Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
The only military only poll I've seen sees the military split almost evenly between him and johnson
I thought we already paid the health bills for retirees in Spain, or am I wrong?
I think we do - I expect this is just posturing to make sure that continues. They may fear that the UK plans to abandon the 'expats' to their fate
I thought healthcare was the responsibility of the country of residence. The EHIC card was specifically designed for people temporarily away from their residence and normal healthcare support, which in many countries is insurance. If so and bearing in mind the elderly demographic in Spain and the presumably high maintenance costs, I would think that a reasonable negotiating gambit from Spain. They are OK with it as long as everyone is part of the system, but if Britain isn't, why should Spain take on the extra burden?
PS we may be confusing welfare payments, which are different from healthcare costs
Host countries can claim back cost of treatment from the home country, but in Spain there's a lot of care expenditure for our elderly emigrants which can't be claimed back. As we tend to get young Spaniards we clearly get the best of the batgain currently. Brexit is a good rebalancing opportunity for the Spanish. I imagine a PP-led government will also try to do something around Gibraltar.
Correct - on one level I sympathize with the desire of Gibraltarians for self-rule but the place is such a dump compared to the glories of Cadiz, Jerez , etc that my snobby side takes a more nuanced view
'Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem? '
The clapped out reject politicians that run it ?
Primarily the freedom to live, work or retire wherever I like across a wonderfully varied continent without requiring the permission of some government busybody to do so. It's a freedom I've made good use of and would have liked to continue doing so. That and the ease of working as a freelancer within a potential market of 500 million customers.
I would see that as being more of an imposition than a freedom.
How so?
That is how natives feel about mass migration into the places they live in.
Well, yes. Generalising wildly, the desire of the old to determine who lives next door to them has triumphed over the desire of the young to live where they please. I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
That is the most concise summary of Brexit that I have seen. I may steal it!
Thing is: it's not true. Most Millennials I know (and I've met quite a few recently) are incredibly sanguine about Brexit. They either don't care, or they think it's irritating but meh, or they are actively sceptic (because Corbynite), or they don't care again, and reckon it will be sorted in some tolerable way by boring people.
The idea there is this vast cohort of passionate young europhiles is a delusion. This is borne out by the EUref voting patterns. The young didn't show up. Europe doesn't mean that much to them. If they are richer, and studenty, they are used to travelling further afield: China, Africa, South America
The most passionate Remainers, the ones who actually care, seem, to me, to be middle aged. 45-65?
One made me laugh, a thirty something friend who is a perpetual mess, her life is just messy in every way possible. The day after the referendum we were all in Greece and she was berating us for taking away her European identity. Someone else put their head above the parapet and said that her visit to Greece was the second time she had ever been to Europe, what difference did it really make? Stumped.
Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem?
A common European history and culture for me.
I like being European, and having the right to live freely across the greatest continent on the planet.
So why are you living in Leicester of all places? Crikey there are better places in England to live never mind the rest of Europe.
Lol, whenever I go to Leicester I can't wait to get away. What irritates me the most is that for a city with so many Indians, the Indian restaurants are nothing compared to North West London.
Many excellent places here to eat. My favourite is Shivalli on the Welford rd. Their Thali is a bargain. For seafood Kayal is very good.
The former sounds like a vegetarian place, no thanks. Not big on seafood either, where are the kebabs and the mushkaki!
Kayal specialises in Keralan seafood curries, the Shivalli is pure veg.
Next to Shivalli is the Kuru Kuru sushi bar. Great sushi, and made by an enormous Bengali chef. It is closed on Friday for prayers. Such is the weird cultural mix of Leicester.
I live in Leicester because I like it! I was born in a Lancs mill town, but having been here 25 years have grown to love the place, in all its unruly charm.
Fair go, Doc. So having to fill in an extra form for the right to reside in, say, Portugal (which is all I had to do in the sixties) wouldn't cause you much bother.
You are happy living in Leicester, why the fuss about being able to live elsewhere in Europe?
I may well retire there. I rather like the Italian lakes, but could be tempted by the Ionian coast of Greece. Great sailing and pretty ports.
Fox jr is likely to move abroad to work, most likely to Germany. It may not be so easy now.
So much for Leicester's unruly charms. You and your boy itching to escape them.
...two, do they really want lots of rather affluent retirees to leave struggling Spain, three, we send 13m tourists their way, what if they all thought "oo-er, Spain is less inviting, let's go to Portugal"...
That something is stupid is no guarantee that it will not happen. People do stupid things every day.
It's time to wield a bit of stick with Johnny Continental. As much as some Brexiteers can be dewy-eyed about our prospects, I think the Europeans are showing signs of over-estimating quite how much leverage they have.
What stick would you wield and what would you hope to gain from the wielding?
1. You are underestimating the NeverHillary camp - yes, all the noise is about NeverTrump (and Americans in the UK are the worst for this - they are particularly piqued by what they see as Trump's vulgarity). But there are a lot of people who HATE Clinton, even in the Democratic base - they do not trust her and think she is appalling; it is just far less socially acceptable to say so, particularly in an environment like the United States, which is far more PC at certain levels and where you get accused of being anti-women etc etc if you express such thoughts (and quite easily get fired in many places).
I will give you one example: in my wife's family (African-American, Middle Class), Obama got all four of their votes in 2008 and 2012; out of the six who will vote this time, HRC will get maximum three and probably two, And that is not uncommon to hear: African-Americans voted for Obama because he was one of them; HRC is not (and forget about the "love" they feel for Bill).
2. Because it is socially unacceptable to say in many quarters that you will vote Trump, his support is a lot more than appears. The number of conversations we have had with Americans - college educated Americans, Black and White and many who voted Democrat previously - is that they and their friends will vote for Trump but they will not dare say it openly. Now, maybe they do not. But there are too many conversations where this occurs to write it off.
3. His supporters are enthused, hers are not. The only ones where I see any vague enthusiasm for HRC is amongst old-school Democrats and particularly our college-educated, female American liberal friends in their late 40s upwards. And even they say she is "not ideal".
With Trump, sure people don't trust him but they are not voting for him, they are voting for what he is deemed to represent. A lot of people have been left behind in the States - HRC offers them nothing; Trump may not deliver but he just might.
4. This is seen as a "last stand" election by many pro-Trump supporters i.e. if HRC wins, she will pack the Supreme Court with "liberals"; that she will allow mass-scale immigration; and that, if you are white and blue collar, you will be at the back of the queue. That will get them out to vote.
DYOR - but do not trust people who make out they know everything when they know jack (and, no, I do not know everything either and may be completely wrong - but at least I have some connection to the place).
Ah, so it is your family the LA Times tracker is polling.
Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem?
A common European history and culture for me.
I like being European, and having the right to live freely across the greatest continent on the planet.
So why are you living in Leicester of all places? Crikey there are better places in England to live never mind the rest of Europe.
