Current events discussion

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Comcast it parting ways with it's loss leaders (CNBC and most notably MSNBC). Comcast said the new venture will be well capitalized - IOW, we're paying you to go away.

https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/comcast-proceed-with-plans-spin-off-its-cable-channels-sources-say-2024-11-20/#:~:text=Nov%2019%20(Reuters)%20%2D%20Comcast,of%20the%20streaming%20video%20revolution.

 

[RobGMN Premium Member]

The libs just don't get it. It's stuff like this that pushed normal/centrist/indy voters into the arms of Trump and GOP. Clearly this is weaponization of the legal system. When Clinton/CO got Lewinsky a job to get her out of the WH, nobody accused them of election interference. Dudes paying their affair partners to shut their traps predates the freakin' country and the concept of democracy. The fraud case against Trump is complete BS too. You could prosecute every single American who refinanced a rental property since they would have both claim capital depreciation on their tax returns while claiming the property had increased in value on the loan application.

Let's go after every blue mayor, governor, Senator and house rep that has a side chick that they (or a political ally/puppet master) paya rent for. I'd really like to go after all the in broad daylight day trading that's taking place.

Prosecutors in Trump’s hush money say they oppose dismissing his conviction

New York prosecutors say they oppose any effort to dismiss Trump’s hush money conviction, but they might be open to delaying his sentencing until after his impending second term.

www.pbs.org

Had Trump not used campaign funds to pay off the hooker, no one would have cared. But when you start breaking campaign finance law and you are someone who has set themselves up to be scrutinized down to the Nth detail, stuff like that is bound to become an issue.
Same thing with misusing funds from a charity in your own name.

Don't forget, it was 34 counts on the campaign finance fraud. It wasn't just handing a woman some cash to shut up. Just look at all of them:

As for the finance fraud, it was his own hubris that brought the hammer of justice down upon him. He effing BRAGGED about falsely inflating the value of his properties in order to get financing against the value of the properties, but undervalued them to pay less taxes.
So what happened? Exactly what you would expect to happen to a guy who set himself up for scrutiny: HE WAS SCRUTINIZED. And it turned out he broke the law. Bigly.

Your rental property example isn't really valid as you are comparing depreciation allowances for business tax purposes to the taxable value or the market value when using the property as collateral.

I can take depreciation on rental properties, but that doesn't mean they have no actual value when I've used up my depreciation. That actual market value is what I could use as collateral against a loan. But if the actual value is only $150,000 and I take a loan against it claiming a $500,000 value, it's a BIG problem if I default on the loan and the bank wants the collateral so they can liquidate.

With Trump, they were talking false valuation to the tune of $800M to $2B on his properties.
That's a lot of money.

The US Sentencing Commission got some 57,000 fraud referrals in 2021, so it's not like Trump broke some nonsense law that no one cares about. The median loss on the ones convicted was ~$300,000 I think Trump was playing with a little bit more coin than that.

So the question is: Do they just drop the case because he's Trump, and "no one was hurt"?
Should they extend the same courtesy to all the other people who got caught, since they are likely to be hurt by their conviction much more than Trump?


So here's a puzzler for you: The people crying the most about the unrealized gains taxes are the ones who are most likely to use appreciated asset valuation in order to gain more assets.

Bill owns 10,000 acres of land that has appreciated 50% in the past decade to $10M. He is angry that he might have to pay taxes on that appreciated value, because he hasn't "realized" the new value.
Bill now wants to buy 10,000 more acres of land for $10M, and put up his 10,000 acres as collateral against a loan.

Should he be allowed to do so? If he is allowed to, should it be considered that he has now realized the current value of his land, and must pay the taxes on the capital gains?

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Inflation goes back further, to the 2008 bank bailout. So I don't see whatever small amount of inflation that could be connected to spending in the Ukraine as a reason to stay out of Ukraine.

Oh the reason to stay out of Ukraine is simple...it ain't our responsibility...

