Donald Trump tax hero 1

The Golden Rule for every citizen of a (comparatively speaking) free nation is: “Pay as little tax as you possibly can, preferably none.”

The New York Times – through long years one of the most despicable organs in the world – ILLEGALLY obtained Donald Trump’s tax returns.

What they reveal, and what the NYT is trying to make a scandal out of, is that Donald Trump pays as little tax as possible, preferably none.

For nearly twenty years he managed to make billions and pay no tax. That makes him a tax hero in our eyes. 

The hypocritical New York Times itself tries to pay as little tax as possible, preferably none. 

The Clinton Foundation made false declarations on its tax returns. Broke the law. When found out, hastily refiled “amended” returns. But that doesn’t interest the Clinton-serving, habitually lying, shamelessly thieving – altogether deeply immoral – NYT.

Wayne Allyn Root writes at Breitbart:

The Old Gray Lady (the New York Times, not Hillary Clinton) just attacked Donald Trump for supposedly paying no income taxes.

The New York Times knows exactly what it’s doing. It’s called fraud. It’s also called bait and switch. They are trying to distract you from the real crimes committed by Hillary Clinton.

They know Clinton is a criminal. They know she and her scheming husband Bill have committed terrible crimes against the American people. They know the Clinton Foundation is a charity scam. They know almost none of the money collected ever goes to charity. Any one of us running a charity scam like this would be in prison.

They know that the Clinton Foundation is basically a mafia extortion scheme set up to extort bribes from foreign leaders, foreign companies and foreign countries. They know Hillary put the Secretary of State’s office up for sale to the highest bidders. They know she took those bribes disguised as “donations” and repaid the “donors” with access to government awards, contracts and sweetheart deals. She took in billions of dollars, in a foundation in her name, then used our taxpayer dollars to reward the criminals buying access.

Hillary was running the CCC – the Clinton Crime Cartel.

Give Hillary credit. This scheme was more audacious than any mafia family has ever dreamed of. And more lucrative than even the mafia’s favorite products- drugs, booze, prostitution or pornography. Hillary is the new role model for the Gambinos.

Hillary’s scam was like printing money. No risk. Pay no taxes on the billions she collected – because it’s a “charity”.  Use the money for fancy dinners, 5-star hotels, private jets, big salaries and even penthouses for Chelsea Clinton. And pay no expenses either – because the payoff for the bribe is paid by taxpayers.

The New York Times doesn’t care. They don’t have any interest in investigating or reporting on the CCC – The Clinton Crime Cartel.

They are owned lock, stock and barrel by the CCC. They need Hillary in the White House. Who knows what favors they’ve been promised to keep the spotlight off Hillary’s serious crimes. Her crimes certainly include fraud, extortion, theft of taxpayer money, running a charity scam and income tax evasion.

And don’t forget purposely erasing 32,000 emails after hearing the FBI demanded to see them. You can bet those emails were about The Clinton Foundation and The Clinton Crime Cartel.

So the New York Times needed a cover-up to fool and distract the voters. They chose Donald Trump’s taxes. Their goal was to drown out Hillary’s real crimes by accusing Trump of LEGALLY reducing his taxes according to the letter of the law. The New York Times wants you to believe following tax law and LEGALLY reducing your taxes is a crime.

But what Hillary did … extorting bribes … selling out the country … selling the Secretary of State’s office … stealing our taxpayer money … and running ac charity scam … none of that should be an issue. “Move along sir … nothing to see here.”

Back to Trump’s taxes. The only possible tax issue is, of course, if a candidate cheats on his taxes. Donald Trump has been audited by the IRS for 20 years in a row. Not once has he ever been accused of cheating on his taxes. If he’d EVER had one irregularity, it would have been leaked by Obama and Hillary’s many friends in high places at the IRS.

You know, the same IRS agents who tried to destroy the Tea Party movement and conservative critics of Obama (like me). By the way, the New York Times never investigated the massive IRS scandal involving political targeting, intimidation and persecution. I have direct evidence obtained by Judicial Watch that the IRS targeted me for my political beliefs. But The New York Times had no interest. “Move along sir … nothing to see here.”

Since there has NEVER been even a hint of Trump cheating on his taxes, the desperate New York Times is trying to make LEGAL tax reduction strategies, advised by the smartest tax lawyers in America, into a crime. Donald Trump LEGALLY took advantage of every tax deduction offered by the tax system … and LEGALLY applied tax losses to future gains.

Every American … Republican or Democrat … has a right to take legal deductions and to apply and carry forward tax losses against tax gains. The New York Times knows this.

Last I checked if you lose a billion dollars in real estate (or stocks, or business investment) … then you make a billion … you owe zero. That’s a wash for tax purposes. Every businessman friend I’ve got has used the same math … and same LEGAL tax reduction strategy.

What’s the crime? There is none.

But extorting $2 billion at the Clinton Foundation from foreign countries and foreign companies through “donations” and $250,000 speaker fees … putting the State Department up for sale … and giving out billions in contracts and awards to the very people that donated to you … is a true crime. What the Clintons did is pure fraud upon America and the taxpayers.

LEGALLY taking tax deductions based on business or real estate losses to LEGALLY reduce your taxes is not only kosher … and legal … but it’s as American as apple pie.

Interesting that The New York Times ignores the real crime … and tries to make LEGAL tax reduction strategies a crime.

This is called fraud. This is also called “bait and switch”. …

Oh, one more thing. It turns out Hillary Clinton (in 2015) and the New York Times (in 2014) both used the same legal tax reduction strategy as Donald Trump to avoid paying any taxes.

It turns out these two gray old ladies are birds of a feather – frauds, liars, scam artists and hypocrites too.

