John Oliver Used Tax Loophole Created by Trump On $9.5M NYC Apartment

[Ubiquitous]

Last Week Tonight host John Oliver has emerged as one of the leading anti-
Donald Trump personalities in the entire media landscape, with his biting
critiques often shared, discussed, and debated in the mainstream press. But
according to a Wednesday report in the Observer, the late-night funnyman used
a tax loophole created in part by Trump in the 1970s to allegedly avoid paying
a large tax bill on the $9.5 million New York City apartment he purchased in
2014, weeks before deriding tax breaks for the wealthy during a segment on his
HBO show.

Donald Trump is wildly unpopular with coastal elites, but few despise
him as feverishly as the Hollywood Brigades, led by Meryl Streep, and
the late night comedian squadrons, headed by The Tonight Show’s Stephen
Colbert, The Daily Show’s Trevor Noah, and Last Week Tonight’s John
Oliver.
…
The hypocrisy really gets ratcheted up with John Oliver, the No. 1
darling to so many liberal anti-Trumpies, who regularly attacks GOP tax
schemes as giveaways to the rich and detrimental to the poor. (Again,
that’s an apt description, but they evinced less rage about Obama’s
economic and tax policies, which also funneled money upward to an
extreme degree.)
For years, Oliver has criticized the estate tax, which defenders, in a
smart linguistic move dreamed up by Frank Luntz, long ago labeled the
“death tax”; and the tax code’s raft of loopholes that benefit special
interests he identified as oil companies and hedge fund managers.
Oliver even briefly established the bogus Our Lady of Perpetual
Exemption to draw attention to tax-exempt status granted to churches
and charities.
Back in July 2014, in an episode in which he lamented the Wealth Gap in
America” (which has resulted in the richest one percent of Americans
controlling 20 percent of annual income), Oliver said, “At this point
the rich are just running up the score…What sets America apart is that
we are actively introducing policies that disproportionately benefit
the wealthy,” such as tax cuts and loopholes like trusts.
So it’s a little surprising to discover that just months before, Oliver
had a tax attorney set up two revocable trusts, one for him and one for
his wife, to hide the couple’s purchase of a $9.5 million Manhattan
penthouse. Then he used a tax loophole created by Donald Trump himself
back in the 1970s, when the current president was merely a prominent
New York real estate developer and aspiring celebrity author.

[1]: http://observer.com/2017/05/john-oliver-property-tax-scam-trump/

--
Democrats will comment on how they feel about Trump firing Comey the
very minute they figure out how they're sppsd to feel about Trump firing
Comey.

[J.B. Nicholson]

Post by Ubiquitous
Last Week Tonight host John Oliver has emerged as one of the leading
anti- Donald Trump personalities in the entire media landscape, with
his biting critiques often shared, discussed, and debated in the
mainstream press.

This was also covered on RT in

No matter how plaintive Oliver's plea to be taxed more he knows he can
safely speak in this way without changing his taxation much if at all,
which is apparently what really matters. Warren Buffet's famous
statement about being taxed at a lower rate than his office can also
be said aloud without fear of a tax rate increase to change this fact
despite Buffet's advocacy for what CNN described as "a minimum tax
rate on top wage earners"[1]. Oliver's tax avoidance means he can pay
less into the tax-funded programs he ostensibly wants others to
sustain.

Post by Ubiquitous
Democrats will comment on how they feel about Trump firing Comey the
very minute they figure out how they're sppsd to feel about Trump
firing Comey.

Maybe they can come up with some evidence to back the Russophobia at
the same time. We've all waited long enough for that evidence. There's
also no admission of unwillingness to do the introspection that that
party won't do. I think Margaret Kimberley (of blackagendareport.com)
is right in saying "Democrats would rather lose than go to the
left."[2].



