The Inevitable New The Inevitable Trump Mocking Thread

It's about time.

6a3a65_chinese-foreign-minister-wang-yi-warned-case-politicised-mike-pompeo-it-e1539024671526.jpg

GETTY IMAGES NORTH AMERICA/AFP CHIP SOMODEVILLA
JOHN HAYWARD 8 Oct 2018


After meeting with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang on Sunday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi and a senior Chinese cabinet official named Yang Jiechi.


Wang slammed the U.S. for escalating “trade frictions” with China and supporting Taiwan, urging Pompeo to help mend relations between the two countries.

The Associated Press on Monday described the meeting between Pompeo and Wang as “polite but edgy” – edgy enough to have reporters escorted from the conference room in Beijing before the two got down to business.

The L.A. Times went with “chilly” to describe the meeting and called Wang’s public remarks “unusually sharp.” The New York Times found Wang’s words “unusually blunt” and Pompeo’s response “tart.” The Wall Street Journal said the meeting between Wang and Pompeo included some “testy words.”

The NYT speculated the Chinese are still smarting from Vice President Mike Pence’s sharp criticism during a speech to the Hudson Institute last Thursday. The Chinese scuttled an expected meeting between Pompeo and President Xi Jinping, sending Yang Jiechi instead to express Xi’s displeasure to the visiting Secretary of State.

China is also perpetually anxious about being cut out of the North Korean denuclearization process and might have felt a display of diplomatic muscle was needed after Pompeo’s visit to Pyongyang, where he is believed to have set the stage for another summit between dictator Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump. Pompeo also departed Pyongyang with an agreement to allow international inspectors at North Korean missile sites, an achievement that appears to leave China on the sidelines, especially if Chinese inspectors are not invited to participate in the international denuclearization verification process.

Wang complained the U.S. is “constantly interfering in China’s internal and external affairs,” which sounds like a combination of petulance over the Trump administration’s accusations of Chinese meddling in the 2018 U.S. election and anger at American freedom of navigation patrols in the South China Sea. China defied international court rulings and territorial claims by other Asian nations to seize virtually the entire region as Chinese territory and is responding to U.S. patrols with increasing aggression.

Wang was particularly critical of U.S. support for Taiwan. The Trump administration angered Beijing last week by approving a $330 million arms shipment to Taiwan in defiance of Chinese demands to cancel the deal.

“Recently, as the U.S. side has been constantly escalating trade friction toward China, it has also adopted a series of actions on the Taiwan issue that harm China’s rights, and has made groundless criticism of China’s domestic and foreign policies,” Wang said.

“These actions have affected the mutual trust between both sides, and have cast a shadow over the prospects for China-U.S. relations, which completely go against the interest of our two peoples. We demand that the U.S. side stop these kinds of mistaken actions,” he continued.

Pompeo responded that the United States has a “fundamental disagreement” with China on the issues Wang listed.

“We have grave concerns about the actions China has taken,” he said.

Pompeo also expressed regrets that China chose not to participate in a “strategic dialogue” originally scheduled for October. Wang insisted it was the U.S. that canceled the dialogue, not China.
 
So t was given hundreds of millions from his father that they didn't properly pay taxes on? Must be nice, if you can get away with it . . . if you ain't cheating you ain't trying. The masquerade, and fleecing of America goes on.
 
Hüsker Dü said:
So t was given hundreds of millions from his father that they didn't properly pay taxes on? Must be nice, if you can get away with it . . . if you ain't cheating you ain't trying. The masquerade, and fleecing of America goes on.
Click to expand...
You should perhaps have an inkling of what you puke up and assume is truth...read up Daffy, take notes. Then repeat. Again...

Trump’s taxes and you: Five questions answered

As someone who works on issues of wealth and taxation, I was excited about the New York Times special investigation into the Trump family’s wealth and potential tax avoidance. Not for obvious political reasons, but because I knew there was a brief moment in time to talk about some of the matters I care about with my family and friends. Yes, the tax schemes discussed in the story seemed extreme, but what I really wanted everyone to know was how common they are.

The Kavanaugh confirmation was on everyone’s mind, so I could not hope for their undivided attention. The best thing I could do is to encourage my loved ones to read the article, but it is LONG and people are busy. I think the more important service I can offer is to answer their burning questions:

Are these tax schemes legal?

I am not a criminal attorney but there are parts of the report that raise alarms for any legal expert. New York authorities have signaled their willingness to investigate, but these cases are hard to prove. There may also be statute of limitation issues as well. Stay tuned but do not hold your breath that anything will come of this.

The harder truth to swallow may be that the majority of this if perfectly legal. Playing games with value is old school. Valuation is a negotiation or compromise and there’s a vast range. As in all negotiations it is advantageous to set the initial number and the taxpayer always does. For example, let’s assume that your property is worth $10 million. You get a qualified but friendly appraiser who makes favorable assumptions and you submit a value of $1 million. There’s a chance the IRS may never audit you and even if they do you’ll reach an agreement at about $3-5 million. The gross undervaluation was still worth the trouble.

A part of the Times investigation focuses on an advanced estate planning technique, the GRAT. Yet Congress explicitly allowed for this technique in 1990. In the late 1990s when Wal-Mart heirs used a more sophisticated, tax-saving version of the GRAT, the IRS challenged, but lost. None of this is a surprise to Congress.

How did authorities or regulators miss this?

There’s a perfect storm of reasons why wealthy individuals are able to avoid taxation and detection. Long story short: (a) the wealthy have endless resources to make things that seem questionable appear ordinary, (b) the IRS and local tax authorities do not have the resources or determination to match, (c) authorities at the state and federal level do not coordinate with each other and the IRS does not even coordinate with itself, (d) there is no third-party verification at this level. When the wealthy make money there’s no W2 that their employer sends to the IRS to keep them honest, and (e) the estate tax is a weak law with many loopholes.

Are all wealthy people doing this?

Yes and no. Wealthy individuals like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates will also avoid the estate tax in a perfectly ordinary way: giving their money away to charity. Any wealthy person can avail themselves of this opportunity.

On the other hand, estate planning schemes are well known, and a substantial number of wealthy families utilize them. This creates a two-tiered system where the super-wealthy and those who are more sophisticated engage in the most aggressive planning. The less sophisticated or unaware then tend to pay a much higher effective tax rate.

Will electing Democrats in November make a difference?

Not necessarily. These schemes and loopholes have been around for decades and have been well known to experts and legislators. This covers time periods where both parties were in power. Lest we forget, there are wealthy donors of all political stripes.

Are there other ways to combat wealth inequality?

Fortunately, tax academics have been thinking about this for a long time. Here are a couple of their ideas: (a) strengthen the estate tax and close the loopholes, (b) get rid of the estate tax and amend the income tax to end loopholes that allow a family to inherit appreciated property tax-free, (c) move to a different form of taxation like an annual wealth tax that more directly tackles the problem, (d) focus on broader taxation like a value-added tax and focus more efforts combating lack of wealth at the bottom, (e) focus more efforts and resources on shutting down tax avoidance by the wealthy.

Goldburn P. Maynard Jr. is the assistant professor of law at the University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law

https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/410252-trumps-taxes-and-you-five-questions-answered
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top