Yes, this matters

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-trumps-tax-returns-could-affect-the-election/?ex_cid=538email

"In May 2019, after The New York Times published a report that showed Trump had lost around $1.2 billion between 1985 and 1994, public polling found the story could lower public opinion regarding Trump’s business acuity. In a Politico/Morning Consult survey, 54 percent of voters said Trump had been a “very successful” or “somewhat successful” businessman, while only 36 percent thought he’d been unsuccessful. But after being presented with information about Trump’s financial losses, the share of voters who thought he’d been a successful businessman dropped to 43 percent. And that slide was felt across the board, falling more than 10 percentage points among Democrats and Republicans, and 8 points among independents. Meanwhile, another May 2019 poll from Fox News suggested that evidence against Trump’s business savvy could influence the attitudes of a small but meaningful share of voters: 20 percent said there was a “strong” or “some” chance that new revelations could affect their views of him.

That 2019 polling squared with findings from a study by political scientists at the University of Maryland, which found that voters’ opinions of Trump’s business skills fell among both Democrats and Republicans when told how Trump had benefited substantially from his family’s financial help. The study showed that a lack of knowledge about Trump’s background mattered to how Americans perceived him, as a sizable share of Americans — around 40 to 50 percent — didn’t know that Trump grew up very wealthy and received millions of dollars in financial assistance from his family. If respondents had fewer misperceptions about the president’s financial background and the aid he received from his family, they tended to rate his business competence more poorly, the study found."

It really comes down to this:

1. Did he really lose so much money on his real estate that it erased 427 million of income and brand licensing from hos apprentice days?

2. Did he cheat by making illegal deductions, such as paying his kids as consultants, falsifying the value of his properties, declaring that mansion an investment while living in it?

The first damages his reputation as a businessman. The second is fraud against the United States.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

When did he as president fight to make the tax code more fair? Spoiler alert: he fought to make it less fair.

I agree with you. In 2016, Trump was not the President and had no responsibility for the tax code. Under Trump the entire tax code was changed and signed by Trump himself. That makes the taxes story more relevant than in 2016, not less.

If Trump wanted to release his tax returns from 2018 or 2019 showing that he paid more than the average American, that would be a really good defense of the NYT story. Don't hold your breath.

Yup. When pigs fly

Anonymous wrote:The Biggest Trump Financial Mystery? Where He Came Up With the Cash for His Scottish Resorts.
Donald Trump dumped $400 million into his clubs in Aberdeen and Turnberry. Now, lawmakers in Edinburgh want to investigate him for money laundering.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/the-biggest-trump-financial-mystery-where-he-came-up-with-the-cash-for-his-scottish-resorts/

This part is classic Trump:

Early promotional materials for Aberdeenshire carried what purported to be the Trump clan’s baronial crest—three lions under an armored fist brandishing a spear and surrounded by a flourish of red and white feathers.

It was, no surprise, a fake. Trump had cribbed the coat of arms from Joseph Edward Davies, whose wife had built Mar-a-Lago and who had legitimately been granted the crest in the 1930s. He had made only one minor change, erasing the Davies family motto of “integritas” (integrity) and replacing it with “Trump.” He had used the doctored crest for years to peddle all sorts of products—from ties to beach towels—and it was plastered across his US properties.

But that didn’t fly in Scotland.

For centuries the country has had an office devoted to making sure people do not claim someone else’s family name. And after it determined Trump was indeed displaying a stolen coat of arms, he was barred from using it. The episode foretold Trump’s subsequent misadventures in Scotland, a country particularly resistant to his brand of flimflam.

That should be GOP's epitaph.

"Replaced integrity with Trump."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

No, it was a sweetheart tax break offered during the depths of the Great Recession in an attempt to placate Republicans at the time.

It always comes down to Republicans being willing to sacrifice people for money, and Democrats overcompensating in protecting the disadvantaged while still benefitting from the larger scope structural frameworks that fuel all political trains.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

When did he as president fight to make the tax code more fair? Spoiler alert: he fought to make it less fair.

