So we have our first October surprise.
apparantly a tax return from Donald got mailed to the wrong place and the times got their hands on it. It shows a 916 million dollar loss and the claim of multiple tax breaks. With just that tax return, trump could have written of nearly two decades worth of income tax, paying zero dollars.
Originally Posted by Bird of Hermes
You mentioned the Treaty of Lisbon earlier, which I find a particular poor example, seeing as it was rejected multiple times by electorates under it's previous name of the European Constitution and then just forcefully applied anyway. But you should know me by now and know that my earlier post may have been slightly hyperbolic.
Anyway, now that us uncooperative people are gone, you are free to do whatever you like! (Like having fun with the Visegrad group throwing a tantrum.)
- - - Updated - - -
That's how taxes work, yes.
Actually most tax losses that are written off are supposed to have a deadline as to how long they can be used. 4 years in some cases, 7 in others. Even after the story broke, I'm actually still a little unsure as to what maneuver trump could (and judging from his press release on the subject, apparantly did) use to continue using that loss till 2015
The only people saying he carried on the loss that long are the media, which have no evidence for it.
More accurately, they're not saying it at all, they're saying that the write down is large enough that it would hypothetically be 20 years of taxes and then hoping everyone assumes that's what actually happened.
Actually, as I noted, trump put out a press release on the subject. There was a lot of things in there, like a complaint that was in the tank for Clinton, that those records were obtained illegally and shouldn't have been published, and that there are other forms of taxes that trump did pay.
but the notable and glaring omission from said release was any form of denial as to the nature of the story. Heavily implying to the point of confirming the points within the story.
You're reading pretty hard to get 'he used that exact method' and not a far more likely general 'he still doesn't pay much income tax.'
- - - Updated - - -
And, be real, of course they were obtained illegally. (This is not the same as saying the NYT can't publish them.)
Nnnnno I really don't think I am, actually.
the trump campaign is notorious for counter punching and has an near Clinton like ability to lawyer out its arguments. A good example would be trumps "I admitted no guilt" bit in the debate. The fact that the press release didn't have a similar statement, something like "I did not avoid paying my taxes using some bill back in the nineteen nineties" to me, I am actually prepared to consider proof barring some excellent evidence to the contrary.
Also worth noting is that the claim that the majority of the people rejected the EU doesn't exactly describe what happened in that shitshow of a referendum.
Bridge are you forgetting all that shit where people literally didn't know what they were voting for
- - - Updated - - -
It's almost like the public shouldn't have a direct say on foreign policy
Being uninformed doesn't remove one's right to vote.
Well yes but they promised the referendum so they had to go through with itIt's almost like the public shouldn't have a direct say on foreign policy
Aus Feuer ward der Geist geschaffen,
drum schenkt mir süßes Feuer ein!
Die Lust der Lieder und der Waffen,
die Lust der Liebe schenkt mir ein,
der Trauben süßes Sonnenblut,
das Wunder glaubt und Wunder thut!
I didn't say it removed their right to vote. I'm saying suggesting that the public actively accepted or rejected anything is an exaggeration when a significant portion literally had no idea what was happening.
Doesn't mean we don't have to live with that but hey.
It does when Leave has the larger media presence.
Why not?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37533263
US election 2016: Trump 'a genius' if he paid no taxes - allies:|Mr Christie told Fox News Sunday the report would only underline that Mr Trump is best qualified to ease tax policy on working people.
- - - Updated - - -
The article mentions Leona Helmsley, which I think is a fairly apt comparison.
i think you should have to pass an exam before being allowed to vote. Basic gov't functions, and the like. In a perfect world, anyway. Also, no religion allowed (in politics), if I'm making wishes.
[18:00] Spinach: Because I don't like Saber's personality but boy oh boy does she make my dick turn to diamonds when I see her getting tentacled.
[18:01] Leo: feeling superior to EU makes me hard
[16:16] <Bloble> Drakengard? Is that a rhythm game?
except maybe having more informed voters
[18:00] Spinach: Because I don't like Saber's personality but boy oh boy does she make my dick turn to diamonds when I see her getting tentacled.
[18:01] Leo: feeling superior to EU makes me hard
[16:16] <Bloble> Drakengard? Is that a rhythm game?
Gonna have to disagree there
Well, maybe they do derive greater utility from it
But it does not mean they understand it
[18:00] Spinach: Because I don't like Saber's personality but boy oh boy does she make my dick turn to diamonds when I see her getting tentacled.
[18:01] Leo: feeling superior to EU makes me hard
[16:16] <Bloble> Drakengard? Is that a rhythm game?
We tried that
You don't think that people who are voting should understand what the people they're voting for are trying to do? That seems weird to me.
- - - Updated - - -
hey it's my fantasy
[18:00] Spinach: Because I don't like Saber's personality but boy oh boy does she make my dick turn to diamonds when I see her getting tentacled.
[18:01] Leo: feeling superior to EU makes me hard
[16:16] <Bloble> Drakengard? Is that a rhythm game?
Which is the practical/discrimination angle but that comes only after you solve the problem of making voting a right contingent on an arbitrary test
Posting Permissions
