Are You Guys Trying to Avoid That Pesky New York Times Article?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SecretE

This is the latest example of why a progressive tax system doesn't work...because those in power and/or have wealth will always write loopholes into the tax code, so their effective tax rate is much less than the average American. I don't fault Trump for trying to take advantage of all of them. Hell, Bernie Sanders has a less effective tax rate than most Americans because of those same loopholes.

I think we need to move away from a solely income-based tax system and transition to something more balanced on income and consumption. Herman Cain, for as much ridicule as he got for his "pizza deal" 9-9-9 tax plan, it was a hell of a lot more transparent than what we have right now.

And think how much easier compliance would be solely with a consumption tax. By the time October 15 gets here I'm usually ready to plant myself in front of the IRS headquarters in Washington D.C. wrapped inside a tire, douse with gasoline and light a match in protest. If enough of us did that maybe they'd get the message and make it where we don't have to spend countless hours getting ready for tax time.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

your King is a tax cheat, a failed Bidness Man.

Bwahahahaha!

phew.... finally caught up with this thread. it was moving up the thread ladder.

you know the rules in this forum, chunnie.. no link, no story, no discussion.

otherwise its...

[Strokey_McDingDong]

idk. I still feel as though T R U M P is the lesser evil.

Not that it really matters. The election has already been sabotaged. There will most likely be mayhem no matter who supposedly wins.

[lustylad]

Here's a quote tucked deep in the NYT article that illustrates how they try to spin every fact to fit their "trump is a liar and a crook" narrative.

"For 2005 through 2007... he paid substantial federal income taxes for the first time in his life: a total of $70.1 million."

Huh? He actually paid over $70 million in personal federal income taxes? Gee, that sounds like a lot of money! In fact, I bet if you added up every penny paid in taxes by all of the first 44 US Presidents combined over their entire lifetimes it wouldn't even come close to $70 million.

I didn't read the whole article yet, but it sounds like the authors lacked a decent tax & accounting background and were in over their heads trying to wade through 20+ years of returns. I suggest waiting to see what the WSJ has to say. They understand business. The New York Times doesn't. They just pretend to know enough to vilify it.

Trump has hundreds of businesses. Some are profitable, others show losses. In real estate, depreciation can make cashflow-positive ventures show losses for tax purposes. And guess what? Losses in some businesses can be used to offset profits in others. This stuff is only a revelation to idiots who never studied business or the tax code or worked a lick in the real world.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Chung Tran

look for the New York AG to slap tax fraud charges soon. You know damn well Trump lied on some loan applications, about his financial condition.

Did you even read the article? Or just skim the headlines, then turn on CNN to let the professional trump-haters spin and "explain" it all to you? You can't even make up your mind if you think he is guilty of tax fraud or loan fraud. But hey, why get specific and risk showing everyone here you don't know what you're talking about, right chungy? Fuck the details - it's easier to go with smear and innuendo. You're the fucking OP and you didn't even post a link - Tiny did six posts later.

Originally Posted by Tiny

Yeah, I don't really hold the tax evasion or avoidance or whatever you want to call it against him.

Avoidance, no. Evasion, yes. Big difference between the two. One is legal, the other can put you in jail.

[gfejunkie]

Not our first rodeo...



On to the next big lie. LMAO!!!

[SecretE]

Originally Posted by Strokey_McDingDong

idk. I still feel as though T R U M P is the lesser evil.

Not that it really matters. The election has already been sabotaged. There will most likely be mayhem no matter who supposedly wins.

Sadly, I think you are right. We are rapidly approaching a pivotal moment in this nation's history. Too many disparate viewpoints, and not enough patience and/or will to hear what the other sides are saying.

[HoeHummer]

Comically, the loudest segment of the USEh isn’t following the lion tamer but the clown.

We will watch As the Great White South tears itself apart while the t.rumpmregime moves toward full authoritarianisms.

Frightening for us, too, but yous have a responsibility to grow the fuck up and stop acting like spoiled brats.

[rexdutchman]

NYT and truth ? Fake hit job , no never the times ,

[HoeHummer]

Trump paid less in income tax than yous pay for feminine Hygeine products, boys.

How does that GRAB yous?

[oeb11]

yr/multiple handles - help is available.

get used to idea of Barret as a justice of the Supreme Court of America!

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Here's a quote tucked deep in the NYT article that illustrates how they try to spin every fact to fit their "trump is a liar and a crook" narrative.

"For 2005 through 2007... he paid substantial federal income taxes for the first time in his life: a total of $70.1 million."

Huh? He actually paid over $70 million in personal federal income taxes?

They don't actually say it in the article, but he probably got the $70 million back. Legislation was passed during the Obama administration to allow people with business losses like Trump's to carry back the losses to previous years and apply for refunds. So that was probably the source of his $72.9 million refund that the IRS is questioning. And the reason he "only" got $72.9 million back on $700 million of accumulated losses. With a 35% tax rate, he would have gotten back $245 million if he'd paid that much in tax during the applicable prior years.

Originally Posted by lustylad

I didn't read the whole article yet, but it sounds like the authors lacked a decent tax & accounting background and were in over their heads trying to wade through 20+ years of returns. I suggest waiting to see what the WSJ has to say. They understand business. The New York Times doesn't. They just pretend to know enough to vilify it.

Don't count on that happening. As you say, somehow the New York Times got a hold of 20+ years of tax returns, that they say were obtained by their source legally. That may be true, but the Times sure as hell didn't get them legally. The source will be in big trouble if caught. The WSJ probably won't get copies of the returns. And if they do, it's possible they might not report on them because of moral and ethical considerations. If I were an editor of a newspaper I sure as hell wouldn't be analyzing peoples' confidential tax returns and publishing what I come up with for all to see. But maybe that's just me.

Originally Posted by lustylad

Trump has hundreds of businesses. Some are profitable, others show losses. In real estate, depreciation can make cashflow-positive ventures show losses for tax purposes. And guess what? Losses in some businesses can be used to offset profits in others. This stuff is only a revelation to idiots who never studied business or the tax code or worked a lick in the real world.

The real revelation here is that Trump would be broke if not for stiffing his creditors. And he's stiffed them more than once. For me, that's his real sin, not violations of tax regulations. I feel sorry for the institutions and people (like Atlantic City bondholders) who loaned him money.

Basically he borrowed lots of money, put it into businesses that failed, and ran up huge tax losses. Because of the way the tax code worked, when he failed to repay his creditors, he didn't have to pay tax on the "forgiveness of debt income," but he did get to keep much of the benefit of the losses. The way he did this was perfectly legal on the first 900 million in losses from the Atlantic City Casinos. The way he used part of the next $700 million in losses is being questioned by the IRS, because he retained an interest in the business that generated the losses.

What we haven't discussed, the NYT article says Trump has a lot of debt coming due in the next few years, more than $400 million, and he may not have enough steady income coming in to satisfy the banks so they'll roll over the loans. Add to that the $100 million the IRS is coming after (the $72.9 million tax refund plus accumulated interest) and the losses he's running up year after year on his golf courses and the like, and he may land in bankruptcy court.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Avoidance, no. Evasion, yes. Big difference between the two. One is legal, the other can put you in jail.

First, I don't think Trump should be criminally prosecuted for violation of tax regulations. That's one of the things that separates the USA from banana republics. We don't go after our ex-presidents on trumped up charges and put them in jail. And undoubtedly he's got arguments, admittedly some of which may be weak, for deducting personal expenditures and the like. I'm not a lawyer, but the things I've read about sound like civil, not criminal, matters.

Second, what's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? It's whatever the prosecutor or the IRS special agent says it is. Cyrus Vance Jr. is going to go after Trump to promote his political career and to satisfy the blood lust of some in his party. My guess is that Trump will be criminally charged with tax evasion.

[matchingmole]

[Tiny]

Gentlemen, A large part of what's going on here is that if you don't make a lot of money, you don't pay a lot of income tax. And, through the years, when you add all his businesses together, Trump hasn't made a lot of money, unless you include "forgiveness of debt income" that arose when he wasn't able to repay his creditors.