And the "this little bit isn't a big deal" is exactly the mindset that has us paying a trillion a year in debt interest these days

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Had Trump not used campaign funds to pay off the hooker, no one would have cared. But when you start breaking campaign finance law and you are someone who has set themselves up to be scrutinized down to the Nth detail, stuff like that is bound to become an issue.
Same thing with misusing funds from a charity in your own name.

Don't forget, it was 34 counts on the campaign finance fraud. It wasn't just handing a woman some cash to shut up. Just look at all of them:View attachment 61328
View attachment 61329


As for the finance fraud, it was his own hubris that brought the hammer of justice down upon him. He effing BRAGGED about falsely inflating the value of his properties in order to get financing against the value of the properties, but undervalued them to pay less taxes.
So what happened? Exactly what you would expect to happen to a guy who set himself up for scrutiny: HE WAS SCRUTINIZED. And it turned out he broke the law. Bigly.

Your rental property example isn't really valid as you are comparing depreciation allowances for business tax purposes to the taxable value or the market value when using the property as collateral.

I can take depreciation on rental properties, but that doesn't mean they have no actual value when I've used up my depreciation. That actual market value is what I could use as collateral against a loan. But if the actual value is only $150,000 and I take a loan against it claiming a $500,000 value, it's a BIG problem if I default on the loan and the bank wants the collateral so they can liquidate.

With Trump, they were talking false valuation to the tune of $800M to $2B on his properties.
That's a lot of money.

The US Sentencing Commission got some 57,000 fraud referrals in 2021, so it's not like Trump broke some nonsense law that no one cares about. The median loss on the ones convicted was ~$300,000 I think Trump was playing with a little bit more coin than that.

So the question is: Do they just drop the case because he's Trump, and "no one was hurt"?
Should they extend the same courtesy to all the other people who got caught, since they are likely to be hurt by their conviction much more than Trump?


So here's a puzzler for you: The people crying the most about the unrealized gains taxes are the ones who are most likely to use appreciated asset valuation in order to gain more assets.

Bill owns 10,000 acres of land that has appreciated 50% in the past decade to $10M. He is angry that he might have to pay taxes on that appreciated value, because he hasn't "realized" the new value.
Bill now wants to buy 10,000 more acres of land for $10M, and put up his 10,000 acres as collateral against a loan.

Should he be allowed to do so? If he is allowed to, should it be considered that he has now realized the current value of his land, and must pay the taxes on the capital gains?

Again, the banks were ok with Trump property values. But what is the real problem here? Is it that he did what many others do when valuing their property or was it the "hush" money?

People can put whatever value on their property they like. No one is forcing banks to accept those values. Why aren't you mad at the banks for allowing loans on inflated property values? The truth is, the higher the property value, the higher the loan, the more interest the banks make. Obviously everyone actually involved seems to be ok with getting money and making money. So we are back to the left just being spiteful and trying to put Trump in jail.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[administrator]

Potentially good for this site . Ironically Google employees were the top contributors to his campaign…

 

[ThxOne Premium Member]

Potentially good for this site . Ironically Google employees were the top contributors to his campaign…

I was just going to say it might shake up search algorithms and what not.

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

That's like the only thing biden has been involved in I'm actually supportive of

It's a joke Trump doesn't want to touch Google imo

 

[spokey9 5,000+ posts]

Although giving people actual legally defined ownership of their personal data would go farther to curb Google than anything else.

 

[Speed Chaser]

Welp I turned on the news and saw Laken Riley murder is sentenced to life, well ain't that a ***** why should they even keep a pos like that alive.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

Welp I turned on the news and saw Laken Riley murder is sentenced to life, well ain't that a ***** why should they even keep a pos like that alive.

it’s nearly every day you find this sickness. The tds say the problem is marginalized and is blown up.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Had Trump not used campaign funds to pay off the hooker, no one would have cared. But when you start breaking campaign finance law and you are someone who has set themselves up to be scrutinized down to the Nth detail, stuff like that is bound to become an issue.
Same thing with misusing funds from a charity in your own name.

