Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I suppose there are other criteria involved in the rating. More literal precision...Actually, 90%. Rated better than the Red Cross.And as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.
Then YOU could have been going over the limited Clinton Foundation crap they put out. Only 5% actually reached those in need? come on...
"other"? Salaries? travel? office equipment in the millions? Library penthouse?
funny.........have not heard a word out of you and your ilk?
For the sake of literal precision, not for substantive relevance:
The figures for "program percentage" that I've seen put the CF at 88% and the RC at 90%. Now I don't see that as a material enough difference to put the CF in a different league from the RC.
Dupe.Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.Just one problem. Trump, yes I want to be president of a country I try never to pay taxes to. Right, that doesn't fly.Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
The proper stance not the Trump stance.
Trump should run for president of I hate Taxes not I love America.
The one tax graph you really need to know
Reaganism rolls on, defended to the death by the GOP and srewing the middle class and the country, all to save the greedy idiot GOP from paying their fair share.Dupe.Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.Just one problem. Trump, yes I want to be president of a country I try never to pay taxes to. Right, that doesn't fly.Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
The proper stance not the Trump stance.
Trump should run for president of I hate Taxes not I love America.
The one tax graph you really need to know
I asked a question asshole.
I never said I liked that our fucking Representatives fucking this nation with your approval.
Reagan is dead and has been out of office for damned near 30 years.
Dupe?
You are the biggest fucking dupe I've ever encountered.
Bullshit.Reaganism rolls on, defended to the death by the GOP and srewing the middle class and the country, all to save the greedy idiot GOP from paying their fair share.Dupe.Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.Just one problem. Trump, yes I want to be president of a country I try never to pay taxes to. Right, that doesn't fly.Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
The proper stance not the Trump stance.
Trump should run for president of I hate Taxes not I love America.
The one tax graph you really need to know
I asked a question asshole.
I never said I liked that our fucking Representatives fucking this nation with your approval.
Reagan is dead and has been out of office for damned near 30 years.
Dupe?
You are the biggest fucking dupe I've ever encountered.
What was your question? LOL. You notice I didn't call you anything at all.Dupe.Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.Just one problem. Trump, yes I want to be president of a country I try never to pay taxes to. Right, that doesn't fly.Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
The proper stance not the Trump stance.
Trump should run for president of I hate Taxes not I love America.
The one tax graph you really need to know
I asked a question asshole.
I never said I liked that our fucking Representatives fucking this nation with your approval.
Reagan is dead and has been out of office for damned near 30 years.
Dupe?
You are the biggest fucking dupe I've ever encountered.
Nobody doubts the Red Cross. I'd say the takeaway is that the CF is also a great charity. I don't have any argument with you.I suppose there are other criteria involved in the rating. More literal precision...Actually, 90%. Rated better than the Red Cross.And as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.
Then YOU could have been going over the limited Clinton Foundation crap they put out. Only 5% actually reached those in need? come on...
"other"? Salaries? travel? office equipment in the millions? Library penthouse?
funny.........have not heard a word out of you and your ilk?
For the sake of literal precision, not for substantive relevance:
The figures for "program percentage" that I've seen put the CF at 88% and the RC at 90%. Now I don't see that as a material enough difference to put the CF in a different league from the RC.
They are both highly rated operating public charities of which there is no basis for deriding them on not using the money they collect as much as is reasonably expected for the benefit of their stipulated needy beneficiaries. That's really the key take-away.
See if you can spot the problem:Bullshit.Reaganism rolls on, defended to the death by the GOP and srewing the middle class and the country, all to save the greedy idiot GOP from paying their fair share.Dupe.Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.Just one problem. Trump, yes I want to be president of a country I try never to pay taxes to. Right, that doesn't fly.
The proper stance not the Trump stance.
Trump should run for president of I hate Taxes not I love America.
The one tax graph you really need to know
I asked a question asshole.
I never said I liked that our fucking Representatives fucking this nation with your approval.
Reagan is dead and has been out of office for damned near 30 years.
Dupe?
