Trumps personal taxes and corporation taxes are completely two different things. I don't know why you all keep confusing these two things. "Business people" do not use their own personal piggy bank to conduct businesses. That is a huge no no. It seems like a lot of you have never filed a tax return outside of a standard 1040-EZ. There is likely nothing to be found in his tax returns that will be significant outside of him paying no income tax, making less than he claims or no charitable donations. If Trump should be elected, then yes, I can see the argument that his taxes should be made public once in office.
Spoken like a true Trumpanzee who feels it's okay for Trump to hide his finances despite running for the highest office in the land. I'm not a fan of Hillary's transparency with her finanacials and the paper trail behind her foundation, but trumps attitude is an incomparable disgrace to the political process and as a would be politician. Does he recuse himself when "it is likely" his disclosures to NAMBLA comes to bear, or is it just business as usual by misdirecting some ridiculous misdirection like Hillary being a murderer?
For most business owners, the difference between corporate tax rates and personal tax rates are really incidental. You can easily move money into corporate income or personal income so net net you do whatever is best for you. The idea that corporate tax rates are hitting American business is an illusion - actually, no it's not an illusions, it's a lie. Corporate tax rate isn't really a factor in where jobs are located or in business growth - reason simply is that most corporations know how to minimize them and end up paying less than people do, and corporate taxes are far outweighed by labor costs. If mexican had a 50% corporate tax rate, they would still move there for the cheap labor. I really wish people on the right would learn how financials work before mouthing off about things they have little experience or knowledge.
Trump stiffs over many of the people he has worked with. Don't Americans realize he will use the presidency to benefit himself and screw everyone else over that he can - he literally does not care for anyone but himself
Just to clarify, do you really believe Trump could have potentially donated to NAMBLA? Or do you know how the NAMBLA nonsense came up? http://www.snopes.com/trump-did-not-donate-to-nambla/ I am neither for nor against Trump showing his tax returns. I stated that I do not think its a big deal. I understand why Trump would not want to show them, however Trump needs to be ready to deal with the public backlash. If he doesn't want his private dealings to be front and center, then he should not be running for president.
I have no idea what you're saying, but its obvious you know nothing about business. The first clue is alluding that only people on the right have little idea on how financials work but somehow everyone on the left (the arrogance) seem to know exactly how it works. Shareholders own a corporation, so no, you can not 'easily move money into a corporate income or personal income to net you whatever is best for you". If you're a business owner (singular), there are very very few reasons why you would even setup a corporation, thus being subjected to corporate taxes. An LLC and corporation are night and day. Corporate tax, capital gains tax and employee compensation (mandatory sick leave, vacation days, health benefit requirements hillary is pushing) are all completely different animals and affect a completely different sect of people/business.
My point is that most american businesses aren't affected by the corporate tax rate because as you are saying they are LLC's or Sole Proprietorships - which are the businesses that create jobs. Corporations usually are paying less anyway through various means - the big ones at least are. You could argue that companies like Apple move a lot of their operations overseas - like to Ireland - in order to pay less corporate tax, but that strategy is backfiring on them. I would make a rule that for every person a company hires that leads to an increase in headcount they get a $25k deduction on their corporate tax rate. Then you are talking.
Man, those Senate Democrats are such racists for overriding Obama's veto - the first time of his presidency. Is that really the political discussion that Clinton wants to have? Is Bernie Sanders a racist because he wants to tear up NAFTA and all trade agreements with China? This is complete nonsense, and undecided voters will see through Clinton. Clinton couldn't name one piece of legislation she authored as a senator. Yet she claimed she "prepared" for the debate. By doing what? Planning a list of theories as to why Donald Trump hasn't released his tax returns, which ranged from WTF to get-your-tin-foil-hat?
Incredible. You have actually convinced yourself that Donald Trump not releasing his income tax returns to the public, the first candidate of a major party not to do so in several decades, simply doesn't matter. Talk about self-delusion. You've got it bad. As for your "1040-EZ" comment? Don't be ridiculous.
