U
umbra
Guest
13, my experiences are first hand and not something I read. SM you are right it is not really an issue.
donald and mj
- Thread starter grass hopper
- Start date
- Status
U
umbra
Guest
I'm with Hammy on this one
Grower13
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,832
- Reaction score
- 139
Why Over Half of Prince’s Estate Will Go to the Government
It appears that the pop star Prince may have died without a will, leaving behind a multi-million dollar and growing estate. Although Prince has one full sister and five half-siblings, Prince’s family members will not be his biggest heirs.
Both the federal government and Minnesota’s state government will assess so-called “death taxes” or estate taxes on Prince’s assets, taking away more than half his estate. Between his physical assets—cash, investments, home, etc.—and his future royalties, Prince’s estate has been estimated to be between $300 and $500 million.
If Prince were married, he could have passed on the entirety of his estate to his spouse tax free. However, without a spouse, only $1.6 million of Prince’s estate will be free from Minnesota’s death tax and only $5.45 million will escape the federal death tax.
The combination of Minnesota’s top death tax rate of 16 percent, plus the federal government’s 40 percent rate, means that over 50 percent of Prince’s estate will go to the government.
Read more: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/29/why-over-half-of-princes-estate-will-go-to-the-government/
BTW he had paid income tax on a lot of this money already........... some of yall say it should be more......... Really?.......... maybe it all should be turn over to the federal govt........ they know whats best......... smdh
It appears that the pop star Prince may have died without a will, leaving behind a multi-million dollar and growing estate. Although Prince has one full sister and five half-siblings, Prince’s family members will not be his biggest heirs.
Both the federal government and Minnesota’s state government will assess so-called “death taxes” or estate taxes on Prince’s assets, taking away more than half his estate. Between his physical assets—cash, investments, home, etc.—and his future royalties, Prince’s estate has been estimated to be between $300 and $500 million.
If Prince were married, he could have passed on the entirety of his estate to his spouse tax free. However, without a spouse, only $1.6 million of Prince’s estate will be free from Minnesota’s death tax and only $5.45 million will escape the federal death tax.
The combination of Minnesota’s top death tax rate of 16 percent, plus the federal government’s 40 percent rate, means that over 50 percent of Prince’s estate will go to the government.
Read more: http://dailysignal.com/2016/04/29/why-over-half-of-princes-estate-will-go-to-the-government/
BTW he had paid income tax on a lot of this money already........... some of yall say it should be more......... Really?.......... maybe it all should be turn over to the federal govt........ they know whats best......... smdh
Grower13
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2011
- Messages
- 3,832
- Reaction score
- 139
Trump picked up a bunch more votes today........ and got more support for his wall..........good job media........ somebody should ask Hillary about these protesters.........
View attachment ChPLo6eWgAAL9z4.jpg
View attachment ChPLo6eWgAAL9z4.jpg
:rofl:
I didnt know Donald had 100s of ppl killed,,,,,,,i thought he just fired them.:rofl:
,,,,so yeah i dont care for a murdering basterd like Escobar eather. Hell i dont LIKE Donald eather,,,but i like him better then that murdering piece of crap named Escobar,,,or Hillary. Lol
U
umbra
Guest
no problem, lol
Wait till he gets done with her lying ace in the General.
Your killing me Hammy
Bernie is done.
Maybe Trump will make him Head of DEA ,,,or let him fix the IRS. Lol
Bernie is done.
Maybe Trump will make him Head of DEA ,,,or let him fix the IRS. Lol
R
Rosebud
Guest
omg that is frightening Hamster.
kaotik
MrInvisible
- Joined
- May 2, 2008
- Messages
- 1,943
- Reaction score
- 749
..i'm tossed up.. i think very little of someone who just inherits daddys fortune (and almosts squanders it).. but Pablo didn't earn his nicely either.
i think they're about tied there
http://herbalhouse365.com/2016/02/1...t-monsanto-as-presidential-campaign-heats-up/
Unlike most of the top candidates, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a long history of speaking out against big corporations, factory farming, and the Biotech giants. As early as 1994 he was fighting against companies such as Monsanto using chemicals that impact human and animal health. He was also one of the few senators that introduced the Farm Bill that would require labeling of any genetically engineered ingredients in food.
Unlike another candidate running on the democratic platform Hilary Clinton who fully supports GMOs, Sanders believes that the biotech companies are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way. He says that he stands for the right of the people to know what is in our food (through mandatory GMO labeling that he helped pass in Vermont, an effort that the GMO giants are trying to block through the DARK Act) and supports family-owned and organic agriculture.
