Hillary Clinton Releases Current Tax Return.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes in college. But statistics aren't needed to realize that ATS encompasses a cross-section of the country. Probably a wider cross-section than the FOX, CNN, etc.. polls. I call it common-sense. Please enlighten us on why you think ATS is too narrow of a sample.

Trump hasn't done anything illegal with supposed "Shady business practices". If he did he'd be charged with it.

It's not a requirement by law to show tax returns to run for President.

It won't hurt his campaign or presidency if he isn't worth a billion dollars.

It's not a requirement by law to show tax returns to run for President.

Hillary releasing tax returns does absolutely nothing to get her votes.

It's not a requirement by law to show tax returns to run for President.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

but he is a billionaire as far as i know. and i know based on a forbes estimated net worth of trump ..
I see. "As far as I know" passes for evidence these days... What happened to ATS?

as far as i know followed by "AND I KNOWBASED ON A FORBES ESTIMATED NETWORTH of 4.5 billion." that part you left out in my quote...weird eh

what passes as evidence is simple inquisition and research. i researched, and told you my source. yet you quote the first part not the source where i got it from. ill just post it for you, but im sure some other ad hom will be in effect. 4.5b

Well actually you just said Forbes said that. You never actually posted a source. So I just ignored that statement. I tend to not trust hearsay. Nor do I have any obligation to hunt down and fact check your sources for you when you don't post them. If you are going to be too lazy to post a source, I'm just going to be lazy and assume you are lying.

Now that you posted the source though I accept it as credible.

How someone made their fortunes has a direct correlation with their itemized tax return.
say i win 450 million jackpot tomorrow, vice a person who was in say real estate for 40 year who has a net worth of the same 450 million. our tax returns will be quite different. and the difference is how i acquired my fortune. exactly like i said.

So what? That wasn't what I was talking about. So let me rephrase it a bit more specifically. How someone made their fortune has no baring on a Presidential candidate following established precedent within the elections of releasing his tax returns.

the tax return should also have no baring on their candidacy. unless the said candidate is involved in illegal activities, which i think the tax man deals with and not the general population. i have never met a voter who made a decision based on line 1-32 on their candidate's tax return...

but lets agree to disagree (b/c i normally agree and take into consideration your posts). you have your hands full in this thread nit picking. my view may differ from yours as to why a candidate must show their tax returns, and what is presumed if they choose not to.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: buckwhizzle
a reply to: Krazysh0t


And when the MSM saw his Net Worth they ripped his a$$ for being an elitist and out-of-touch with the American People.There is no way for a Republican to win.

So what you are saying is that Trump shouldn't release his tax returns because it will prove that he is an out-of-touch elitist?

This is the post I was responding to. The same standard applied to rich conservatives is not applied to rich liberals.

Yeah. Repeating yourself and quoting my post doesn't automatically mean it makes sense compared to what I typed.

For one Hillary has released her tax returns going back 40 years. For two, Bernie Sanders also released his tax returns. The ONLY person this is a problem for is the Trumpet.

So DO tell. What is this double standard you are alluding to? I SO look forward to whatever hyperbole/false equivalence you'll bring up to "prove" your point. I'm going to guess you'll take a stab at those speeches of Hillary's she won't release, disregarding that that is an apples to oranges comparison. But let's wait and see. This is exciting!

What part of media and liberals applying different standards to rich conservatives don't you understand? This isn't a trick question.

You can't be that blind and I know the kool-aid you drink isn't that strong.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes in college. But statistics aren't needed to realize that ATS encompasses a cross-section of the country. Probably a wider cross-section than the FOX, CNN, etc.. polls. I call it common-sense. Please enlighten us on why you think ATS is too narrow of a sample.

Well you must have slept through the class on significance and how to account for it. To believe that a social forum (especially one that deals in conspiracy theories which are primarily right wing leaning) could have a truly random sampling of people is so naïve it's laughable.

But in any case you NEVER just assume that a samplings significance will be good just because. You test for it and calculate it.

Oh yeah. PLUS this is an international website. So even people who don't live in the country would be sampled.

You are one of the reasons why polls and sampling can be untrustworthy. You don't fully understand the process for how sampling is conducted but feel you know enough to make commentary on its applications.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t


Yes in college. But statistics aren't needed to realize that ATS encompasses a cross-section of the country. Probably a wider cross-section than the FOX, CNN, etc.. polls. I call it common-sense. Please enlighten us on why you think ATS is too narrow of a sample.

hmm... sorry but your common sense will not fly in this argument. ats would not be a suitable sample space.

you should look up statistics sample theories, estimation theories and analysis variance.
but no... ats would only be a suitable poll to poll ats probabilities.

a reply to: Krazysh0t


You're right. I developed the polls that caused Obama to say that he and Democrats took an arse-whoopin in recent elections. My polls were all wrong. Just like they'll be proven wrong THIS election.


BTW... I joined ATS because it has great information on everything from Science to Nutrition. I think it's more mainstream that you believe. You're just looking in the mirror and making an assumption based on the person you see looking back at you.

see above

originally posted by: reldra
Cinton's doctor has also released a reasonable medical statement, while Trump's is fairly unbeleiveable.

I don't know why anyone should be forced to accept anything put out by any campaign -- 'believable' or not.

If a candidate personally releases documents/records, then the voters should be able to authenticate what has been presented directly with whatever agency/physician -- regardless of 'privacy laws.'

