Ponderable

No, he guaranteed loans that went bad, which is why he is able to personally use the tax losses. Him losing other people's money, is a different topic and more proof he is a con man and charlatan.
Speaking of a con man

Musk is no stranger to cozy relations with federal and state governments. All three of his companies have benefited heavily from taxpayers. Yet despite generous green energy handouts, his SolarCity is heavily indebted. He now wants to merge it with his electric car company, Tesla Motors, which also benefited from almost $1.3 billion in subsidies. Solidifying his crony credentials, the epitome of crony capitalism itself, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, has subsidized the payloads for numerous SpaceX launches. The Ex-Im Bank's chairman misrepresented this as support for "small business."

When it comes to colonizing Mars, it's easy to get swept up in Musk's vision. Commercial space flight has a bright future, but that future shouldn't be built on the backs of taxpayers. Yet it's hard to see how SpaceX is ready to self-finance such a bold mission without heavy government involvement.
There's no doubt that Musk is an impressive salesman and innovator. The government bought into his pitch of cheap rocket launches and rewarded him with lucrative contracts. Unfortunately, his low bid price may end up offset by the explosive tendencies of his rockets. Now that he has set his sights on Mars, let's hope—for the future of science and exploration—that he can avoid similar disasters and also that he has the courtesy to leave taxpayers out of it. We are already very busy paying higher interest on our giant debt and taxes.

http://reason.com/archives/2016/09/29/will-elon-musk-launch-for-mars-off-the-b
 
So far all you have is a slogan.

Unlike yourself I'm not the smartest man on the site.
In my humble opinion, tax codes need to be simpler and more should have skin in the game.

I'm sure you already know what is printed below.
Tax documents obtained by the New York Times show that Donald Trump declared a massive net operating loss of $916 million in 1995, enough to allow him to avoid paying federal income taxes for up to 18 years. The documents shed light on provisions in the U.S. tax code that allow wealthy individuals to avoid income tax payments even in years when they make millions.

In 1995, Trump declared $3.4 million in business income, $7.4 million in interest income, and close to $100,000 in income from other sources such as dividends, taxable refunds and wages. But this income was more than offset by hundreds of millions of dollars in reported losses from real estate and "the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan," according to the Times.

About 46 percent of all tax filers (individuals or households) pay no federal income taxes each year because of various exclusions. High-income tax filers make up a tiny portion of that number, but they are by far the biggest beneficiaries. More than half of the tax revenue lost to the most common tax exclusions stays in the pockets of the richest one-fifth of Americans, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office.

While it's rare for high-earners to pay no federal income tax, it's not unheard of. In 2011, for instance, about 433,000 tax filers with incomes over $100,000 paid no federal income tax, according to estimates based on limited IRS data by the Tax Policy Center, a nonprofit think tank. That number includes approximately 4,000 filers with an income of $1 million or more.

The wealthy and poor households that paid no income tax in 2011 did so for drastically different reasons. Most low-income filers — those with a pretax income of $20,000 or less — who paid no tax did so because of the basic structure of our progressive tax system, which determined they made just enough to cover family expenses, or less.

Many also benefit from the Earned Income Tax Credit, which offers a refund to low- and moderate-income workers. That cost the government about $61 billion in forgone tax revenue in 2013, according to the CBO.

By contrast, high earners who paid no tax were primarily able to do so because of a wide array of other special provisions in tax law. Roughly 1,000 of the 4,000 millionaire non-payers in 2011 did so because their income that year was locked away in individual retirement accounts not subject to federal taxes, according to Roberton Williams of the Urban Institute, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center analysis.

At an annual cost of $137 billion annually, the tax exclusion for pension contributions was more than twice as expensive as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Another significant chunk of the 4,000 high-income non-filers made their money from interest on municipal bonds, which is not subject to federal income tax. Reduced tax rates on capital gains were also one of most costly federal tax provisions: $161 billion.

Calculating the cost of the 10 largest tax expenditures — the exclusions, deductions and credits allowed through the tax code — the 2013 CBO report found that the top quintile of earners were the biggest beneficiaries.

The CBO report didn't include "net operating loss" in its calculation of top tax expenditures. But as Trump shows, it can be a major boon.

People like Trump who work in real estate can use real estate losses to offset gains or income from elsewhere, according to Williams. For real estate developers, "your business is such that you're more likely to generate losses in the short run, and [the government] is going to allow you a way of deferring your taxes while you're in a losing situation," Williams said.

But, he added, often times "these are paper losses, not real losses." The tax code allows property owners in the real estate business to claim losses from things like depreciation even if the property itself is gaining market value.

Williams says these provisions are not necessarily problematic or harmful on their own, and that they weren't created with the intention of allowing wealthy people to avoid paying taxes indefinitely. But the complexity they add to an already-complex and massive tax code can erode people's trust in the fairness of the tax system.

"Right now we have an extremely complex tax code that literally nobody understands," Williams said in an interview. "That's not right. The reasons that isn't right is not so much that the provisions themselves are wrong, but rather that we don't understand why we're paying what we do."

This complexity can lead to suspicion of wealthy non-taxpayers, like Trump. And it can just as easily lead to suspicion of low-income people who don't pay tax either.

"HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling govt debt," Trump tweeted in 2012. Left unsaid was that for at least part of his career, Trump was one of them.

entire story:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/taxe...-income-taxes/ar-BBwXZYT?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=iehp
 
By contrast, high earners who paid no tax were primarily able to do so because of a wide array of other special provisions in tax law. Roughly 1,000 of the 4,000 millionaire non-payers in 2011 did so because their income that year was locked away in individual retirement accounts not subject to federal taxes, according to Roberton Williams of the Urban Institute, one of the authors of the Tax Policy Center analysis.

At an annual cost of $137 billion annually, the tax exclusion for pension contributions was more than twice as expensive as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Another significant chunk of the 4,000 high-income non-filers made their money from interest on municipal bonds, which is not subject to federal income tax. Reduced tax rates on capital gains were also one of most costly federal tax provisions: $161 billion.

So are you suggesting we get rid of tax deferred retirement accounts and municipal bond tax benefits? Please tell me that's not what you are saying...
 
So are you suggesting we get rid of tax deferred retirement accounts and municipal bond tax benefits? Please tell me that's not what you are saying...

Mr. Williams is explaining why the rich folks don't pay taxes....
"Paper loses, not real loses...." "... we have an extremely complex tax code that literally nobody understands,"
So, we have exemptions, yet some would attack those that use them legally.
Eliminate the exemptions or stop attacking the rich folks that use them legally?
Ah hell, just take their money away, they didn't earn it anyways. They must have ripped the system, the poor & the government off.
 
So, we have exemptions, yet some would attack those that use them legally.
Eliminate the exemptions or stop attacking the rich folks that use them legally?

I haven't attacked Trump for using his net operating losses, I would too. What I was amazed at was how he managed to accumulate $1B in NOL in one year. Literally, his only claim to fame is his supposed business acumen, yet we know he has BKed several times, ran his public company into the ground and ripped off everyone he does business with.

He is the opposite of a successful businessman. Mitt Romney makes him look like a clown in the business dept.
 
I haven't attacked Trump for using his net operating losses, I would too. What I was amazed at was how he managed to accumulate $1B in NOL in one year. Literally, his only claim to fame is his supposed business acumen, yet we know he has BKed several times, ran his public company into the ground and ripped off everyone he does business with.

He is the opposite of a successful businessman. Mitt Romney makes him look like a clown in the business dept.
Is there a law against being an unsuccessful business man? If so, we should prosecute Trump, Obama, Musk and every member of Congress for bailing out the banks during the housing crisis.
 
I haven't attacked Trump for using his net operating losses, I would too. What I was amazed at was how he managed to accumulate $1B in NOL in one year. Literally, his only claim to fame is his supposed business acumen, yet we know he has BKed several times, ran his public company into the ground and ripped off everyone he does business with.

He is the opposite of a successful businessman. Mitt Romney makes him look like a clown in the business dept.

Do we know the business tax practices of Soros or Buffett? How 'bout the Koch's?
Is it against the law to fill bankruptcy?
Are you positive he's "ripped off everyone " he does business with?
He's been around quite sometime, one would believe he would run out of people willing to do business with him?
Seems as if you perhaps are exaggerating a bit? Painting portraits with a crop duster?
What did Romney do to piss you off?
 
Do we know the business tax practices of Soros or Buffett? How 'bout the Koch's?

