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

[Acim]

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.

Please let's cut programs. Pretty please. As an offer of good faith on this request, I'll suggest we start with Defense items. I'm very okay with that. But let's not stop there. Yes, this will have repercussions, but in this type of discussion of 'is it smart to not pay taxes?' - I think it is equally prudent to ask, 'is it smart to continue feeding what everyone acknowledges is a system containing lots of waste and fraud?'

IMO, it is smart to not pay taxes, given how corrupt the system is. I also think everyone reading this, if they could legally get away with not paying taxes, they would. And if it were done legal, I think everyone would think themselves wise in doing so.

 

[fantome profane]

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."

Do you understand the meaning of the word "missing"? Do you know what "deleted" means? Republicans are right to criticise Hillary for deleting and destroying these emails. But they are gone. Yes I know some of them could be reconstructed, maybe it is possible to track down the recipient of some of these emails and some of them might be there, maybe. But it is not a simple case of Hillary "releasing them", she does not have them.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Everyone uses tax deductions. The amount one can deduct is arbitrary. If one can, then one should.

'Everyone else is doing it' is primary/elementary school-level logic. If one should pay the full amount of tax on the money they make, one can and should be made to if they won't. This is especially true of businesses who use up a nation's resources (both naturally-occurring and artificial ones like man-power and labour hours) and refuse to pay the nation back for being allowed to do so. If your average person tries to take something without paying for it it's called 'theft'. Why not the same for the richest or for corporate entities?

This is just a double standard.

It's the opposite. It's levelling the playing field and applying the same laws to the wealthy that apply to everyone else. If the average American tried to avoid tax the IRS would come down on them like a sack of hammers but the wealthy have a greater ability to take advantage of loopholes, grants etc (and lobby to have those grants created for them in the first place!) so that their tax burden is reduced. I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, I'm arguing the ethics.

BTW, I vote consistently on taxes that affect the rich because I do believe that the rich should pay more. I try to fix this by legally changing the processes instead of forcing and shaming individuals for "they should do this or should do that."

I was originally going to dispute your use of the word 'shaming' here but upon further reflection it's actually a good term but for reasons you probably don't like. If pointing out the problems with Trump & his policy positions is 'shaming' then America should 'shame' away. It should be pointed out as much as possible that Trump's policy positions (especially on tax and making contributions to society) are self-serving, facile and when viewed in light of his comments about Mexicans and other groups of 'the undeserving poor', rely on nothing but a hypocritical desire to punch downwards. Anybody with a conscience would deservingly feel shame at being such a hypocrite.

Further, why should the tax liabilities & obligations of a man who wants to run the world's largest economy - who has openly admitted that his not paying taxes is a smart thing to do - not be scrutinised or his claims called into question? Why shouldn't the record of a man who intends to give yet more corporate welfare to the wealthiest while moaning about how illegal immigrants leech off the state and don't pay taxes not be criticised and shown for what it is?

 

[suncowiam]

'Everyone else is doing it' is primary/elementary school-level logic. If one should pay the full amount of tax on the money they make, one can and should be made to if they won't. This is especially true of businesses who use up a nation's resources (both naturally-occurring and artificial ones like man-power and labour hours) and refuse to pay the nation back for being allowed to do so. If your average person tries to take something without paying for it it's called 'theft'. Why not the same for the richest or for corporate entities?




It's the opposite. It's levelling the playing field and applying the same laws to the wealthy that apply to everyone else. If the average American tried to avoid tax the IRS would come down on them like a sack of hammers but the wealthy have a greater ability to take advantage of loopholes, grants etc (and lobby to have those grants created for them in the first place!) so that their tax burden is reduced. I'm not arguing whether its legal or not, I'm arguing the ethics.




I was originally going to dispute your use of the word 'shaming' here but upon further reflection it's actually a good term but for reasons you probably don't like. If pointing out the problems with Trump & his policy positions is 'shaming' then America should 'shame' away. It should be pointed out as much as possible that Trump's policy positions (especially on tax and making contributions to society) are self-serving, facile and when viewed in light of his comments about Mexicans and other groups of 'the undeserving poor', rely on nothing but a hypocritical desire to punch downwards. Anybody with a conscience would deservingly feel shame at being such a hypocrite.

Further, why should the tax liabilities & obligations of a man who wants to run the world's largest economy - who has openly admitted that his not paying taxes is a smart thing to do - not be scrutinised or his claims called into question? Why shouldn't the record of a man who intends to give yet more corporate welfare to the wealthiest while moaning about how illegal immigrants leech off the state and don't pay taxes not be criticised and shown for what it is?

Well, I'm not voting for him not because of his legal and smart tax decisions.

 

[Acim]

Do you understand the meaning of the word "missing"? Do you know what "deleted" means? Republicans are right to criticise Hillary for deleting and destroying these emails. But they are gone. Yes I know some of them could be reconstructed, maybe it is possible to track down the recipient of some of these emails and some of them might be there, maybe. But it is not a simple case of Hillary "releasing them", she does not have them.

You're right, she destroyed the evidence, whereas if Trump did the same, that would be a crime. Or one would think it might be. Not sure anymore what makes for crime with all this stuff.

