[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

[Rallywagon]

Ultimately, he's the one who is accountable. It's his companies, his money, and his name and signature on the tax returns. I seriously doubt that he had no idea what was happening, especially since the implication is that Trump used that tax loophole to deliberately avoid paying taxes for twenty years. My - admittedly limited - understanding is that the law is designed to help companies and individuals recover from bankruptcy or difficulties in their cash flow; if that's the case, it certainly wasn't intended to get you out of paying taxes for twenty years. If your situation is so bad that you need twenty years to recover from it, then serious questions need to be answered about your ability to manage money.

I'm not arguing he doesn't know whats going on with them, I'm arguing hes not the genius who is manipulating the tax codes, he is stealing an employees thunder.

 

[ryzno]

I'm not arguing he doesn't know whats going on with them, I'm arguing hes not the genius who is manipulating the tax codes, he is stealing an employees thunder.

How much do you think he paid for it?
Bosses/Owners brag about their employees work, all the time taking the credit for it.

 

[Danoff]

I'm not arguing he doesn't know whats going on with them, I'm arguing hes not the genius who is manipulating the tax codes, he is stealing an employees thunder.

I agree. The notion that he's a genius for hiring someone to do his taxes for him is pretty silly. If that's true, I'm also a genius.... well... I mean I am... but that's not why.

 

[Pillo-san]

I watched the VP debate, and because I am a neutral party here I think I can judge better than citizens of USA, and my judgement is that Kaine was the better one in that debate, even though he interrupted more in the begging of the debate. He explained, what to expect and how they wanted to do things. Pence just tried to defend Trump by saying that he was not as polished politician as they both were and that everything would magically be better with Trump. OK, then please tell how you want to make it better, how do you plan to do all what Trump is promising.

When they started to talk about deportation of illegal aliens/immigrants my mind started to paint a frighting picture. Imagine police or some other form of authority coming to your work kicking down the door and dragging away one of your work colleagues just because he did not had all his papers in check. The closest thing that comes to my mind is SS and Nazi soldiers collecting/hunting Jews in the 30s. Maybe USA should not have taken in all those scientists from germany after the second world war, looks like the culture/way of conducting matters have spread over to USA.

I like Trumps as he is a fun showman, many seem to view him as the new and long sought after change in politics but, to me he bring only empty promises. Many defend his "smart way" of not paying his fair share of the tax. But here is the thing, to be able to make that much money one has to use a looooooot more of the public infrastructure then a normal citizen would. He is simply a burden to the country when he does not pay a fair share, if a citizen pay 30% then he should at least pay that as a minimum.

And what is wrong with people on the internet, watching/reading the chat on youtube is terrifying. It seems people misunderstand what freedom of speech is. It is not threatening someone to death or shouting stuff like some one is a half breed and stuff, internet is a scary place sometimes.

 

[Sanji Himura]

The point though, is that it is a bit ironic to publish articles criticizing a man for not paying taxes whilst the publication company does the same thing as him.

It's not trying to justify Trump, it's making note that they're just as "guilty". Why is he so bad for tax dodging if there's evidence they do it, too?

Also, there is a difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance. In some jurisdictions, the latter isn't illegal. The US is one such jurisdiction.

 

[DK]

Kaine looked the less at-ease of the two last night, but I think he's set up a possible angle of attack for Hillary in the 2nd debate by calling out the discrepancies between Trump and Pence, such as Pence claiming it was "absolutely inaccurate" that Trump said Putin was a better leader than Obama...which he has. Conversely, Trump could counterattack by bringing up Kaine's previously-stated support of the TPP and contrasting that with Hillary's repudiation of it.

In the event of a Hillary win on 8 November, I certainly won't be surprised to see Pence to take up the mantle (or fight for it with Ted Cruz) of the Christian Right in the 2020 Republican nomination race.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I watched the VP debate, and because I am a neutral party here I think I can judge better than citizens of USA, and my judgement is that Kaine was the better one in that debate, even though he interrupted more in the begging of the debate.

