I Don't Care if Trump followed the Law and Didn't Pay Taxes.

[Flopper]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

Let's not pretend you'd care if Trump didn't follow the law and didn't pay taxes

Like you don't care that Hillary and obuthole don't follow the law?

At least the Clintons do pay taxes, every year for the last 15 years. We know this because, unlike Trump we have her tax returns since 2000.

 

[Vigilante]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.

Apparently you didn't understand the article too!

I sure wouldn't want to be you when Clinton wins.

LOLOL...When Cunton Wins....

 

[Frank'sRules]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.

Apparently you didn't understand the article too!

I sure wouldn't want to be you when Clinton wins.

LOLOL...When Cunton Wins....

All you have to remember is yes, Madam President.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you think trump losing 900 million is a big deal

buffett lost 2 billion in one day

--LOL

 

[oreo]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

Mitt Romney got ripped to shreds in 2012. Romney is worth about 550 million and in that tax year paid 500K in Federal taxes, and he was ripped to shreds because his tax liability was based on the lower investment income tax rate.

And it was Mitt Romney who stated that Trump wasn't releasing his tax returns because there was a bombshell in them. He was right.
Mitt Romney: Trump Is Hiding a ‘Bombshell’ in His Tax Returns

Trump who claims to have a net worth of 10 BILLION dollars and brags about his wealth and hasn't paid a penny in Federal Taxes in 20 years, because he has this 20 year old 916 million loss, is either a horrible business man or is not near as wealthy as he claims to be. Anyone that wealthy and with that much capital should have easily wiped out that 916 million loss within a year not 20 years with revenue and income to offset it.

Here he is bragging about his wealth again.




You can be assured that the American public is not going to understand or accept it.

 

[Vigilante]

Flashback: NY Times Crowns Trump The Comeback Kid
nytimes.com ^ | October 25, 1995 | BRETT PULLEY


Though there are still four years to go in the 90's, business and government leaders in New York honored Donald J. Trump yesterday for pulling off what they called "the comeback of the decade."

Mr. Trump, the developer who came to epitomize opulent wealth during the 80's before tumbling into deep financial trouble, has managed to erase much of his debt and is moving ahead with major projects at a time other developers are idling.

Judging from the attention showered on him yesterday at the Union League Club, some of New York's civic and business leaders are quite captivated by Mr. Trump, despite the financial uncertainties that still surround some of his properties.

But the operative word at the luncheon was comeback, though Mr. Trump might dispute that he ever went far away. William D. Fugazy, the limousine magnate and chairman of the Forum Club, the group of business and civic leaders that sponsored the luncheon, presented Mr. Trump with a boomerang encased in glass. "You throw it and it always comes back," he said as he handed it over.

In a flattering speech, Lieut. Gov. Betsy McCaughey called Mr. Trump "the comeback kid." Charles A. Gargano, who as chairman of the Empire State Development Corporation is himself considered one of the new powers of the state, joked about a Perot-Trump presidential ticket. "He would be the most loved Vice President since Spiro T. Agnew," he said. Mr. Gargano, who heads the state's economic development efforts, added, "Thank you for your tax dollars."

 

[Jackson]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

Mitt Romney got ripped to shreds in 2012. Romney is worth about 550 million and in that tax year paid 500K in Federal taxes, and he was ripped to shreds because his tax liability was based on the lower investment income tax rate.

And it was Mitt Romney who stated that Trump wasn't releasing his tax returns because there was a bombshell in them. He was right.
Mitt Romney: Trump Is Hiding a ‘Bombshell’ in His Tax Returns

Trump who claims to have a net worth of 10 BILLION dollars and brags about his wealth and hasn't paid a penny in Federal Taxes in 20 years, because he has this 20 year old 916 million loss, is either a horrible business man or is not near as wealthy as he claims to be. Anyone that wealthy and with that much capital should have easily wiped out that 916 million loss within a year not 20 years with revenue and income to offset it.

Here he is bragging about his wealth again.




You can be assured that the American public is not going to understand or accept it.

His loss was less that 10% of his wealth. How many businesses would accept that lost as opposed to what they actually had during those dreadful years.

