Donald Trump

nickice

Pinno wrote:

nickice wrote:

That's why I think people who say things like 'more people die in road accidents' are completely wrong.

Well, you mean the fact is correct but it misses the point. Agreed.

Las Vegas, Columbine etc - mass shootings but not terrorism.

Terrorism is an act of violence driven by an ideology/cause, surely.

Yes, factually it is correct but there's no conspiracy of accidents or toasters (another one I've heard!)

pinno

'Toaster' ?

darkhairedlord

nickice wrote:

Pinno wrote:

nickice wrote:

That's why I think people who say things like 'more people die in road accidents' are completely wrong.

Well, you mean the fact is correct but it misses the point. Agreed.

Las Vegas, Columbine etc - mass shootings but not terrorism.

Terrorism is an act of violence driven by an ideology/cause, surely.

Yes, factually it is correct but there's no conspiracy of accidents or toasters (another one I've heard!)

Whirlpool not replacing all those faulty tumble dryers looks like one to me.

nickice

I'm sure I saw Reza Aslan saying that but I can't find the video...

nickice

darkhairedlord wrote:

nickice wrote:

Pinno wrote:

nickice wrote:

That's why I think people who say things like 'more people die in road accidents' are completely wrong.

Well, you mean the fact is correct but it misses the point. Agreed.

Las Vegas, Columbine etc - mass shootings but not terrorism.

Terrorism is an act of violence driven by an ideology/cause, surely.

Yes, factually it is correct but there's no conspiracy of accidents or toasters (another one I've heard!)

Whirlpool not replacing all those faulty tumble dryers looks like one to me.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo's just a bit too textbook.

In other words 'square'.

You wish

bendertherobot

He appears to have just tweeted that he knew about Flynn's lies and, ergo, has obstructed justice.

bendertherobot

The American legislative setup really is unique, IF this is true (and this IS how their legislation works) (from twitter):

In the TAX PLAN they put in

An abortion law reclassifying life at conception.

A clause to drill oil in Alaska’s arctic wildlife preserve.

Pulled the mandate for the ACA.13 million lose insurance

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

The American legislative setup really is unique, IF this is true (and this IS how their legislation works) (from twitter):

In the TAX PLAN they put in

An abortion law reclassifying life at conception.

Not quite: they allowed education savings accounts to be set up for 'children in utero' which therefore recognises life immediately after conception in federal law,hence the anti abortionists getting excited. Apparently the two versions from the Senate and House need to be combined into a single bill before they can become law.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -explained

bendertherobot

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The American legislative setup really is unique, IF this is true (and this IS how their legislation works) (from twitter):

In the TAX PLAN they put in

An abortion law reclassifying life at conception.

Not quite: they allowed education savings accounts to be set up for 'children in utero' which therefore recognises life immediately after conception in federal law,hence the anti abortionists getting excited. Apparently the two versions from the Senate and House need to be combined into a single bill before they can become law.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -explained

Hence the IF, within the limitations of a tweet. It's certainly a move towards that position though.

In on topic news, he now claims that the tweet that caused all the furore last night was written by his lawyer which is odd as a) once he posts it that's his position b) it's quite quite rare for lawyers, even in the US to use the term pled rather than pleaded and c) lawyers don't add exclamation marks.

And, by claiming it was poorly worded, that's now an admission that the tweet read like an admission.

Stevo_666

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The American legislative setup really is unique, IF this is true (and this IS how their legislation works) (from twitter):

In the TAX PLAN they put in

An abortion law reclassifying life at conception.

Not quite: they allowed education savings accounts to be set up for 'children in utero' which therefore recognises life immediately after conception in federal law,hence the anti abortionists getting excited. Apparently the two versions from the Senate and House need to be combined into a single bill before they can become law.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -explained

Hence the IF, within the limitations of a tweet. It's certainly a move towards that position though.

In on topic news, he now claims that the tweet that caused all the furore last night was written by his lawyer which is odd as a) once he posts it that's his position b) it's quite quite rare for lawyers, even in the US to use the term pled rather than pleaded and c) lawyers don't add exclamation marks.

And, by claiming it was poorly worded, that's now an admission that the tweet read like an admission.

What are your views on the tax bill itself?

bendertherobot

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

rjsterry

bendertherobot wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

The American legislative setup really is unique, IF this is true (and this IS how their legislation works) (from twitter):

In the TAX PLAN they put in

An abortion law reclassifying life at conception.

Not quite: they allowed education savings accounts to be set up for 'children in utero' which therefore recognises life immediately after conception in federal law,hence the anti abortionists getting excited. Apparently the two versions from the Senate and House need to be combined into a single bill before they can become law.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -explained

Hence the IF, within the limitations of a tweet. It's certainly a move towards that position though.

In on topic news, he now claims that the tweet that caused all the furore last night was written by his lawyer which is odd as a) once he posts it that's his position b) it's quite quite rare for lawyers, even in the US to use the term pled rather than pleaded and c) lawyers don't add exclamation marks.

And, by claiming it was poorly worded, that's now an admission that the tweet read like an admission.

Oh, I'm quite sure those provisions weren't included by 'mistake' and agree that the whole thing stinks.

bianchimoon

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so [/quote
spot on

pinno

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

This was the point being made (did you read the article?)