If you think Kaine "won" that debate, I'd say you're anything but unbiased. Kaine looked unprofessional to me and anything but presidential. He looked as if he had a series of talking points and he just spit them out one after the other. The constant interruption was annoying and unprofessional.

When they started to talk about deportation of illegal aliens/immigrants my mind started to paint a frighting picture. Imagine police or some other form of authority coming to your work kicking down the door and dragging away one of your work colleagues just because he did not had all his papers in check. The closest thing that comes to my mind is SS and Nazi soldiers collecting/hunting Jews in the 30s. Maybe USA should not have taken in all those scientists from germany after the second world war, looks like the culture/way of conducting matters have spread over to USA.

Ahhh, the old, Trump is Hitler analogy. Unbiased eh? You know who has deported more illegal aliens than any other president? Bush 2? No. Bush 1? No. Reagan? No. Nixon? No. Obama? BINGO! Does Obama remind you of Adolph Hitler as well?

I like Trumps as he is a fun showman, many seem to view him as the new and long sought after change in politics but, to me he bring only empty promises. Many defend his "smart way" of not paying his fair share of the tax. But here is the thing, to be able to make that much money one has to use a looooooot more of the public infrastructure then a normal citizen would. He is simply a burden to the country when he does not pay a fair share, if a citizen pay 30% then he should at least pay that as a minimum.

Fair share is a campaign slogan, it has no meaning in the real world. People pay whatever the minimum taxes required are and no more. Trump isn't the first guy to go bankrupt and use it to his advantage and he won't be the last. The government of the day created the tax legislation that made that type of thing possible, you don't blame someone for taking advantage of it. He has an obligation to his family, his shareholders and partners and his employees to pay the least amount of tax possible.

And what is wrong with people on the internet, watching/reading the chat on youtube is terrifying. It seems people misunderstand what freedom of speech is. It is not threatening someone to death or shouting stuff like some one is a half breed and stuff, internet is a scary place sometimes.

Saying what you want is literally the definition of free speech. Saying you don't want people to say certain things on the internet because you don't like them is literally the opposite of free speech. Literally.

 

[Pillo-san]

Saying what you want is literally the definition of free speech. Saying you don't want people to say certain things on the internet because you don't like them is literally the opposite of free speech. Literally.

No, you are wrong, hate speech, and death threats are not what free speech is all about. Go out on the street and say that you want to kill somebody just because he is from a minority ethnicity, say it close to a cop, you will probably face the law. Saying whatever is not the same as free speech. Just try it here, and I promise you that you will face the consequences.

If Obama is deporting a lot of illegal immigrants, well then republicans and in particular Trump should then not criticise Obama and maybe applaud him instead? It seems that a hunt for illegal immigrants will be the norm, I don't think the Latino population will be that happy to have to identify themselves everyday when going to work. I see all the time that people are getting upset when the cops ask whites to identify themselves because they are caring a gun. But you think that being stopped just because of your ethnicity will not make people mad?

Kain being unprofessional? come on, what about Trump. hahahahaa, no but for sure, I am not biased, I really do not care if anything I want Trump to win because he is funny, but I am sure that he will not make USA any better than it is now. He is complaining about that USA have made bad deals with other countries, is he for real? Then he have not seen how much cheaper European products are in USA than in Europe. I remember that old Volvo x90 was like 35k$ but the same in Sweden was about 65€.. Bad deals, I think not

 

[Johnnypenso]

No, you are wrong, hate speech, and death threats are not what free speech is all about. Go out on the street and say that you want to kill somebody just because he is from a minority ethnicity, say it close to a cop, you will probably face the law. Saying whatever is not the same as free speech. Just try it here, and I promise you that you will face the consequences.

It is free speech. I didn't say it couldn't come with consequences.

