Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

813 Excellent

About Shula-holic

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Favorite NFL Team
    San Francisco 49ers

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My feeling is the people who would vote for Moore did so last year. The only possible uptick he would have is the people who want another R in the Senate now, who that wasn't enough for last year. I'll admit there are people here who still believe him, but they voted for him last year. I don't think I've met anyone who believed his accusers who've since flipped to believing Moore. Now those who do believe him, they often blame the state Republican party. Therefore I think the primary would be so nasty with Moore vs "the establishment", he would by default create more defections in places like Shelby, Madison, Lee, and Tuscaloosa counties.
  2. I'm a math guy and I say Biden simply because of the Electoral College. Biden would, at least theoretically, be a pretty decent favorite to win back WI, MI, and PA. If that occurs, Trump would have to find another blue state to flip. I'm not sure where he would feasibly get that from, at least today.
  3. Any R but Moore will win the general. Moore has always had his bedrock supporters who vote for him in every primary from dog catcher til today. What's changed is now the remainder of Republican voters will not vote for him in a unified way in the general, or simply stay home and allow Jones to win if Moore is the nominee again. I doubt the Alabama Republican Party truly has the stomach for another round of Roy Moore, but they may not have the choice. Moore is pretty much the definition of a narcissist and most of the party folks didn't like him to start with.
  4. Looks like from the poll we aren't typical as a group, or we have people in that gap between actuality and their belief:
  5. It would be a bad idea and it's political in nature. As was the idea to decrease the number of detention beds which would lead to more releases.
  6. They could pull his FEC filings. But I admit it would be hilarious for politicians in Washington to try and score political points when they in most cases can't/don't even prepare their own taxes.
  7. Actually real estate is not what drove my corp's rate down, it was the QBI credit we got for W-2 wages paid to employees. Pretty good incentive for us to give more hours to people who were part time and want the work. Not anywhere close to a billionaire either, dare to dream huh?
  8. Net worth doesn't show anywhere on a tax return.
  9. Final numbers just in. AGI up 10%, total tax owed down 9%. Effective rate went down 17.7%. Now we also owe a lot, but that came from underestimating Q4 earnings and rental properties showing gains versus losses last years.
  10. I don't believe an audit has anything to do with him not releasing them either. I also believe given his business dealings and public image prior to even becoming President, it's about as statistically certain as the sun coming up tomorrow that he has been under at least an audit of some kind at some point during this time frame. Also, for the record the billionaire statement is a common thing that's mentioned but has nothing to do with income tax. I could be a billionaire and have a bad year, retire, slow down my business, have gotten there from capital gains in prior years, inheritance, etc. Trying to estimate someone's net worth by viewing one or even multiple years of tax returns is a foolish endeavor, especially someone who derives the majority of their income from business activity, where there is almost certainly no consistency to the earnings over time.
  11. I honestly doubt it in any statistically significant fashion. If anyone here believed him, speak up. I don't think left, right, moderate, any of us believed it. And let's face it, if someone believed that line then they are probably such an ardent Trump supporter that him going back on that statement isn't going to change their view.
  12. I'd assume it's more than likely knowing what we do about his business dealings and also the political environment that would encourage someone at the IRS to leak that he actually isn't if that were the case. To my point, his best move is to let them keep going down that road and drag his heels at every turn given that not releasing them didn't hurt him last time.
  13. From a CPA's point of view, if I were him and I'd done nothing wrong I wouldn't release them. He didn't release them last time and it didn't cost him politically. But I feel it's pretty safe to assume he's got some in depth and likely aggressive tax avoidance strategies going on. Note, there's a difference in "avoidance" and "evasion". We all do our best to legally avoid taxation. But we all know that politically to point these things out and show how he had reduced his effective rate would look bad politically because the population at large isn't that versed on the tax code. It gives political opponents hundreds upon hundreds of pages to pick items out and make talking points that would require explanation beyond an easy soundbite. Legally they may get them, I don't know as I'm no tax attorney, but if I were him I'd drag it out and let them focus their efforts there. I think it's also safe to assume since he is under audit that there's not a case for tax evasion.