During a private dinner event on December 27th, Sanders spoke about how to make sure our food is healthy and our farming is ethical, as well as other big issues that his campaign stands for:
The debate should be how do we make sure that the food our kids are eating is healthy food. And having the courage to take on these huge food and biotech companies who are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way, Sanders says in the video below from Facebook user Adryenn Ashley.
He also goes off on the fossil fuel industry, saying its past due time we start to shift toward renewable and alternative energy.
Perhaps the most exciting part of his speech happens a few minutes in as describes the food scene in his home state, where organic farming and farmers markets are becoming commonplace.
We have hundreds of farmers markets (in Vermont), youll find people buying food, beef and poultry directly from farmers, and theres a growing farm to school pipeline, he says. Its something weve worked very hard on and I think all over this country people are concerned about the quality of food their kids are eating.
Sanders goes on to talk about how his own additions to the Farm Bill would help make this vision a reality for people across the country, and also calls out Monsanto on a key food and GMO-related topic that is being completely ignored by the mainstream media once again.
He also gets a few shots in against the factory farm industry. We need legislation and efforts designed not to protect factory farming, corporate farming but to protect family-based agriculture, he says. You can watch the full speech by clicking on the video player below.
Unlike most of the top candidates, Vermont senator Bernie Sanders has a long history of speaking out against big corporations, factory farming, and the Biotech giants. As early as 1994 he was fighting against companies such as Monsanto using chemicals that impact human and animal health. He was also one of the few senators that introduced the Farm Bill that would require labeling of any genetically engineered ingredients in food.
Unlike another candidate running on the democratic platform Hilary Clinton who fully supports GMOs, Sanders believes that the biotech companies are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way. He says that he stands for the right of the people to know what is in our food (through mandatory GMO labeling that he helped pass in Vermont, an effort that the GMO giants are trying to block through the DARK Act) and supports family-owned and organic agriculture.
During a private dinner event on December 27th, Sanders spoke about how to make sure our food is healthy and our farming is ethical, as well as other big issues that his campaign stands for:
The debate should be how do we make sure that the food our kids are eating is healthy food. And having the courage to take on these huge food and biotech companies who are transforming our agricultural system in a bad way, Sanders says in the video below from Facebook user Adryenn Ashley.
He also goes off on the fossil fuel industry, saying its past due time we start to shift toward renewable and alternative energy.
Perhaps the most exciting part of his speech happens a few minutes in as describes the food scene in his home state, where organic farming and farmers markets are becoming commonplace.
We have hundreds of farmers markets (in Vermont), youll find people buying food, beef and poultry directly from farmers, and theres a growing farm to school pipeline, he says. Its something weve worked very hard on and I think all over this country people are concerned about the quality of food their kids are eating.
Sanders goes on to talk about how his own additions to the Farm Bill would help make this vision a reality for people across the country, and also calls out Monsanto on a key food and GMO-related topic that is being completely ignored by the mainstream media once again.
He also gets a few shots in against the factory farm industry. We need legislation and efforts designed not to protect factory farming, corporate farming but to protect family-based agriculture, he says. You can watch the full speech by clicking on the video player below.
http://justicegazette.org/clintons-election-fraud-continues.html
April 28, 2016. As voters report that Hillary Clinton's victories of April 26, 2016 were false victories, full of fraud, Clinton is caught cheating in upcoming primaries states of Indiana and California. Will her campaign's cheating ever end?
In Rhode Island, 2/3 of the polling places had to be closed to limit the extent of Bernie Sanders's victories over Clinton. This previously happened in New York and Arizona, along with removal of Democrats from voters roles. It seems that the best way to stop the people from voting for Sanders is to not let them vote at all.
In Kent County, Delaware, Clinton won after they counted 153.4% of the precincts. Counting 89 of the 59 precincts is normal in any election, right?
But counting extra precincts in Kent County wasn't enough to give Clinton a victory in the State of Delaware. Sanders had to lose votes in Sussex Counties as the night went on. When 16.4% of the county's votes were counted, he had 6,247 votes. By the time 95.9% of the vote was counted, not only did nobody else vote for him, but his voted count went down to 5,630. Problems were reported in other counties as well.
In Maryland, the Justice Gazette conducted a survey that showed Sanders winning by a large margin, contrary to the Clinton media polls. The results did not match how voters in Maryland said they were planning to vote, a sign that votes were probably flipped. In Connecticut, viewers watched as a Sanders apparent victory was flipped into the opposite victory for Clinton. Vote-flipping can take place easily and election officials have been repeatedly warned by programmers who have demonstrated how it can be done in seconds.
