Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 357327 times)

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4350 on: September 28, 2020, 11:38:45 AM »
Of course the lede is buried.  The article mentions a lot of people buying access to Trump through paying money at Trump properties.

Key points:

"In fact, those public filings offer a distorted picture of his financial state, since they simply report revenue, not profit. In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

"His properties have become bazaars for collecting money directly from lobbyists, foreign officials and others seeking face time, access or favor; the records for the first time put precise dollar figures on those transactions."

Profiting directly from the presidency.  Blatant, illegal, unconstitutional profiting from the presidency.  This is and can only be explained as corruption.

Not to mention he paid $750 in taxes in the US but over $140K in taxes in the Phillipines.  Yeesh.


nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4351 on: September 28, 2020, 12:40:30 PM »
As expected, the Trump cultists I have the misfortune of being exposed to in some way are talking about how smart he is to figure out how to not pay taxes.

We're witnessing the death throws of our once great republic.

He's still insisting that he pays a lot of US taxes.

Not just “a lot” - according to the Trump Organization lawyer Alan Gardner: “Over the past decade, Trump has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government

...but of course he refuses to his tax records or any other proof, as he could easily do. Trust him, with zero evidence, and not a growing pile of carefully acquired data.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4352 on: September 28, 2020, 12:50:01 PM »
As expected, the Trump cultists I have the misfortune of being exposed to in some way are talking about how smart he is to figure out how to not pay taxes.

We're witnessing the death throws of our once great republic.

He's still insisting that he pays a lot of US taxes.

I would not have guessed he is so poor that 750 dollar is a lot of money. :-)

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14127
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4353 on: September 28, 2020, 02:03:52 PM »
and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

The ignorance of the average American citizen about this just amazes me.

Yes, and I was informed by a retired Boomer a couple of weeks ago that Joe Biden wants to take our social security and if he’s elected we won’t get social security at all if we have a pension (lol, what’s a pension?) or 401k, so I shouldn’t vote for him.

Shit like this is why we’re doomed, folks. Voters like her will gladly throw the rest of us under the bus thanks to whatever garbage they’re being fed via Fox News.

I heard on the radio years ago that we shouldn't retire until we are really old (say 71, when you have to take your CPP (Canada Pension Plan) and cash in your RRSP) because then we aren't paying taxes and supporting society.  I was driving, hard to drive and laugh at the same time.  My taxes are noticeable.  Which is good, I would not be happy to be eligible for GIS.

Oh, here the contributions to the CPP are capped and so are the payouts.  People have other retirement saving choices, they can put as much as is allowed into an RRSP and/or a TFSA.

Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4354 on: September 28, 2020, 02:18:05 PM »
Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?

bloodaxe

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 222
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4355 on: September 28, 2020, 02:34:31 PM »
Can we get Trump to make a case study? I would like to use his strategy to pay only $750 in taxes.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1422
  • Age: 35
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4356 on: September 28, 2020, 02:38:08 PM »
Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?

"Records obtained by the New York Times." Journalists often will not say exactly how they obtained info like this, to avoid exposing their source. Deep Throat was famously anonymous for 30 years (and after his death).
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 02:40:11 PM by sherr »

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1326
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4357 on: September 28, 2020, 02:43:22 PM »
Can we get Trump to make a case study? I would like to use his strategy to pay only $750 in taxes.

Considering that Trump increased my federal income taxes by $5000/year, I'm a little ticked off right now.

wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2702
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4358 on: September 28, 2020, 03:26:14 PM »
and 2) I hadn't been told since I was a child that Social Security would run out of money long before I'd be able to collect any of it.

That is mathematically and provably false. You should shake whoever told you that.

Pretty much every adult in my life since childhood (I was born 2 years before Reagan took office). You can imagine how thrilled I was to get my first job 25 years ago (at 17), have a decent chunk of the paycheck disappear to FICA, and then be told (almost gleefully) by adults that I'd better save up because there wouldn't be Social Security for me!

Although in the last 10 years, my mother has switched to "they have to give you something! You won't get what we're getting but it has to be something after paying in all of those years!!"

The ignorance of the average American citizen about this just amazes me.

I had a friend last year talk about being dangerously close to the next tax bracket. "That's not how taxes work." I think he understood, but I also don't think he's the kind of guy that would have turned down a raise just to avoid a certain tax bracket.

