Trump May Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

[Ame®icano]

Why are you bringing up your state when I am talking about FEDERAL tax expenditures?

I brought up my state, as example of democrat corruption that was here since mid of last century. It took awhile to get rid of that scam and things are getting better. We still have two lifelong democrats in US senate, but once they're gone, there may be a chance to change the tax code that you and I are both against.

I'm with you all the way. I am all for eliminating all tax expenditures, with the single possible exception of the EIC. That is the only one which has a proven record of increasing production.

The rest are all boondoggles aimed at making the playing field EXTREMELY tilted.

Making exceptions opens the way for more exceptions.

To me, all this shit about the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax is just so much smoke if we don't start with a plan to eliminate exemptions, deductions, and credits first. The Fair Tax and the Flat Tax are just as vulnerable to these corruptions as the current system.

I don't think flat tax falls into that. We could talk about it elsewhere.

I much prefer a tax on consumption (Fair Tax) to a tax on production (Income/Flat Tax), but we need to stop this tax expenditure organized criminal enterprise first.

I am for flat tax on income. I would agree to consumption tax too. But not to combination of two.

Three of our candidates all proposed a "post card tax return" this election cycle. But they were all dishonest in their messaging.

The only way you can have a post card tax return is by eliminating almost all tax deductions. But none of them presented it that way, and Ted Cruz flat out lied that it would mean we could abolish the IRS.

If these fuckers would start telling the TRUTH, we could kick some ass and revive the conservative movement.

I agree, post card tax return require three two fields. Total income and tax on that income.

Anything other that that leaves room for favoritism and corruption.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump is taking hundreds of millions from the taxpayer while a welfare family gets a few thousand

How is he doing that?

 

[FA_Q2]

Trump is worse than all the welfare mooches combined

They may scam the taxpayer for $20,000 while Trump scams the taxpayer for a billion dollars

Conservatives have been pushing for simpler tax plans for decades. Where have you been?


If Trump plays by the rules, YOUR RULES, then what ground for complaint do you have?

Simpler plans that drastically reduce the tax burden of the wealthy while increasing taxes on the working poor

Show one that doesn't

Trump plays by the rules?
So do the working poor who don't pay taxes

Guess which group Republicans bitch about?

you can read the law right here

leftards are always such crooked folks

maybe that is why they support groups like fuck the police

and such

26 U.S. Code § 6103 - Confidentiality and disclosure of returns and return information

Jon, when have I ever supported a group like that you mention about police...OR not paid my taxes? Of course my taxes come from the chart in the 1040 pamphlet...for Fed, State and City.

if you vote for hillary you are supporting the Fuck the Police movement

how the fuck do you know or think that you know that Trump has not paid his taxes due

What's happened to you, jon?

nothing

i am sick of those who go along with the likes of the corrupt politicians

what happened to you

making assumptons that trump hasnt paid his taxes due for example

OK jonny, I'll stay away from irking you. But my assumptions about taxes is not taxes due. It is about taxes claimed, not claimed, charitable giving, losses incurred, etc. My assumptions that he has something yuuuge to hide is no less valid than yours about Emails.. Bye, jonny, I'll miss you. Be well, you and all of yours.

It is also no less of a partisan position.

There is something that he is hiding in his tax returns (I think that is obvious) and there are many things that she was hiding in those emails - equally obvious. They both are cases of clear obstructions to transparency.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't like Trump, and I'm voting for Hillary, my binary-thinking friend.

So you're wrong, again.

And it doesn't deflect from your aggressive ignorance, no matter how hard you try.

I'm guessing you're not even embarrassed.
.

Interesting and surprising. May I ask what drove you to vote Hillary as I would not think that is something that you would have done.
Mac1958

The ironic thing here is that there are so many other valid possible criticisms of Trump.

All they're doing here is showcasing their blatant partisanship, intellectual dishonesty and ignorance.
.

^agree.

 

[FA_Q2]

I don't like Trump, and I'm voting for Hillary, my binary-thinking friend.

So you're wrong, again.

And it doesn't deflect from your aggressive ignorance, no matter how hard you try.

I'm guessing you're not even embarrassed.
.

Why are you pretending that these are corporate tax returns?

Why are you pretending that I'm pretending these are his corporate tax returns?

Oh yeah, you're you.
.

I am crossing threads. You compared Trumps losses to Amazon's losses in another thread. You know what you are doing. Lame. Believe me.

Yes, I'm dealing with the standard leg-humping that I get from hardcore partisan ideologues on both ends.

NY doesn't understand that businesses sometimes lose money. I wasn't focusing on Trump, I was talking about business.

But people like you choose not to see that obvious fact, which is why you're a waste of time.
.
.

Yes, Trump lost money. Trump lost LOTS of money. In LOTS of failed business ventures. Over many many many years. He lost money in everything from casinos to beefsteaks. He lost money in everything from airlines to hotels.

His argument for being President of the United States is at its core his claim of business acumen.

There is little if anything to support that claim.

Yup - businesses lose money. Somehow he earned billions more than he lost. That is called doing very well.

I fail to understand how someone can be one of the richest men in the WORLD and you still see that as a business failure. That is noting more than blind partisan hackery - clearly he has been successful. Refusing to see that is simply refusing to acknoledge the reality right in front of you.
'

 

[FA_Q2]

DERP!

ALL tax goodies for the rich/wealthy were written by Republicans. I know, I use them every quarter.

Showing once again that you are lying through your teeth.

If you were correct you would have shown and not bloviated.

I didn't bloviate. I pointed out your asinine partisan ranting is bullshit. Sorry that you don't like it but I do not need to go running off to disprove random claims you make that you never bother to back up in the first place.

I stated; 'ALL tax goodies for the rich/wealthy were written by Republicans. I know, I use them every quarter.'

If you have some/any evidence that I'm incorrect, please post the evidence without bloviating.

Again with the names.

Why should I refute a claim that you have not backed up at all. You actually have not bothered to point to even one single example of this tax code for the rich (though there are many) but still demand that I provide you with something.

You see, YOUR claim, YOU back it up with something worth reading and maybe you might get some reciprocation. The only bloviating here has been from you making an asinine statement and then demanding others prove you wrong (which others have already done but I don't play that game) without bothering to post any facts to back up your assertion in the first place.


Here is a freebee - using the terms like all, always or everyone is false the vast majority of the time and shows your partisan colors. Rational people do not think in absolutes because the world is not absolute.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The problem is, at least for me, that the 'direct spending' is not really all that clear as to how much actually goes to the relief effort in general. For instance, would a personal aircraft chartered to bring Clinton to a location to plan and/or do something else related to the charity count as aid or administrative expenses? That seems to be the largest point of contention as far as the Clinton foundation goes - how much of that money goes to expenses that may not be aid specifically but are counted as aid.

The video about Haiti is an interesting and provoking angle on this - just because that money is spent on what they are calling aid does not mean that it is so.

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.

It uses 7% on funding other aid and charitable groups. That does not represent how much actually goes to charity as the foundation is a charitable group itself. That 7%, for instance, would not include expenditures on medication and its distribution that was directly managed by the foundation as is the case with their aids outreach.

 

[FA_Q2]

The Left thinks we can solve the unlevel playing field by taxing the rich more.

Nope. That's like making the guy who lives in a house bigger than you give up his car because you got robbed last night.

That does not stop the thieves. At all.

You have to stop the thieves. And right now, the thieves have police protection.

The solution is to level the playing field. Take away all those legal devices which give the special interests the upper hand.

Ban tax expenditures.

Doing so would have a doubleplus bonus. If a politician is not allowed to put a tax break in the tax code for his donors, then you have removed the incentive for those donors. PRESTO! Instant campaign finance reform.

This is how we decentralize. This is how we remove incentives for corruption. The more you centralize power, the easier you make it to capture power.

