Breaking: Trump Tax Records Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

[Revoltingest]

I don't care about Trump paying no taxes except that it underlines the problems with our tax codes for the wealthy.

What specifically is the problem?

Clinton is pointing this out because Trump wants to further cut taxes on the wealthy.

She actually doesn't point out anything material.
She only alludes to vague problems with emotional appeal.

Taxation is complicated.
What I observe that is the harshest critics don't even understand the basics.
It makes'm ripe for manipulation.

 

[Underhill]

What specifically is the problem?

That a billionaire who manages to cook the books to make it look like he lost money can get away with paying no taxes.

She actually doesn't point out anything material.
She only alludes to vague problems with emotional appeal.

Sure, her tax policy could be better (not that it matters with the congress she will have to deal with) but at least she isn't talking about tax cuts for those who need them least of all.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you really believe this is what he meant?
It seems brilliantly clear to me that losing money is not the goal.
But if one does have a loss, then it's smart to use it to reduce tax liability.

I think that's the implication. The quotes I've seen from Christie and Giuliani speaking in Trump's defense have implied that it's smart to have losses that you can carry forward.

I can see two ways of taking this:

- it's smart to lose money at business.
- it's smart to make the government think you're losing money at business while you're actually making money.

I'll be charitable and assume that they aren't trying to imply that Trump defrauded the government.

 

[Revoltingest]

That a billionaire who manages to cook the books to make it look like he lost money can get away with paying no taxes.

That's just a general complaint with an unsupported accusation (cooking the books).
What is wrong with the tax code?

Sure, her tax policy could be better (not that it matters with the congress she will have to deal with) but at least she isn't talking about tax cuts for those who need them least of all.

No...her problem is talking about massive increases in giveaways & taxation.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think that's the implication. The quotes I've seen from Christie and Giuliani speaking in Trump's defense have implied that it's smart to have losses that you can carry forward.

I can see two ways of taking this:

- it's smart to lose money at business.
- it's smart to make the government think you're losing money at business while you're actually making money.

I'll be charitable and assume that they aren't trying to imply that Trump defrauded the government.

Can you explain how losing money is financially beneficial?

What's smart is not the losing of money, but when faced with it having happened,
it's smart to carry forward the loss, thereby reducing future tax liability.
This is apparently not obvious to people who aren't in business for themselves.
This thread reminds me of....

 

[Underhill]

That's just a general complaint with an unsupported accusation (cooking the books).

I'm not claiming he broke the law. But you know exactly what I am talking about. Anyone with enough money for a team of tax people has a strategy designed to maximize profits while minimizing the appearance of profitability for tax purposes.

What is wrong with the tax code?

Too complex, too many loopholes... you know the drill. And no, I am not in favor of a flat tax.

No...her problem is talking about massive increases in giveaways & taxation.

Yeah, none of which she will get. Meanwhile Trump is talking about 4 Trillion in tax cuts, which he will get if there isn't a major shift in congress (unlikely if he wins the presidency).

 

[tytlyf]

Tax breaks don't create jobs, they enhance profits.

Since the wealthiest in this country avoid paying taxes, the majority of that revenue is lost adding to our national debt more than anyone else. It also helps to cut defense spending.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm not claiming he broke the law. But you know exactly what I am talking about.

No, I don't.
An unsupported accusation of cooking the books with no detail whatsoever tells me nothing.

Anyone with enough money for a team of tax people has a strategy designed to maximize profits while minimizing the appearance of profitability for tax purposes.

This is normal.
Everyone does it, including the Clintons.
It will always be this way.
So it's empty criticism when leveled against one but not the other.

Too complex, too many loopholes... you know the drill. And no, I am not in favor of a flat tax.

Un-named "loopholes" tells me nothing.
And a "flat tax" doesn't even speak to the complexities, which do not lie in its being graduated.

Yeah, none of which she will get.

I don't share your confidence.

Meanwhile Trump is talking about 4 Trillion in tax cuts, which he will get if there isn't a major shift in congress (unlikely if he wins the presidency).

I also dislike Trump's tax strategy, but a difference is that he appears to be less inclined towards governmental growth.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can you explain how losing money is financially beneficial?

It's not. That's where the spin fails.

 

[Underhill]

No, I don't.
An unsupported accusation of cooking the books with no detail whatsoever tells me nothing.

This is normal.
Everyone does it, including the Clintons.
It will always be this way.
So it's empty criticism when leveled against one but not the other.

It's not a criticism of his behavior so much as his policies. He is saying we need to cut taxes while his own numbers demonstrate why the wealthy don't need more breaks.

Un-named "loopholes" tells me nothing.
And a "flat tax" doesn't even speak to the complexities, which do not lie in its being graduated.

Well I am not going into the tax code line by line or I would still be typing well into the next election and beyond.

I don't share your confidence.

You think congress is just going to roll over and decide, 'ahh we've been too rough on democrats...'? Of course they won't.

I also dislike Trump's tax strategy, but a difference is that he appears to be less inclined towards governmental growth.

Yes, except I know that the reality in Washington is that tax cuts usually go through no problem while spending increases, almost completely independent of claims to the contrary, always happen. If I am wrong feel free to point to one fiscally conservative president where spending has actually decreased. The only one in my lifetime was Bill Clinton and that had more to do with congress than what the president wanted.

That congress was also voted out not long after that.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not. That's where the spin fails.

So we agree that there's no benefit in losing money.
This is pretty obvious to anyone who's ever run a business,
& even so to many who haven't.
So the proffered presumptions that Trump, Christie, etc are
saying that it's "smart" to lose money is utterly specious.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's not a criticism of his behavior so much as his policies. He is saying we need to cut taxes while his own numbers demonstrate why the wealthy don't need more breaks.

I don't see where "needing breaks" is the issue.
I see it as our all needing a lower tax burden, & changing the code to provide better incentives.
Trump appears to agree with the former, but is wrong on the latter.
Hillary is wrong on all counts.

Well I am not going into the tax code line by line or I would still be typing well into the next election and beyond.

Certainly, I don't ask for every item in the tax code to be addressed.
But something more than vague allusions would help.

Here's a specific change I've recommended before.....
Borrowers who are under water, & renegotiate the loan for lower principal should
be able to treat this as a reduction in basis, rather than as ordinary income.
Lenders require that the tax liability be financed, which is rare & difficult in such
circumstances. Basis reduction would postpone tax liability, thereby allowing them
to refinance instead of going into foreclosure &/or bankruptcy.
Sure, sure, this will benefit some millionaires. But it's good for economic recovery.

Here's another (although not tax related).....
Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac (government corporations) should allow troubled borrowers
to renegotiate loans. As things stand under Obama, they're cut no slack whatsoever.
Only the big fish get bailouts. This is not just wrong....it's corrupt.

You think congress is just going to roll over and decide, 'ahh we've been too rough on democrats...'? Of course they won't.

I don't understand this.
But when a president is in favor of bigger government, war & higher taxes, the
probability of these things occurring is greater than when a prez opposes them
As for Congress.....they'll be who they are.

Yes, except I know that the reality in Washington is that tax cuts usually go through no problem while spending increases, almost completely independent of claims to the contrary, always happen. If I am wrong feel free to point to one fiscally conservative president where spending has actually decreased. The only one in my lifetime was Bill Clinton and that had more to do with congress than what the president wanted.
That congress was also voted out not long after that.

I don't recall ever having a fiscally conservative president.
They all make claims when running, but when in office....things change.
But then, we've never tried one who isn't in the Big Two.

 

[Underhill]

I don't see where "needing breaks" is the issue.
I see it as our all needing a lower tax burden, & changing the code to provide better incentives.
Trump appears to agree with the former, but is wrong on the latter.
Hillary is wrong on all counts.

I would rather a president be realistic about tax policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/03/business/economy/03view.html?_r=0

Certainly, I don't ask for every item in the tax code to be addressed.
But something more than vague allusions would help.

I assume you know enough about the tax code to agree with me in principle if not in the details. Virtually everyone aside from tax lawyers agree that the current system is insane.

I don't understand this.
But when a president is in favor of bigger government, war & higher taxes, the
probability of these things occurring is greater than when a prez opposes them

Trump is the one calling for more troops to be sent in to fight ISIS. He is also complaining about our 'weak national defense'. Both mean additional spending and probably some pretty large numbers.

Clinton may be calling for more spending domestically, but at least she wants to pay for it. Trump makes bogus claims about cutting spending while talking about massive new projects that cost money. Infrastructure projects, a wall, increased military spending and sending troops in to fight ISIS.

As for Congress.....they'll be who they are.

