Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If "we could probably fix", why hasn't that happened instead of screaming "fair share"?

Maybe because all the people who benefit from those loopholes are the same people who "could probably fix" it?

Ok...but if the people that make the laws don't want them changed, it's a moot point, right?

LOL.

If it was something BL wanted, he'd be screaming for change.

But since it's apparently not, "it's a moot point".

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If "we could probably fix", why hasn't that happened instead of screaming "fair share"?

Maybe because all the people who benefit from those loopholes are the same people who "could probably fix" it?

Ok...but if the people that make the laws don't want them changed, it's a moot point, right?

Should it be a "moot point"?

You're sort of making a case for a vote for Trump. Hillary is part of the system. Has been virtually her entire adult life. She's not going to "probably fix" a system that has benefited her forever. Unless, of course, you think she's just the sort of politician that's different than the rest. Do you think that?

Hillary would be the first U.S. President that's had sex with another U.S. President. At least that we know of.

That makes her different.

Yeah but that President had sex with just about anybody who was willing so I'm not sure how much that counts.

And, BL, before you ask "So you think Trump will push the changes the laws that benefited him?", no, I do not. But he's not been part of the system that has ****** up the making of tax laws. He's just taken advantage of them.

Posted by tecwrg on 9/28/2016 10:48:00 AM (view original):
LOL.

If it was something BL wanted, he'd be screaming for change.

But since it's apparently not, "it's a moot point".

Well, no. Mike's saying the simple fix isn't possible because lawmakers don't want change. If that's the case, the non-simple fix isn't possible either.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 10:52:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 10:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 10:29:00 AM (view original):
If "we could probably fix", why hasn't that happened instead of screaming "fair share"?

Maybe because all the people who benefit from those loopholes are the same people who "could probably fix" it?

Ok...but if the people that make the laws don't want them changed, it's a moot point, right?

Should it be a "moot point"?

You're sort of making a case for a vote for Trump. Hillary is part of the system. Has been virtually her entire adult life. She's not going to "probably fix" a system that has benefited her forever. Unless, of course, you think she's just the sort of politician that's different than the rest. Do you think that?

BL?

LOL Mike's talking himself into voting for trump.

Are you avoiding questions now?

No, your questions are dumb. Neither candidate is likely to radically change the income tax system.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):
When most of us realize big tax savings, we spend it locally by perhaps buying a new car or getting our bathroom redone. Or we save it. All which helps employment and builds equity.

It doesn't make much sense for the super-rich to save money. And generally they are not buying consumer items like we are. They tend to spend that extra money in purchasing land or stocks. Generally none of those expenditures create jobs. They just increase the overall ownership of the super rich. Check out Gordon geckos Check out Gordon gekko's speech in Wall Street. He puts it out there.

So saving rich people money on their taxes generally does not have a positive impact on the economy. It just makes them more rich.

You or I buy a new car, we buy a Chevy or Ford.

Kevin Durant buys a Ferrari. Rich people buy cars.

Who pays more sales tax? Assuming sales tax is no longer capped.

If one saves $20 million in taxes, then you'd have to buy a lot of Ferrari's to soak up that extra disposable income. If you are rich, chances are you already have that Ferrari. So that $20 million - in all probability - is going to purchase land, goes into trusts, or into stock. Ownership. Not incoming producing.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 10:59:00 AM (view original):
Yeah but that President had sex with just about anybody who was willing so I'm not sure how much that counts.

And, BL, before you ask "So you think Trump will push the changes the laws that benefited him?", no, I do not. But he's not been part of the system that has ****** up the making of tax laws. He's just taken advantage of them.

Which anyone not attached to Clinton's *** (full body shutter at the thought) will admit is smart in both business and personal dealings.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/27/2016 8:56:00 PM (view original):
No idea. He won't release his returns.

Sure he will, right after she releases those e-mails.

Posted by bad_luck on 9/28/2016 11:31:00 AM (view original):
No, you're questions are dumb. Neither candidate is likely to radically change the income tax system.

Should that be a "moot point"?

Or should we really attempt to get a "fair share" from everyone?

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 11:32:00 AM (view original):

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/28/2016 9:15:00 AM (view original):

Posted by sjpoker on 9/28/2016 9:10:00 AM (view original):
When most of us realize big tax savings, we spend it locally by perhaps buying a new car or getting our bathroom redone. Or we save it. All which helps employment and builds equity.

It doesn't make much sense for the super-rich to save money. And generally they are not buying consumer items like we are. They tend to spend that extra money in purchasing land or stocks. Generally none of those expenditures create jobs. They just increase the overall ownership of the super rich. Check out Gordon geckos Check out Gordon gekko's speech in Wall Street. He puts it out there.

So saving rich people money on their taxes generally does not have a positive impact on the economy. It just makes them more rich.

You or I buy a new car, we buy a Chevy or Ford.

Kevin Durant buys a Ferrari. Rich people buy cars.

Who pays more sales tax? Assuming sales tax is no longer capped.

If one saves $20 million in taxes, then you'd have to buy a lot of Ferrari's to soak up that extra disposable income. If you are rich, chances are you already have that Ferrari. So that $20 million - in all probability - is going to purchase land, goes into trusts, or into stock. Ownership. Not incoming producing.

Maybe they'll build an 11m mansion. I can't build an 11m mansion.