patrick.net

SunnyvaleCA says

People earning huge income (say, $1 million) would probably not hit AMT because their tax bracket is 39% — well above the AMT rate of 28%. And itemized deductions for state and local taxes are mostly phased out at some point, so they weren't able to take advantage of SALT deductions anyway.

That's not how AMT works. You pay the higher of the standard calculation or the AMT calculation. You could have huge deductions on 1 million + (look at trumps 1 tax return that actually got reported) and still owe a lot under AMT.

bob2356 says

That's not how AMT works. You pay the higher of the standard calculation or the AMT calculation. You could have huge deductions on 1 million + (look at trumps 1 tax return that actually got reported) and still owe a lot under AMT

It really all depends on what kind of income and what kind of deductions. If you have a huge salary you'll miss AMT (because regular income tax will be higher) and lose SALT too because of the itemized deduction phaseout. I speak from past experience.

As far as Trump's return, I can't quite remember the specifics. His deductions were related to taking pass-through business losses. I don't recall him paying AMT that year. So, I don't think Trump would fair any worse now under Trump's tax plan.

SunnyvaleCA says

It really all depends on what kind of income and what kind of deductions. If you have a huge salary you'll miss AMT (because regular income tax will be higher) and lose SALT too because of the itemized deduction phaseout. I speak from past experience.

True, AMT is very complicated. I'm certainly not calculating my own but I try to understand how the calculations were made and why. Trump paid 31 million on AMT instead of 5.3 million owed for standard return on 150 million in income. Without all the schedules we will never know how or why.

Trump has forced them to publicly show how bizzaro fucked upside down they are are. Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich and dem party and its the same all the way down.

RC2006 says

Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich

HIllary had the complete backing of the koch bro's huge network of ultra rich libertarians. Jesus, the amazing things you learn on patnet. How did infowars miss that?

bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.

Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?

Strategist says

bob2356 says

Great, let's start with churches.

That's awesome Bob. I always knew there was hope for you.

Churches are the worst. They have their tax free status including no property tax, but are up to their asses in the elections.

Strategist says

Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?

All that are tax fee. Why do I have to subsidize religion? Especially the ones working their asses off to support political candidates. You can't have it both ways. If a church wants to be in politics then give up tax free first.

bob2356 says

Strategist says

Wait a minute Bob. Do you literally mean Churches only, or all religious institutions like Mosques and Temples?

All that are tax fee. Why do I have to subsidize religion? Especially the ones working their asses off to support political candidates. You can't have it both ways. If a church wants to be in politics then give up tax free first.

I totally agree. As an atheist going to hell, how can I disagree? But you keep evading my question. Should the same rules be applied to mosques?

Strategist says

But you keep evading my question. Should the same rules be applied to mosques?

Yes of course. I thought the word all was unequivocal, but apparently not.

bob2356 says

RC2006 says

Hillary had almost complete backing of the filthy rich

HIllary had the complete backing of the koch bro's huge network of ultra rich libertarians. Jesus, the amazing things you learn on patnet. How did infowars miss that?

Cock brothers were against Trump and put thier money towards his Republican opponents. Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Doesn't even count all of the payola going to the Clinton Foundation.

RC2006 says

Cock brothers were against Trump and put thier money towards his Republican opponents. Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.

The cook bro's network are the wealthy elite filthy rich. Now they are trumps cabinet. Are you really saying they gave almost complete backing to Hillary?

RC2006 says

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

Want to post the parts from the article that show how much came from the "wealthy elite" and which wealthy elite. I'm not seeing it.

bob2356 says

The cook bro's network are the wealthy elite filthy rich. Now they are trumps cabinet. Are you really saying they gave almost complete backing to Hillary?

They did not support Trump being president and all of their republican choices lost. I never said they backed Hillary and they are not the only wealthy people in the game. Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary. You keep on focusing on the cock brothers they are not everything and they didn't have a winning horse in the race not sure why you keep focusing on them, maybe they are in there now but they were not at the start.

RC2006 says

They did not support Trump being president and all of their republican choices lost. I never said they backed Hillary and they are not the only wealthy people in the game. Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary. You keep on focusing on the cock brothers they are not everything and they didn't have a winning horse in the race not sure why you keep focusing on them, maybe they are in there now but they were not at the start.

How about Sheldon Adelson? Or many others as detailed below.

http://fortune.com/2016/08/03/trump-billionaire-backers-list/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.html

RC2006 says

Majority of the wealthy elites backed Hillary.

Want to name all the hillary supporters in the 100 wealthiest? Your won't have to take off your shoes to count that high, I promise.

LeonDurham says

How about Sheldon Adelson? Or many others as detailed below.

That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.

It was also the first time since the 20s or 30s that Orange County voted majority Democrat.

And the Koch Brothers refused to give Trump a dime, since he talked against wonderful wage crushing illegals and one-sided trade.

Or that the Democrats still arrange for big fundraisers to become superdelegates.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.

OK first off, RC said this:

RC2006 says

Hillary had the majority of wealthy elite.

Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

That still doesn't detract from RC2006's point that Hillary raised more money from the Wealthy, which is a fact.

It was also the first time since the 20s or 30s that Orange County voted majority Democrat.

And the Koch Brothers refused to give Trump a dime, since he talked against wonderful wage crushing illegals and one-sided trade.

Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands.in the presidential race, Just like you said. RC said hillary had the backing of the majority of the wealthy elite. Not backing trump is not the same as backing hillary. Big logic fallacy there.

LeonDurham says

Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.

Oh? Evidence in favor? I've got plenty, but you go first.

LeonDurham says

Which is not the same as what you paraphrased above. Regardless, neither your statement nor RC's is a fact.

What do you take "had the majority of the wealthy elite" to mean. To me it means money and votes. The fact that she yugely outraised Trump in wealthy donations and SuperPAC money, and that OC flipped to the Dem for the first time in almost a century, seems to me she "had the majority of the wealthy elite."

bob2356 says

Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands

Link? $1.2B was higher than what Obama spent in 2012. Hillary raised twice what the Donald did. Seems that the 2016 race was par for the course for the past few races in terms of big money raised SuperPAC giving was more than twice to Hillary than Trump.
https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/graphics/2016-presidential-campaign-fundraising/

TwoScoopsPlissken says

bob2356 says

Nope, the majority of the wealthy elite sat on their hands

Link? $1.2B was higher than what Obama spent in 2012. Hillary raised twice what the Donald did. Seems that the 2016 race was par for the course for the past few races in terms of big money raised SuperPAC giving was more than twice to Hillary than Trump

Look at what you just wrote. Donations are more than just the wealthy individuals. Businesses. institutions, smaller donors make up a good chunk of donations. Dems traditionally get much more from small donors 35% to 20% and republicans get more from large donors 28% to 17%.. https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/donordemographics.php

Hillary got all the usual donations including the wealthy dem supporters.. Trump got all the usual donations minus the wealthy. Hillary actually spent about 25% less than either Obama run. Trump was way down from Romney, like half, about the same as Mccain and less than Bush.



No, hillary did not have the backing of the majority of the wealthy elite. They spent their money on congressional candidates.

What's the point of democrats worrying about schools here turning the US into a third world when they put so much energy bringing the third world to the US.