Active Now

Element 99
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » If/when you learn that a billionaire does not pay taxes do you admire him bigly or despise him for having you carry his load? Is he a toad?

If/when you learn that a billionaire does not pay taxes do you admire him bigly or despise him for having you carry his load? Is he a toad?

Posted - May 8, 2019

Responses


  • 6098
    Would have to have a lot of losses not to pay taxes. 
      May 8, 2019 7:07 AM MDT
    0

  • 6023
    Depends on how he is avoiding paying.

    I mean, say he got $2billion in 2017 and paid taxes them.
    He didn't get anything in 2018 ... so he doesn't pay taxes.  He's a billionaire not paying taxes.

    Or if he hired a tax accountant to help him find all the ways to legally not pay taxes on his income - good for him.

    But yeah ... if he's falsifying records to avoid paying taxes ... he should pay double taxation, as well as fines and penalties.


    EDIT:
    BTW - I don't believe in tax loopholes.
    A "loophole" means that the people writing the regulations overlooked something.
    If that were the case, the regulations would change as soon as the "loophole" was found.

    If Americans don't want wealthy people to be able to take advantage of all the ways not to pay taxes - they should elect Congressional representatives to change the regulations.
    But Americans don't do so ... which means the majority of them really don't care about the issue. This post was edited by Walt O'Reagun at May 9, 2019 6:39 AM MDT
      May 8, 2019 8:02 AM MDT
    2

  • 113301
    If you have no income there are no income taxes. But if you have zillions in interest income or other investment interests you should pay taxes on that. As for a proposed "wealth" tax? I'm not so hot on that. I think folks should pay their FAIR SHARE of taxes but a wealth tax on top of that? How is that fair?   Thank you for your reply Walt,
      May 9, 2019 6:41 AM MDT
    0

  • 10770
    I despise them.  

    There are too many "loopholes" for the wealthy.  My meager pittance is taxed to the hilt, why do these "people" with so much get to get away with paying 0??  To me that's unfair (despite any "legal" means they supposedly used).  
    Of course, life's not fair.  The wealthy make the rules as the rest of us are forced to oblige.  The rich get richer off the backs of the poor. 
      May 8, 2019 9:48 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    I think EVERYONE SHOULD PAY HIS/HER FAIR SHARE based on income. As for a "wealth" tax? Isn't that double taxing? It doesn't seem fair to me and why would it be necessary if these folks would PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE up front and not diddle around trying to weasel their way out of it? Close all loopholes. That makes the playing field level. Then if you can get a system where folks pay a reasonable amount I don't see why that wouldn't work. Do you? Thank you for your reply Shuhak! :) This post was edited by RosieG at May 10, 2019 10:42 AM MDT
      May 9, 2019 6:44 AM MDT
    1

  • 10770
    I couldn't have said it better.
      May 9, 2019 11:28 AM MDT
    1

  • 113301
    Thanks for the "atta gal" Shuhak. I appreciate it! :)
      May 10, 2019 10:41 AM MDT
    1

  • 34959
    As long as it is legal...I do not care. 

    I have used many of the same write-offs but on a much smaller scale of course. We had a fire loss in the early 2000's with no insurance. We were able to carry that loss over several years of returns.  I actually just learned it is still usable (20yrs).  I am in the process of finding out if any is left to use now. 
      May 8, 2019 9:55 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    Legal is no longer black and white.  Legal means that it does not affect you personally.  That is your idea of legal.  When you corrupt the law and change and twist it, anything can be "legal" as has been shown in the past two years.  
      May 8, 2019 10:01 AM MDT
    0

  • 34959
    No, legal is "What does the law say?" Is it allowed or not. 
      May 8, 2019 10:17 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    My point is that what is legal now is in dispute since TRUMP the con artist has stacked the deck.  With his lawmakers.  His laws are evil and in dispute by many a learned jurist.  Do I have to site examples?  Don't make me.  You won't listen anyway.  

    Now about Stephen King.... I wonder what he thinks of Trump?  I bet he is the next horror story that will span about 1,000,000 pages and counting.   It is clear that Stephen King also thinks that Donald Trump is a monster.  He said he wrote about that in that FABULOUS BOOK THE DEAD ZONE.  So, Stephen King thinks like I do. 

    Stephen King on Donald Trump: ‘How do such men rise? First as a joke’

    Illustration: Leonard Beard for the Guardian

    He’s written novels with eerily similar plotlines – but how did Trump become president? The only way to find out: inject a panel of fictional voters with truth serum...

    by Stephen King      

    Sat 1 Apr 2017 05.00 EDT Last modified on Fri 9 Feb 2018 13.48 EST

     
    Shares
    7981

    Comments

    880

    I started thinking Donald Trump might win the presidency in September of 2016. By the end of October, I was almost sure. Thus, when the election night upset happened, I was dismayed, but not particularly surprised. I didn’t even think it was much of an upset, in spite of the Huffington Post aggregate poll, which gave Hillary Clinton a 98% chance of winning – an example of wishful thinking if ever there were one.

    Some of my belief arose from the signage I was seeing. I’m from northern New England, and in the run-up to the election I saw hundreds of Trump-Pence signs and bumper stickers, but almost none for Clinton-Kaine. To me this didn’t mean there were no Clinton supporters in the houses I passed or the cars ahead of me on Route 302; what it did seem to mean was that the Clinton supporters weren’t particularly invested. This was not the case with the Trump people, who tended to have billboard-sized signage in their yards and sometimes two stickers on their cars (TRUMP-PENCE on the left; HILLARY IS A CRIMINAL on the right).

