Trump 2025

Quote: rxwine

What the actual trade deal will be is just a "prediction."

Guess you're not able to prove anything.

Multiple trade deals already done. More to come. "Prediction" is we get access to China tariff free but they pay us 10-15%. That would be in line with past results.

Here is the thing, multiple deals have been announced with great fanfare. It is on *YOU* to prove the are fake and do not exist. This is since *YOU* are making the claim they are fake.

My proof is the public announcements. Also the tariff collections that gave us a budget surplus in June.

While you are at it, how about finally proving the pee tape exists? You will have about as much luck there.

Quote: AZDuffman

Multiple trade deals already done. More to come. "Prediction" is we get access to China tariff free but they pay us 10-15%. That would be in line with past results.

Here is the thing, multiple deals have been announced with great fanfare. It is on *YOU* to prove the are fake and do not exist. This is since *YOU* are making the claim they are fake.

My proof is the public announcements. Also the tariff collections that gave us a budget surplus in June.

While you are at it, how about finally proving the pee tape exists? You will have about as much luck there.

You won't even live by standards you stated this same day. Trade deals often change as the details get hammered out.

I laugh at the idea of Trump announcements. ONE WORD: TACO.

The longer 007 Bondi, Pam Bondi, waits to arrest the crime syndicate ring-leader (Hussein), the higher the probability they'll try to eliminate Trump again.

So the stakes are relatively high and increasing.


Trump has been so successful in almost everything he touches (like King Midas), the odds increase relative to the last attempt.

They've done everything in their power to stay out of the pen, including more crime.


They should have never used the govt to destroy Trump.



No more Mr. Nice guy:

Quote: rxwine

Do they now? I'd like to hear SOOPOO's opinion on this.

I’ll enjoy answering this post!

1. I have a friend, probably doesn’t even make 6 figures. But has bought real estate. Two condos. He rents them to make money. Let’s say he collects $36k a year. You don’t think he should pay tax n $36k, do you? You don’t think his property taxes and mortgage interest are legitimate deductions? If a bank is willing to give him a loan so he can access cash, why is that bad? You think the bank is losing money on the transaction?

2.The government decides (sometimes) that certain industries are in the public good, and thus give incentives for those that invest in them. Solar panels come to mind. So are many other ‘green’ energy type companies. It’s hard to argue against the concept. The arguments come from which type companies should qualify. Obviously quite different in the Trump administration than the Biden administration!

3. This is inherently unfair. And I can assure you, it is in SOOPOO’s succession plan! For those who are under the ‘inheritance tax’ threshold, virtually their entire wealth appreciation is hidden from ANY taxes. If you buy stock like the great tax evader, Warren Buffet, that does not pay dividends, you’ve never paid ANY tax on the appreciation. And if you pass it on to an heir instead of selling it, your heir can sell it at NO TAX consequence at the price on the day you kick the bucket.

4. Well reasonable expenses should be allowed, and unreasonable ones not allowed! Reminds me of a partner who abused our government funded expense account for CME. For a weeklong trip to a conference hotel it was reasonable to expense, airfare, conference registration fee, taxi to and from airport to hotel, hotel cost, etc.. One partner, instead of expensing the $60 or so for roundtrip taxi, decided to rent a convertible, expense that and the $350 parking charge at the hotel! She got in trouble….

5. I’ve never used a trust. I’ve always ‘trusted’ my kids to have full unfettered access to any $$ they’d get from me immediately upon my demise. Point 3 on this list is why I have not made a trust. In addition to the $$$$ ‘advisors’ chargers to set them up and ‘manage’ them.

6. If it’s not a capital gain don’t tax it at the Capital Gains rate. I can assume this has existed over both the most liberal and most conservative administrations?

7. Business deductions, if truly business expenses, of course should be allowed. Hiring family members, if they are really doing the job, should also be fine. If you are talking g about the really rich, it should be ENCOURAGED! If you give your do nothing son a salary of $20 million, he’s paying INCOME TAX, at the highest level, on that money.
As far as home mortgage interest, this is another government idea to promote something it considers ‘good for society’, HOME OWNERSHIP. Someone like me, who is able to buy a house with cash, does not get this benefit. But a ‘poorer’ guy can afford a house only if they get that tax benefit. As a concept, I am against allowing mortgage interest to be deducted. Renters are indirectly paying the mortgage interest of the owner, yet get no deduction.

8. Not sure why a business that exists solely outside the USA should be subject to USA taxes?

Edit. I tried to copy the entire post so you could see the 8 questions I answered. It’s about 4 pages back.

