The BIG ONE: 20 years of Trump taxes obtained by NYTs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As an accountant I am not surprised by this number at all. He has lost a lot of money on a lot of businesses. Without more detail, the $750 has very little meaning. It's just being dropped to get people outraged

You are so wise, and yet: 1) the number does have meaning on its very face about how much he paid and 2) read the article for lots and lots more detail.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I must admit I am amused that the Democrats spent years trying to prove Trump broke laws only for the FBI and Meuller investigations to break laws in their investigations of Trump. And someone broke laws in leaking the Trump taxes to the NYT only to show that Trump didn't break any tax laws either. You may not like the taxes or lack of taxes but he was in compliance of the US tax code. And someone at the DA office in NY definitely did something illegal in the leaking.

Shrugs. Yeah, it's still bad for Trump's persona but I'm more bothered by the hyperpartisan Democrats' willingness to break laws in trying to bring Trump down. I get that you don't like the guy but they've turned themselves into bitter caricatures in the process.

There are a number of things in there that aren’t in compliance with the tax code.

Such as...

By the way, you still don't have the documents. You have purported documents from an anonymous source, released at a time not for journalistic inquiry, but to hurt Trump's election. This is a fabricated hit job.

This would be incredibly easy for Trump and his campaign to refute. They could release his tax returns. But Trump just said he won't do that. They could send them on to a trusted buddy at the WSJ editorial board or somewhere who could write a response article refuting the NYT article. But they won't do that because... Do you know why?

Haha, why would he need to refute anything? It's perfectly clear from this thread that only the ignorant are angry about this. It's not Trump's job to teach people basic principles of business taxes and accounting, especially related to real estate investments.

If you are a seeker of truth, why not heed the advice of people who obviously know more about taxes and real estate investments than you. Why continue to wallow in your outrage, instead of taking a moment to educate yourself. I thought Democrats valued the advice of experts.

I've asked multiple times how Ivanka can be paid as an employee and a contractor and no one has answered. Please educate me!

The situation is unusual, but I can certainly imagine instances where it is done. For example, if a person has a normal employee job with a company as an accountant, performing work as directed by the company, but also works as a contractor for recruitment - referring new hires by reading/understanding the job requirements but looking for matching candidates using their own methods and determining their own work schedule, in their own separate workspace.

There is nothing in law that specifically says that a person cannot be both an employee and a contractor when doing very different tasks. However, for doing the same set of work, a person is either an employee or a contractor, but not both. In this situation, we don't know what the nature of work is.

Right, but we do know Ivanka's areas of "expertise." She doesn't exactly have a diverse skill set, does she?

*shrug*, that sounds more like a snide remark than a real attempt at a meaningful response. You can make those remarks if you want to, but it just shows that you have nothing to answer against facts, reason, and logic, only your feelings. You may not like it that Ivanka is both an employee and a contractor, but that doesn't make it illegal. We are a nation of laws, not a nation of feelings.

Fact: It is highly unusual that Ivanka Trump was payed as an employee and a contractor.
Fact: By itself, this is not illegal, but it may indicate tax fraud.
Fact: Without more information, ordinary citizens have no way of knowing if this is legit or not.
Fact: Trump is free to release more information to clear up the NYT claims.
Feeling: You like to think of yourself as more logical and less emotional than others. But here you are, defending someone you have never met without any exculpatory evidence. It would be sad if I hadn't seen it so many times before.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an accountant I am not surprised by this number at all. He has lost a lot of money on a lot of businesses. Without more detail, the $750 has very little meaning. It's just being dropped to get people outraged

You are so wise, and yet: 1) the number does have meaning on its very face about how much he paid and 2) read the article for lots and lots more detail.

Also, it's the frequency with which this has happened. One year = not concerning at all. Two years = not a big deal. But 10-15 years in a row!

[Anonymous]

Just rewatched Casino, this is the closest I’ve been to seeing a real ‘Don’

[Anonymous]

Jared just deleted/wiped his twitter activity.

Thoughts and prayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jared just deleted/wiped his twitter activity.

Thoughts and prayers.

I'm sure he had a shabbos/Yom Kippur goy do it /s

[Anonymous]

The outrage is based on a deep, personal, sense of betrayal, that millions of Americans who struggle to achieve financial stability have each paid more to the government than Trump, who was elected President and who pledged to protect and defend every one of them.

Of course people have heard of shadowy rich people "not paying their fair share". But this is not a shadowy rich person. This is the President. The President should set a good example, and pay his fair share. "Fair" is not $750.

No one cares about the legalities. People care about a man with a gold toilet paying $750 in taxes.

It will stick in people's craw, and peel off some of his supporters who will not vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jared just deleted/wiped his twitter activity.

Thoughts and prayers.

Wasn't there a poster who was posting "drip, drip" a lot?

I think this is more like snaking a plugged toilet. Lotta stuff getting ready to spill out.

[Anonymous]

note the date

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The outrage is based on a deep, personal, sense of betrayal, that millions of Americans who struggle to achieve financial stability have each paid more to the government than Trump, who was elected President and who pledged to protect and defend every one of them.

Of course people have heard of shadowy rich people "not paying their fair share". But this is not a shadowy rich person. This is the President. The President should set a good example, and pay his fair share. "Fair" is not $750.

No one cares about the legalities. People care about a man with a gold toilet paying $750 in taxes.

It will stick in people's craw, and peel off some of his supporters who will not vote for him.

"People care about a man with a gold toilet paying $750 in taxes."
Amen.

[Anonymous]

30+ pages and no speculation about whom the source might be! Any guesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30+ pages and no speculation about whom the source might be! Any guesses?

tiffany

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big nothing, common with real estate

Paying between $0-750 income taxes is common in real estate? Reaaaally?

Yea, but it's more complicated than that of course. One of the big benefits with investment in real estate is depreciation, which you can manage strategically to minimize tax liabilities. However, you do eventually have to realize the gains. I'm partner in a building project which has been using depreciation to offset gains elsewhere. However, eventually when the building is done and sold, we have the capture and realize all gains, including the deductions we took.

This is all perfectly normal. Anyone who thinks it's a big deal is ignorant.

Then why hasn't he released them if NBD?

As I already answered else where, because there are ignorant people, like the numerous ones on this thread, who would not understand that this is no big deal, and become useful idiots to Democrats looking to hurt Trump.

You sound like a true believer in democracy. Can’t trust voters to make the right choice with actual information. I guess that’s how it goes. If you hate democracy, vote for Trump!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:30+ pages and no speculation about whom the source might be! Any guesses?

I'm going to guess either his accountants or Deutsche Bank.

[Anonymous]