If 'it' has allegedly already been made public, then there's nothing private to be protected anymore.

originally posted by: odzeandennz
the tax return should also have no baring on their candidacy. unless the said candidate is involved in illegal activities, which i think the tax man deals with and not the general population. i have never met a voter who made a decision based on line 1-32 on their candidate's tax return...

but lets agree to disagree (b/c i normally agree and take into consideration your posts). you have your hands full in this thread nit picking. my view may differ from yours as to why a candidate must show their tax returns, and what is presumed if they choose not to.

This is true. Most of my problem with him not releasing the returns is that it is spitting in the face of precedent, and I value precedents very highly because they show respect for the office you are looking to fill or already occupy. Disregarding this precedent, to me, is like spitting in the face of the office of the Presidency. It shows a HUGE amount of contempt for the things we hold sacred in this country.

Hillary Clinton is to The Clinton Foundation

as

Heisenberg is to A1A Car Wash

a reply to: Edumakated
I understand your WORDS perfectly. I just don't understand how they relate to what I'm saying. Except as a distraction because you don't have anything smarter and with more substance to say.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Krazysh0t


You're right. I developed the polls that caused Obama to say that he and Democrats took an arse-whoopin in recent elections. My polls were all wrong. Just like they'll be proven wrong THIS election.


BTW... I joined ATS because it has great information on everything from Science to Nutrition. I think it's more mainstream that you believe. You're just looking in the mirror and making an assumption based on the person you see looking back at you.

No I am making a judgement based on the fact that this is a place were people come to discuss opinions. Such places are naturally predisposed to creating echo chambers. Sure there is a CHANCE that a truly random sampling of people could be on this site and there is also a chance (even less than the previous chance) that a truly random sampling of people would respond to the survey, but that is VERY unlikely and to just assume it will be is how flawed samplings occur.

Any statistician who looked at your sampling would probably laugh in your face for not taking into account statistical significance. For an amateur poll it may serve its purposes, but trying to get any meaningful interpretation outside of you are able to successfully poll people on this website is a flawed process.

This is literally statistics 101. Like ignoring this part of the process just screams amateur and for you not to be taken seriously.

PS: Plus you are making assumptions. Assumptions that can EASILY be accounted for if you know what you are doing, but I don't think you do. Therefore you are writing this off like no big deal.

Why is her rate 31%? Sorry if this has been covered but I haven't had time to sort through the whole thread yet and am curious.. considering my family is taxed at 33% compared to her 31% and they make nowhere near even 300k a year compared to her 10.6 million.. and shouldn't she haven been taxed at 39% anyway? www.irs.com...

Is this because of her donations to her own 'charity'? Seems rather unfair, tbh.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Edumakated
I understand your WORDS perfectly. I just don't understand how they relate to what I'm saying. Except as a distraction because you don't have anything smarter and with more substance to say.

Different types of income get taxed at varying rates.

Those who get screwed the most are "wage earners". Working stiffs who get paid a salary on a w2 or 1099. For example, I am a 1%er income wise. Pretty much all my income is taxed at the higher rates. There are only so many deductions i can take to lower my AGI, like mortgage interest deductions, etc. Then the alternative minimum tax kicks in... I am far from wealthy in the sense that I don't have millions of dollars of assets generating interest income / capital gains. Just a had working joe who makes good money.

Once you get to a point that you are wealthy and your assets generate income, then your rates are lower. The logic behind the lower rates is that this is money that is invested and therefore at risk. Just as you could have an investmetn gain, you could also lose everything. In addition, the money being invested has already been taxed before.

This isn't just for rich people though. If you buy stock, sell a home, or make any type of investment then you benefit as well. It is just that the really wealthy have more of their income from assets than wages.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Insult me to your hearts content.

I think you are wrong in wanting government to take more money and grow bigger.

This is not freedom.

This is socialism. I know you want that, but there are those of us that don't.

and will fight to the death to stop it. Ooh Rah!! MOΛΩN ΛABE

a reply to: reldra

That is so benevolent of her. Of course she isn't worried about taxes. Perfect smokescreen to hide the real financial issues she has to worry about. Take money for political favors while head of the state department. I want to see the "speech" transcripts as well.

If I was Trump, I would never release my taxes.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
I think President Obama threw several presidential traditions Out the window. actually, I think Bill Clinton got the trend started by getting Hummers from Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office.

a reply to: Edumakated

Oh you don't have to explain WHY things are the way they are. I already know all these things. I've been around financial people enough in my life as well as being on these boards long enough to know these things. But ALL of this still has nothing to do with what I was talking about.

If Trump's tax returns are on the up-and-up then there is nothing to worry about. Everything will be fine. This bluster will be for nothing and you get to say "I told you so." WHY are you defending letting this man break a precedent that has been observed in our country (precedents being akin to tradition in this country) going back DECADES all because he wants to? Doesn't that offend you in any way? Don't you feel like he's spitting on patriotism there? I do.

I learned that precedents date back to George Washington, and honoring them has become a tradition that you don't break lightly. The reason it took so long for us to get an Amendment for a President to only serve two terms is because every successive President to Washington honored the precedent to not serve for more than two terms. It took a WORLD WAR to break it, and we were so appalled that we did it that we quickly made an Amendment so it would never happen again.

Sure this precedent may not date back to the days of George Washington, but it's important damn it! Or rather it should be... Well it used to be...