Donald Trump's Tax.

[Atheist]

What do ABers make of this? If he really paid only $750 as a year's tax, does that set a good example to US citizens?

[Mozz71]

I was careful to avoid the so rule there Spice. Take it back. TAKE IT BACK!!

[Ellipsis]

> The average American could not do as Trump did. Tax Avoidance Schemes are used by the wealthiest of citizens and not suitable for someone with a regular job and salary.

There's a myriad ways the average citizen can choose not to pay tax, some legal, some illegal, and many can't tell the difference. When the message from the leader is "Pay as little as possible, claim back as much as possible", you know the country is screwed. But Trump as President is not the cause of America's problems, he's the result of them, and that's why he'll get re-elected.

[Atheist]

Andy; at least I did put a question mark after my interpretation of what Roy might have meant.

[Spicerack]

Most Governments set their tax rates to maximise the take.
To attract rich individuals and large companies or conversely to stop them moving to a 'friendlier' country.
Until you socialists create your One World Government and all taxes are equalised, you have to be careful 'squeezing the rich'. It would have the opposite to your desired outcome.

[ToraToraTora]

AH: "As usual, when tax is debated, the two sides line up -

Those who believe it is immoral, if not illegal, to evade tax, and -

Those who think that using poorly drafted legislation to avoid taxation is a legitimate proceedure.

I am firmly in the second camp - if the legislation allows the President, or indeed any individual, to avoid paying tax, then the responsibility is theirs to sort out their regulations, not the individuals to help them along by paying tax that is not demanded, simply to passify some notional morality clause. " - I am also in the second camp, if the legislature cannot define the parameters sufficiently then it is the job of all tax payers to expose them by legally avoiding taxation. As for all these "moral" points, how many of you would not avoid tax if you could? In my experience they are usually lefties taking a moral stance because they'll never be in a position where it's relevant. Most of them would make Ghengis Khan look like a pacifist in a fight over a torn fiver anyway. Usual hypocritical BS from the left.

[Sunk]

Spicerack

People tend to like the place where they are successful. So they are unlikely to move away because tax is less somewhere else. Some rich people might move away, but not because of tax, it’s probably because they like the new other place or see opportunities there
The threat that rich people will move away and the country gets no tax as a result, is seldom what happens.

[Togo]

//People tend to like the place where they are successful. So they are unlikely to move away because tax is less somewhere else//

Who'd have thought that weird the beard Branson could make squillions on Necker Island.

[TrevorThePug]

I’ve stayed on Necker, it’s easy to see how he makes money there.

[Zacs-Master]

'So they are unlikely to move away because tax is less somewhere else'

I'd do a bit more research on that one if I were you.

[AuntPollyGrey]

// There's a myriad way the average citizen can choose not to pay tax, some legal, some illegal, and many can't tell the difference. //

You do not 'choose' not to pay tax, you legitimately follow a Tax Avoidance scheme and believe me Accounts know damn fine well what is legal and whats not!

[TonyV]

As my accountant used to say "there is a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion" One legal the other not - that's one of the reason he gets paid.

[Sunk]

Branson bought Necker Island in 1978 when his empire was very small. He purchased it from Conservative Peer Lord Cobham. Cobham was facing a huge bill for death duties when his father died, and Branson bought the island for a bargain $120,000.
He developed a resort their and used it to holiday his rock star chums on his Virgin record label.
It was only later when his empire grew that its use as a tax haven came into its own.

[Khandro]

He called it “fake news” because it IS fake news; it’s in the New York Times for heaven’s sake!

The New York Times is perfectly familiar with the US tax system, what is legal and what is not. It is also in a position to campaign for change if it feels the system works unfairly. Has it ever mounted such a campaign? Has it looked into the tax affairs of the Clinton Foundation?

[Mozz71]

//He called it “fake news” because it IS fake news; it’s in the New York Times for heaven’s sake//

[Mozz71]

//He called it “fake news” because it IS fake news; it’s in the New York Times for heaven’s sake//

Well, that and the fact he calls everything remotely detrimental to himself fake news, whether it is or not.

[TrevorThePug]

He could easily disprove it. It's taken 4 years for him to show his tax returns and he still hasn't. All presidents since the 70s have done this, he has something to hide.

[Mozz71]

Let's e honest, this entire thread is based on our own personal politics. The right will defend Donald no matter what, the left will condemn him. If it was Biden accused of exactly the same, the roles would be reversed.

We're all acting to type.

[Mozz71]

I was gonna counter that Andy, but we've derailed enough threads by discussing the so rule, so I won't bother.

Needless to say, meh.