Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
If life was fair we wouldn't of had Clinton and Trump on the ballot in 2016...and Asian hookers would charge friendly fred double!
Agreed about 2016, and Gary Johnson would have won the election. While I don't know the specifics about Friendly Fred, if the issue is the size of his penis, he should be sending the extra moolah our way instead of paying the hookers more. There's nothing more depressing than a sexy, petite Asian hooker with a huge, stretched out vagina.
If life was fair we wouldn't of had Clinton and Trump on the ballot in 2016...and Asian hookers would charge friendly fred double!
I would be happy if Asian hookers doubled their rates for everybody - and poor exploited Mexican "contractors" got to double their wages and the general contractor was required to have a workers comp policy for every "sub" on his worksite.
Considering I pay the prettiest, skinny and sexiest hookers $400 per hour, I'm sure I can afford the going rate.
I don't think you should get taxes back for having kids in the first place. Remember that lie trump said about doing taxes on a postcard lol. Promises kept Ha.
I don't think you should get taxes back for having kids in the first place. Remember that lie trump said about doing taxes on a postcard lol. Promises kept Ha.
Again a flat tax with a standard starting point for where the tax kicks in by income. But that doesn't allow the Dems to tax the rich unjustly like today.
And while it's a good discussion, the actual percentage of tax revenue in discussion here is small as it's the upper earners currently shouldering the largest burden of tax revenue.
And lastly, the little dig at the post card is a good one. At least Trump attempted that much reform.
It does have fewer lines, 23. The current 1040 form has 79. But people will still be required to file several pages of worksheets if they wish to itemize deductions.
But the postcard is truly not possible without major tax reform as I'm proposing.
And at least it wasn't the Dem's version of the postcard.
You ignore renters and people who just happen to live together. Not everyone under a single roof is a "family" unit.
Taxing by address is one of the most ridiculous proposals I've ever heard for the tax system.
you totally missed the point.
I said nothing about taxing by address. I said MATCH the addresses of people claiming children, with those children. related people.. there must be a CLOSE family relationship to qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is the subject of most of this thread. this has zero to do with taxing anybody.
I said nothing about taxing by address. I said MATCH the addresses of people claiming children, with those children. related people.. there must be a CLOSE family relationship to qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is the subject of most of this thread. this has zero to do with taxing anybody.
I think eccielover was trying to solve the problem by simplifying the system instead of matching addresses.
Some time ago, people floated an idea called the fair tax, which was a sales tax that would replace the income tax. The government would send a rebate check to everyone, with credit given for children. The check would be the same for everyone, whether they're homeless or millionaires. The effect would be that the poor would get a check equal to the estimated amount they would have spent on the tax. You could jigger this around, and by perhaps giving more credit to children do something about childhood poverty.
Anyway this would be much simpler than what we've got now and eliminate a lot of fraud and gaming of the system. I'd guess over $100 billion per year would be saved on the cost of complying with tax regulations. Switching from an income based tax to a consumption based tax would supercharge investment and in the long run make the country more prosperous.
Agreed about 2016, and Gary Johnson would have won the election. While I don't know the specifics about Friendly Fred, if the issue is the size of his penis, he should be sending the extra moolah our way instead of paying the hookers more. There's nothing more depressing than a sexy, petite Asian hooker with a huge, stretched out vagina.
If they charged him according to the size of his little weenie...he'd probably get a rebate.
He likes to cry about Mexicans yet he loves cheap illega6asian hookers!
I said nothing about taxing by address. I said MATCH the addresses of people claiming children, with those children. related people.. there must be a CLOSE family relationship to qualify for the earned income tax credit, which is the subject of most of this thread. this has zero to do with taxing anybody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiny
I think eccielover was trying to solve the problem by simplifying the system instead of matching addresses.
Yes, any concept of "matching addresses" is ridiculous at face value. Consider divorce, separation, etc. And the tax code today already "requires" as CLOSE family relationship and almost every example that was given matches that CLOSE family relationship.
Also, the majority of the examples are more closely related to the Child Tax Credit than the Earned Income Credit, which again raises the question of why such a convoluted tax system?
I would be happy if Asian hookers doubled their rates for everybody - and poor exploited Mexican "contractors" got to double their wages and the general contractor was required to have a workers comp policy for every "sub" on his worksite.
Considering I pay the prettiest, skinny and sexiest hookers $400 per hour, I'm sure I can afford the going rate.
I wonder why "The Donald" doesn't want us see his taxes????
He doesn't want thousands of Democrat accountants and lawyers examining his extremely complicated tax returns to try to ferret out violations of tax laws and regulations. The tax system in this country is so complicated that anyone with business interests like he's got is going to make some mistakes or be involved in some gray areas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfunkdenver
Is he really not wealthy?
Correct, he's not as wealthy as he says he is, and his tax returns would probably highlight that. He's notorious for exaggerating his net worth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfunkdenver
Is he a cheat?
Who knows. The IRS has audited his returns. But if you get a hold of enough of his returns you're going to find some things that stink. Notably, he miraculously was able to generate about $900 million in carried forward tax losses from his failed casinos, which he did not have to offset with "forgiveness of debt income" when he stiffed his bondholders and bankers. So he was able to offset his income from future years with these carried forward losses, maybe all the way up until present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfunkdenver
Why the secrecy?
I can't think of any sane person in his position who would want his tax returns made public. His returns have to be a lot more complicated than Mitt Romney's, and Romney got hurt from making his returns public.
I wonder why "The Donald" doesn't want us see his taxes???? Is he a cheat? Is he really not wealthy? Why the secrecy?
because he's not that wealthy. just it's that simple. Jackie and others have pointed it out. first there's no law so no secrecy and as president he does need to submit info. debt to equity he's maybe not even a billionaire which is why he doesn't want his returns public.
he claims as much as 8-10 B Forbes give him 3 B now..
He doesn't want thousands of Democrat accountants and lawyers examining his extremely complicated tax returns to try to ferret out violations of tax laws and regulations. The tax system in this country is so complicated that anyone with business interests like he's got is going to make some mistakes or be involved in some gray areas.
Correct, he's not as wealthy as he says he is, and his tax returns would probably highlight that. He's notorious for exaggerating his net worth.
Who knows. The IRS has audited his returns. But if you get a hold of enough of his returns you're going to find some things that stink. Notably, he miraculously was able to generate about $900 million in carried forward tax losses from his failed casinos, which he did not have to offset with "forgiveness of debt income" when he stiffed his bondholders and bankers. So he was able to offset his income from future years with these carried forward losses, maybe all the way up until present.
I can't think of any sane person in his position who would want his tax returns made public. His returns have to be a lot more complicated than Mitt Romney's, and Romney got hurt from making his returns public.
Everyone gets tax loss carryforwards if they have business losses that meet the criteria....and only a stupid fucking faggot would not use them.
