In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Trump's taxes
put it to rest Hillary by releasing your taxes, including Hillary Clinton Foundation taxes? Lets see where all that money goes, and does not go...
New York Times paid no taxes in 2014
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/
As Forbes noted at the time:
". for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, "The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations." If you don't think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Trump on Sunday, telling NBC News' Meet the Press that Trump was a "genius" in business who was simply doing what the tax code allows every American to do by counting losses against tax liabilities, and bouncing back from failure to success."
New York Times paid no taxes in 2014
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/
As Forbes noted at the time:
". for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, "The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations." If you don't think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again.
New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani defended Trump on Sunday, telling NBC News' Meet the Press that Trump was a "genius" in business who was simply doing what the tax code allows every American to do by counting losses against tax liabilities, and bouncing back from failure to success."
Comments
Trump campaign replies to criticism of Trump Foundation
Weasels asking weasels questions and getting weasel answers. Also, to suggest that Trump is a genius for writing down future taxes due to a loss is ridiculous. Anyone who loses money on an investment does the same thing. I have done it, and I am sure as hell no investment genius. A business 'genius' would probably not have experienced the loss in the first place. Taking proper advantage of a loss is an obvious action, and to not do so would have been stupid.
The idiocy of the Federal Government supporting the Clinton Foundation (as well as the Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, the Trump Foundation, The Glass Cathedral, Jimmy Swaggert, etc. etc. etc. should be evidence enough that the tax exemption for charities of any and all types should be eliminated.
Brad Steele
What he did was legal. But what of the other crimes committed?
What was the source of the tax information? Someone within the DNC-IRS?
No one should question the press's first amendment right to publish information, even information that was illegally obtained in the first place. BUT what about the crime they committed?
"federal law does say it is "unlawful" for "any person" to "print or publish" unauthorized tax returns:
It shall be unlawful for any person to whom any return or return information (as defined in section 6103(b)) is disclosed in a manner unauthorized by this title thereafter willfully to print or publish in any manner not provided by law any such return or return information. Any violation of this paragraph shall be a felony punishable by a fine in any amount not exceeding $5,000, or imprisonment of not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution."
Is the DNC-DOJ pursuing this?
Brad Steele
This works because 40% of the voters are stupid as a carrot. No insult intended to carrots.
OH by the way did you know that James Comey the head of the FBI has a brother who works for the auditor who audited the Clinton foundation?
I thought that might be of interest.
Oh, wait, we are talking about Trump, his response is "because I am smart". What a * self centered and childish response.
All he had to say was "we fully complied with IRS law on our taxes, that is much more than Hillary can say about her email server."
But no, The Donald has to act like an * leaving swing voters seeing him as he is; a pampas, bloviating, ill spoken brat.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
If someone can find me an individual that did not take every exemption that they were allowed to (that they knew they could) I'd like to meet them. And slap them for being so stupid.
Please don't slap me, Randy, but I do not take deductions for charitable giving. I give because I believe in the causes, and do not believe in government vetting or supporting of that giving. I have long believed that tax deductions for individual and corporate charitable giving distorts how money is given, and, frankly is horribly abused.
Therefore I do not participate in the scam. It costs me between $ 2,000.00 and $ 5,000.00 per year, depending upon the year, but principle, IMO, is much more valuable.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Amish
Trump campaign replies to criticism of Trump Foundation
Weasels asking weasels questions and getting weasel answers. Also, to suggest that Trump is a genius for writing down future taxes due to a loss is ridiculous. Anyone who loses money on an investment does the same thing. I have done it, and I am sure as hell no investment genius. A business 'genius' would probably not have experienced the loss in the first place. Taking proper advantage of a loss is an obvious action, and to not do so would have been stupid.
The idiocy of the Federal Government supporting the Clinton Foundation (as well as the Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, the Trump Foundation, The Glass Cathedral, Jimmy Swaggert, etc. etc. etc. should be evidence enough that the tax exemption for charities of any and all types should be eliminated.
Including the Church ?
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Amish
Trump campaign replies to criticism of Trump Foundation
Weasels asking weasels questions and getting weasel answers. Also, to suggest that Trump is a genius for writing down future taxes due to a loss is ridiculous. Anyone who loses money on an investment does the same thing. I have done it, and I am sure as hell no investment genius. A business 'genius' would probably not have experienced the loss in the first place. Taking proper advantage of a loss is an obvious action, and to not do so would have been stupid.
