Trump tax return shows disparity in system

Milagro said:
Yes exactly the big boys have big advantage over little ones, reducing corp tax levels the playing field.
Click to expand...

It also should come as no surprise that politicians of all stripes for years have been decrying this as an impediment to economic growth. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed reducing the top rate from 35 percent (excluding state and local taxes, which raise the rate to 39 percent) to 15 percent. But even President Barack Obama has proposed a reduction to 28 percent. The only surprise, perhaps, is that the rate hasn’t budged, despite long-standing bipartisan support to reduce it.

The reasons for that are complicated. In fact, complications abound in the tax code, and that is the problem. Large corporations can hire a bevvy of attorneys to take advantage of loopholes and reduce their liabilities. Companies may deduct costs for retirement funds, health insurance, money earned on investments, research funds and the price of new equipment. Congress has carved out separate loopholes for some industries. Some large corporations pay an effective rate close to zero.

These complexities, both for personal income and corporate earnings, breed inequities and stifle innovation. They also, in a strange way, keep Washington from taking action to lower the rates.

www.deseretnews.com/article/865661631/In-our-opinion-No-reduction-of-corporate-tax-rates-despite-bipartisan-support.html?pg=all
 
christiefan915 said:
It also should come as no surprise that politicians of all stripes for years have been decrying this as an impediment to economic growth. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed reducing the top rate from 35 percent (excluding state and local taxes, which raise the rate to 39 percent) to 15 percent. But even President Barack Obama has proposed a reduction to 28 percent. The only surprise, perhaps, is that the rate hasn’t budged, despite long-standing bipartisan support to reduce it.

The reasons for that are complicated. In fact, complications abound in the tax code, and that is the problem. Large corporations can hire a bevvy of attorneys to take advantage of loopholes and reduce their liabilities. Companies may deduct costs for retirement funds, health insurance, money earned on investments, research funds and the price of new equipment. Congress has carved out separate loopholes for some industries. Some large corporations pay an effective rate close to zero.

These complexities, both for personal income and corporate earnings, breed inequities and stifle innovation. They also, in a strange way, keep Washington from taking action to lower the rates.

www.deseretnews.com/article/865661631/In-our-opinion-No-reduction-of-corporate-tax-rates-despite-bipartisan-support.html?pg=all
Click to expand...
Wait, you support this?
 
cawacko said:
Who do you think benefits most from the mortgage interest deduction? Rich people. You benefit from the home interest deduction so you don't want to see it touched
Click to expand...

We get a tiny fraction of the breaks they get..........

Since it is the rich writing the laws & don't see how you get them to give anything up..:dunno:
 
Bill said:
We get a tiny fraction of the breaks they get..........

Since it is the rich writing the laws & don't see how you get them to give anything up..:dunno:
Click to expand...

Flat tax. Otherwise we will continue with a code like we have.
 
evince said:
a flat tax would have to be what % to work
Click to expand...

That can be worked out. If the goal is to get a system that eliminates the millions of deductions we currently have that allows people to avoid paying taxes that's the way to go
 
evince said:
a flat tax would have to be what % to work
Click to expand...

That can be worked out. If the goal is to get a system that eliminates the millions of deductions we currently have that allows people to avoid paying taxes that's the way to go
 
evince said:
why didn't you already know that It would be too high on regular joes
Click to expand...

A flat tax can come in at any rate that gets determined. It can be worked to not hurt the poor. But without that type of change the rich will continue to use try system to their advantage
 
christiefan915 said:
It also should come as no surprise that politicians of all stripes for years have been decrying this as an impediment to economic growth. Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has proposed reducing the top rate from 35 percent (excluding state and local taxes, which raise the rate to 39 percent) to 15 percent. But even President Barack Obama has proposed a reduction to 28 percent. The only surprise, perhaps, is that the rate hasn’t budged, despite long-standing bipartisan support to reduce it.

The reasons for that are complicated. In fact, complications abound in the tax code, and that is the problem. Large corporations can hire a bevvy of attorneys to take advantage of loopholes and reduce their liabilities. Companies may deduct costs for retirement funds, health insurance, money earned on investments, research funds and the price of new equipment. Congress has carved out separate loopholes for some industries. Some large corporations pay an effective rate close to zero.

These complexities, both for personal income and corporate earnings, breed inequities and stifle innovation. They also, in a strange way, keep Washington from taking action to lower the rates.

www.deseretnews.com/article/865661631/In-our-opinion-No-reduction-of-corporate-tax-rates-despite-bipartisan-support.html?pg=all
Click to expand...

