Bowsite.com

So you’re saying Republicans are completely happy with everything in America right now? They’re happy abortion is a protected right? They’re happy there are sanctuary cities? They’re happy with the state of welfare and entitlements in this country? After all, these are realities of life in America right now. Just like many Dems have a different vision of what they wish America was, so do plenty of Republicans.

If you don't think the Constitution is the right way to construct this country, then you may just be living in the wrong country.

What will their answer be ???

This is a yes or no question. No elaboration..... No further answer....... yes or no.

Until then, they are thugs and nothing more.

"Fundamentally change America...."

Lots of folks intentionally blind..... can't see it.... WON'T see it, even if ya slap em with it..... incredible that it could even be argued otherwise. They hate America. HATE. They would trash the whole thing if they could, Constitution... everything.... giving them the opportunity to "remake" it the way they want, using their rules, their system. If they LOVE "America" it is only as a geographical reference. Period. They are trying as hard as they can to destroy the rest.

Professors were teaching classes on how evil America is and the Capitalist System (private ownership of property and individual responsibility for one's life) back in the day when I went to college. I can only imagine what was taught since and currently taught now.

Yes. Leftists HATE America.

You do realize there are more than one way to interpret the Constitution, right? So again, what you are alluding to is YOUR interpretation of the Constitution, which aligns with YOUR vision of America - much of which I’m sure doesn’t reflect the current reality of what America actually is right now.

And to GET those visions of what they want America to be they IGNORE our Constitution and our laws.

Funny, that’s EXACTLY what Democrats say about Republicans.

It’s really pretty straightforward, HDE. If anything violates the 9th, or any other part of the Constitution, the SCOTUS will weigh in. It’s quite literally their job.

And if there were no need for interpretation of the Constitution, every SCOTUS decision would be unanimous.

Until it is challenged and the courts say it isn’t (which I put at a near zero chance), then yes.

Dems do, IMO, dumb things that are definitely constitutional; and so do Republicans.

To a degree, I don’t worry about the Constitution...we have a mechanism in place to ensure it is protected and respected. I worry about the things people do within the confines of the Constitution.

Don’t worry, I’ve never voted for a Democrat and don’t ever plan on it haha

I just can’t tolerate the more extreme perspectives, from both sides of the aisle. Yes, Ron. There are some stupid things said by Democrats. Guess what? They don’t speak for all Democrats. Just like Republicans who talk about “consensual rape” and push the belief that Obama was born in Africa don’t speak for all Republicans. People pay far too much attention to the extreme voices on both sides of the aisle (and the bonkers things they say).

The country would be a better place if people realized that the overwhelming majority (like 99% kinda thing) on both sides of the aisle love America and believe what they do because they truly believe it is in the best interest of this country. I’d prefer if people spent half a second understanding why others thought the way they do, rather than dismissing their beliefs with a broad brush.

Most Dems I know don’t want to disarm America. They’re scared off certain guns. They watch certain guns get used to kill a lot of people and legitimately think banning them will make the country a safer place. Basically it comes out of a place of fearing what they don’t understand and are unfamiliar with.

I sit firmly in the middle somewhere with gator. If you think he and I are your enemies.... you’re mistaken.

Illegal immigration? Nobody is campaigning for more “illegal immigration.” None. Democrats are generally more in favor of allowing more legal immigration and providing a clearer path to citizenship. But show me one Democrat advocating for more illegal immigration.

As far as the benefits of immigration go, I agree with the Dems that (in general) the more we safely bring in, the better off we will be as a country, both economically and culturally. We are a country that has been built on the backs of immigrants, and we have all benefitted from that.

WTF????

Damn near every Dem out there is DEMANDING we let everyone in.

And no, Kyle, they don’t want to let “everyone” in. They want to let in people they feel will better this country, just like they feel immigrants have done for hundreds of years.

Not surprisingly the thread has gone off the rails and way away from my original point, which is that just because someone holds a different view than you it’s not because they hate Americans.

Personally, I think much of what Bernie supporters believe is admirable. If we didn’t have a resource constraint, don’t you think free education and free healthcare would be great? But guess what, we do. I don’t live in the land of fairytales, I live in the land of reality and know we don’t have the money to pay for those things. I also think it’s a terrible idea to raise taxes to bring in that money. But in no way do I think those ideas (as much as I disagree with them) come from a place of hating America.

Same with immigration. If you’re viewpoint and experience is they’re coming here, committing crimes, taking jobs, living off the taxpayer dime, and eroding the fabric of society then of course you’re going to be anti-immigration. Personally, I don’t believe any of those things. As a strong believer in free markets, that belief extends to labor markets and believe we are better off with more competition. I come from a family of immigrants, and love the cultural impacts my predecessors have made on this country as I love enjoying the diversity other immigrants have brought to this country. From a personal perspective, after Katrina hit, my city was absolutely overrun with what I’m sure was illegal immigrants - all they did was rebuilt the city and provided labor when there was none to be found.

All of my opinions are very much in the camp of more immigration not less, and are all a part of a vision of what is, IMO, a better America. Just like all the other beliefs I have are. Just like all the beliefs anyone has are. You don’t have to agree with anyone that has a different opinion than you, but it out of your head that it’s some America hating BS, because it isn’t.

It really is often as simple as one side being right and the other wrong no matter how many 100% sure people the wrong side has on it.

The SCOTUS is often split on big decisions. One more or less Justice either way and big Consitutional decisions would be different. Generally, that is a split down political lines. Thats not what the founders were after. They didn't specifically create the SCOTUS but they did expect something like it to exist when they laid out judicial powers. They wanted it to be at the top of the Judicial branch branch and primarily safeguard citizens against the Legislative branch overstepping.

