916 Million Reasons Trump Won't Release His Taxes

[ArcadiaGP]

For this case specifically, it's particularly ironic, both because Mr. 140 feigns concern about Trump's connections with Russia, and also because of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network)
"RT, originally Russia Today, is a television network funded by the Russian government.["

I know what RT is... and I rarely take their word when it comes to Russia-related news.

However, did Putin not suspend a deal with the US on Plutonium? I'm pretty sure I heard that confirmed elsewhere, too. Might not be a great source, but it's definitely a notable source and the article is true.

 

[1775usmarine]

Of course it is, but we both know, that when you say someone hasn't paid taxes for 18 years, it's not going to be looked upon favorably from a great many people. This revelation doesn't help Trump.

Obama Admin did the same for GM. They made a special bankruptcy case so the new GM could claim the losses of old GM when they had been given a clean slate under new GM.

 

[Vigilant]

So does INGO need to come up with a community "allowed sources" repository, so we can stop using "your source sucks, therefore the point you're trying to make sucks" argument?

Not referring to you specifically, but seeing a lot of this lately.

A sucky source can still provide truthful information... so best to follow it up with more sources.

True, Snowden and Asante are sucky sources, but their info is pretty good!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The thing I took away from the article, is that he LOST $916 MILLION in a year. That's a LOT of scratch from "a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required." If it happened in 2008, like when K_W had a hit, that's one thing, but that happened to Trump in 1995. The economy was doing quite well during that time.

And the state dept lost/misplaced what about 6 billion under Hillary? That's a LOT of scratch from "a highly-skilled bureaucrat/politician who has a fiduciary responsibility to her country."

None of which have anything to do with Trump losing almost a billion dollars....but, it's always good to pick on the poor and/or black people and/or LGBT.

The point, mi amigo, is that to earn a 900 million deduction, one has to LOSE 900 million in real dollars. The fella you want to entrust with the keys to the White House is a real estate huckster in the casino business.

See above, that is who you want to entrust with the keys to the White House?

How about your birth certificate?

I've supplied it, while not required to it was one of the easier ways to prove that I was legally able to take the job. I also had to have a BG check done by and supply fingerprints to the FBI and approved by the IRS.

I'm less concerned about him using that loophole than his current business ties to Russia and China. No US bank will lend to him, given his past performance.

And the Clinton foundation donations from how many foreign governments doesn't seem to bother you? What are some of them again? Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria for starters. Along with how much from the Son in law of the Ukrainian president? And donations from how many different corps, and individuals? What percent of the official state dept meetings did she have with non govt entities that donated to it? Not to mention the money paid to her for "speeches" such as a $500k paid by a Russian bank who supported a sale of Uranium one which had to be approved by the state dept due to "strategic assets" which allowed Russia to control almost a quarter of the Uranium mining in the US. Or the millions that were contributed to her foundation by a family fund of one of the owners of the company.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
@BarackObama who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. http://1.usa.gov/HFZJKH Do as I say not as I do.
2:19 PM - 13 Apr 2012

Yeah. The guy who paid no tax *****ing about the guy paying tax.

Oh, and this one, calling for others to pay more taxes - but not Donald.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
The hedge fund guys (gals) have to pay higher taxes ASAP. They are paying practically nothing. We must reduce taxes for the middle class!
5:54 PM - 5 Sep 2015

Yep, calling BS on a person that wants to raise taxes while using every available means to lower his own. Sounds about right. Oh and Trump has paid at least 30% of his income in taxes.

As I stated above, Trump has paid at least 30% in taxes before.

You'd be correct. But apparently Trump wasn't one of those people paying for 18 years. So, it begs the question, if our rich are paying most of our taxes, but Trump was doing so bad that he could pay taxes for, again, 18 years, it doesn't paint him as all that competent a businessman.

That is not quite accurate. He could take a $3000 deduction for up to 18 years. Not quite the same as not paying taxes for 18 years.

he could have made $48m a year for 18 years and not paid a cent in taxes due to the carried forward loss of that first year

limiting your tax liability makes you smart. I wonder if Hillary is claiming $20/pair for her panties she donates

I don't believe that is accurate, unless a 3k deduction would cut his taxes down to $0 on 48m a year.

All the Democrats who want to raise the tax rates are free to pay a higher rate. Uncle sam will gladly accept donations, but they never do. They always pay the minimum they are required to. They use their itemized deductions. So did Trump. Move on.

Yep.

And this is the fallacy behind "rich people create jobs". They don't. They use profits to buy back their own stock (artificially inflating the price), or provide dividends to stockholders. Stockholders put the money somewhere safe (overseas, paying no tax).

There is ZERO incentive to create more jobs.

