Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 03 Oct 2016, 11:31 pm

Trump's tax return came out for 1995. In it, he claimed a 915 million loss. He could carry that loss over the next 18 years in order to avoid paying federal taxes (We don't have those records but if he made 50 million a year over that time then he would avoid paying taxes over 18 years). It is not apparent what financial shenanigans Trump and his tax advisors came up with to justify this loss. Trump also almost went bankrupt in the early 1990s when he owed almost 4 billion dollars and was able to work out a deal with the banks. His Trump casino lost money.

So his biggest calling card--that he is a good businessman-- is questionable. Possibly not paying taxes for 18 years. Either he was a poor businessman and lost a billion dollars or he used questionable tax strategy to avoid paying taxes. In the real estate field he has prospered when the real estate market is good and got bailed out in a downturn. It's not hard to be successful when you lose and there are banks there to bail you out. Obviously, that would not happen as president.

Mitt Romney took advantage of the tax system--paying 15% percent in taxes when given his wealth he should pay more. But it looks fairly likely that Trump did not pay almost a billion dollars in taxes due to a loss that appear to be a financial creation and not real (whether it was a justifiable tax write-off I don't know but it seems fairly clear that Trump did not really lose anywhere close to a billion dollars of his own money). I don't know someone could be president when they refuse to contribute to society through paying taxes.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/ny ... -city.html
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc. ... ent=safari

As for Trump being an agent of change, a story just came out that in two recent construction projects he used Chinese steel. If he cared so much about Americans losing jobs overseas to China one would think he would have used US steel. He benefited from using illegal workers when he built Trump Tower. His policy positions are not supported by what he has done personally so why would anyone think that he cares whether those policies are carried out?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc. ... ent=safari
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek ... ent=safari

Honestly, this is starting to look some science fiction story written in the 1970s about the decline of America's political system in the 21st Century.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 12:51 pm

It's not hard to be successful when you lose and there are banks there to bail you out. Obviously, that would not happen as president.


Typically it's the other way round. Who knows, maybe President Trump will finally get to repay the favour when the next financial crisis hits...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Oct 2016, 1:08 pm

I am fine with losses not being used for tax write-offs for everyone. Are you Freeman? Sass?

Or is this just a bash Trump line of thinking...

Also, you said that someone cannot be President because of not contributing to taxes. Do you really think that little of the poor?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 1:20 pm

I don't really know enough about the details of the Trump taxes thing, but I suspect the question is whether he really lost almost a billion dollars in a single year or if instead he used some highly creative accounting as a way of avoiding making his contribution to society. Either way, it's not a good look. Neither is it terribly surprising. I think we all knew that a close examination of Trump's finances was likely to turn up some embarrassing details. I daresay a close examination of Hillary's finances would also prove to be awkward for her, but there's no need to get into whataboutery.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 1:45 pm

bbauska wrote:I am fine with losses not being used for tax write-offs for everyone.


That would be a complete disaster. Can you imagine what would happen to investing if you were taxed on the gains but couldn't deduct the losses? Who would invest?

Trump had losses carried forward that canceled out his earnings, so no taxes, that is not really notable by itself. What is important is 1) he's not much of a business man, apparently, 'cause he lost nearly $1,000,000,000 in one year, and 2) You, me and everyone else here have probably made more money than Trump over the past 20 years. Losses don't offset your taxes, they offset your income so you pay less taxes. That's damaging when your main credential is your business acumen.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 2:04 pm

I daresay a close examination of Hillary's finances would also prove to be awkward for her, but there's no need to get into whataboutery.


She's released her tax returns.
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/

And she was investigated for three years about White Water, Cattle futiures trading, etc.
Even Ken Starr exonerated her....