While both may have its issues, globalism scares the crap out of me. First, I do not differentiate between globalism and communism. Ultimately, it is all the same to me. Even if its motives are pure at first, it will eventually corrupt. You have to destroy all cultures, religions, art, history, etc. to achieve the ultimate goal. We have to become the same. Think about that statement for a moment, then look around you and see what is happening.

Is some form of nationalism also a risk? Of course, but we have The Constitution. And as long as we follow it based on our forefathers' intentions, it will stay in check. We are a Democratic Republic, and I think you have to have a sense of nationalistic pride for that to exist. We have an incredible nation. Great people and all the resources we need. Everybody wants it. I am not saying screw everybody else. I am saying don't just give it all away. Diluting the talent pool and all of our resources is a very bad idea.

I tell my kids this all the time when they question something they see. Almost nothing is done for pure goodness. It may have started off with good intentions but in the end as it grows and morphs, it's all about money or power/control. It is that simple. I.E. Global warming. You think it really is about global warming? Bull$hit. It is the shortcut to globalism.

So what is this bunch of garble? Hmm.. I guess I am trying to say that we should look past the label of democrat and republican. Let's discuss what really is going on. And full disclosure...........I am probably wrong and nuts. It's just my simple observation of what I think is happening.

Well, we are talking about Sanders supporters after all haha

Not that I agree one bit, but I'm sure they see things like the amount of money we spend on defense and they feel it would be better served in education and healthcare. I'm also sure they see people like Trump who become billionaires without paying a dime in Federal income taxes and think that the tax code should be changed to (1) become "fairer" and (2) can be used to fund the programs they want to see.

- Jose Martin aka Jose Alcoff aka Chepe

Why not believe their own words?

And if you think that he's simply a fringe element, look at his repeated interwoven ties to the Democrats. Prominent ones.

"Meanwhile, in his professional capacity as Alcoff, he’s been quoted in press releases from Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and appeared at an event with Democratic Rep. Don Beyer of Virginia outside the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in March and has been pictured alongside Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown and California Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters."

And in those pictures alongside Democrats, he wasn't pictured at a "Meet and greet". He was prominently on stage as part of the supporting cast.

SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) later the Weathermen. Bill Ayers, who strongly influenced Barack Obama...

"...organized demonstrations on college campuses across the nation to mobilize students to take “direct action” against “racism, poverty and war.” In 1963, SDS got involved in “community organizing,” teaming up with the Black Panthers, the Hispanic Young Lords, and other radical organizations.

By 1966, SDS was moving in a revolutionary Marxist direction. Their demonstrations and marches became violent clashes with police, many turning into riots. About the same time, SDS was joined by the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), a self-styled Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party, dedicated to implementing communist ideology."

Sound familiar?

A rose by any other name...

Or in this case, a turd.

When the top 20% pay something like 80-85% of the tax burden, I think that's more than "fair".

On the whole, yes. That said, I do think there is plenty that is "unfair" with regards to our tax code that work to the benefit of a select group of individuals, on all ends of the economic spectrum. I feel that individuals who abuse welfare a detriment to this country. I also don't see how leveraging aggressive and shady tax schemes that result in paying zero in taxes as you make hundreds of millions of dollars equates to supporting or loving America.

I have no problem with corporate write-offs and tax breaks. We are talking about an individual, not a "big bidness." Yes, the individual's income is inextricably linked to his businesses, but you're hitting on the key point. All those people you talk about Pi (shareholders, employees, and creditors) all got the shaft, Trump was able to profit tremendously and avoid taxes on nearly all of it.

Trax, I agree with every single thing you have just written (with the exception of the "establishment shadow government problem"...I'm not as concerned). I would love to see lower taxes for all that actually pay tax. For me, it's not about how much we pay (I'd like to see lower taxes, and lower spending)...it's about who's paying tax and, just as importantly, who's not paying tax.

You’re right and neither did I. But why should I pay a larger % of my income in taxes than Trump?

I’m with BEG and BB on this one. Good points by both.

However, there has not been a major change to the income tax code since it was first introduced. They just screw around with the rates and how income is defined and it doesn't matter who is in office at the time...The democrats lean towards increasing rates, republicans lean towards reducing rates...

One thing to keep in mind is that if anyone feels they are undertaxed, they can write a check to the treasury any time they like, or they can neglect to take the deductions offered to them in the tax code and pay more taxes than they are legally required to pay.

To claim someone else is being shady or trying to cheat when taking advantage of the same deductions and methods of reducing reportable income that are available to everyone else either reflects a person who does not understand the tax code or is jealous or maybe just doesn't like rich people and DJT especially...8^)

Based on his word. It is well documented the steps he has taken to avoid taxes, and yes, they are definitely aggressive and I'd certainly characterize plenty of them as shady. As you know, the IRS doesn't audit every tax return. And just because an audit occurred and gives a return an "all clean" doesn't mean the audit didn't miss things.

The notion that just because a person loves their country they would willingly pay more tax than they are required to by law is ridiculous

Agreed, and I don't expect anyone to do that. But I also would suggest that people who go out of their way (read "fraudulent activity") to avoid taxes are showing a level of contempt for this country and the institutions tax dollars support.

I certainly do find it funny how if you talk to a Republican they'll say a person that legally exploits every loophole and tax break out there he's "smart," but if a person legally exploits every entitlement and welfare program available to them they're a "lazy POS."

You don’t have to you can do the same things he’s doing. You can work 80+ hours a week , put everything you have ever owned and more up as collateral for a loan to expand your business. Not sleep at night worried that your business will fail because of govt. regulations, taxes, fees, competition, shifting markets etc.

America guarantees only Equality of opportunity not equality of outcome .

Question BEG, do YOU take advantage of our tax code? Are you somehow avoiding paying "your fair share"?

