Eminem destroys Trump

[*michaelsean*]

(10-12-2017, 01:21 PM)Benton Wrote: Luvnit asked about benefits being paid by the middle class that they don't typically get to enjoy. Those are just some of the things that come to mind. Along with the race horses. I forgot that one. I don't know a lot of blue collar folks who own a race horse they get to deduct. As with rental property and gamblers there's surely some, but it's probably not a huge number.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of gamblers are middle class.  

The rental property thing is just like any other business.  You deduct your expenses from your profit.  I don't know why that sticks out to you as something different, and I don't think anyone would consider these freebies provided by the ultra-right.  In fact they aren't freebies at all.  You pay tax on profit.  Those reduce your profit.

[Benton]

(10-12-2017, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of gamblers are middle class.  

The rental property thing is just like any other business.  You deduct your expenses from your profit.  I don't know why that sticks out to you as something different, and I don't think anyone would consider these freebies provided by the ultra-right.  In fact they aren't freebies at all.  You pay tax on profit.  Those reduce your profit.

Well, here's the thing.

There isn't an Obama phone. There never was. It's laughably misleading, like most of what some people complain about.

In this instance, the government has been operating the Lifeline program for low income people since the mid-80s. As even the biggest conspiracy theorist will attest, Obama's shadow government didn't come into play until the 90s as Ronald Reagan had the country firmly under control. He locked that shit down, had liberals by the ***** and told people to pull themselves up by their boot straps... while he created a program to subsidize their phone bills as they did the pulling. 

Lifeline.

It was expanded as cell phone usage grew. They are replacing landlines and the government adapted the program over the years (see the FCC link) to reflect that.

http://lifelinefacts.com/lifeline-facts/
https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

The kicker is, it's not even paid for with tax dollars, it's a surcharge on phone bills. I pay it when I pay my phone bill, most of us do; none of us pay tax dollars for it (although, I would assume tax dollars go to the administration cost of the program.

So — to me — Republicans subsidizing the phones of poor people (who pay taxes) through a surcharge is about the same as Republicans subsidizing a second mortgage for someone well off enough to afford a second home (who pays taxes). The guy who pays for both those? The guy in the middle class who pays his own phone bill and can't afford a second home.

I'd be happier with less subsidizing people's hobbies, failures, etc.

[*michaelsean*]

(10-12-2017, 04:12 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, here's the thing.

There isn't an Obama phone. There never was. It's laughably misleading, like most of what some people complain about.

In this instance, the government has been operating the Lifeline program for low income people since the mid-80s. As even the biggest conspiracy theorist will attest, Obama's shadow government didn't come into play until the 90s as Ronald Reagan had the country firmly under control. He locked that shit down, had liberals by the ***** and told people to pull themselves up by their boot straps... while he created a program to subsidize their phone bills as they did the pulling. 

Lifeline.

It was expanded as cell phone usage grew. They are replacing landlines and the government adapted the program over the years (see the FCC link) to reflect that.

http://lifelinefacts.com/lifeline-facts/
https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

The kicker is, it's not even paid for with tax dollars, it's a surcharge on phone bills. I pay it when I pay my phone bill, most of us do; none of us pay tax dollars for it (although, I would assume tax dollars go to the administration cost of the program.

So — to me — Republicans subsidizing the phones of poor people (who pay taxes) through a surcharge is about the same as Republicans subsidizing a second mortgage for someone well off enough to afford a second home (who pays taxes). The guy who pays for both those? The guy in the middle class who pays his own phone bill and can't afford a second home.

I'd be happier with less subsidizing people's hobbies, failures, etc.

I don't know what hobbies we subsidize, but i agree about 2nd homes.

[Benton]

(10-12-2017, 04:17 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I don't know what hobbies we subsidize, but i agree about 2nd homes.

Boats come to mind (including lower tax rates for luxury boats than cheaper ones). Race horses and gambling most likely are (although for some that is a primary source of income). Someone told me a story years ago about deducting taking their dog on vacation from their taxes, but I've never honestly looked into how that worked.

[GMDino]

(10-12-2017, 05:12 PM)Benton Wrote: Boats come to mind (including lower tax rates for luxury boats than cheaper ones). Race horses and gambling most likely are (although for some that is a primary source of income). Someone told me a story years ago about deducting taking their dog on vacation from their taxes, but I've never honestly looked into how that worked.

https://www.gobankingrates.com/taxes/deadline-countdown-6-breaks-pet-owners/

[JustWinBaby]

(10-12-2017, 02:52 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm going to go out on a limb and say the vast majority of gamblers are middle class.  

And unless you are a professional gambler, losses are only allowed to offset gains.   Why should anyone pay tax on a $10k jackpot if they lost $20k over several months playing that machine?

Investment income is already taxed once at the corporate level - so that average effect of the double taxation is north of 40%, but of course on the individual tax return it looks like they only paid 20%.

You can deduct expense on rental property (as you should be able to - you're taxed on profits, not gross revenues!).  Also, you can depreciate property, but that's just deferred tax as it's recaptured on the gain when sold, and this makes perfect sense from a cash flow perspective as a lot of your profit is converting a mortgage balance into equity.


Things like deductions for race horses and yachts are less about tax breaks to the rich and more about pork to certain states/industries.  Those are classic money pits - no one says "gee, I'd really like to throw my money away there so I can deduct 20% of my losses!".

[*michaelsean*]

(10-12-2017, 05:34 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: And unless you are a professional gambler, losses are only allowed to offset gains.   Why should anyone pay tax on a $10k jackpot if they lost $20k over several months playing that machine?

Investment income is already taxed once at the corporate level - so that average effect of the double taxation is north of 40%, but of course on the individual tax return it looks like they only paid 20%.

You can deduct expense on rental property (as you should be able to - you're taxed on profits, not gross revenues!).  Also, you can depreciate property, but that's just deferred tax as it's recaptured on the gain when sold, and this makes perfect sense from a cash flow perspective as a lot of your profit is converting a mortgage balance into equity.


Things like deductions for race horses and yachts are less about tax breaks to the rich and more about pork to certain states/industries.  Those are classic money pits - no one says "gee, I'd really like to throw my money away there so I can deduct 20% of my losses!".

Theoretically not offsetting gains with losses in gambling would mean if you sat down and played 30 hands of blackjack at $10 a hand, and lost 25 hands while winning 5 hands, you would have to pay tax on $50 which I think most people would say is absurd.  

[JustWinBaby]

(10-12-2017, 05:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Theoretically not offsetting gains with losses in gambling would mean if you sat down and played 30 hands of blackjack at $10 a hand, and lost 25 hands while winning 5 hands, you would have to pay tax on $50 which I think most people would say is absurd.  

Of course.  But if you win any tourney or jackpot with a payout over $1000, I believe it is, you have to fill out a tax form that gets reported to the IRS.  THEN you have to claim it on your return, and hopefully have some records to detail your offsets.

Where the amateur gambler gets screwed is you might have years of several thousand in losses, then you hit that big win.  Sorry, can't offset with losses from previous years unless you've been a professional gambler and have VERY detailed records (including, presumably, years of taxable winnings to demonstrate you actually make a living at this).

For whales, though?  Ehhh, that's a handout to the gaming industry.  I'm sure they deduct their losses.  Worse, those losses are often "negotiated" with the casino.  And the extremely generous comps they get I don't believe are claimed as income.

[Bengalzona]

Eminem gave Trump a bad rap?

[Bengalzona]

(10-12-2017, 11:45 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: True (bold), but you can't move far left with socialistic agenda and expect to step in line with the middle class.

I believe the American definition of socialism is far different than that of the rest of the world.

There's a reason for that.

[StoneTheCrow]

I’d say he did the opposite of destroy. As previously mentioned, him and his base feed off of the rabid disdain from celebs.

[*bfine32*]

What could be better than a model citizen supporting you?

Eminem destroying you.

[BFritz21]

None of you see what this is really about?

Have you heard from Eminem lately? Don't think so.

Guess what's happening next month? Eminem's releasing an album. He's just trying to get his name fresh in everyone's minds again and get people enthusiastic about buying his new album.

[HarleyDog]

Now this is Funny.

[StoneTheCrow]

[Aquapod770]

Ballsofsteel with another epic failure of a thread??? Man you're on a roll. Keep it up.

[*jason*]

(10-13-2017, 01:22 AM)BFritz21 Wrote: None of you see what this is really about?

Have you heard from Eminem lately? Don't think so.

Guess what's happening next month? Eminem's releasing an album. He's just trying to get his name fresh in everyone's minds again and get people enthusiastic about buying his new album.

That's not really it Brad. What was Kathy Griffin up to lately when she did her stupid ass decapitated head? What was on her horizon? A lame New year's Eve show? This is just another chapter in the ongoing "resistance". When Trump is gone the few right wing celebrities will be back to crying like babies like they did from 08 -16...

The funny thing is, I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Eminem and Trump hung out at some event in the past. I know Kathy Griffin at one time did. I recently heard Jalen Rose tell a story about the time he, Tom Brady, and Trump went to a Roy Jones Jr. fight together. Hell, we've all seen pictures of the Clintons and Trump buddying up.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-12-2017, 04:12 PM)Benton Wrote: Well, here's the thing.

There isn't an Obama phone. There never was. It's laughably misleading, like most of what some people complain about.

In this instance, the government has been operating the Lifeline program for low income people since the mid-80s. As even the biggest conspiracy theorist will attest, Obama's shadow government didn't come into play until the 90s as Ronald Reagan had the country firmly under control. He locked that shit down, had liberals by the ***** and told people to pull themselves up by their boot straps... while he created a program to subsidize their phone bills as they did the pulling. 

Lifeline.

It was expanded as cell phone usage grew. They are replacing landlines and the government adapted the program over the years (see the FCC link) to reflect that.

http://lifelinefacts.com/lifeline-facts/
https://www.fcc.gov/general/lifeline-program-low-income-consumers
http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

The kicker is, it's not even paid for with tax dollars, it's a surcharge on phone bills. I pay it when I pay my phone bill, most of us do; none of us pay tax dollars for it (although, I would assume tax dollars go to the administration cost of the program.

So — to me — Republicans subsidizing the phones of poor people (who pay taxes) through a surcharge is about the same as Republicans subsidizing a second mortgage for someone well off enough to afford a second home (who pays taxes). The guy who pays for both those? The guy in the middle class who pays his own phone bill and can't afford a second home.

I'd be happier with less subsidizing people's hobbies, failures, etc.

I just had to point this out. That sounds exactly like the wording someone would use so people can say "it's not a tax!" and be technically correct.

Just like calling it a "waste treatment facility" doesn't make your job less about dealing with poop water, calling it a "surcharge" doesn't make it less of a tax. Lol

[Belsnickel]

I saw something on Twitter, a headline that said something like "Senate candidate Kid Rock fires back at Eminem for his rap lambasting President Trump" or something to that effect. The commentary on it was "Imagine trying to explain this to someone in 2006."

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2017, 10:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I saw something on Twitter, a headline that said something like "Senate candidate Kid Rock fires back at Eminem for his rap lambasting President Trump" or something to that effect. The commentary on it was "Imagine trying to explain this to someone in 2006."

I just literally laughed out loud while reading that.