Lol, whenever I go to Leicester I can't wait to get away. What irritates me the most is that for a city with so many Indians, the Indian restaurants are nothing compared to North West London.
Many excellent places here to eat. My favourite is Shivalli on the Welford rd. Their Thali is a bargain. For seafood Kayal is very good.
The former sounds like a vegetarian place, no thanks. Not big on seafood either, where are the kebabs and the mushkaki!
Kayal specialises in Keralan seafood curries, the Shivalli is pure veg.
Next to Shivalli is the Kuru Kuru sushi bar. Great sushi, and made by an enormous Bengali chef. It is closed on Friday for prayers. Such is the weird cultural mix of Leicester.
I live in Leicester because I like it! I was born in a Lancs mill town, but having been here 25 years have grown to love the place, in all its unruly charm.
Fair go, Doc. er.
You are happy living in Leicester, why the fuss about being able to live elsewhere in Europe?
I may well retire there. I rather like the Italian lakes, but could be tempted by the Ionian coast of Greece. Great sailing and pretty ports.
Fox jr is likely to move abroad to work, most likely to Germany. It may not be so easy now.
This is where Young Enjineeya will benefit from Brexit. With a German mum, his German passport means he'll retain freedom of movement, so he'll be able to waltz straight on into any jobs on offer in the rEU while his competitors are faffing with the paperwork.
lol. "The paperwork"
You do realise that, these days, this means filling in an online form, which takes about 30 seconds?
Have you applied for an Australian e-visa recently? That's how long it takes.
So your son has a 30 second advantage. Good luck to him.
'Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem? '
The clapped out reject politicians that run it ?
Primarily the freedom to live, work or retire wherever I like across a wonderfully varied continent without requiring the permission of some government busybody to do so. It's a freedom I've made good use of and would have liked to continue doing so. That and the ease of working as a freelancer within a potential market of 500 million customers.
I would see that as being more of an imposition than a freedom.
How so?
That is how natives feel about mass migration into the places they live in.
Well, yes. Generalising wildly, the desire of the old to determine who lives next door to them has triumphed over the desire of the young to live where they please. I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
That is the most concise summary of Brexit that I have seen. I may steal it!
Thing is: it's not true. Most Millennials I know (and I've met quite a few recently) are incredibly sanguine about Brexit. They either don't care, or they think it's irritating but meh, or they are actively sceptic (because Corbynite), or they don't care again, and reckon it will be sorted in some tolerable way by boring people.
The idea there is this vast cohort of passionate young europhiles is a delusion. This is borne out by the EUref voting patterns. The young didn't show up. Europe doesn't mean that much to them. If they are richer, and studenty, they are used to travelling further afield: China, Africa, South America
The most passionate Remainers, the ones who actually care, seem, to me, to be middle aged. 45-65?
Away from here and Twitter I never have any Brexit exchanges, unless I'm working abroad, where everyone seems to want to talk about it. My kids are 18, 22 and 25 - I think they may have forgotten the referendum ever took place.
The Mail and Times are reporting that Theresa May is going to temporarily withdraw the UK from the ECHR, before we go to war, in future: exempting British soldiers from these absurd and vexatious human rights prosecutions.
Fabulous. Do it. Go, Theresa.
Tbh, once we leave the EU and remove ourselves from ECJ jurisdiction it becomes a lesser problem anyway. Without the charter the government is free to ignore Strasbourg and legislate a solution that exempts the military from human rights cases.
The Mail and Times are reporting that Theresa May is going to temporarily withdraw the UK from the ECHR, before we go to war, in future: exempting British soldiers from these absurd and vexatious human rights prosecutions.
'Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem? '
The clapped out reject politicians that run it ?
Primarily the freedom to live, work or retire wherever I like across a wonderfully varied continent without requiring the permission of some government busybody to do so. It's a freedom I've made good use of and would have liked to continue doing so. That and the ease of working as a freelancer within a potential market of 500 million customers.
I would see that as being more of an imposition than a freedom.
How so?
That is how natives feel about mass migration into the places they live in.
Well, yes. Generalising wildly, the desire of the old to determine who lives next door to them has triumphed over the desire of the young to live where they please. I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
That is the most concise summary of Brexit that I have seen. I may steal it!
Thing is: it's not true. Most Millennials I know (and I've met quite a few recently) are incredibly sanguine about Brexit. They either don't care, or they think it's irritating but meh, or they are actively sceptic (because Corbynite), or they don't care again, and reckon it will be sorted in some tolerable way by boring people.
The idea there is this vast cohort of passionate young europhiles is a delusion. This is borne out by the EUref voting patterns. The young didn't show up. Europe doesn't mean that much to them. If they are richer, and studenty, they are used to travelling further afield: China, Africa, South America
The most passionate Remainers, the ones who actually care, seem, to me, to be middle aged. 45-65?
Away from here and Twitter I never have any Brexit exchanges, unless I'm working abroad, where everyone seems to want to talk about it. My kids are 18, 22 and 25 - I think they may have forgotten the referendum ever took place.
The overseas part I definitely agree with, the last two times I have been to Zurich it's all anyone wanted to talk about. The Swiss seem to be split along similar lines to us, though I think around half of people who say we should have stayed would not have voted for Switzerland to join, in an interesting double standard.
< So why are you living in Leicester of all places? Crikey there are better places in England to live never mind the rest of Europe.
Lol, whenever I go to Leicester I can't wait to get away. What irritates me the most is that for a city with so many Indians, the Indian restaurants are nothing compared to North West London.
Many excellent places here to eat. My favourite is Shivalli on the Welford rd. Their Thali is a bargain. For seafood Kayal is very good.
The former sounds like a vegetarian place, no thanks. Not big on seafood either, where are the kebabs and the mushkaki!
Kayal specialises in Keralan seafood curries, the Shivalli is pure veg.
Next to Shivalli is the Kuru Kuru sushi bar. Great sushi, and made by an enormous Bengali chef. It is closed on Friday for prayers. Such is the weird cultural mix of Leicester.
I live in Leicester because I like it! I was born in a Lancs mill town, but having been here 25 years have grown to love the place, in all its unruly charm.
Fair go, Doc. er.
You are happy living in Leicester, why the fuss about being able to live elsewhere in Europe?
I may well retire there. I rather like the Italian lakes, but could be tempted by the Ionian coast of Greece. Great sailing and pretty ports.
Fox jr is likely to move abroad to work, most likely to Germany. It may not be so easy now.
This is where Young Enjineeya will benefit from Brexit. With a German mum, his German passport means he'll retain freedom of movement, so he'll be able to waltz straight on into any jobs on offer in the rEU while his competitors are faffing with the paperwork.
lol. "The paperwork"
You do realise that, these days, this means filling in an online form, which takes about 30 seconds?
Have you applied for an Australian e-visa recently? That's how long it takes.
So your son has a 30 second advantage. Good luck to him.