Hmmm, people don't shy away from investments because of taxes...

Short, please read.

Question BEG, do YOU take advantage of our tax code? Are you somehow avoiding paying "your fair share"

Well, let's see. I take advantage of every possible tax break I can think of available to me. Like most Americans, I'm a W-2 wage earner so there's really only so much I can claim and don't get much "relief." I also, relative to the population, have a pretty high salary (for context, it's somewhere around the top 1% by income) so the basic deductions and the breaks I can claim only go so far. To that end, my taxable income is 91% of my gross income. On my gross income, I pay an effective federal tax rate of 21%. So, I don't know...I like to think I'm paying my fair share.

According to PrivCo, the Trump Organization has 22,450 employees and brought in $9.5 billion in annual revenue last year.

But that's not the whole picture. There are likely other jobs that might not exist without Trump. Economists call this the "multiplier effect."

According to PrivCo, the Trump Organization has 22,450 employees and brought in $9.5 billion in annual revenue last year.

Article goes on to say ... Using that multiplier, (Related jobs) the Trump Organization is responsible for about 34,000 jobs.

A more generous estimate would be to view the Trump Organization as a financial services or management company. Then the employment multiplier would be 3. That would bring jobs attributable to Trump to 67,000.

Those folks are likely paying taxes on income and most things they buy. It seems like the same support system that bailed out the auto industry. What's the problem ?

With the numbers you've posted? Not a thing. The above has little to nothing to do with what is at issue regarding Trump's taxes.

When generation/s sacrifice to accumulate wealth for their own descendants and someone wants to vote that accumulation out of their pocket , it effectively diminishes the worth and sacrifice of those past individuals. There is no honor in that .

Myself, I would like 0% on companies, and a consumption tax on everything else. It's high time we change the mindset from taxing income, and instead we should encourage it!

This quote from above has at least a hint of truth to it;

"I certainly do find it funny how if you talk to a Republican they'll say a person that legally exploits every loophole and tax break out there he's "smart," but if a person legally exploits every entitlement and welfare program available to them they're a "lazy POS."

I am not affiliated to any party, but the behavior that irks me is folks who took advantage of programs to their benefit even though they did not need to at the time, but have no problem scapegoating others for doing the same.

It's not like he's a bootlegger ...

If I inherited multiple millions, I would make low risk investments and live off of the interest. Trump didn't even consider this because he was raised to take risk. His way is much better for the country than my way. I acknowledge that, and do agree some of us are envious.

People exploiting tax breaks earned that money...and in the case of people exploiting entitlement and welfare programs...that is money someone else earned. Yes, they are "lazy POS's"

Pretty "black and white".

Horseshit!!! Nothing, abso-****ing-lutely nothing is stopping him from writing an additional check to the IRS. Whitey nailed it. And the fact is, if he wants to pay more in taxes, by all means, pony up. Just don't assume to speak for others when it comes to THEIR income.

It was a "broad brush" statement to begin with ...

There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it. At all. Where did I say it was? I just don't confuse being gifted half a billion dollars as having "achieved" anything more than hitting the parental lottery.

Let’s pretend that Trump did inherit the $100 million(envy again) the media claims. It was all at risk investments not cash. He turned that risk into more risk then into $6 to $7 billion or more in at risk investments. That’s equal to you taking a $1000 and turning it into $60 to $70,000. You couldn’t hence the envy.

Envious? LOL! There's a difference between say, envy and covetousness...and just calling out a man for what he is. I don't even know what "at risk investments" means since all investments carry risk and there was plenty of cash. The link above is by far the most in depth analysis of Trump's inheritance and the questionable moves he's made around that inheritance. For just a slice of what is covered in the article...

"The manipulation of values to evade taxes was central to one of the most important financial events in Donald Trump’s life. In an episode never before revealed, Mr. Trump and his siblings gained ownership of most of their father’s empire on Nov. 22, 1997, a year and a half before Fred Trump’s death. Critical to the complex transaction was the value put on the real estate. The lower its value, the lower the gift taxes. The Trumps dodged hundreds of millions in gift taxes by submitting tax returns that grossly undervalued the properties, claiming they were worth just $41.4 million.

The same set of buildings would be sold off over the next decade for more than 16 times that amount.

The most overt fraud was All County Building Supply & Maintenance, a company formed by the Trump family in 1992. All County’s ostensible purpose was to be the purchasing agent for Fred Trump’s buildings, buying everything from boilers to cleaning supplies. It did no such thing, records and interviews show. Instead All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants."

If Buffet is playing poker, I am playing Uno. Lol!

BigGator- "(I) just don't confuse being gifted half a billion dollars as having "achieved" anything more than hitting the parental lottery." Thanks for clearing that up ... I won't . But I will also try to avoid confusion with what he did with that inheritance.

Which was the point.

They hate that concept and are doing everything in their power to move America away from inalienable rights endowed by a Creator.

Taxes, welfare, etc are just tools they are using to push the true agenda of a godless nation. Virtually every sacred cow of the left is in direct opposition to what the Bible teaches. They even manage to mess up the idea of being compassionate by moving compassion from an individual responsibility (and privilege) to being a function of government.

Everything else is just a large school of red herrings.

The New York Times, a major DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) colluder and conspirator, recently reported that California has more organized hate groups than any other state. The Gray Lady didn't realize her own irony: isn't it quite interesting that arguably the most Democrat state in the nation boasts the most hate groups and potential terrorists?

When the Trump presidency concludes January 20, 2025, at noon EST, there will be many unintended benefits and victories that he himself likely hadn't ever thought of. One of those is that our win didn't create hate — it revealed the hate of American Democrats.

