wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:41:39 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 8:31 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
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.



What's it going to take to make a believer out of you, shmuck? We
know that your mind is maleable. Example: That klown kollege and
unions have totally disrupted your logical thought process. They
turned you into a radical liberal with no common sense or ability
to take care of yourself. Thank GOD for Karen, eh Fat
Harry?


A believer in what, ****-for-brains? And if you are going to use a word,
you should learn how to spell it, eh, schmuck?


A lot of people are not as well versed in Yiddish as a self hating Jew
like you.



There you go again.

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

On 10/4/2018 11:03 AM, 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.



The world is full of stupid people who paid their tuition for a college
degree.

On Thursday, October 4, 2018 at 11:03:24 AM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:18:25 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:


And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal
education.

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.

Those two paragraphs prove that you're much smarter than harry.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:07:58 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 9:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over
the
Trumps' ass.

He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not
heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about
saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the
1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you?


Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater.



Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the
Trumps' ass." supposed to imply?


The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are.
It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain
control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of
Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes.




1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the
irony was lost on you, as usual.

2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns
for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT
article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns,
what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has
released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is
being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny
on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually
paid in taxes.


You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns,
huh?Â*Â* Wow.



Just about every other POTUS and POTUS wannabe has released their tax
info. Trump has something big to hide.

Just about every other candidate was a politician not a business man
and the money they made was off the books. You notice Kerry released
his returns but not his wife's. The Bushes and Ted Kennedy released
their personal returns but not the returns of their family trusts.
BTW it is interesting that prior to recent times it was only
republicans who released tax returns with the exception of Truman. We
never saw FDR, LBJ or JFK but we did see Nixon and Ford. Do you see a
pattern there? Truman and Carter were poor, FDR, JFK and LBJ were rich
business men or in business families.

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:07:58 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 9:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over
the
Trumps' ass.

He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not
heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about
saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the
1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you?


Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater.



Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the
Trumps' ass." supposed to imply?


The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are.
It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain
control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of
Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes.




1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the
irony was lost on you, as usual.

2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns
for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT
article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns,
what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has
released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is
being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny
on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually
paid in taxes.


You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns,
huh?Â*Â* Wow.



Just about every other POTUS and POTUS wannabe has released their tax
info. Trump has something big to hide.

Just about every other candidate was a politician not a business man
and the money they made was off the books. You notice Kerry released
his returns but not his wife's. The Bushes and Ted Kennedy released
their personal returns but not the returns of their family trusts.
BTW it is interesting that prior to recent times it was only
republicans who released tax returns with the exception of Truman. We
never saw FDR, LBJ or JFK but we did see Nixon and Ford. Do you see a
pattern there? Truman and Carter were poor, FDR, JFK and LBJ were rich
business men or in business families.


Yawn. More “but what about...�

--
Posted with my iPhone 8+.

On 10/4/18 11:03 AM, 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.


I've never said I was smarter than you. You're regressing into your
projections *again*. To what protests of mine are you referring?

On 10/4/18 11:06 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 08:41:39 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 8:31 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
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.



What's it going to take to make a believer out of you, shmuck? We
know that your mind is maleable. Example: That klown kollege and
unions have totally disrupted your logical thought process. They
turned you into a radical liberal with no common sense or ability
to take care of yourself. Thank GOD for Karen, eh Fat
Harry?


A believer in what, ****-for-brains? And if you are going to use a word,
you should learn how to spell it, eh, schmuck?


A lot of people are not as well versed in Yiddish as a self hating Jew
like you.


If you grew up where and when I did, even you might have picked up some
words and phrases of the lingua franca in New Haven, a melange of
Yiddish, Italian, Hungarian, Polish, and Gaelic, because those were the
languages of my friends and their families. My immediate neighbors were
first-generation Italians and I spent a lot of time at their house with
their kids. I spent a lot of afterschool afternoons at the local
Catholic church playground, where Gaelic was heard. My close` friend in
high school was a Hungarian immigrant. Most of my friends were Jews and
Catholics.