[1] http://money.cnn.com/2013/03/04/news/economy/buffett-secretary-taxes/
[2] https://blackagendareport.com/democrats'_death_spiral

[FPP]

Post by J.B. Nicholson
Maybe they can come up with some evidence to back the Russophobia

17 American intelligence agencies have looked into it.

There is compelling evidence. Trump's campaign had 18 different
contacts with the Russians.

I doubt the State Dept has that many...

[Ed Stasiak]

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

[trotsky]

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left. Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

[A Friend]

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left. Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

[trotsky]

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left. Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

[moviePig]

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left. Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air you live
in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help clean it up.
I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently exploitative loopholes.

[Ed Stasiak]

moviePig

trotsky
That's a tough call.  Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way.

I cast my vote for Oliver.  I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions.

LOL; “it’s ok when we do it!”.

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

moviePig

trotsky
That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions.

LOL; “it’s ok when we do it!”.

I can't think what you're referring to. But I'll bet you can't either.

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

moviePig

trotsky
That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions.

LOL; “it’s ok when we do it!”.

No... it's OK when it's legal and permissible.

[A Friend]

Post by moviePig
I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air you live
in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help clean it up.
I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently exploitative loopholes.

I agree with that, and would do the same if such a thing happened.

[moviePig]

Post by A Friend

Post by moviePig
I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air you live
in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help clean it up.
I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently exploitative loopholes.

I agree with that, and would do the same if such a thing happened.

It's like when Conservatives told Al Gore that, because his flights to
conferences contribute to global warming, he should walk.

[BTR1701]

Post by moviePig

Post by A Friend

Post by moviePig
I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air you live
in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help clean it up.
I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently exploitative loopholes.

I agree with that, and would do the same if such a thing happened.

It's like when Conservatives told Al Gore that, because his flights to
conferences contribute to global warming, he should walk.

No one ever told Gore that.

There are, however, a helluva lot of more enviro-friendly options short
of "private jet".

[trotsky]

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left.
Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his following
his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air you live
in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help clean it up.
I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently exploitative loopholes.

That's a judgement call, so it would be stupid to impose my opinion on
yours. I would be happy if Oliver even explained it as such, but afaik
he hasn't made a peep on the subject.

[moviePig]

Post by trotsky

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left.
Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his
following his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air
you live in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help
clean it up. I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently
exploitative loopholes.

That's a judgement call, so it would be stupid to impose my opinion on
yours. I would be happy if Oliver even explained it as such, but afaik
he hasn't made a peep on the subject.

Well, there I'll agree. He should comment as soon as it's reasonable
for him -- because that's what he does.

[FPP]

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left.
Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his
following his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air
you live in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help
clean it up. I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently
exploitative loopholes.

That's a judgement call, so it would be stupid to impose my opinion on
yours. I would be happy if Oliver even explained it as such, but afaik
he hasn't made a peep on the subject.

Well, there I'll agree. He should comment as soon as it's reasonable
for him -- because that's what he does.

I don't like the Electoral College... but I still vote every four years.

[moviePig]

Post by FPP

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same
time,
telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left.
Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his
following his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air
you live in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help
clean it up. I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently
exploitative loopholes.

That's a judgement call, so it would be stupid to impose my opinion on
yours. I would be happy if Oliver even explained it as such, but afaik
he hasn't made a peep on the subject.

Well, there I'll agree. He should comment as soon as it's reasonable
for him -- because that's what he does.

I don't like the Electoral College... but I still vote every four years.

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

[BTR1701]

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

FARGO

[Adam H. Kerman]

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

FARGO

Isn't it a bad thing to admit to understanding something moviePig wrote?

[BTR1701]

Post by Adam H. Kerman

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

FARGO

Isn't it a bad thing to admit to understanding something moviePig wrote?

I'm seeing a specialist next week. Hopefully he can fix me.

[moviePig]

Post by BTR1701

Post by Adam H. Kerman

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

FARGO

Isn't it a bad thing to admit to understanding something moviePig wrote?

I'm seeing a specialist next week. Hopefully he can fix me.