Every time you give the federal government more control, the happier you make the special interests.


The Left is going about this all wrong.

Bingo.

I do not know how many times I have to point out the doublethink the left has when continually complaining about tax rates like Romney's 10% and using that as evidence that the rates need to be hiked. It is clear that he does not pay the top rate as NO RICH PERSON DOES because the tax code is full of holes.

The problem, as you show, is that congress' power lies in tax manipulation and they have no reason to vote away the power to enrich themselves until the electorate kicks them in the ass.

The right, for all its demands about 'flat tax,' blatantly disregards what they purport to support when they refuse to let go of a single tax deduction for their favored industries. Want to see the 'resolve' of republicans and tax reform, ask about farm subsidies? It is like cockroaches when the lights comes on.

For all the talk of tax reform, NO ONE is willing to actually do it. It is nothing but lip service for the two parties so that they have something to run on.

 

[FA_Q2]

If you understand where I am coming from, a whole shitload of my posts on this forum will suddenly begin to make sense. Unfortunately, quite a few retarded pseudocons are mentally blocked by their preconceived notions and their massive ignorance.

It is obvious where you are coming from - you are a flaming liberal hippie

 

[FA_Q2]

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

Nope - you are allowed to pay taxes on your earnings like everyone else. The problem is there were no earnings to tax.

Now, this is blatantly obvious to almost everyone but yourself.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3475910/posts
A guy supposedly worth 10 billion dollars should have offset a mere 916 million in loses within a year or two. He didn't. 20 years later he is still pealing off that loss?--LOL He's either a lousy businessman or is not worth near as much as he claims to be.

And how do you actually know this?

Have you actually read the source on this because the above is blatant conjecture and you are stating it as fact?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Tax Records Obtained by The Times Reveal Trump May Have Avoided Paying Taxes for Nearly Two Decades

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0
Goddamn, that means he didn't pay all those police, our military, our veterans or the infrastructure that his goods moves across. This man is a crook.

HE did what was legal and done by every major cooperation and small business. Even today...

What a load of left wing bigotry and hate. Demonizing the rich and claiming legal actions as not legal..

Left wing desperation...

 

[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.

The problem is, at least for me, that the 'direct spending' is not really all that clear as to how much actually goes to the relief effort in general. For instance, would a personal aircraft chartered to bring Clinton to a location to plan and/or do something else related to the charity count as aid or administrative expenses? That seems to be the largest point of contention as far as the Clinton foundation goes - how much of that money goes to expenses that may not be aid specifically but are counted as aid.

The video about Haiti is an interesting and provoking angle on this - just because that money is spent on what they are calling aid does not mean that it is so.

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.

It uses 7% on funding other aid and charitable groups. That does not represent how much actually goes to charity as the foundation is a charitable group itself. That 7%, for instance, would not include expenditures on medication and its distribution that was directly managed by the foundation as is the case with their aids outreach.

FA_Q2, this chart detailing 2014 with 2016 overview is the best I can do to come up with any detail. Perhaps there are better places to look. I hope this is meaningful to you, and maybe even you can check it over and relate it back to simple folk like me. My mind boggles at this kind of money.

Charity Navigator Rating History - The Clinton Foundation

 

[OnePercenter]

Tax regulations that benefit the rich/wealthy. Can you name one written in the last 45 years by a Republican that doesn't?

Certainly. In effort to get along with the idiot in the White House, they increased capital gains taxes, they increased corporate taxes, they increased taxes on those making 400k per year. Anything else you'd like to know?

Whats you point? The rich/wealthy and corporations pay less of the total monies they make in federal tax than you.

Yup, DemocRAT Tax Laws work like that.... you scum HATE people that make money, while all you can do is collect entitlements!

Walmart paid 3% federal tax last year, Trump paid nothing for 18 years, and the largest monies paid to subsidies and welfare are to corporations. Do you think that is fair?

 

[OnePercenter]

Whats you point? The rich/wealthy and corporations pay less of the total monies they make in federal tax than you.

