Bernie appears to be a hypocrite on taxes
 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/income-ta...87.html?ref=gs

OK. Bernie's income of 205k was triple the national average, yet his tax rate (13.5%) is LOWER than the national average of 14.7%. In other words, it's OK when Bernie uses all legal means to minimize his taxes...but when anyone else does it, Bernie says they are evil and "not paying their fair share". He has absolutely zero moral authority to point at any specific person or corporation and call them a tax cheat, unless they have broken the law.

This is like listening to Al Gore, or some Hollywood idiot, bleating about climate change while they take a private jet from one mansion to another. It's always "do as I say, not as I do."

They all do it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They all pay no more than they have to, of course. Only liberals, as far as I can tell, have the chutzpah to attack everyone else who does the same thing they are doing. Hilary says we need to rein in the one percenters, but it's fine when she makes 25 million a year.

If I was ever going to not vote because of having no enthusiasm for the candidates, this would be the year. A weak crop at best, both sides.

This is exactly the system he wants to change, you guys are making his point for him he SHOULD be paying more taxes. But this is how the system works right now, what do you want him to do go back to H&R block and say hey here's some more money?

LOL you guys are hilarious sometimes

But the system he wants to bring in stinks worse than the one he wants to change.

Believe me, I am not making his point for him. Why should he be paying more? And if he thinks he should be paying more, than why isn't he paying more? He's not required to use those deductions. He can pay more if he wants.

Johnny, he's not just saying "I should be paying more than this". He is calling companies, and people, out by name, and criticizing them for doing exactly what he is doing. That's the hypocrisy. He has no right to call out a person by name, and criticize them specifically, for doing exactly what he is doing.

He can criticize the system. It's hypocritical of him to criticize specific individuaks who aren't doing anything he's not doing.

Again, if the current system is immoral, he can pay more. He chooses not to. If he pays no more than required, by what right does he call out someone else for doing the same exact thing?

The tax system is there for all of us to use and deduct and save where ya can....same with bankruptcy laws, use it if ya have too...how many here that own a house have the Homestead Act for 35 bucks in Mass. U and spouse R covered for 250,000 each over 62 of age, one time fee....U R not protected from city, state or federal claims nor from bank mortgage... click on your county deeds and read it ....in essex county it is www.salemdeeds.com ...:)

If you really want your head to explode Jim, don't forget that the Pope has stated that Bernie has the strongest Christian/ Catholic values of all of the runners.
It's just a shame that greed is the USA's main religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nebe, that as a nice way for you to comment, without even coming close to addressing the point I made...a classic, and very tiresome, liberal ploy.

Can you please show me where the Pope said that Bernie (an abortion fanatic) has the strongest Catholic / Christian values? I didn't see that. But you got me, I don't like much of what this Pope says about macro-economics. This Pope lost me when he was in the US Capital, and he walked right past Paul Ryan to shake hands with Joe Biden. See, I am able to criticize those on my side when they act stupidly.

Now, is Bernie a hypocrite, or not? If he can take full advantage of all deductions he qualifies for, where the hell does he get off, calling out other specific people, for doing the same?

No one forces him to take deductions,he just doesn't want to pay more than he is legally obliged to pay. Do as I say,not as I do.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think a more interesting question is why Trump hasn't released his. Some are speculating his real estate deductions could have his liability at zero.

Not sure why that's interesting, because who would pay more than they have to?

What's interesting (in an appalling way), is that a US Senator who is running for President, is naming specific people and companies for "not paying their fair share", when those people and companies are doing the same exact thing that Bernie is doing.

If he were to get elected (zero chance) his job is to represent all of us, not just the ones he happens to like. That concept died at the 2009 inauguration.

Always, "do as I say, not as I do." Same thing with climate change, gun control, name it...

THERE IS NO LAW THAT SAYS THAT A PERSON RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT HAS TOO....I YELLED, DID U HEAR THAT...:)

Mark cuban said that he would never expose his taxes if he were running for president,"nobodies business...:)

If his, lawyers, use a legal IRS real estate deduction there would be nothing wrong with that, anymore then us deducting the interest on our real estate mortgage interest deduction
Do away with the IRS, swell chance with all the lawyers , and put in a flat tax.
Good Luck.

It's not the "exact same thing" that Bernie is doing.

Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return.

He's accusing a small number of large corporations of abusing grey areas in the law to achieve massive tax avoidance, or influencing legislators to enable tax avoidance schemes.

It's not the same thing. As an actuarial with a class in religious studies I would have assumed you'd done the math.

If true at a minimum it's embarrassing and would really undermine his support among the middle class who think the system is screwing the people. At worst there's more to it...

I'd like to see them.

In jims world it is the same spence. Just like a box of 100 chocolates with one bad one has the same odd as a billion to one chance of being caught in a terrorist attack. :rotfl:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He deducted almost 10k for business related food expenses. Not everyone does that.

It is the same Bernie is using every legal means at his disposal to minimize his taxes. Because of that, he has no right to criticize anyone else for doing the same. Instead of calling out an actual tax dodger like Al Sharpton, Berne gets on his knees and kisses Sharpton's ring, just like every other Democratic candidate in the last 10 years.

