Trump's income-tax declarations will be interesting

So you can't articulate what voting independent has done for. No surprise here. Most all leftists are the same.

 

Blah, blah, blah and more blah.

Is the above public-slander all that remains in your noodle ... ?

 

Not if the Supremes said, "No" and they have said "No!" For the moment, his Tax Returns are not in the public-domain but at the heart of a court-case.

He wants most, after his mis-management of a matter called Covid-19, to keep a low profile with this case. If you look hard enough, there is plenty of "material" on the net about his Wealth. Very early on in his silly public-game of "I'm the most important male on earth" he has been promoting "Me, Myself and I". Poor boy, he feels so alone, so alone, so alone.

How the women he has married can put up with his Blatant-BS is beyond imagination. He thinks evidently that he's America's rich-and-handsome Walking Dream-boy ...

 

You got anything more intelligent to print here other than the One-liner Blarney you post?

This is a DEBATE Forum and not a public Message Board ...

 

You hope.

The Supremes are simply protecting the courts that will be hearing the matter and his Tax Declarations are the prime evidence.

Once that is done, they fall back into the Public Domain. His income has already been publicly estimated by the NYT.

Moreover, it is about time we understand the cogency behind the request for his Tax Returns. Consider this from Brookings: Trump's tax returns, the legal issues and possible outcomes

Well worth a read: Decade in the Red: Trump Tax Figures Show Over $1 Billion in Business Losses

 

Socialism is stil practiced in the southern region of Belgium (walloons)
and is a good example how shitty it gets even if it gets to spend other peoples money.
70+% dependend on the goverment is getting closer and closer to communism there.

 

No. Income taxation itself, at ANY rate, is the abomination, as it's simply none of the government's business how much money you make. BUT, if we're going to have it, let's go back to the original 1913 rates, when the Income Tax itself was sold to the American public at least partially based on the fabrication that it was to be *temporary*. (As if there's any such thing as a temporary tax.)

Here are the tax rates as they applied to inflation adjusted dollars:
$0-$520,802 1%
$520,802-$1,302,005 2%
$1,302,005-$1,953,007 3%
$1,953,007-$2,604,010 4%
$2,604,010-$6,510,025 5%
$6,510,025-$13,020,050 6%
$13,020,050+ 7%

In addition, though I've left it out of the table above for simplicity sake, personal exemptions meant your first $78k (if single) or $104k (if married) were taxed at 0%. (And no, your eyes are not deceiving you, the highest rate then (which only applied to truly stratospheric wages) was lower than the lowest rate of today (10%, which starts at $0, PLUS Social Security and Medicare.))

So if we're going to have an immoral income tax of ANY kind, I propose we go back to the original 1913 rates and adjust for inflation. Of course, anybody with an IQ higher than 20 knows that those rates were just a way of getting the camel's nose into the tent to soften us up for letting in the whole damn camel.

And don't ever vote for a "temporary" tax, no matter how seemingly innocuous. There is NO. SUCH. THING.

The idea that you think being entitled to a cut of my income is fair is sickening.

 

What missing pieces can the 'public' fill in?

 

Not a whole lot on the POTUS level to be sure, but locally it has shifted a number of offices to less extreme thinking.

Leftists? REALLY? I'll mark that one on the calendar, I've scored a 'pissed off both sides' sticker for the day.

 

As it is a response to your post, perhaps you should consider looking inwards.

 

Why? What difference would that make to anything? All this hubbub for that?

 

Why do you hide your taxes? What "deal" would be shown on his tax return but not his financial disclosure form?

 

Then why hasn't the IRS charged him?

He has a huge charitable foundation what do you care on his tax return what difference would it make. When have you voted for a candidate based on their charitable contributions? Did you vote for Obama because of his charitable contributions before he was elected President?

Which tax form is that and they are reported on the financial disclosure form.

You said it.

 

Like what that you will find in his tax returns but not in his financial disclosure forms?

 

Disclosing tax returns, which are legally guarantied private documents no matter who you are, has NEVER been a requirement, that's why we have the official financial disclosure forms.

 

Your net worth is not listed in a tax return

 

Like what? Please explain how the IRS will know more of what is in his tax return if the tax return is made public? Who has more access to his financial information than the IRS and they can certainly compare what is reported there and on his financial disclosures for any discrepancies.

 

Because they will tell you what that is of such importance?

 

Pathetic stoopidity. We want governments to attend to the safety of the population - whether in war with countries or viruses.

That takes considerable financing. And you say Income Taxation is thus an abomination? Sheer folly ...

 

Socialism is practiced nowhere on earth (except perhaps North Korea).

The primary ingredient of socialism is that governments own and run the means of production. Workers are part of the input-mechanism the cost of which (in the form of salaries) is also controlled/paid by the government.

So, look up the definition of socialism before using it in a public-forum ...

 

According the the Lying Fake News New York Times? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! No one with a brain believes their propaganda.

Trump Legal Team To Challenge Subpoena For Tax Returns By Raising New Objections

"The President should not be required, for example, to litigate the subpoena’s breadth or whether it was issued in bad faith without understanding the nature and scope of the investigation..."​

Very sound objection. So, back to district court it goes for yet another round!

They filed in the federal district court in New York. Vance's subpoena is overly broad or has no relevance to a legitimate investigation. The Hill.

And he is!

The dirty subpoena may be intended to influence his official actions, or compliance could interfere with his official duties as president, that of course, is not allowed.

You'll get his taxes if a Leftwing Felon leaks them, but, if they had any bombshells, you would already have them, via felonious leak.

 

What about the owners/creators of those means of production? Let's say I start a business of, say, selling books on a website. How does the government know when the time has come to take over ownership of "the means of production" that I created? Am I paid for my creation, or do they just shoot me in the head, call it a suicide, and thank my heirs for the "free" business"? Am I even allowed to start a business in the first place? And if I am paid, is it a fair price, or just token pennies on the dollar of it's real value? What if I don't want to sell?

Are you going to answer my questions this time, or just respond with more bullshit and pretend they weren't asked in the first place?

 

And what exact "gotcha" moments do you expect the public (who for the most part can't even understand their OWN taxes) to find that the armies of accountants and attorneys the IRS employs to audit the mega-wealthy on pretty much a permanent basis, has missed to date? (And let's not forget, providing the returns to the DA under a subpoena doesn't legally release them into the public domain, somebody will have to commit a felony for that to happen.)

After all, there is no line item that says "Bribes paid to foreign officials", even IF they actually happened.

 

His returns are not "public" but they are certainly available within the limits of a court-of-law. And any decision of that court is, ipso facto, public in nature.

It's Panic-Time for Donald Dork ... !

 

It would be nice to know how well Trump passes an IRS-investigation of his tax-returns. I am sure that is one BIG REASON he went for the presidency and wants another four years of respite with a 2nd presidency. Which, btw, the American voter is blindly prepared to offer him. Just like this last time.

You wanted him, boys-'n-girlz, you got him. Four more years of his infamy? Why not? He's got a nice wife with a beautiful smile! To underline the sort of flattery that goes a long, long way election-time in the US. (First lesson in the work, "How to judge a book by its cover.")

Ask any historian how, after more than four-centuries, the downfall of Rome was sowed and he'll tell you a similar story. All about the rot that came from within.

And, as everyone thought, with all that cheap slave-labor how could Rome fail ...?