Don't forget, it was 34 counts on the campaign finance fraud. It wasn't just handing a woman some cash to shut up. Just look at all of them:View attachment 61328
View attachment 61329


As for the finance fraud, it was his own hubris that brought the hammer of justice down upon him. He effing BRAGGED about falsely inflating the value of his properties in order to get financing against the value of the properties, but undervalued them to pay less taxes.
So what happened? Exactly what you would expect to happen to a guy who set himself up for scrutiny: HE WAS SCRUTINIZED. And it turned out he broke the law. Bigly.

Your rental property example isn't really valid as you are comparing depreciation allowances for business tax purposes to the taxable value or the market value when using the property as collateral.

I can take depreciation on rental properties, but that doesn't mean they have no actual value when I've used up my depreciation. That actual market value is what I could use as collateral against a loan. But if the actual value is only $150,000 and I take a loan against it claiming a $500,000 value, it's a BIG problem if I default on the loan and the bank wants the collateral so they can liquidate.

With Trump, they were talking false valuation to the tune of $800M to $2B on his properties.
That's a lot of money.

The US Sentencing Commission got some 57,000 fraud referrals in 2021, so it's not like Trump broke some nonsense law that no one cares about. The median loss on the ones convicted was ~$300,000 I think Trump was playing with a little bit more coin than that.

So the question is: Do they just drop the case because he's Trump, and "no one was hurt"?
Should they extend the same courtesy to all the other people who got caught, since they are likely to be hurt by their conviction much more than Trump?


So here's a puzzler for you: The people crying the most about the unrealized gains taxes are the ones who are most likely to use appreciated asset valuation in order to gain more assets.

Bill owns 10,000 acres of land that has appreciated 50% in the past decade to $10M. He is angry that he might have to pay taxes on that appreciated value, because he hasn't "realized" the new value.
Bill now wants to buy 10,000 more acres of land for $10M, and put up his 10,000 acres as collateral against a loan.

Should he be allowed to do so? If he is allowed to, should it be considered that he has now realized the current value of his land, and must pay the taxes on the capital gains?

The Stormy Daniels payment was not from campaign funds. The prosecution used reverse logic to claim that the money/payment was for political/campaign purposes.

Should they drop the finance case? Absolutely. It's the bank's responsibility to ensure the valuation of the property is accurate. Having been in that industry, bank's are often willing to overlook overvaluation or even work hand and hand with the borrower to create the overvaluation because there is a ton of money to be made. Assuming Trump did misled the bank, if they suffered some sort of damage, then they should sue him in civil court. Since when have AG's started combing thru bank loans looking for excuses go after commercial property owners.

These are BS cases and clearly weaponization of the legal system.

I'm all for taxing unrealized gains. Let's start with Pelosi. As a matter of fact lets put Pelosi on trail for financial fraud and use a similar calculation that used for Trump to recoup ill gotten gains. Add AOC and the rest of the insider traders in Congress to that list.

 

[Eggs 5,000+ posts]

After World Bank "Misplaces" Up to $41 Billion in Funds, Biden Pledges Record $4 Billion More in U.S. Taxpayer Dollars | The Gateway Pundit | by Margaret Flavin

In just a few weeks, Joe Biden will fade into obscurity and will no longer have access to America’s checkbook.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

 

[Jimi77 Premium Member]

Oh the reason to stay out of Ukraine is simple...it ain't our responsibility...

And the "this little bit isn't a big deal" is exactly the mindset that has us paying a trillion a year in debt interest these days

It's not our responsibility? As the global hegemon, the Ukraine is indeed our responsibility by definition. The Ukrainian war is great importance to NATO and the EU - are you saying it's time walk away from NATO? Are you saying it's time for the US to walk away from our hegemony, the Bretton Woods Conference, Smithsonian Agreement, etc? I highly suspect that would lead to the collapse of the USD and therefore the US economy. Additionally, I believe our position as the global hegemon and the fact we can continue funding the Ukraine is what will give Trump the leverage to (potentially) negotiate a peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine.