• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clinton & Trump Share Tax Avoidance Address in Delaware

bradly1101

bradly1101

Diamond Member
There aren’t many things upon which Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump agree, especially as they court very different Delaware voters ahead of a primary on Tuesday. But the candidates for president share an affinity for the same nondescript two-storey office building in Wilmington. A building that has become famous for helping tens of thousands of companies avoid hundreds of millions of dollars in tax through the so-called “Delaware loophole”.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/25/delaware-tax-loophole-1209-north-orange-trump-clinton

Hmmm....
 
PokerGuy said:
But ...but, she's fighting for the little people, he's an evil billionaire! 😉
Click to expand...

Yes, and she's railed against companies that have done this overseas, which I guess she can do because she was clever enough to find a way to do this domestically. Why outsource your bad behavior?
 
Oh these poor poor millionaires having to inexorably jump through those tax avoidance loopholes they wrote into law for themselves.

I feel so sorry for the pain and suffering they have to go through to hang on to their opulence.
 
Last edited:
Nearly every significant US corporation is incorporated in Delaware, North Dakota or a few other select states. Primarily for tax purposes, but Delaware has the added benefit of having firmly established (corporation friendly) statutes and courts. Nothing new here, it's been this way for a century or more.

And further the fact that Clinton and Trump may use the same statutory agent is absolutely irrelevant and meaningless. I'm assuming that is the anonymous two story building the article refers to.

This is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill, based primarily upon insufficient knowledge.
 
Thump553 said:
Nearly every significant US corporation is incorporated in Delaware, North Dakota or a few other select states. Primarily for tax purposes, but Delaware has the added benefit of having firmly established (corporation friendly) statutes and courts. Nothing new here, it's been this way for a century or more.

And further the fact that Clinton and Trump may use the same statutory agent is absolutely irrelevant and meaningless. I'm assuming that is the anonymous two story building the article refers to.

This is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill, based primarily upon insufficient knowledge.
Click to expand...

I wonder what the revenue loss from corporation registrations in Delaware would be if there was some way to make illegal to do what's been done for the last 100 years. That and if Dupont were to leave, you might as well just roll up the side walks.
 
Last edited:
Woohoo! That means they both have good business sense. It'd be nice of one of them to say, "you know, there's this loophole that almost everyone with a lot of money uses. I use it. I think it should be closed."

What they're doing is not illegal. If a candidate paid more in taxes than he or she was legally obligated to pay, I'd consider them monetarily foolish. Would you want a fool with money working to create the national budget??
 
hal2kilo said:
I wonder what the revenue loss from corporation registrations in Delaware would be if there was some way to make illegal to do what's been done for the last 100 years. That and if Dupont were to leave, you might as well just roll up the side walks.
Click to expand...
Or Wyoming, or NM, so on and so forth. Delaware isn't the only corporation friendly state. You people need to try opening up a business before crying about tax breaks and learn how the process really works. What Clinton and Trump are doing = par for the course, most companies incorporate in DE where you don't have to pay income tax twice (to the state you're incorporated in + the state you do business out of). It's a no brainer for businesses to incorporate in DE if they are exceeding a certain threshold in sales/income.
 
DrPizza said:
Woohoo! That means they both have good business sense. It'd be nice of one of them to say, "you know, there's this loophole that almost everyone with a lot of money uses. I use it. I think it should be closed."

What they're doing is not illegal. If a candidate paid more in taxes than he or she was legally obligated to pay, I'd consider them monetarily foolish. Would you want a fool with money working to create the national budget??
Click to expand...

It's not like Delaware is the only state that gives handouts to companies. For example Illinois explicitly allows Boeing to operate pretty much tax-free despite almost none of their operations taking place within Illinois, just the "official" headquarters.

Plus I hate the term "loophole" because it's not accurate. They are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the state. "Loophole" is for those in compliance with the letter of the laws but not the spirit of the laws.
 
Last edited:
cubby1223 said:
It's not like Delaware is the only state that gives handouts to companies. For example Illinois explicitly allows companies like Caterpillar & Boeing to operate pretty much tax-free.

Plus I hate the term "loophole" because it's not accurate. They are in compliance with both the letter and the spirit of the laws of the state. "Loophole" is for those in compliance with the letter of the laws but not the spirit of the laws.
Click to expand...

That's because the powerful hate the correct term when it's applied to them, it's called welfare.
 
soundforbjt said:
That's because the powerful hate the correct term when it's applied to them, it's called welfare.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with what I said. When the term "loophole" is used, it implies that this was a mistake on the legislature's part that they will go back and correct. That's not the case. The laws are intentional. Thus making use of them in the way they are intended is not a loophole.
 
But..but...Hilary/Democrats are fighting for us the common/working folks or so I have been told so many times.