Relevance?
Is it against the law to fill bankruptcy?

Of course not, but it does show a big fuck up. He is supposed to be successful, not the opposite of successful.

Are you positive he's "ripped off everyone " he does business with? He's been around quite sometime, one would believe he would run out of people willing to do business with him?

Nah, plenty of suckers born every day.

What did Romney do to piss you off?

Uh? I was paying Romney a compliment. I wish he was running right now, I'd probably vote for him.
 
BB8nvaW.img
e151e5.gif

U.S. News & World Report

Hillary Clinton's Handling of Bill's Affairs Should Raise Concerns
Hillary Clinton's decision to bring up former Miss Universe Alicia Machado during the closing minutes of the presidential debate has the establishment press in a tizzy. The supposedly thoughtful people are devoting a lot of bandwidth to exploring not just whether this creates an opening for her opponent to bring up former President Bill Clinton's history of marital infidelity but whether it would be legitimate for him to do so.

It's an interesting question and the wrong question. The invocation of the Machado story, which the establishment press had ready to roll – surprise, surprise – as soon as Clinton brought it up has little to do with Bill Clinton's various infidelities, as far as the qualifications to be president go. It has everything to do, however, with legitimizing the discussion of how the former first lady treats women, especially those women whom she saw as a threat to her husband's reputation and, in turn, a danger to her political future.

Back when he was in the White House and his active extramarital goings-on were all over the news channels, people knew who Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp and Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones were. More importantly, they knew why they knew.

That was nearly 20 years ago. To the voters who may well decide the outcome of the election in 2016, it is ancient history. It seems a little strange therefore that so many of the pundits seemingly on Clinton's side seem ready to relitigate the whole business.

They're not fools. They believe, first and foremost, the country didn't care back in the 90s and won't care now, so it won't cost Clinton any votes. Second, it gives them an excuse to start talking about Donald Trump's marital record while making it look like he started it. The New York Times and other publications are already trying to get a court to unseal the records from his divorces, probably because they figure they contain enough dirt to bury him. A public fight over who is the better husband – Trump or Bill Clinton – would increase the credibility of the argument that the public has a right to know what's in court documents that are frankly none of their business.

All that aside, it's also a diversion from the real issue: what Clinton did, what she knew and what she authorized be done as part of a campaign directed from inside the White House to destroy the reputations of anyone connected in a sexual context to her husband.

Did she know beforehand a senior presidential adviser would dismiss Paula Jones' complaint that Clinton, while governor of Arkansas, asked her to perform a sex act on him (and remember, she later won an out of court settlement against him) as what happens when you drag hundred dollars bills through a trailer park?

When a mid-level aide in her husband's White House went around town telling people Monica Lewinsky was a "stalker," did she know ahead of time he was going to do it? And did she approve or did she discourage him from engaging in shaming activities that blamed the victim in order to protect her meal ticket?

It's absolutely relevant to ask questions about the role she played in the damage control operation. What did she know about the work of Jack Palladino, a San Francisco-based private investigator who became notorious for his work putting out the so-called "bimbo eruptions" that plagued the Clintons from the 1992 New Hampshire primary through their eight years in the Oval Office? She needs to be asked if she played any part in hiring him, what she might have known about what he was doing, whether she gave or caused him to be given names of women who were of particular concern because of the problems they might cause. Did she know she was lying when she told the country she believed her husband and not the White House intern who figured at the center of the worst presidential scandal since Watergate? A clear understanding of what she did in the past might help us all understand better what she will do in the future.

These are not incidental points. They are central to questions about her temperament, her judgment, her problem-solving abilities, and if certain rumors are to be believed, her commitment to staying inside the law during moments of crisis. These are aspects of private character that matter very much in a president, as we learned to are everlasting disappointment from men like Richard Nixon and Lyndon Johnson. The people and the press are already asking these kinds of questions about Trump, so it's not as if the ground isn't already broken. They just need to be asked of Clinton too – and they will be. If not now, then later, when we may have to live with whatever answers we get no matter how unpleasant they might be.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opini...rs-should-raise-concerns/ar-BBwQBGP?ocid=iehp
 
...........................


Time for some Krauthammer....

