I don't, I'm just playing the percentages. 7.6% of Nevada's population is illegally in this country. 17.7 percent of Nevada students in kindergarten through high school have at least one unauthorized immigrant parent. 10.2 percent of Nevada’s labor force consists of unauthorized immigrants. http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/nevada-has-top-share-unauthorized-immigrants
No. What you're doing is turning the "But seriously" thread into the "Racist old guy complaint" thread.
I tend to agree. If 7.6% of people in that state are illegal, the overwhelming odds are that the people were legal citizens, not illegal immigrants.
Nevada's Hispanic population is 12.1%. About 5% of their total population is here illegally, which leaves about 7% of their total population here legally. Nevada has 2,890,845 people. 12.1 % is 349,792 7.6 % is 219,704 69% of the illegal population is from Mexico = 151.595 Which leaves 198,197 here legally and 151,595 here illegally from Mexico alone.
If 5% their (meaning Hispanic ) population is here illegally then the number should be 95% of the 12.1% that is legal, which means the vast majority. Why does illegal immigration matter within the context of your original post, and why are you ALWAYS throwing in these thinly veiled racist comments ? The reason so many Mexican people are there illegally is because of the violence in their country (caused primarily by the drug war), and the poor state of the LEGAL immigration process to enter properly. Almost every article I've seen finds that illegal immigrants pay more into the system than they use, and that they are a hard working demographic desperately needed in the labour force. Are there occasional bad apples? Sure. But throw them all out because of a small minority and watch the economy collapse .
No, the 5% is of the total population of Nevada, not just Hispanic. Included in the total population is 12.1 Hispanic, but also in that total population is 7.6% illegals, of which 5% is Mexican illegals.
In other news, is anyone else not at all surprised by the trump tax documents? It wouldn't shock me if it turns out that he's worth basically negative money. On the subject of illegal immigrants though, since I live in an area which has a massive population of them, I feel like I can speak from a somewhat well informed position. As a broad statement, they are some of the hardest working, nicest, most appreciative people I have ever encountered. They work the jobs we do not want, nor would any spoiled American ever deign to do. It's sad that we're so spoiled that we wouldn't work construction sites, warehouses, basically manual labor, and a lot of times very skilled manual labor, and damnit if those who do those jobs don't deserve every penny and then some. Our local economy would crumble if they weren't here. There should be a path to legal citizenship for those who work their ass for a country that isn't, on paper, theirs, because I promise you they work a lot harder and longer for a lot less than "legal" people do.
Eh, that's kind of a huge leap in logic to make. That near-billion dollar loss allowed him to not pay taxes on the equivalent amount of income for 18 years. Two things here: I don't think there is enough information on the disposition of that loss and I also don't think anyone here knows enough about Federal tax code to determine but that could have been nothing but accounting tricks on paper. I tend to believe he is worth a lot of money on paper from real estate holdings but his actual net income is probably lower than we would expect. The other thing to consider here is that while what he does in terms of taxes looks awfully scabby and dirty, I find it highly unlikely he has done anything illegal and I also wouldn't be surprised to find out that this is a standard tactic for people with a lot of money.....Hence, the rich continue to get richer.
My guess is if you let a forensic accountant loose with full access to his financials, you'd be able to nail him for something illegal, but looking from the outside it'd be nearly impossible to prove. My strong suspicion is that the billion dollar loss is real, but it's not his personal loss, and he's merely using it to avoid paying income tax. If those exact same financial transactions had produced a billion dollar gain, there is zero chance he would have reported it as ordinary income.