You're seriously claiming that emigration to Australia requires just 30 seconds of your time? What about fulfilling immigration criteria? Proving you have enough points? Obtaining the correct evidence of, e.g., professional qualifications? Waiting for confirmation?
...two, do they really want lots of rather affluent retirees to leave struggling Spain, three, we send 13m tourists their way, what if they all thought "oo-er, Spain is less inviting, let's go to Portugal"...
That something is stupid is no guarantee that it will not happen. People do stupid things every day.
It's time to wield a bit of stick with Johnny Continental. As much as some Brexiteers can be dewy-eyed about our prospects, I think the Europeans are showing signs of over-estimating quite how much leverage they have.
What stick would you wield and what would you hope to gain from the wielding?
Just drop hints. Make a speech about young Spanish people working in the UK (150,000), how awful for them if they had to go home, heaven forbid. Then say What we really don't want to see is a situation develop where British tourists feel unwelcome, in say, Torremolinos, and decide to go to Miami.
I see Hillary (Cruella De Vil) is attacking Wells Fargo in her speech, what a hypocrite. Warren Buffett of Wells Fargo is one of her most staunchest supporters and has donated lot's of money to her campaign.
Seems Clintons trap,in the debate regarding the former Miss. Universe is working with a good 5 point lead in Florida, gaining a huge lead with both women and hispanics. Trump is actually leading there with college educated whites now should be woriing for Clinton if we see that in other states especially pennselvania which is more educated than Ohio.
Btw he is leading in this Florida poll with non college educated whites by THIRTY FOUR POINTS! and in North Carolina by 53! wtf and still behind, he should be putting all his efforts from now to election day on the 47 million unregistered white voters, thats all.
It doesn't matter, although Hillary is the Cruella De Vil of politics, Trump is far worse.
Everytime Trump is about to take the lead he does something to demolish himself.
Trump may not want to be painted as the worst loser in History, but he is not doing what it takes to win: sticking to a script, preparing for debates and selfcensorship on Twitter.
what these polls really show is the Republicans are facing a demographic nightmare, Ohio can trend towards them and they might make it a safe state but it matters not one jot if N.Carolina which is now less than 60% white and increasingly educated sees them as extreme same goes for Florida, Virginia, Colorado(which has a 11 point lead for Clinton in one poll taoday) and even Pennselvania which is ten points more educated then Ohio .
They need to sort out this issue after November or cease as a national party. The thing is they had an inquiry into this in 2012 which said they needed to reach out to HIspanics and what did they do ? Double down. Morons.
This worries me though. It could look as though a Brechtian importation of another electorate has taken place. I think I read on here once that on current demographics McGovern would have beaten Nixon. If that is remotely true you can see where the alt-right/Trump backlash comes from.
And the mortality trends for middle class middle aged middle Americans! I can see why they are fucked off.
'Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem? '
The clapped out reject politicians that run it ?
Primarily the freedom to live, work or retire wherever I like across a wonderfully varied continent without requiring the permission of some government busybody to do so. It's a freedom I've made good use of and would have liked to continue doing so. That and the ease of working as a freelancer within a potential market of 500 million customers.
I would see that as being more of an imposition than a freedom.
How so?
That is how natives feel about mass migration into the places they live in.
Well, yes. Generalising wildly, the desire of the old to determine who lives next door to them has triumphed over the desire of the young to live where they please. I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
That is the most concise summary of Brexit that I have seen. I may steal it!
Thing is: it's not true. Most Millennials I know (and I've met quite a few recently) are incredibly sanguine about Brexit. They either don't care, or they think it's irritating but meh, or they are actively sceptic (because Corbynite), or they don't care again, and reckon it will be sorted in some tolerable way by boring people.
The idea there is this vast cohort of passionate young europhiles is a delusion. This is borne out by the EUref voting patterns. The young didn't show up. Europe doesn't mean that much to them. If they are richer, and studenty, they are used to travelling further afield: China, Africa, South America
The most passionate Remainers, the ones who actually care, seem, to me, to be middle aged. 45-65?
Away from here and Twitter I never have any Brexit exchanges, unless I'm working abroad, where everyone seems to want to talk about it. My kids are 18, 22 and 25 - I think they may have forgotten the referendum ever took place.
Exactly right.
Looking back I shoulda punched him, I just told him we were happy, and gave him a look.
I was at a European medical meeting a month or so back. The German host (who spoke impeccable English as he had lived in London for a few years), took the mickey very wittily throughout the conference from the Brexiteers. He got quite a few laughs from the audience.
'Why do some people love the EU so much? What itch does it scratch? You like the flag? The anthem? '
The clapped out reject politicians that run it ?
Primarily the freedom to live, work or retire wherever I like across a wonderfully varied continent without requiring the permission of some government busybody to do so. It's a freedom I've made good use of and would have liked to continue doing so. That and the ease of working as a freelancer within a potential market of 500 million customers.
I would see that as being more of an imposition than a freedom.
How so?
That is how natives feel about mass migration into the places they live in.
Well, yes. Generalising wildly, the desire of the old to determine who lives next door to them has triumphed over the desire of the young to live where they please. I'm unconvinced that this is a good thing.
That is the most concise summary of Brexit that I have seen. I may steal it!
Thing is: it's notckon it will be sorted in some tolerable way by boring people.
The idea there is this vast cohort of passionate young europhiles is a delusion. This is borne out by the EUref voting patterns. The young didn't show up. Europe doesn't mean that much to them. If they are richer, and studenty, they are used to travelling further afield: China, Africa, South America
The most passionate Remainers, the ones who actually care, seem, to me, to be middle aged. 45-65?
Away from here and Twitter I never have any Brexit exchanges, unless I'm working abroad, where everyone seems to want to talk about it. My kids are 18, 22 and 25 - I think they may have forgotten the referendum ever took place.
Exactly right. An also on abroad. Everyone abroad is interested. A mixture of amazement, puzzlement, confusion, and some flattering commentary - Wow, you guys did it. I've heard just one truly negative remark about Brexit, a couple of weeks after the vote, from some smug ugly American liberal in Lugano.
Looking back I shoulda punched him, I just told him we were happy, and gave him a look.
Americans have been generally supportive of the vote; last week in Sweden there was genuine sadness - they like us and don't want us to go. In Spain a couple of weeks back the overriding reaction was amusement, not in an unpleasant or hostile way, they genuinely thought it was funny and very British.
Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
I do sometimes wonder if Trump is just there to ensure Hillary gets elected.
The overseas part I definitely agree with, the last two times I have been to Zurich it's all anyone wanted to talk about. The Swiss seem to be split along similar lines to us, though I think around half of people who say we should have stayed would not have voted for Switzerland to join, in an interesting double standard.
The former New Order bassist Peter Hook has spoken out about his troubled marriage to Caroline Aherne, saying she attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs.
Hook, 60, said he was an abused husband in his marriage to the Bafta-winning actor and comedian, who died from cancer in July.
Writing in his new autobiography, Substance, Hook said the years of abuse meant he “couldn’t in all good conscience” join in the tributes to Aherne following her death.
