›

The Next American President Thread (2016)

1…124125127129130…198

Comments

  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited October 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Thrasos wrote: »
    I saw the VP debate and agree with some commentators that it probably won't alter the direction of the race much--but you never can tell. I have mixed feelings about the debate. Sometimes I just wanted Kaine to shut the hell up, yapping on and on, interrupting Pence so often. He seemed emotional and jittery. But I have to admit that Kaine was very well-prepared and attacked Pence well, so I would give him the debate. Pence on the other hand was more measured and seemed more presidential--between him and Kaine, I think Pence would have a better temperament if he had to become president--but I think he was too laid back, didn't show enough backbone. However, as someone who's been a Democrat most of his life (but now moderate), I disagree with some things Pence stands for.

    I actually think in style, but ONLY in style, Mike Pence really is my man. He's articulate, at times nuanced, has his temperament in check and comes off as mildly presidential. He's also good-looking for his age and I respect him for his unwavering ethics and contents.

    So, when we're talking about style, perhaps Mike Pence won the VP debate. And a CNN poll actually confirms it: 48% thought Pence won, whereas 42% thought Kaine won. But, these figures are in no way as decisive as last week's presidential debate. Which historically to me could become one of the rare 'game changing debates'. That said, the VP debate to Mike Pence looked more like an application for the 2020 Republican race for president.

    Tim Kaine in style was perhaps more irritating. But then again, he's the attach dog, he's going to be VP if Clinton wins, and he needs to defend Clinton without any doubt. So he scored points there. On top of that, I did like this very nuanced segment from the debate, about religion and being pro-choice or pro-life:

    http://www.vox.com/2016/10/5/13170398/kaine-christian-pro-choice-vice-presidential-debate

    One last thing, it seems that Donald Trump was rather unhappy about Pence's 'mild win', as Pence basically outshined Trump:

    http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/5/13170838/pence-trump-unhappy
  • SuzanneStoneSuzanneStone
    Posts: 372
    on a less serious note, sometimes Tom Kaine's face reminds me of Timothy Dalton's. I think it's the eyebrows
  • CraterGunsCraterGuns
    Posts: 618
    As governor, Pence pushed for a law in Indiana mandating funerals for miscarried fetuses.

    He doesn't need to be anywhere near the seat of national power.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I want to point out that the net loss carryforward is NOT a loophole. That is a fundamental component of a well functioning tax system, and is in every major industrialized nation.

    The whole purpose behind that component of the tax law is to encourage risk taking, entrepreneurialism & business creation. When one has business losses, one is incurring financial loss, and the thinking behind the provision is that one should not be penalized on a tax front for such losses (in addition to losing from a profit and from a cash flow standpoint). Therefore, when one makes back such income in the future (through the business turning around after some years for instance, or through new risk taking ventures), one is then able to shelter such income up to the level of the prior loss.

    Employees would have such a provision available to them as well if they incurred 'business loss'. They don't because they are normally 'paid' to work (they don't 'pay' their employer to work). However, employees (everyone basically) has the net capital loss carryback and carryforward provision available to them (for example when incurring investment loss in the stock market).

    In Canada for instance, one can carry such a non capital (e.g. business) loss back 3 yrs and forward 10 yrs (or 20 yrs, depending on when the loss was incurred), so it's not just a US thing.
  • TripAcesTripAces Universal Exports
    Posts: 4,585
    bondjames wrote: »
    I want to point out that the net loss carryforward is NOT a loophole. That is a fundamental component of a well functioning tax system, and is in every major industrialized nation.

    The whole purpose behind that component of the tax law is to encourage risk taking, entrepreneurialism & business creation. When one has business losses, one is incurring financial loss, and the thinking behind the provision is that one should not be penalized on a tax front for such losses (in addition to losing from a profit and from a cash flow standpoint). Therefore, when one makes back such income in the future (through the business turning around after some years for instance, or through new risk taking ventures), one is then able to shelter such income up to the level of the prior loss.

    Employees would have such a provision available to them as well if they incurred 'business loss'. They don't because they are normally 'paid' to work (they don't 'pay' their employer to work). However, employees (everyone basically) has the net capital loss carryback and carryforward provision available to them (for example when incurring investment loss in the stock market).