Only amid the most bizarre, most tawdry, most addictive election campaign in memory could the real story of 2016 be so effectively obliterated, namely, that with just four months left in the Obama presidency, its two central pillars are collapsing before our eyes: domestically, its radical reform of American health care, a.k.a. Obamacare; and abroad, its radical reorientation of American foreign policy — disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism.

Obamacare.

On Monday, Bill Clinton called it “the craziest thing in the world.” And he was only talking about one crazy aspect of it — the impact on the consumer. Clinton pointed out that small business and hardworking employees (“out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week”) are “getting whacked . . . their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.”

This, as the program’s entire economic foundation is crumbling. More than half its nonprofit “co-ops” have gone bankrupt. Major health insurers like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, having lost millions of dollars, are withdrawing from the exchanges. In one-third of the U.S., exchanges will have only one insurance provider. Premiums and deductibles are exploding. Even the New York Times blares “Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive.”

Young people, refusing to pay disproportionately to subsidize older and sicker patients, are not signing up. As the risk pool becomes increasingly unbalanced, the death spiral accelerates. And the only way to save the system is with massive infusions of tax money.

What to do? The Democrats will eventually push to junk Obamacare for a full-fledged, government-run, single-payer system. Republicans will seek to junk it for a more market-based pre-Obamacare-like alternative. Either way, the singular domestic achievement of this presidency dies.

The Obama Doctrine.

At the same time, Obama’s radically reoriented foreign policy is in ruins. His vision was to move away from a world where stability and “the success of liberty” (JFK, inaugural address) were anchored by American power and move toward a world ruled by universal norms, mutual obligation, international law and multilateral institutions. No more cowboy adventures, no more unilateralism, no more Guantanamo. We would ascend to the higher moral plane of diplomacy. Clean hands, clear conscience, “smart power.”

This blessed vision has just died a terrible death in Aleppo. Its unraveling was predicted and predictable, though it took fully two terms to unfold. This policy of pristine — and preening — disengagement from the grubby imperatives of realpolitik yielded Crimea, the South China Sea, the rise of the Islamic State, the return of Iran. And now the horror and the shame of Aleppo.

After endless concessions to Russian demands meant to protect and preserve the genocidal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, last month we finally capitulated to a deal in which we essentially joined Russia in that objective. But such is Vladimir Putin’s contempt for our president that he wouldn’t stop there.

He blatantly violated his own cease-fire with an air campaign of such spectacular savagery — targeting hospitals, water-pumping stations and a humanitarian aid convoy — that even Barack Obama and John Kerry could no longer deny that Putin is seeking not compromise but conquest. And is prepared to kill everyone in rebel-held Aleppo to achieve it. Obama, left with no options — and astonishingly, having prepared none — looks on.

At the outset of the war, we could have bombed Assad’s airfields and destroyed his aircraft, eliminating the regime’s major strategic advantage — control of the air.

Five years later, we can’t. Russia is there. Putin has just installed S-300 antiaircraft missiles near Tartus. Yet, none of the rebels have any air assets. This is a warning and deterrent to the only power that could do something — the United States.

Obama did nothing before. He will surely do nothing now. For Americans, the shame is palpable. Russia’s annexation of Crimea may be an abstraction, but that stunned, injured little boy in Aleppo is not.

“What is Aleppo?” famously asked Gary Johnson. Answer: the burial ground of the Obama fantasy of benign disengagement.

What’s left of the Obama legacy? Even Democrats are running away from Obamacare. And who will defend his foreign policy of lofty speech and cynical abdication?

In 2014, Obama said, “Make no mistake: [My] policies are on the ballot.” Democrats were crushed in that midterm election.

This time around, Obama says, “My legacy’s on the ballot.” If the 2016 campaign hadn’t turned into a referendum on character — a battle fully personalized and ad hominem — the collapse of the Obama legacy would indeed be right now on the ballot. And his party would be 20 points behind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.49ea3e68cf69
 
Instead of posting a wall of text that nobody cares to read, why not just post the link and a couple of your own comments?
 
...........................


Time for some Krauthammer....

Only amid the most bizarre, most tawdry, most addictive election campaign in memory could the real story of 2016 be so effectively obliterated, namely, that with just four months left in the Obama presidency, its two central pillars are collapsing before our eyes: domestically, its radical reform of American health care, a.k.a. Obamacare; and abroad, its radical reorientation of American foreign policy — disengagement marked by diplomacy and multilateralism.