I've run into this as well.  I've even seen this confusion occasionally pop up on this forum!

darkadams00

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4359 on: September 28, 2020, 03:27:49 PM »
Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?

Not defending Trump in the least, but I have many questions about the setup of this article:

1) Tax records are protected under severe criminal and civil penalties under IRS Pub 1075 (Federal Tax Information). A revenue employee can be fired, fined, and/or imprisoned for searching anyone’s (including his/her own) personal tax records in a revenue database or receiving such information.
*”Tax records” are quoted numerous times. Where did they originate?

2) “Private records” are deemed private by society in general, and no one wants their own private records disclosed to the general public. And if those records are obtained illegally, the possession and transfer of them pose its own moral and legal dilemmas.
*Where did the “private records” originate?

3) Tax avoidance is not illegal because the taxpayer is operating within the confines of existing tax law (regardless of one’s opinion of the fairness of specific policies). Tax evasion is illegal because taxpayers operate outside of tax policy. Most folks on this board practice tax avoidance to every extent possible, most often through pre-tax deductions. And folks who have income sources beyond W2s often have ways to use their enterprises legally to minimize their tax liability.

Aside: I am certain that most do not pay their fair share of state use tax for items purchased online and out of state unless auto withheld by larger companies like Amazon. It would be interesting to know how many people do that “willingly and knowledgeably.” Just an observation not meant to defend any tax evasion that might exist by any party.

4) Who owns the burden of proof in this situation? If tax records are protected and disclosure of private records is unethical, how should this be defended? The only acceptable defense against this case of assertion (per CNN’s own articles and interviews) would be the exposure of private information—a norm established by precedent, not law. And the court of public opinion voted that as less important than other factors in the last election. If we want to change tax policy for rich folks, write new policy. If we want to ensure that an elected official cannot sit in office without disclosing private information, write new ethics laws. Demonizing a person who exercises their lawful choices and is willing to face the consequences (from voters or auditors) doesn’t build a credible case. If an assertion of an offense can’t be defended adequately by an assertion of innocence, then we have a hostile he said/she said situation—just before the first debate, the timing of which also seems highly suspect, similar to the Brett Kavanaugh accusations.

And Trump is guilty of numerous sins which I can’t begin to count, but I do believe it’s disingenuous to claim the higher ground and act as though the end justifies the means when it suits us. This seems more like a “he’s doing bad to us so we’re going to do bad back to him.”

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4360 on: September 28, 2020, 03:35:02 PM »
Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?

The article does make a point of saying that their multiple sources all had legal access to his tax records - thereby stopping any allegations of hacking or the usual redirect/deflect about stolen whatever.

v8rx7guy

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1870
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4361 on: September 28, 2020, 03:36:45 PM »
https://www.facebook.com/RadicalPersonalFinance

Joshua Sheets, a name in the FI space, has an interesting podcast on the Trump tax matter .  Just posted it today and it's only on his FB page right now... sorry if you don't have a FB account, I'm sure it'll be on Spotify soon.

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4362 on: September 28, 2020, 03:45:10 PM »
Those are different things. You can say that taxation is too progressive on one hand, and still decry Trump's blatant evasion on the other. For example, I think it's ridiculous that here in Australia you pay 47% (would have been 49% if the Labor government had come into power) on all income over $180,000. I think it's equally ridiculous that someone should break tax laws to evade tax so that their average tax rate is <1%. Those two are perfectly consistent positions.

Well, to be fair, you may pay a lot in taxes in Australia, but you get a lot for your money. You don't ever have to worry about going bankrupt from getting cancer or worry about getting a pension to retire on. A lot of Americans end up dead in a ditch somewhere.
In Australia it seems to be the national pastime to whinge about the amount of tax we pay because of our relatively high and obvious income tax rates.  However, if you take into account all taxes paid, we actually fare quite well and pay about average tax in comparison to OECD countries.

The reason we have a good public health system and don't have to worry about going bankrupt if we get cancer is because generally speaking we, as a society, have a social conscience and don't spend an idiotic amount of money on our military.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 817
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4363 on: September 28, 2020, 03:54:08 PM »
Maybe I missed it but how did this tax information come to be? How was it obtained?