So, based on your overall assessment, what is your conclusion on taxing the wealthy? Yay or nay, they pay their share? I would argue wealth has even more advantages in avoiding even things like sales tax. To avoid a tax in one state, you can buy bulk in another state, and you have the means to easily do so over the peasants. The peasants have options but wealth multiplies options. A Buffet or a Musk, doesn't need that new property for a job. They can wait and wait as long as they want before buying.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’ll enjoy answering this post!

1. I have a friend, probably doesn’t even make 6 figures. But has bought real estate. Two condos. He rents them to make money. Let’s say he collects $36k a year. You don’t think he should pay tax n $36k, do you? You don’t think his property taxes and mortgage interest are legitimate deductions? If a bank is willing to give him a loan so he can access cash, why is that bad? You think the bank is losing money on the transaction?

2.The government decides (sometimes) that certain industries are in the public good, and thus give incentives for those that invest in them. Solar panels come to mind. So are many other ‘green’ energy type companies. It’s hard to argue against the concept. The arguments come from which type companies should qualify. Obviously quite different in the Trump administration than the Biden administration!

3. This is inherently unfair. And I can assure you, it is in SOOPOO’s succession plan! For those who are under the ‘inheritance tax’ threshold, virtually their entire wealth appreciation is hidden from ANY taxes. If you buy stock like the great tax evader, Warren Buffet, that does not pay dividends, you’ve never paid ANY tax on the appreciation. And if you pass it on to an heir instead of selling it, your heir can sell it at NO TAX consequence at the price on the day you kick the bucket.

4. Well reasonable expenses should be allowed, and unreasonable ones not allowed! Reminds me of a partner who abused our government funded expense account for CME. For a weeklong trip to a conference hotel it was reasonable to expense, airfare, conference registration fee, taxi to and from airport to hotel, hotel cost, etc.. One partner, instead of expensing the $60 or so for roundtrip taxi, decided to rent a convertible, expense that and the $350 parking charge at the hotel! She got in trouble….

5. I’ve never used a trust. I’ve always ‘trusted’ my kids to have full unfettered access to any $$ they’d get from me immediately upon my demise. Point 3 on this list is why I have not made a trust. In addition to the $$$$ ‘advisors’ chargers to set them up and ‘manage’ them.

6. If it’s not a capital gain don’t tax it at the Capital Gains rate. I can assume this has existed over both the most liberal and most conservative administrations?

7. Business deductions, if truly business expenses, of course should be allowed. Hiring family members, if they are really doing the job, should also be fine. If you are talking g about the really rich, it should be ENCOURAGED! If you give your do nothing son a salary of $20 million, he’s paying INCOME TAX, at the highest level, on that money.
As far as home mortgage interest, this is another government idea to promote something it considers ‘good for society’, HOME OWNERSHIP. Someone like me, who is able to buy a house with cash, does not get this benefit. But a ‘poorer’ guy can afford a house only if they get that tax benefit. As a concept, I am against allowing mortgage interest to be deducted. Renters are indirectly paying the mortgage interest of the owner, yet get no deduction.

8. Not sure why a business that exists solely outside the USA should be subject to USA taxes?

Edit. I tried to copy the entire post so you could see the 8 questions I answered. It’s about 4 pages back.

Quote: rxwine

So, based on your overall assessment, what is your conclusion on taxing the wealthy? Yay or nay, they pay their share? I would argue wealth has even more advantages in avoiding even things like sales tax. To avoid a tax in one state, you can buy bulk in another state, and you have the means to easily do so over the peasants. The peasants have options but wealth multiplies options. A Buffet or a Musk, doesn't need that new property for a job. They can wait and wait as long as they want before buying.

I just did my google AI question. It told me the top 1% pays 40.4% of all federal taxes. So 1% of the people pay 2/5 of ALL the tax revenue! That’s AFTER they’ve ’taken advantage’ of all the loopholes and special exemptions and benefits you want to eliminate! So you think 1% of the people should pay the same as the other 99% combined? Get it up to 50%?

When is enough enough, really? Should only the top 1% be taxed at all?

As I’ve said many times, I’ve paid more in taxes than an average person earns most years. And was fine with that. Just please stop with the ‘he’s not paying his fair share’.

It’s basically the liberals demonizing successful people.

Quote: SOOPOO

I’ll enjoy answering this post!

1. I have a friend, probably doesn’t even make 6 figures. But has bought real estate. Two condos. He rents them to make money. Let’s say he collects $36k a year. You don’t think he should pay tax n $36k, do you? You don’t think his property taxes and mortgage interest are legitimate deductions? If a bank is willing to give him a loan so he can access cash, why is that bad? You think the bank is losing money on the transaction?