 

[columbus]

Further, why should the tax liabilities & obligations of a man who wants to run the world's largest economy - who has openly admitted that his not paying taxes is a smart thing to do - not be scrutinised or his claims called into question?

This!
Why does Trump get a free ride from both the IRS and the media?
He claims to be a great business man, but doesn't make enough money to pay federal income tax. And that is supposed to make him qualified to run the country.
Tom

 

[Acim]

If only Trump had been a community organizer, then surely he'd be qualified to run the country.

 

[metis]

Trump has continually bragged about how successful a businessman he is, plus he also bragged about how much charity he gives even though it's been established that he has lied about that as well. USA Today, which has never taken a position one way or the other when it comes to endorsing candidates in the past, refers to Trump as a "serial liar", which even many members of his party have also referred to him by using this terminology or words close to it.

So, it begs the question why anyone would vote for someone who's a "pathological liar", to use Lindsey Graham's name for him? "Politifact" has shown that he has lied more than any other candidate for president over the last two presidential election cycles, whereas Hillary is actually near the opposite end. Now, if someone comes back and uses another false equivalency, which I'm pretty certain someone may try, then let me just say in advance that this is also a form of lie.

 

[tytlyf]

If only Trump had been a community organizer, then surely he'd be qualified to run the country.

A community organizer, lawyer, constitutional law scholar, senator, etc. Maybe.

 

[columbus]

If only Trump had been a community organizer, then surely he'd be qualified to run the country.

If Trump had ever done anything but chase money, fame, and hot docile women maybe he would be.
But he hasn't.
Tom

 

[metis]

A community organizer, lawyer, constitutional law scholar, senator, etc. Maybe.

What's bizarre is that so may on the right have made fun of Obama formerly being a community organizer as if that somehow is something negative. He passes up on what could have brought him quite a bit of wealth, instead actually trying to help people in need. I guess if one's mindset is wealth and power are the most important things in life, then I guess Obama wouldn't make any sense to them.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Well, I'm not voting for him not because of his legal and smart tax decisions.

Just to be clear, neither 'legal' nor 'smart' in this situation means 'ethical' or 'right'.

 

[columbus]

Just to be clear, neither 'legal' nor 'smart' in this situation means 'ethical' or 'right'.

This!
Trump is good at lying. People actually believe that he is good at business.
Because he won't pay any taxes, he is too smart.
And they think that qualifies him to reform the tax code. Apparently his supporters think that if everyone were as smart as he is, the USA would be a better place. Nobody would pay taxes, we'd borrow the whole budget from the grandkids!
That would be such a yuuuge improvement to the losers running this country. Why didn't they think of that?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

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

Trickery!
No, my argument is that Trump would be well aware that losing money is a bad business model.
But to mitigate the loss with a tax reduction is smart.
I'm still surprised that this is such a foreign concept to so many.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

I don't expect him to lower taxes.
I just think that he'd raise them with less vim & vigor than would Hillary.

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'll explain it so that it seems less loony......
Trump advocates a more selfish foreign policy, ie, based upon what's in it for us.
This is consistent with his behavior.
Hillary has an actual political record of favoring the starting (Iraq) & continuing of wars.
And she's advocated more, & even threatened to obliterate Iran.
Trump foams at the mouth, but Hilda has him beat on this one.

Why not? They did with her husband.

This is does not convince me that I should put my trust in Congress.
After all, they approved starting & continuing the wars.

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

No argument on that.

 

[Acim]

had ever done anything but chase money, fame, and hot docile women maybe he would be.

Enough about Bill Clinton, tell us what you thin.....
Oh wait, you said hot women.

 

[columbus]

Enough about Bill Clinton, tell us what you thin.....
Oh wait, you said hot women.

Yeah.
I was talking about Trump.
Sorry that you are too dense to see that.
Tom

 

[suncowiam]

Just to be clear, neither 'legal' nor 'smart' in this situation means 'ethical' or 'right'.

Yeah, but it's clear that its not illegal or dumb.

As opposed to your ethical version of right and wrong, which is not clear to everyone. It's subjective. That's the issue with this tax argument, is that you can only gain an audience with similar values of your own to reach the same conclusion.

Again, I don't like Trump and won't vote for him, but this argument is just enforcing the same values shared by the same people. Do we think the folks on the border will then jump away from Trump because of this?

IMO, it's a weak argument against Trump. If you and I can utilize deductions available to us, I don't understand why Trump or anyone else can't do it either. Like I said, it's a double standard. I'm not going to "shame" him because of something I would have done myself with my own finances.

 

[Acim]

Yeah.
I was talking about Trump.
Sorry that you are too dense to see that.
Tom

Apology accepted.

 

[Penumbra]

He's never democrat because he's in the top 1%

There are plenty of 1%'ers who like the democrats. I see your point though.

Currently a slight majority of people in households making over $100k support Clinton. A slight minority support Trump.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...nton-has-4-point-lead-over-trump-in-wealthier

And billionaires are giving a lot more money to Clinton right now than to Trump, by a big margin:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-led-by-soros-simons-favor-clinton-over-trump