If Obama is deporting a lot of illegal immigrants, well then republicans and in particular Trump should then not criticise Obama and maybe applaud him instead? It seems that a hunt for illegal immigrants will be the norm, I don't think the Latino population will be that happy to have to identify themselves everyday when going to work. I see all the time that people are getting upset when the cops ask whites to identify themselves because they are caring a gun. But you think that being stopped just because of your ethnicity will not make people mad?

As long as the enforcement agencies are following the law, have at it. I don't care who gets mad about it. There are laws against both coming to the U.S. illegally and remaining illegally. Don't you want laws enforced? If you don't want the laws against illegal immigration enforced are you then for open borders? Just let in whoever wants in?

Kain being unprofessional? come on, what about Trump. hahahahaa, no but for sure, I am not biased, I really do not care if anything I want Trump to win because he is funny, but I am sure that he will not make USA any better than it is now. He is complaining about that USA have made bad deals with other countries, is he for real? Then he have not seen how much cheaper European products are in USA than in Europe. I remember that old Volvo x90 was like 35k$ but the same in Sweden was about 65€.. Bad deals, I think not

AFAIK Trump wasn't in the debate last night, it was Kaine vs. Pence.

 

[Pillo-san]

AFAIK Trump wasn't in the debate last night, it was Kaine vs. Pence.

You know what I meant when I compared the professionalisms between Trump and Kaine. And you need to re-watch the entire VP debate, seems you did not pay attention to what had been said during the debate. Kaine brought a lot more things that had to do with politics.

So you do not care that some people that have done nothing wrong are being controlled maybe even on a daily basis to check if they are legal citizens? Whites are crying foul/unconstitutional frisks when the authorities ask if they have permits for their guns but minorities should find it acceptable to be checked like they were criminals even though they are law abiding citizens? I find your rezoning flawed.

By the way, who cares if borders are open or not? I live in a country where the borders are basically open. If your country have a no visum deal with us then you only need a passport to get in.

 

[Biggles]

I think if I were him I'd be more convinced than ever that refusing is the right course of action. The American public really cannot handle legitimate tax strategy it seems.

As Warren Buffet has pointed out "legitimate tax strategy" favours the ultra-rich. Trump may have taken advantage of this to claim huge ongoing personal tax deductions for his failed businesses. Here's the article from the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html


"But the federal government has made it particularly easy for real estate investors to avoid taxes. Investors, for example, can walk away from a property and record the investment as a loss — even if they were playing with borrowed money. While a profit from that same property would be treated as a capital gain, losses are treated as “operating losses” under a tax code provision that dates back to the Great Depression. Those losses can be deployed far more flexibly than capital losses to shield other income from taxation.

“He was forced to sell many of his investments in the early 1990s, at pennies on the dollar, teetering on bankruptcy,” Edward Kleinbard, a tax expert at the University of Southern California, said of Mr. Trump. “There were real economic losses from those investments — borne entirely by the lenders. Yet nonetheless he was able to emerge with a large net operating loss to carry forward, attributable primarily to losing other people’s money.”

 

[Johnnypenso]

You know what I meant when I compared the professionalisms between Trump and Kaine. And you need to re-watch the entire VP debate, seems you did not pay attention to what had been said during the debate. Kaine brought a lot more things that had to do with politics.

I've watched most of the debate now and my point still stands. Kaine spent most of his time blurting out talking points and interrupting. Seems most if not all of the polls I've seen agree that Pence won the debate as well.

So you do not care that some people that have done nothing wrong are being controlled maybe even on a daily basis to check if they are legal citizens? Whites are crying foul/unconstitutional frisks when the authorities ask if they have permits for their guns but minorities should find it acceptable to be checked like they were criminals even though they are law abiding citizens? I find your rezoning flawed.

That's not what I said. I said as long as law enforcement follows the law, that's good enough for me. If you don't like the laws change them.

By the way, who cares if borders are open or not? I live in a country where the borders are basically open. If your country have a no visum deal with us then you only need a passport to get in.

Needing a passport to get in means you don't have open borders.