Obamacare.

On Monday, Bill Clinton called it “the craziest thing in the world.” And he was only talking about one crazy aspect of it — the impact on the consumer. Clinton pointed out that small business and hardworking employees (“out there busting it, sometimes 60 hours a week”) are “getting whacked . . . their premiums doubled and their coverage cut in half.”

This, as the program’s entire economic foundation is crumbling. More than half its nonprofit “co-ops” have gone bankrupt. Major health insurers like Aetna and UnitedHealthcare, having lost millions of dollars, are withdrawing from the exchanges. In one-third of the U.S., exchanges will have only one insurance provider. Premiums and deductibles are exploding. Even the New York Times blares “Ailing Obama Health Care Act May Have to Change to Survive.”

Young people, refusing to pay disproportionately to subsidize older and sicker patients, are not signing up. As the risk pool becomes increasingly unbalanced, the death spiral accelerates. And the only way to save the system is with massive infusions of tax money.

What to do? The Democrats will eventually push to junk Obamacare for a full-fledged, government-run, single-payer system. Republicans will seek to junk it for a more market-based pre-Obamacare-like alternative. Either way, the singular domestic achievement of this presidency dies.

The Obama Doctrine.

At the same time, Obama’s radically reoriented foreign policy is in ruins. His vision was to move away from a world where stability and “the success of liberty” (JFK, inaugural address) were anchored by American power and move toward a world ruled by universal norms, mutual obligation, international law and multilateral institutions. No more cowboy adventures, no more unilateralism, no more Guantanamo. We would ascend to the higher moral plane of diplomacy. Clean hands, clear conscience, “smart power.”

This blessed vision has just died a terrible death in Aleppo. Its unraveling was predicted and predictable, though it took fully two terms to unfold. This policy of pristine — and preening — disengagement from the grubby imperatives of realpolitik yielded Crimea, the South China Sea, the rise of the Islamic State, the return of Iran. And now the horror and the shame of Aleppo.

After endless concessions to Russian demands meant to protect and preserve the genocidal regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, last month we finally capitulated to a deal in which we essentially joined Russia in that objective. But such is Vladimir Putin’s contempt for our president that he wouldn’t stop there.

He blatantly violated his own cease-fire with an air campaign of such spectacular savagery — targeting hospitals, water-pumping stations and a humanitarian aid convoy — that even Barack Obama and John Kerry could no longer deny that Putin is seeking not compromise but conquest. And is prepared to kill everyone in rebel-held Aleppo to achieve it. Obama, left with no options — and astonishingly, having prepared none — looks on.

At the outset of the war, we could have bombed Assad’s airfields and destroyed his aircraft, eliminating the regime’s major strategic advantage — control of the air.

Five years later, we can’t. Russia is there. Putin has just installed S-300 antiaircraft missiles near Tartus. Yet, none of the rebels have any air assets. This is a warning and deterrent to the only power that could do something — the United States.

Obama did nothing before. He will surely do nothing now. For Americans, the shame is palpable. Russia’s annexation of Crimea may be an abstraction, but that stunned, injured little boy in Aleppo is not.

“What is Aleppo?” famously asked Gary Johnson. Answer: the burial ground of the Obama fantasy of benign disengagement.

What’s left of the Obama legacy? Even Democrats are running away from Obamacare. And who will defend his foreign policy of lofty speech and cynical abdication?

In 2014, Obama said, “Make no mistake: [My] policies are on the ballot.” Democrats were crushed in that midterm election.

This time around, Obama says, “My legacy’s on the ballot.” If the 2016 campaign hadn’t turned into a referendum on character — a battle fully personalized and ad hominem — the collapse of the Obama legacy would indeed be right now on the ballot. And his party would be 20 points behind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...c1bfe943b66_story.html?utm_term=.49ea3e68cf69
Fresh crisis for the originators of the previous crisis to $olve with the taxpayers dollars.
 
Instead of posting a wall of text that nobody cares to read, why not just post the link and a couple of your own comments?
Not everyone is as lazy as you. Did you watch the entire video of the rocket launch you posted? Probably not. Why not just post from the 51st minute on? Lol!
 
Back
Top