Trump May Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

[NYcarbineer]

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

So the charity pays people to do charitable work and that's bad thing?

Goddam you are stupid.

Goddam you're a gullible idiot. They aren't doing charitable work - they are political operatives. The Clinton Foundation model is to make small donations to the real charitable efforts of reputable organizations in order to create a veneer of "respectability" to conceal their corrupt pay to play scams.

You lie. You're stupid and dishonest. That's an odious combination.

 

[Yarddog]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Did the owner/owners of the NYT pay no taxes on their personal returns? Why is this so hard?

Donald didn't claim investment losses.....he claimed a net operating loss.

I'm now exhausted. Did any of you read the NYT piece?

I read it, and it's pretty complicated. In fact I don't do my own taxes, I just add up all the expenses, sort them into categories, and then let my tax preparer do the rest. It takes me about 8 to 10 hours, but that's 10 hours I don't have to pay the preparer to do it for me. She has my taxes complete and ready to sign in about an hour or so.

I don't think the argument is if Donald pays income taxes on his personal income. I'm sure he does. But that's different than his business taxes whether it's an investment or operation loss. As far as I know, they are one of the same when it comes to write-offs.

The point is that Donald is not doing anything different than any other company owner out there. Look, most all of us look for ways to decrease our tax liability. I don't know anybody that said they didn't include this deduction or that deduction because they felt they weren't paying enough. And if we can be honest here, which one of us would pay any kind of tax if we didn't have to legally? I know I wouldn't.

Point. The returns in question are his personal returns. He paid no federal taxes on his personal income in 1995.

 

[Ravi]

Trump will make being a failure patriotic.

 

[rightwinger]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

What a freeloader

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

What a freeloader

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

The taxpayer doesn't give you a billion back.

DERP!

 

[rightwinger]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

What a freeloader

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

The taxpayer doesn't give you a billion back.

DERP!

Not all of it....but Trump gets 39% back in taxes

Thanks taxpayers

What a FREELOADER

 

[Vandalshandle]

According to a chart I saw this AM, the Clinton's paid 34.+ taxes last year. It was the highest percentage because, it is said, they have only earnings, no Cap Gains or other write-off items. The chart showed past and current president and presidential contenders McCain, Romney, Kerry. Kerry's was mostly Cap Gains so his taxes were low/Clinton's high. It also showed charitable giving and I can't remember that, but I think McCain topped that list.

Add the value of all the travel and free services paid for by Clinton Foundation (tax free) donations, and the taxes paid by the Clintons are an itsy bitsy teeny weeny fraction of the total.

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

 

[boedicca]

Add the value of all the travel and free services paid for by Clinton Foundation (tax free) donations, and the taxes paid by the Clintons are an itsy bitsy teeny weeny fraction of the total.

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

I'm not your internet librarian. Search for it yourself.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

I'm not your internet librarian. Search for it yourself.

Got it. Your only source is the New York Post, which is a notorious RW blog.

 

[boedicca]

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

I'm not your internet librarian. Search for it yourself.

Got it. Your only source is the New York Post, which is a notorious RW blog.

Sad that you lack basic search skills. Truly sad.

But hardly surprising.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Where Does Clinton Foundation Money Go?

 

[Vandalshandle]

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

I'm not your internet librarian. Search for it yourself.

Got it. Your only source is the New York Post, which is a notorious RW blog.

Sad that you lack basic search skills. Truly sad.

But hardly surprising.

Ok, Boe. I linked Fact check, for those people would actually research, rather than parrot RW blog sites.

"Fiorina and others are referring only to the amount donated by the Clinton Foundation to outside charities, ignoring the fact that most of the Clinton Foundation’s charitable work is performed in-house. One independent philanthropy watchdog did an analysis of Clinton Foundation funding and concluded that about 89 percent of its funding went to charity.

Simply put, despite its name, the Clinton Foundation is not a private foundation — which typically acts as a pass-through for private donations to other charitable organizations. Rather, it is a public charity. It conducts most of its charitable activities directly."

 

[Vandalshandle]

Apparently, Boe's keyboard just broke. Oh well.

 

[bullwinkle]

According to a chart I saw this AM, the Clinton's paid 34.+ taxes last year. It was the highest percentage because, it is said, they have only earnings, no Cap Gains or other write-off items. The chart showed past and current president and presidential contenders McCain, Romney, Kerry. Kerry's was mostly Cap Gains so his taxes were low/Clinton's high. It also showed charitable giving and I can't remember that, but I think McCain topped that list.

Add the value of all the travel and free services paid for by Clinton Foundation (tax free) donations, and the taxes paid by the Clintons are an itsy bitsy teeny weeny fraction of the total.

