• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton and NYT Whine--BUT They Use SAME TAX BREAK he did.

ludin said:
Wow why are you lying about what he said?

he said he would release his tax returns after this audit. Is the audit done with please tell us.
Click to expand...

Not every return of his is under audit and the IRS said there is no reason one cannot release their returns audit or not. Trump lies about almost everything, the question is why you have not figured that out even after having it proven time and time again by Trump himself.
 
ludin said:
So he isn't filing his taxes like he is supposed to? can you show where he has ever been convicted of tax fraud?
Click to expand...

I address the "doesn't practice what he preaches" aspect extensively in post #4.
 
Casper said:
Not every return of his is under audit and the IRS said there is no reason one cannot release their returns audit or not. Trump lies about almost everything, the question is why you have not figured that out even after having it proven time and time again by Trump himself.
Click to expand...

he has lawyers that have advised otherwise. he is taking the advice of his lawyers who do this day in and day out.
So you can't prove the audit is over so there you have it.

once the audit is over and if he still doesn't release them then you can complain.
 
Cardinal said:
I address the "doesn't practice what he preaches" aspect extensively in post #4.
Click to expand...

so what isn't he practicing what he is preaching again if you think he is committing tax fraud or something please prove it.
blanket statements are not arguments.
 
Casper said:
True, but the genius businessman Trump knows how to lose nearly a Billion Dollars in the casino business (is that even possible?) and get years of tax breaks due to his genius.
Click to expand...

That IRS rule is to protect employees from financial harm due to losing their jobs.

Everybody knows that.
 
ludin said:
so what isn't he practicing what he is preaching again if you think he is committing tax fraud or something please prove it.
blanket statements are not arguments.
Click to expand...

Read post #4. Tax fraud isn't mentioned once. If practicing what you preach is an important principle to you, then I address that in post #4.
 
Slyfox696 said:
But you're right, wealthy people/companies who generate huge amounts of income/revenue/profits SHOULD pay taxes. Do you honestly feel Trump is more likely to make the wealthy pay more in taxes?

Oh, and because I know partisans can't help themselves, I've already addressed Clinton about this issue in another thread, primarily that Clinton paid well over $3 million in taxes. Not exactly hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

LOL! And she AVOIDED paying a lot more......just like Trump.

And DOUBLE LOL.......I'll see your silly question and raise you one--do you honestly feel Clinton is more likely to make the wealthy pay more in taxes? Uhhhh.......like Obama did?

:mrgreen:
 
ludin said:
he has lawyers that have advised otherwise. he is taking the advice of his lawyers who do this day in and day out.
So you can't prove the audit is over so there you have it.

once the audit is over and if he still doesn't release them then you can complain.
Click to expand...
I did not say it was over, read slower next time. Are you claiming every tax return between 1995 though 2014 is under audit, me thinks not. I wonder what he is hiding, more to come, that we can count on.
 
ludin said:
so what isn't he practicing what he is preaching again if you think he is committing tax fraud or something please prove it.
blanket statements are not arguments.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to see what it is he is hiding, not as rich or successful as he claims, no charitable contributions, there must be something in that closet or why not release them and put the issue to bed?
 
Vox said:
LOL! And she AVOIDED paying a lot more......just like Trump.
Click to expand...
Are you refusing to understand or incapable of understanding?

First, let's clarify something. She didn't avoid paying "a lot" more. She was able to knock off $3000 of a $700,000 loss, which is less than 1%.

Second, I don't believe the attack has been that Trump is paying "less" taxes, but that he's paying virtually none at all. And since Clinton paid over $3 million in taxes, it's a valid argument to come from her.

Do you get it now?
do you honestly feel Clinton is more likely to make the wealthy pay more in taxes?
Click to expand...
Between her and Trump, absolutely. No question in my mind...most likely because they have both released their tax plans and Trump has made it very clear he wants to lower taxes on the wealthy and Clinton wants to raise them.

That was a dumb question.
Uhhhh.......like Obama did?
Click to expand...
Exactly.
 
Casper said:
Illegal, not in this case. Wrong, well that is still up for debate, he screwed a lot of people in his dealings and the more that is bought up the worse it looks for him. Good grief, the GOP could not find someone/anyone better than Trump, were they Trying to lose the election???????
Click to expand...

