Politics STEVE BANNON PUSHING FOR 44 PERCENT MARGINAL TAX RATE ON THE VERY RICH

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
We have went over this ad nauseum...

But people heavily involved in real estate often show major losses year after year until the year of sale of the buildings when a massive gain (offset by some of the carried forward net operating loss) occurs.

I have no idea what all of his busineas ventures are, but again, it's very common for real estate to show losses year to year if that was all he did.
 
Rastapopoulos said:
So, Denny: what do you think of Bannon's idea? As good as all the other ones coming out of the Trump administration, right?
Click to expand...

It's clear the government is so strapped for cash to spend on all the shit it does, that it had to borrow $10T under Obama. Economic growth was (and still is) lethargic at best, and the weakest recovery after recession maybe ever.

Trump and republicans do have an economic agenda that involves spurring economic growth. They're talking about tax cuts for 99.9% of tax payers, which should spur domestic spending. They're pushing companies to build in the US, so that spending would be on American goods. They're talking about infrastructure spending which at least leaves us things like bridges and other tangible assets.

They have to raise the money somehow to spend it. Some of it will come from higher tax receipts from higher economic growth alone. They especially have to if they don't want to further balloon the debt or cut other services.

Party of the rich is a joke. I bet if you looked just a little, you'd find the democrats are the party of the rich. Limousine Liberals they're called.

There is a cost to taxing the rich (or anyone for that matter). Their money doesn't sit in their mattresses or a lock box. It ends up as loans/mortgages to main street folks, and funding startup ventures and the like.

FWIW, the largest spending bill in history was Obama's "EMERGENCY"* (haha, LOL, what a lie) stimulus package in 2009. Prior, the largest was a massive infrastructure bill passed by republican congress and signed by W.

(* "emergency" in the legislation is a technicality, a means to bypass budget restrictions aimed at restraining the very fiscal deficit and debt growth that Obama gave us).
 
Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer that makes electronics for Apple and other tech companies, is coming to Wisconsin.

The firm will invest $10 billion in Wisconsin to build a new manufacturing plant that produces LCD panels. The project will create 13,000 new jobs and should be completed by 2020, according to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Foxconn's estimate on jobs was more conservative. In a statement, the company said the project will create 3,000 jobs with the "potential" to generate up to 13,000 new jobs.

(good jobs, too)
 
Denny Crane said:
Foxconn, the Taiwanese manufacturer that makes electronics for Apple and other tech companies, is coming to Wisconsin.

The firm will invest $10 billion in Wisconsin to build a new manufacturing plant that produces LCD panels. The project will create 13,000 new jobs and should be completed by 2020, according to Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker.

Foxconn's estimate on jobs was more conservative. In a statement, the company said the project will create 3,000 jobs with the "potential" to generate up to 13,000 new jobs.

(good jobs, too)
Click to expand...
maybe they can actually bring an embassy here and allow Taiwan a seat in the UN....that'd be a start..
 
Denny Crane said:
It's clear the government is so strapped for cash to spend on all the shit it does, that it had to borrow $10T under Obama. Economic growth was (and still is) lethargic at best, and the weakest recovery after recession maybe ever.

Trump and republicans do have an economic agenda that involves spurring economic growth. They're talking about tax cuts for 99.9% of tax payers, which should spur domestic spending. They're pushing companies to build in the US, so that spending would be on American goods. They're talking about infrastructure spending which at least leaves us things like bridges and other tangible assets.

They have to raise the money somehow to spend it. Some of it will come from higher tax receipts from higher economic growth alone. They especially have to if they don't want to further balloon the debt or cut other services.

Party of the rich is a joke. I bet if you looked just a little, you'd find the democrats are the party of the rich. Limousine Liberals they're called.

There is a cost to taxing the rich (or anyone for that matter). Their money doesn't sit in their mattresses or a lock box. It ends up as loans/mortgages to main street folks, and funding startup ventures and the like.