    In Canada for instance, one can carry such a non capital (e.g. business) loss back 3 yrs and forward 10 yrs (or 20 yrs, depending on when the loss was incurred), so it's not just a US thing.

    It was always my understanding that business losses do not (or should not) affect one's personal income taxes. Despite his heavy "business" losses, Trump was still paying himself a pretty penny. The man wasn't exactly homeless or penniless.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I want to point out that the net loss carryforward is NOT a loophole. That is a fundamental component of a well functioning tax system, and is in every major industrialized nation.

    The whole purpose behind that component of the tax law is to encourage risk taking, entrepreneurialism & business creation. When one has business losses, one is incurring financial loss, and the thinking behind the provision is that one should not be penalized on a tax front for such losses (in addition to losing from a profit and from a cash flow standpoint). Therefore, when one makes back such income in the future (through the business turning around after some years for instance, or through new risk taking ventures), one is then able to shelter such income up to the level of the prior loss.

    Employees would have such a provision available to them as well if they incurred 'business loss'. They don't because they are normally 'paid' to work (they don't 'pay' their employer to work). However, employees (everyone basically) has the net capital loss carryback and carryforward provision available to them (for example when incurring investment loss in the stock market).

    In Canada for instance, one can carry such a non capital (e.g. business) loss back 3 yrs and forward 10 yrs (or 20 yrs, depending on when the loss was incurred), so it's not just a US thing.

    It was always my understanding that business losses do not (or should not) affect one's personal income taxes. Despite his heavy "business" losses, Trump was still paying himself a pretty penny. The man wasn't exactly homeless or penniless.
    I am not all that familiar with the US tax code, but in Canada and the UK, it would depend on whether the business was incorporated (LLC in US terminology) or private.

    To my knowledge, the Trump Organization is private and therefore the ultimate 'shareholder' is Donald Trump. Consequently, he will be the one taking all the risks (ultimately but possibly in concert with business partners and lenders) and will also be the one entitled to use the losses. This is different from a public company where the shareholder has 'limited' liability.

    It's my understanding that the loss in question was primarily related to Atlantic City, and would have been one element of his business operations (although it was one at the time which led to significant losses in excess of other business income from all other ventures).

    There's absolutely nothing wrong with what he did and it's done all over the world daily by business people. A loophole is when something is done legally to avoid taxes in contravention of the intent of the the tax code. In this case, the tax code intended for business people to use this provision in this way when they incur losses.

    The scale of it is just on account of the scale of his operations.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    SuzanneStone wrote: »
    on a less serious note, sometimes Tom Kaine's face reminds me of Timothy Dalton's. I think it's the eyebrows

    And on the same note, Mike Pence with his white hair & all reminds me of Charles Gray as Blofeld. I want to see Pence in drag, doing "The Time Warp." It's just a jump to the left...

    Yes, on style points Pence won the debate but on content points Kaine took home the prize. Over & over again quoting Trump, asking Pence "How can you defend that?" -- and Pence flat-out lying: "Oh, he never said that." Yes he DID, Mikey, I saw the footage. He's trying to play the game Trump's way, but that kind of fact-free campaign only works for Trump himself. Nobody else has the orange sheen that allows reality to just kind of slip off his skin... I suspect that Pence is indeed positioning himself for the Republican presidential nomination in 2020. Hopefully, in the next four years under President Clinton II, the political world will get back to appreciating the sense of dignity that Pence was projecting last night.
  • ThunderfingerThunderfinger Das Boot Hill
    Posts: 45,489
    We don t do exploding Pence anymore.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    Can we drop him down a chimney after he offers us a delicatessen in stainless steel?
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    I always thought that was a white cat on his head, masquerading as hair...
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    edited October 2016 Posts: 11,119
    Fact is, Trump's image being the man for the ordinary, hardworking people, inflicted some serious damage by that tax 'scandal'....and overall by Trump's refusal to be open and transparent about his taxes. You know, from Clinton you can expect certain things. But this is Trump. A populist who basically is a magnet for those hardworking, white, working-class people who have lost their jobs in the past years. And to those people he now basically says: "I'm an fff-ing smart guy!". Not exactly empathic and compassionate towards your own base no? Overall, regardless of Trump's tax returns......his losses in the 1990's were just staggering. I just wonder how many hardworking families suffered from Trump's incompetent business enterprises.