Not long ago, U.S. rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) celebrated the countdown until whites are a minority demographic in America. It's not just that Democrats hate America's freedoms and her Constitution — a document crafted to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Democrats want our nation to go extinct, the Hell with all those who have built our nation, those who have sacrificed and those who have died and lost limbs. Our Founders warned us of an epoch, when a rising domestic enemy threatened the existence of the greatest and most miraculous nation in world history. Many races, ethnicities, religions, and non-religions have made contributions; normal thinking people respect the humanity of good and decent people. Our nation is the most diverse in world history.

Democrats? It's not just that they're anti-white; they fervently count down with bated breath the days until an American demographic shrinks. With airy nonchalance, Democrats espouse hate against those whom they are supposed to represent because they know they can do so with impunity, and because they have one goal: to conquer us and rule over us.

"New" Democrats Same as "Old" Ones

Those who say these "new" Democrats are different from the "old" ones are mistaken. They are not at all different politically — just stylistically. The new Democrats are waging their coup d'état against the old ones, much like how Lenin's Bolsheviks overthrew Tsar Nicholas II and the Romanov dynasty over a century ago.

Omar's hate isn't unique; the vast majority of American and worldwide terrorism, crime, hate groups, etc. have been shaped by various brands of collectivism, ranging from sharia theocracy to Leninism to Nazism to communism to socialism. Just look at our inner cities, most of which have been run by Democrats for tens of thousands of consecutive days. These influences are all observed in Democrat ideology — an amalgam of the worst mass-suffering ideologies in world history.

Always remember that the first principle of propaganda is to accuse your opposition of what you yourself are guilty of. Whenever Democrats or the DMIC label someone or something "right-wing," bet the farm that they're referring to Democrat-inspired terrorism and hate.

Anti-white is one of the many examples of the Nazism baked into Democrat "progressivism." The Third Reich's basis for the Holocaust was the belief that certain racial and biological traits made one inferior or superior as a human being. Kristallnacht, also known as the "night of broken glass," in 1938, was an attack orchestrated by the Nazis against Jewish-owned businesses as well as synagogues. What many don't know is, weeks before, the Nazis had disarmed the Jews whom they terrorized; they knew who had firearms because of a gun registry. After Kristallnacht, what did Hitler say was the justification? Confiscation of illegally owned guns.

Democrats engage in hate crimes all the time. There are myriad examples, such as Colorado baker and business-owner Jack Phillips, as well as the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, both of whom won U.S. Supreme Court cases last year. Phillips refused to bake a cake celebrating two men attempting to marry each other, and NIFLA, a network of pregnancy centers in California (there's that California hate again), refused to promote abortion. Both cited First Amendment defenses of religious liberty. Rather than just simply disagree, Democrats and the State sought to scorch the earth. Why? Because they hate those who reject their political terrorism of infringement upon our God-given constitutional rights. In the devoutly secular world of Democrats, the State is God.

Want a Soviet example? Look no farther than the Mueller–Russian "collusion" scam. As Lavrentiy Beria, Stalin's head of the police state, once remarked: show me a man, and I'll show you his crime. The Democrats' Stalinism has been on naked display in their guilty-before-proven innocent hate crime. I'm convinced that the Democrat politicians who have peddled the Russia conspiracy theory for three-plus years have done so to dissuade future Trump-type candidates — independent nationalists who are beholden to zero special interest groups — from running for office. Like all dictators, the Democratic Party believes that the American people should live in fear of weaponized law enforcement agencies. If Democrats are willing to weaponize taxpayer-funded law enforcement agencies against a sitting president, what makes you think they wouldn't come after you and your family?

2020 Democrat Hate

Speaking of presidential elections, likely 2020 Democrat nominee Uncle Joe Biden recently got in on the hate act, claiming that "Jim Crow racism" is enjoying a comeback. Someone get Biden a history book not written by Democrats! Jim Crow segregation was one of the Democrats' most notorious inventions.

Biden and Democrats always commit the hate crime of whitewashing history for two main reasons: first, Democrats rewrite American history because they are responsible for most of the worst of American history — the Trail of Tears, segregation, the Ku Klux Klan, gun control, and infanticide, among others. Second, they revise world history — such as their impugning of American nationalism as Nazism and Aryanism — because they have modeled their party after many of mankind's most evil despots.

Biden is the Democrats' 2020 sacrificial lamb — the guy who thinks rotating the deck chairs on the Titanic will somehow keep the ship afloat. He has absolutely no interest in campaigning or being president. Biden has been running for president for over 30 years, and the best he could muster was a smartphone-looking campaign launch video that regurgitated the debunked Democrat and DMIC lie that Trump called Nazis "fine people." Biden's candidacy is DOA, and he knows it. I want Biden next year so we can, once and for all, plant the tombstone at the grave site of the Obama years.

Credit the Democrats with having successfully duped tens of millions of Americans — and especially our youth — into ascribing to hammer-and-sickle mass-murdering politics. Our political war wasn't won in 2016; that's when it began, and the war will be long and arduous. I'm optimistic, however. There are only two sides: America first or the Democrat hate of "it takes a village," "democratic socialism," and "fundamental transformation." There has never been as stark a contrast between the two sides as now. The only way to bridge the divide is for one side to conquer the other, and I think I speak for Trump-supporters in saying we have no plans on getting conquered anytime soon

Sure they should, and I'd argue that they do (the truly wealthy in this country aren't getting that way because of their salary). The question to me is how much of a safety net and an advantage should we provide for those that do take risk.

Huh..... don't want to do that? I see. You want to keep your money you worked for, a net positive income, AND not pay taxes on it. Doesn't work like that. For anyone. BTW... taxes are a year by year thing and can fluctuate wildly (10-40's not so much) They don't mention the years Trump likely paid HUGE sums in taxes. Very convenient oversight. Progressive Amnesia.