Billion to one? Thousands of people are in the ground thanks to terrorists. How many people do you think live on this planet? How many do you think get killed by sharks?

I was a little off...

The chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are about 1 in 20 million. A person is as likely to be killed by his or her own furniture, and more likely to die in a car accident, drown in a bathtub, or in a building fire than from a terrorist attack.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I assume you mean in the U.S. If that's the case, then I assume that you don't believe there is much of a chance of another 9/11. The odds on that day were closer to 1 in 100 thousand. Which is only about 10 times less than the odds of being killed in an auto accident.. I don't know what the odds are for bathtub deaths.

I don't know how much more we can do to prevent auto and bathtub deaths, but there may be a lot more we can do to prevent terrorist attacks and even-up the odds a little more.

How about gun deaths ? I know how to stop that... Take away everyone's guns. Simple right? What's a little violation of your freedom?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Over sixty percent of gun deaths in this country are suicide. The idea that taking guns from that sixty percent would eliminate the suicides is wishful thinking. Most of the other gun homicides would not be eliminated as homicides because they too would occur by other means. As it is, over 30% of homicides are done by other than guns. And gang violence accounts for a good portion of homicides. Eliminating guns would not get rid of gangs. Getting rid of gangs would be the easier solution. So taking guns away from everyone would eliminate gun deaths, but not most of the violent deaths. On the other hand, making law-abiding people gunless would leave them at the mercy of those gangs, criminals, or others, who could illegally purchase guns from a growing black market in guns.

And, I know . . . I know . . . we don't have to fear our government. But there are those instances in history when people were disarmed and then slaughtered by the government that disarmed them. Nazi Germany, Soviet Ukraine . . . etc. Disarming everyone could lead to more deaths, not less.

Anyway, what does gun control have to do with terrorist attacks? Wouldn't everyone being armed prevent or minimize some terrorist attacks.

"Sanders and his wife are taking the same basic deductions that tens of millions of people use to adjust their tax return."

Oh, I see. So "tens of millions of people" deduct $10,000 for food expenses like Bernie did? Because lord knows, there's no "grey area" when it comes to deciding whether or not a lunch is a 'business lunch'.

"abusing grey areas in the law"

One of his loudest complaints is that CEOs pay a lower effective rate than employees. That's bullsh*t, and you know it. The reason for that, is that wealthy people commonly receive a large share of taxable income from capital gains, which is taxed at a rate lower than wages (and for good reason). There is absolutely nohting grey, murky, or ambiguous about it. The IRS currently works for Chairman Barack, and they have decided that capital gains are to be taxed at a lower rate than wages. In case you can't connect the dots, that necessarily means that someone who gets their income from capital gains, will therefore pay a lower rate than someone who gets all their income from wages.

Is that going sufficiently too fast for you, that you can't grasp it, so you call it "grey"? It's pretty straightforward and intended.

Spence, I seem to recall a President in the late 1990's slashing capital gains tax rates significantly, and if memory serves, he had a (D) after his name, correct? Remember him, a gray-haired pervert? He was married at the time, and sure as hell, I don't recall his wife ever once bitching about her husband cutting capital gains tax rates. I also seem to recall that the economy took off, after those capital gains tax rates were cut. To the point that my golden retriever could have followed his nose into the local Wendys and walked out as an assistant manager. How about that?

Simple, yes. And as you said, it would be a violation of the Constitution.

Please tell me what is happening to you, in the name of national security, that is a violation of your constitutional rights? I'm all ears.

I will ask why Hillary has not released a transcript of her paid speech to Goldman Sachs since we have decided to go off topic. I am sure this displays the ultimate in hypocrisy. Does this interest you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She hasn't released the transcripts for the same reason that Trump hasn't released his tax returns, which is the same reason why Obama hasn't released his academic records...there's something in there they each don't want us to see.

His interest in her speech transcripts is limited to confirming how brilliant she is.

Lets see. If I am not mistaken a warrant is needed to search my belongings in public. I'd say when I travel I loose that right to privacy.

If I was to buy a 1 way train ticket and had over 10K in cash in my possession, the government can search me and take that money "just because they suspect I'm a drug dealer". I'd say that is unconstitutional. I'm sure there's more but I need coffee
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"If I am not mistaken a warrant is needed to search my belongings in public"

Please show me where the constitution says that. (It's a trick question, the constitution doesn't say that, so you don't have that right). The Constitution says you have the protection against unlawful and unreasonable search. Our society has determined that when you get on a plane, you have no reasonable expectation of proivacy in what you carry on with you. You may not like that, but just because it ticks you off, doesn't mean your rights have been violated.

"the government can search me and take that money "just because they suspect I'm a drug dealer". I'd say that is unconstitutional"

I'm not sure they can do that wihtout just cause, and if it ever happens to you, you can find an ACLU lawyer who will sue on your behalf.

Sorry, you need to do a lot better than that.

Is it unconstitutional, U buy a 2 way airline ticket your luggage would B searched and or a one way ticket...start jumping up & down in the airport and C where it gets U.....:)