You asked what Republicans have done that DIDN'T benefit the rich in the last 45 years and I told you. In fact you didn't need to go back 45 years, just four or five years. If you want to go back further, I can give you regulations Bush made on the oil companies that cost them money as well.

No I didn't.

 

[OnePercenter]

Cause you were living with Mom and Dad?

Not everybody lives your lifestyle you know..........

And Republicans are continuing to fight you to improve your lifestyle.

 

[OnePercenter]

The only thing that should matter here is whether or not Trump utilized the legal methods of deductions in preparing his taxes.

Everything else is meaningless, especially the left's emotional outbursts concerning Trump's taxes.

Republicans wrote every rule that allows Trump to clean-up. You pay income tax and Trump doesn't.

 

[OnePercenter]

What kind of moron parrots Rachael Maddow?

That's Dr. Rachel Maddow.

 

[OnePercenter]

Trump wrote no laws and would be a fool to not usee them to his advantage. If you have a problem with tax laws, blaming the rich that use them is beyond stupid and misdirected. Grow the fuck up and figure out where the problem really is.

The problem is Republicans writing tax laws that benefit the rich and fuck the middle class.

Republicans get the blame for tax laws? How stupid can a guy possibly be? Why, you're nothing but a little twisted hatemonger. The rich actually pay most of the taxes collected. I think the middle class pays too much but I also think the government spends too much.

Which tax laws that solely benefit the rich\wealthy weren't written by Republicans?

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

The problem is, at least for me, that the 'direct spending' is not really all that clear as to how much actually goes to the relief effort in general. For instance, would a personal aircraft chartered to bring Clinton to a location to plan and/or do something else related to the charity count as aid or administrative expenses? That seems to be the largest point of contention as far as the Clinton foundation goes - how much of that money goes to expenses that may not be aid specifically but are counted as aid.

The video about Haiti is an interesting and provoking angle on this - just because that money is spent on what they are calling aid does not mean that it is so.

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.

It uses 7% on funding other aid and charitable groups. That does not represent how much actually goes to charity as the foundation is a charitable group itself. That 7%, for instance, would not include expenditures on medication and its distribution that was directly managed by the foundation as is the case with their aids outreach.

FA_Q2, this chart detailing 2014 with 2016 overview is the best I can do to come up with any detail. Perhaps there are better places to look. I hope this is meaningful to you, and maybe even you can check it over and relate it back to simple folk like me. My mind boggles at this kind of money.

Charity Navigator Rating History - The Clinton Foundation

Thank you for the link. I don't actually think that there are better places to look which is the primary problem.

Here is the core issue I have, there are really 3 categories:
Administrative Expenses - 8.7%
Program Expenses - 86.9%
Fundraising Expenses - 4.2%

But that is all we know. They define Administrative expenses as:
This measure reflects what percent of its total budget a charity spends on overhead, administrative staff and associated costs, and organizational meetings. Dividing a charity's average administrative expenses by its average total functional expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average expenses over its three most recent fiscal years*.

And Program expenses:
This measure reflects the percent of its total expenses a charity spends on the programs and services it exists to deliver. Dividing a charity's average program expenses by its average total functional expenses yields this percentage. We calculate the charity's average expenses over its three most recent fiscal years*.


But this does not make it completely clear to me what type of expenses would the Clinton use of the funds for air travel or other such expenses. It also does not really explain why they removed them from the watch list and rate them so high now when they were so unsure of the fund just 2 years ago. How much of this is sent to Clinton friends through 'contracts' for aid?

The information available is pretty meaningless IMHO without the whole picture.

 

[OnePercenter]

This is living proof that this guy is completely clueless and knows very little about the real world. What kind of certificate does and artist, musician, carpenter, cabinet maker, furniture maker, house painter, etc. have? Depending on your state you may not even need a license for many trades, concrete, brick laying, painting, etc.

Hate to tell you this; Every job except for degree certificate jobs are low skill.

Everything you listed are low skill.