10-31-2016, 01:27 PM
(10-28-2016, 04:25 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: Yeah, so Clinton nor any other politician that I've heard has ever said or implied that it's criminal for the very wealthy, including Trump, to pay a lower tax rate than everyone else by taking advantage of tax codes that favor them. Nobody is screaming, "lock him up!" over it.
Instead, it's been stated that it's not 'fair', which is not synonymous with not 'legal' by any stretch, Tiki.
Trump himself acknowledged in the third debate that he has taken full advantage of operating loss and depreciation write-offs which would allow him to pay little to no personal federal income tax and that is was 'unfair'.
He and his surrogates later called him a 'genius' for taking advantage of the tax codes.
That lack of transparency is what I figure is a bigger problem for him with voters than the fact that, according to him, he's chosen to take full advantage of the tax codes.
Clinton supporters wouldn't scream "Lock him up!" as both she and the New York Times used the same provision, as did Trump, to eliminate taxes. The NYT piece and Clinton wanted to label Trump as a tax evader . . . NOT a legal tax avoider.
In fact, here's a few Hillary quotes from a NYT follow-up article:
"He abuses his power, games the system, puts his own interests ahead of the country’s,” Mrs. Clinton told a crowd of more than 1,100 gathered for a rally on Monday at the Downtown Toledo Train Station. “It’s always Trump first, and everyone else last.”
"While millions of American families, including mine and yours, were working hard and paying their fair share,” Mrs. Clinton said, “it seems he was contributing nothing to our nation.”
Doesn't sound like she is describing an American following the tax law. Sounds more like an organized crime boss, to me . . . IMO.
However, both the Times and Clinton fail to acknowledge that Trump paid mandatory self-employment taxes while enjoying writing off his loss.
It is my opinion that any taxpayer who doesn't take advantage of every legal opportunity to reduce their tax burden is an idiot. Taking advantage of legal and legitimate opportunities does not make for genius . . . it makes one fiscally responsible and knowledgeable.
As to the transparency issue, I believe this plagues Clinton far more than Trump.
After the IRS scandal, I believe this agency ain't feeling the love from most Americans.
Neither Trump nor Clinton provides a tax plan supporting equality.
I've always been a proponent for a flat tax rate . . . wages, salaries and passive income. The same rate for all payers . . . for all sources of income.
If we are a nation truly striving towards equality for all citizens, taxation should also apply. To tax a particular class at a different rate is blatantly discriminatory. In other words: Regardless of the amount of your income, each taxpayer should pay the same percentage rate . . . period.
I don't believe there should be a cap on an individual's Social Security contribution. I also believe that ALL INCOME should be subject to the tax. Additionally, I believe we should expand the Windfall Elimination Provision to eliminate any SS recipient from collecting when they meet a specific annual gross income from any and all sources.
And no death or inheritance tax! The majority of this income has already been subject to taxation . . . I don't give a damn about what rate it was taxed . . . positive or negative.
When the recipients of the estate use these funds to generate income, that income will be taxed at the current flat tax rate. It is unfair to tax something that was ostensibly taxed prior to death, taxed upon transference and then taxed again when used to generate income.
And when it comes to charitable organizations, I believe there should be a mandatory, demonstrable DIRECT payout to the causes they champion. Seventy-five percent sounds like a good place to start. I'm tired of excessive admin costs, salaries and perks.
And then there's our nation's deficit . . . and foreign aid.