Perhaps by installing a switch...

[moviePig]

And, where possible, *against* the electoral college, I'm sure. There's
a paradox in there somewhere -- like that toy box that, when you switch
it on, a hand comes out and switches it off.

FARGO

Most recently/prominently. Including the wind-up version, they've been
around for 50 years or so.

[Micky DuPree]

Post by moviePig

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend
I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay
more than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay.
Purposefully overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are
never going to like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really
stupid thing to do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would
seem to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his
pocket is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in
Bernie Sanders' case.

I cast my vote for Oliver. I see nothing hypocritical in his
following his accountant's prescriptions. You have to breathe the air
you live in, even if it stinks. That's how you stay alive to help
clean it up. I'll excoriate him when he *supports* patently
exploitative loopholes.

Exactly so. I'm reminded tangentially of the right claiming Pres. Obama
was hypocritical for supporting campaign finance reform when he had used
big donations in his own campaign. He said something to the effect that
arms reduction is a good thing, but you don't disarm unilaterally.

-Micky

[FPP]

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend

Post by trotsky

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
* Irrelevancies snipped *

The subject is John Oliver gaming the system to only pay 0.25% property tax
on his $9 million ritzy Manhattan apartment, while at the same time, telling
his viewers that they need to pay more taxes to support more social programs.

I agree with you on this, Ed. However, John Oliver isn't exactly a
household name, so, as usual, desperate to grab onto anything, the right
wing clutches at anything they can to berate someone on the left. Until
proven otherwise Oliver is a total hypocrite here, but the question of
why anyone on the right would even give a shit remains to be answered.
If you want, though, we can compare his level of hypocrisy to the
current "President" of the United States. Do you see your mistake yet?

I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

If I think there should be a red light at the intersection near where I
live, I still don't stop at it.

Until they put the light up, I'm still going through the intersection,
no matter how bad I think there should be one there.

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend
I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

If I think there should be a red light at the intersection near where I
live, I still don't stop at it.
Until they put the light up, I'm still going through the intersection,
no matter how bad I think there should be one there.

Sadly, not paying money for taxes decreases the money for infrastructure
and decreases the chances of the red light being put up even if it's needed.

[FPP]

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend
I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

If I think there should be a red light at the intersection near where
I live, I still don't stop at it.
Until they put the light up, I'm still going through the intersection,
no matter how bad I think there should be one there.

Sadly, not paying money for taxes decreases the money for infrastructure
and decreases the chances of the red light being put up even if it's needed.

Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not
likely to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody
makes you.

[trotsky]

Post by FPP

Post by trotsky

Post by FPP

Post by trotsky

Post by A Friend
I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay. Purposefully
overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are never going to
like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really stupid thing to
do. Him, too, probably.

That's a tough call. Using a loophole perpetuated by Trump would seem
to be really incongruous with his POV, but keeping money in his pocket
is the American way. I see it as way more of a problem in Bernie
Sanders' case.

If I think there should be a red light at the intersection near where
I live, I still don't stop at it.
Until they put the light up, I'm still going through the
intersection, no matter how bad I think there should be one there.

Sadly, not paying money for taxes decreases the money for
infrastructure and decreases the chances of the red light being put up
even if it's needed.

Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not
likely to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody
makes you.

I get the point, I was merely pointing out the irony in the analogy. I
find it very two faced of Oliver, though. But I can see why you don't.
What about "Democratic Socialist" Bernie paying a lower tax rate than
Mittens Romney? While saying the U.S. needs to be more like Denmark
where they have a 58.5% flat tax rate?

[Ed Stasiak]

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…

hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]

noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

[moviePig]

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

Do you approve of every law you follow, or break every law you don't
approve of? Do you *ever* pay more tax than you legally must?

And, do your answers to those questions have fuckall to do with your
"virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc."?

[trotsky]

Post by moviePig

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

Do you approve of every law you follow, or break every law you don't
approve of? Do you *ever* pay more tax than you legally must?
And, do your answers to those questions have fuckall to do with your
"virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc."?

Those are good questions, mpig, but I believe Ed is just phishing to be
called intelligence challenged again.

[trotsky]

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]

What word would describe your whining about a guy that isn't a player on
on any kind of world stage? Or did I miss your reply to my previous
post, Ed?

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

Now quote what Oliver said that does that. I'd love to hear the exact
wording where he said everybody should voluntarily follow some principal
where you pay more than the other guy for the same thing.

[FPP]

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

Here's an update while I wait for you to show me where Oliver is a
hypocrite by quoting the relevant passages for us.

Post by Ed Stasiak
“The apartment was purchased through a trust, solely for privacy reasons – the trust confers no tax benefit whatsoever. As for the 421a tax exemption, the rate at which the city taxes the building in which Mr. Oliver lives was the result of the building developers applying for that exemption before construction years before he took up residence. It was not the result of any action or decision taken by Mr. Oliver.”

So... you were saying?

[moviePig]

Post by FPP

Post by Ed Stasiak

FPP
Still, the point is that you can believe in an idea, but you're not likely
to act on that idea if nobody else acts on the idea, and nobody makes
you.

If only there was a word for those kinda people…
hypocrite
[hip-uh-krit]
noun
1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,
principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially
a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,
especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his
or her public statements.

Here's an update while I wait for you to show me where Oliver is a
hypocrite by quoting the relevant passages for us.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Update 2015-05-15. In a response to this story, a representative for
“The apartment was purchased through a trust, solely for privacy
reasons – the trust confers no tax benefit whatsoever. As for the 421a
tax exemption, the rate at which the city taxes the building in which
Mr. Oliver lives was the result of the building developers applying
for that exemption before construction years before he took up
residence. It was not the result of any action or decision taken by
Mr. Oliver.”

So... you were saying?

Whimsical (i.e., unimportant) prediction: Oliver will now be commenting
on all of this sooner rather than later (is he on tomorrow night?) and
will be reprising much of this thread's content (because it's all so
freaking obvious).

[trotsky]

Post by moviePig

Post by FPP
Here's an update while I wait for you to show me where Oliver is a
hypocrite by quoting the relevant passages for us.

Post by Ed Stasiak
Update 2015-05-15. In a response to this story, a representative for
“The apartment was purchased through a trust, solely for privacy
reasons – the trust confers no tax benefit whatsoever. As for the 421a
tax exemption, the rate at which the city taxes the building in which
Mr. Oliver lives was the result of the building developers applying
for that exemption before construction years before he took up
residence. It was not the result of any action or decision taken by
Mr. Oliver.”

So... you were saying?

Whimsical (i.e., unimportant) prediction: Oliver will now be commenting
on all of this sooner rather than later (is he on tomorrow night?) and
will be reprising much of this thread's content (because it's all so
freaking obvious).

For the record, that update would actually have been in 2017, not 2015.
Until I hear anything discounting what was said about Oliver's purchase
I'll have to believe what said in that Salon article update.

http://www.salon.com/2017/05/11/is-john-oliver-a-hypocrite-on-taxes/

[Shadow]

Post by trotsky
For the record, that update would actually have been in 2017, not 2015.
Until I hear anything discounting what was said about Oliver's purchase
I'll have to believe what said in that Salon article update.
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/11/is-john-oliver-a-hypocrite-on-taxes/

So in fact trumpologists are criticizing this Oliver's legal
use of a Trumpet's initiative to funnel taxes from the very poor to
billionaires ?

"As it happens, the 421a loophole for luxury properties was opened by
Donald Trump in 1984 when he successfully sued the city to force it to
make his high-rise Trump Tower development eligible for a tax benefit
that was originally designed to encourage real estate firms to build
single-family homes."