Really? I've been employed directly by a Trump company, and worked for another that was able to keep myself and the rest of the factory employed at least in part to Trump. Along with being employed by some "rich people". Heck the one company I worked for stated with 10 people, 1 or 2 of which pretty much bankrolled the entire thing. The company is now the largest of it's kind in N America (not sure about overseas), and employees thousands of people. Yes the people that started it are "rich people" now. I can't remember how much the lowest payout was when the company went public, but it was well into the millions. Not including the value of the stock that they each kept.

The incentive to create more jobs is more profit. Otherwise why would they have businesses rather than just stick their money in banks or t-bills?

 

[jamil]

On the taxes thing, I think the fact that he lost the money is the most important tidbit. As we look at that from a pro/con perspective, it certainly adds to the "con" column. And that's all. It all goes into the cumulative analysis comparing Hillary to Trump, and clearly Trump would have been better off politically not having lost almost $1B.

On the issue of what he paid in taxes, he pays attorneys and accountants to figure out the best return, just like Hillary does. The only way there is any news at all on what Trump paid in taxes is if he took deductions and exemptions he couldn't legally take, or if his numbers on were dishonest. If he really lost $916M, then he gets to write it off. Hillary's tax people would surely have recommended she do that if it were her. They wouldn't have advised her not to write off the loss because it's "immoral" to pay no tax. Anyone who thinks this is the deal-breaker for trump would have to believe that. And of course, that would make such a person a moron.

 

[HoughMade]

From what I can discern, the main criticism is that Trump's people scrupulously followed the convoluted tax code that was the product of the politicians on both sides.

Screw him.

As for the fact he had a business loss....that happens. I don't know enough to have an opinion about that.

 

[david890]

Speaking of citations, your first is the compromised Politifact, while your second is Russia Today.
Thanks for playing, though.

Here ya go, Chuckles.

LINK

"The author of “Clinton Cash” falsely claimed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State had “veto power” and “could have stopped” Russia from buying a company with extensive uranium mining operations in the U.S. In fact, only the president has such power."

LINK

"This story is about the sale of a controlling stake in a Canadian company called Uranium One to Rosatom, the Russian atomic energy agency. Because Uranium One controlled uranium mines in the United States, the sale had to be approved by the Committee on Foreign Investment In the United States (CFIUS), part of the executive branch."

 

[david890]

The incentive to create more jobs is more profit. Otherwise why would they have businesses rather than just stick their money in banks or t-bills?

Look up "opportunity cost" on Google.

Apple has stashed it profits in Ireland SPECIFICALLY because they'll earn more on interest than creating jobs.

 

[david890]

Trump has paid at least 30% in taxes before.

I'm gonna need to see some sources for this info.

That is not quite accurate. He could take a $3000 deduction for up to 18 years. Not quite the same as not paying taxes for 18 years.

Others have noted that Trump could deduct the entire $916M over 18 years; 2 years prior to the loss, the year of the loss, and 15 years after. So, $916M/18 yrs. = $50.8M in income could be written off.

LINK

"But, as Kleinbard points out, the tax code allows the developer to write off that loss (called a net operating loss) for the year it took place, for the next 15 years and for two years before, for a total of 18 years. So in this case, Trump could have offset $50 million a year in taxable income for that long."[/QUOTE]

 

[phylodog]

Just as innocent as they come

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors."

"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

No...nothing to see here, nothing at all.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

[jamil]

I'm gonna need to see some sources for this info.



Others have noted that Trump could deduct the entire $916M over 18 years; 2 years prior to the loss, the year of the loss, and 15 years after. So, $916M/18 yrs. = $50.8M in income could be written off.

LINK

"But, as Kleinbard points out, the tax code allows the developer to write off that loss (called a net operating loss) for the year it took place, for the next 15 years and for two years before, for a total of 18 years. So in this case, Trump could have offset $50 million a year in taxable income for that long."

So? Why is that something worthy of considering in a presidential election? If the write off is legal and available why would anyone in their right mind not take it? Tell me you wouldn't. Tell me Clinton wouldn't.

Like I said earlier, the only noteworthy thing about this is that the competent, successful business man, lost ~$1B.

 

[hoosierdoc]

That's... Sexist? You're only posting that because she's a women. You know she only earned 80% of what a man would have on the bribes....

Just as innocent as they come

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors."

"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

No...nothing to see here, nothing at all.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

 

[OakRiver]

We sold the rights, not the actual uranium. The US is a net-importer of uranium, and, until very recently, the US was buying large amounts of plutonium from Russia for disposal.

Did you have your magnifying glass close by for that hair splitting?

Because one has released their taxes, one has not.

