shape
carat
color
clarity

New York Times Exclusive on Trump's Taxes

AGBF

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jan 26, 2003
Messages
22,161
Today "The New York Times" published an exclusive on Trump's taxes, revealing previously undisclosed information.

Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found


"The New York Times obtained records from 1995 showing that Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss. The figure is so substantial that it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying federal income tax for 18 years.

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.

Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump’s 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period.

Although Mr. Trump’s taxable income in subsequent years is as yet unknown, a $916 million loss in 1995 would have been large enough to wipe out more than $50 million a year in taxable income over 18 years.

The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of 'The Apprentice,' or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar."

Article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?&hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

AGBF
 
And here is what his crony, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and fellow misogynist, says says about Trump's manipulation of the tax code to benefit the wealthiest.

"Donald J. Trump’s use of tax provisions to minimize what he pays in federal income taxes makes him 'a genius,' Rudolph W. Giuliani, the former New York City mayor and close adviser to the Republican presidential nominee, said on Sunday.

Speaking on several morning news shows, Mr. Giuliani vigorously dismissed a New York Times report that revealed Mr. Trump had declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 tax returns, which could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes over an 18-year period.

'The man’s a genius,' Mr. Giuliani said on CNN’s 'State of the Union.' 'He knows how to operate the tax code for the people that he’s serving.'"

I'm not so sure that Trump knows how to operate the tax code for any people he might "serve" or that the concept of serving people is even one that could be explained to him. I only know that he can manipulate the tax code to serve the wealthy. He learned that well and applies it religiously.

article...http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/us/politics/giuliani-calls-donald-trump-a-genius-for-minimizing-his-taxes.html?rref=collection%2Fnewseventcollection%2FPresidential%20Election%202016&action=click&contentCollection=Politics&module=Collection&region=Marginalia&src=me&version=newsevent&pgtype=article

AGBF
 
redwood66|1475512033|4083204 said:

I assume you did not read anything "The New York Times" wrote (as usual), although you did read this Forbes article. I know you cannot read "The New York Times" without paying for it and you will not pay for it ( or so you have posted).

"The New York Times" article was about a candidate for president. That is far more relevant to me in this time before Election Day than this Forbes piece about the alleged bias of a newspaper. Because the Forbes article is not about a candidate; it is a disparaging piece aimed (I think quite unfairly) at "The New York Times".

AGBF
 
I'm a CPA.

It's not genius; it's a tax dodge any decent accountant knows about.

The difference is that Trump deliberately buys building material he can't pay for and uses it so that he can't be forced to give it back. Then he declares bankruptcy, sells his half-finished building back to another one of his shell companies, and screws over another round of small suppliers who feel like they can't do any better.

Whether or not you think THAT aspect of it should be called "genius" is up to you.

FWIW, I am able to read the article on my news app. (shrug)
 
Just so you know - you get 10 NYT articles for free each month. When you hit the limit, clean out your browser's cookies, which will enable you to start at 1 again. Or, access using a different browser for another 10. I've been doing this forever, works like a charm.
 
ksinger|1475515639|4083229 said:
Just so you know - you get 10 NYT articles for free each month. When you hit the limit, clean out your browser's cookies, which will enable you to start at 1 again. Or, access using a different browser for another 10. I've been doing this forever, works like a charm.

Hey thanks for that!

FWIW I really don't care much about his (or her) taxes. There are much bigger fish to fry. If the tax code allows someone to not pay taxes legally then it seems like there should be no issue? If people have an issue with it then maybe the tax code should be simpler yes?
 
redwood66|1475533337|4083336 said:
ksinger|1475515639|4083229 said:
Just so you know - you get 10 NYT articles for free each month. When you hit the limit, clean out your browser's cookies, which will enable you to start at 1 again. Or, access using a different browser for another 10. I've been doing this forever, works like a charm.

Hey thanks for that!

FWIW I really don't care much about his (or her) taxes. There are much bigger fish to fry. If the tax code allows someone to not pay taxes legally then it seems like there should be no issue? If people have an issue with it then maybe the tax code should be simpler yes?