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Sorry, boe, I lied.The pie chart I saw said 12% in admin, only 88% in funding. Now I'll check the NYPost source.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation | Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

 

[Yarddog]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

What a freeloader

If your a commercial real estate owner or developer and you lease buildings to a chain like Montgomery Wards and if they were to go bankrupt, it could cost you some potentially large losses. I don't know what Trump did, but being able to write of losses like that is how the real estate industry works. Maybe in that case a building will have to be sold quickly and for a loss, but then that becomes an opportunity for someone else. There must be a good reason for this tax code i think, unless you'd want to live in government built housing and work in government built buildings after its no longer profitable for private developers.

 

[boedicca]

Add the value of all the travel and free services paid for by Clinton Foundation (tax free) donations, and the taxes paid by the Clintons are an itsy bitsy teeny weeny fraction of the total.

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Sorry, boe, I lied.The pie chart I saw said 12% in admin, only 88% in funding. Now I'll check the NYPost source.

Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation | Charity Ratings | America's Most Independent Charity Watchdog | CharityWatch

Actually, it's 6% for 2013, and less than 3% for 2014. Line 13 divided by line 12. They've been cutting their funding for their fake charitable efforts. And given that it's not a proper charity, why aren't they paying income taxes on the "surplus"?

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2014/311/580/2014-311580204-0c3ee98d-9.pdf

 

[rightwinger]

He is cheating the American people! He is a real crook.

no, if you lose 916 million, I guess you are allowed to get tax credit for that in the future tax years so you have money again with which to work with. If he owed the tax and didn't pay it would be stealing. Im not sure how he lost that money though and its still speculative, but if you lose money to a bank, say they take your building, then that money will still end up back in the economy anyway.

If you lose a billion, you are allowed to have the taxpayer make it up

What a freeloader

If your a commercial real estate owner or developer and you lease buildings to a chain like Montgomery Wards and if they were to go bankrupt, it could cost you some potentially large losses. I don't know what Trump did, but being able to write of losses like that is how the real estate industry works. Maybe in that case a building will have to be sold quickly and for a loss, but then that becomes an opportunity for someone else. There must be a good reason for this tax code i think, unless you'd want to live in government built housing and work in government built buildings after its no longer profitable for private developers.

Donny Freeloader at his finest

 

[bullwinkle]

Bo, these were personal tax returns @ 34+%, not Foundation or Initiative audits. I cannot dispute your claim about travel and free services paid from the Foundation because I don't know. Where do you get your data for this claim? I have seen that the Foundation has an 8% admin expense and 92% initiative funding (pie chart), but I don't recall my source. However if it is important to you, I will find it again. If you choose not to believe it, it would be a waste for both of us.

boe with an "e", s'il vous plait.

The Clinton Foundation used less than 7% of its funding on charities. The rest went to support the Clintons and their vast political and legal retinue. That's a lot of bank.

boe, source? 93% "admin"?

Search engines really are your friends, bub.


The Clinton family’s mega-charity took in more than $140 million in grants and pledges in 2013 but spent just $9 million on direct aid.

The group spent the bulk of its windfall on administration, travel, and salaries and bonuses, with the fattest payouts going to family friends.

On its 2013 tax forms, the most recent available, the foundation claimed it spent $30 million on payroll and employee benefits; $8.7 million in rent and office expenses; $9.2 million on “conferences, conventions and meetings”; $8 million on fundraising; and nearly $8.5 million on travel. None of the Clintons is on the payroll, but they do enjoy first-class flights paid for by the foundation.

In all, the group reported $84.6 million in “functional expenses” on its 2013 tax return and had more than $64 million left over — money the organization has said represents pledges rather than actual cash on hand.

Some of the tens of millions in administrative costs finance more than 2,000 employees, including aid workers and health professionals around the world.

But that’s still far below the 75 percent rate of spending that nonprofit experts say a good charity should spend on its mission....

Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’ | New York Post

Link to a copy of the actual return, please. I've seen it, and none of this jives with the the foundation's 1040 that I saw.

I'm not your internet librarian. Search for it yourself.

boe, the NYPost article cites a group called Charity Navigator, calling it the most respected watchdog and linking the site. The NYPost claims the Clinton Foundation has no rating. So I went to the site the NYPost linked and found this: Charity Navigator - Rating for The Clinton Foundation

 

[BluesLegend]

I see you gutless liberals are still trying to demonize Trump for taking legal tax deductions. What lowlife scum you are.

What's more important is that Trump had to take huge BUSINESS losses in REAL ESTATE to get those deductions...

...you know, the Trump who claims he's such a brilliant BUSINESSMAN in REAL ESTATE.

Speaking of idiots, you know nothing of business go bake your rainbow cookies.

Gee, brilliant rejoinder. Where are your marching orders coming from?

Your momma.