BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

John H.[_5_]

On Thu, 04 Oct 2018 11:03:23 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:18:25 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/3/18 9:24 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 20:37:15 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/3/18 7:59 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 16:40:51 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 11:08:55 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 03 Oct 2018 07:12:21 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 20:11:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/2/18 6:34 PM, justan wrote:
To determine what happens or doesn't happen on public property.

President Trump participated in dubious tax schemes during the 1990s,
including instances of outright fraud, that greatly increased the
fortune he received from his parents, an investigation by The New York
Times has found.

Mr. Trump won the presidency proclaiming himself a self-made
billionaire, and he has long insisted that his father, the legendary New
York City builder Fred C. Trump, provided almost no financial help.

But The Times’s investigation, based on a vast trove of confidential tax
returns and financial records, reveals that Mr. Trump received the
equivalent today of at least $413 million from his father’s real estate
empire, starting when he was a toddler and continuing to this day.

Much of this money came to Mr. Trump because he helped his parents dodge
taxes. He and his siblings set up a sham corporation to disguise
millions of dollars in gifts from their parents, records and interviews
show. Records indicate that Mr. Trump helped his father take improper
tax deductions worth millions more. He also helped formulate a strategy
to undervalue his parents’ real estate holdings by hundreds of millions
of dollars on tax returns, sharply reducing the tax bill when those
properties were transferred to him and his siblings.

These maneuvers met with little resistance from the Internal Revenue
Service, The Times found. The president’s parents, Fred and Mary Trump,
transferred well over $1 billion in wealth to their children, which
could have produced a tax bill of at least $550 million under the 55
percent tax rate then imposed on gifts and inheritances.

The Trumps paid a total of $52.2 million, or about 5 percent, tax
records show.

Shame on them for following the law. Gosh, I circumvent paying taxes by contributing to charity.
Shame on me for taking the deduction!

Harry would say you are establishing religion.

I'll admit some goes to religion, but most goes elsewhere.

The reality is religious organizations as a rule return more of their
contributions to the charity they support than the normal 501(C)(3)
that we hear about (Red Cross, United Way etc)
Their "directors" are not making 6 figure salaries.
Folks like Harry would rather promote egregious greed than admit
someone was promoting God

And there you go, offering up another example of one the reasons why I
don't think it worthwhile to engage in "debate" with you. You have no
idea what I would "rather promote."

I suspect churches spend more on promoting and paying themselves, their
superstitions, their staffs, and their building funds than they do on
pure charitable donations. Realistically, they consider themselves their
own best charitable donation. We have a surprisingly large number of
what might be called "mega-churches" around here, churches with fairly
new or brand new huge fortresses of buildings, with large staffs, highly
paid ministers, assistants, cars, even airplanes for the ministers. It
takes a lot of money to support that sort of largess. It is unclear what
real charities...helping the poor, those in need of shelter, medical
care, the necessities of life, as it were...these organizations support.
One thing most of them do, though, is pay for "missions" to search and
bring in converts. Just the other day, I drove past a fundie church
whose minister and some of its acolytes who were busy setting up their
anti-abortion display to attract attention during the upcoming
elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the
unwanted children who result from their efforts.

And, once again, though you never seem to "get it," I don't care what
churches do, so long as they keep their superstitions to themselves and
don't try to force in any way their beliefs on others who believe
differently or not at all.

Nice diversion into your atheism

And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal
education. I am highly skeptical about the existence of a superior being
that goes beyond the imagination and superstition of humans. That makes
me agnostic, not an atheist.* I am, however, anti-religious. Religion is
based entirely upon superstition and passed-along folk tales. And, once
again, though you refuse to believe it...I don't care what religions do
in their churches with their crop of believers. I only care when they
attempt to push those beliefs onto society, onto those who believe
differently, and on those who don't believe at all.

* I don't have any problems with atheism. It certainly is more logical
than religious beliefs.

Your atheism is as offensive to most people as religion is to you and
your cohorts certainly make plenty of public displays on public
property about it during your protests.
It has become a religion as much as any other.

I also reject the idea that you attending some tertiary institution
for a few years five decades ago makes you any smarter than me., You
have not seemed to learn much since.

~~Snerk~~!
I agree wholeheartedly and unequivocally with this post!