What stick would you wield and what would you hope to gain from the wielding?
Just drop hints. Make a speech about young Spanish people working in the UK (150,000), how awful for them if they had to go home, heaven forbid. Then say What we really don't want to see is a situation develop where British tourists feel unwelcome, in say, Torremolinos, and decide to go to Miami.
What if they called your bluff? (if it was a bluff)
North Carolina seems to be going the same way as Virginia. Not sure why...
Virginia has gone Democract because Washington DC has bled into Virginia - now that is seeping into North Carolina. If you look at where votes Democrat in NC it's the Counties closest to Washington DC
In NC, it has nothing to do with DC, but the Research Triangle, clustered around Duke, NCSU and UNC Chapel Hill. Google it.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
The former New Order bassist Peter Hook has spoken out about his troubled marriage to Caroline Aherne, saying she attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs.
Hook, 60, said he was an abused husband in his marriage to the Bafta-winning actor and comedian, who died from cancer in July.
Writing in his new autobiography, Substance, Hook said the years of abuse meant he “couldn’t in all good conscience” join in the tributes to Aherne following her death.
That makes sense now. There were some very strange, very qualified remarks about her, after her death, from close friends. People not being quite as effusive and loving as I'd expected.
Et voila. Sad.
Not to compare the two, but on a related note the one interesting bit of the Louis Theroux revisit of his experience with Jimmy Savile was when they secretly recorded him. I had read the transcript before of him talking about trouble makers in his nightclub being locked in a backroom for a few hours and on paper if you imagined the public Savile saying it, it could be taken as kinda of a joke / given the time probably went on but sounded better than them being beaten up.
However, the actual video shows a very different side, far more shocking and evil.
JeremyCorbyn4PM JC has insisted his current front bench stay. Well, it'd be ridiculous to get rid of such a talented, diverse bunch! Share if you agree. https://t.co/Xetb5xT3YK
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
This all depends on rational self interest prevailing. I sometimes wonder if Remainers want illogic to prevail, and the UK and the EU to fall into disaster, just so they can say Told Ya So.
The honest answer to that is "No". One quality in Remainers and Leavers alike that I dislike is the conceit that this is an academic argument, instead of a factual and rather important discussion with repercussions for people's lives. I heartily hope that Brexit will work, because it's happening, I live here, and I'm not likely to emigrate. My concern is that it will work poorly and little that has been said reassures me.
North Carolina seems to be going the same way as Virginia. Not sure why...
Virginia has gone Democract because Washington DC has bled into Virginia - now that is seeping into North Carolina. If you look at where votes Democrat in NC it's the Counties closest to Washington DC
In NC, it has nothing to do with DC, but the Research Triangle, clustered around Duke, NCSU and UNC Chapel Hill. Google it.
The research triangle is obviously the nucleus of it but from talking to a couple of different people who live in NC they said there has been a real shift iin the last decade of people who live in NC but do out of state work with the second order effect of Washington to Virginia being cited as the reason.
Forgive me if I think that is a load of bollocks. Spotsylvania is about as far south in VA that there is a discernible DC effect in terms of commuters and satellite federal business. It is a further 210 miles from there to Durham NC and the Research Triangle. It is a hub of academic research and start ups, attracting a lot of young people.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Actually I've used it myself in my company when I started. It's not 'creative' to allow losses against profits in future years. It's eminently reasonable. Many many small companies have used this in bad years. It's not 'paper losses' it's lost money, and it's not 'international corporations' or 'creative accountancy'. It's basic income tax law available to all companies of all sizes.
Apologies, for the foul language, and I thought about not posting but there is really so much sh1t being said by some on here about the US election whom I am guessing do not know any actual American voters snip
Why do I think a lot of sh1t is being said?
1. You are underestimating the NeverHillary camp - yes, all the noise is about NeverTrump (and Americans in the UK are the worst for this - they are particularly piqued by what they see as Trump's vulgarity). But there are a lot of people who HATE Clinton, even in the Democratic base - they do not trust her and think she is appalling; it is just far less socially acceptable to say so, particularly in an environment like the United States, which is far more PC at certain levels and where you get accused of being anti-women etc etc if you express such thoughts (and quite easily get fired in many places).
I will give you one example: in my wife's family (African-American, Middle Class), Obama got all four of their votes in 2008 and 2012; out of the six who will vote this time, HRC will get maximum three and probably two, And that is not uncommon to hear: African-Americans voted for Obama because he was one of them; HRC is not (and forget about the "love" they feel for Bill).
2. Because it is socially unacceptable to say in many quarters that you will vote Trump, his support is a lot more than appears. The number of conversations we have had with Americans - college educated Americans, Black and White and many who voted Democrat previously - is that they and their friends will vote for Trump but they will not dare say it openly. Now, maybe they do not. But there are too many conversations where this occurs to write it off.
3. His supporters are enthused, hers are not. The only ones where I see any vague enthusiasm for HRC is amongst old-school Democrats and particularly our college-educated, female American liberal friends in their late 40s upwards. And even they say she is "not ideal".
With Trump, sure people don't trust him but they are not voting for him, they are voting for what he is deemed to represent. A lot of people have been left behind in the States - HRC offers them nothing; Trump may not deliver but he just might.
4. This is seen as a "last stand" election by many pro-Trump supporters i.e. if HRC wins, she will pack the Supreme Court with "liberals"; that she will allow mass-scale immigration; and that, if you are white and blue collar, you will be at the back of the queue. That will get them out to vote.
DYOR - but do not trust people who make out they know everything when they know jack (and, no, I do not know everything either and may be completely wrong - but at least I have some connection to the place).
Spot on. I think PB liberals and those with little actual understanding of USA culture are getting this wrong. And posturing to feel superior.
You do realise that, these days, this means filling in an online form, which takes about 30 seconds?
Have you applied for an Australian e-visa recently? That's how long it takes.
So your son has a 30 second advantage. Good luck to him.
It takes longer than that to get a residence/work permit. Probably several weeks, visits to various offices and so on
Of course: in Australia. I'm saying that it makes sense, for all, for the EU/UK to come to a much better arrangement, on both sides. Something which can be done in hours. Online.
This all depends on rational self interest prevailing. I sometimes wonder if Remainers want illogic to prevail, and the UK and the EU to fall into disaster, just so they can say Told Ya So.
What I am saying is that is the system in Germany, for example, for a handful of the most friendly non-EU countries (US, Japan, Australia, Canada and Israel) is that you can apply for the work permit in Germany, rather than outside, and you will have good expectations of getting the permit. You still have to go through the bureaucracy. I would expect the UK to join that select group.
Enjineeyaa Jnr will be able to go straight to Germany to work, thanks to his mother's nationality, while Fox Jnr will be kicking his heels in Munich or wherever waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if they is doubt about how real the number is. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump over the years and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a genuine loss.