    So..one can say "There's absolutely nothing legally wrong with the way he's conducting business". Yeah, right. How can we actually know if he doesn't want to release his taxes? On top of that, perhaps Trump is legally entitled to do so, but morally it's quite a load of shit really. It simply looks bad. And the polls show it.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    There is absolutely nothing wrong with the loss carryforward. It is perfectly legal, and once again, is is a provision in the tax code to encourage risk taking and business creation. It was explicitly put in there for that reason and is a provision that is available to business owners (whether incorporated or unincorporated) in many countries.

    Anyone who has run a business realizes that there are significant risks involved when making multi-$m investments in periods of uncertainty and in ventures that may not pan out. To compensate for that risk, there is a loss carryforward provision inserted into the tax code. The alternative would be for the government to pay the business owner (a sort of -ve tax) during the years when they incur losses, and we know the government would never do that, so they incorporated the provision that allows for a carryforward against future taxable income. It's perfectly ethical and fair.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    Nobody's saying that the way Trump handles his taxes is illegal. We're saying it reflects badly to the general public on his claim to being both a genius businessman and a Man of the People. Additionally, to those of us who are paying attention, his claim that "It means I'm smart!" both denigrates the Little People (who are obviously stupid for not having access to Trumpian tax shelters) and takes credit AWAY from his tax lawyers (who should be the ones getting his praise, rather than Trump taking all praise unto his own magnificent self.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I disagree. It is smart to use the tax laws to maximum effect. It's stupid to not take deductions and other opportunities which the tax code legally provides to compensate a businessman for taking risk.

    Losses are a part of business, as are gains. At the end of the day, one has to come out further ahead at the end from where one starts from, and Trump has indeed done that. The ups and downs are part and parcel of what it means to be a businessman, and most common sense folks without a political agenda are fully aware of that.
  • Gustav_GravesGustav_Graves
    Posts: 11,119
    ;-)
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    As Hillary has said: "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in the casino business?" Oh, but she's got a political agenda. And he doesn't. Right. Sure.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jack-mitnick-trump-accountant-taxes_us_57f52344e4b015995f2c6a89?section=&;
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    And again: if Trump routinely uses other people's money to finance his various endeavors, how is it that the $900+ million dollar loss shows up on his own taxes?

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/20/trump-brags-about-using-other-peoples-money/

    I could keep on like this, but why bother? Everyone's mind is all made up, right?
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    edited October 2016 Posts: 23,883
    I could explain this, but it will get complicated.

    Bottom line - in business and taxation, one separates the financing component from the ownership and investment component.

    If I borrow $10K to finance a business venture that goes belly up, the interest on the $10K loan can be deducted by me. I can't deduct the actual loan on my taxes however as that is a 'payable' of capital back to the lender.

    Any investment I make with the loan is part of my business, and when that goes under, then I have a business loss (including the capital and the p&l operating component) which I can deduct for tax purposes based on the various 'depreciation' elements inherent in the tax code (the tax code clearly instructs what can be written off and how as well as over how many years - capital losses can be 'depreciated' a little by little over a period of time at prescribed rates). I believe Trump's $915m loss is a p&l operating loss (so it's not a capital loss).

    The $10K loan is an allowable writeoff for the lender, assuming they never get paid back.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited October 2016 Posts: 3,566
    So what you're saying (if I understand correctly) is he didn't actually lose anything of his own -- he lost loaned money, which loss the lender can ALSO write off on their taxes, because he's never going to pay it off. But both Trump and his lenders get to write $915M off on their taxes. Nice racket if you can get into it.

    Yes, I'm simplifying for effect. But the effect in the mind of the general public is: we're being scammed, and this guy is one of the chief scammers. And now he wants to be the fox in charge of the henhouse. Naw, I don't think so...
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    I am not sure if the capital portion is deductible on his tax return (via depreciation mandated in the tax code) if there is an offsetting loan against it. I'm a bit rusty on this so forgive me.