Real estate is pretty much the biggest millionaire maker in the USA. But it is no picnic. Buy a house, probably have to improve it. Hope the tenant pays, laws are mostly against you there. Anyone hears about it thinks you are on easy street. Things break. Doing the improvements yourself is backbreaking work. Or just a flip. I did that, a year of headaches. Then months to sell it. See, the flips that make profit are not what you see on TV, they are in B and C neighborhoods. Those take longer to sell.

When you have real estate, you often need fast cash for another deal, the banks being willing to loan is a great thing.

Quote:

3. This is inherently unfair. And I can assure you, it is in SOOPOO’s succession plan! For those who are under the ‘inheritance tax’ threshold, virtually their entire wealth appreciation is hidden from ANY taxes. If you buy stock like the great tax evader, Warren Buffet, that does not pay dividends, you’ve never paid ANY tax on the appreciation. And if you pass it on to an heir instead of selling it, your heir can sell it at NO TAX consequence at the price on the day you kick the bucket.

Warren paid tax on the dividends, when the corporate profit was taxed. Inheritance taxes are blatantly unfair and should be abolished. Lets look at how and why.

Ralph Wilson owned the Bills from the beginning. He bought in when a garden variety millionaire could, as the AFL was new and untested. Even NFL teams were something someone who had a few McDonald's stores might be able to buy. Things went Ralph's way and the NFL took his team in, right when television revenue poured it. The Bills did not do as well as many teams, but they did better than some in terms of brand building.

Ralph dies and the team passes to the heirs. The get the visit.

"Hi, I'm from the IRS and I am here to help you! We estimate your team to be worth $1 billion, so I will need a check for about $400 million by April 15,"

The kids haven't had that kind of gain, they just inherited a business. Why should they have to pay to effectively buy it again?

Now, they sell the team (I know they did. Fracking kept the Bills in Buffalo, but imagine they kept it longer) sure, tax the gain then indexed to inflation. But stop crippling people and businesses financially.

Quote: SOOPOO

I just did my google AI question. It told me the top 1% pays 40.4% of all federal taxes. So 1% of the people pay 2/5 of ALL the tax revenue! That’s AFTER they’ve ’taken advantage’ of all the loopholes and special exemptions and benefits you want to eliminate! So you think 1% of the people should pay the same as the other 99% combined? Get it up to 50%?

When is enough enough, really? Should only the top 1% be taxed at all?

As I’ve said many times, I’ve paid more in taxes than an average person earns most years. And was fine with that. Just please stop with the ‘he’s not paying his fair share’.

It’s basically the liberals demonizing successful people.

The top 1% always pays more because they have more.

To use an analogy that we all here appreciate, it's the same concept in casinos (even more extreme,) top 1% of gamblers (whales) contribute about 60% of casino revenue, factoring just table game revenue it's over 80% of table game revenue. And, that's after they get massive loss rebates and vouchers that most of us would never be able to negotiate. Should people who wander in to casinos for fun/curiosity and only gamble 10 dollars not be allowed because they don't meaningful contribute to the revenue? (Obviously this does not include online play, only physical in person gambling, online gambling stats are all over the place...)

People who have massive wealth pay a higher percentage of the revenue for any industry they are involved in. Whether you have more money to gamble, or more houses to furnish, or more income to tax it's all the same.

When your family has more money than some nations, you really shouldn't be worried about paying a bit more in taxes.

Up until 1963, the top tax rate was over 90% (some years 94%)for income in the top tax bracket. So even your extreme example of 50% is not historically crazy. And, frankly from the mid 60s until today it has been lowered dramatically overall, with any year to year increases being single digit percentages, probably not even noticable if you are making 9 figures...

Quote: Gandler

Up until 1963, the top tax rate was over 90% (some years 94%)for income in the top tax bracket. So even your extreme example of 50% is not historically crazy. And, frankly from the mid 60s until today it has been lowered dramatically overall, with any year to year increases being single digit percentages, probably not even noticable if you are making 9 figures...

You can't compare marginal rates in those days to today. Back then there were more deductions, shelters, and write-offs. This was changed in the 1986 tax reform act, which lasted all of 4 years until Democrats had to start jacking up the top rate again.

Fair would be the same rate for all. Flat tax.

The point of the post, though, was to quit saying "the rich don't pay their fair share." They clearly are. Time to stop storming town halls screaming "TAX THE RICH", quit wearing dresses with it painted, quit pretending things are not what they are.