Trump already in violation of Constitution.

Do you have an example of any human being in this country that doesn't try to pay as little tax as possible?

 

Her husband got them and when it became clears she would not be the next Preisdent, as had been predicted since she left the State Department, all those donations and speaking fees have dried up and their Clinton Global Initiative through which they were run closed down.

 

Like what damning information that would not be included in the 90 page financial disclosure he filed with the FEC?

- - - Updated - - -

The stupid ones, like the ones that think they did really really good on taxes this year because they got a YUUUGE refund on April 15th.

 

It's all conjecture but if he disclosed that he has paid less in taxes than an average middle class joe it would be damning even if technically legal. Now you can play the buffet card. It doesn't matter. It would be a disaster for Trump.

 

Oh I agree. You should want your refund to be as close to zero as possible without owing anything.

 

Hardly.

All he has to do is push the facts. The fact is that the current tax laws are designed to benefit the rich, and that's what he wants to stop happening.

As a businessman, the best he could do, just like everyone else, is to do his taxes within the law.

It's not how much he paid in taxes that is wrong, it's how the government designs it's tax codes to benefit those with a lot of money that is wrong.

 

Which is a good reason to NOT release them isn't it. Not only does the average citizen have the tax law knowledge or financial knowledge to interpret the the MSM would go through with a fine tooth comb and present standard normal LEGAL deductions and credits as some great tax crime or tax "dodge" and would go on for months about it as fallacious as it might be.

He's been audited and audited and audited and is still being audited, if the IRS ever found any crime in his tax filings they would file charges.


Remember what they did to Romney about his tax returns?

 

The top 1% pay almost 40% of income taxes, the top 25% pay almost 90% of income taxes, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing.

How exactly does the tax code benefit the high incomes more than the lower incomes?

- - - Updated - - -

More than that you should owe just enough to not have to pay a penalty for underwithholding. I always plan to owe a little.

 

This is why we have a mechanism in place to settle disputes between people called the judicial system; it's a civilized method used to to resolve issues between parties. If anyone feels the President and/or the VP are violating the law or any other issue, they have a right to use the courts to hear and rule on the issue before them.

 

The sheer amount of money involved.

To even qualify to be in the top 1%, you need to make something like $325,000 a year. Of course at the upper levels of that 1% you're talking about people who may $9 million per year and more.

Reducing the number of tax brackets will hopefully raise the number of people required to pay SOMETHING in income tax, but I agree that they should be paying something.

Even so, just one of those guys making 9 million a year+, based on the sheer amount of money they earn, probably pay as much as every single low income tax bracket person in the US....even if they need to contribute.

 

Trump will never move on from this, this will haunt him until he finally releases them like he promised the American people he would do...

 

Evidence for the above?

 

The question is if the tax system is rigged to benefit the high earns and punish the lower earners as the claim then why do top 1% pay almost 40% of income taxes, the top 25% pay almost 90% of income taxes, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing?

 

Looks like was a bit off

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/trump-is-right-conflict-of-interest-rules-dont-apply-to-him/

Maybe you should read it again

 

You're looking at percentages.

Someone who makes $25k a year that has to pay 10% of their income is going to be impacted far more than someone who makes $250k a year and has to pay 10%.

In the one case you're cutting into the bone, in the other, they won't be able to afford that 2nd yacht.

It's all about standard of living. Someone who makes $250k a year doesn't know what it's like to choose between medical care and making their mortgage.

 

I disagree. The Constitution suggests it's up to Congress to decide, since it is Congress who can grant their consent.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

 

Paying for a hotel room is none of those.. its a desperate law suit from a bunch of Progressive lemmings.

 

I would be OK with it as long as it benefited the country as a whole as well.

 

ROFL well those percentages area a HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY.

The claim is the system is rigged to favor the highest earners again

The question is if the tax system is rigged to benefit the high earns and punish the lower earners as the claimed then why do top 1% pay almost 40% of income taxes, the top 25% pay almost 90% of income taxes, the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing?

Wouldn't they rig it so the top 1% paid a WHOPPING 40% of income tax revenue and the bottom 50% pay virtually nothing?

And a person making $25,000 is not going to pay 10% income taxes and a person making $250,000 is going to pay far more than 10% in income taxes. In fact the bottom two income quintiles MAKE money off the tax system they pay a negative tax after all the deductions and refundable credits. So if the highest earners have rigged the system to benefit them it ain't working to well.

And as to your claim about people making over $250,000 not knowing what it's like what's it's like to struggle financially as if that somehow justify the disproportionate share of taxes they pay, most of those people started out like everyone else and worked their way, they just knew how manage their lives better and work their way up. Now you want to stick it to them.

 

Uhh. You brought it up.

 

Just out of curiosity, do you find posting in complete sentences inconvenient?

So what's any of this got to do with the emoluments clause?

Before I could read it again I'd have to read it once, and before I did that I'd have to have good reason.

Actually the record clearly shows I never brought up any lawsuit; but I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you've got me confused with someone else, seeing you've evidently got the voices in your head confused with the Constitution.

 

Read the link in the opening post, this entire thread is about a lawsuit concerning the emoluments clause, of the US Constitution!.

And be happy!

 

You haven't backed up the $250 million. "inexplicable" is not a fact

You haven't backed it up.

Donations to the Clinton foundation are available on the website. Charities target people with money. Big deal, although I would say that they should put some limits on where the money comes from and make sure they have some ethical standards in place and make sure they are not laundering money.

"Front organization" is not a fact.

I don't know how you can measure "the most powerful in the world political dynasty" so that is not a fact.

If you want to allege that the Clintons' wealth was obtained dishonestly, you need to do better than talk in generalities. Specific transactions that are linked to each other. Amounts, places, dates, people. Can you show me one transaction - just one - that is clearly dishonest?

 

Not whining. Asking for facts to support an assertion.

I was too restrictive in my other post. It is not just Trump supporters that lack analytical skills. Much of the American electorate (probably other countries too) don't really care about facts and analysis. Most voters are driven primarily by their prejudices and then fit the facts into their prejudices. Or make up "facts" to fit their prejudices. We are seeing a lot of the latter with Trump and his supporters recently.

It is a well-known phenomenon called confirmation bias.

 

He is a 1%er. Probably a 0.01%er or more. Do you honestly think he will re-write the tax code in such a way that he will pay more taxes than now? Not a chance, and there is no way we will ever know because he will not be transparent and tell us. He is a pathological liar.