I learned some Russian at home because of parent and grandparents, and I
studied Latin and Russian in junior high and high school and German in
college.

On 10/4/2018 11:52 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 11:03 AM, 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 theÂ* upcoming
elections. I'm not aware of what that church does to support the
unwanted children who result from theirÂ* 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.


I've never said I was smarter than you. You're regressing into your
projections *again*. To what protests of mine are you referring?




Greg, just continue to ignore Harry's statements like:

"And once again, you are confused by your lack of serious, formal
education."

It implies he's more knowledgeable, (i.e. "smarter") and is *not*
confused. What a laugh.

On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:28:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:07:58 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 9:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over
the
Trumps' ass.

He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not
heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about
saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the
1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you?


Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater.



Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the
Trumps' ass." supposed to imply?


The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are.
It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain
control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of
Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes.




1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the
irony was lost on you, as usual.

2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns
for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT
article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns,
what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has
released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is
being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny
on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually
paid in taxes.


You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns,
huh?Â*Â* Wow.



Just about every other POTUS and POTUS wannabe has released their tax
info. Trump has something big to hide.

Just about every other candidate was a politician not a business man
and the money they made was off the books. You notice Kerry released
his returns but not his wife's. The Bushes and Ted Kennedy released
their personal returns but not the returns of their family trusts.
BTW it is interesting that prior to recent times it was only
republicans who released tax returns with the exception of Truman. We
never saw FDR, LBJ or JFK but we did see Nixon and Ford. Do you see a
pattern there? Truman and Carter were poor, FDR, JFK and LBJ were rich
business men or in business families.


Yawn. More “but what about...�

That is your standard answer to anyone pointing out the double
standard democrats have

On 10/4/18 12:11 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 11:28:17 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 10:07:58 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 10/4/18 9:46 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/4/2018 8:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 10/4/18 5:52 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/3/2018 10:29 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 21:26:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:

The reports I've seen indicate otherwise, in the IRS all over
the
Trumps' ass.

He gets audited every year if that is what you mean but I have not
heard much about judgements against him. You aren't serious about
saying the IRS is suddenly interested in things that happened in the
1950s, 60s and 70sÂ* (that this article describes) are you?


Never said or implied that, Mr. Debater.



Well then mr professional writer what is "the IRS all over the
Trumps' ass." supposed to imply?


The IRS isn't all over Trump's ass about his tax returns.Â* The Dems are.
It's their next hit attack.Â* Based on reports on MSNBC if the Dems gain
control of the House in November they plan to demand the release of
Trump's tax returns, all based on the article published in the NYTimes.




1. The comment about Trump and the IRS was ironic...I suppose the
irony was lost on you, as usual.

2. The Dems have been calling for the release of Trump's tax returns
for a few years, and that call is not the result of the latest NYT
article. If the Dems do force the release of Trump's tax returns,
what's the downside? Just about every POTUS candidate and POTUS has
released returns for decades, but not Trump. It isn't because he is
being audited, it is because he doesn't want voters to have the skinny
on his finances, including the percentage of income Trump has actually
paid in taxes.


You've been able to make that conclusion without seeing his returns,
huh?Â*Â* Wow.



Just about every other POTUS and POTUS wannabe has released their tax
info. Trump has something big to hide.

Just about every other candidate was a politician not a business man
and the money they made was off the books. You notice Kerry released
his returns but not his wife's. The Bushes and Ted Kennedy released
their personal returns but not the returns of their family trusts.
BTW it is interesting that prior to recent times it was only
republicans who released tax returns with the exception of Truman. We
never saw FDR, LBJ or JFK but we did see Nixon and Ford. Do you see a
pattern there? Truman and Carter were poor, FDR, JFK and LBJ were rich
business men or in business families.


Yawn. More “but what about...�

That is your standard answer to anyone pointing out the double
standard democrats have


"But what about..."