Yes the leftists can start their own businesses. Take those risks. Can minimize risks to a degree and open them as a Corporation so as to protect their personal assets (i.e. you don't lose your home or personal property if the company fails). You know what? It honestly is a level playing field, the rules do apply equally. It's THE most level playing field on the face of the planet. But any playing field involves winning and losing..... "Play Ball!!...."

What I hear from the left is "it's not fair" but it is. The same opportunity is available to everyone. Opportunity. Not the guaranteed outcome that some want. Nor the security of their good jobs and relatively high dollar income and benefits.

It's not coming from some sense of "fairness". It's ENVY. Jealousy. Resentment. They doll it up with words like "social justice". Those who have (always more than them) must be punished for this. That's "justice" to them. Vindictiveness is not "justice". If a person broke laws... that's where justice comes in. Not vendettas based on envy. You have too much..... others not enough. Obviously you are bad and they, the "victims" are good.....justice..... good grief....

Honestly I've talked to folks who want to "get ahead". No problem. But you're going to have to dump that 40 hour week mentality. Get a feel for 60-70-80 hour weeks. Much of it may be for NO PAY, as in sweat equity or taking classes. Nope. They won't do it. Too much work. Too much sacrifice, personal, family, whatever. Always an excuse. A good number think the 40 hour gig is too much and won't do it. Work literally a four letter word.... But they are "victims".

Well, take your excuse and go sit down and shut up. Nobody wants to hear your BS. Except others who want to bitch and moan about how "unfair" it all is.

A good part of what the Left wants to destroy about America is opportunity. The American Dream. They really want are guaranteed outcomes (how many are running on guaranteed minimum income?) They want to hitch up the achievers to their wagon as they load up the wagon with people and things that aren't theirs. And pull it up the hill on a road they didn't build.

"You didn't build that....." yet another lovely hate phrase from the America haters.... so much for appreciation for those who DID build it.

If you don't think the Left has based it's whole show on envy and jealousy you are willingly blind, or disingenuous..... They are all about convincing their base of their "victimhood" status. Identity Class, pick one. Notice none listed as just "American". Every "ism" under the sun. As with all things liberal..... responsibility must lie with someone or something else. When you are a victim..... your situation is all about something someone did TO you..... it's not your fault..... it's theirs....

That is exactly what 75% or more of them are currently running for office on. And some can't see that? Or refuse to acknowledge it? wow....

When was the last time you heard a Leftist say "Dammit, get up off your lazy azz and get to work!" I don't recall hearing that from them.... ever....

Most people do not know how to run a business or how the tax codes should or could be used to maximize the potential of that business. So an article like this makes sense because it satisfies their bias.

"The manipulation of values to evade taxes was central to one of the most important financial events in Donald Trump’s life. In an episode never before revealed, Mr. Trump and his siblings gained ownership of most of their father’s empire on Nov. 22, 1997, a year and a half before Fred Trump’s death. Critical to the complex transaction was the value put on the real estate. The lower its value, the lower the gift taxes. The Trumps dodged hundreds of millions in gift taxes by submitting tax returns that grossly undervalued the properties, claiming they were worth just $41.4 million.

All common practices then and today. In fact I bet you do this and don’t even realize it. Do you value and pay taxes on your home at 100% of its current market value each month or do you use the counties annual assessed value? When you sell your home do you only sell it at that years tax assessed value or do you sell it for as much as someone is willing to pay? You would never sell it for 16 x it’s tax value would you? If you answered yes you are a tax cheat and a shady operator by your standards.

The same set of buildings would be sold off over the next decade for more than 16 times that amount. Smart man Good for him.

The most overt fraud was All County Building Supply & Maintenance, a company formed by the Trump family in 1992. All County’s ostensible purpose was to be the purchasing agent for Fred Trump’s buildings, buying everything from boilers to cleaning supplies. It did no such thing, records and interviews show. Instead All County siphoned millions of dollars from Fred Trump’s empire by simply marking up purchases already made by his employees. Those millions, effectively untaxed gifts, then flowed to All County’s owners — Donald Trump, his siblings and a cousin. Fred Trump then used the padded All County receipts to justify bigger rent increases for thousands of tenants."

Very common business practice and used for a lot of reasons. An example today: The majority of apartment renters today are paying a percentage of the business property casualty and theft insurance carried by the owner of the property as a portion of their rent. It’s not itemized and the insurance cost is marked up to cover handling costs like a employee called a risk manger. The insurance company gives a discount to the owner for having a risk manager as an employee or a contractor. However their tenants lease states that they are 100% liable for any fire, water, smoke or explosion damage to the unit they occupy and they Required by the owner to carry additional insurance and are responsible for any damage not covered by their individual policy . A Each renter is required to have the same coverage so if You have 3 roommates there will be 3 policies on the one apartment. Additionally each tenant is required to pay a security deposit as high as one or two months rent. Refundable only if there is no damage. Renters are effectively paying 2, 3,4xfor the same coverage. Secondly the owners gets to recover a management fee from the insurance companies that sell the insurance to the tenant in most cases, All legal and approved by all 50 states. It’s a multi billion dollar a year practice. This practice has made GEICO one of the biggest insurance companies in the country. Warren Buffet is a major share holder. The owner also gets to write off the cost of the insurance as a business cost as well as any uninsured damage. Even worse for liberals the insurance management fee they collect is an asset and upon the sale of the property they value it at 7 to 20 times the cash flow depending on how the sale is structured. People don’t understand how a business is run so from the outside looking in it looks like tax evasion and profiteering. Typically competition requires creativity.

I am very good at reading financial statements and deciphering how businesses are structured, run and I can promise you 100% that about 98% of the information needed to evaluate Trumps affairs is missing from that and all articles written about the subject.