^^ agreed. I don't like Donald but if he's legally able to get these tax breaks, I don't see the issue. These tax codes are on the books, some which def. suck because they skew toward the rich, but it would take more than a single presidents term (or 2) to get them straightened out. No matter whos in office, it would be like pulling teeth, just sayin.

I don't care about Clinton's taxes either. Both pay less than I do but they sure as hell make more.

I will say that Donald should stop being coy and release them. NPD folks like him though.... :nono:
 
redwood66|1475533337|4083336 said:
FWIW I really don't care much about his (or her) taxes. There are much bigger fish to fry. If the tax code allows someone to not pay taxes legally then it seems like there should be no issue? If people have an issue with it then maybe the tax code should be simpler yes?


I cared about Trump's because he refused to release them, not because of what proved to be in them. I agree we have bigger fish to fry; but his thinking he is above the law, able to make executive decisions like an absolute monarch, and not understanding The Constitution, are among those fish. Therefore, his not releasing his taxes, as has become customary, bothered me. It was a sign he thought he was above other presidential candidates and wouldn't be held to their standards by the public.

AGBF
 
The man's only real qualification for this job, the highest in the country, is his being a shrewd businessman. And from the looks of the released snippet, he isn't. He has also bullied Mitt about not releasing his tax returns in the past and has, on many occasions, bitched about "others" who don't pay taxes. I'll C&P his tweets for those interested since I'm sure they're not being reported everywhere.

He may also have significant financial ties to some pretty dangerous countries/dictators, and we the people should absolutely know if that's the case.

Part of his schtick is that he's an "outsider" who wants to fix the rigged system for the "little guys," but we see now (something most had already guessed) that he's been taking advantage of this rigged system all along. He is a willing part of it. Now, though, NOW, he'll work to change it to reflect what's fair for the poor and middle class. Of course. Just don't look at his tax plan.

His taxes are of yuuuuuge importance.
 
Arcadian|1475538728|4083355 said:
* * * I don't like Donald but if he's legally able to get these tax breaks, I don't see the issue. These tax codes are on the books, some which def. suck because they skew toward the rich, but it would take more than a single presidents term (or 2) to get them straightened out. No matter whos in office, it would be like pulling teeth, just sayin.
I don't care about Clinton's taxes either. Both pay less than I do but they sure as hell make more.
I will say that Donald should stop being coy and release them. NPD folks like him though.... :nono:
Perhaps you'll be pleased to see that the Clintons actually paid more than $3.5 million ($3,624,455 to be exact) in Federal taxes in 2015; I didn't realize they had paid that much:

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

She posted her tax returns for the past 10 years, and those of her running mate Tim Kaine, here:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/page/tax-returns/

clintons__2015_fed_tax_return__irs_1040__pg_2.png
 
When I talk more I mean more I mean in terms of percentage. Sorry if I wasn't totally clear. If I made Clinton kind of money I would NOT be sweating a few thou on a itty bitty stone :lol:
 
Arcadian|1475548243|4083402 said:
When I talk more I mean more I mean in terms of percentage. Sorry if I wasn't totally clear. If I made Clinton kind of money I would NOT be sweating a few thou on a itty bitty stone :lol:
Gotcha :)) Yeah, when your household income is $10+ million, a 43.2% tax bite (the Clintons' total, including NY state-local taxes) is -- I imagine, I"ll never know what it's like to make $1 million in a year, let alone $10 million! -- an easier pill to swallow.
 
I agree that there are much bigger fish to fry. Trump's taxes didn't mean a whole lot to me one way or another. Scandal is scandal (both candidates have their fair share) and unless it's some sort of bombshell discovery, I just don't see any of it having much of an impact at this stage of the game.
 
So, what are we going on, then? What he says he'll do? Would you, as an employer, hire someone who wouldn't hand over a resume because what really matters is what he or she says they'll do going forward? Donald's taxes, as a businessman, are the best proof of the experience he is running on.

Supporting him or not, this non-concern seems pretty partisan. Something like 72 percent of people polled said his taxes are of importance to them. Total polled, not just Democrats. And for good reason.
 
^The same could be said about Hillary. Hillary is an experienced politician and she has proven that she can't be trusted when she used a private email server for official communication :errrr:
As an employer, I wouldn't hire either candidate.
 
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top