FWIW, the largest spending bill in history was Obama's "EMERGENCY"* (haha, LOL, what a lie) stimulus package in 2009. Prior, the largest was a massive infrastructure bill passed by republican congress and signed by W.

(* "emergency" in the legislation is a technicality, a means to bypass budget restrictions aimed at restraining the very fiscal deficit and debt growth that Obama gave us).
Click to expand...

I thought I would point out that Obama's debt is equivalent to $29,000 for every man, woman, and child (and others). That's almost $120,000 for a family of 4.

Thanks Obama.
 
Denny Crane said:
Did he pay $0?
Click to expand...
We'll never know will we? Sort of the opposite of transparency...sure, plenty of dems have off shore accounts as well but this isn't a career senator, it's the president...draining the swamp should include a modicum of transparency don't you think?
 
riverman said:
Bannon wants this tax on folks who make over 5 million a year....safe to say folks who make 1-4 million a year are rich....
Click to expand...

Not if you live somewhere like the Bay Area. You have to put people's income into context for where and how they live.
 
Denny Crane said:
I thought I would point out that Obama's debt is equivalent to $29,000 for every man, woman, and child (and others). That's almost $120,000 for a family of 4.

Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...
That debt snowballed from the Bush administration...Obama inherited a disaster and stuck his thumb in the dike.....between 9/11...Katrina and the banking real estate scandal, the country was on the ropes....that whole scenario was a bad situation but something that could have been so much worse...I actually thought the country showed more solidarity behind the end of Bush's tenure and throughout Obama's than it had in a long time....now...not so much.
 
Denny Crane said:
I thought I would point out that Obama's debt is equivalent to $29,000 for every man, woman, and child (and others). That's almost $120,000 for a family of 4.

Thanks Obama.
Click to expand...
Why not just call it America's debt? Didn't start with Obama...you don't have to like the guy, but a string of catastrophes fucked us over starting with the end of the Bush term
 
riverman said:
That debt snowballed from the Bush administration...Obama inherited a disaster and stuck his thumb in the dike.....between 9/11...Katrina and the banking real estate scandal, the country was on the ropes....that whole scenario was a bad situation but something that could have been so much worse...I actually thought the country showed more solidarity behind the end of Bush's tenure and throughout Obama's than it had in a long time....now...not so much.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

Obama had full control of the executive branch and house and senate majorities for 2 years. He could have implemented whatever he wanted. He did, in fact. He chose to massively increase spending. He never offered a balanced budget or even one that was close to it.

He increased the budget in February, a month after taking office, from $3T to $3.8T. And he got another ~$900B stimulus bill passed. He spent at deficits that nearly matched the entire DEBT when Reagan left office. He ran up more debt than all the presidents before him, combined.

Combined.

Where does the buck stop? With W Bush? Geez, I didn't know he was president for 16 years and Obama was just a puppet.
 
riverman said:
Why not just call it America's debt? Didn't start with Obama...you don't have to like the guy, but a string of catastrophes fucked us over starting with the end of the Bush term
Click to expand...

Obama's economic policies were one of those catastrophes.
 
riverman said:
maybe they can actually bring an embassy here and allow Taiwan a seat in the UN
Click to expand...

That's a funny thing coming from a Democrat. The very righteous Jimma Carter gave up Taiwan and started the One China policy. Just gave it back to China. Damn! I Spent three years helping to preventing that from happening too. Not quite a dumb as giving away the Panama Canal though. A sail boat now has a difficult time getting through there, where they once went through with the commercial traffic as not much bother. Usually in the corner of the lock with a freighter. Whether it was there or not made little difference.
 
Denny Crane said:
Bullshit.

Obama had full control of the executive branch and house and senate majorities for 2 years. He could have implemented whatever he wanted. He did, in fact. He chose to massively increase spending. He never offered a balanced budget or even one that was close to it.

He increased the budget in February, a month after taking office, from $3T to $3.8T. And he got another ~$900B stimulus bill passed. He spent at deficits that nearly matched the entire DEBT when Reagan left office. He ran up more debt than all the presidents before him, combined.

