Author Topic: Trump outrage of the day  (Read 681597 times)

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4300 on: September 28, 2020, 03:34:08 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4301 on: September 28, 2020, 05:18:31 AM »
NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Quote
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value compared to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

I pay more income tax per week than the American President pays per year, even after adjusting for currency, even though Trump's salary is about 3x mine. That is disgraceful on Trump's part.

Travis

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3885
  • Location: South Korea
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4302 on: September 28, 2020, 05:26:53 AM »
NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Quote
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/09/27/donald-trump-denies-income-tax-report/3556287001/

Many times in the past, Trump bragged about paying no taxes because he had such great lawyers and accountants.  Now he wants to act like paying no taxes was a lie?  I'm so confused, but this isn't the first time.  If only hard-working, tax-paying Americans could see him for what he really is...  Not only would they not support him, they would absolutely hate him.

That won't happen. It will be either "fake news" or "he's so smart, if I were in his shoes I would have done the same"

He pulled out his favorite retort almost immediately.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4303 on: September 28, 2020, 05:37:41 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4304 on: September 28, 2020, 06:11:20 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

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.

WhiteTrashCash

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1983
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4305 on: September 28, 2020, 07:06:00 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

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.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4306 on: September 28, 2020, 07:09:41 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

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.

Yeah, the national situations really aren't comparable.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 19789
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4307 on: September 28, 2020, 07:15:02 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

Feivel2000

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 299
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4308 on: September 28, 2020, 07:22:50 AM »
Can someone explain to me the naked ballots thing in Philadelphia I think it is(?)

Something about having to put your ballot in a privacy sleeve, before it goes in the envelope.

And if it’s not in the sleeve then it gets thrown out as invalid.

If this is challenged in court... how is it going to be proven whether a ballot is in a sleeve or not when the electoral office opens the envelope?

I think the issue of naked ballots  has something to do with the person authorized to open  the envelope containing the ballot being able to see who the voter is who filled out the ballot AND who/what  they voted for.

It’s a relic from a time when humans opened the envelopes, which (I read somewhere) is now done by machines, so the rule is pointless.

It's not pointless if it allows bores to be thrown out and discounted.  Anti-democratic, and detrimental to society - but not pointless.

Here you can read about the process in Germany: https://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/en/service/glossar/b/briefwahl.html
2017, we had over 13 million absentee voters and there was no need to open them early or centralized.

The process is by no means anti-democratic. It ensures that the election is fair, open and secret. Removing parts of the process from the eye of the public is anti-democratic.

It baffles me, that the US is not able or willing to ensure fair, open and secret elections. (See {Florida} voting machines...)

former player

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7707
  • Location: Avalon
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4309 on: September 28, 2020, 07:25:08 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

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.
Yes, those extra taxes probably buy you an extra four and a half years of life  (average life expectancy is 83.3 years for Australia but only 78.9 for the USA, according to Wikipedia).  Does that sound like better value for money to you?

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4310 on: September 28, 2020, 07:32:32 AM »
It's so horrible it's funny. How the hell did he end up with only 750 bucks with an empire that has millions of dollar coming in and going out? Not once, but twice? (And maybe more often)

Just from the "science" point this is incredible interesting.

But I guess for his fans tax evasion is the right thing to do and so he will end up as just more of a hero.

I'm sure many of his fans are the same people who were bitching in 2012 about how they were part of the 53% who pay federal income taxes and not the 47% who don't and are supposedly freeloaders on the government. They're awfully quiet this morning. It must be taking slightly longer than usual to overcome this round of cognitive dissonance.

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.
Yes, those extra taxes probably buy you an extra four and a half years of life  (average life expectancy is 83.3 years for Australia but only 78.9 for the USA, according to Wikipedia).  Does that sound like better value for money to you?

I would happily pay more in taxes if it meant that a medical emergency wouldn’t bankrupt me.

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4311 on: September 28, 2020, 07:38:33 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 17492
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4312 on: September 28, 2020, 07:57:47 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

People complain about our high tax rates on high income took..

Provincial income tax is quite variable.  I'm assuming you have state income taxes too. 

rantk81

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4313 on: September 28, 2020, 07:58:55 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.


FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4314 on: September 28, 2020, 08:33:12 AM »
He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

JLee

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6985
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4315 on: September 28, 2020, 08:38:36 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

Bloop Bloop

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2139
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4316 on: September 28, 2020, 08:49:32 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

Employers pay payroll tax and workers' compensation premiums. I don't know how much those are.

For healthcare, everyone (other than the poor) pays a 2.0% medicare levy and then those earning above $125k have to pay a 1.5% medicare surcharge unless they take out a useless hospital cover policy to absolve them from paying the surcharge. So for me, on about $220k a year, I pay a medicare levy of $4,400 plus $1,200 in useless hospital cover each year. But that's just a nominal amount. The actual healthcare system costs a lot more than that to fund, but I don't know what the precise proportion of tax revenue it is (but it's easily Googleable).

There is no tax whatsoever on primary residence in Australia. Council rates on the primary residence are something like $1.5 per $1000 per year.

