income into wealth I should pay for wealth I accumulated with income I already paid taxes on?

Lebron James is on his way to being a billionaire. Is it his fault the majority of NBA players don't know how to create wealth out of income?

On top of that, the wealthy are drivers of job creation and innovation, unless you think Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the late Steve Jobs were just hoarding their wealth and hiding it all from the lesser folk...

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

So if I am a top 1% earner and I invest correctly and turn my income into wealth I should pay for wealth I accumulated with income I already paid taxes on?

No. However, the financial vehicles that have caused the upward redistribution of wealth should be examined closely.

Lebron James is on his way to being a billionaire. Is it his fault the majority of NBA players don't know how to create wealth out of income?

This has zero to do with my point. My point is that income and wealth are not the same thing, and that wealth is what determines access to and control over tax policy.

On top of that, the wealthy are drivers of job creation and innovation, unless you think Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and the late Steve Jobs were just hoarding their wealth and hiding it all from the lesser folk...

There isn't a whole lot of evidence that tax breaks for the ultra wealthy actually stimulate the economy or job creation.

a reply to: Greggers

I'm not claiming tax breaks on the wealthy stimulate the economy. Tax breaks on the lowest 90% of income earners absolutely stimulates the economy and there are actual scientific papers that prove just that.

What I'm saying is there has to be an incentive to be able to become wealthy. Bill gates didn't start Microsoft for the betterment of mankind, he did it to get rich. Same with Zuckerberg, Bezoz, Musk et al.

If you want to strangle the ability for the rich to amass wealth then you stifle their desire to be innovators.

a reply to: Greggers

"One thing Hillary would like to do is provide more federal funding to get younger people signed up, to lower the risk pool and in turn lower premiums. "

It always seems odd to me that so many people think money grows on trees. This Federal entity you speak of is 17 trillion dollars in debt. I suppose at this point the farce is that no one is going to have to pay it back. Sort of like Star Trek credits or something.

It seems to me that the real purpose is to keep an entire population, except for those at the top, in a constant state of debt slavery. I suppose in a way that keeps civilization from going barbarian, but for how long?

Me, I am a successful person, finished college a long time ago. I have decent savings. Own a house and some cars. Pay my taxes - yada yada. But this new scheme has forced my employer to enact a deal where even the best plan requires me to put about 2500 US dollars in an HSA.

That tells me that the Insurance industry wrote Obama care with the insurance companies. I am sure that they came up with an average for all citizens on a yearly basis. I am sure 2500 was roughly that amount. And I am sure that they knew they could back out of the exchanges as soon as they wanted. Giving the poor a sort of US Army health care plan at some point.

I don't find any of this surprising, I just find it odd that socialist loving folk would be so enamored by it.

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greggers

I'm not claiming tax breaks on the wealthy stimulate the economy. Tax breaks on the lowest 90% of income earners absolutely stimulates the economy and there are actual scientific papers that prove just that.

What I'm saying is there has to be an incentive to be able to become wealthy. Bill gates didn't start Microsoft for the betterment of mankind, he did it to get rich. Same with Zuckerberg, Bezoz, Musk et al.

If you want to strangle the ability for the rich to amass wealth then you stifle their desire to be innovators.

You and I have found common ground on this post, as I agree with every single thing you said.

I'm not suggesting we tax the ultra wealthy to the point that there would no longer be incentive to be wealthy, just to be clear. What I suggest is not a pure egalitarian communist society, as I believe what he have now is far better than that kind of system can ever be.

I'm simply suggesting that for the past several decades, there has been an enormous redistribution toward the top, with the wealthiest fraction of 1% consolidating both money and power to an extent that is not healthy for our republic. The increasing disconnect many of us feel with the government that purports to represent us is largely attributable to this phenomenon.

As our society becomes more technologically advanced and more productive, an ever decreasing percentage of the benefit is passed along to the middle class.