I agree with you. In 2016, Trump was not the President and had no responsibility for the tax code. Under Trump the entire tax code was changed and signed by Trump himself. That makes the taxes story more relevant than in 2016, not less.

If Trump wanted to release his tax returns from 2018 or 2019 showing that he paid more than the average American, that would be a really good defense of the NYT story. Don't hold your breath.

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

There are far too many billionaires influencing the tax code through their donations to political campaigns that benefit them, but also try to control inflating and reducing the value of their wealth. Elon, Mark, Oprah, George, Melinda together could have their own IPT and literally have more resources of influence on policy than an elected office. There are still loopholes rhat need to be closed. Until then, the ignorant voter is their friend. They should realize voters are so much more informed today than they have ever been in the history of time. That is why the disinformation campaigns are a new threat.

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

No, it was a sweetheart tax break offered during the depths of the Great Recession in an attempt to placate Republicans at the time.

Anonymous wrote:The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

When did he as president fight to make the tax code more fair? Spoiler alert: he fought to make it less fair.

The difference is the tax code in 2016 wasn't personally approved by Trump himself.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True.

Also true, the CEO's of those companies all paid more then $750 in income taxes.

Probably not much more. Most CEO compensation these days is structured specifically to avoid income taxes.

Again. Bottom half of lower class doing all the work and paying more in taxes to allow the wealthy to be rich and complain about public services that the lower class need and pour into the pot for. What a effed up system. I am so excited for it to be balanced. The old 65 year olds past retirement white knuckling policy like this can kick rocks if they don’t get this right. We have a planet and an economy to save, and a future to protect.

-40yo

The Biggest Trump Financial Mystery? Where He Came Up With the Cash for His Scottish Resorts.
Donald Trump dumped $400 million into his clubs in Aberdeen and Turnberry. Now, lawmakers in Edinburgh want to investigate him for money laundering.

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/08/the-biggest-trump-financial-mystery-where-he-came-up-with-the-cash-for-his-scottish-resorts/

This part is classic Trump:

Early promotional materials for Aberdeenshire carried what purported to be the Trump clan’s baronial crest—three lions under an armored fist brandishing a spear and surrounded by a flourish of red and white feathers.

It was, no surprise, a fake. Trump had cribbed the coat of arms from Joseph Edward Davies, whose wife had built Mar-a-Lago and who had legitimately been granted the crest in the 1930s. He had made only one minor change, erasing the Davies family motto of “integritas” (integrity) and replacing it with “Trump.” He had used the doctored crest for years to peddle all sorts of products—from ties to beach towels—and it was plastered across his US properties.

But that didn’t fly in Scotland.

For centuries the country has had an office devoted to making sure people do not claim someone else’s family name. And after it determined Trump was indeed displaying a stolen coat of arms, he was barred from using it. The episode foretold Trump’s subsequent misadventures in Scotland, a country particularly resistant to his brand of flimflam.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m late to the party. Is this going to have any effect on the polls or are people numb to everything Trump by now?

I think this will move the needle with non-entrenched people. The big question is how many of them there are at this point.

it probably demotivates marginal trump supporters, much like the emails with Clinton.

Naw, the report isn't seen as credible when considering the times previous failed attempts, they cried wolf too many times

Ugh. All Trump stories are proved true. It’s just that the base does not care.

This is nothing voters did not already know before voting in 2016. It was more or less stated by Trump in a debate and was the subject of an October 2016 NYT article

Thank you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

True.

Also true, the CEO's of those companies all paid more then $750 in income taxes.

Probably not much more. Most CEO compensation these days is structured specifically to avoid income taxes.

$70K for a hairdresser? Of course. He has multiple hair pieces, probably one for every day of the month. And then he pays a hairdresser to wash, primp and style each one.

And they are absolutely necessary for his business! I mean, would you do business with, put this man on TV, or elect someone who looks like this?



[Yes, I know that the image is fake and was photoshopped--just using Trump's own tactics against him. He can falsify his taxes, we can falsify his image].