If somebody should be able to roll over losses for over 20 years seems to be an issue, that is a hell of a long time. But then Trump doesn't make the laws (and hopefully he never does).
Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
Did you see how irked the veteran was that the media twisted his words to be against Trump?
North Carolina seems to be going the same way as Virginia. Not sure why...
Virginia has gone Democract because Washington DC has bled into Virginia - now that is seeping into North Carolina. If you look at where votes Democrat in NC it's the Counties closest to Washington DC
In NC, it has nothing to do with DC, but the Research Triangle, clustered around Duke, NCSU and UNC Chapel Hill. Google it.
The research triangle is obviously the nucleus of it but from talking to a couple of different people who live in NC they said there has been a real shift iin the last decade of people who live in NC but do out of state work with the second order effect of Washington to Virginia being cited as the reason.
Forgive me if I think that is a load of bollocks. Spotsylvania is about as far south in VA that there is a discernible DC effect in terms of commuters and satellite federal business. It is a further 210 miles from there to Durham NC and the Research Triangle. It is a hub of academic research and start ups, attracting a lot of young people.
During my days with IBM I used to love my trips to RTP to see what they were cooking up, and to do mainframe load balance modelling with clients (not least because of the frequent flier mileage, having to change at Atlanta and Charlotte each way).
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Quite. I honestly don't know what the Hillary fans are doing here. They can't see this is a dead form of attack.
There is a huge number of "Don't Knows" in that survey, which is often an indicator of "I think this is a stupid question". I think what the LSE is trying to discover is interesting but people really don't put a price per hundred thousands immigrants
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
On this you are talking nonsense. The issues with Starbucks, Apple, Google is we all know they are making piles of money, it is where they report that profit.
Trump genuinely got buried in the 1990, the fact he did that during a boom time isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of his business acument. As I say, even the NYT piece accepts it is highly likely he lost that amount of money and has done what the tax law says you can do.
That isn't the same as Starbucks saying no no no we don't make any money in the UK, because we had to pay Starbucks Luxembourg all the money we made.
This is the argument I have to have with people over Amazon being lumped in with Starbucks. Until about 2 years ago were genuinely spending huge sums of money on expansion and thus there wasn't any profit to tax, the other wasn't.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
It's primarily there for small business - why are you harping on about multinationals? It is NOT avoiding tax - it's offsetting tax against losses. You don't pay taxes on losses.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Quite. I honestly don't know what the Hillary fans are doing here. They can't see this is a dead form of attack.
The gulf is enormous.
Trump is quite vulnerable over his taxes. It is also very easy to needle him into saying something stupid again by pointing out that losing a billion dollars in a year when real estate was going up is not evedence of a good business brain.
Of course Trump could release his tax returns like every other candidate in recent years if he wanted to shut people up.
Actually I've used it myself in my company when I started. It's not 'creative' to allow losses against profits in future years. It's eminently reasonable. Many many small companies have used this in bad years. It's not 'paper losses' it's lost money, and it's not 'international corporations' or 'creative accountancy'. It's basic income tax law available to all companies of all sizes.
I think the main benefit to the Clinton campaign is that it allows them to raise tax again as an issue. In particular Donald Trump's refusal to release his tax return. Releasing tax returns is so much a required feature of public life that Trump can only be refusing because he is hiding something really quite embarrassing. This allows speculation about what that might be.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
It's primarily there for small business - why are you harping on about multinationals? It is NOT avoiding tax - it's offsetting tax against losses. You don't pay taxes on losses.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
Companies offshoring jobs = bad, Companies offshoring taxable revenues = good, in PB Trump world.
Let Trump publish his taxes and accounts and show that these losses were legit. Losing a billion dollars in a year is hardly a "small business".
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
It's primarily there for small business - why are you harping on about multinationals? It is NOT avoiding tax - it's offsetting tax against losses. You don't pay taxes on losses.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
Companies offshoring jobs = bad, Companies offshoring taxable revenues = good, in PB Trump world.
Let Trump publish his taxes and accounts and show that these losses were legit. Losing a billion dollars in a year is hardly a "small business".
You really are talking nonsense on this. Also, just like to point out, just because somebody points out facts of a case, doesn't mean "PB Trump" inhabitant. I am most definitely not a Trump supporter.
Remember he was that broke, his dad had to illegal dump $3 million into one of his casinos.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
It's primarily there for small business - why are you harping on about multinationals? It is NOT avoiding tax - it's offsetting tax against losses. You don't pay taxes on losses.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
Companies offshoring jobs = bad, Companies offshoring taxable revenues = good, in PB Trump world.
Let Trump publish his taxes and accounts and show that these losses were legit.
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
All these countries are entirely different to the UK, which is an ex member of the EU, one of the biggest market for many EU countries, and literally next door in Europe. And a country where 3 million EU citizens are already working, and where lots of Europeans will still want to work, thanks to the English language.
It's in everyone's interest to get a smooth arrangement in place: qualified Free Movement. Permits may be given free and then checked on arrival.
But maybe everyone will behave badly and we'll end up being treated like Israel. Or Angola.
I don't disagree with you on the benefits of freedom of movement, but our government apparently is preparing a rather more rigorous work permit application process for EU immigrants than currently in place in Germany for Americans and Israelis. I don't think that's going to encourage them to cut us any slack.
Apologies, for the foul language, and m not saying he will win but the value is with Trump, not with Clinton.
Why do I think a lot of sh1t is being said?
1. You are underestimating the NeverHillary camp - yes, all the noise is about NeverTrump (and Americans in the UK are the worst for this - they are particularly piqued by what they see as Trump's vulgarity). But there are a lot of people who HATE Clinton, even in the Democratic base - they do not trust her and think she is appalling; it is just far less socially acceptable to say so, particularly in an environment like the United States, which is far more PC at certain levels and where you get accused of being anti-women etc etc if you express such thoughts (and quite easily get fired in many places).
I will give you one example: in my wife's family (African-American, Middle Class), Obama got all four of their votes in 2008 and 2012; out of the six who will vote this time, HRC will get maximum three and probably two, And that is not uncommon to hear: African-Americans voted for Obama because he was one of them; HRC is not (and forget about the "love" they feel for Bill).
2. Because it is socially unacceptable to say in many quarters that you will vote Trump, his support is a lot more than appears. The number of conversations we have had with Americans - college educated Americans, Black and White and many who voted Democrat previously - is that they and their friends will vote for Trump but they will not dare say it openly. Now, maybe they do not. But there are too many conversations where this occurs to write it off.
3. His supporters are enthused, hers are not. The only ones where I see any vague enthusiasm for HRC is amongst old-school Democrats and particularly our college-educated, female American liberal friends in their late 40s upwards. And even they say she is "not ideal".
With Trump, sure people don't trust him but they are not voting for him, they are voting for what he is low mass-scale immigration; and that, if you are white and blue collar, you will be at the back of the queue. That will get them out to vote.
