And if Trump had a lick of sense or morality he would say “the tax code is stupid; it allows ultra-rich people like me to get away with paying literally nothing while the working middle-class like you get stuck with the bill. We need to fix that problem.”
Instead he says “Paying no taxes makes me smart. And if elected I will further cut taxes for rich people like me, because we’re the job creators.”
As a for profit enterprise, the New York Times is morally obligated to fully explore the solution space that is dictated by its economic and regulatory environment. If the profitable course of action is not technically illegal, logic dictates that it will be taken. The times owes it’s shareholders that courage.
None of those assumptions have yet been refuted by the Trump campaign, and Trump is standing by his decision to be the first major-party candidate since Gerald Ford not to release his full tax returns. This suggests that either
From what I have read, they have a bunch of unusual revenue streams. I have to admit that I am not remotely qualified to sort all of the finances of that class of person out. I am sure that those numbers are correct, but are based on some limited portion of their actual income, the rest of which ends up in offshore shell companies, dodgy charities, and businesses set up to produce a net loss.
Clearly, Disney should be our ruler and presidential overlord in 2020…
Only modern politics? Hasn’t this been a problem for a long time, actually?
I’m curious; why is it considered admirable for a rich person to work the system so they don’t have to pay any taxes but shameful for a poor person to work the system to maximize their ability to collect welfare?
Five words in and I don’t believe you.
I can fault them for talking out both sides of their mouth.
Thanks for the tips on what can and cannot be considered a fault. I’m sure that’s a standard you apply to all political hay? Regardless of party? Yeah. Sure.
That would really elevate the debate to your level?
No, we’re saying his mouth is where his money is, and not vice versa.
It’s not leadership. Legality is a red herring. This is just totally unclassy. Not cool to pay nothing AND insist on your opinion mattering.
Unlike Trump, I check off the box with the dollar donation to public support for elections. I also donate to many charities which don’t bear my name and which aren’t in the business of purchasing portraits of me to put up in properties owned by me. For that matter, I don’t cynically commingle my personal and business losses so that I can avoid personal income tax for years because I was an egregiously shitty businessman for a year or two. And if for some reason I didn’t have to pay income taxes for years, I wouldn’t repeatedly make comments about someone “wasting our tax dollars” as if some of those dollars were actually mine.
Trump is the guy in the office that doesn’t contribute to the gifts for the office staff, then criticizes everyone else for doing so, then makes fun of the gifts that are chosen, then secretly signs his name to the gift card.
If conservatives can fault poor people for taking advantage of the welfare system as written then I can fault billionaires who take advantage of the tax system as written. Especially when those billionaires are running for office on a platform of MORE tax cuts for the rich.
Oh yes I bloody well can. Particularly when the person involved is of the class that wrote the tax code in the first place, and is actively working to tilt it even further in his favour.
Legal and ethical are orthogonal.
I assume that you’re making a transparent attempt to deflect from the subject at hand.
Not American.
Currently living on wages below the minimum income tax threshold in my country.
Historically, yes, over the minimum required. But that’s largely due to a dislike of paperwork, a disinterest in wealth acquisition and an unwillingness to waste hours chasing down the trivial pocket-change deductions available to someone in my income bracket.
Still deflecting from the point: the US tax code, as created by the money and influence of the American plutocratic class, is structured so as to largely exempt themselves from taxation.
Relative to Trump? Yes. But so does everyone else that isn’t a fraud and a fascist.
So in your rhetorical universe people who don’t pay taxes don’t have standing to criticize Trump because they don’t pay taxes, and those who do don’t have standing because they’re stupid. Gotcha.
Perfectly legal aaaaand morally bankrupt.
Someone who can be goaded into rage-tweeting blithering things at 3 in the morning is a few votes away from having unilateral access to the codes of the most substantial nuclear arsenal in the world, one that could destroy the world a hundred times over, not to mention the arsenals of those who might retaliate.
At this point, anyone who votes against this outcome is my friend.
Sounds reasonable to you?