I think everyone is trying to lose this election.
 
Slyfox696 said:
But Trump is running for President now.

Again, the New York Times isn't running for President.

Fallacy alert. This is called a red herring.
Click to expand...

Not a red herring at all. That is properly defined a reasoned argument or rebuttal based on logic, common sense, and fact.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Not a red herring at all. That is properly defined a reasoned argument or rebuttal based on logic, common sense, and fact.
Click to expand...
It most definitely is a red herring. It can even be argued it's also a strawman, since I don't recall anyone saying it was illegal.

Perhaps you ought to review your fallacies?
 
Slyfox696 said:
Are you refusing to understand or incapable of understanding?

First, let's clarify something. She didn't avoid paying "a lot" more. She was able to knock off $3000 of a $700,000 loss, which is less than 1%.

Second, I don't believe the attack has been that Trump is paying "less" taxes, but that he's paying virtually none at all. And since Clinton paid over $3 million in taxes, it's a valid argument to come from her.

Do you get it now?
Between her and Trump, absolutely. No question in my mind...most likely because they have both released their tax plans and Trump has made it very clear he wants to lower taxes on the wealthy and Clinton wants to raise them.

That was a dumb question.
Exactly.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I did not know Obama had raised taxes on the rich.

As far as Clinton goes, I don't care about the amount she avoided through that tax loophole.......how much doesn't matter.

If it's wrong for a billion it's wrong for a thousand.

The point is, it's not wrong and Clinton used it too......so she's a dishonest hypocrite.

(Besides being a Predator Drone war criminal.....no small feat in itself.)

Oh yeah.......that accusation that Trump paid no taxes for 20 years is pure speculation. He says he's paid millions over the years and it is likely that he has paid millions, considering his net worth.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
Hilarious indeed.

Except using tax deductions in itself isn't and never has been the problem.* It's a point of contention because Trump has held no political office and his claim to qualification for being President is his wealth and success in business, the facts of which he has made a point to obscure.

Combined with his statement that executives "get away with murder and pay little or no taxes," his hypocrisy comes through in a myriad of ways, such as

1)He himself "gets away with murder" by paying no taxes.
2)He claimed this was "smart" when cornered in the debate.
3)Which he subsequently backtracked on after the debate by claiming he pays Federal taxes
4)None of his proposed policies fixes the problem that executives "get away with murder and pay little or no taxes." And of course...
5)This contradicts the aura of the master businessman he's always touted (but never backed up)

Any narrative he attempts to create regarding his business and his taxes is hopeless twisted and impaled on itself.

The reason we're not putting Clinton under this same microscope is because business is not her claim to qualification and because she has never attempted to obscure her tax returns. That's why her political past is being dissected instead of her business experience. Conversely, Donald's lack of political office is why we're dissecting (or attempting to dissect) his business instead of his history in political office.

Finally, let's nip two followup questions in the bud as they are based on straw men:

1)"Tax returns don't reveal total wealth." We do not need to be told this, because we know it already.
2) "Well how many successful businesses has Clinton run?" The reason we're not asking this is because business is not her claim to qualification. That's why her political past is being dissected instead of her business experience.


*With regards to this topic. There are very much problems with tax deduction laws, but that's for an entirely different discussion.
Click to expand...


It's amazing the way some people forget what nuance is when they want to attack the other person but rediscover it when their own horse is flagging.



Trump claims his business skills qualify him; his many catastrophic business failures are ignored but the Clinton's wealth is attacked.

Trump rants for years about "takers" who pay no income tax; when it turns out that he hasn't done so for years (because of a catastrophic business failure), that makes him smart and not a hypocrite, but makes Clinton dumb and a hypocrite.

On and on the list goes. Politics is so damned partisan that principle has nothing to do with the attacks on one and defenses of the other. The only question is "what nasty thing can I say about the other side?"
 
Vox said:
Thanks. I did not know Obama had raised taxes on the rich.
Click to expand...
No problem, I appreciate the acknowledgment. Such honesty is a fresh of breath air given some of the other people I have discussed politics with recently.

As far as Clinton goes, I don't care about the amount she avoided through that tax loophole.......how much doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
I feel words are important. $3000 on a $700,000 loss is not "a lot" and I feel characterizing it as such tints the conversation.