"Political activism by churches
The House version of the tax bill includes language that would repeal a ban on political activism by churches and other not-for-profit groups. This would allow not-for-profit organizations to support political candidates. In a bid to expand his reach with Christian conservatives during the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to repeal the 1954 law, known as the Johnson amendment. He has repeated this promise as president."

Furthermore, this particular tax law increases powers to the anti-abortionists:

"Legal rights to fetuses
The House bill includes language that would allow parents to set up 529 plans – education savings accounts intended to allow families to put money aside for a child’s higher education – for a “child in utero”. In fact, parents are already able to do this but the provision would achieve an important victory for anti-abortion activists by explicitly recognizing unborn children in federal law."

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

Which one? As I posted, there are two quite different plans from the Senate and the House.

There's a limit to how much time I want to spend reading about another country's tax legislation, but for one point, if dropping the CT rate is an attempt to stop people trying to avoid it, why are there proposals to ease taxes on pass-through entities? For the party that is usually pretty paranoid about increasing the deficit, they don't sound entirely convinced that the changes will be revenue neutral.

bianchimoon

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try? [/quote
There would be no point. You have your opinion I have mine, others have theirs, the merits of low taxation for businesses on its ability to create growth have been debated many times elsewhere. One thing is for sure, in the short term it will mean trump and his cronies will pay a lot less tax. This thread has enough of interest from everything else that’s going on rather than turning it into ‘another’ tax thread

pinno

No tax please, we're British.

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

This was the point being made (did you read the article?)

"Political activism by churches
The House version of the tax bill includes language that would repeal a ban on political activism by churches and other not-for-profit groups. This would allow not-for-profit organizations to support political candidates. In a bid to expand his reach with Christian conservatives during the presidential campaign, Trump vowed to repeal the 1954 law, known as the Johnson amendment. He has repeated this promise as president."

Furthermore, this particular tax law increases powers to the anti-abortionists:

"Legal rights to fetuses
The House bill includes language that would allow parents to set up 529 plans – education savings accounts intended to allow families to put money aside for a child’s higher education – for a “child in utero”. In fact, parents are already able to do this but the provision would achieve an important victory for anti-abortion activists by explicitly recognizing unborn children in federal law."

There does appear to be stuff that is getting tagged on but it's a side show to some pretty radical changes.

Also you posted recently that none of the proposed reforms were getting anywhere - I think you have to admit that this one is.

Stevo_666

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

Which one? As I posted, there are two quite different plans from the Senate and the House.

There's a limit to how much time I want to spend reading about another country's tax legislation, but for one point, if dropping the CT rate is an attempt to stop people trying to avoid it, why are there proposals to ease taxes on pass-through entities? For the party that is usually pretty paranoid about increasing the deficit, they don't sound entirely convinced that the changes will be revenue neutral.

There is a reasonable degree of similarity on principles - a lot of difference are on points such as rates and other details. However regardless of what is eventually decided on, there is enough commonality to look at the possible consequences.

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try? [/quote
There would be no point. You have your opinion I have mine, others have theirs, the merits of low taxation for businesses on its ability to create growth have been debated many times elsewhere. One thing is for sure, in the short term it will mean trump and his cronies will pay a lot less tax. This thread has enough of interest from everything else that’s going on rather than turning it into ‘another’ tax thread

Nice deflection attempt, but way too simplistic and shows you need to do a bit of homework on this

I am no Trump advocate but I can at least take the bill itself on its merits rather than default to the sort of knee jerk reaction that you posted above.

bianchimoon

Well then stevo I wish you luck in your endeavours to rationalise and explain the complexities of dotards ever changing tax plan to the internet, I find ‘knee jerk reactions’ have as much if not more impact on Internet forums than ten paras of copy that 99% of readers skip over anyway

Stevo_666

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

If you dont know much about it just be honest say so That said I've already worked that out

Stevo_666

bianchimoon wrote:

Well then stevo I wish you luck in your endeavours to rationalise and explain the complexities of dotards ever changing tax plan to the internet, I find ‘knee jerk reactions’ have as much if not more impact on Internet forums than ten paras of copy that 99% of readers skip over anyway

Well bottled. You knew you would lose anyway :twisted:

rjsterry

Stevo 666 wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Why? So we can do a Steve tax thread? I don't think so

Lawyer 1 - Tax bloke 0.

(and the final whistle has gone).

Not sure that people can really critique the Trump tax bill if they are ignorant of its main contents and possible impacts That's two who have bottled it so far. Maybe you want to try?

Which one? As I posted, there are two quite different plans from the Senate and the House.

There's a limit to how much time I want to spend reading about another country's tax legislation, but for one point, if dropping the CT rate is an attempt to stop people trying to avoid it, why are there proposals to ease taxes on pass-through entities? For the party that is usually pretty paranoid about increasing the deficit, they don't sound entirely convinced that the changes will be revenue neutral.

There is a reasonable degree of similarity on principles - a lot of difference are on points such as rates and other details. However regardless of what is eventually decided on, there is enough commonality to look at the possible consequences.

OK, that's the first point. What about the second?

pblakeney

Silly little fishes.

pinno

PBlakeney wrote:

Silly little fishes.

veronese68

Is anything more boring than the tax regime of a country we don’t live in?
The interesting parts as far as most of this forum are concerned are wether he is lining the pockets of people like him and if it is a way of getting moving anti abortion legislation closer via a back door. The nitty gritty of tax makes drying paint look interesting.