Not defending Trump in the least, but I have many questions about the setup of this article:

1) Tax records are protected under severe criminal and civil penalties under IRS Pub 1075 (Federal Tax Information). A revenue employee can be fired, fined, and/or imprisoned for searching anyone’s (including his/her own) personal tax records in a revenue database or receiving such information.
*”Tax records” are quoted numerous times. Where did they originate?

Article states that the sources had legal access.  Could be/probably leaks from within the Trump organization.  He is known for being brutal to his employees etc.  Maybe yet another one/group that quit or got fired, then got dumped on by him.  We don't know.

Quote
2) “Private records” are deemed private by society in general, and no one wants their own private records disclosed to the general public. And if those records are obtained illegally, the possession and transfer of them pose its own moral and legal dilemmas.
*Where did the “private records” originate?

Again, the article explicitly states legal access.  In a public office there is a reasonable expectation of interest in private matters, especially when the person in question routinely makes grandiose assertions about the topic at hand - for example his 'disclosure' that he made $434.9 million in 2018 when in fact he had $47.4 Million in losses.

Quote
4) Who owns the burden of proof in this situation? If tax records are protected and disclosure of private records is unethical, how should this be defended? The only acceptable defense against this case of assertion (per CNN’s own articles and interviews) would be the exposure of private information—a norm established by precedent, not law. And the court of public opinion voted that as less important than other factors in the last election. If we want to change tax policy for rich folks, write new policy. If we want to ensure that an elected official cannot sit in office without disclosing private information, write new ethics laws. Demonizing a person who exercises their lawful choices and is willing to face the consequences (from voters or auditors) doesn’t build a credible case. If an assertion of an offense can’t be defended adequately by an assertion of innocence, then we have a hostile he said/she said situation—just before the first debate, the timing of which also seems highly suspect, similar to the Brett Kavanaugh accusations.

He makes many big statements as a public figure.  It is up to journalists to find out if they are true, so that the public can make their own decisions.  Given that he is unwilling to back up his statements, I don't see an issue with them finding sources. 

If he was not president then it wouldn't matter.  He is, so it is a matter of public interest to know if he is telling the truth, and if he is beholden to debtors.  Or do you think we should just take him at his word?

Quote
And Trump is guilty of numerous sins which I can’t begin to count, but I do believe it’s disingenuous to claim the higher ground and act as though the end justifies the means when it suits us. This seems more like a “he’s doing bad to us so we’re going to do bad back to him.”

Doing research on a president is just basic journalism.  Were Woodward and Bernstein responsible for the decisions that led to Watergate and Nixon's resignation?  No, they just exposed them.  Facts are just facts.  The best way to not be exposed to inconveniently timed evidence of your bullshit is not to have bullshit.  This is not something Trump has done.

Quote
And the court of public opinion voted that as less important than other factors in the last election.


Lifted out of the previous quote for special comment.  The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4364 on: September 28, 2020, 04:55:28 PM »
She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.
Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4365 on: September 28, 2020, 05:16:17 PM »
She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.
Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

No, different point lines are actually ranked by difficulty (number of votes in your metaphor)

the electoral college is just having random point boxes all over court.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4366 on: September 28, 2020, 05:28:44 PM »
She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.
Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

No, different point lines are actually ranked by difficulty (number of votes in your metaphor)

the electoral college is just having random point boxes all over court.
And if the NBA had random point boxes, a good strategy would be to take shots from the places with the highest likely points per shot.

Same thing with presidential elections: good strategy is to maximize the number of electors per speech/ad buy/etc.

One can always speculate who would have won under a different set of rules, be that for presidential elections or NBA games or whatever, but that is merely speculation and not dispositive toward anything.

darkadams00

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4367 on: September 28, 2020, 05:34:04 PM »
Article states that the sources had legal access.  Could be/probably leaks from within the Trump organization.  He is known for being brutal to his employees etc.  Maybe yet another one/group that quit or got fired, then got dumped on by him.  We don't know.

My point exactly. We don’t know, but it’s easier to agree with unsupported assertions of legality and truth if we agree with those assertions. Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

Quote
Again, the article explicitly states legal access.  In a public office there is a reasonable expectation of interest in private matters, especially when the person in question routinely makes grandiose assertions about the topic at hand - for example his 'disclosure' that he made $434.9 million in 2018 when in fact he had $47.4 Million in losses.

Again, we don’t know. And public interest doesn’t make an action or decision legal or ethical. That’s just ends justifying the means.