How were Philadelphians supposed to vote for Sanders when his name wasn't even on the ballot in some precincts?
Election fraud in Pennsylvania was more extensive than removing Sanders's name from the ballot. In one county without 300,000 voters, 300,000 absentee ballots were ordered, a possible sign of planned ballot stuffing.
In the video below, there is evidence that the Clinton campaign was allowed to have literature brought into a polling place in Philadelphia.
In news regarding past elections, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Ohio's Secretary of State John Husted for purging 40,000 voters from the roles. This was reminiscent of New York, where in Brooklyn, 126,000 were removed by an election official who received $4.6 million from a Clinton campaign worker. The massive purges in New York are being investigated by the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Clinton man, and being audited by New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, also a Clinton delegate.
In Chicago, the voting software flipped the vote 18 points in Clinton's favor. This was later discovered during a hand count. Clinton's vote counts have routinely been high in areas with computerized voting and lower in areas with paper ballots. There have been numerous videos regarding the ease of flipping votes when computers are involved.
In Indiana, election results in an primary that has not yet taken place are already being posted online. Additionally, Clinton robocalls are targeting Sanders supporters to falsely tell them he is no longer in the race. He is very much in the race but truth had never stopped Hillary Clinton. Watch the following video, uploaded by Tim Black.
On Monday, April 25, trolls who paid a million dollars by Clinton's PAC, posted child ****ography and violent images on Sanders's supporters' Facebook pages. This triggered the removal of the pages for hours. Where did the Clinton campaign get the child ****ography? Posting child ****ography online is a felony. Of course, all laws, and apparently child ****ography laws, are being waved where the Clinton campaign is concerned.
Several articles have reported that, in California, the Clinton campaign is running Clinton supporters for delegate positions in Sanders caucuses, claiming they are United4Bernie slates.. United4Bernie is a general descriptive that has been used by many people supporting Bernie Sanders, but now that name has been made meaningless by the Clinton teams. As a result, the term may now refer to either Clinton supporters or to Sanders supporters. Bernie Sanders has not endorsed any slates or individuals for delegate positions in California. Reportedly, the Clinton moles are paying for Facebook ads and professional-looking fliers. Most genuine Bernie Sanders supporters are investing their money in the campaign, instead of themselves. Sanders voters have caught onto the infiltration and are planning to drill the caucus delegates on their backgrounds and knowledge of Sanders.
Throughout the campaign, from Iowa to future primaries, evidence indicates the Clinton campaign has cheated in every state it has claimed to have won or hopes to win. Parents are asking what kind of role model a liar and a cheat would be. Constitutionalists are asking whether democracy and the Constitution are dead. Most progressives are simply hoping Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama will stop blocking the F.B.I.'s investigation of Clinton and instead seek an indictment. Historians are pointing out that, if Obama's last act in office is to block the prosecution of a possible felon such that the felon wins the Presidency, that last disrespect for the law is what history books will remember him by
General election polls now show Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton by 2 points. Those same polls show Bernie Sanders defeating Trump by double digits. Commonly, Republican do better and Democrats do worse in elections than polls indicate. If Clinton is nominated, the DNC will more than likely lose the Presidency unless Clinton is up to rigging the general election. While the DNC does not seem to have a problem with election fraud, the RNC might. Will Clinton be able to cheat her way into the White House or will she be the subject of an indictment? Sadly for Clinton, her indictment would delight most progressive Democrats and Republicans who seem to have united in one common goal, the defeat of Hillary Clinton.
April 28, 2016. As voters report that Hillary Clinton's victories of April 26, 2016 were false victories, full of fraud, Clinton is caught cheating in upcoming primaries states of Indiana and California. Will her campaign's cheating ever end?
In Rhode Island, 2/3 of the polling places had to be closed to limit the extent of Bernie Sanders's victories over Clinton. This previously happened in New York and Arizona, along with removal of Democrats from voters roles. It seems that the best way to stop the people from voting for Sanders is to not let them vote at all.
In Kent County, Delaware, Clinton won after they counted 153.4% of the precincts. Counting 89 of the 59 precincts is normal in any election, right?
But counting extra precincts in Kent County wasn't enough to give Clinton a victory in the State of Delaware. Sanders had to lose votes in Sussex Counties as the night went on. When 16.4% of the county's votes were counted, he had 6,247 votes. By the time 95.9% of the vote was counted, not only did nobody else vote for him, but his voted count went down to 5,630. Problems were reported in other counties as well.