Combined.

Where does the buck stop? With W Bush? Geez, I didn't know he was president for 16 years and Obama was just a puppet.
Click to expand...
Congress did not work across the aisle with the guy....he didn't fix the problem .....he stuck his finger in the dike...it could have been much, much worse but go ahead.......he's your fall guy....not Wall Street or the real estate scam or auto industry or natural disasters or attacks on New York City....those weren't factors at all......could we have done better.....sure, I'll give you that but we're in that two steps backward mode right now....
 
riverman said:
We'll never know will we? Sort of the opposite of transparency...sure, plenty of dems have off shore accounts as well but this isn't a career senator, it's the president...draining the swamp should include a modicum of transparency don't you think?
Click to expand...

At least you finally admit you don't know he paid no taxes.

We can agree on that. We don't know.

It's possible, but I think the rules may severely limit the amount of losses he could carry forward in future years. Those capital losses are only good for washing against capital gains. Trump doesn't have a lot of capital gains, he has INCOME from things like hotels, office buildings, and golf courses. He only has capital gains when he sells those things.

The tax code really is convoluted, but if you want to survive in business, you better know at least this basic stuff.

(Capital losses can be carried forward at $3,000 per year if you don't have capital gains to use them against).
 
MarAzul said:
That's a funny thing coming from a Democrat. The very righteous Jimma Carter gave up Taiwan and started the One China policy. Just gave it back to China. Damn! I Spent three years helping to preventing that from happening too. Not quite a dumb as giving away the Panama Canal though. A sail boat now has a difficult time getting through there, where they once went through with the commercial traffic as not much bother. Usually in the corner of the lock with a freighter. Whether it was there or not made little difference.
Click to expand...
I agree with all this except the first sentence.....I'm an independent...I did not support Carter pulling for China over Taiwan and my in laws are strong DPP supporters, not KMT mainlanders.....Taiwan independence is a big thing around my house.
 
riverman said:
Congress did not work across the aisle with the guy....he didn't fix the problem .....he stuck his finger in the dike...it could have been much, much worse but go ahead.......he's your fall guy....not Wall Street or the real estate scam or auto industry or natural disasters or attacks on New York City....those weren't factors at all......could we have done better.....sure, I'll give you that but we're in that two steps backward mode right now....
Click to expand...

He didn't need republicans, he never tried to work with republicans. He had all the votes he needed in both houses, from his own party.

He passed his budget AND that massive slush fund stimulus bill without republican votes.

http://www.politico.com/story/2009/02/senate-passes-787-billion-stimulus-bill-018837

House passage on the package came on a 246-183 vote—with no support from Republicans. Senate action followed on a 60-38 roll call that stretched for five hours in a near-empty chamber as Sen. Sherrod Brown flew back on a government plane from his mother's wake in Ohio.

Three Republican moderates—Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania—voted for the bill.

(Specter switched parties, you know, becoming a Democrat).
 
Denny Crane said:
We can agree on that. We don't know.
Click to expand...
This is probably the most important point of any political or religious discussion...we attach ourselves to whatever outside information rings true to our own value systems. Political Science and Theology are not defined by scientific method
 
riverman said:
This is probably the most important point of any political or religious discussion...we attach ourselves to whatever outside information rings true to our own value systems. Political Science and Theology are not defined by scientific method
Click to expand...

If you're going to make a claim, or accuse someone of something, you better have proof. Innuendo isn't proof.

You said MANY years he didn't pay, not two. Maddow got his returns and he paid 10s of $millions in tax. A higher % than Obama or Clinton, in fact.

Those are facts, not "outside information that rings true."
 
Denny Crane said:
He didn't need republicans
Click to expand...
Every president should need republicans....they work for America, not the party...this is my beef with the GOP...they are very party first, America second. Democrats seem to have gotten lazy and definitely mailed in the last election, to their own demise
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top