But then - we pay luxury car tax of 33%. We pay a progressive land tax on any real estate that's not primary residence. We pay a graduated stamp duty on vehicles and land (i.e., the more it costs the higher the percent). There are all sorts of progressive consumption taxes, not just income taxes.

Anyway, don't mean to derail the thread.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4306
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4317 on: September 28, 2020, 08:49:55 AM »
NYT: 18 Revelations From a Trove of Trump Tax Records. Some of these things look like fraudulently classifying personal expenses at business expenses.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4318 on: September 28, 2020, 08:50:13 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

Those of us who are self-employed or contractors (raises hand) pay both the employer and employee halves of FICA (aka payroll tax for Medicare/Social Security) along with our estimated federal and state taxes every 3 months. I've paid both halves on my income since 2007. It wouldn't annoy me so much if 1) grifters like Trump also paid their fair share 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.

chaskavitch

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1000
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Fort Collins, CO
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4319 on: September 28, 2020, 08:50:40 AM »
He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

I've never REALLY understood why only the first $180k of income is subject to SS tax.  Is it because your SS income in retirement is also capped?  It seems like that would be a great (but so terribly "socialist") way of increasing the budget for those programs to include higher incomes under that tax as well.

talltexan

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4989
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4320 on: September 28, 2020, 08:51:50 AM »
NY Times:LONG-CONCEALED RECORDS SHOW TRUMP’S CHRONIC LOSSES AND YEARS OF TAX AVOIDANCE

Quote
Donald J. Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency. In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.

He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.

Meanwhile, my husband and I paid more than that in federal taxes per quarter in 2010, when husband was unemployed thanks to the Great Recession and I was earning a $25k grad research assistant stipend, and our house had lost 80% of its value compared to what we had paid 7 years earlier.

Fuck this shit. Revolution sounds pretty fucking great right now.

I pay more income tax per week than the American President pays per year, even after adjusting for currency, even though Trump's salary is about 3x mine. That is disgraceful on Trump's part.

You sending your taxes to the US Treasury, fam?

rantk81

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 785
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Chicago
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4321 on: September 28, 2020, 08:57:55 AM »
He's talking about tax rates on high earners. SS tax has a cap on the first 140k or so, so that 7% tax doesn't apply to high income earners. The current tax on people who make over 200k is right around 32-35%. Also states tax between 0-9%. But even all that doesn't make an apples-to-oranges comparison. You'd have to do a whole analysis comparing what everyone pays in in sum and what everyone gets out. Just complaining about a single tax rate (without talking about all the potential deductions as well) just doesn't make much sense beyond demagoguery.

Yes, there are a lot of things to factor in.  But on the surface, it doesn't sound meaningful to compare that 47% rate with only the Federal income tax rates, with there are so many other factors to consider.  (Edit: Also, the Medicare portion does not stop at a particular income level.  And if you are counting the employer part of SS, that doesn't stop after the 137K either.)
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 09:37:48 AM by rantk81 »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4322 on: September 28, 2020, 08:59:39 AM »
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.

The top 1% in Australia start at salaries of 237,300$.  Why is that an unreasonable tax rate given that it only impacts the richest people in society?

The $180k tax rate encompasses the top 3.4% of earners (and that's a proportion of all earners, not just full-time earners). I don't think 3.4% is particularly elite. In any event, it's a significantly higher marginal rate (47%) than you will find in the US or the UK or New Zealand or Canada at any comparable level of income (top 3%).

To get a closer "apples to apples" situation, when considering the US tax rate, consider that there are also State income taxes paid, in addition to the federal income taxes.  Furthermore, add about 7.65% to the tax rate, because that's also taken out of "Wage" income as a tax to fund Medicare and Social Security.  Some people actually double that figure for consideration, since employers also pay 7.65% in addition to the employee's 7.65% payroll tax.  (I'm not sure if there are equivalent taxes in Australia that correspond to these state and social taxes in the US.)

Also, don't forget to offset the tax rate by the amount that we pay toward health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, etc.  I've heard that average back-of-the-envelope figures around $12K/yr per person.

My cost plus my employer's contribution for medical, dental, and vision is $12,294.88/year, or about 10% of my gross income.

How much are property taxes for your primary residence in Australia?

Employers pay payroll tax and workers' compensation premiums. I don't know how much those are.

For healthcare, everyone (other than the poor) pays a 2.0% medicare levy and then those earning above $125k have to pay a 1.5% medicare surcharge unless they take out a useless hospital cover policy to absolve them from paying the surcharge. So for me, on about $220k a year, I pay a medicare levy of $4,400 plus $1,200 in useless hospital cover each year. But that's just a nominal amount. The actual healthcare system costs a lot more than that to fund, but I don't know what the precise proportion of tax revenue it is (but it's easily Googleable).

There is no tax whatsoever on primary residence in Australia. Council rates on the primary residence are something like $1.5 per $1000 per year.