Are risk takers like Trump critical to our nation's wealth? Absolutely!

I think BEG raises a good point for discussion though. What about our long running, and mostly implied social contract? A healthy middle class is also critical for the risk takers to be successful.

Trump is successful. No doubt!

In his business dealings, even admitting everything was legal, were other, small, risk takers hurt by his actions? I don't know for sure, but have read his multiple bankruptcies caused others to lose their business. You might respond that's on them.

How will he be judged by the Highest Authority for those actions? Are they within the confines of the Word?

I don't know, but it makes for a nice case study IMHO. More schools are placing an increased emphasis on ethics.

I could not even polish the man's shoes, yet based on what I have read, observed, and understand the way he has treated his spouses, I would not do business with him.

I'm no cowboy, but some things are just not for sale. Sleeping well at night is worth a few billion I have learned:)

Don't try and sell me a boat load of crap about free market capitalism is the way we do it here, lol. Tons of cronyism been going on for a long time, remember "drain the swamp"? I was born at night, just not last night.

Yes. Yes they would. The O&G explosion in the Marcellus came well before DJT came along. Coal is a waning industry in Pennsylvania. Despite Trump’s promises, the coal industry is largely unchanged in PA.

As an example, citizens who end up paying increased taxes for abatements given to sports stadiums owners? Studies show these are typically a revenue net loser for the city.

Probably a little more complex than the typical talking points. Best if government stays out and lets market signals drive resource allocation.

We have been quick to criticize government for involvement, especially tax incentives, in areas such as "clean energy". (Rightfully so I will add.)

Then along comes some criticism of Trump, and many here come to what appears to be the defense of those same practices when used by him.

As some stated, a person can always pay more to the general government. And on the same lines I guess a person can live by their conservative principles and not petition the government for tax incentives above the norm, nor take advantage of them.

Many times it has been posted here that just because it is legal does not make it ethical, and vice versa. Consistency in positions is something to be admired. Actions do in fact speak louder than words.

Fully agree. Where have I said they weren't?

The point I've made this entire time is that the line between those two is razor thin and crossed all the time. Gifting your heirs property so it can be done at a lower cost basis than they'd have to claim if they were inherited is tax avoidance. Intentionally undervaluing the cost basis of those properties is tax evasion. Setting up a company to handle purchases for your buildings and ultimately raising rents is perfectly fine and carries with it tax avoidance benefits. Having your sons set up a shell company that does nothing but inflate the purchase price of goods you've made and then sells them back to you at the inflated price with the sole purpose of reducing your taxable income and cloaking the transfer of your wealth to your children, that's tax evasion.

You've hit on the other point I've made this entire time. That yes, many of these strategies are only available to people in a position to take advantage of them, and plenty of people feel that just because you've become uber wealthy, it shouldn't afford you the luxury or the opportunity of paying less on the dollars you earn than someone making far less than you (again, I don't agree with this statement in its entirety, but I can understand the perspective of people that do).

Yes, I believe the tax code should incentive investment. It should absolutely provide benefits to those who do take risk and put capital at play. The question is how much - tax shelters and tax breaks shouldn't take the risk to zero and investors need skin in the game as well.

The obvious to me is some people think orange man is always bad, others think any criticism of him is always bad.

He is not a god. If we are going to open up discussions like this, his behavior is subject to scrutiny. He has no problem cutting down everyone he disagrees with, so what's the problem?

There are aggressive accountants who will advise their clients one way, and others who will suggest a different route.

I have some very honest friends who have avoided the aggressive types. They are stupidly successful, very much so. They sleep well at night knowing their integrity was not for sale. They live their lives by a code, anything less will be a dereliction of honor to them.

I have started numerous threads acknowledging Trump's solid decisions. I have never hesitated to be critical of everyone in your "list" above.

This reminds me of the folks who posted that they grow tired of being "attacked" every time they don't point out a fault of Trump's when they are praising him. That water flows both ways. I get tired of having to explain every time I have a criticism of the man.

He paints a target on himself. He is constantly going after others. That's life, it's how people are. It happens on this site. Who gets the most grief here, those who are the most vocal in their opinions? Trump is not experiencing anything that anyone else would not in the same position.

For me, I am getting less surprised by discussions like these. I learned as a lad you are the company you keep. Color me shocked if Trump's accountants are not of the same vein as his former lawyer going to jail. Maybe change that color to stupid based on what I read here, lol.

You know what's different about Trump from all of the other people above (except Pelosi)? They've all released their tax returns.

Hating abortion is not hating America. It's revering the life of the unborn.

Can you point where I asked for his tax returns? I believe in privacy, even for politicians and have stated so here more than once. Sharing something in common with the dems there Paul, just make crap up as you go along?

Now, do I believe he does not want to show them because they will be less than flattering towards his reputation. Yes! Ever since the A&E show about him I mentioned, I am convinced he is great at marketing himself, aka, a con-artist. And I don't need to say "I told you so" when he is exposed.

But so far, I still will vote for him. I like the judicial appointments, improved military, lower taxes, less regulation and taking of a hard line against China's trade abuses. Does that cover my bases, or do I need to genuflect like you;-)

In former times there would have been no doubt that a person advocating open borders, support for various types of freeloaders, destruction of he family, etc. was an anti-American.

A married couple worth as much as $20 million can show zero income,zero net worth have all 20 mil invested returning 8% a year and pay zero taxes legally and another couple with identical financials pays $200k a year in taxes. Tell me how this is possible.

That’s all anyone’s asking to see from DJT.

Only a dolt would believe someone worth 70 billion made only $11.6 million.

Actually seems fairly logical to me. Buffett’s net worth is largely due to his equity position in Berkshire Hathaway. If the man isn’t collecting a salary and doing little to change his equity position, I’d expect his income reported to be very low.