She ain't perfect, but the rap she gets is pretty over rated.
Michael Tomsky says
But she’s been lied about more than anyone in American public life in the last 25 years, even more now than her husband. That is a fact, and it’s a fact worth remembering as we head into the final month.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... llary.html
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 3:11 pm

freeman3 wrote:Trump's tax return came out for 1995. In it, he claimed a 915 million loss. He could carry that loss over the next 18 years in order to avoid paying federal taxes (We don't have those records but if he made 50 million a year over that time then he would avoid paying taxes over 18 years). It is not apparent what financial shenanigans Trump and his tax advisors came up with to justify this loss. Trump also almost went bankrupt in the early 1990s when he owed almost 4 billion dollars and was able to work out a deal with the banks. His Trump casino lost money.

So his biggest calling card--that he is a good businessman-- is questionable. Possibly not paying taxes for 18 years. Either he was a poor businessman and lost a billion dollars or he used questionable tax strategy to avoid paying taxes. In the real estate field he has prospered when the real estate market is good and got bailed out in a downturn. It's not hard to be successful when you lose and there are banks there to bail you out. Obviously, that would not happen as president.

Mitt Romney took advantage of the tax system--paying 15% percent in taxes when given his wealth he should pay more. But it looks fairly likely that Trump did not pay almost a billion dollars in taxes due to a loss that appear to be a financial creation and not real (whether it was a justifiable tax write-off I don't know but it seems fairly clear that Trump did not really lose anywhere close to a billion dollars of his own money). I don't know someone could be president when they refuse to contribute to society through paying taxes.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/ny ... -city.html
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc. ... ent=safari

As for Trump being an agent of change, a story just came out that in two recent construction projects he used Chinese steel. If he cared so much about Americans losing jobs overseas to China one would think he would have used US steel. He benefited from using illegal workers when he built Trump Tower. His policy positions are not supported by what he has done personally so why would anyone think that he cares whether those policies are carried out?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc. ... ent=safari
https://www.google.com/amp/www.newsweek ... ent=safari

Honestly, this is starting to look some science fiction story written in the 1970s about the decline of America's political system in the 21st Century.


Freeman,
the basic problem about the tax deal is that taking advantage of tax deductions and credits is not illegal; nor is it unethical. Virtually everybody in the country does it; even the poor, and for what we consider good reasons (e.g. filling up an IRA). The fact that Trump reported some kind of huge tax loss (some $900 million+?) might seem like hubris or taking unfair advantage, but if the loss is valid and the tax deductions are legal, where is your argument? Are you going to argue that any tax break is unethical, or just the ones you politically disagree with? If he gets to depreciate his liability across several years, well that is his privilege and no more of a privilege than anybody else qualified to do it.

If you don't like seeing rich people (just rich people, I presume) getting huge tax breaks, how come liberals are not yelling at Clinton, since she WAS a senator and made no attempt to write bills to get the tax code revised while she was in office (as far as I've been able to determine). If you have complaints about what Trump has done, direct your ire against the people responsible: The US Congress. They may raise or adjust rates, but do they revise deductions and breaks? Give ME a break.

On the other hand, if you want to use this to suggest that Trump is a bad businessman, then go for it. I suppose it could be seen as an example of a bad business deal, or maybe a once-good business that went bad. I have no idea. That's a different kettle of fish. But there's plenty enough to be concerned about regarding Trump, without trolling for blowfish.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2016, 4:40 pm

My argument is this,George: either (1) Trump was an incredibly incompetent businessman to lose a billion dollars in one year, or (2) he committed massive tax fraud. Here's a hint: when a bank loses money that they lent to you and have to write it off because your properties declined you don't get to claim that you lost money (when a bank writes off a loan it's income to you).There is no way in any universe that Trump had a billion dollars to lose; he might have lost a billion dollars of bank money (and probably did) but how he claimed it was a loss to him no one has been able to even provide any kind of plausible explanation. If I own a house and I bought it for $500K and sold it for $300K, and the bank loan was 500 K and I put up no money in buying the house do I get to claim I lost 200K? It's fraud on an epic scale. These minor things that get Hillary called a crook and Trump cheated the the IRS out of paying hundreds of millions of dollars. He's a far bigger crook than Nixon.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 04 Oct 2016, 4:49 pm

geojanes wrote:
bbauska wrote:I am fine with losses not being used for tax write-offs for everyone.


