quote:

“against the law”…let the law deal with him

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It doesn’t say he doesn’t have a checking account…it says he doesn’t have a savings or retirement account.

Anyone with any business sense stays as vague as legally possible about their business. If his constituents don’t care for that…they can get rid of him.

If his disclosures are “against the law”…let the law deal with him.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It doesn’t say he doesn’t have a checking account…it says he doesn’t have a savings or retirement account.

Anyone with any business sense stays as vague as legally possible about their business. If his constituents don’t care for that…they can get rid of him.

If his disclosures are “against the law”…let the law deal with him.

Says he has no bank accounts. I dunno about you but my checking account is at a bank.

And, sorry, there are laws in regard to financial disclosures for elected officials like this nimrod and it appears he's not in compliance with those laws.

Only a republican like you would respond to that sort of information by saying "So what?" I guess when you are a trumptard, you just have to get used to that when commenting on illegal, unethical and immoral behavior.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
It doesn’t say he doesn’t have a checking account…it says he doesn’t have a savings or retirement account.

Anyone with any business sense stays as vague as legally possible about their business. If his constituents don’t care for that…they can get rid of him.

If his disclosures are “against the law”…let the law deal with him.

Says he has no bank accounts. I dunno about you but my checking account is at a bank.

And, sorry, there are laws in regard to financial disclosures for elected officials like this nimrod and it appears he's not in compliance with those laws.

Only a republican like you would respond to that sort of information by saying "So what?" I guess when you are a trumptard, you just have to get used to that when commenting on illegal, unethical and immoral behavior.

Dr. Easter has made clear that his only priorities are he doesn't want to pay taxes (while insisting on a robust infrastructure to support his commercial endeavors and travel) or have to comply with pesky regulations.

Other, lesser people should foot the bill for providing him with both necessities and conveniences for the privilege of being on the same planet with him while he knows better than any expert the government has how things should be done.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Flat tax.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Flat tax.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
Flat tax.

You would still need the IRS.

Someone has to collect.

The Fed Government has no authority to tell a state what that state’s property tax should be.

I mean, a state could do as you wish now. That is a pipe dream.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Absolutely not. I do not play in that field. I would not even think of trying. We have a conservative accounting firm.

Between State and Feds, I pay 3 income taxes. I shutter at the thought of this year.

.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Absolutely not. I do not play in that field. We have a conservative accounting firm.

Between State and Feds, I pay 3 income taxes. I shutter at the thought of this year.

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
have you read the entire federal tax code? (I admit this is a loaded question.)

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Absolutely not. I do not play in that field. We have a conservative accounting firm.

Between State and Feds, I pay 3 income taxes. I shutter at the thought of this year.

Question #’s 2, 3, &4: Is it even possible to read the entire tax code? Understand it? And, be in full compliance with all aspects of it?

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I will say it again…anyone in business who is not as vague as legally possible with their finances is an idiot.

And if he broke ethics rules or laws…let due process move forward on him.

If I were he…I would laugh at the Daily Beast…who the hell cares what they write? They will never like him anyway. I am comfortable with my compliance but I DAMN sure work hard to minimize my tax bill.

I am happy with anyone else paying all they desire.

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Mitchell:

quote:

Originally posted by ledvm:
I will say it again…anyone in business who is not as vague as legally possible with their finances is an idiot.

And if he broke ethics rules or laws…let due process move forward on him.

If I were he…I would laugh at the Daily Beast…who the hell cares what they write? They will never like him anyway. I am comfortable with my compliance but I DAMN sure work hard to minimize my tax bill.

I am happy with anyone else paying all they desire.

Right. We shouldn't worry about the fact that the Speaker of the House doesn't have a bank account. He should be "vague" about his finances.

Lane, you are on Pluto.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

Jeffrey, please explain to the class, in small words, why Bill Gates should pay a higher RATE OF TAX, when he has less and less need for government services, than a school teacher?

why should Bill pay 39% on all income when Teach pays 15%, but Teeach consumes more, by income ratio, government services?

the so-called "progressive" tax rates are a penalty for success, aren't they? when the "rich" can "afford" to pay more taxes than the next guy, why, hmm, what's that basic tenant of Marxism? from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ???

i mean, i am certain it all makes sense in your mind

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

Uhmm, unrealized gains aren't taxable - but when you make a transaction, it is then taxed - taxing unsold stocks is actually speculation - 1 the money used to buy stocks is (usually) already taxed 2 it's pretty hard to get a refund for loss when the stock tanks 3 until sold and profit realized, the "paper" is speculation, 4 how often? so, let's say i buy a stock at 1, then it gets to 2, a year later (but unsold) would you take me for the difference? then, if i can afford to stay in it, would you tax me AGAIN when it gets to 3, and at what basis? 1 or 2? and then, due to (environment) it drops to 0.5, do you offer me a refund from 3, 2, 1 or none? If i keep it through several cycles, and it eventually grows from 1 to 4, over 10 years, do I pay tax on unrealized gains, incrementally, and THEN pay taxes on the difference between sales price and purchase price, in this case 4-1=3, even though you've taxed every incremental unrealized gains along the way?

great plan to flatline the stock market

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
just a minor correction, it was 73 million -

This is a laugh riot
https://www.newyorker.com/news...ggest-outrage-of-all

Literal act of congress to get him this refund

https://www.newyorker.com/news...ggest-outrage-of-all

Under tax law, refunds of more than two million dollars require approval from Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, which also got involved.