    What this episode clearly illustrates to me is that the Trump tax return is too complicated for the general public (and most certainly the reporters) to comprehend and explain properly.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    We're only assuming that the $915M was a loan (but that IS a reasonable assumption.) Still, the rationale that keeps coming up over & over again -- "It's too complicated for the general public to understand" -- isn't one that plays well with said general public. Again, please understand what I'm saying: there doesn't have to be criminal behavior involved for the public to decide something smells fishy, and they don't want to vote for the guy (or gal) that smells like fish. Bernie was tired of hearing about Hillary's emails but the Republicans have gotten lots of mileage from them. Accountants all over the country can swear up & down that Trump's $915 Million "loss" is perfectly legitimate -- but it's still costing him dearly with the American public.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    Indeed it is.

    I wouldn't worry about it though. The stage is set for a comeback and it will either be on Sunday or shortly thereafter. The 2 wk beat down clock that I mentioned a few weeks ago post-first debate is about to run out.
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    edited October 2016 Posts: 3,566
    TripAces wrote: »
    bondjames wrote: »
    I want to point out that the net loss carryforward is NOT a loophole. That is a fundamental component of a well functioning tax system, and is in every major industrialized nation.

    The whole purpose behind that component of the tax law is to encourage risk taking, entrepreneurialism & business creation. When one has business losses, one is incurring financial loss, and the thinking behind the provision is that one should not be penalized on a tax front for such losses (in addition to losing from a profit and from a cash flow standpoint). Therefore, when one makes back such income in the future (through the business turning around after some years for instance, or through new risk taking ventures), one is then able to shelter such income up to the level of the prior loss.

    Employees would have such a provision available to them as well if they incurred 'business loss'. They don't because they are normally 'paid' to work (they don't 'pay' their employer to work). However, employees (everyone basically) has the net capital loss carryback and carryforward provision available to them (for example when incurring investment loss in the stock market).

    In Canada for instance, one can carry such a non capital (e.g. business) loss back 3 yrs and forward 10 yrs (or 20 yrs, depending on when the loss was incurred), so it's not just a US thing.

    It was always my understanding that business losses do not (or should not) affect one's personal income taxes. Despite his heavy "business" losses, Trump was still paying himself a pretty penny. The man wasn't exactly homeless or penniless.

    What I really like is the way Trump Companies are charging The Trump Campaign (and others!) for promoting Trump. I understand the Secret Service has to pay Trump for the ability to protect him -- paying for the flights of Secret Service agents on the Trump private plane as they follow him from one event to the next. Trump the candidate gives away Trump steaks or Trump vodka that he's been unable to sell, Trump Company sends a bill for the steaks & vodka to Trump the Campaign. Putting the syn in synergy!
  • BeatlesSansEarmuffsBeatlesSansEarmuffs
    Posts: 3,566
    More Republicans advise against voting for Trump... 30 of them to be exact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-abandon-trump_us_57f66cb9e4b0263f500e1a81
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    You know it's bad when even the republicans don't want the oval office anymore.
  • bondjamesbondjames You were expecting someone else?
    Posts: 23,883
    BeatlesSansEarmuffs wrote: »
    More Republicans advise against voting for Trump... 30 of them to be exact. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-abandon-trump_us_57f66cb9e4b0263f500e1a81
    Given the public's view of Congress (14.5% approval as per Real Clear Politics poll average) this could actually serve as an endorsement, paradoxically.
  • MurdockMurdock The minus world
    Posts: 16,351
    Maybe that will be the crushing blow that ends the two party system.
  • 0BradyM0Bondfanatic70BradyM0Bondfanatic7 Quantum Floral Arrangements: "We Have Petals Everywhere"
    Posts: 28,694
    Murdock wrote: »
    Maybe that will be the crushing blow that ends the two party system.

    But-but-how would we fight selfishly amongst ourselves after that?
  • chrisisallchrisisall Brosnan Defender Of The Realm
    Posts: 17,800
    0BradyM0Bondfanatic7 wrote: »
    You know it's bad when even the republicans don't want the oval office anymore.
    Quite.

This discussion has been closed.