 

[Pillo-san]

I've watched most of the debate now and my point still stands. Kaine spent most of his time blurting out talking points and interrupting. Seems most if not all of the polls I've seen agree that Pence won the debate as well.

That's not what I said. I said as long as law enforcement follows the law, that's good enough for me. If you don't like the laws change them.

Needing a passport to get in means you don't have open borders.

Then we disagree about the debate.
So if you are stopped just about everyday when going to work making you late for work day in and day out and maybe even risking your job, you would still say that it is "good enough" for you?

I knew you would say that, of course we have open borders for other EU countries, I said that you only need passport because you seem to live outside of Europe. And when you are at the border/customs no one will ask you stupid questions like they do when you enter countries like USA/Australia. It is my own business, do the authorities really think that someone with bad intentions would say straight out that he is going to do something bad? hehe, crazy...

 

[Carbonox]

I've watched most of the debate now and my point still stands. Kaine spent most of his time blurting out talking points and interrupting. Seems most if not all of the polls I've seen agree that Pence won the debate as well.

But you see, if he interrupts for morally righteous reasons, then it's totally ok.

 

[Sanji Himura]

I knew you would say that, of course we have open borders for other EU countries, I said that you only need passport because you seem to live outside of Europe. And when you are at the border/customs no one will ask you stupid questions like they do when you enter countries like USA/Australia. It is my own business, do the authorities really think that someone with bad intentions would say straight out that he is going to do something bad? hehe, crazy...

And you noticed that you have a massive migration problem on your hands as a terrorist that committed a crime (oh I don't know) in say France one day can be in Brussels in less than 12 hours and completely vanish from law enforcement. How is open borders working out for you?

 

[mustafur]

Lol I love it when Europeans love to praise their open borders forgetting the tsunami of undocumented migrants floating around.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Then we disagree about the debate.
So if you are stopped just about everyday when going to work making you late for work day in and day out and maybe even risking your job, you would still say that it is "good enough" for you?

Again, so long as they are following the law and the law abides with the constitution, I'm fine with it.

I knew you would say that, of course we have open borders for other EU countries, I said that you only need passport because you seem to live outside of Europe. And when you are at the border/customs no one will ask you stupid questions like they do when you enter countries like USA/Australia. It is my own business, do the authorities really think that someone with bad intentions would say straight out that he is going to do something bad? hehe, crazy...

I was in Europe recently actually and no, you don't have open borders. You have on giant border around all of Europe and to get into Europe you need proper documents and must go through customs and security checks. Going through customs in England and Switzerland and previously through Portugal was no different than it is going through in the States or back to Canada.

 

[Danoff]

As Warren Buffet has pointed out "legitimate tax strategy" favours the ultra-rich. Trump may have taken advantage of this to claim huge ongoing personal tax deductions for his failed businesses. Here's the article from the NYTimes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html


"But the federal government has made it particularly easy for real estate investors to avoid taxes. Investors, for example, can walk away from a property and record the investment as a loss — even if they were playing with borrowed money. While a profit from that same property would be treated as a capital gain, losses are treated as “operating losses” under a tax code provision that dates back to the Great Depression. Those losses can be deployed far more flexibly than capital losses to shield other income from taxation.

“He was forced to sell many of his investments in the early 1990s, at pennies on the dollar, teetering on bankruptcy,” Edward Kleinbard, a tax expert at the University of Southern California, said of Mr. Trump. “There were real economic losses from those investments — borne entirely by the lenders. Yet nonetheless he was able to emerge with a large net operating loss to carry forward, attributable primarily to losing other people’s money.”

You're playing a shell game here. He still owes the money. What's required to make this really egregious is to file bankruptcy, not pay the debt back, and still take the loss on money you didn't actually lose. And if that's what happened (which I don't think we know), then it's a failure of government for creating a system that enables that.

The tax code sucks. Bottom line. It's terrible. It's very complicated and made even more complicated by how it interacts with a supremely complex bankruptcy code. But let's get one thing straight, our tax code favors the poor. Until you hit almost 50k of annual income you contribute zero to the federal government. At low levels you even suck money out. I pay insane amounts of money to the federal government every year. Insane. There is no loophole to get out of it. Bankruptcy is not exactly an appealing option for sheltering tax dollars either.