But then - we pay luxury car tax of 33%. We pay a progressive land tax on any real estate that's not primary residence. We pay a graduated stamp duty on vehicles and land (i.e., the more it costs the higher the percent). There are all sorts of progressive consumption taxes, not just income taxes.

Anyway, don't mean to derail the thread.

Yes. We have payroll taxes here (7.65% each from the employer and employee; as a contractor, I pay both halves), plus property taxes, school taxes, and sales taxes (6% flat rate sales tax in my state). Automobile registration and licensing fees (annual). We pay federal and state income tax. When we used to work in Detroit, we also paid city taxes.

We and husband's employer pay thousands of dollars that we pay in insurance premiums; even so, our annual per-person deductible is $6000 so we're paying all of those fees and copays ourselves. And that deductible is only for in-network care; if I suffered a stroke while grocery shopping and an out-of-network ambulance took me to an out-of-network emergency room, the deductible wouldn't apply. Or, if I had cancer and needed a specialized chemo drug, the insurance company can decide whether or not to pay it. If they say no, then that's $10K per month out of pocket (based on a recent example from a friend with cancer). Also, none of that covers long-term disability care, which is a separate form of insurance. That's how people in the US are bankrupted by medical costs despite carrying health insurance.

PDXTabs

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4306
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Portland, OR, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4323 on: September 28, 2020, 09:11:20 AM »
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.

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4324 on: September 28, 2020, 09:12:54 AM »
I've never REALLY understood why only the first $180k of income is subject to SS tax.  Is it because your SS income in retirement is also capped?  It seems like that would be a great (but so terribly "socialist") way of increasing the budget for those programs to include higher incomes under that tax as well.

First $137k, and yes exactly. And removing the cap has been one of the proposed fixes for SS for forever. This change alone would solve 72% of the projected shortfall.

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.

It won't "run out of money", that's pure fantasy-land talk from the party that wants to destroy SS and so is trying to sow doubt about it.

Social Security is still running a surplus today, and it has $3 Trillion in the bank. It's only projected to run out of money in 2035 because of the massive wave of Boomer retirements that is coming up, but there are any number of fixes that can be applied when the problem actually presents itself. Our government is not good at dealing with problems that might happen in a couple decades, the problem has to actually be here before voters are concerned enough about it to do something about it.

The absolute worst case is that you might end up having to take a benefit haircut, eg. only 90% of what you're currently being promised, or that they raise the eligibility age by a few years. But SS will still be around when you retire, I doubt even the open Republican attempts to destroy the system will ever be successful. Voters do not like having something they've paid for stolen from them.

https://www.crfb.org/socialsecurityreformer/
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 09:17:44 AM by sherr »

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4325 on: September 28, 2020, 09:34:15 AM »
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!!"
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 09:37:00 AM by OtherJen »

LennStar

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2750
  • Location: Germany
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4326 on: September 28, 2020, 09:55:22 AM »
Just for comparison: In Germany the pension rate dropped/will drop by (it's actually impressivly complicated if you include tax rule) about 5-6%.

That gap, we are told, we have to close by using (instead of the state work-based distribution system) the market. But the state helps! You get 175€/Year or an even higher tax reduction (for the rich, who don't need the help har har) if you invest at least 4%.

So... we have reduced the pension by 5-6%, but have to pay 4% directly and get 1-2% by tax breaks, which of course means it has to be payed by other taxes.

The costs for the worker are the same, but the employer (who has to match) pays less, and insurance companies get a big chunck of the money through fees.

---

Anyway, the real point I wanted to make is that you can't compare e.g. 50% in 1990 with 45% in 2030. Productivity has increased a lot in that time, so while you get a slightly smaller share of the cake, the cake is a lot bigger.

The real problem is that taxation of work is catching ever less of the yearly GDP. If you would tax income from money at a comparable level to income from work (and the upcoming robotisation thing), and also tax wealth (esp. inheritance), you could very easily afford 60% and even more.


wenchsenior

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3224
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4327 on: September 28, 2020, 10:26:45 AM »
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.

FIPurpose

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4328 on: September 28, 2020, 10:29:34 AM »
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.

OtherJen

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5254
  • Location: Metro Detroit
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4329 on: September 28, 2020, 10:42:52 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2020, 10:45:57 AM by OtherJen »

MilesTeg

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1363
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4330 on: September 28, 2020, 10:46:31 AM »
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.

bacchi

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6145
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4331 on: September 28, 2020, 10:58:21 AM »
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.

rocketpj

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4332 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: 15904
  • Location: Just south of Canada
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4333 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

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 617
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4334 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: 17492
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4335 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: 3348
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4336 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?

sherr

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1543
  • Age: 36
  • Location: North Carolina, USA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4337 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: 1983
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4338 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: 3224
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4339 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: 418
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4340 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: 854
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4341 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

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2605
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Bellingham, WA
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4342 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: 656
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4343 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: 854
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4344 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: 10907
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4345 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: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4346 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: 10907
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4347 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: 418
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4348 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: 1825
  • Location: WA
    • FI With Purpose
Re: Trump outrage of the day
« Reply #4349 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.