The Trump implosion thread!

Quote: Evenbob

She's being mocked and laughed at
by everybody in media. She took a
non story and dragged it out half
an hour before the reveal. What a
tool..

I have high expectations it was intentional bait and it was released because it was the least objectionable Trump return.

One of the few clever moves by someone on Trump's side.

Quote: rxwine

I have high expectations it was intentional bait and it was released because it was the least objectionable Trump return.

One of the few clever moves by someone on Trump's side.

The reporter who received it in the mail said it probably came from Trump himself.

Quote: Evenbob

She's being mocked and laughed at
by everybody in media. She took a
non story and dragged it out half
an hour before the reveal. What a
tool..

I'm sure when last night's ratings come in, it will be her highest rated show in a long time.

She spent 20 minutes going over Donald's shady Russia ties that she's been investigating for a while now. It's good that many viewers who don't regularly watch her show got to see that.

So Trump paid 38 million in federal taxes in 2005. Should he have paid more? less? All I know for sure is that is around what FOUR THOUSAND average families of 4 paid that year. Yep, he made a lot. But he was subsidizing THOUSANDS of families that don't. The libs want him to subsidize TENS of thousands of families, and I am sure they still would not be happy. Soak the rich!


Edit--- mind picture----- Fill Madison square garden with those 16000 people, and Trump paid as much in taxes as the entire building.....

Quote: SOOPOO

So Trump paid 38 million in federal taxes in 2005. Should he have paid more?

Yes.

Quote: SOOPOO

So Trump paid 38 million in federal taxes in 2005. Should he have paid more? less? All I know for sure is that is around what FOUR THOUSAND average families of 4 paid that year. Yep, he made a lot. But he was subsidizing THOUSANDS of families that don't. The libs want him to subsidize TENS of thousands of families, and I am sure they still would not be happy. Soak the rich!

As long as the rich can still get richer there's nothing to worry about. When they start having a hard time, it's time to reconsider.

If you want to make it "fair", they'll end up even richer than they are now with a flat tax.

Your call.

I'd rather worry about the percentages between the middle class and the poor. Getting that right is more important to me.

Quote: rxwine

As long as the rich can still get richer there's nothing to worry about. When they start having a hard time, it's time to reconsider.

If you want to make it "fair", they'll end up even richer than they are now with a flat tax.

Your call.

I'd rather worry about the percentages between the middle class and the poor. Getting that right is more important to me.

Well, wouldn't the most "fair" be taking the total amount of tax, dividing by the total number of people (including dependents), to get a total amount of tax to collect from each person? The amount allocated to a dependent would be assigned to the person to whom they are a dependent of. That is more of a flat tax, where everyone would be expected to pay the same amount. I'm pretty sure you'd find that most people couldn't afford that plan. So clearly we need some form of a progressive system, where those who can afford to pay more, do.

A flat tax by percentage is still a progressive tax, in a way, where a person who makes more money would be paying more in dollars in tax.

I am in favor of the progressive tax of the traditional definition, where those who make more pay more both in dollars and by percent.

Quote: ams288

Yes.

Why? Maybe because he is orange?

Wasn't he supposed to have a billion dollar deduction that meant he would not pay taxes ever?

Maybe he has a bad accountant.

CNN was horrified...they wanted a story and got nothing. Maddow tried to paint a picture, but her brush smeared the whole canvas.

Quote: Dalex64

A flat tax by percentage is still a progressive tax, in a way, where a person who makes more money would be paying more in dollars in tax.

I am in favor of the progressive tax of the traditional definition, where those who make more pay more both in dollars and by percent.

The thing about a progressive tax, is that the incentive is to find ways around the higher tax rates. This means hiring lobbyists, giving money to politicians, paying for PR campaigns, etc., in order to make loopholes, exceptions, exemptions, etc. Also "creative" accounting to make paper losses, or even real losses, to lower the rate through real or imagined deductions. And let's not mention off-shore accounts.

This corrupts and subverts the whole field of government financing (how to fund the government), and gives us millionaires and billionaires paying an effective lower rate than the general population.

So in the sense of getting the very rich to pay a fair share, a flat tax is probably best. In the sense of removing a source of corruption, it certainly is best.

Well, for a while. After a bit we'll see deductions, exemptions, exceptions, etc.

Quote: RonC

Why? Maybe because he is orange?

Because "billionaires" should pay a higher tax rate than 25%.