In Maryland, the Justice Gazette conducted a survey that showed Sanders winning by a large margin, contrary to the Clinton media polls. The results did not match how voters in Maryland said they were planning to vote, a sign that votes were probably flipped. In Connecticut, viewers watched as a Sanders apparent victory was flipped into the opposite victory for Clinton. Vote-flipping can take place easily and election officials have been repeatedly warned by programmers who have demonstrated how it can be done in seconds.
How were Philadelphians supposed to vote for Sanders when his name wasn't even on the ballot in some precincts?
Election fraud in Pennsylvania was more extensive than removing Sanders's name from the ballot. In one county without 300,000 voters, 300,000 absentee ballots were ordered, a possible sign of planned ballot stuffing.
In the video below, there is evidence that the Clinton campaign was allowed to have literature brought into a polling place in Philadelphia.
In news regarding past elections, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Ohio's Secretary of State John Husted for purging 40,000 voters from the roles. This was reminiscent of New York, where in Brooklyn, 126,000 were removed by an election official who received $4.6 million from a Clinton campaign worker. The massive purges in New York are being investigated by the New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a Clinton man, and being audited by New York City Comptroller, Scott Stringer, also a Clinton delegate.
In Chicago, the voting software flipped the vote 18 points in Clinton's favor. This was later discovered during a hand count. Clinton's vote counts have routinely been high in areas with computerized voting and lower in areas with paper ballots. There have been numerous videos regarding the ease of flipping votes when computers are involved.
In Indiana, election results in an primary that has not yet taken place are already being posted online. Additionally, Clinton robocalls are targeting Sanders supporters to falsely tell them he is no longer in the race. He is very much in the race but truth had never stopped Hillary Clinton. Watch the following video, uploaded by Tim Black.
On Monday, April 25, trolls who paid a million dollars by Clinton's PAC, posted child ****ography and violent images on Sanders's supporters' Facebook pages. This triggered the removal of the pages for hours. Where did the Clinton campaign get the child ****ography? Posting child ****ography online is a felony. Of course, all laws, and apparently child ****ography laws, are being waved where the Clinton campaign is concerned.
Several articles have reported that, in California, the Clinton campaign is running Clinton supporters for delegate positions in Sanders caucuses, claiming they are United4Bernie slates.. United4Bernie is a general descriptive that has been used by many people supporting Bernie Sanders, but now that name has been made meaningless by the Clinton teams. As a result, the term may now refer to either Clinton supporters or to Sanders supporters. Bernie Sanders has not endorsed any slates or individuals for delegate positions in California. Reportedly, the Clinton moles are paying for Facebook ads and professional-looking fliers. Most genuine Bernie Sanders supporters are investing their money in the campaign, instead of themselves. Sanders voters have caught onto the infiltration and are planning to drill the caucus delegates on their backgrounds and knowledge of Sanders.
Throughout the campaign, from Iowa to future primaries, evidence indicates the Clinton campaign has cheated in every state it has claimed to have won or hopes to win. Parents are asking what kind of role model a liar and a cheat would be. Constitutionalists are asking whether democracy and the Constitution are dead. Most progressives are simply hoping Loretta Lynch and Barack Obama will stop blocking the F.B.I.'s investigation of Clinton and instead seek an indictment. Historians are pointing out that, if Obama's last act in office is to block the prosecution of a possible felon such that the felon wins the Presidency, that last disrespect for the law is what history books will remember him by
General election polls now show Donald Trump beating Hillary Clinton by 2 points. Those same polls show Bernie Sanders defeating Trump by double digits. Commonly, Republican do better and Democrats do worse in elections than polls indicate. If Clinton is nominated, the DNC will more than likely lose the Presidency unless Clinton is up to rigging the general election. While the DNC does not seem to have a problem with election fraud, the RNC might. Will Clinton be able to cheat her way into the White House or will she be the subject of an indictment? Sadly for Clinton, her indictment would delight most progressive Democrats and Republicans who seem to have united in one common goal, the defeat of Hillary Clinton.
Trump wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to this country. Hillery would take that prize for sure. She is a vile and evil woman at heart. I would rather have anyone other than her in office
..i'm tossed up.. i think very little of someone who just inherits daddys fortune (and almosts squanders it).. but Pablo didn't earn his nicely either.
i think they're about tied there
Might want to talk to the hundreds of family members who lost loved ones to Escobar before ya start comparing them as equals. Dont like him,,thats fine,he is an ***,,,,but to compare the two,,,come on bro.
http://www.inquisitr.com/2119696/cl...-like-influence-peddling/#FrI8bKpfjUrToXGu.99
The Clinton Foundation donation scandal is growing, and looking worse.