When it takes them 30 days to come back with audit results, you likely have broken the law. If it takes a decade, they are squaring every cent

But if the IRS AND a JOINT committee approved it, it was likely that no laws were broken --

though, to be honest, I don't think trump himself discovered and leveraged the law -

i am not a lawyer, more specifically, I am not YOUR lawyer, and this should not be considered tax advice -And, as basis, if you own several companies, structure them to file as a single entity, where net losses and gains can be used across companies -- and it's the law that lets him recover his losses over years

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Like I said, I would tax the value as income. Major investors hide from paying income tax by holding large stock interest, and borrowing based on that valuation. It is no different than taxing land.

I would tax the value on whatever day your account submits your return.

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

Jeffrey, please explain to the class, in small words, why Bill Gates should pay a higher RATE OF TAX, when he has less and less need for government services, than a school teacher?

why should Bill pay 39% on all income when Teach pays 15%, but Teeach consumes more, by income ratio, government services?

the so-called "progressive" tax rates are a penalty for success, aren't they? when the "rich" can "afford" to pay more taxes than the next guy, why, hmm, what's that basic tenant of Marxism? from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ???

i mean, i am certain it all makes sense in your mind

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

Uhmm, unrealized gains aren't taxable - but when you make a transaction, it is then taxed - taxing unsold stocks is actually speculation - 1 the money used to buy stocks is (usually) already taxed 2 it's pretty hard to get a refund for loss when the stock tanks 3 until sold and profit realized, the "paper" is speculation, 4 how often? so, let's say i buy a stock at 1, then it gets to 2, a year later (but unsold) would you take me for the difference? then, if i can afford to stay in it, would you tax me AGAIN when it gets to 3, and at what basis? 1 or 2? and then, due to (environment) it drops to 0.5, do you offer me a refund from 3, 2, 1 or none? If i keep it through several cycles, and it eventually grows from 1 to 4, over 10 years, do I pay tax on unrealized gains, incrementally, and THEN pay taxes on the difference between sales price and purchase price, in this case 4-1=3, even though you've taxed every incremental unrealized gains along the way?

great plan to flatline the stock market

NOBODY in Gates' bracket ever pays even the 15% rate due to the small army of accountants and lawyers they hire to leverage the loopholes they have paid for.

Our current corrupted system leads to such bizarre crap as the studio that completed a movie but decided the tax benefits of not releasing it were better than the money they would likely make from distributing it.

Scrap all the deductions and loopholes and there likely would be no need for any bracket to face 39%.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Like I said, I would tax the value as income. Major investors hide from paying income tax by holding large stock interest, and borrowing based on that valuation. It is no different than taxing land.

I would tax the value on whatever day your account submits your return.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

Jeffrey, please explain to the class, in small words, why Bill Gates should pay a higher RATE OF TAX, when he has less and less need for government services, than a school teacher?

why should Bill pay 39% on all income when Teach pays 15%, but Teeach consumes more, by income ratio, government services?

the so-called "progressive" tax rates are a penalty for success, aren't they? when the "rich" can "afford" to pay more taxes than the next guy, why, hmm, what's that basic tenant of Marxism? from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ???

i mean, i am certain it all makes sense in your mind

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

Uhmm, unrealized gains aren't taxable - but when you make a transaction, it is then taxed - taxing unsold stocks is actually speculation - 1 the money used to buy stocks is (usually) already taxed 2 it's pretty hard to get a refund for loss when the stock tanks 3 until sold and profit realized, the "paper" is speculation, 4 how often? so, let's say i buy a stock at 1, then it gets to 2, a year later (but unsold) would you take me for the difference? then, if i can afford to stay in it, would you tax me AGAIN when it gets to 3, and at what basis? 1 or 2? and then, due to (environment) it drops to 0.5, do you offer me a refund from 3, 2, 1 or none? If i keep it through several cycles, and it eventually grows from 1 to 4, over 10 years, do I pay tax on unrealized gains, incrementally, and THEN pay taxes on the difference between sales price and purchase price, in this case 4-1=3, even though you've taxed every incremental unrealized gains along the way?

great plan to flatline the stock market

NOBODY in Gates' bracket ever pays even the 15% rate due to the small army of accountants and lawyers they hire to leverage the loopholes they have paid for.

