Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Vicious

When Keeping It Real Goes Wrong...

22 posts in this topic

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/15/internet-destroys-rachel-maddow-after-trump-tax-return-scoop-fails-miserably/

It's possible this has been discussed in the many Trump threads already, but I'll admit that I'm not going through 70 pages a few times to find out. I don't keep up with the credibility of sites, so I apologize in advance if this one isn't credible. I just ran across it and thought it was hilarious how she had the information ahead of time, and still decided it was a good idea to present opposing evidence to her claims. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blaze is semi credible. To my knowledge they don't straight make stories up but they're not above repackaging the fake news of other sources and then just give them the credit when it turns wrong.

They're faker than Huffington and Breibart imo who don't really make up the news so much as they selectively report only the plot points that tell the story they want to tell. They also have nuttier opinion takes than you'd see with the likes of CNN or Fox news (Anne Coulter has a particularly nasty bait piece on Breibart this morning that all but calls liberals complicit with the genocides of the Soviet union)

This story is quite real though, Maddow's gaff was the toast of the night last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really fit into the left or right. I'm pretty centered with a slight lean to the right. I typically enjoy watching the banter between the two party system. There's certainly some nuts on both sides. I feel a certain joy when the louder ones from either side have their agendas blown up in their faces (with an emphasis on self inflicted wounds). 

AF89, Leon Troutsky and SpongeDad like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vicious said:

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/15/internet-destroys-rachel-maddow-after-trump-tax-return-scoop-fails-miserably/

It's possible this has been discussed in the many Trump threads already, but I'll admit that I'm not going through 70 pages a few times to find out. I don't keep up with the credibility of sites, so I apologize in advance if this one isn't credible. I just ran across it and thought it was hilarious how she had the information ahead of time, and still decided it was a good idea to present opposing evidence to her claims. 

Because she is not a real reporter but an entertainer.  That's what's wrong with 24 hour cables news, it's entertainment now, not real news (fake) news.  Her sole purpose is not to report the facts but to try and take down Trump, along with many of her sister networks.  

James Bond 007 and JDaveG like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All things in regards to her reporting of it, how does a tax return that is more than a decade old prove anything for trump?  Her gaffe was dumb, but how dumb is it to vindicate trump in regards to his taxes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shc said:

All things in regards to her reporting of it, how does a tax return that is more than a decade old prove anything for trump?  Her gaffe was dumb, but how dumb is it to vindicate trump in regards to his taxes?

It doesn't, missing even from this report are the sources of that income and of of course it's just one cycle, and the way the white house was quick to seize it, it's hard to see it as anything but a cherry picked best case scenario that was leaked to try and cast doubt on the entire argument.

I doubt Trump's people got the same closure and satisfaction they think we should all get from this, when they only got to see a tiny fraction of Hillary's emails and she held back the rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, shc said:

All things in regards to her reporting of it, how does a tax return that is more than a decade old prove anything for trump?  Her gaffe was dumb, but how dumb is it to vindicate trump in regards to his taxes?

It proves he paid taxes because the left said he hadn't paid any taxes in 18 years.  It also proves he paid them at a higher rate than our friends like Obama, Buffet, Clinton's, and Sanders.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

It proves he paid taxes because the left said he hadn't paid any taxes in 18 years.  It also proves he paid them at a higher rate than our friends like Obama, Buffet, Clinton's, and Sanders.  

so you are comparing sanders paying 13.5% on $200,000 to Trumps 25% on 150 million?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shc said:

so you are comparing sanders paying 13.5% on $200,000 to Trumps 25% on 150 million?

The annual income is irrelevant. It's the percentage you pay towards what you earned is what's being criticised. 

WhenFalconsWin likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SpongeDad said:

The annual income is irrelevant. It's the percentage you pay towards what you earned is what's being criticised. 

Actually, the annual income is relevant, because that is what dictates your tax rate.  Also adding that the rate Sanders paid was actually 19.6%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, shc said:

so you are comparing sanders paying 13.5% on $200,000 to Trumps 25% on 150 million?