You are the biggest fucking dupe I've ever encountered.
wait, he had diarrhea?Dems are worrying so much about Trump tax returns, why aren't they worrying about Clintons foundation, Clinton body count, Benghazi tragedy? I could go on and on.
THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The Clinton foundation is also linked directly to Ukrainian oligarchs:
UKRAINE
Leaked e-mail shows Soros urged Clinton to intervene in Albania civil unrest - The American Mirror
Assange: Vote for Hillary Clinton is ‘vote for endless, stupid war' which spreads terrorism
Dems are running of options to make Trump look bad. Sounds like pretty soon they will tell the voters: "Trump is unfit to be a president because he had diarrhea this morning. "
People that feel they should pay a fair share or least something is I'm sure a silly idea to you. However, you would be surprised at the number of Americans that don't take deductions and credits just because they can get away with it.What kind of idiot pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay???
Taxes are for the little people, the same with doing any real work and dying in our unnecessary wars .People that feel they should pay a fair share or least something is I'm sure a silly idea to you. However, you would be surprised at the number of Americans that don't take deductions and credits just because they can get away with it.What kind of idiot pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay???
For the very wealthy, such as Trump who had benefited so much from this country, you would think he would feel he owned the country something. He bypassed military service, community service, and now he bypasses paying taxes. He has tax lawyers that make sure he gets a free ride while the rest of us working slob have to pay and pay and pay. I wonder how many of his supporters who pay tax taxes think Trump should get a free ride.
Stratford: All investigated and NADA.wait, he had diarrhea?Dems are worrying so much about Trump tax returns, why aren't they worrying about Clintons foundation, Clinton body count, Benghazi tragedy? I could go on and on.
THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED
The Clinton foundation is also linked directly to Ukrainian oligarchs:
UKRAINE
Leaked e-mail shows Soros urged Clinton to intervene in Albania civil unrest - The American Mirror
Assange: Vote for Hillary Clinton is ‘vote for endless, stupid war' which spreads terrorism
Dems are running of options to make Trump look bad. Sounds like pretty soon they will tell the voters: "Trump is unfit to be a president because he had diarrhea this morning. "
thats one of the side affects of withdrawing from opiods.
Trump is a heroin addict.
Yes Hillary is. Stop her, vote Trump!!!!So none of his money has to go to Israel, the vets, the wars, the veteran hospitals, no social programs except for him and his family, BS. I'm glad this came out and its time those loop holes are closed. They get rich off the back of others, give nothing back, NO WAY. Those non patriotic hoarders , munchers and loafers can start paying taxes, and the loopholes need to be closed.
Of course he is only showing that loss on paper, while he is living like a royal King who looks down on everyone. He is exactly what is wrong with America.
Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
Like you don't care that Hillary and obuthole don't follow the law?Let's not pretend you'd care if Trump didn't follow the law and didn't pay taxesDoes that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.
Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.
All the wealthy don't get a free ride. Warren Buffet pays about 8% of his income in taxes. Bill Gates pays about 7%. This is well below the maximum rates but their taxes is in the tens to the hundreds of millions. Some people such as Trump pride themselves on not paying the government a dime. It's funny how people like this are the first to scream about how government is wasting their tax dollars, that they don't pay.Taxes are for the little people, the same with doing any real work and dying in our unnecessary wars .People that feel they should pay a fair share or least something is I'm sure a silly idea to you. However, you would be surprised at the number of Americans that don't take deductions and credits just because they can get away with it.What kind of idiot pays more taxes than he is legally required to pay???
For the very wealthy, such as Trump who had benefited so much from this country, you would think he would feel he owned the country something. He bypassed military service, community service, and now he bypasses paying taxes. He has tax lawyers that make sure he gets a free ride while the rest of us working slob have to pay and pay and pay. I wonder how many of his supporters who pay tax taxes think Trump should get a free ride.
So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.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
So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.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
I sure wouldn't want to be you when Clinton wins.So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.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
Apparently you didn't understand the article too!