One deleted 30,000 emails, one has not. Yet you seem content to defend one and not the other

It should begin with the first, and several billionaires are on record as stating their heirs will have to make it on their own: Gates, Buffett, Perot, Omidyar, etc.

So because a few have chosen not to gift money to the families after death we should not allow anyone else to pass wealth from one generation to the next?

 

[OakRiver]

Just as innocent as they come

"As the Russians gradually assumed control of Uranium One in three separate transactions from 2009 to 2013, Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors."

"And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock."

No...nothing to see here, nothing at all.



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/u...s-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

That's unpossible! After all we cannot trust Trump because he has yet to disclose information that he is not compelled to do so, but Hillary should get a pass for the destruction of emails and not abiding by an agreement with the POTUS.

 

[Vigilant]

One deleted 30,000 emails, one has not. Yet you seem content to defend one and not the other?

One keeps the checks coming, one wants to revamp the system that keeps the checks coming!

 

[oldpink]

[...]
So because a few have chosen not to gift money to the families after death we should not allow anyone else to pass wealth from one generation to the next?

I would add that selling off his assets, just to satisfy the clods who think it's somehow virtuous to sell off businesses rather than pass them down, would inevitably lead to huge numbers of layoffs for the tens of thousands of employees working for said businesses...all in the name of satisfying liberals' reflexive, irrational belief in wealth confiscation.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

About 61% of the Federal budget is paid for with a flat tax, with a cap and only charged against wages.

From your graph above, that 61% was about 2.3T, while the flat tax you refer to only generated a hair over 1T and was 34% the revenue for last year. Doesn't seem to be quite paying for itself.

Place a flat tax on all personal income, lower the rate and perhaps eliminate the employer contribution.

I'm assuming when you say to place a flat tax on all personal income, you also want to remove the cap correct? Do you also want the cap on max payout removed?

I suspect that had he actually paid what he owed, he would have released his taxes months ago.

I suspect that if he hadn't actually paid what he owed, the IRS would have nailed him long ago with audits. Considering he has been audited every year for how long now? 20 years or so?

Look up "opportunity cost" on Google.

Apple has stashed it profits in Ireland SPECIFICALLY because they'll earn more on interest than creating jobs.

No need to look it up. I know what it is. Do you have a cite for that on apple? From my understanding they have it stashed not because it will earn more in interest than in creating jobs, but because of the possibility of the political landscape changing, and the uncertainty that brings. And doesn't that stashed money create more jobs, by allowing it to be loaned out to businesses? It's not like they have a big ol mattress sitting on the island with the money stashed under it. And why ignore the rest of my post that was directed at you?

I'm gonna need to see some sources for this info.


Others have noted that Trump could deduct the entire $916M over 18 years; 2 years prior to the loss, the year of the loss, and 15 years after. So, $916M/18 yrs. = $50.8M in income could be written off.

LINK

"But, as Kleinbard points out, the tax code allows the developer to write off that loss (called a net operating loss) for the year it took place, for the next 15 years and for two years before, for a total of 18 years. So in this case, Trump could have offset $50 million a year in taxable income for that long."

[/QUOTE]

https://www.scribd.com/doc/301761265/Report-on-Donald-Trump-to-Casino-Control-Commission

Except the type of loss listed in the article wouldn't go towards net operating losses. It would go toward capital gains losses from my understanding, I could be wrong on that though. But even if I am, so what? It is a well known common thing. 1.2 M filers used it in 2014 and a little more than half a million in 1995.

 

[Tombs]

So, did Trump do anything illegal? Or did he do what we ALL do, and look for the most creative ways to avoid handing over money to the government?

The IRS issued him a deduction.

Neither of those options really apply. No different than if you have a child and claim them as a dependent. If people don't like how deductions work, then maybe we should support a president who has made it a campaign promise to reform the tax code and abolish loop holes that are commonly exploited by special interests, as Trump has repeatedly stated.

 

[david890]

So because a few have chosen not to gift money to the families after death we should not allow anyone else to pass wealth from one generation to the next?

Didn't say that, did I?

We certainly shouldn't allow anyone to pass ALL of their wealth from one generation to the next.

 

[david890]

I suspect that if he hadn't actually paid what he owed, the IRS would have nailed him long ago with audits.

He paid what he owed, which was NOTHING. Because he was able to write off that $1B loss....

Except the type of loss listed in the article wouldn't go towards net operating losses. It would go toward capital gains losses from my understanding, I could be wrong on that though. But even if I am, so what? It is a well known common thing. 1.2 M filers used it in 2014 and a little more than half a million in 1995.

You're wrong. The loophole Trump used was specifically for real estate developers.