It's percentage my friend.  If Sanders had made $150 million he would've only paid out &19,500,000 on 13%, a lot different than paying Trump's $38 million

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, shc said:

Actually, the annual income is relevant, because that is what dictates your tax rate.  Also adding that the rate Sanders paid was actually 19.6%

Sanders and his wife, Jane, paid $27,653 in federal income taxes in 2014, an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent, on income of $205,271, which is their adjusted gross income before deductions. That figure is just below the $206,563 that Census data show as the lower limit for the top 5 percent of U.S. households in 2014.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-tax-return_us_5711836be4b0060ccda3634e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

It's percentage my friend.  If Sanders had made $150 million he would've only paid out &19,500,000 on 13%, a lot different than paying Trump's $38 million

Do people not understand how a progressive tax system works?  As your income increases so to does your marginal and effective tax rate.  If Sanders would have made $150 million, he would have most likely paid the same percentage, or more than Trump did.  Your percentage is based on your AGI, it doesn't matter who you are.

mfaulk57158 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, shc said:

Do people not understand how a progressive tax system works?  As your income increases so to does your marginal and effective tax rate.  If Sanders would have made $150 million, he would have most likely paid the same percentage, or more than Trump did.  Your percentage is based on your AGI, it doesn't matter who you are.

Buffet made more and he paid less.  I guess you don't know as much as you think you know.  There are creative (but legal ways) to pay less.  I guess the dems just aren't as generous with their own money as they are with other people's money.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Sanders and his wife, Jane, paid $27,653 in federal income taxes in 2014, an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent, on income of $205,271, which is their adjusted gross income before deductions. That figure is just below the $206,563 that Census data show as the lower limit for the top 5 percent of U.S. households in 2014.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-tax-return_us_5711836be4b0060ccda3634e

Quote

an effective federal tax rate of 13.5 percent, on income of $205,271, which is their adjusted gross income before deductions

The bolded part is the issue, as AGI is after deductions.  The 19.5% is the precentage he paid on his AGI not his gross income, which is what the article is using.  Again, there is a difference between marginal and effective tax rate.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Buffet made more and he paid less.  I guess you don't know as much as you think you know.  There are creative (but legal ways) to pay less.  I guess the dems just aren't as generous with their own money as they are with other people's money.  

It's pretty simple actually.  And I would say the one who doesn't seem to know as much as they think they do is you.  The creative ways you are talking about are ways to decrease your AGI, which is what you pay taxes on.  And in Buffet's case, his rate is lower because he pays 15% since his money is made via capital gains, which is taxed differently than income.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, WhenFalconsWin said:

Because she is not a real reporter but an entertainer.  That's what's wrong with 24 hour cables news, it's entertainment now, not real news (fake) news.  Her sole purpose is not to report the facts but to try and take down Trump, along with many of her sister networks.  

And the biggest problem is she doesn't recognize it.  She claims she's just there to present and explain the news.  She's no different than Hannity, etc.  She's a talk show host.  She gives opinions.  A true journalist reports the news as it is without bias.  In other words, there are very few of them anymore...lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, capologist said:

And the biggest problem is she doesn't recognize it.  She claims she's just there to present and explain the news.  She's no different than Hannity, etc.  She's a talk show host.  She gives opinions.  A true journalist reports the news as it is without bias.  In other words, there are very few of them anymore...lol

Because in typical American fashion, we focus on the wrong thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, shc said:

The bolded part is the issue, as AGI is after deductions.  The 19.5% is the precentage he paid on his AGI not his gross income, which is what the article is using.  Again, there is a difference between marginal and effective tax rate.

 

AGI is before itemized deductions.  

The thing with Sanders return is that he had deductions of over $70k.  His charitable deduction was only $4k, and his unreimbursed business expenses were about the same.  That just strikes me as an absurd amount given his income.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kicker said:

AGI is before itemized deductions.  

The thing with Sanders return is that he had deductions of over $70k.  His charitable deduction was only $4k, and his unreimbursed business expenses were about the same.  That just strikes me as an absurd amount given his income.  

 

2 hours ago, kicker said:

AGI is before itemized deductions.  

The thing with Sanders return is that he had deductions of over $70k.  His charitable deduction was only $4k, and his unreimbursed business expenses were about the same.  That just strikes me as an absurd amount given his income.  

My bad, I was incorrect about AGI.  But basing the amount of tax as a percentage off of total income, versus taxable income is misleading. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, shc said:

 

My bad, I was incorrect about AGI.  But basing the amount of tax as a percentage off of total income, versus taxable income is misleading. 

I agree with that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0