The Trump Card...

[Turtle]

This latest "bombshell" from the NYT about Trump's taxes, the timing of it all seems, at the very least, miraculous. But that's only if you don't remember almost exactly 4 years ago, October 10, 2016, when the Times had identical reporting on the story. It's just another example of recycled news.

Donald Trump Acknowledges Not Paying Federal Income Taxes for Years

 

[zero3nine]

Same tired old tricks from the Demonrats. Funny thing is, their followers eat it up with a spoon.

 

[Turtle]

Yeah, the Twittersphere and copious articles have taken the story and read into it what they want to see (which is why the NYT ran it) and have gone full-blown "Trump cheated on his taxes!", despite the Times piece not even making that claim. These people actually think that Trump cheated on his taxes over the last 15-30 years, and the IRS went.... "meh."

 

[muttly]

The walls are closing in on Dtrumpf now.

 

[dalscott]

Same tired old tricks from the Demonrats. Funny thing is, their followers eat it up with a spoon.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums

 

[ATeam]

Despite Trump's best efforts to keep them under wraps, his tax returns are moving closer and closer to public view. They are being leaked to news organizations. Courts are ruling against Trump and in favor of investigating entities who want those returns turned over to them.

That said, Trump's tax behavior is unlikely to change many minds in the upcoming election. His base will stick with him. His critics will vote against him. With or without the tax returns in play, that would be the case. Also, it is unlikely that his actual returns will make it into public view before the election, and it may be a long time after that before they actually come to light.

Regarding allegations of fraud, expediters are accustomed to taking business deductions and declaring losses just as Trump is said to do. I have little interest in trying to determine fraud; especially since the returns are out of public view. That's what investigators and prosecutors do, and there are plenty of those already on the job.

The media has been making a big deal about deductions for Trump's haircuts. Since those seem to be in connection with his Apprentice TV show, they seem to be a reasonable business expense.

Frankly, there is little point in discussing such details since the information needed remains out of public view. Investigators and prosecutors are on the job. They'll have full access to the returns soon, if they do not already have them. The tax questions will be litigated or not.

Regarding the charge that Trump is a terrible business man because he showed losses year after year, I'm not willing to jump immediately on that either. Tax law incentivizes that very thing. Even with expediters, a tax return that shows a loss may be deemed a good thing and a wise business practice.

That said, if Trump broke the rules to arrive at those losses, fines and/or jail would be appropriate, depending on the severity of the violations.

 

[davekc]

I wonder who is going to jail for leaking them to the times?

 

[Turtle]

That said, if Trump broke the rules to arrive at those losses, fines and/or jail would be appropriate, depending on the severity of the violations.

Ah, the old "if true..." tactic.

There are IRS agents who dream of nailing a billionaire. It's what they live for. If Trump broke the rules to arrive at those losses, we'd know about it. If Trump took any deductions that the IRS allowed, then those deductions are allowed. If they aren't allowed, the IRS disallows them, but no one goes to jail for having deductions disallowed.

As for the haircut deductions the media is (utterly disingeniously) hyperventilating over, that was an employee expense paid by Trump's business rather than the production company.

If your read deep into the Times piece, they admit that he paid a lot in taxes and didn't take any deductions that he wasn't entitled to take. Those two years where they claimed he owed $750, Trump actually overpaid those years by millions, and told the IRS to hang onto it for future tax liabilities. The $72 million refund that he got to offset earlier losses, that came about because of an Obama era change in the tax code that allowed earlier losses to be written off.

The terrifying $300 million loan that is coming due, that Trump personally guaranteed, that somehow makes him a national security risk for bribery, is nonsense. The correct response to Trump having a $300 million dollar loan coming due is, "So?"

Large corporations have loans like that coming due every month. It's routine. If you have enough assets, or cash, or, more importantly, cash flow, to service the loan, that's all the banks care about. The one thing the media won't report on is Trump's cash flow, because that's the most important factor in large loans like that, and Trump's cash flow is in the billions according to the fake news own public reporting.

 

[muttly]

An image from the debate:

 

[Turtle]

CNN's Dana Bash probably characterized the debate the best. You can Google it, probably, but it's one word, begins with an "s" and ends with "show."

 

[davekc]

It was a dumpster fire. Lol. But after watching I do see why Absolute Vodka was the sponsor.

 

[coalminer]

I doubt they can prove he did anything wrong with his taxes, im sure he has a group of accountants that make sure everything is legal. The real issue is that there are rules that allows him to make that much money and pay so little, thats what ticks me off.