Our current corrupted system leads to such bizarre crap as the studio that completed a movie but decided the tax benefits of not releasing it were better than the money they would likely make from distributing it.

Scrap all the deductions and loopholes and there likely would be no need for any bracket to face 39%.

so, you would support a flat tax?

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

Jeffrey, please explain to the class, in small words, why Bill Gates should pay a higher RATE OF TAX, when he has less and less need for government services, than a school teacher?

why should Bill pay 39% on all income when Teach pays 15%, but Teeach consumes more, by income ratio, government services?

the so-called "progressive" tax rates are a penalty for success, aren't they? when the "rich" can "afford" to pay more taxes than the next guy, why, hmm, what's that basic tenant of Marxism? from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ???

i mean, i am certain it all makes sense in your mind

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

Uhmm, unrealized gains aren't taxable - but when you make a transaction, it is then taxed - taxing unsold stocks is actually speculation - 1 the money used to buy stocks is (usually) already taxed 2 it's pretty hard to get a refund for loss when the stock tanks 3 until sold and profit realized, the "paper" is speculation, 4 how often? so, let's say i buy a stock at 1, then it gets to 2, a year later (but unsold) would you take me for the difference? then, if i can afford to stay in it, would you tax me AGAIN when it gets to 3, and at what basis? 1 or 2? and then, due to (environment) it drops to 0.5, do you offer me a refund from 3, 2, 1 or none? If i keep it through several cycles, and it eventually grows from 1 to 4, over 10 years, do I pay tax on unrealized gains, incrementally, and THEN pay taxes on the difference between sales price and purchase price, in this case 4-1=3, even though you've taxed every incremental unrealized gains along the way?

great plan to flatline the stock market

NOBODY in Gates' bracket ever pays even the 15% rate due to the small army of accountants and lawyers they hire to leverage the loopholes they have paid for.

Our current corrupted system leads to such bizarre crap as the studio that completed a movie but decided the tax benefits of not releasing it were better than the money they would likely make from distributing it.

Scrap all the deductions and loopholes and there likely would be no need for any bracket to face 39%.

so, you would support a flat tax?

No, but I would support three tiers, 10% from $20,000-100,000, 15% to $1,000,000, 20% over $5,000,000, to be adjusted (probably down) as needed to raise only necessary revenue and reduce the debt by at least 7% per year.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:

quote:

Originally posted by Jefffive:

I say scrap it in its entirety, set the tax rates that are appropriate to each income level and eliminate deductions.

Jeffrey, please explain to the class, in small words, why Bill Gates should pay a higher RATE OF TAX, when he has less and less need for government services, than a school teacher?

why should Bill pay 39% on all income when Teach pays 15%, but Teeach consumes more, by income ratio, government services?

the so-called "progressive" tax rates are a penalty for success, aren't they? when the "rich" can "afford" to pay more taxes than the next guy, why, hmm, what's that basic tenant of Marxism? from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" ???

i mean, i am certain it all makes sense in your mind

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Personally, I would tax stock values as income.

Uhmm, unrealized gains aren't taxable - but when you make a transaction, it is then taxed - taxing unsold stocks is actually speculation - 1 the money used to buy stocks is (usually) already taxed 2 it's pretty hard to get a refund for loss when the stock tanks 3 until sold and profit realized, the "paper" is speculation, 4 how often? so, let's say i buy a stock at 1, then it gets to 2, a year later (but unsold) would you take me for the difference? then, if i can afford to stay in it, would you tax me AGAIN when it gets to 3, and at what basis? 1 or 2? and then, due to (environment) it drops to 0.5, do you offer me a refund from 3, 2, 1 or none? If i keep it through several cycles, and it eventually grows from 1 to 4, over 10 years, do I pay tax on unrealized gains, incrementally, and THEN pay taxes on the difference between sales price and purchase price, in this case 4-1=3, even though you've taxed every incremental unrealized gains along the way?

great plan to flatline the stock market

NOBODY in Gates' bracket ever pays even the 15% rate due to the small army of accountants and lawyers they hire to leverage the loopholes they have paid for.

Our current corrupted system leads to such bizarre crap as the studio that completed a movie but decided the tax benefits of not releasing it were better than the money they would likely make from distributing it.

Scrap all the deductions and loopholes and there likely would be no need for any bracket to face 39%.

so, you would support a flat tax?

No, but I would support three tiers, 10% from $20,000-100,000, 15% to $1,000,000, 20% over $5,000,000, to be adjusted (probably down) as needed to raise only necessary revenue and reduce the debt by at least 7% per year.

Who should decide what is necessary government spending and what isn't?