The idiocy of the Federal Government supporting the Clinton Foundation (as well as the Gates Foundation, the Tiger Woods Foundation, the Trump Foundation, The Glass Cathedral, Jimmy Swaggert, etc. etc. etc. should be evidence enough that the tax exemption for charities of any and all types should be eliminated.
Including the Church ?
Of course.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
If someone can find me an individual that did not take every exemption that they were allowed to (that they knew they could) I'd like to meet them. And slap them for being so stupid.
Please don't slap me, Randy, but I do not take deductions for charitable giving. I give because I believe in the causes, and do not believe in government vetting or supporting of that giving. I have long believed that tax deductions for individual and corporate charitable giving distorts how money is given, and, frankly is horribly abused.
Therefore I do not participate in the scam. It costs me between $ 2,000.00 and $ 5,000.00 per year, depending upon the year, but principle, IMO, is much more valuable.
Well, the temptation is pretty high. Don, Don, Don. SMH. I suppose I can understand the vetting part, but the supporting? Don, if you take the exemptions, then you could have given more. Wouldn't that be better?
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
If someone can find me an individual that did not take every exemption that they were allowed to (that they knew they could) I'd like to meet them. And slap them for being so stupid.
Please don't slap me, Randy, but I do not take deductions for charitable giving. I give because I believe in the causes, and do not believe in government vetting or supporting of that giving. I have long believed that tax deductions for individual and corporate charitable giving distorts how money is given, and, frankly is horribly abused.
Therefore I do not participate in the scam. It costs me between $ 2,000.00 and $ 5,000.00 per year, depending upon the year, but principle, IMO, is much more valuable.
Well, the temptation is pretty high. Don, Don, Don. SMH. I suppose I can understand the vetting part, but the supporting? Don, if you take the exemptions, then you could have given more. Wouldn't that be better?
If I take the exemptions, Randy, the money that I would have paid in taxes will either be paid by someone else or borrowed and will adversely impact future generations that may or may not support the causes to which I give.
It is not, in my opinion, the purview of government to redistribute monies based upon individuals' choices for charity. Also, I have attended a number of corporate charity golf outings where it has been obvious that much more money was spent on the event than was collected for the charity. In short, they were and are charitable events created more for the enjoyment and recreation of the participants than to do good by the charity, and the American taxpayer is on the hook for 30%+ of the cost.
The elimination in its entirety of the 501(c)3 code will free all taxpayers from having to support the charitable giving choices of others. When one takes a holistic view of charitable giving, noting that folks at the lowest end of the tax paying spectrum are supporting a beer-infused golf afternoon for me, (one at that higher end of the spectrum) one sees it for the regressive transfer of wealth that it has become.
Brad Steele
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain
I think your argument might have more merit if you or I could be assured that the money going to the government would be spent in any semblance of a responsible manner. It's one of the reasons I will not ever support a measure that increases my tax burden. Not because there is no legitimate need, but because the government is incapable of meeting it with my money. I can easily put it toward an organization that will, and that is how I prefer to play.
Understand fully, Mr. P, and I give what and to whom I want absent consideration of government or taxes. It opens up my giving to entities and/or people that truly are in need or truly do good works, and neither I nor they need worry about government vetting.
The reality is that government will spend the money or will borrow it absent a balanced budget amendment or a balanced budget law with teeth that the Congress and President respect. At some time and some how someone will be saddled with the bill. Because of this, I cannot in good conscience shift a part of my burden onto others because I choose to give to something they may not wish to support.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by droptop
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
I think your argument might have more merit if you or I could be assured that the money going to the government would be spent in any semblance of a responsible manner. It's one of the reasons I will not ever support a measure that increases my tax burden. Not because there is no legitimate need, but because the government is incapable of meeting it with my money. I can easily put it toward an organization that will, and that is how I prefer to play.
Understand fully, Mr. P, and I give what and to whom I want absent consideration of government or taxes. It opens up my giving to entities and/or people that truly are in need or truly do good works, and neither I nor they need worry about government vetting.
The reality is that government will spend the money or will borrow it absent a balanced budget amendment or a balanced budget law with teeth that the Congress and President respect. At some time and some how someone will be saddled with the bill. Because of this, I cannot in good conscience shift a part of my burden onto others because I choose to give to something they may not wish to support.
Kind of a pointless reasoning. If the government would live within a budget, then income vs. outgo would matter and then every dime coming in would as well. Absent that, I care not whether they actually get my money or not, because it's spent either way.
And fiery auto crashes
Some will die in hot pursuit
While sifting through my ashes
Some will fall in love with life
And drink it from a fountain
That is pouring like an avalanche
Coming down the mountain