There is one real answer, a flat tax (I prefer sales tax). Everyone pays exactly the same (including retirees). I'm all in favor of it. I'll pay a hell of a lot less when I'm paying only my fair share, and a bunch of people will suddenly have to start coughing up to cover the government they vote for. Let's do it! Until then, everyone, including trump, should find every legal means to avoid paying taxes they do not have to pay.

 

[Pillo-san]

Lol I love it when Europeans love to praise their open borders forgetting the tsunami of undocumented migrants floating around.

And which country is responsible for that disaster. It seems that a certain country that started this mess in the first place should take in those in need instead of letting other nations deal with it.

Again, so long as they are following the law and the law abides with the constitution, I'm fine with it.

I think I have asked you a personal question. would you be okey with being checked by the authorises on daily basis even if you have done nothing wrong? I am asking you. How would you feel being stopped and frisked while trying to get to work?

You mean Schweiz? well they are not in EU and England is a bit rough, usually when you travel by plane you need to show id so that they know you are the one on the ticket. If you travel by boat I have never ever showed any ID at all. And countries can have harder customs if they find it necessary. But you are right to get into the EU you need to identify yourself, well that is if you are not a refuge that is hehe, it is a bit crazy when someone is throwing away their passport/Id so that they can claim that they are from Syria for an example. So let say we have semi open borders. hehe.

 

[Dennisch]

And which country is responsible for that disaster. It seems that a certain country that started this mess in the first place should take in those in need instead of letting other nations deal with it

That would be countries. France and Great Britain.

 

[Pillo-san]

That would be countries. France and Great Britain.

Well from what I understand it was Trump Land that asked for at least UK for backup. Didnt they start/want a procedure to prosecute Tony Blair/TM for all the lies he said so that they should not miss the opportunity to fight along side Trump Land? I blame Trump Land most of all as they were the driving force behind it all.

Maybe we(me and you) do not think about the same thing, I am thinking about the invasion of Irak.

 

[Johnnypenso]

You're playing a shell game here. He still owes the money. What's required to make this really egregious is to file bankruptcy, not pay the debt back, and still take the loss on money you didn't actually lose. And if that's what happened (which I don't think we know), then it's a failure of government for creating a system that enables that.

The tax code sucks. Bottom line. It's terrible. It's very complicated and made even more complicated by how it interacts with a supremely complex bankruptcy code. But let's get one thing straight, our tax code favors the poor. Until you hit almost 50k of annual income you contribute zero to the federal government. At low levels you even suck money out. I pay insane amounts of money to the federal government every year. Insane. There is no loophole to get out of it. Bankruptcy is not exactly an appealing option for sheltering tax dollars either.

There is one real answer, a flat tax (I prefer sales tax). Everyone pays exactly the same (including retirees). I'm all in favor of it. I'll pay a hell of a lot less when I'm paying only my fair share, and a bunch of people will suddenly have to start coughing up to cover the government they vote for. Let's do it! Until then, everyone, including trump, should find every legal means to avoid paying taxes they do not have to pay.

Throw in the inability to vote unless you pay a certain minimum amount of income tax and you'd have my vote for President

I think I have asked you a personal question. would you be okey with being checked by the authorises on daily basis even if you have done nothing wrong? I am asking you. How would you feel being stopped and frisked while trying to get to work?

If it was the law I'd have no problem with it. Since it'll never be the law here and will never happen, it's a moot point.

 

[Sanji Himura]

@Danoff Need I have to stress to the rest of the class the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

Though in all honesty a progressive income tax is a communist idea, see The Communist Manifesto, a flat tax would eliminate most of the special interests that is plaguing the code today.

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff Need I have to stress to the rest of the class the difference between tax evasion and tax avoidance?

I'm not following. Tax evasion is illegal, avoidance is not.