     
     
    Read more

    Brexit also troubled me. Most of the commentators brushed its importance aside, saying that the issue of whether or not Britain should leave the EU was very different from that of who should become the American president, and besides, British and American voters were very different animals. I agreed with neither assessment, because there was a vibe in the air during most of 2016, a feeling that people were both frightened of the status quo and sick of it. Voters saw a vast and overloaded apple cart lumbering past them. They wanted to upset the motherfucker, and would worry about picking up those spilled apples later. Or just leave them to rot.

    Clinton voters were convinced she’d win, even if they saw her as a ho-hum candidate at best. Many did not even bother going to the polls, which was a large (and largely unstated) factor in her loss. Trump voters, on the other hand, could not wait to pull those levers. They didn’t just want change; they wanted a man on horseback. Trump filled the bill

    I had written about such men before. In The Dead Zone, Greg Stillson is a door-to-door Bible salesman with a gift of gab, a ready wit and the common touch. He is laughed at when he runs for mayor in his small New England town, but he wins. He is laughed at when he runs for the House of Representatives (part of his platform is a promise to rocket America’s trash into outer space), but he wins again. When Johnny Smith, the novel’s precognitive hero, shakes his hand, he realizes that some day Stillson is going to laugh and joke his way into the White House, where he will start world war three.

    Big Jim Rennie in Under The Dome is cut from the same cloth. He’s a car salesman (selling being a key requirement for the successful politician), who is the head selectman in the small town of Chester’s Mill, when a dome comes down and cuts the community off from the world. He’s a crook, a cozener and a sociopath, the worst possible choice in a time of crisis, but he’s got a folksy, straight-from-the-shoulder delivery that people relate to. The fact that he’s incompetent at best and downright malevolent at worst doesn’t matter.

    None of these people was stupid or evil. Potent truth serum forced them to say what they actually believe

    Both these stories were written years ago, but Stillson and Rennie bear enough of a resemblance to the current resident of the White House for me to flatter myself I have a country-fair understanding of how such men rise: first as a joke, then as a viable alternative to the status quo, and finally as elected officials who are headstrong, self-centered and inexperienced. Such men do not succeed to high office often, but when they do, the times are always troubled, the candidates in question charismatic, their proposed solutions to complex problems simple, straightforward and impractical. The baggage that should weigh these hucksters down becomes magically light, lifting them over the competition like Carl Fredricksen in the Pixar film Up. Trump’s negatives didn’t drag him down; on the contrary, they helped get him elected.

    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at May 8, 2019 10:31 AM MDT
      May 8, 2019 10:23 AM MDT
    0

  • 34959
    I do not care what King thinks about any politician.  I vote on policy. This post was edited by my2cents at May 8, 2019 10:54 AM MDT
      May 8, 2019 10:52 AM MDT
    0

  • 7280
    Oh dear.

    The law does not do total justice; nor is "legal" as simple a concept as you suggest.  

    That's why you deal with the "law" and the "law of the case" if you study law---and of course there is also "jury nullification."

    Hard cases make bad law is an adage or legal maxim. The phrase means that an extreme case is a poor basis for a general law that would cover a wider range of less extreme cases. In other words, a general law is better drafted for the average circumstance as this will be more common.
      May 8, 2019 10:36 AM MDT
    2

  • 34959
    Where did I mention justice?  I said legal....if it is a legal write-off then I do not care. If Congress wants to care they can change the law.  Or if enough of the people care....we can let them know we want the law changed. 

    People love to make things complicated....no need for that unless you want to make illegal action legal and vice versa. Still now need in that----change the law by amending or removing not by activist judges. This post was edited by my2cents at May 8, 2019 10:51 AM MDT
      May 8, 2019 10:50 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    You? Mention JUSTICE?  No one would ever accuse you of THAT.  
      May 8, 2019 11:05 AM MDT
    1

  • 7280
    Oh, so you don't think that laws are ordinances of reason, directed to the common good, and properly promulgated?---Oh, I must stop assuming that everybody understands the link between things like justice and how good laws are intended to reflect that link.


      May 9, 2019 9:18 AM MDT
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      May 9, 2019 6:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 46117
    I just learned that Billionaire Trump is having his returns exposed by the New York Times.

    It is not pretty.  He did not pay taxes for eight of the 10 years.  How's about that?   Tax Information shows more than 1  billion dollars lostl in business losses from 1985-1994.   He basically lost borrowed money.  He was able to turn those losses to shelter all the bank money he borrowed.  He exaggerated his losses.  So he could continue to pay less.  He could have made money.  He could have made money on the 450 million dollars his father actually gave him.  Anyone with an IQ of an orangutan could have.  But he lost it all and continued to lose millions and millions and millions by lying and cheating and conning.  

    It's all laid bare and his base won't care.  That's why he can dare.  I swear.  


    This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at May 8, 2019 10:00 AM MDT
      May 8, 2019 9:58 AM MDT
    0

  • 13277
    I would not assume anything about such a person without more detailed information. For example, are we talking about income tax, capital gains tax, alternative minimum tax, excise tax, sales tax, personal property tax, or real estate tax? I'm sure he is paying at least some of those. It is, of course, easy to oversimplify, as certain parties do all the time right here  on this website, and just accuse someone of being crooked in the absence of substantive information.
      May 8, 2019 11:14 AM MDT
    0

  • 19937
    The saddest part is that it won't matter a whit to his base.
      May 8, 2019 10:26 AM MDT
    2

  • 46117
    So many budding Kelly Ann Coways, waiting for a chance to be hired in the next elections.  So many future Steven Millers chopping at the bit.  It just warms the cockles of my Nazi heart.  I am infused with zealotry.  
      May 8, 2019 10:33 AM MDT
    0