Quote
He makes many big statements as a public figure.  It is up to journalists to find out if they are true, so that the public can make their own decisions.  Given that he is unwilling to back up his statements, I don't see an issue with them finding sources.]

If he was not president then it wouldn't matter.  He is, so it is a matter of public interest to know if he is telling the truth, and if he is beholden to debtors.  Or do you think we should just take him at his word? 

Again, end justifies the means...

Quote
Doing research on a president is just basic journalism.  Were Woodward and Bernstein responsible for the decisions that led to Watergate and Nixon's resignation?  No, they just exposed them.  Facts are just facts.  The best way to not be exposed to inconveniently timed evidence of your bullshit is not to have bullshit.  This is not something Trump has done.

With respect to his finances and his taxes, you can choose to believe whom you will—but your belief is not based on refutable and verifiable fact, and neither of us can say what he has or hasn’t done. It is based on your trust and distrust of the parties involved.

Quote
She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.
Ok. I’ll call a truce on that point since opinions of federal institutions and policies are not in scope.

My basic premise is that we should acknowledge that the two parties have a vested interest in the story. And there are valid/rational reasons as well as nefarious reasons on both sides that could explain why either side wants to withhold/disclose this information.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1449
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4368 on: September 28, 2020, 06:19:05 PM »
She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.
Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

No, different point lines are actually ranked by difficulty (number of votes in your metaphor)

the electoral college is just having random point boxes all over court.
And if the NBA had random point boxes, a good strategy would be to take shots from the places with the highest likely points per shot.

Same thing with presidential elections: good strategy is to maximize the number of electors per speech/ad buy/etc.

One can always speculate who would have won under a different set of rules, be that for presidential elections or NBA games or whatever, but that is merely speculation and not dispositive toward anything.

Sure, with random rules, you can tell who played the rules better, but it doesn't tell you who the better athlete is.

You'd think that if the point is to be a competition of skill and athleticism, then it's better to have fewer points of chance.

Same with the electoral college. You can say that Hillary was foolish for not playing to Wisconsin, but then again, why is convincing 20,000 people in Wisconsin rather than the millions across the country the way the rules work in choosing the most deserving person to be president?

No reason other than momentum.

darkadams00

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 405
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4369 on: September 28, 2020, 06:34:48 PM »
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2017/03/14/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.amp.html%3f0p19G=0232

From NY Times 3/14/2017 article (Peter Baker and Jesse Drucker)—
“Mr. Trump paid $38 million in federal income taxes on reported income of $150 million, an effective tax rate of 25 percent, according to forms disclosed on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC show. By claiming losses, Mr. Trump apparently saved millions of dollars in taxes that he would otherwise have owed.“

Still doing a bit of Google, but this article seems to be relying on a different set of information than the recent story. Haven’t reconciled the two articles yet.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2621
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4370 on: September 28, 2020, 06:38:06 PM »
The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?

John Galt incarnate!

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1706
  • Location: On Cloud Nine
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4371 on: September 28, 2020, 07:03:54 PM »



3) Tax avoidance is not illegal because the taxpayer is operating within the confines of existing tax law (regardless of one’s opinion of the fairness of specific policies). Tax evasion is illegal because taxpayers operate outside of tax policy. Most folks on this board practice tax avoidance to every extent possible, most often through pre-tax deductions. And folks who have income sources beyond W2s often have ways to use their enterprises legally to minimize their tax liability.


Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand





MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4372 on: September 28, 2020, 07:14:41 PM »
The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4373 on: September 28, 2020, 08:15:22 PM »
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?
Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.


MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4374 on: September 28, 2020, 08:30:53 PM »
...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.
If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?

Freedom2016

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 752
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4375 on: September 28, 2020, 08:32:44 PM »
The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

MDM you missed the point of the whole exchange. The original quote that rocketpj was responding to was:

Quote
And the court of public opinion voted [access to Trump's taxes] as less important than other factors in the last election.

And rocketpj was saying no, not true, since millions more ppl voted for Clinton than Trump. Now you've gone off on this whole other tangent about the EC when that wasn't the point. Sheesh.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4376 on: September 28, 2020, 08:42:51 PM »
The court of public opinion clearly voted for his opponent in the last election.  She won by several million votes.  That fact is not in dispute.  His election was an artifact of the wacky electoral system.