Christi, do you support this?
 
christiefan915 said:
The leak of some of Donald Trump's tax returns highlights enormous disparities in the tax code between high-income businesses and individuals and everyone else that may have allowed the Republican presidential nominee to avoid paying federal income taxes for nearly 20 years.

Trump claimed more than $900 million in losses in 1995, enough to legally reduce his tax bill to zero for as many as 18 years, the New York Times reported on Sunday after receiving three pages of what appeared to be Trump's tax returns filed in three states that year. Trump has broken with precedent and refused to release his tax returns during his presidential campaign, making it impossible to fully assess his finances and history of tax payments. But the 1995 loss likely lowered his future payments significantly or eliminated them altogether, because provisions in the tax code let businesses deduct losses from future income, decreasing the amount they and their owners will owe to the federal government in coming years.

"The tax code treats very rich people who own businesses differently from the way it treats everyone else," said Neil H. Buchanan, an economist and tax law professor at George Washington University, noting that people can't deduct losses on their homes even when they sell them for less than the purchase price.

The tax code allows this differential treatment — and other loopholes — to spur investment and job creation, said Howard Gleckman of the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. The problem, he added, is that some of these loopholes are nonproductive tax shelters and the real estate industry is notoriously full of them.

One example comes from the real estate industry rules that Trump may have used to lower his tax burden. The 1986 tax reform wiped out many loopholes but preserved the ones for real estate investors after the industry lobbied furiously, he recalled.

"These are loopholes not because Congress figured them out, but because the companies lobbied for them," McIntyre said. Modern-day examples are provisions that allow Apple, Google and other companies to avoid paying federal taxes by stashing profits in off-shore subsidiaries.


http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ows-disparity-in-system/ar-BBwUW1C?li=BBnb7Kz
Click to expand...

Um... Hillary carried over about 700K from the previous year... using the exact same loss write offs.

This law allows you and I to take losses as well, I used it for about 7 years after we sold at a loss back in 2003 or so. Carried over, etc. Saying the guy is a bad man for writing off something on his taxes is absurd. First he put that much money at risk in a venture in NJ where many people lost, all of whom got to take this same deduction. The high level of the loss is indicative of the amount of risk he took on to put it together. That he turned it around and continues to be successful shows a business acumen that belies this "gosh he's dumb" image he seems to portray. Legally writing off business losses is not a sign of "evil".
 
cawacko said:
Christi, do you support this?
Click to expand...

No. I posted it to Tom to show that many politicians of each party have proposed cutting the corporate tax rate but it's easier said than done. It's not some new Trump brainstorm and I don't believe he could do anything to change it.
 
Damocles said:
Um... Hillary carried over about 700K from the previous year... using the exact same loss write offs.

This law allows you and I to take losses as well, I used it for about 7 years after we sold at a loss back in 2003 or so. Carried over, etc. Saying the guy is a bad man for writing off something on his taxes is absurd. First he put that much money at risk in a venture in NJ where many people lost, all of whom got to take this same deduction. The high level of the loss is indicative of the amount of risk he took on to put it together. That he turned it around and continues to be successful shows a business acumen that belies this "gosh he's dumb" image he seems to portray. Legally writing off business losses is not a sign of "evil".
Click to expand...

It shows he's a terrible businessman. In today's dollars $915 million would equal $1,445,693,887. How many entities lose that much money in a year? He got almost 20 years of tax write-offs and all the people he employed got the shaft. His lifestyle didn't change because of this. People lost their jobs and their livelihoods but he still lived large in that garish faux-Versailles apartment.

Furthermore, I don't believe he's as successful as he'd have people believe. I bet his tax returns would prove me right.
 
christiefan915 said:
It shows he's a terrible businessman. In today's dollars $915 million would equal $1,445,693,887. How many entities lose that much money in a year? He got almost 20 years of tax write-offs and all the people he employed got the shaft. His lifestyle didn't change because of this. People lost their jobs and their livelihoods but he still lived large in that garish faux-Versailles apartment.

Furthermore, I don't believe he's as successful as he'd have people believe. I bet his tax returns would prove me right.
Click to expand...
No, it really doesn't. It shows he can face a loss and overcome it. And we'll find out what his returns say after the audit. My guess is Obama's asking them to drag their feet to drag out the "talking point". You know that this IRS is willing to go after conservative groups, etc. and is used by this Administration as a political tool, there is no doubt in my mind that if his returns had something illegal about them we'd have known about it by now.

Anyway, it isn't "evil" or even a sign of "bad business"... Many people were in NJ casinos and all of them lost big. It was a risk, that's what people in real estate sometimes do, take risks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top