DYOR - but do not trust people who make out they know everything when they know jack (and, no, I do not know everything either and may be completely wrong - but at least I have some connection to the place).
whilst i have no US experience, what u say isnt being picked up in polls. Trumps unfavourables are ridiculously high and i generally would be reluctant to trust andectote.
id say trump has a 25-30% chance of winning, but he would only do that with a unprecendented surge of wwc when he doesnt have a great ground game by any accounts
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Why do you persist in harping on about this?
But Trump can't/won't use that defence. His MO is to refuse to admit failure or weakness of any kind, his major theme is how successful he is.
So on the "doesn't pay taxes" front he paints himself into the corner. He won't say he was doing too badly to pay tax, so he falls back on the "because I was smart" defence. Which is not a great look politically (see: "my expense claims were within the rules").
Also needling Trump about his personal success etc is a sure way to get him on a rant with the potential to say something pretty out there.
Apologies, for the foul language, and I thought about not posting but there is really so much sh1t being said by some on here about the US election whom I am guessing do not know any actual American voters snip
Why do I think a lot of sh1t is being said?
1. You are underestimating the NeverHillary camp - yes, all the noise is about NeverTrump (and Americans in the UK are the worst for this - they are particularly piqued by what they see as Trump's vulgarity). But there are a lot of people who HATE Clinton, even in the Democratic base - they do not trust her and think she is appalling; it is just far less socially acceptable to say so, particularly in an environment like the United States, which is far more PC at certain levels and where you get accused of being anti-women etc etc if you express such thoughts (and quite easily get fired in many places).
I will give you one example: in my wife's family (African-American, Middle Class), Obama got all four of their votes in 2008 and 2012; out of the six who will vote this time, HRC will get maximum three and probably two, And that is not uncommon to hear: African-Americans voted for Obama because he was one of them; HRC is not (and forget about the "love" they feel for Bill).
2. Because it is socially unacceptable to say in many quarters that you will vote Trump, his support is a lot more than appears. The number of conversations we have had with Americans - college educated Americans, Black and White and many who voted Democrat previously - is that they and their friends will vote for Trump but they will not dare say it openly. Now, maybe they do not. But there are too many conversations where this occurs to write it off.
3. His supporters are enthused, hers are not. The only ones where I see any vague enthusiasm for HRC is amongst old-school Democrats and particularly our college-educated, female American liberal friends in their late 40s upwards. And even they say she is "not ideal".
With Trump, sure people don't trust him but they are not voting for him, they are voting for what he is deemed to represent. A lot of people have been left behind in the States - HRC offers them nothing; Trump may not deliver but he just might.
4. This is seen as a "last stand" election by many pro-Trump supporters i.e. if HRC wins, she will pack the Supreme Court with "liberals"; that she will allow mass-scale immigration; and that, if you are white and blue collar, you will be at the back of the queue. That will get them out to vote.
DYOR - but do not trust people who make out they know everything when they know jack (and, no, I do not know everything either and may be completely wrong - but at least I have some connection to the place).
If only we had some kind of number based evidence about how, for example, African-Americans feel about Clinton vs Trump.
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Why do you persist in harping on about this?
But Trump can't/won't use that defence. His MO is to refuse to admit failure or weakness of any kind, his major theme is how successful he is.
So on the "doesn't pay taxes" front he paints himself into the corner. He won't say he was doing too badly to pay tax, so he falls back on the "because I was smart" defence. Which is not a great look politically (see: "my expense claims were within the rules").
Also needling Trump about his personal success etc is a sure way to get him on a rant with the potential to say something pretty out there.
That seems a reasonable observation - bleating on and on with demonstrably silly, misleading and false claims is not.
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Why do you persist in harping on about this?
But Trump can't/won't use that defence. His MO is to refuse to admit failure or weakness of any kind, his major theme is how successful he is.
So on the "doesn't pay taxes" front he paints himself into the corner. He won't say he was doing too badly to pay tax, so he falls back on the "because I was smart" defence. Which is not a great look politically (see: "my expense claims were within the rules").
Also needling Trump about his personal success etc is a sure way to get him on a rant with the potential to say something pretty out there.
That seems a reasonable observation - bleating on and on with demonstrably silly, misleading and false claims is not.
I try and be reasonable Mr B, I think Clinton (in the debate as elsewhere) is moving to a strategy of being as blank as possible, needle Trump and let him create his own bear traps (the SNL line of "oh he can have my 2 minutes" nailed it).
(Oh I'm puzzled Mr B, I wasn't expecting you back on PB for another week due to Ryder Cup celebrations)
Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
Actually I thought he was a bit unfairly treated in the media over the PTSD remark - it wasn't intended to be unsympathetic, though the wording was clumsy. I do know a Republican veteran who had planned to vote for him but was terminally put off by his saying idly that he'd always fancied getting a Purple Heart. The vet, who does have PTSD and two Purple Hearts, was filled with incredulous fury - "Doesn't he realise you have to be wounded or dead to get it?"
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Quite. I honestly don't know what the Hillary fans are doing here. They can't see this is a dead form of attack.
The gulf is enormous.
Trump is quite vulnerable over his taxes. It is also very easy to needle him into saying something stupid again by pointing out that losing a billion dollars in a year when real estate was going up is not evedence of a good business brain.
Of course Trump could release his tax returns like every other candidate in recent years if he wanted to shut people up.
Hillary is right to pick at this.
You are entirely wrong - a public sector Left-wing Remain voting 1%er who thinks a bit of form filling is too much.
I honestly couldn't create a more appropriate caricature.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Of course the clever thing to do is creative accountancy where you write off paper losses against future tax. International corporations do it all the time, why should Trumps businesses be any different?
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
Its only "creative" if it isn't true. Even the NYT piece seemed to accept that although the number was massive, it was likely to be legit given how poorly his businesses were doing at that time. It is also probably why the IRS have been so interested in auditing Trump and given he seems to pass them, again they must also accept that it was a real loss.
I am sure that Starbucks, Apple, Google and many others also use only purely legal means of avoiding tax.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
It's primarily there for small business - why are you harping on about multinationals? It is NOT avoiding tax - it's offsetting tax against losses. You don't pay taxes on losses.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
Companies offshoring jobs = bad, Companies offshoring taxable revenues = good, in PB Trump world.
Let Trump publish his taxes and accounts and show that these losses were legit.
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Trump did NOT offshore anything. Some of his US casinos genuinely lost almost a billion dollars back in the 90s. He booked the loss and used it to offset future income. There is no offshoring, no paper losses, no anything.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Why do you persist in harping on about this?
But Trump can't/won't use that defence. His MO is to refuse to admit failure or weakness of any kind, his major theme is how successful he is.
So on the "doesn't pay taxes" front he paints himself into the corner. He won't say he was doing too badly to pay tax, so he falls back on the "because I was smart" defence. Which is not a great look politically (see: "my expense claims were within the rules").
Also needling Trump about his personal success etc is a sure way to get him on a rant with the potential to say something pretty out there.