Forbes is reporting that the Clinton Foundation’s first front of perceived impropriety is with speaking engagement fees. During Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton earned a combined $26.4 million in speaking fees. Bill was the major earner, giving three speeches with a speaking price ranging from $500,000 to $1 million for each. Many of their speeches were given to foreign countries, and foreign and United States corporations.
The issue with the speaking fees is what was done with them. All $26.4 million was handed to the Clinton Foundation. The legality of this concerns tax laws. Is there a legal way to hand over earned fees to a foundation without reporting it for either personal or business tax purposes? Essentially, America’s top courts and the Internal Revenue Service have stood behind the ideal that the one who earned the fee is responsible for the taxes on that fee. There is no assigning the tax burden to a foundation or corporation.
The sticky point is that though the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have pledged to amend their tax filings to correct any possible errors, the IRS can still assign penalties and prosecute tax filers based on the initial filing, regardless of amendments.
According to the International Business Times, this leads to the second front of perceived impropriety, foreign donations, and possible influence peddling. Some of Hillary Clinton’s duties while Secretary of State was to determine whether it was in the best interests of the United States to consider selling arms and war technology to foreign countries. One criteria that was supposed to be used in this consideration was the history of the prospective country in regards to human rights. Those countries with poor human rights histories would be less considered for weapons sales.
The issue now arises that a few countries with poor human rights histories, such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were allowed to purchase weapons. The possible impropriety comes in when you consider that these countries donated thousands upon millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Then, even with poor human rights histories, Clinton authorized weapons sales to these countries after the countries donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, consider that in Clinton’s term as Secretary of State, 20 foreign nations were sold over $165 billion in weapons and war technology while she was in office, and those nations had donated to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, the Clinton Foundation entered into an ethics agreement promising full transparency from all donations, and Clinton pledged that during her time as Secretary of State, she pledged to do nothing that could be perceived as improper.
Perhaps Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University, said it best. He examined this situation and concluded that the relationship between the Clinton Foundation, foreign countries looking to buy, and defense contractors looking to sell is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2119696/cl...-like-influence-peddling/#R6j6Y1ukU3qjYgWS.99
The Clinton Foundation donation scandal is growing, and looking worse.
Forbes is reporting that the Clinton Foundation’s first front of perceived impropriety is with speaking engagement fees. During Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State, Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton earned a combined $26.4 million in speaking fees. Bill was the major earner, giving three speeches with a speaking price ranging from $500,000 to $1 million for each. Many of their speeches were given to foreign countries, and foreign and United States corporations.
The issue with the speaking fees is what was done with them. All $26.4 million was handed to the Clinton Foundation. The legality of this concerns tax laws. Is there a legal way to hand over earned fees to a foundation without reporting it for either personal or business tax purposes? Essentially, America’s top courts and the Internal Revenue Service have stood behind the ideal that the one who earned the fee is responsible for the taxes on that fee. There is no assigning the tax burden to a foundation or corporation.
The sticky point is that though the Clintons and the Clinton Foundation have pledged to amend their tax filings to correct any possible errors, the IRS can still assign penalties and prosecute tax filers based on the initial filing, regardless of amendments.
According to the International Business Times, this leads to the second front of perceived impropriety, foreign donations, and possible influence peddling. Some of Hillary Clinton’s duties while Secretary of State was to determine whether it was in the best interests of the United States to consider selling arms and war technology to foreign countries. One criteria that was supposed to be used in this consideration was the history of the prospective country in regards to human rights. Those countries with poor human rights histories would be less considered for weapons sales.
The issue now arises that a few countries with poor human rights histories, such as Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) were allowed to purchase weapons. The possible impropriety comes in when you consider that these countries donated thousands upon millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. Then, even with poor human rights histories, Clinton authorized weapons sales to these countries after the countries donated to the Clinton Foundation.
Now, consider that in Clinton’s term as Secretary of State, 20 foreign nations were sold over $165 billion in weapons and war technology while she was in office, and those nations had donated to the Clinton Foundation. In 2008, the Clinton Foundation entered into an ethics agreement promising full transparency from all donations, and Clinton pledged that during her time as Secretary of State, she pledged to do nothing that could be perceived as improper.
Perhaps Stephen Walt, professor of international affairs at Harvard University, said it best. He examined this situation and concluded that the relationship between the Clinton Foundation, foreign countries looking to buy, and defense contractors looking to sell is “a vivid example of a very big problem — the degree to which conflicts of interest have become endemic.”
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/2119696/cl...-like-influence-peddling/#R6j6Y1ukU3qjYgWS.99
- Status
Similar threads