If it's wrong for a billion it's wrong for a thousand.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm talking about. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has necessarily said it is wrong. What people have said is wrong is for a wealthy man to not pay any federal income tax, to not pay his fair share.

That's what is wrong. Donald Trump probably makes more in a day than I do in a year. And that's fine, I'm okay with that. But when I have to pay my taxes, so should he. Clinton did. She paid more in taxes in one year than I've made in my entire life.

The point is, it's not wrong and Clinton used it too......so she's a dishonest hypocrite.
Click to expand...
Except that's not the point. It's the point Trump supporters want to pretend it is (not saying you are, just speaking in general), but much like who started the birtherism issue, it's not the point. The point is Trump is not paying ANYTHING in federal taxes (allegedly).

Oh yeah.......that accusation that Trump paid no taxes for 20 years is pure speculation.
Click to expand...
Agreed. But it's not speculation to say that there have been years where he didn't pay federal taxes and unless Trump releases his tax returns (which I don't care about one way or another, before anyone starts on that), it's a solid working hypothesis that he hasn't paid federal taxes for man years (or so I understand, I don't pretend to know tax law well enough).
He says he's paid millions over the years and it is likely that he has paid millions, considering his net worth.
Click to expand...
I'm sure he has...Clinton paid millions just last year.

The question is whether or not Trump is paying his fair share of taxes. I know I am and I know Clinton did. Has Donald Trump? Has Donald Trump made an equal financial sacrifice for the good of this country? It's not hypocritical to ask that question when Clinton has already released her returns which says she has, nor is it hypocritical for the NYT to report a story on a presidential candidate when they are not a presidential candidate. Does that make sense?
 
Casper said:
Well sadly no matter what happens We The People are going to lose.
Click to expand...
I think my wife is writing Peyton Manning. I think I may end up voting for Andy Taylor of Mayberry.
 
Mr Person said:
It's amazing the way some people forget what nuance is when they want to attack the other person but rediscover it when their own horse is flagging.



Trump claims his business skills qualify him; his many catastrophic business failures are ignored but the Clinton's wealth is attacked.

Trump rants for years about "takers" who pay no income tax; when it turns out that he hasn't done so for years (because of a catastrophic business failure), that makes him smart and not a hypocrite, but makes Clinton dumb and a hypocrite.

On and on the list goes. Politics is so damned partisan that principle has nothing to do with the attacks on one and defenses of the other. The only question is "what nasty thing can I say about the other side?"
Click to expand...

There's been studies on the differences between liberals and conservatives...and this one noted that those who are conservative tend to respond more to negative stimuli:

[N]ot only do political positions favoring defense spending, roadblocks to immigration, and harsh treatment of criminals seem naturally to mesh with heightened response to threatening stimuli but those fostering conforming unity (school children reciting the pledge of allegiance), traditional lifestyles (opposition to gay marriage), enforced personal responsibility (opposition to welfare programs and government provided healthcare), longstanding sources of authority (Biblical inerrancy; literal, unchanging interpretations of the Constitution), and clarity and closure (abstinence-only sex education; signed pledges to never raise taxes; aversion to compromise) do, as well. Heightened response to the general category of negative stimuli fits comfortably with a great many of the typical tenets of political conservatism.

...

Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that individuals who are physiologically and psychologically responsive to negative stimuli will tend to endorse public policies that minimize tangible threats by giving prominence to past, traditional solutions, by limiting human discretion (or endorsing institutions, such as the free market, that do not require generosity, discretion, and altruism), by being protective, by promoting ingroups relative to out-groups, and by embracing strong, unifying policies and authority figures

Liberals and conservatives do tend to think differently. In fact, it's been shown that the size of the amygdala - the part of the brain that determines "fight or flight" - tends to be larger in conservatives.

The key, then, is to take this information and to use negative stimuli such ways that conservatives are more likely to accept the scientifically or historically obvious.
 
Casper said:
Illegal, not in this case. Wrong, well that is still up for debate, he screwed a lot of people in his dealings and the more that is bought up the worse it looks for him. Good grief, the GOP could not find someone/anyone better than Trump, were they Trying to lose the election???????
Click to expand...