By the way, I was telling someone the other day, if someone breaks his fingers and wires his mouth shut I will vote for him, but unless that happens I am voting for the Libertarian candidate, if you ever want to see the 2 parties forced to work together, elect her as president......

 

[RoadTime]

Leave it to Weird Al...
Ok, I think this is just amazingly cool

 

[Turtle]

The real issue is that there are rules that allows him to make that much money and pay so little, thats what ticks me off.

Don't forget that he has thousands of employees that he pays, and all of them are paying taxes. For example, he paid Ivanka millions in consulting fees. If he didn't do that, he'd have to pay taxes on it. So he pays her and then writes it off as a deduction, and then she pays the taxes on it. So he pays plenty in taxes, he just doesn't pay it directly on his tax return. People get all riled up about, say, ExxonMobil or Amazon not paying taxes, but they do. Just not directly. The stuff Amazon sells, the distributors pay taxes on the profits on those items. The tax code is written specifically so corporations and large companies like that can reduce their own taxes in exchange for keeping the economy's cash flow moving and the tax base paying taxes. So not quite sure why you'd be ticked off at that.

 

[muttly]

So I'm going to be driving up to the thumb of Michigan in the next day or so. I'll be checking out the political yard signs on the way. I'll provide an update of what I see. It's been over a couple of months since I was up there last. I'm working just north of Detroit (suburb)and what I've noticed is that Trump has approximately a 3 to 1 advantage in the yard sign total. There does seem to be more visible support for Biden (signs, flags) than there was for Hillary four years ago. Not sure how that translates because I also saw a national poll recently that said there is a decrease in enthusiasm of the Presidential candidate Biden compared to Hillary. It could be that this visible Biden support I'm seeing is largely due to an anti Trump contingent. An opposition to Trump is displayed by using a Biden yard sign.
Imo, I believe Michigan is in play, but Trump will need to get even a larger total of rural voters to win the state than last time.

 

[Turtle]

In south Texas, I've seen 2 Biden signs on the outskirts (Bob Bullock Loop) of Laredo. None in Del Rio, or Brownsville/Pharr area. None in San Antonio, but I haven't really driven much around there. But that's it.

Copious amounts of Trump signs everywhere. In yards, on the gates of ranches, on tractor-trailer trailers parked 500 feet off the road in a field, on the sign of an El Pollo Loco restaurant.

 

[muttly]

Look at the time stamp.

 

[ATeam]

The media has been making a big deal about deductions for Trump's haircuts. Since those seem to be in connection with his Apprentice TV show, they seem to be a reasonable business expense.

I want to modify my statement about haircuts. After a little reading about the tax destructibility of haircuts, it may not be the case that a deductions for haircuts (hair styling) are allowed. On the other hand, given the trademark nature of Trump's hair, he might succeed in convincing the IRS his haircuts are a reasonable and necessary business expense. The IRS is notorious for its inability to consistently and clearly answer the tax questions of ordinary Americans. With the tax law itself being as vague and complex as it is, it will be no small task to determine the propriety or impropriety of the Trump Organization, which consists of hundreds of sub-organizations located in many states and countries.

 

[ATeam]

If Trump broke the rules to arrive at those losses, we'd know about it. If Trump took any deductions that the IRS allowed, then those deductions are allowed. If they aren't allowed, the IRS disallows them, but no one goes to jail for having deductions disallowed.

People are jailed for tax fraud. That's different than disallowed deductions.

As for the haircut deductions the media is (utterly disingeniously) hyperventilating over, that was an employee expense paid by Trump's business rather than the production company.

I do not disagree.

If your read deep into the Times piece ...

That is something I am definitely NOT going to do. My time would be better spent reviewing my own business tax returns. As I said elsewhere in this thread, tax law is vague and complex. The returns are not in public view. Opinions about the destructibility of certain Trump expenses and/or the presence or absence of fraud would be speculative at best.

The terrifying $300 million loan that is coming due, that Trump personally guaranteed, that somehow makes him a national security risk for bribery, is nonsense. The correct response to Trump having a $300 million dollar loan coming due is, "So?"

I doubt Trump is terrified by any loan coming due. He has defaulted before and that does not seem to trouble him at all.

 

[Turtle]

Your Mind-Numbing, Scratch Your Own Eyes Out, Phrase of the Week:

"An abundance of caution."