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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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.

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

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. [/quote]

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?[/quote]

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.  :roll: [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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

*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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics