Trump

PJ_Soul · October 2016

But that's my point. For most people talking about this online and on the news, etc, it IS about how he didn't pay those taxes. That Trump has had massive loses in his business and how that cuts into his campaign narative is a completely different issue.

mrussel1 · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
But that's my point. For most people talking about this online and on the news, etc, it IS about how he didn't pay those taxes.

Not because it's a crime, but it damages his personal narrative that he tries to sell. Remember Warren Buffet made this a huge deal several years ago. He came out and said he was upset because he paid a lower income tax rate than his secretary. Trump could have done the same thing six months ago and made it part of the 'rigged system' argument. But he didn't. Probably because of the billion dollar loss. But now he has to face it head on.

RoleModelsinBlood31 · October 2016

This was a major letdown. I thought a bombshell would come out when his taxes were released, instead we find out he did what everyone has the capability to do, he was smart and found the best solution? Huh. Well onto the next issue we go

mrussel1 · October 2016

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
This was a major letdown. I thought a bombshell would come out when his taxes were released, instead we find out he did what everyone has the capability to do, he was smart and found the best solution? Huh. Well onto the next issue we go

We all have the ability to lose $950 MM in one tax year? I am not so sure about that.

PJ_Soul · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:
But that's my point. For most people talking about this online and on the news, etc, it IS about how he didn't pay those taxes.
Not because it's a crime, but it damages his personal narrative that he tries to sell. Remember Warren Buffet made this a huge deal several years ago. He came out and said he was upset because he paid a lower income tax rate than his secretary. Trump could have done the same thing six months ago and made it part of the 'rigged system' argument. But he didn't. Probably because of the billion dollar loss. But now he has to face it head on.

I disagree that him using an accountant to get the most out of his tax filing damages the narrative. If anything, the whole thing is damaging Hillary's campaign, because it is a glaringly meaningless "accusation" that Hillary supporters have all jumped on, while there are so many more important things they should be trying to hammer into people's brains. Things that actually would be damaging to his personal narrative. This is just another pointless distraction. I bet Trump is thrilled it's sticking around for as long as it is. I mean, if him committing fraud and giving campaign donations to his kids doesn't make a dent, and if racist propaganda and threats of nuclear war don't affect his numbers, etc etc etc, why would anybody think this non-issue would? This is the most bland thing he's been attacked for in months.

rgambs · October 2016

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
This was a major letdown. I thought a bombshell would come out when his taxes were released, instead we find out he did what everyone has the capability to do, he was smart and found the best solution? Huh. Well onto the next issue we go
We all have the ability to lose $950 MM in one tax year? I am not so sure about that.

According to something I saw from Robert Reich, I think, most of the lost money wasn't likely his own personal assets to begin with!

Kev - Coat and Keys · October 2016

It seems we are getting daily Trump scandals by the handful now (today so far we have potential Iranian dealings with terrorist links and his awful behaviour to women whilst doing the Apprentice).
I don't think anything will cause him too much damage or change the election much (he will lose comfortably but with a shocking 40% still backing him), but my wonder is with the ease of finding dirt why did GOP oppo research not do this in the primary?
Did they assume he would flame out or do that just not fancy taking the executive branch any more?
Given their awful candidates of recent cycles I fancy the latter, but know not why.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:
The tax issue is simple. It shows that he lost a MASSIVE amount of money.

He keeps saying that it shows he is "smart"...it doesn't, it shows that he lost a MASSIVE amount of money
That is ridiculous. Businesses take risks...sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The "smart" businessman knows how to shield themselves and/or how to sustain a loss while still moving forward. That number is massive on our scale but not massive at Trump's scale. The fact that he took that loss and yet is where he is today in business shows that he is indeed "smart". Again this is so silly except to the novice.
The smart guy doesn't lose that money bud. Especially one who is privately wealthy.

He squandered (I'm guessing) about 33% of his net worth on those casinos (which is what caused the losses...along with Trump Airlines). Sorry but a smart guy doesn't do that...an idiot does that.

I prepared about 800 tax returns this year...how many did you do?
Well that's the point. You're guessing and so is the New York Times. Everything in that article is a "may" or "might have" based on a few pages from 1995 with a bunch of assumptions. The loss probably pertains to Atlantic City investments etc. but so what? Again big companies often take many risks and sometimes they lose. You migh have done 800 returns but have any been for a business that size? There are large companies all over the world that take massive losses all the time yet come out on top. Look at the New York Times itself as reported by Forbes:

"More recently, for tax year 2014, The New York Times paid no taxes and got an income tax refund of $3.5 million even though they had a pre-tax profit of $29.9 million in 2014. In other words, their post-tax profit was higher than their pre-tax profit. The explanation in their 2014 annual report is, “The effective tax rate for 2014 was favorably affected by approximately $21.1 million for the reversal of reserves for uncertain tax positions due to the lapse of applicable statutes of limitations.” If you don’t think it took fancy accountants and tax lawyers to make that happen, read the statement again."

So the New York Times who is outraged by this took advantage of legal loopholes itself and actually got a tax refund. They were smart and so was Trump.

Wait a second....if he is worth about $3 billion then yes that is 33% of his net worth gone in one year. That was back in 1995 so that's likely pretty accurate. Honestly his net worth (documented in some court cases) could actually be less than $1 billion.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

Kev - Coat and Keys said:
It seems we are getting daily Trump scandals by the handful now (today so far we have potential Iranian dealings with terrorist links and his awful behaviour to women whilst doing the Apprentice).
I don't think anything will cause him too much damage or change the election much (he will lose comfortably but with a shocking 40% still backing him), but my wonder is with the ease of finding dirt why did GOP oppo research not do this in the primary?
Did they assume he would flame out or do that just not fancy taking the executive branch any more?
Given their awful candidates of recent cycles I fancy the latter, but know not why.

Good question. He's an "outsider" so there probably isn't any type of vetting process.

I'm guessing that the GOP is wishing they would have pushed his ass out of the party about now.

mrussel1 · October 2016

Kev - Coat and Keys said:
It seems we are getting daily Trump scandals by the handful now (today so far we have potential Iranian dealings with terrorist links and his awful behaviour to women whilst doing the Apprentice).
I don't think anything will cause him too much damage or change the election much (he will lose comfortably but with a shocking 40% still backing him), but my wonder is with the ease of finding dirt why did GOP oppo research not do this in the primary?
Did they assume he would flame out or do that just not fancy taking the executive branch any more?
Given their awful candidates of recent cycles I fancy the latter, but know not why.

Political malpractice, plain and simple. In fact, I remember reading this several months ago, where the Clinton campaign was shocked at how poorly his opponents did on this front. They said they had lots of material.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

rgambs said:

mrussel1 said:

RoleModelsinBlood31 said:
This was a major letdown. I thought a bombshell would come out when his taxes were released, instead we find out he did what everyone has the capability to do, he was smart and found the best solution? Huh. Well onto the next issue we go
We all have the ability to lose $950 MM in one tax year? I am not so sure about that.
According to something I saw from Robert Reich, I think, most of the lost money wasn't likely his own personal assets to begin with!

No it was likely debt that he personally guaranteed.

If I want to start a casino and a bank will loan me $1,000,000 I can effectively write off $1,000,000 on my taxes assuming
1. The entity is an LLC or partnership
2. The entity lost that money from operations (i.e. wages, overhead....not capital assets)

Gern Blansten · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:

mrussel1 said:

PJ_Soul said:
But that's my point. For most people talking about this online and on the news, etc, it IS about how he didn't pay those taxes.
Not because it's a crime, but it damages his personal narrative that he tries to sell. Remember Warren Buffet made this a huge deal several years ago. He came out and said he was upset because he paid a lower income tax rate than his secretary. Trump could have done the same thing six months ago and made it part of the 'rigged system' argument. But he didn't. Probably because of the billion dollar loss. But now he has to face it head on.
I disagree that him using an accountant to get the most put of his tax filing damages the narrative. If anything, the whole thing is damaging Hillary's campaign, because it is a glaringly meaningless "accusation" that Hillary supporters have all jumped on, while there are so many more important things they should be trying to hammer into people's brains. Things that actually would be damaging to his personal narrative. This is just another pointless distraction. I bet Trump is thrilled it's sticking around for as long as it is. I mean, if him committing fraud and giving campaign donations to his kids doesn't make a dent, and if racist propaganda and threats of nuclear war don't affect his numbers, etc etc etc, why would anybody think this non-issue would? This is the most bland thing he's been attacked for in months.

To me the issue is that he isn't successful. He sucks.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01GYPLR1U/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

If interested, read this book. It isn't a tabloid type of biography...it references actual events, actual court cases, etc. It's pretty good.

BS44325 · October 2016

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

rgambs said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Gern Blansten said:
The tax issue is simple. It shows that he lost a MASSIVE amount of money.

He keeps saying that it shows he is "smart"...it doesn't, it shows that he lost a MASSIVE amount of money
That is ridiculous. Businesses take risks...sometimes they win and sometimes they lose. The "smart" businessman knows how to shield themselves and/or how to sustain a loss while still moving forward. That number is massive on our scale but not massive at Trump's scale. The fact that he took that loss and yet is where he is today in business shows that he is indeed "smart". Again this is so silly except to the novice.
How many troops did he support with his state, local and real estate taxes?
Ahhhh...so if you don't pay more taxes then you're legally required too then you don't support the troops. I get it. I was under the impression that it is evil republicans who question people's patriotism.
You are always forgetting that these criticisms of Trump are meant to point out his glaring his hypocrisy, not the critic's genuine concerns.
Sure but I don't see in this situation how it shows him to be particularly "hypocritical". He doesn't deny taking advantage of the rules of the system to benefit his business while running to change the rules now that he's chosen a different calling. The attack just seems to fall flat with me. The New York Times is throwing out a big loss from 1995 without saying much else. Will the price tag make people care? I just don't know.
You don't see the hypocrisy in being the head of the party that demonizes poor people for taking advantage of the rules and then doing so for millions more dollars?