That would be a complete disaster. Can you imagine what would happen to investing if you were taxed on the gains but couldn't deduct the losses? Who would invest?

Trump had losses carried forward that canceled out his earnings, so no taxes, that is not really notable by itself. What is important is 1) he's not much of a business man, apparently, 'cause he lost nearly $1,000,000,000 in one year, and 2) You, me and everyone else here have probably made more money than Trump over the past 20 years. Losses don't offset your taxes, they offset your income so you pay less taxes. That's damaging when your main credential is your business acumen.


I agree it would be a disaster. We need that provision. My point is that the complaining about Trump using the laws that are on the books, is silly. Yes, he lost money. If you are begrudging him that, then you need to begrudge ALL people doing that.

The line of attack just seems partisan unless you want all people to have the same restrictions.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 5:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:My argument is this,George: either (1) Trump was an incredibly incompetent businessman to lose a billion dollars in one year, or (2) he committed massive tax fraud. Here's a hint: when a bank loses money that they lent to you and have to write it off because your properties declined you don't get to claim that you lost money (when a bank writes off a loan it's income to you).There is no way in any universe that Trump had a billion dollars to lose; he might have lost a billion dollars of bank money (and probably did) but how he claimed it was a loss to him no one has been able to even provide any kind of plausible explanation. If I own a house and I bought it for $500K and sold it for $300K, and the bank loan was 500 K and I put up no money in buying the house do I get to claim I lost 200K? It's fraud on an epic scale. These minor things that get Hillary called a crook and Trump cheated the the IRS out of paying hundreds of millions of dollars. He's a far bigger crook than Nixon.


I will disagree. I don't particularly care for The Donald, and I wouldn't vote for him as Mayor, much less President. However, this "loss" is a red herring and much ado about little. Incredibly incompetent businessmen? Well, people make bad decisions all the time (e.g. the .Com Bubble, the Housing Bubble) and lose. Sometimes they are in the right place at the wrong time.

Had Trump tried to claim this much write-off when it wasn't legal, he would have been brought up on charges a long time ago. And when did this occur, anyway... back in 1998! To claim now that this must be illegal or even unethical is ridiculous and purely political, as was the possibly unlawful publication of Trump's tax forms by the NY Times. I'm pretty sure Trump didn't release them.

It seems that you have no basis for claiming fraud, since the only thing that seems to be significant is the size of the loss. Size is relative to net worth. Now, if you or I tried to pass this amount off as a legitimate business loss, we'd be in leg irons that same afternoon. But we don't play with the kind of funds Trump does. And what he did was legal. In fact, many people and companies---especially the rich---use this tax option; apparently, including Hillary Clinton and the NY Times: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/16/bhp-billiton-reports-annual-loss-of-6385-billion-versus-profit-of-191-billion-a-year-ago.html

So the argument comes down to a proletariat's gawking "amazement" that people actually have money like that to work with. Like the Clintons, they all live in a different reality than we do, and don't really give one whit what we think, except when it comes to your vote.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2016, 5:33 pm

Either Trump was a tax cheat or the whole system is corrupt. I am going with he is a tax cheat and a crook and it's not the tax code that allows legalized theft.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 04 Oct 2016, 7:43 pm

freeman3 wrote:Either Trump was a tax cheat or the whole system is corrupt. I am going with he is a tax cheat and a crook and it's not the tax code that allows legalized theft.


Oh, but the tax code does allow it, Freeman, depending upon what your notion of "theft" is. The tax code is written by Senators who were/are mostly attorneys, to benefit themselves and their wealthy contributors, while making sure the bulk of American society pays its fair share. And more.