Every sane tax-payer so arranges his affairs as to attract a MINIMUM amount of tax. What sort of fool would so arrange his affairs as to attract a MAXIMUM amount of tax?

Not even the evil fools at the New York Times.

Posted under Economics, Tax, United States by Jillian Becker on Monday, October 3, 2016

Tagged with , , , ,

This post has 1 comment.

Permalink

The voter’s choice: richer or poorer 3

Here are our selected details of the tax proposals of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

First: Trump’s plan benefits the individual. It lets you keep more of your income, considerably reduces tax on business, and abolishes estate duty.

That is to say, you will be personally better off with a President Trump; there will be more jobs; and your lifetime’s accumulation of wealth will go to your heirs without the government taking another bite out of your already taxed earnings and capital gains.

The overall result will be more prosperity.

We select our points from the analysis by the Tax Foundation:

Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016

Changes to the Individual Income Tax 

Consolidates the current seven tax brackets into three, with rates on ordinary income of 12 percent, 25 percent, and 33 percent.

Adapts the current rates for qualified capital gains and dividends to the new brackets.

Changes to Business Income Taxes

Eliminates the Net Investment Income Tax.

Makes childcare costs deductible from adjusted gross income for most Americans (above-the-line), up to the average cost of care in their state.

Offers credits (“spending rebates”) of up to $1,200 a year for childcare expenses to lower-income families, through the earned income tax credit.

Creates new saving accounts for care for children or elderly parents, or school tuitions, and offers a 50 percent match of contributions.

Reduces the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent.

Other Changes 

Eliminates federal estate and gift taxes. 

The Trump plan “will lower the business tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent, and eliminate the corporate alternative minimum tax. This rate is available to all businesses, both big and small, that want to retain the profits within the business”. 

Conclusion 

The Trump tax plan as outlined in September 2016 is a large tax cut, mostly on individual and corporate income.

This plan would significantly reduce the cost of capital and reduce the marginal tax rate on labor.

These changes in the incentives to work and invest would increase the U.S. economy’s size in the long run, boost wages, and result in more full-time equivalent jobs.

On a static basis, the plan would reduce federal revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion, depending on policy assumptions about business tax rates. However, due to the larger economy and the significantly broader tax base, the plan would reduce revenue by between $2.6 trillion and $3.9 trillion over the next decade, depending on those same policy assumptions.

In all cases, it would increase after-tax incomes for all income groups, but reduce revenue to the Treasury.

So as well as being good for the individual and business, which greatly commends it to us, it will also be bad for the government, which also commends it to us. 

*

Hillary Clinton’s tax proposals are intended to benefit the government. They take more of your income, hobble business, and hugely increase estate duty.

Again we select our points from the analysis of the Tax Foundation:

Details and Analysis of Hillary Clinton’s Tax Proposals 

Key Findings; 

Hillary Clinton would enact a number of tax policies that would raise taxes on individual and business income.

When accounting for reduced GDP, after-tax incomes of all taxpayers would fall by at least 0.9 percent.

Over the past few months, former Secretary of State and Senator Hillary Clinton has proposed a number of new and expanded government programs. In order to pay for these new or expanded services, she has proposed raising and enacting a number of new taxes.

Her plan would restore the estate tax to its 2009 parameters and would limit or eliminate other deductions for individuals and corporations.

Our analysis finds that the plan would increase revenue by $498 billion over the next decade.

The plan would also increase marginal tax rates on both labor and capital. As a result, the plan would reduce the size of gross domestic product (GDP) by 1 percent over the long term.

This reduction in GDP would translate into 0.8 percent lower wages and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs.

Accounting for the economic effects of the tax changes, the plan would end up increasing federal tax revenues by $191 billion over the next decade.

Restores the federal estate tax to 2009 levels. This would increase the estate tax rate to 45 percent and reduce the exemption to $3.5 million.

Economic Impact

According to the Tax Foundation’s Taxes and Growth Model, Hillary Clinton’s tax plan would reduce the economy’s size by 1 percent in the long run. The plan would lead to 0.8 percent lower wages, a 2.8 percent smaller capital stock, and 311,000 fewer full-time equivalent jobs. The smaller economy results from somewhat higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income.

Overall, the plan would increase federal revenue on a static basis by $498 billion over the next 10 years. Most of the revenue gain is due to increased individual income tax revenue, which we project to raise approximately $381 billion over the next decade. The changes to the estate tax will raise an additional $106 billion over the next decade. The remaining $11 billion would be raised through increased taxes on corporations.

On a dynamic basis, the plan would reduce after-tax incomes by an average of 1.3 percent. All deciles would see a reduction in after-tax income of at least 0.9 percent over the long-term. Taxpayers that fall in the bottom nine deciles would see their after-tax incomes decline by between 0.9 and 1 percent.

Conclusion 

Hillary Clinton would enact a number of tax policies that would raise tax revenue over the next decade in order to fund new or expanded programs. Most of her policies raise tax revenue as designed, except for her capital gains policy, which would actually end up losing revenue both on a static and a dynamic basis due to the incentives it creates to hold on to assets longer. If enacted, her tax policies would impose slightly higher marginal tax rates on capital and labor income, which would result in a reduction in the size of the U.S. economy in the long run. This would decrease the revenue that the new tax policies would ultimately collect.

The plan would lead to lower after-tax incomes for taxpayers at all income levels, but especially for taxpayers at the top.

In sum, Hillary’s proposals are bad for the individual. She would make everyone poorer.

So the choice is clear:

Vote for Trump if you want to be better off.

Vote for Hillary if you despise money, consider “profit” a dirty word, and enjoy submitting to the power of government.

 

See the full analyses here and here.

Posted under Tax by Jillian Becker on Friday, September 23, 2016

Tagged with ,

This post has 3 comments.

Permalink