Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Neither have I. I didn't even realize that was an option, never thought about it actually. Soo that leads me to ask.... how do you know this is a tactic?
I never claimed underwear to reduce my tax able income either.
And again "Almost isn't good enough to claim the moral high ground."
I can honestly say that there were many years that I took just standard deductions with short form and did not consider that paying more than I may have been legally required to do was that important. I felt privileged to be afforded a very comfortable life and felt no compunction in helping a little with the Federal and State Govts do more for people in actual need.
It's more like Trump is berating the tax system like the rest of us and that's why TRUMP WANTS TO LOVER TAXES FOR ALL but you'll let the liberal media drown that message out. As I've been saying, go ahead, vote for Hillary, HILLARY WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES.
This is the problem with this country, the corporate media is dictating lies to a bunch of tax code illiterates and the useful idiots parrot the lies.
No, he berated the people, not the system. Now he is trying to speak about the system, but that;s only because he is getting burned.
I know, right? People would be taxed on the equity they have in their homes/cars/belongings every year until they have no equity in anything anymore. People really don't think things through. All you can do is... shake your head at the sheer stupidity.
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,567 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper 88
It's not a specific number or rate that we disagree on, it's how we apply it to each individual is where our disagreement is. It is our differing ideas of what is fair and what isn't that we disagree on.
And I'm not "demonizing" you, I'm scrutinizing your ideas. There's a difference.
3 points.
1. How it is applied still has the same principle in which i responded, you still think there should be some kind of application, we just disagree on how.
2. In such, you fully really im not arguing 100% as you claim
3. When you argue something seen as a negative( something i never even argued in that 100% number) that is indeed demonizing, not critiquing
Status:
"everybody getting reported now.."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Pine Grove,AL
29,567 posts, read 16,552,753 times
Reputation: 6043
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
So, are you ready to pay taxes on your net worth?
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
I know, right? People would be taxed on the equity they have in their homes/cars/belongings every year until they have no equity in anything anymore. People really don't think things through. All you can do is... shake your head at the sheer stupidity.
Are the 2 of you purposefully being obtuse, or did you just not realize i was simply admitting my mistake and saying I was looking at the wrong set of numbers ???????
If it is the former, then fine. If it is the latter then you both should look before you leap next time.
From my understanding the $916M could be over the course of many years. And relative to a $5B+ net worth, is $916M really that much?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