They wouldn't need a forensic accountant. Any newly minted 25 year old CPA would figure it out in 10 minutes. The Trump Organization is not structured like a corporation, its structured like a small business that happens to be worth billions and is the way most businesses are organized. With the way its structured, gains and losses pass through the company shell to the owner, Trump. When the business lost $1 billion it reflected a personal loss on Donald Trump's return whether or not $1 billion actually entered or left his bank account. If the opposite were true and it was a gain, that income would be taxable. So the way the tax code is written, he gets the discount in subsequent years even when hes actually making a profit because of the previous offset. The reason this is legitimate is because it would otherwise crater a vast majority of small businesses that went from a loss to a gain. It's not designed for multi-billion dollar conglomerates, but there's nothing illegal about organizing that way. This is how any LLC operates, or should operate. I doubt any shady shit is going on with it as this is a fairly routine practice and he gets audited yearly. I suppose he could be blatantly hiding income, which is a separate issue.
Agreed that multi-year offsets are fine in the general case. However, considering that Donald has apparently still not recovered from this loss 20 years later indicates he is either a) a truly horrendous businessman, or b) operating the business like a tax diode, where tax implications only go in the direction that benefits Trump, and never the other way, which is shady.
Well funny you should mention 20 years, because you can roll a net operating loss forward for up to 20 years, and a 1995 NOL of 1 billion would have expired this year. So he looks like a terrible business man on paper but he probably did it on purpose. It's not illegal, but its not exactly ethical either. I doubt we'll see any honest reporting of this situation from either side. GAAP isn't a sexy concept for the general public.
The other funny thing about this whole story is that the New York Times broke the story.....they used the same tactic in 2014. Hillary's campaign had a lot to say about it but if you look at her 2015 return she has big offsets (compared to income shown) in there as well. It is far from being a non-story but maybe someone could propose altering US Tax Code from 74,000 pages down to 20 pages. That way we could cut out all the nonsense tax loopholes and just make it a standard rate that can't be cheated and made to look so gross by rich people.
Its not exactly a loophole either, though. The tax code was specifically designed to allowed this to occur with the understanding that its better to save small businesses than to go after large conglomerated LLCs. And tax accounting is extremely complicated. There are a million different situations that can impact taxable income or loss. Its also been proven mathematically that a flat tax rate would be harmful to the economy. Trump essentially organized his business the way any rich people generally protects their money through incorporation. In these situations - the smoking gun for fraud is not how much taxes they pay or should have paid, but how they report income and in the case of their LLCs, perform revenue recognition. If for instance, Trump was hiding off-shore income in Chinese government bonds and then preaches protectionism against China, this could inflate the value of the bonds and therefore his income. That would probably be the most blatant manipulation of the American Economy in history aside from possibly Enron or Bernie Madoff.
I missed the beginning of the VP debate and after tuning in so far they haven't done anything other than talk about who has said more mean things and apologized more. Seriously, this is like listening to wounded soap opera stars. This might be going back off in a hurry. Edit: That actually wasn't that bad once they got on topic.
It was far more civil and less dramatic than the presidential one, not that the VP ones make much difference. I wonder if Trump is taking notes that his VP candidate is a much better debater than he is?
I missed almost half the debate, but I thought Pence did really well. Kaine seemed to want to make the whole debate about attacking Trump. He landed some of his attacks, but at points he looked all over the place. As a result, the few times Pence did go after Clinton it stuck better and he was able to spend more time elaborating on the issues. Other than the obvious that his views are very mainstream Republican, I wonder if Trump picked him because he has the exact opposite disposition. At this point I don't think Trump can maintain a presidential demeanor or anything like that. At best he can tone it down. That being said Kaine didn't do poorly at all either. I think the VP debates/choices matter more than they would in most elections. I don't know if Hillary is sick or has health concerns, but I don't see how someone could say that isn't an issue or at least a legit question. Then with Trump there's no getting around his lack of experience, and while he doesn't appear to have any problems, he's pretty damn old as well.
I think one big takeaway is its a glimpse of how a mainstream and relatively unknown Republican would be stomping Hillary if someone like Pence was the nominee, but instead we have a nutball like Trump. And a CNN commentator was saying how Pence is much more put together than he was initially given credit for, the biggest problem he has is the giant orange anchor tied around his neck. I think Kaine did fine. His histrionics were a bit off mark and it seemed like he was trying to imitate Joe Biden in the VP debates.