Trump is not doing this.

BS44325 · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
This is the second time in the past couple of days where I am actually going to defend Trump, whihc galls me, lol, but fair is fair. I think the way a lot of the left is reacting to Trump not paying these taxes is damaging to the fight to keep Trump out of office.
Trump has not evaded taxes. He has simply taken advantage of the existing tax system. Totally legal. Would a single one of you honestly claim that you would pay income taxes that you aren't legally obligated to pay????? I know i wouldn't. So why are so many acting as though Trump had done this huge horrible thing just because he is following tax law?? All these irroneous accusations are doing is bolstering the the anti-Clintonites. Why not focus on the laws that Trump HAS broken??? There appear to be several of them! Hillary shouldn't be using this point as another way to attack Trump. She should only be using it as a good example as to why tax reform is needed, and then she should tell everyone what she's going to do to make sure super rich people are obligated to pay income tax just like everybody else.

Bang on PJSoul! And to your point Hillary is NOT pushing to alter the tax rules that Trump used to his advantage. That is why this argument is so phony in my eyes. If she were elected these rules would remain in place. Her corporate donors would see to it.

HughFreakingDillon · October 2016

PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, I'm not defending the laws. But I don't know why or how people can hold tax law against anyone besides those responsible for the laws. As I said, every single last one of us would say ends much on taxes as we could. Period. I just don't think the little shit storm that Clinton has kicked up about him not paying taxes is pretty unreasonable and hypocritical (as if the Clintons don't adhere to beneficial tax laws themselves! Just like all of us do, or at least would if we knew how!).

of course we would take advantage of it. the difference is I'm not doing it then turning around and saying someone accessing welfare is a lazy fuck working the system.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

HughFreakingDillon said:

PJ_Soul said:
Yeah, I'm not defending the laws. But I don't know why or how people can hold tax law against anyone besides those responsible for the laws. As I said, every single last one of us would say ends much on taxes as we could. Period. I just don't think the little shit storm that Clinton has kicked up about him not paying taxes is pretty unreasonable and hypocritical (as if the Clintons don't adhere to beneficial tax laws themselves! Just like all of us do, or at least would if we knew how!).
of course we would take advantage of it. the difference is I'm not doing it then turning around and saying someone accessing welfare is a lazy fuck working the system.

Yeah...or "I'm a very successful businessman...I'm the best businessman ever believe me"

Gern Blansten · October 2016

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/2/13137604/trump-tax-return

Really good points here....if Trumps returns would show him in better light than the 1995 release he will be releasing them soon.

If he doesn't....likely they would just give Clinton more ammo.

Reread the first sentence. “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.” “Could” is doing all the work there, too. It’s also possible that Trump paid taxes in all of those years!

The reason the media keeps saying that he could avoid tax for 18 years is because that is the limit on net operating losses. You can generally carry back the loss to the prior two returns and then forward for 18 years. The other option is to forego the carryback and carry it forward for 20 years.

Gern Blansten · October 2016

Another point that I haven't seen addressed.

If the IRS audits you they can generally only audit three years of tax returns...the most recent 3 years.

This begs the question as to why Trump won't release the returns that are NOT under audit. He keeps saying that he would release the returns if he wasn't under audit so why not release the others?

If the IRS expects that fraudulent returns were filed....there is no 3 year limit. They can go back as far as they want.

I'm wondering if that could be the case?

If I were advising Clinton I would be all over that narrative.

mrussel1 · October 2016

Gern Blansten said:
Another point that I haven't seen addressed.

If the IRS audits you they can generally only audit three years of tax returns...the most recent 3 years.

This begs the question as to why Trump won't release the returns that are NOT under audit. He keeps saying that he would release the returns if he wasn't under audit so why not release the others?

If the IRS expects that fraudulent returns were filed....there is no 3 year limit. They can go back as far as they want.

I'm wondering if that could be the case?

If I were advising Clinton I would be all over that narrative.

He must believe it is more damaging than to release them.

Remember he knew this was coming and threatened to sue the NYT if they were released. I'm surprised he did not proactively disclose this issue before publication and take the tact that it was evidence of rigged system and he was going to fix it. He had a small window to do damage control and they missed it.

Trump

Comments

Categories