A married couple worth as much as $20 million can show zero income,zero net worth have all 20 mil invested returning 8% a year and pay zero taxes legally and another couple with identical financials pays $200k a year in taxes. Tell me how this is possible.

Tell me what they’re invested in, how returns are being generated, where said couples live, etc and I’ll tell you how.

I only made it to middle management in the private sector, not BEG's level. I did start a small habitat management company, with more funds than it would have taken me to start an investment advisory services firm, which would have taken me less time given my education and work experience. Our own funds. Learned a lot, still learning, and the farm schedule continues the education.

I know enough to know when a small fish is trying to look bigger than he is. They usually have strong opinions on many topics, and their lack of knowledge is obvious to all but themselves.

That's my opinion on DJT, and another, but will readily admit that the Don forgot more than I will ever know. Still wouldn't do business with him.

Question for you...

The trumps under-valued the property to avoid paying taxes according to your post.

Was this same property used as collateral in secured loans? Was the value used at the low end or at the high end?

If the latter, were any laws broken? Is it ethically sound? Assume just for fun, it was the latter. What would you tell a college class are the correct answers?

Thanks.

HFW. It’s someone’s opinion that that is what happened with out the underlying information. It’s an erroneous assumption that they undervalued any assets let alone the reason why. Valuing assets is dependent on a lot of factors.

I think the premise of the OP was missing to a degree. I don't think it can be honestly argued that many leftists hate America. The only real question in my mind is..... why? What would an America they LOVED, if that is even mentally possible for them..... look like? Once people see that vision, all of it in its manifested reality.... they can make up their own minds. Things such as the New Green Deal. They walk out this version or that.... it gets slapped to the ground fast as clearly stupid and unrealistic..... so they come out with a new version....

Why do they hate America? And what, if anything, would it take to change their minds? (not that I really care, but might be a fun subject.....)

Well then one has either (1) interpreted the tax code differently than the other, (2) enacted a different, and legal, tax strategy or (3) they've interpreted the tax code the same and chose to do something illegally. Wouldn't know unless you saw their tax returns.

Everyone with assets should know the answer to this question.

One set up a revocable trust and the other did not.

"From the IRS:

Q: What is a grantor trust? A: "Grantor trust" is a term used in the Internal Revenue Code to describe any trust over which the grantor or other owner retains the power to control or direct the trust's income or assets. If a grantor retains certain powers over or benefits in a trust, the income of the trust will be taxed to the grantor, rather than to the trust. (Examples, the power to decide who receives income, the power to vote or to direct the vote of the stock held by the trust or to control the investment of the trust funds, the power to revoke the trust, etc.) All "revocable trusts" are by definition grantor trusts. An "irrevocable trust" can be treated as a grantor trust if any of the grantor trust definitions contained in Internal Code §§ 671, 673, 674, 675, 676, or 677 are met. If a trust is a grantor trust, then the grantor is treated as the owner of the assets, the trust is disregarded as a separate tax entity, and all income is taxed to the grantor.

"Q: Do trusts have a requirement to file federal income tax returns? A: Trusts must file a Form 1041, U.S. Income Tax Return for Estates and Trusts, for each taxable year where the trust has $600 in income or the trust has a non-resident alien as a beneficiary. However, if the trust is classified as a grantor trust, it is not required to file a Form 1041, provided that the individual grantor reports all items of income and allowable expenses on his own Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return. Thus, the grantor/individual would pay the total tax liability upon the filing of his return for that taxable year.

Q: How does a trust compute its income tax liability? A: A trust computes its income tax liability in much the same way that an individual does and is allowed most of the credits and deductions that an individual is allowed. Similarly, deductions not allowed to individuals are not allowed to trusts. For example, personal living expenses such as food, utilities, recreational expenses, children's education, depreciation of one's personal residence, etc. are not allowed as a trust deduction any more than as an individual deduction. Trusts are also required to prepare a Schedule K-1 for their beneficiaries, showing them the amounts distributed by the trust to them. These amounts must be reported on the beneficiaries' returns."

I asked to show that there are multiple ways to approach taxes legally. It’s real simple . BEG and wife put 100% of their assets up to $22 million in the revocable trust and turn control of the trust over to their beneficiaries. Any taxes are paid by the entities, typically llc’s not the individual. BEG can withdraw funds from the trust tax free by simply writing up a loan agreement with the beneficiary. When BEG and wife die the loan is forgiven.

And that’s exactly the answer I gave. Nobody’s arguing that point. I would argue that the two examples you gave hardly involve individuals with “identical financials.” They, IMO, have drastically different financials.

I thought it was a quiz, so I PMed him 'a Trust'. I knew, you can guess the reason why.

I agree, anyone with enough assets, and heirs they care about, should consider it.

That’s an extreme way of using a trust. Everyone with any level of assets should set up a revocable trust or you are just giving the govt a big % just for the pleasure of your death.

No matter, it’s besides the point. I clearly pointed out that the tax code allows for different tax treatments of assets and income, and there are plenty of tax avoidance strategies that are perfectly legal even if they appear not to be (and they wealthier you are the more of an option these things become).

There are also plenty of tax evasion tricks that are not: deliberately under-reporting income, making false entries in books, overstating deductions, engaging in sham transactions, deliberately undervaluing assets, deliberately overvaluing assets...the list goes on and on.

Without looking under the hood, it’s tough to tell. And Trump clearly doesn’t want anyone looking under the hood.

From AOS:

Elderly Federal Staffer Harassed by Leftwing Superiors for Having Photos of Trump on Her Desk -- Despite an Obama-Era Ruling That Having Such Photos On Your Desk Was Acceptable —Ace of Spades

I guess she'd be allowed to have pictures of Obama on her desk. I guess that was the actual ruling.