Ignoring congress is a mistake. A republican congress with Trump would spell disaster. A republican congress (even if it were only the house) with Clinton means her worst ideas will never happen.

I don't recall ever having a fiscally conservative president.
They all make claims when running, but when in office....things change.
But then, we've never tried one who isn't in the Big Two.

Yes, because Trump strikes all of us as one who will stand by what he says (at least until his next speech).

 

[Revoltingest]

I would rather a president be realistic about tax policies.

Wouldn't we all....
But one person's "realistic" can be very different from another's.

I assume you know enough about the tax code to agree with me in principle if not in the details. Virtually everyone aside from tax lawyers agree that the current system is insane.

CPAs, even those who benefit from the system, say it's nuts.
But it's designed by politicians who maintain power by having it function & appear as it does.
Hillary saw fit to change nothing when serving in Congress.
I expect her to continue this approach.

Trump is the one calling for more troops to be sent in to fight ISIS. He is also complaining about our 'weak national defense'. Both mean additional spending and probably some pretty large numbers.

I see Trump as risky regarding more war.
But Hillary is even worse because of her record.

Clinton may be calling for more spending domestically, but at least she wants to pay for it. Trump makes bogus claims about cutting spending while talking about massive new projects that cost money. Infrastructure projects, a wall, increased military spending and sending troops in to fight ISIS.
Ignoring congress is a mistake. A republican congress with Trump would spell disaster. A republican congress (even if it were only the house) with Clinton means her worst ideas will never happen.
Yes, because Trump strikes all of us as one who will stand by what he says (at least until his next speech).

I don't ignore Congress.
I just don't put trust in them that they'd convert Hillary from a bad candidate into a good president.

 

[metis]

A reminder that "tax breaks" are really "tax shifts", so if I didn't pay any taxes then some others had to pick up the difference. Either that, or programs would have to be cut.

 

[fantome profane]

So we agree that there's no benefit in losing money.
This is pretty obvious to anyone who's ever run a business,
& even so to many who haven't.
So the proffered presumptions that Trump, Christie, etc are
saying that it's "smart" to lose money is utterly specious.

Your argument here is that since something makes absolutely no sense, a politician can't possibly have said it.

 

[Underhill]

Wouldn't we all....
But one person's "realistic" can be very different from another's.

CPAs, even those who benefit from the system, say it's nuts.
But it's designed by politicians who maintain power by having it function & appear as it does.
Hillary saw fit to change nothing when serving in Congress.
I expect her to continue this approach.

I expect they both will. But Trump will simply lower taxes and put us even farther in the hole.

I see Trump as risky regarding more war.
But Hillary is even worse because of her record.

Not to beat a dead horse but this strikes me as a bit loony. I have never seen a candidate with as many foreign policy bad ideas as Trump. He is on track to **** off China, Mexico and India, not to mention send more troops into the middle east conflict and you see that as less risky because Hillary would continue the status quo. *boggle

I don't ignore Congress.
I just don't put trust in them that they'd convert Hillary from a bad candidate into a good president.

Why not? They did with her husband.

But good president may be a stretch. At this point I would be happy if she were mediocre when considering the alternative.

 

[Acim]

Couldn't it be possible that it is a problem with both? The tax code for allowing it, and Trump for taking advantage of such a situation?

Yes to the first question. The second one is loaded question. My understanding is if one tries to take advantage of reporting data on tax forms, that could be illegal. If not illegal, then it really is likely no different than what anyone else does when filing their returns. Honestly, for a billionaire to claim only $6,000 in wages for the years strikes me as a problem, but also is probably more the case that I don't exactly understand how really rich people get their income, and I would be surprised if Trump is only one where something like very little wages are reported while monumental loss is reported.

 

[Acim]

That is why he lies and says "I can't release my returns because I am being audited", when the truth is closer to "I can't release my returns because then people will know what I am lying about ".
Tom

Just to check your bias, do you think the same rationale holds true for Hillary's emails? "I can't release the 33,000 missing emails because then people will know what I'm lying about."

 

[Neo Deist]

Trump Tax Records Obtained by The [New York]Times Reveal He Could Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades



The full article is quite illuminating, and is well worth the read for any open-minded person. But please don't read the full article if you're a Trump supporter: Ignorance of your candidate is the strongest reason for voting for him.

Comments?

In other words, he lost a ton of money in business investments and the law allows him to recoup some of that loss by offsetting taxes. Ok...and?

Nothing to see here.