Complained the NBA team: "we should be given the win because we put the ball through the hoop more than the other team did!"

Unfortunately for them, the wacky scoring system gave three points, two points, or one point for different passes through the hoop.  The actual winning team's victory was an artifact of its understanding the rules of the game (and its ability to make 3-point shots).

What are you even arguing against?

Poster said that winning the electoral college ≠ winning in the court of public opinion. Do you disagree?
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?

MDM you missed the point of the whole exchange. The original quote that rocketpj was responding to was:

Quote
And the court of public opinion voted [access to Trump's taxes] as less important than other factors in the last election.

And rocketpj was saying no, not true, since millions more ppl voted for Clinton than Trump. Now you've gone off on this whole other tangent about the EC when that wasn't the point. Sheesh.
The point is that the vote totals aren't dispositive regarding the opinion of all Americans because presidential campaigns don't care about popular vote totals, they care about electoral college vote totals. 

If you want to say "of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted" then go ahead - that is factual. 

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4377 on: September 28, 2020, 09:53:27 PM »
...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.
If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?
No, it is a private opinion.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4378 on: September 28, 2020, 10:00:00 PM »
...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.
If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?
No, it is a private opinion.
That's your opinion. :)

PKFFW

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 561
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4379 on: September 29, 2020, 01:19:02 AM »
...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.
If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?
No, it is a private opinion.
That's your opinion. :)
No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.

MDM

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10400
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4380 on: September 29, 2020, 01:35:17 AM »
...did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.
If an opinion is felt in the forest but not counted by an elections tally, is it still part of public opinion?
No, it is a private opinion.
That's your opinion. :)
No, it's a fact as per the way you chose to word your question.

"not counted by an elections tally"

Ergo, not public.

Therefore, private.
The semantics here are between "public" as in "publicized" (your take) vs. "of or relating to people in general" (my take).  One can make the case that an opinion isn't public unless it is publicized, or one can make the case that the collective opinion of the general public is the public opinion.

Take your pick.

In any case, of the people who voted, Clinton got more total votes, but Trump still won where it counted.


Roadrunner53

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2934
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4381 on: September 29, 2020, 03:42:49 AM »
From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4382 on: September 29, 2020, 03:52:52 AM »
Quote
Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

Quote
And public interest doesn’t make an action or decision legal or ethical.
Actually it does in many cases. Take photos. If you are Dishwasher A, people are not allowed to make photos of you and distribute them. If you are President B (or actor C), they are. Because of public interest.

What is ethic or legal can change dramatically even in a matter of decades - or places in the world, see Sweden.
In the middle ages it was blasphemy (official church position) to not share knowledge. 1710 saw the invention of the word "copyright" as a censoring tool after the death penalites the church had pressured upon France were not effective enough to prevent idea sharing.

Which btw. led to a very heated debate amongst the founders if a copyright or patents should be allowed at all in the new United States, which led to the "only for advancement of science" clause in the constitution, which got so heavily violated with all the term extensions...

I don't see any moral reason for holding anyones taxes secret beside maybe a very low key "it's private". I mean, most people even love to show their finances (or lack thereof) to the public by driving big trucks and living in an oversized mansion!!

Can anybody explain a reasonable argument for why taxes should be secret?

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4383 on: September 29, 2020, 06:41:44 AM »
Congress can subpoena the tax records of any tax-paying unit.

It just seems to happen--as luck would have it--that they only want the tax records of one particular individual, against whom they also voted to begin an impeachment trial.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3979
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4384 on: September 29, 2020, 06:42:55 AM »
wrt Sweden, I have to say that I like it, but I also know there are a lot of incompetent people who probably can't believe how much they're earning who don't want to make a big deal out of that.

The number of mooching relatives that I have is probably also lower than average. If i was trying to avoid them, I might have a different opinion.

Plina

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 333
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4385 on: September 29, 2020, 06:59:52 AM »
Quote
Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.


Actually most of the people don’t care about the tax part as Sweden don’t have a wealth tax. You can of course see the capital income but that makes it difficult to count the wealth of a person. The interesting part is the income. When I change jobs I usually call the tax authority to check the income of the person that previously had the position as well as future colleagues in same position. It helps in the salary negotiations.

If you are curious you can also buy the info on internet or in a catalogue so you can check the income of your neighbours or acquitances.