Why do you think the "One Percenters" seem to get to keep so much of their money? They have tax breaks, shelters, and other planning devices that mere mortals like you and me have no access to. All quite legal, though skirting on the edge of what we would consider fair or ethical. So let's just say that our tax system is unfair, for a start.

All this talk about increasing the tax rate for the wealthiest is a red herring. Income tax is based on income, whereas for many super rich people, the derive a lot of their money from investments and other sources that would not be properly called "income". Capital gains comes to mind. So raising the income tax rate sounds good, but will not make a big difference. But it plays wells.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 04 Oct 2016, 8:03 pm

It's like those US Corporations who claim they are headquartered in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes and pay no taxes.I understand good tax planning but this is the IRS being chicken about going after people who are not taking legitimate deductions because they don't want to get into a huge fight with a bunch of lawyers. But Trump took it to ridiculous extremes and got away with it. I guess he thinks that makes him smart; I think he's just a con man in an expensive suit. Mitt Romney took advantage of the tax system legally more or less. I never thought he did anything criminal and never said so at the time. But this is something different. I understand that if you're wealthy you're not trying if you pay more than 15% in taxes. But $0 for almost 20 years based on a fictitious loss? It's just not defensible nor comparable to other rich folk (except for the US corporations who pay no taxes based on a mailbox in the Cayman Islands).
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 8:45 am

george
To claim now that this must be illegal or even unethical is ridiculous and purely political, as was the possibly unlawful publication of Trump's tax forms by the NY Times

There is no way the publication of Trumps tax forms was an illegal act by the NYTimes. It may have been illegal for whoever gave them to the Times to do so, unless it was Marla Maples....,

george
So let's just say that our tax system is unfair, for a start
.
Trump actually makes this clam. But his taxation proposals do not address anything that would change the rules he took advantage of...
Clinton does have some that make changes... For instance her policies on Captial Gains tax that are much higher for short term transactions than for gains earned over longer periods.

If the tax form release makes people look harder at how he actually conducted his business, or consider the hypocricy in his rhetoric versus his proposed policies - then it serves a political purpose. Which is what it needs to do in an election.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 1087
Joined: 13 Feb 2000, 11:18 am

Post 05 Oct 2016, 8:57 am

freeman3 wrote:It's like those US Corporations who claim they are headquartered in the Cayman Islands for tax purposes and pay no taxes.I understand good tax planning but this is the IRS being chicken about going after people who are not taking legitimate deductions because they don't want to get into a huge fight with a bunch of lawyers. But Trump took it to ridiculous extremes and got away with it. I guess he thinks that makes him smart; I think he's just a con man in an expensive suit. Mitt Romney took advantage of the tax system legally more or less. I never thought he did anything criminal and never said so at the time. But this is something different. I understand that if you're wealthy you're not trying if you pay more than 15% in taxes. But $0 for almost 20 years based on a fictitious loss? It's just not defensible nor comparable to other rich folk (except for the US corporations who pay no taxes based on a mailbox in the Cayman Islands).


No offense, but I think you are being naive. The IRS is not afraid to go after anybody, unless there are political reasons involved, perhaps. If Trump gets audited every year as he claims, then you can hardly claim the IRS doesn't want to get involved. Apparently, you missed the nearly $700K Hillary wrote off in own taxes last year. Nowhere near as large, I admit, but all the same, she took it. As for fictitious, that is an error in fact, since there has been no proof otherwise. As for not comperable, how would you know? Did you look at George Soros's taxes for the past 20 years? Or Buffet's? Or any other mega-rich person? And how about the fact that, according to the source I noted above, the New York Times "got a tax refund of $3.6 million despite having a $29.9 million pretax profit, an effective negative tax rate for 2014...."

Belief is neither fact nor proof. You're free to believe what you like, but if you believe in fiction, you have only yourself to blame for the results. There is plenty enough to dislike about either Trump or Clinton, without wasting time on "trumped up" scandals and pretended offenses.