It figures. It's all about giving poorer workers a chance and
"making Amerika great again". I'm amazed Fox News failed to report it.
[]'s

[trotsky]

Post by Shadow

Post by trotsky
For the record, that update would actually have been in 2017, not 2015.
Until I hear anything discounting what was said about Oliver's purchase
I'll have to believe what said in that Salon article update.
http://www.salon.com/2017/05/11/is-john-oliver-a-hypocrite-on-taxes/

So in fact trumpologists are criticizing this Oliver's legal
use of a Trumpet's initiative to funnel taxes from the very poor to
billionaires ?
"As it happens, the 421a loophole for luxury properties was opened by
Donald Trump in 1984 when he successfully sued the city to force it to
make his high-rise Trump Tower development eligible for a tax benefit
that was originally designed to encourage real estate firms to build
single-family homes."
It figures. It's all about giving poorer workers a chance and
"making Amerika great again". I'm amazed Fox News failed to report it.
[]'s

Yes, apparently if Oliver does one thing that's hypocritical it warrants
being talked about over the infinitely many things that Trump has said
and done as a hypocrite. They feel if they run interference enough that
they won't have to own up to having the biggest asshole in the history
of the United States in the oval office.

[J.B. Nicholson]

Post by A Friend
I'm still having trouble understanding why John Oliver should pay more
than the amount of tax he is legally obligated to pay.

"The Resident" points out the hypocrisy in
http://youtu.be/HyjDysd6cNU -- Oliver champions
tax-funded programs but by his choice here chooses to not pay as much
as much into them as he can or (percentage-wise) as much as others do
pay.

Another problem not addressed in that piece (perhaps address in the
full show, I wouldn't know because I haven't seen the full show) is
Oliver's choice to join with the Democratic Party in diverting
attention away from examining why the Democrats (who know how to run
elections) have lost so much power over recent years--that party has
lost a majority of state governorships, Senate seats, House seats, and
the US Presidency. Part of that distraction is to constantly make fun
of Trump (including image-based taunts they'd never tolerate if a
woman were POTUS) and distance their own advocacy from what
Pres. Trump advocates for or the Trump administration makes
policy. This ranges from 'anyone but Trump' to now calls for
impeachment based on evidenceless claims of having untoward ties with
Russia (perhaps at the personal behest of Vladimir Putin). Other shows
(both comedic and not) have been attempting the same: for example,
Rachel Maddow has made her highest ratings on this basis as well, and
Samantha Bee has chosen to join these ranks (occasionally being called
out as RT did on one of her pieces).

Post by A Friend
Purposefully overpaying his taxes in order to placate people who are
never going to like him anyway strikes me as being a really, really
stupid thing to do.

This has to do with showing people who do watch his show that he lives
up to the principles he advocates for on his show.

[FPP]

Post by J.B. Nicholson
Maybe they can come up with some evidence to back the Russophobia at
the same time.
Michael Flynn and other advisers to Donald Trump’s campaign were in contact with Russian officials and others with Kremlin ties in at least 18 calls and emails during the last seven months of the 2016 presidential race, current and former U.S. officials familiar with the exchanges told Reuters.
The previously undisclosed interactions form part of the record now being reviewed by FBI and congressional investigators probing Russian interference in the U.S. presidential election and contacts between Trump’s campaign and Russia.
Six of the previously undisclosed contacts described to Reuters were phone calls between advisers of Russian diplomat Sergey Kislyak and Trump, including Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, three current and former officials said.
In January, the Trump White House initially denied any contacts with Russian officials during the 2016 campaign.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-campaign-russia-ties_us_591d6dbfe4b03b485caebb05?section=us_politics

If it's all perfectly innocent and above board, why LIE about it?
Why say you had NO CONTACT if you have nothing to hide?

Do you have a great answer for that? Is it your experience that people
lie when they haven't done anything wrong, and they're being honest and
truthful?

The answer should be obvious - even to a conservative Banana Republican.