If you want to know the salaries in a public office you can email HR and ask salary info of their employees.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4386 on: September 29, 2020, 07:06:39 AM »
Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand

There's nothing in that quote indicating that one must follow the law.  It actually appears to be advocating for illegal means to avoid taxes as long as it's possible to avoid being caught.

nereo

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 13728
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4387 on: September 29, 2020, 08:52:50 AM »
Hear, hear!

I am a scrupulous practitioner of tax avoidance.


"Anyone may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes." Judge Learned Hand

There's nothing in that quote indicating that one must follow the law.  It actually appears to be advocating for illegal means to avoid taxes as long as it's possible to avoid being caught.

One person's loop hole is another person's qualified deduction.  in general I agree that one should take all deductions that are legally afforded to them.  I also agree with @LennStar that transparency in tax payments is a healthy practice we should adopt.  However, the fact that there is so much commentary and a very lengthy audit about whether certain accounting practices were in fact legal seems evidence enough that our tax laws are not as clear-cut as they ought to be.

If there is a question about the legality of an action, a citizen should err on the side of caution and firm legal footing.  It seems here Trump has repeatedly defied this common-sense practice.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4200
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4388 on: September 29, 2020, 09:10:57 AM »
Congress can subpoena the tax records of any tax-paying unit.

It just seems to happen--as luck would have it--that they only want the tax records of one particular individual, against whom they also voted to begin an impeachment trial.

But there has to be political will to enforce the subpoena when the president refuses. I don't think the GOP would allow the president to be summoned nor enforce it if he refused. Had this been Obama refusing, the GOP would have sent the police because the GOP has a strong double standard.

Just Joe

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4200
  • Age: 125
  • Location: Just past the red barn on the left.
  • Here to learn.
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4389 on: September 29, 2020, 09:16:00 AM »
Quote
Both sides (Trump/NYT) have a vested interest in their side of the story.

In a way. The NYT has a vested interest in doing it's job so they get paid for doing it.
Trump has vested interests in not doing his job (which might well be helped by keeping his taxes secret in opposition of custom) and getting paid for not doing it.

btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.


Actually most of the people don’t care about the tax part as Sweden don’t have a wealth tax. You can of course see the capital income but that makes it difficult to count the wealth of a person. The interesting part is the income. When I change jobs I usually call the tax authority to check the income of the person that previously had the position as well as future colleagues in same position. It helps in the salary negotiations.

If you are curious you can also buy the info on internet or in a catalogue so you can check the income of your neighbours or acquitances.

If you want to know the salaries in a public office you can email HR and ask salary info of their employees.

Ignorance is an important tool in the United States. Helps the ruling class and corporate leadership in many ways. Thank goodness for the internet and websites that pull back the curtain a little.   
« Last Edit: September 29, 2020, 09:39:28 AM by Just Joe »

lemanfan

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 978
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4390 on: September 29, 2020, 09:24:13 AM »
btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

For being a small-ish country at the northern tip of the civilized world, every discussion seems to involve Sweden now.  If it's not Greta or our pandemic response, it's our tax system.  I think even Trump have mentioned us a few times starting even back in 2017.

I'm not used to this.  Can't everyone just forget about us and talk about other countries?  What about Belgium?  Vietnam? The Gambia? :)

/the shy swede

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4391 on: September 29, 2020, 09:26:11 AM »
From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

Davnasty

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2621
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4392 on: September 29, 2020, 09:43:41 AM »
From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16871
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4393 on: September 29, 2020, 09:45:32 AM »
From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?

"Don't worry if I lose some of the bank's money.  Mexico will pay for it!"

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4394 on: September 29, 2020, 09:55:31 AM »
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?
Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

I'm with MDM on this one. I think my fellow Democrats (I still can say that, although it's getting more difficult) would do well to retire the "Hillary won the popular vote so Trump is less legitimate" or "Hillary won the popular vote so she won the court of public opinion" arguments. Hillary won a game they weren't playing. Trump won the game they were playing 304 to 227 and did so by appealing to the right number of potential voters in the right places. If he was playing the popular vote game he would have had a different game plan and a different popular vote total.

The 58% of eligible voters who chose to vote in 2016 are not at all a representative sample reflecting national public opinion even without considering the impact of the electoral college system. A responsibly done representative sampling of 2000 eligible voters would be a much better gauge of actual public opinion than an election with 138 million votes cast in essentially 50 individual elections where the overall popular vote margin was only 2.1%. 