He did nothing illegal or wrong! You don't like Trump then vote for Crooked Hillary.
The real question is why Crooked Hillary is the democrat nominee? Uncle Joe were are you?
 
ludin said:
he has lawyers that have advised otherwise. he is taking the advice of his lawyers who do this day in and day out.
So you can't prove the audit is over so there you have it.

once the audit is over and if he still doesn't release them then you can complain.
Click to expand...

It's fine if you don't care if he releases his returns, but that defense ^^^ is pretty weak. Not all his returns are being audited, and any lawyer who advised ANY client to release their returns based on practical concerns is probably committing professional malpractice, so hiding behind them is weak and the oldest political trick in the book. This is a political question, not a legal one.
 
JasperL said:
It's fine if you don't care if he releases his returns, but that defense ^^^ is pretty weak. Not all his returns are being audited, and any lawyer who advised ANY client to release their returns based on practical concerns is probably committing professional malpractice, so hiding behind them is weak and the oldest political trick in the book. This is a political question, not a legal one.
Click to expand...

why do you care what his taxes are?

it really isn't that important unless he is violating the law in some way. of course we all know not paying your taxes is of no important just ask
Charlie rangel and Timothy Geithner. heck just ask the Federal workers who owe 3.5 billion dollars in taxes they haven't paid.

you people are worried about trump lol

Federal employees owe $3.5 billion in unpaid taxes | WTOP
 
ludin said:
why do you care what his taxes are?

it really isn't that important unless he is violating the law in some way. of course we all know not paying your taxes is of no important just ask
Charlie rangel and Timothy Geithner. heck just ask the Federal workers who owe 3.5 billion dollars in taxes they haven't paid.

you people are worried about trump lol

Federal employees owe $3.5 billion in unpaid taxes | WTOP
Click to expand...

Oh, OK...

NETS.jpg
 
Slyfox696 said:
I feel words are important. $3000 on a $700,000 loss is not "a lot" and I feel characterizing it as such tints the conversation.
Click to expand...

You will have to clarify this. the 3000 is the max you can apply to other income if your capital losses exceed your capital gains. of if your capital gains is 600k and your capital losses
are 700k you can only apply 3000 to other income.

Capital Losses Can Help Cut Your Tax Bill | Bankrate.com

This is what I'm talking about. No one, to the best of my knowledge, has necessarily said it is wrong. What people have said is wrong is for a wealthy man to not pay any federal income tax, to not pay his fair share.
Click to expand...

That is their opinion one they are entitled to but has no basis on anything. The "their fair share" is a great appeal to emotion argument but that is about all it is good for.
How much money does he pay in property taxes, payroll taxes and everything else.

That's what is wrong. Donald Trump probably makes more in a day than I do in a year. And that's fine, I'm okay with that. But when I have to pay my taxes, so should he. Clinton did. She paid more in taxes in one year than I've made in my entire life.
Click to expand...

So do you take every credit and deduction that you are capable of doing? if so then you are doing the exact same thing that he does.
good for Clinton. that is why we live in a free country.

Except that's not the point. It's the point Trump supporters want to pretend it is (not saying you are, just speaking in general), but much like who started the birtherism issue, it's not the point. The point is Trump is not paying ANYTHING in federal taxes (allegedly).
Click to expand...
Actually it is the point not that Clinton supporters care about facts.
Good for him I try not to pay anything in federal taxes either.

Agreed. But it's not speculation to say that there have been years where he didn't pay federal taxes and unless Trump releases his tax returns (which I don't care about one way or another, before anyone starts on that), it's a solid working hypothesis that he hasn't paid federal taxes for man years (or so I understand, I don't pretend to know tax law well enough).
I'm sure he has...Clinton paid millions just last year.
Click to expand...

Who care what he paid in taxes. Good for her however she takes the same deductions that trump takes which pretty much makes all her complaints moot.

The question is whether or not Trump is paying his fair share of taxes. I know I am and I know Clinton did. Has Donald Trump? Has Donald Trump made an equal financial sacrifice for the good of this country? It's not hypocritical to ask that question when Clinton has already released her returns which says she has, nor is it hypocritical for the NYT to report a story on a presidential candidate when they are not a presidential candidate. Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

the appeal to emotion argument again. LOL how many people does the man employ? how many people does he provide jobs and pay checks to over the years?
how much money in payroll and property taxes has he paid again?

No it was illegal for the NYT to publish his tax returns without his permission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom