Donald J Trump, A Tax Genius - VOTE TRUMP

[Dr Grump]

[QU
Somalia had an eternally CORRUPT SOCIALISTIC government which CONFISCATED ALL INCOME and which consequently devastated that country.

.

Not my point.

 

[Norman]

The regressives are just acting like a bunch of morons about it again... showing that they are completely clueless, and have no idea how the tax system works.

 

[Dr Grump]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

B-b-b-but I thought Trump was a brilliant business man??

 

[Contumacious]

"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.

Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."



Quote by:
Judge Learned Hand
(1872-1961), Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals


Source:
in the case of Gregory v. Helvering 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934), aff'd, 293 U.S. 465, 55 S.Ct. 266, 79 L.Ed. 596 (1935)

The unconstitutional gargantuan bankrupt welfare/warfare police state.is NOT civilization.



civilization
ˌsɪvɪlʌɪˈzeɪʃ(ə)n/
noun

1. the stage of human social development and organization which is considered most advanced.

.

You were born too late it seems? About 300 years too late.

HUH?



.

 

[Contumacious]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

The man is a fucking genius, give credit where credit's due.


.

 

[Vigilante]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

B-b-b-but I thought Trump was a brilliant business man??

You mean YOU didn't understand the article..or you just didn't read it, which seems much more likely!

 

[Contumacious]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

B-b-b-but I thought Trump was a brilliant business man??

Nothing venture nothing gain.


There is no way of predicting whether or not a business venture will pay off.

Get some capital and see how you do.


.

 

[WheelieAddict]

Donald Trump has never done his own taxes. When he turned 18 his father Frank Drumpf coddled him with money and a guy to do his taxes for him. But sure he is a tax genius lol. Only thing he knows about taxes is to pay someone smarter than him to do them for him.

 

[Contumacious]

[QU
Somalia had an eternally CORRUPT SOCIALISTIC government which CONFISCATED ALL INCOME and which consequently devastated that country.

.

Not my point.

That IS the point you stupid fuck.


The federal government has no authority to confiscate income. It is destructive.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. ATTRIBUTION: This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819)

 

[WheelieAddict]

Chris Collinsworth isn't voting for Trump. He just made a joke about did you pay your taxes on sunday night football

 

[Contumacious]

Donald Trump has never done his own taxes. When he turned 18 his father Frank Drumpf coddled him with money and a guy to do his taxes for him. But sure he is a tax genius lol. Only thing he knows about taxes is to pay someone smarter than him to do them for him.

Successful People Learn from Failure and Get On

Sam Walton

 

[Contumacious]

Donald Trump makes an essential point when he visits black churches and predominantly black inner-city neighborhoods and tells the people there that they “have nothing to lose” by supporting the abandonment of almost a century of statism run amok in their communities. While Republicans share some of the blame for this, it has primarily been the Democratic Party’s urban political machines that have sabotaged millions of black lives (and many others) with socialistic central planning scheme after central planning scheme for generations. America’s inner cities are islands of socialism that have proven time and again that Americans are no better at socialism than the Russians were. Let’s briefly review some of their evil and destructive work over the past half century.

 

[Dr Grump]

[


That IS the point you stupid fuck.


The federal government has no authority to confiscate income. It is destructive.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. ATTRIBUTION: This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819)

My ONLY point is to give you two examples of countries that have no tax systems. I couldn't give a flying fuck why or how they haven't.

 

[Makoman]

An article I read in the local newspaper said it could be 18 years before Trump pays taxes. That's an awful long time. I bet he got advice from a tax law expert if it was lawful to do what he was doing!

I support Hillary for Prison but what example does the Republician Candidate set if he dodges taxes. If the man on the street refused to pay any taxes because he had a moral objection to what his tax dollars could be spent on he would be jumped on by the IRS.

If Trump wants to take Office he would have no right to alter the tax system until he sorted out his own moral shortcomings! To appeal to the conservatives voters out there he claims to be a Christian. Well Donald get to work and Brighten the (Tax avoidance) corner where you are.

 

[Vigilante]

Flashback: NY Times Crowns Trump The Comeback Kid
nytimes.com ^ | October 25, 1995 | BRETT PULLEY

Though there are still four years to go in the 90's, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called "the comeback of the decade."

Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80's before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling.

Judging from the attention showered on him yesterday at the Union League Club, some of New York's civic and business leaders are quite captivated by Mr. Trump, despite the financial uncertainties that still surround some of his properties.

But the operative word at the luncheon was comeback, though Mr. Trump might dispute that he ever went far away. William D. Fugazy, the limousine magnate and chairman of the Forum Club, the group of business and civic leaders that sponsored the luncheon, presented Mr. Trump with a boomerang encased in glass. "You throw it and it always comes back," he said as he handed it over.

In a flattering speech, Lieut. Gov. Betsy McCaughey called Mr. Trump "the comeback kid." Charles A. Gargano, who as chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation is himself considered one of the new powers of the state, joked about a Perot-Trump presidential ticket. "He would be the most loved Vice President since Spiro T. Agnew," he said. Mr. Gargano, who heads the state's economic development efforts, added, "Thank you for your tax dollars."

 

[Contumacious]

[


That IS the point you stupid fuck.


The federal government has no authority to confiscate income. It is destructive.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. ATTRIBUTION: This quotation comes from the words of DANIEL WEBSTER and those of JOHN MARSHALL in the Supreme Court case, McCulloch v. Maryland. Webster, in arguing the case, said: “An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy,” 17 U.S. 327 (1819)

My ONLY point is to give you two examples of countries that have no tax systems. I couldn't give a flying fuck why or how they haven't.

My ONLY point is to give you samples of what destructive tax systems will do to a country's economy.

.

.

 

[Contumacious]

Trump's tax writeoff shows his 'genius' at business, advisers say

Donald Trump's decision to take a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax return showed his business acumen and "genius" at figuring out how to minimize his tax bill, two of the Republican presidential candidate's advisers said on Sunday.


.

 

[AntonToo]

Donald J Trump, A Tax Genius - LETS VOTE FOR HIS ACCOUNTANT!

 

[Contumacious]

Donald J Trump, A Tax Genius - LETS VOTE FOR HIS ACCOUNTANT!

New Estimates Of How Many Households Pay No Federal Income Tax

The Tax Policy Center has updated its estimate of the percentage of households that will not pay federal income tax this year. We now figure it is 45.3 percent

 

[Dr Grump]

My ONLY point is to give you samples of what destructive tax systems will do to a country's economy.

.

What destructive tax systems? The only first world system that sucked in that regard was Britain in the 70s were some of the top earners were paying 99 pence in the pound over a certain amount of their salary. That's why the likes of the Rolling Stones and Rod Stewart left the place.