 

[Jackson]

you think trump losing 900 million is a big deal

buffett lost 2 billion in one day

--LOL

And no one is saying he is a failure in business...quite the opposite. Trumps loss in less that 19% of his wealth.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Everyone pays about the same % in taxes, dupes, and that means the richest end up with all the new wealth and the middle class and the country go to hell. Since Reagan. Great job, dupes.
The one tax graph you really need to know

Dupe.

I asked a question asshole.

I never said I liked that our fucking Representatives fucking this nation with your approval.

Reagan is dead and has been out of office for damned near 30 years.

Dupe?

You are the biggest fucking dupe I've ever encountered.

Reaganism rolls on, defended to the death by the GOP and srewing the middle class and the country, all to save the greedy idiot GOP from paying their fair share.

Bullshit.

See if you can spot the problem:

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb...able=58&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2008&LastYear=2010
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = FRB: Z.1 Release - Financial Accounts of the United States - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

I place the blame on both sides. Not just Reagan.

The demise of the American dream may have affected others. It has not affected me.

 

[Esmeralda]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

He lives like royalty, he has never, ever done any public service, and he doesn't pay taxes. Yet you think this person is appropriate to be leader of this country. What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Esmeralda]

you think trump losing 900 million is a big deal

buffett lost 2 billion in one day

--LOL

And no one is saying he is a failure in business...quite the opposite. Trumps loss in less that 19% of his wealth.

Then why the hell isn't he paying taxes?? He is a wealthy man. He should be paying his share of taxes.

 

[playtime]

I don't care much about the sum of income taxes Trump has paid. I do care to see what potentially conflicting interests he may have. I care to see what impact his fiscal proposal will have on his own financial fortunes so that I have a sense of whether his fiscal proposals are those of a disinterested individual or those of someone seeking to enrich himself by using Presidential powers to do so and at the expense of most Americans, just a few Americans, etc. or to the detriment (or non-impact) of everyone but himself. And as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.

You are speaking of how Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself through the pay-for-play auction of political access and favors are you not?

not one incident was found regarding the clinton foundation & a pay for play action.

DRUMPF however.....
florida AND texas....oh my my MY my my..............................

June 02, 2016, 07:33 pm
Trump donated to attorneys general who dropped Trump U. inquiries: report
By Harper Neidig

Attorneys general in Florida and Texas who declined to pursue lawsuits against the now-defunct Trump University received political contributions from Donald Trump, according to an Associated Press report.

Trump donated $35,000 to the successful gubernatorial campaign of then-Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott three years after a probe into the university’s "possibly deceptive trade practices" was dropped by his office when the university agreed to cease its Texas operations.
Abbott's office pushed back against the report in a statement to The Hill on Friday, saying that the then-attorney general was just doing his job.

“The unthinkable has happened – the media’s obsession with Donald Trump is now leading them to highlight the job then-Attorney General Abbott did in protecting Texas consumers,” said Abbott spokesman Matt Hirsch.
And a political fundraising committee supporting Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi received a $25,000 donation from the Donald J. Trump Foundation just days after her office had announced it was looking into joining a multi-state lawsuit against Trump University. Her office later dropped the inquiry, citing a lack of evidence.

The school has received intense scrutiny this week after a judge released Trump University documents that reveal details of how the school was run, such as instructors encouraging poor prospective students to max out credit cards in order to pay as much as $35,000 for real estate classes.

Updated at 12:25 p.m.

Trump donated to attorneys general who dropped Trump U. inquiries: report


Trump Foundation’s $20,000 purchase of Trump painting gives new meaning to art of the deal
Published: Sept 13, 2016 1:48 p.m. ET
[...]
The life-size painting was purchased in 2007 during a charity event at which a so-called speed painter drew a likeness of Trump in just a few minutes. Melania Trump bid $10,000, and when no one else bid, she doubled the offer in a customary practice at charity auctions.


The painter, Michael Israel, told the Post it was his understanding the artwork was sent to a Trump-owned golf course.


IRS rules bar charity owners from using donations to buy items for themselves, and it’s possible Trump broke the law, as happened at least one other time with his charity.


A similar occurrence may have taken place in 2012 when the Trump Foundation spent $12,000 to buy a football helmet autographed by former college football star Tim Tebow..."

Trump Foundation’s $20,000 purchase of Trump painting gives new meaning to art of the deal

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems
By David A. Fahrenthold September 20

Donald Trump spent more than a quarter-million dollars from his charitable foundation to settle lawsuits that involved the billionaire’s for-profit businesses, according to interviews and a review of legal documents.

Those cases, which together used $258,000 from Trump’s charity, were among four newly documented expenditures in which Trump may have violated laws against “self-dealing” — which prohibit nonprofit leaders from using charity money to benefit themselves or their businesses.
[...]

Trump used $258,000 from his charity to settle legal problems

 

[francoHFW]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

same loopholes and laws hillary used

Not. And all her tax returns prove it. The real point is, Trump was a crummy, immoral businessman until he lost everything and became just a brand to put on other peoples' businesses, and a TV star...

 

[francoHFW]

On Trump and Taxes

Oh my, the breathless NYT reports, after aiding and abetting breaking the law by releasing part of a NY state tax return that was stolen (if it's a true copy) from Trump.

The return showed a roughly $900 million net loss one year.

This, the Times reports, means that Trump may not have paid any federal (or state) taxes for many years.

To which I say: So what?

Let me remind you that the way you generate a net operating loss (NOL) is by losing money. In this case (if the return is factual) Trump lost a lot of money. The tax code allows you to reduce your tax liability when you lose money until your operating income reaches zero (and I remind you, the last 10 to 30 grand of it has already reached a zero payment liability, so you in fact "throw away" that amount worth of tax "benefit" right up front) but you cannot get a refund on previous taxes paid as you accumulated that capital when you take a loss. This is similar but not identical to capital loss treatment.

What happens with a capital loss is that the loss is rolled forward and you may take up to $3,000 a year against future income until it is exhausted, and you may also offset it dollar-for-dollar against future profits (capital gains.) A NOL also can used to "look back" for up to 3 years; which way you wish to go with that will depend on both the tax rates involved and your expected future plans (if the business is shut down then the choice is obvious, but if not it's quite a bit more complex.)

There's nothing wrong with this. You lost actual money to generate the NOL in the first place.

That ability to use it to offset gains isn't "ripping off the government" or "ripping off poor people" since the loss actually happened and in fact you get screwed when you take a NOL and use it to offset future profits because you are forced to consume that loss with inflated dollars in future years, but you cannot adjust the NOL for inflation!

I have personally had both NOL and capital losses in the past and so have millions of others. There's not only nothing wrong with it it is in fact only a partial recapture against a real loss you already suffered.

Let's say that I make a bad investment and lose $500,000. My income that year from investments was $100,000, but I lost half a million in capital. It's gone -- I really lost it -- and the law says that the loss must be crystallized, not on paper, for it to count (in other words I had to have closed the position.)

Ok, so I have a NET -$400,000 from investments this year. I can only take $3,000 of that against my ordinary income; that is, if I had $50,000 worth of W2 income (from a job) the law says I cannot use the $400,000 loss to reduce the $50,000 to zero -- only to $47,000. I can continue to take that $3,000 (yes, it's that tiny!) every year forever until it's consumed, but if I have an investment gain in future years the remainder of the NOL carries forward and is an offset on that gain dollar-for-dollar until it is "used up."

Anyone who invests has, at some time, probably had one of those capital losses. If you have ever run a business and had a losing year you have had NOLs. There is nothing evil, wrong, duplicitous or anything of the sort about taking and using them in future years as they only are usable when you regain, through your hard work, the capital you previously lost and at the time you previously gained it in the first place you already paid taxes on it!

To suggest otherwise or that someone, such as Trump, is evil for having one and thus paying no tax in future years until it was/is consumed is outrageous. Such a suggestion is equivalent to demanding that someone pay taxes on something that has been lost or stolen from them and any politician or media outlet that implies or states same ought to be run out of town on a rail.

Why? Because it is equivalent to demanding "heads I win, tails you lose". To demand that someone pay taxes when they make money but when they lose money they cannot offset that loss against future gains means that you're now obligated to pay when you win and also in effect you are obligated to pay when you lose (irrespective of the reason) as well, because an actual net operating loss destroys part of your capital base!

Trump, if this return is accurate, did what every single company and individual taxpayer with investments does when there is a net loss. There is not only nothing wrong with it the tax code already penalizes you for losses because you cannot offset them dollar-for-dollar against current wage income; you can only take the $3,000/year for capital losses and zero for business net operating losses. Since both losses are in fact destroyed capital (from your point of view) you should be able to deduct them fully against AGI, but that's not how the law works -- you can only deduct them against future business or investment (e.g. net operating) gains.

That is not an abuse of the tax code. What is an abuse of the tax code is to "donate" money to a "charity" (your own family foundation), radically reducing your income (and thus tax liability) that you control and which then turns around and spends nearly none of the donated funds on actual charitable services; rather, nearly all of those funds are used to pay salaries and travel (effectively living expenses and high-on-the-hog living expenses at that!) for your family members and their friends. That is legal but it's slimy as hell and that is what the Clintons have in fact done since leaving the White House.

The NY Times is a hack outfit -- not only did they run a story predicated on a criminal act they are trying to spin something that is not only lawful but every person who either runs a small business or invests does as a matter of course and is perfectly ethical, legal and in fact already occurs under mandated-by-law disadvantage that accrues to someone who has this happen, including Trump, in the tax code!

On Trump and Taxes

So with all loses, Trump just might not be the business genius he claims to be.

Apparently you didn't understand the article too!

ALL phony scandals, dupe.

 

[jon_berzerk]

you think trump losing 900 million is a big deal

buffett lost 2 billion in one day

--LOL

And no one is saying he is a failure in business...quite the opposite. Trumps loss in less that 19% of his wealth.

exactly

you also dont see the left going into heart failure

over hillary using the same tax avoidance scheme as trump

--LOL

 

[jon_berzerk]

you think trump losing 900 million is a big deal

buffett lost 2 billion in one day

--LOL

And no one is saying he is a failure in business...quite the opposite. Trumps loss in less that 19% of his wealth.

Then why the hell isn't he paying taxes?? He is a wealthy man. He should be paying his share of taxes.

who says he isnt

prove he hasnt paid what he owes

 

[jillian]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

of course you don't care. you're a sub literate fact averse wingnut trumpeter. why would you care?

 

[jasonnfree]

Best answer about Trump is, it's good business to take advantage of any tax breaks you legally can. The candidate he's running against is a class of person who sells herself to the very concerns that make all the loopholes for the wealthy possible. Both clintons have made millions giving speeches to wall street and the banks. Several hundred thousand dollars at a time for a half hour or forty five minute speech that is not available to the rest of us. They can't release the speech contents, because then people would say "Wall street paid $300 k for a half hour of this crap? No wonder there are so many loopholes for the rich! These bastards are worse than the mafia." None of the clinton supporters realize this it seems. This is how political campaigns are funded and it's also why the campaign cycles last so many months and becomes more and more expensive to run. What I'm saying is, Trump has acted within the bounds of legality, and has built an empire and done some very good projects for our country and provided a lot of good jobs for Americans along the way. However, the people who made those questionable loopholes available, people like the clintons, have done nothing for anyone but their bottom line. I'll stick with they guy who knows how to run a business and is willing to at least try to secure our borders and fix our immigration system.

 

[the_human_being]

I don't care much about the sum of income taxes Trump has paid. I do care to see what potentially conflicting interests he may have. I care to see what impact his fiscal proposal will have on his own financial fortunes so that I have a sense of whether his fiscal proposals are those of a disinterested individual or those of someone seeking to enrich himself by using Presidential powers to do so and at the expense of most Americans, just a few Americans, etc. or to the detriment (or non-impact) of everyone but himself. And as a CPA, I know what to look for in his returns and in his proposals to find the answers to those kinds of questions.

You are speaking of how Hillary used her position as Secretary of State to enrich herself through the pay-for-play auction of political access and favors are you not?

No. Did I mention anything about what I want to know about Mrs. Clinton or any other person besides Donald J. Trump? No, I did not. I wrote only about what I want to know about Donald Trump and his potential conflicts of interest.

And I pointed out to you that Clinton is corrupt as hell but you turn a blind eye.

 

[the_human_being]

Does that affect me? No. Half the country doesn't pay taxes and their income is from the government! Do the laws have to be changed? Yes! The rich should lose their loopholes and the people who those that are on the government teat should have some skin in the game as well.

Let's talk about the important issues of this election. Security for the US; immigration laws followed; building a wall to discourage boundary runners; bringing back jobs for American citizens.

of course you don't care. you're a sub literate fact averse wingnut trumpeter. why would you care?

Why won't you discuss Hillary's proposals concerning the issues? Why are you afraid to do that?