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6197
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4395 on: September 29, 2020, 09:59:32 AM »
I'm saying that "winning in the court of public opinion" is
1) irrelevant, and
2) impossible to ascertain based on vote totals when there is no reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals per se.
Do you disagree?
Agree with 1.  The artifact of your wacky electoral system which is in complete opposition of the fundamental principle of 1 person = 1 vote ensures "winning in the court of public opinion" is irrelevant.

2 is blatantly incorrect.  It is quite easy to tell who "won in the court of popular opinion" based on vote totals whether there is any reason for a candidate to worry about vote totals or not.  The totals are the totals and those totals are the sum total of "public opinion".  Anyone who did not vote, did not have an opinion they felt was worth expressing.

I'm with MDM on this one. I think my fellow Democrats (I still can say that, although it's getting more difficult) would do well to retire the "Hillary won the popular vote so Trump is less legitimate" or "Hillary won the popular vote so she won the court of public opinion" arguments. Hillary won a game they weren't playing. Trump won the game they were playing 304 to 227 and did so by appealing to the right number of potential voters in the right places. If he was playing the popular vote game he would have had a different game plan and a different popular vote total.

The 58% of eligible voters who chose to vote in 2016 are not at all a representative sample reflecting national public opinion even without considering the impact of the electoral college system. A responsibly done representative sampling of 2000 eligible voters would be a much better gauge of actual public opinion than an election with 138 million votes cast in essentially 50 individual elections where the overall popular vote margin was only 2.1%.

For what it's worth, the only time I see that brought up (within the last couple of years anyway) is when Trump supporters accuse Democrats of making that argument...I don't actually see Democrats making it.

Republicans have lost the popular vote in what, seven of the eight last presidential elections? This is nothing new.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4396 on: September 29, 2020, 10:00:29 AM »
From Huffington Post:

Trump’s Tax Debt Could Make Him A National Security Risk, Ethics Experts Say
He could be manipulated to sway U.S. policy by organizations or individuals he’s indebted to.


https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-tax-debt-national-security-risk_n_5f72acacc5b6117cd10374fc

He couldn't get hired as a bank teller or police officer with that much debt -- he'd be too much of a risk.

He couldn't get hired for those jobs regardless. Could you imagine interviewing this guy?
Maybe Wall Street. He is the king of debt, after all. And he has a certain moral, shall we  call it flexibility, when it comes to pursuing profit.

Glenstache

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2701
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4397 on: September 29, 2020, 10:05:57 AM »
RE Trump's taxes, the real jeopardy seems to come in if he has been showing a different set of books and results to, say, Deutche Bank or others. Some flavor of this is probably a big part of the potential fraud case. The part where his kids were effectively working for themselves both as members of Trump Co. and as TTT/TTTT consultants for those same projects with high salaries is also a bit of a red flag, as noted in the article.

The follow up should be interesting. And if Trump really wants to show the NYT is fake news, seems all he has to do is release his version of the tax forms. But, at the end of the day, there is nothing at all surprising in any of this. It is just a significant increase in level of detail to what has been pretty obvious for years. As fucked up as it is, I do not see the NYT article really moving the needle that much.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2186
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4398 on: September 29, 2020, 10:10:08 AM »
btw. In Sweden you can see the taxes of everyone and it is generally agreed that this is good.

For being a small-ish country at the northern tip of the civilized world, every discussion seems to involve Sweden now.  If it's not Greta or our pandemic response, it's our tax system.  I think even Trump have mentioned us a few times starting even back in 2017.

I'm not used to this.  Can't everyone just forget about us and talk about other countries?  What about Belgium?  Vietnam? The Gambia? :)

/the shy swede

In Germany your income is more secret than who was the woman you betrayed your wife with.
There, was not that hard :D

Samuel

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 523
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4399 on: September 29, 2020, 10:19:06 AM »
If anyone needs some somewhat dark humor... whenever I hear about Trump's taxes I think of this clip:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2q-Csk-ktc

David Mitchell on tax avoidance vs. evasion. The examples are from the UK but it's perfectly relatable to US.
(Volume warning: it starts off with loud applause)
(Language warning: there are a couple salty phrases used)