A 69-year-old disabled woman working at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) repeatedly reported harassment from her coworkers to her superiors, linked to her support for President Donald Trump. Instead of investigating her concerns, someone at the agency reported her for a violation of the Hatch Act.

Wanda Wooten, who has worked in the federal government for more than a decade, is currently a statistical assistant at the National Minerals Information Center. In late February 2019, she hung a picture of the president and two of first lady Melania Trump. The next morning, she found a note signed by Mike Magyar, listed on the USGS website as acting director of the NMIC.

"Wanda, The Hatch Act specifically prohibits any political campaigning, etc on Federal sites," the note reads. "As President Trump has an active re-election campaign ongoing, these images violate the Hatch Act so I removed them. Mike Magyar."

Wooten confronted Magyar about the note, and pointed him to a determination by the Obama administration that pictures of presidents taken in an official capacity did not violate the Hatch Act. According to Wooten, Magyar told her she was creating a "hostile work environment."

The Deep Staters have now ruled that she did in fact violate the Hatch Act, ignoring the Obama-era ruling. They have not fired her, but they are officially warning her that if she exercises her freedom of speech as guaranteed by an Obama ruling, she may be terminated. (note: internal links)

Michael Barone:

The “big lie” is back in style. Wikipedia tells us that the term was invented by Adolf Hitler to describe what other did — though he was the biggest liar of all. “The broad masses of a nation,” he wrote in Mein Kampf, “more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie.”

No one on the political scene in this country or any democratic nation is a monster comparable to Hitler. But some have resorted to the big lie in their attempts to override clear decisions of the people, at the risk of delegitimizing the nation’s democracy.

Exhibit A: The increasingly common claims that Democrats Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum “won” last fall’s elections for governor in Georgia and Florida. Actually, both of them lost by 50%-49% margins.

Abrams admits this, but insists that “so many people were disenfranchised and disengaged … that I feel comfortable now saying, ‘I won.’” “Without voter suppression,” presidential candidate Kamala Harris told the Detroit NAACP, “Stacey Abrams would be the governor of Georgia, Andrew Gillum is the governor of Florida.”

This is nonsense. Voter turnout was up 54% in Georgia and 38% in Florida over 2014 levels. And the “voter suppression” that people are complaining about was standard procedure, required by longstanding federal and state laws.

The suggestion that anything happened in Georgia or Florida tantamount to the voter suppression blacks experienced before the 1965 Voting Rights Act — suppression by unfair laws, threats of violence and murder — is preposterous. Perhaps Abrams hopes to convince the many blacks moving to Georgia that it’s run by white segregationists, or to discourage people from voting by making them think their vote won’t count. But she and those who echo her charges are saying that America is moving backward on basic civil rights. That’s a big lie, one that stokes racial mistrust and hatred.

More at the Washington Examiner

Was not aware of what Whitey alluded to, so I asked and have the same inquisitiveness Kevin does.

Maybe this is what he considers 'testing the limits'?

I wonder if the IRS is reading this thread, lol!

Are not both of those easy to invalidate if the entity can show the funds were used to finance business operations? This is why the IRS may be hesitant in some instances?

HFW, why would the IRS care about a theoretical discussion? You insinuate wrong-doing by Trump and now me with no real knowledge of anything. Do you use a liberal bible that leaves out the 8th and 10th commandments.

BEG. Try reading the case law which is the real definition of any IRS rule. A google hack could argue that Revocable trusts violate ESD. Everyone that I have ever meet that has set a trust sets them up to REDUCE death taxes. However because they “simultaneously” preserve wealth they are legal.

A guy in the 1% has a clue about taxes.

I have an aquaintance who is an attorney and is also a CPA. He specializes in trusts. Probably, maybe, better to do it with two separate individuals as it might offer better protection.

Nice to see a CFP admit these types of arrangements call for specialists. The details really do matter!

You sure did ask it a specific way - with incorrect and incomplete information. Again, I’ve said multiple times there are more than one way to interpret the tax code and there are multiple schemes that one can employ to avoid taxes. So I’m not sure what you think your gotcha moment is. There are other ways to show zero income and zero (book) net worth with 20 million in assets returning 8% that you haven’t listed. The line between tax avoidance and tax evasion is not well defined in many areas of tax law. You want to argue that point, Whitey?

Avoiding taxes is legal and smart business planning. The means to do so should be characterized as something other than "schemes" which carries a negative connotation than one is doing something illicit or improper. Using every bit of the tax law to minimize your obligation is not a scheme. If you're in business, it's an obligation, since you have a fiduciary duty to your shareholders to maximize profits and run your business successfully.

Mr Obvious says conservatives hate liberals. Liberals hate conservatives. True liberals account for less than 25% of the population. True conservatives account for less than 25% of the population. That leaves over half the country that hates neither.

I suspect the population that hates this country AND has any knowledge of how the majority of the world works is near zero.

Get a grip.

Sadly, the people that are supposed to be educators are often nothing more than advocators.

Both true statements. That said, there are people who I trust a lot more to understand these things than the media or the average Joe. It's not just the "media" calling out Trump on his business dealings and lack of transparency in taxes.

I suspect the population that hates this country AND has any knowledge of how the majority of the world works is near zero.

Spot on, brunse.

It takes two to have a discussion. It is not just the leftists.

WRT dems hating America..... there are likely many dems who think they are still the party of JFK rather than AOC..... or maybe they think Cauliflower is racist too..... but Leftists/Liberals... yeah, they hate America right down to it's foundation.

There were many who remained dems because of FDR long after the party no longer represented their values. My dad was one though I doubt if he ever voted for a dem after maybe JFK.