Funny I've never seen her using a bullhorn.She's more like the left's version of Alex Jones.
Maddow shouldn't be compared to anyone on fox, unless Beck is still around. She's more like the left's version of Alex Jones.
The fact that he can make a living off spewing garbage is a bit disconcerting.Wow you are clearly delusional. Jone's is nothing but a caricature, a pathetic waste of O2.
The tax laws are the tax laws. Is that somehow a problem for you?Trump federal income tax rate from 1995 through date TBD: 0%.
The cherry picking by Zerohedge is delicious. I mean how stupid does Zerohedge think the average person is? (wait, don't answer that, BUY GOLD)
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/10/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html
Well, some of those things aren't really any of the government's business in a "free" society.Never been called a socialist let alone have a socialist agenda. I just want clean air to breath, clean water to drink and fish, reasonably priced healthcare for all, public education for all and leave the public lands alone, they are all of ours. Oh and make the weed legal. If that makes me a socialist then so be it.
Someone's clearly been watching too much homeland.Wow you are clearly delusional. Jone's is nothing but a caricature, a pathetic waste of O2.
Someone's clearly been watching too much homeland.
The tax laws are the tax laws. Is that somehow a problem for you?
Is spin-boy still trying to spin this one into a plus for Democrats? If someone could figure out how to harness his spin ability to produce something usable we could power the world. Too bad he only uses his spin powers for evil.The tax laws are the tax laws. Is that somehow a problem for you?
The 0% was bolded in your post ffs. Who me? lolOf course not. What gave you such a silly idea other than clearly not reading my post well or the remainder of the thread?
Here's a hint, that post has nothing to do with what tax rate is right or not, it has to do with Zerohedge's hypocrisy and stupidity.
The 0% was bolded in your post ffs. Who me? lol
Translation- You believe the forms are genuine when there is no real evidence to that effect. Which means that if TrumpCo is running this as a scam that it's working beautifully.
It has that special eau de bullshit all over it.
You really aren't serious.Maddow shouldn't be compared to anyone on fox, unless Beck is still around. She's more like the left's version of Alex Jones.
The 0% is completely irrelevant assuming Trump fully complied with the tax laws at that time. Using loss carryforward to reduce tax liability in future years is a legal and common practice for businesses that suffer severe losses. Using tax liability percentages during profitable years (that are unaffected by prior losses) is a much more honest apples-to-apples comparison. What you're advocating here is actually HIGHLY DISHONEST by making apples-to-oranges tax liability comparisons when loss carryforward is involved.Yes, exactly! It was the most important part of the post so of course I bolded it.
It was bolded to show that Zerohedge highlighted Trump's 2005 tax rate of 25% as compared to Bernie Sanders' because he paid a higher percentage and completely ignored the fact that for many more years during the mid 90's Trump likely paid 0%. This is because the person that tweeted that for Zerohedge is either a dishonest hypocrite or a moron, which was the whole point of my post. How is this even the slightest bit confusing?
You would have known this had you bothered to read the thread. Instead, you said something dumb. Why not just admit you made a mistake and move on? (pride)
The 0% is completely irrelevant assuming Trump fully complied with the tax laws at that time. Using loss carryforward to reduce tax liability in future years is a legal and common practice for businesses that suffer severe losses. Using tax liability percentages during profitable years (that are unaffected by prior losses) is a much more honest apples-to-apples comparison. What you're advocating here is actually HIGHLY DISHONEST by making apples-to-oranges tax liability comparisons when loss carryforward is involved.
The 0% is completely irrelevant assuming Trump fully complied with the tax laws at that time. Using loss carryforward to reduce tax liability in future years is a legal and common practice for businesses that suffer severe losses. Using tax liability percentages during profitable years (that are unaffected by prior losses) is a much more honest apples-to-apples comparison. What you're advocating here is actually HIGHLY DISHONEST by making apples-to-oranges tax liability comparisons when loss carryforward is involved.
<snip>
Edit, wow it's funny how the new alt left trolling posters are so similar. And so new. Yet it's them who cry out and new right posters? Hmmm. More posts to skip over.
I expect you are reacting just like they hoped you would and your link certainly doesn't disprove my point. Your link doesn't include the tax returns for any of their three trusts. (Which is separate from their foundations) Btw - the trusts they created by-passed not only the current estate tax laws but also the estate tax increase she proposed. I'm sure it was just a coincidence that her tax plan calling for increased estate taxes didn't touch the tax avoidance schemes she had in place so it was all just a happy accident that her estate wouldn't pay anything extra if her plan was passed. Right? I mean paying more is for other people. I suspect they (and previous presidents) decided to not release the taxes from their trusts because those might be a bit scandalous as it reveals hypocrisy and how the laws they create and support allow them to bypass taxes. Getting only a single tax return of wealthy person for a given year doesn't show as much as you think it does
Svn I just find your flavour of ignorance irresistible. I'll leave the other fella alone...So similar, you don't think? And you are not alone.
See how they are newbies, love to boast about themselves or how smart they are, make unfounded accusations with nothing to back up and of course, mudslinging and lies...last but not least...trolling.
Watch out how they will reply with more nonsense rantings and more bullcraps. Get ready world. Get your boots on.
So similar, you don't think? And you are not alone.
See how they are newbies, love to boast about themselves or how smart they are, make unfounded accusations with nothing to back up and of course, mudslinging and lies...last but not least...trolling.
Watch out how they will reply with more nonsense rantings and more bullcraps but nothing to dispute what I posted above.
Get ready world. Get your boots on and be ready.
Rachel Jones knew it was nothing and still tried to maximize suspense, first with the early pre-show announcement, and then artificially delaying the information. That seems dishonest. She must have some control over her own show and isn't obliged to whore to advertisers/ratings to such a degree. She also then conflated dishonest with fake, quoting the white house response where they referenced the media this time as being "dishonest," and then sarcastically pinching herself, "i'm not fake. pinch me. i'm real." So she starts off dishonest, is called dishonest, and then adds more dishonesty.Good Job Maddow you just distracted a large swatch of people from the CBO report on Trumpcare or conservative-care with people laughing at your big-deal exclusive that Trump paid 25% of his 2005 income in taxes... btw more as a percentage than Romney paid.
I mean he didn't know if anything was there.... while you had enough time to read those two pages and think
"hmmm maybe we shouldn't make such a giant fucking deal over this...."
Rachel Jones knew it was nothing and still tried to maximize suspense, first with the early pre-show announcement, and then artificially delaying the information. That seems dishonest. She must have some control over her own show and isn't obliged to whore to advertisers/ratings to such a degree. She also then conflated dishonest with fake, quoting the white house response where they referenced the media this time as being "dishonest," and then sarcastically pinching herself, "i'm not fake. pinch me. i'm real." So she starts off dishonest, is called dishonest, and then adds more dishonesty.
The journalist who obtained and made public what are purportedly the first two pages of Donald Trump's 2005 federal tax return said this morning that the president was probably not behind the anonymous release.