DNC is not Clinton. Did you realize that Sanders outspent Clinton and raised more money than Clinton during their Primaries? Clinton won not because of big money but because Bernie wasn't an attractive enough candidate. It wasn't that close of a race either. She had 15.6M to Bernie's 11.9 votes. I'm doubtful Bernie would do better than Clinton against Trump. He had some economic positions that I think Independent may feel very uncomfortable about. If you are hiring someone and you are concern about potential conflict of interest... you are ok to hire without knowing what could be a conflict but afterward, you must know if there was a conflict? That would be a poor and unnecessary risky decision. Do you know that in personal private settings, there are many that said Hillary Clinton is funny, very personal and inspiring and not like the robotic personality seen on the national scene? Of course inspirational is very subjective and that as your stated reason why there must be some "corruption" (why would anyone pay to listen to her??) is very weak and I see it as pretty much worthless. You don't get to high public office without some good abilities that attract many voters. That in itself is good logical reason why many would pay to listen to their speeches and buy their books. I see nothing wrong with this and it's pretty natural. Somehow, someway, preventing people from making money because they are popular politician is what you want? I don't understand your last two sentences. I assume you said don't hold Trump to a different standard? Completely agree. He and Clinton should be facing the same standards.
Trump isn't just talking about cutting business taxes. He's talking about cutting personal income taxes for the wealthy. I'm mentioning that because Trump is mentioning that.
I don't understand where your racism angle comes in. Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with any reason anyone on the political right was called racist.
I'm an avowed Obamamaniac, but I'm fine with this. As President Mr. Obama has to hold his nose and do some things to uphold the integrity of foreign relations and limit precedent. There could be a floodgate opening of lawsuits against the US, but I would like the Saudi's complicity in 9/11 examined and tort lawyers will leave no stone unturned if there is the promise of a big payday.
So nothing to hide except that he's a huge liar and a Presidential candidate who rails on about taxes yet pays none. And if he is in fact a huge liar and pays no taxes the American public shouldn't be able to verify that until after they've voted. Classic.
And now denial sets in. Trump has been repeatedly called a racist. Whether it's for being critical of Mexico or tweeting the image of a green frog. The theories on why Trump is a racist mimic the theories set forth by Clinton with regards to Trump's decision to not release his tax returns. Here's what we've seen lately from Clinton: Clinton points the finger and says "racist", but when confronted by Trump over NAFTA she immediately says she voted against CAFTA and plays dumb about the whole racism angle. Clinton insinuates that Trump is a sexist because he called Rosie O'Donell a pig but Clinton fails to admonish Trump for his equally judgmental comments toward John Kasich. Clinton criticizes Trump for judging a beauty pageant contestant as being "fat", yet Clinton fails to understand the very nature of what a beauty pageant is - a forum for judging women based on looks. Clinton, just months before the debate, acted in a skit where the punch-line of the joke was a total racist slandering of people of color. Unlike others, I will not become a sexist and give Clinton a free pass because she is a woman. I will hold her to the same standard as any other individual. Her name calling campaign registers positive remarks with only the most vocab-inadequate voters - which, fortunately, undecided voters are not.
Are you denying that saying a Judge can't do his job because of his race is racist? (You might argue that it was only bigoted if you don't want to count Latino as a race or whatever). It isn't just one incident, it is a series of incidents and pattern of behavior. Calling the contestant Ms. Housekeeping was done so because of her race. If you want to take one thing he said and try and wiggle it around to fit into a non-racist statement, then knock yourself out. It doesn't change the all of the other things and patterns he's demonstrated. He was sued for keeping minorities out of housing based on their race. He regularly retweets things from white nationalists, etc. These things are why he's called a racist. Not because he wants to enforce immigration law.
I think this Kelly zinger at Hannity may have been the funniest under-the-radar comment of the night: She says it at the 37 second mark...