That seems a reasonable observation - bleating on and on with demonstrably silly, misleading and false claims is not.
I try and be reasonable Mr B, I think Clinton (in the debate as elsewhere) is moving to a strategy of being as blank as possible, needle Trump and let him create his own bear traps (the SNL line of "oh he can have my 2 minutes" nailed it).
(Oh I'm puzzled Mr B, I wasn't expecting you back on PB for another week due to Ryder Cup celebrations)
I was inside the ropes on the 16th green last week when Rory won so did my celebrating then. I enjoy the Ryder Cup but oddly I'm not too partisan about it.
There is a bizarrely large amount of money sitting awaiting bets on Ed Balls to get lowest score in Strictly on BF next week at 1/18. Compared to rest of market.
Heard the wikileaks thing is 9-10am this morning (Tuesday) not Wednesday.
I saw 3am Berlin time. No idea now.
After email saying Hillary wanted to 'drone' him - no wonder he's a bit balcony shy.
I detest Assange but this is getting so weird.
I think your confusion is that the 3am refers to US time (EST).
Assange is just another despicable character in this whole charade. Funny how he is persona non grata at the likes of the Guardian after being their hero.
Trump's comments on soldiers with PTSD seem particularly ill advised, he just about had the military behind him. I'm not sure about that any more. The man is a fool.
Actually I thought he was a bit unfairly treated in the media over the PTSD remark - it wasn't intended to be unsympathetic, though the wording was clumsy. I do know a Republican veteran who had planned to vote for him but was terminally put off by his saying idly that he'd always fancied getting a Purple Heart. The vet, who does have PTSD and two Purple Hearts, was filled with incredulous fury - "Doesn't he realise you have to be wounded or dead to get it?"
Yes that was my initial reaction also... Poor choice of words. Clinton campaign has the nice problem of being able to pick which one of his scandals to run with... I think the- he lost one billion dollars in a year- is probably a pretty good attack on his business success credentials. Stick with that for now.
You mean despite being in the US the timing actually works better for the UK?!
The press conference is in Berlin. Assange's speech has been moved there too "due to specific information". Perhaps a chance of rain on the Ecuadorian Embassy balcony?
Morning. Good news about shutting down the vexatious litigants targeting British soldiers. If we genuinely mess up then the officers of the command structure should be held accountable, not the guys on the ground who can't defend themselves.
It's difficult to think of anything, ANYTHING which could possibly derail Hillary after all that has gone before. Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
Morning. Good news about shutting down the vexatious litigants targeting British soldiers. If we genuinely mess up then the officers of the command structure should be held accountable, not the guys on the ground who can't defend themselves.
Vexatious litigation is one thing. Whether announcing the law does not apply in war zones is the right way of going about it is another question. The devil is in the detail but I wonder if this announcement will unravel.
Fwiw, an old soldier once told me that most of the problems arise not from battles but from using soldiers as police, for which their training is particularly unsuited. In Iraq in particular, this might be yet another unfortunate side-effect of dismantling the civilian infrastructure which was dominated by Saddam's Ba'ath party.
It's difficult to think of anything, ANYTHING which could possibly derail Hillary after all that has gone before. Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
I don't think 1.38 is particularly good value, the polls would only have to be slightly wrong for Trump to win - this ain't Corbyn vs Smith !
It's difficult to think of anything, ANYTHING which could possibly derail Hillary after all that has gone before. Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
Quite. It would have to be something that would make her supporters think twice, rather than something that only appeals to her opponents. That said, there's a reasonable chance that something in her emails got written down that shouldn't have been, maybe something about Benghazi that shows she told a straight lie to the enquiry, or something very direct about Foundation donations while she was SoS.
Ditto with Trump and his taxes. Most Americans have a very different view of paying tax to most Brits. Most Americans still write a cheque to Uncle Sam, rather than seeing automatic deductions. They really don't like writing that cheque, and will do all they can to legally avoid it!
Can't we start the primaries again, and have two sane candidates? Please!
It's difficult to think of anything, ANYTHING which could possibly derail Hillary after all that has gone before. Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
Quite. It would have to be something that would make her supporters think twice, rather than something that only appeals to her opponents. That said, there's a reasonable chance that something in her emails got written down that shouldn't have been, maybe something about Benghazi that shows she told a straight lie to the enquiry, or something very direct about Foundation donations while she was SoS.
Ditto with Trump and his taxes. Most Americans have a very different view of paying tax to most Brits. Most Americans still write a cheque to Uncle Sam, rather than seeing automatic deductions. They really don't like writing that cheque, and will do all they can to legally avoid it!
Can't we start the primaries again, and have two sane candidates? Please!
Yes, but do they like to see others avoiding paying tax, especially very rich people.
I don't think 1.38 is particularly good value, the polls would only have to be slightly wrong for Trump to win - this ain't Corbyn vs Smith !
Virtually all the polls would have to be "slightly wrong", which seems highly unlikely.
We are now also seeing the evidence of early voting and the numbers are looking ugly for Donald, especially given that we are advised by Trumpsters that his supporters are highly energized and previous non voters.
It's difficult to think of anything, ANYTHING which could possibly derail Hillary after all that has gone before. Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
I don't think 1.38 is particularly good value, the polls would only have to be slightly wrong for Trump to win - this ain't Corbyn vs Smith !
Yes, there's a lot of states that swing right in the middle, only 3-4% of the popular vote between a 100 seat win on one side, and a 100 seat win on the other. This is the closest election since 2000, and the result could still be almost anything.
The value is in Trump if starting with a clean book now. Hillary's odds will go out if there's anything of substance in the Wikileaks files today, even if it doesn't sink her.
86% in CNN poll say paying taxes is civic duty; 12% say burden to be avoided (!).
Most people would say that paying their taxes is a civic duty. Common sense tells you to legally arrange your affairs to minimize your taxes.
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
Quite. I honestly don't know what the Hillary fans are doing here. They can't see this is a dead form of attack.
The gulf is enormous.
Trump is quite vulnerable over his taxes. It is also very easy to needle him into saying something stupid again by pointing out that losing a billion dollars in a year when real estate was going up is not evedence of a good business brain.
Of course Trump could release his tax returns like every other candidate in recent years if he wanted to shut people up.
Hillary is right to pick at this.
You are entirely wrong - a public sector Left-wing Remain voting 1%er who thinks a bit of form filling is too much.
I honestly couldn't create a more appropriate caricature.
I think you accidentally missed answering the point about Trump's taxes (or lack of them).
Comments
This is beyond odd
Trigga
It's a cult and these people are deranged.
And this one was made a "Guardian Pick"! https://t.co/oZyV9sA3u1
We would miss our Spanish nurses:
http://m.leicestermercury.co.uk/euro-nurses-arrive-vacancies-leicester-s/story-22927699-detail/story.html
Warren Buffett of Wells Fargo is one of her most staunchest supporters and has donated lot's of money to her campaign.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-clinton-idUKKCN12309W
"Clinton promises to hold Wells Fargo accountable"
If she is honest about it, Trump should raise that on the debate and ask her to publicly renounce Buffett and give back his money.