 

[GTsail]

Throw in the inability to vote unless you pay a certain minimum amount of income tax and you'd have my vote for President

Sounds discriminatory.....

What about retired citizens who no longer have any taxable income so they don't pay any income taxes...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about someone who is disabled and currently doesn't work and therefore has no taxable income...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about Donald Trump who likely didn't pay any income taxes for fifteen of the twenty years from 1990 to 2010... Would he be in-eligible to vote?

How many years of not paying income taxes would make you in-eligible to run for President?

 

[Danoff]

Sounds discriminatory.....

What about retired citizens who no longer have any taxable income so they don't pay any income taxes...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about someone who is disabled and currently doesn't work and therefore has no taxable income...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about Donald Trump who likely didn't pay any income taxes for fifteen of the twenty years from 1990 to 2010... Would he be in-eligible to vote?

How many years of not paying income taxes would make you in-eligible to run for President?

I did a little reading between the lines and figured that he meant that you'd have to just straight up send the government a check if you were below the tax threshold and wanted to vote.

Woah, I think I just invented a new voluntary form of taxation.

@Johnnypenso

 

[Sanji Himura]

I'm not following. Tax evasion is illegal, avoidance is not.

Your previous post left plenty to interpretation. My apologies.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Sounds discriminatory.....

What about retired citizens who no longer have any taxable income so they don't pay any income taxes...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about someone who is disabled and currently doesn't work and therefore has no taxable income...Would they be in-eligible to vote?

What about Donald Trump who likely didn't pay any income taxes for fifteen of the twenty years from 1990 to 2010... Would he be in-eligible to vote?

How many years of not paying income taxes would make you in-eligible to run for President?

@Danoff hit the nail on the head. If you make a voluntary contribution you can vote. IMO, if you aren't paying for the upkeep of the country and are therefore, to some extent, relying on the goodwill of those that are paying taxes for your survival, you haven't earned the right to vote on how the rest of us spend the money we contribute. If Trump didn't pay at least the voluntary minimum, which could be based on a % of income, no, he wouldn't be able to vote either.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

@Danoff hit the nail on the head. If you make a voluntary contribution you can vote. IMO, if you aren't paying for the upkeep of the country and are therefore, to some extent, relying on the goodwill of those that are paying taxes for your survival, you haven't earned the right to vote on how the rest of us spend the money we contribute. If Trump didn't pay at least the voluntary minimum, which could be based on a % of income, no, he wouldn't be able to vote either.

Eh doesn't filter out the continuous problem held...idiots will still vote based on what CNN, MSNBC or FOX tell them without ever once consulting their own personal better judgement. As long as one yells, he or she is worse than the other and you are to stupid to flip a few channels up to compare notes...no matter how much you make it will still happen. Sure there are some with a better perspective, but I still see the same problem between lower, middle and well upper only care cause it saves them money to vote the way it's setting up right now.

What's worse, is I could see those with way more money than any of us, who pay to the voluntary tax to vote inflating said tax to the point a very limited group have say. I men it only takes a few bills and lobbyist and it's a done deal, and the IRS wouldn't really care cause "hey money"

 

[Johnnypenso]

Eh doesn't filter out the continuous problem held...idiots will still vote based on what CNN, MSNBC or FOX tell them without ever once consulting their own personal better judgement. As long as one yells, he or she is worse than the other and you are to stupid to flip a few channels up to compare notes...no matter how much you make it will still happen. Sure there are some with a better perspective, but I still see the same problem between lower, middle and well upper only care cause it saves them money to vote the way it's setting up right now.

What's worse, is I could see those with way more money than any of us, who pay to the voluntary tax to vote inflating said tax to the point a very limited group have say. I men it only takes a few bills and lobbyist and it's a done deal, and the IRS wouldn't really care cause "hey money"

I assume it would take a constitutional amendment for it to happen so it will never happen. I just think it's outrageous that the half of a country which doesn't pay to run the country, has as much say as those that do.