The stories about her speech at that huge Wall Street firm (Goldman Sachs) and fund raising with Clooney in which rich folks of Hollywood paid hundreds of thousands per plate to sit with her are just made up from those evil Republicans, right? Right?


LOL.
 
Svnla said:
But..but...Hilary/Democrats are fighting for us the common/working folks or so I have been told so many times.

The stories about her speech at that huge Wall Street firm (Goldman Sachs) and fund raising with Clooney in which rich folks of Hollywood paid hundreds of thousands per plate to sit with her are just made up from those evil Republicans, right? Right?


LOL.
Click to expand...

so what's the problem here, she is doing just as other politicians and business people do.

are you actually suggesting that Trump gives two shits about the common/working folks?
 
Svnla said:
But..but...Hilary/Democrats are fighting for us the common/working folks or so I have been told so many times.

The stories about her speech at that huge Wall Street firm (Goldman Sachs) and fund raising with Clooney in which rich folks of Hollywood paid hundreds of thousands per plate to sit with her are just made up from those evil Republicans, right? Right?


LOL.
Click to expand...

Well, most of the money raised at that fundraiser is going to down-ticket candidates. Like it or not, money is required to win the election in the current environment. No one is going to win by voluntarily cutting off their own hands. And down-ticket candidates are what is required if any of the purported Democratic platform policies are to be enacted.
 
Svnla said:
But..but...Hilary/Democrats are fighting for us the common/working folks or so I have been told so many times.

The stories about her speech at that huge Wall Street firm (Goldman Sachs) and fund raising with Clooney in which rich folks of Hollywood paid hundreds of thousands per plate to sit with her are just made up from those evil Republicans, right? Right?


LOL.
Click to expand...

It takes money to win elections. Repubs routinely outspend Dems & they manage to anonymize & hide huge amounts of it. It's been that way for decades.
 
alien42 said:
so what's the problem here, she is doing just as other politicians and business people do.

are you actually suggesting that Trump gives two shits about the common/working folks?
Click to expand...

Trump has little connection to the middle class other than sucking money out of them peddling gambling & booze.
 
Jhhnn said:
Trump has little connection to the middle class other than sucking money out of them peddling gambling & booze.
Click to expand...

And neither does Clinton. Unless you believe her story about being destitute while buying a home for 2 million dollars.

A Douche and a Turd. This is our election for 2016.
 
Genx87 said:
And neither does Clinton. Unless you believe her story about being destitute while buying a home for 2 million dollars.

A Douche and a Turd. This is our election for 2016.
Click to expand...

You know she comes from a middle class background. I bet she brown bagged or lunch boxed some lunches when she went to public school.

Trump, I doubt it on both counts.
 
Thump553 said:
Nearly every significant US corporation is incorporated in Delaware, North Dakota or a few other select states. Primarily for tax purposes, but Delaware has the added benefit of having firmly established (corporation friendly) statutes and courts. Nothing new here, it's been this way for a century or more.

And further the fact that Clinton and Trump may use the same statutory agent is absolutely irrelevant and meaningless. I'm assuming that is the anonymous two story building the article refers to.

This is a classic case of making a mountain out of a molehill, based primarily upon insufficient knowledge.
Click to expand...

Pretty much agree. However, IMO, Delaware grew to be such a popular place for incorporation, not for (state) tax benefits but because of those friendly statutes and courts. IIRC, Delaware has more limited shareholder rights. Shareholders can be a real PITA to management otherwise.

If it's not clear to people, it should be understood that the tax benefits concern state income taxation, not federal. IMO, the Delaware provision that exempts revenue from intangibles is a poorly disguised ploy to collect money from corporations by offering them a benefit (nontaxability of revenue from intangibles) that screws over other states.

Other states should consider targeting Delaware with laws that nullify the benefit Delaware is offering; basically disallow the deduction for intangibles paid to a Delaware corporation.

Fern
 
bradly1101 said:
That's why there weren't many Americans listed in the Panama Papers, they can do it here.
Click to expand...


That's small time stuff. For the kind of people paying Hillary's way, they demand offshore anonymity for those kinds of sums. Our trade deal with Panama was done expressly so people like that can avoid taxes. Who trumpeted the need for a trade deal with Panama, with it's GDP smaller than most big American corporations? Who mimicked the GOP's verbal diarrhea of how many jobs it will create? (70,000 IIRC)

Hint: It wasn't Bernie.
 
kage69 said:
That's small time stuff. For the kind of people paying Hillary's way, they demand offshore anonymity for those kinds of sums. Our trade deal with Panama was done expressly so people like that can avoid taxes. Who trumpeted the need for a trade deal with Panama, with it's GDP smaller than most big American corporations? Who mimicked the GOP's verbal diarrhea of how many jobs it will create? (70,000 IIRC)

Hint: It wasn't Bernie.
Click to expand...

Why don't you tell us? I love to hear what the next conspiracies are.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/08/panama-papers-sanders-clinton/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top