And the mortality trends for middle class middle aged middle Americans! I can see why they are fucked off.
The overseas part I definitely agree with, the last two times I have been to Zurich it's all anyone wanted to talk about. The Swiss seem to be split along similar lines to us, though I think around half of people who say we should have stayed would not have voted for Switzerland to join, in an interesting double standard.
Swiss enthusiasm for the EU is confined to a lunatic fringe;
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3644697/Switzerland-WITHDRAWS-application-European-Union-member-state-one-week-Brexit-vote.html
It could just be that a bunch of people are no longer considering themselves Reps in the face of the Donald or it could be a sampling flaw.
The former New Order bassist Peter Hook has spoken out about his troubled marriage to Caroline Aherne, saying she attacked him with knives, bottles and chairs.
Hook, 60, said he was an abused husband in his marriage to the Bafta-winning actor and comedian, who died from cancer in July.
Writing in his new autobiography, Substance, Hook said the years of abuse meant he “couldn’t in all good conscience” join in the tributes to Aherne following her death.
https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2016/oct/03/peter-hook-caroline-aherne-physically-abusive-during-marriage
https://t.co/z93qoD5reA
In Trump's case, some of his casinos lost almost a billion dollars in a tax year. You don't pay taxes on a loss, and broadly the tax laws allow you to carry losses forward against income in future years until they're gone. All perfectly legal and above board. Both the NY Times and Warren Buffet did the same thing in 2014.
However, the actual video shows a very different side, far more shocking and evil.
JeremyCorbyn4PM
JC has insisted his current front bench stay. Well, it'd be ridiculous to get rid of such a talented, diverse bunch! Share if you agree. https://t.co/Xetb5xT3YK
Let that schmuck "Joe the Plumber" pay the taxes...
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/hard-brexit-only-if-its-free/
Very Remain.
Enjineeyaa Jnr will be able to go straight to Germany to work, thanks to his mother's nationality, while Fox Jnr will be kicking his heels in Munich or wherever waiting for the wheels of bureaucracy to turn.
If somebody should be able to roll over losses for over 20 years seems to be an issue, that is a hell of a long time. But then Trump doesn't make the laws (and hopefully he never does).
He's really pissed.
Whether Joe the Plumber thinks that is fine and dandy is a different matter.
The gulf is enormous.
Trump genuinely got buried in the 1990, the fact he did that during a boom time isn't exactly a glowing endorsement of his business acument. As I say, even the NYT piece accepts it is highly likely he lost that amount of money and has done what the tax law says you can do.
That isn't the same as Starbucks saying no no no we don't make any money in the UK, because we had to pay Starbucks Luxembourg all the money we made.
This is the argument I have to have with people over Amazon being lumped in with Starbucks. Until about 2 years ago were genuinely spending huge sums of money on expansion and thus there wasn't any profit to tax, the other wasn't.
Joe the Plumber is the target for this part of the tax code.
Multinational companies parking cash offshore is nothing to do with this part of the tax code.
Of course Trump could release his tax returns like every other candidate in recent years if he wanted to shut people up.
Hillary is right to pick at this.
Let Trump publish his taxes and accounts and show that these losses were legit. Losing a billion dollars in a year is hardly a "small business".
Remember he was that broke, his dad had to illegal dump $3 million into one of his casinos.
If you are a big player like Trump you are automatically audited every year. The IRS goes through everything with a fine tooth comb, and can go back 7 years.
Trump's situation - and Buffet and the NY Times - are all legit, legal, and above board.
Why do you persist in harping on about this?
id say trump has a 25-30% chance of winning, but he would only do that with a unprecendented surge of wwc when he doesnt have a great ground game by any accounts
So on the "doesn't pay taxes" front he paints himself into the corner. He won't say he was doing too badly to pay tax, so he falls back on the "because I was smart" defence. Which is not a great look politically (see: "my expense claims were within the rules").
Also needling Trump about his personal success etc is a sure way to get him on a rant with the potential to say something pretty out there.
If only we had some kind of number based evidence about how, for example, African-Americans feel about Clinton vs Trump.
Ah well, anecdotes it is I guess.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
(Oh I'm puzzled Mr B, I wasn't expecting you back on PB for another week due to Ryder Cup celebrations)
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
It looks like Ohio may be on course to lose its bellwether status.
I honestly couldn't create a more appropriate caricature.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/clinton-put-trump-carrying-north-carolina-42507696
https://t.co/Yd9QDVoYuO
Kathleen Willey was traumatized by Hillary's intimidation: smear tactics
https://t.co/0Gdri4812T
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/04/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign.html?_r=0
https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/#/special-bets/market/1.127356228
After email saying Hillary wanted to 'drone' him - no wonder he's a bit balcony shy.
I detest Assange but this is getting so weird.
Assange is just another despicable character in this whole charade. Funny how he is persona non grata at the likes of the Guardian after being their hero.
Clinton campaign has the nice problem of being able to pick which one of his scandals to run with... I think the- he lost one billion dollars in a year- is probably a pretty good attack on his business success credentials. Stick with that for now.
3am cst
2am mst
1am pst
RT @Cernovich: What time is the @wikileaks announcement?
http://news.sky.com/story/mike-pence-and-tim-kaine-to-clash-in-vice-presidential-debate-10604824
The Prime Minister wants to put an end to the industry of vexatious claims that has pursued soldiers, costing taxpayers millions."
http://news.sky.com/story/may-to-outlaw-legal-witch-hunt-against-troops-serving-in-conflict-10604798
Even though I'm long Trump, I'd take Roger Stone on Trump with the same handfuls of salt as Don Brind on Owen Smith...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/hurt-voters-wont-care-about-trump-tax-story.html
Certainly the betting market don't believe this story with he Next POTUS odds on Befair remaining rock solid at 1.38. Where are all the would-be layers if the sky was about to fall in on her campaign?
Fwiw, an old soldier once told me that most of the problems arise not from battles but from using soldiers as police, for which their training is particularly unsuited. In Iraq in particular, this might be yet another unfortunate side-effect of dismantling the civilian infrastructure which was dominated by Saddam's Ba'ath party.
Ditto with Trump and his taxes. Most Americans have a very different view of paying tax to most Brits. Most Americans still write a cheque to Uncle Sam, rather than seeing automatic deductions. They really don't like writing that cheque, and will do all they can to legally avoid it!
Can't we start the primaries again, and have two sane candidates? Please!
We are now also seeing the evidence of early voting and the numbers are looking ugly for Donald, especially given that we are advised by Trumpsters that his supporters are highly energized and previous non voters.
The value is in Trump if starting with a clean book now. Hillary's odds will go out if there's anything of substance in the Wikileaks files today, even if it doesn't sink her.