A fair share would be income-based percentages, not the same for rich and poor people. If you put a flat tax on all taxpayers, many of them would go bankrupt.

How's so?


Do you think the rich should pay for everything and people with low incomes are entitled to not pay taxes? Oh, by the way, look at Trump and Hillary's tax plan for low income families when you get a chance.

---

If he personally didn't pay property taxes, then they must not be in his name, but the companies. Either way, taxes are being paid on them, no?

The point is in regards to income taxes. The property tax thing is all well and good, but the main point is income taxes, which he's hiding from the American people. The property tax thing is a deflection and muddies the waters.


Let me ask you-- do you think it's a good thing that he is setting this precedent? He's running on the fact that he's a great business man, don't you want him to prove that? Don't you want to see if he's beholden to foreign corporations and banks? Don't you want to see if he a really is providing charity to all those vets groups he's claiming he does? Do you think its a good idea to no longer hold politicians accountable? Cuz if he doesn't release his taxes and wins, no other politician ever will.


And what about the hypocrisy of it? He bashed mitt Romney on this issue. He rode mitt the entire summer of 2012 until he finally released his taxes.


This is a bad look for him.

---

There isn't a person on this message board that willingly pays more than they have to pay in taxes. Period.

 

I imagine there are some. Some folks might not want to itemize particular deductions because they feel it is not worth the effort. Others might have borderline cases of eligibility and not feel it is worth the risk of an audit. I personally know people that take deductions I never would because I think they are 'iffy'. I also imagine there are some who play the odds, claiming illegitimate deductions because they consider it worth the risk. But I take it from your response that you are pretty much in agreement with what StroudCrowd wrote below your post, or am I wrong?

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

I don't willingly pay more taxes than I have to, no.  Of course i"m not a billionaire with tax lawyers who can find every loophole for me either.  Nor do I advocate lower taxes for myself.  I know that the money goes to our military, to our roads, to our schools, to our health care system, and to various other government undertakings.  I don't think my taxes are by any means 'too high'.  My wife and I do just fine.  We always take the basic deduction, even though we might be able to save some money by going the itemized route. 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

How's so?


Do you think the rich should pay for everything and people with low incomes are entitled to not pay taxes? Oh, by the way, look at Trump and Hillary's tax plan for low income families when you get a chance.

 

Don't want to put words in her mouth, but it seems she is more traditionally progressive. Maybe she she derives it from a Rawlsian perspective, but it sounds pretty close to my take. And while Trump looks like he will lower rates for low income folks a bit, from what I read, it looks like he will lower taxes on EVERYONE. How does he get the revenue to offset?

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

Don't want to put words in her mouth, but it seems she is more traditionally progressive. Maybe she she derives it from a Rawlsian perspective, but it sounds pretty close to my take. And while Trump looks like he will lower rates for low income folks a bit, from what I read, it looks like he will lower taxes on EVERYONE. How does he get the revenue to offset?

3 words. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

---

Keep watching. Trump returned the kickoff for a TD before the refs started calling penalties the rest of the game.

 

I watched about half of it, and that was pretty much all that I could stand.  Trump needs some work if he's going to get the swing voters.  Clinton sounds like a "typical politician" and that could be a good or a bad thing.  The bottom line is that neither candidate stood out and I don't see a bump in the polls for either.

 

One thing to mention and an interesting fact that I learned today.  Yesterday's debate was up against Monday Night Football which is part of the reason that I didn't watch it live.  The next debate is up against the Sunday Night Football game.  Why are debates scheduled against what typically is the "ratings champ" for the time slot?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Someone who is audited by the IRS every year has no business proposing ways to improve America's tax system because he obviously does not know what it is right now.

J-Dub, you know audits are usually conducted at random, right? And that the odds of a "random" audit being conducted increase significantly at varying income levels, approaching 100% as you pass the $1 billion mark? Being audited is not a sign of wrongdoing. It's a sign that Uncle Sam has decided that he wants to find a way to take some extra money from you this year.

---

3 words. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

It's a fallacy that lower taxes increases job growth. Its just not proven to be true. Its a lie told by corporations. Trickle down supply side economics just doesn't work.

---

One thing to mention and an interesting fact that I learned today.  Yesterday's debate was up against Monday Night Football which is part of the reason that I didn't watch it live.  The next debate is up against the Sunday Night Football game.  Why are debates scheduled against what typically is the "ratings champ" for the time slot?

So that people like us can enjoy our evenings while the rest of the country spends it telling everyone else how stupid they are on Twitbook and Snapstagram.

---

80,000,000 viewers. Most stuck around for the entire debate from what CNN is saying.

---

So that people like us can enjoy our evenings while the rest of the country spends it telling everyone else how stupid they are on Twitbook and Snapstagram.

I was on the myface creating dank memes with my fellow youths.

---

So that people like us can enjoy our evenings while the rest of the country spends it telling everyone else how stupid they are on Twitbook and Snapstagram.

 

Exactly.  My wife turned on the "pre-debate" news and I changed it to the pregame on NFL Network.  I watched a bit of the first quarter when I finally laid down to go to sleep.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I was on the myface creating dank memes with my fellow youths.

---

80,000,000 viewers. Most stuck around for the entire debate from what CNN is saying.

 

How many of the "viewers" were recording it on a home DVR?  I can't imagine anyone sitting there watching the whole thing live.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

How many of the "viewers" were recording it on a home DVR? I can't imagine anyone sitting there watching the whole thing live.

I didn't think I was gonna watch it either... But it was riveting. I couldn't take my eyes off it. Trump and Clinton both came out nervous the first 5 minutes, but then trump had Hillary on the ropes for like 30 minutes before he came undone.


Not sure how many just dvr'd it, but I think any non football die hard that turned it on, stayed glued. It was quite the spectacle.

---

you didn't REALLY mean that did you?

 

Yes I did. There is no reason to believe taking advantage of loopholes in tax laws is necessary for someone who has billions of dollars to spend. None. If you can pay it, you have to pay it.

---

J-Dub, you know audits are usually conducted at random, right? And that the odds of a "random" audit being conducted increase significantly at varying income levels, approaching 100% as you pass the $1 billion mark? Being audited is not a sign of wrongdoing. It's a sign that Uncle Sam has decided that he wants to find a way to take some extra money from you this year.

 

Audits are done when the IRS sees red flags.

---

3 words. Jobs, jobs, jobs.

And yet when Moody's evaluated his plan, they projected shortfalls and debts in the trillions, if I remember correctly. Now I don't claim they are the be all end all by any means, but it seems to me the math is not too complicated. Take the total tax returns from 2016, subtract the amount that he is going to cut taxes, and that is your shortfall in revenue. The money to replace it would have to exceed by the growth in income times the percentage of new lower taxes. Indeed, we have a historical model for this. He claimed he would have the most growth since the Reagan years. So set that as an upper bound. I think that is about 2% job growth, so not sure how that tracks. The Reagan tax cuts cost a great deal of revenue, although they did help curb inflation. But Reagan pretty much bailed on Laffer in 1984, and I don't see any evidence that your 'jobs' solution holds water.

---

<p class="bbc_left">Education is the cheap defense of nations. - Edmund Burke

<p class="bbc_left"> 

<p class="bbc_left">Or is it from Burke? I tried finding the source, and looked through some of his writings, no luck. Anybody with google-fu got a citation of the source?

A fair share would be income-based percentages, not the same for rich and poor people. If you put a flat tax on all taxpayers, many of them would go bankrupt.

Wow... U really do mean this.

---