Anonymous
10/02/2016 16:28
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
If the tax code offers this deduction, you pretty much have to take it. I'm amazed at how simple so many of you are wrt to economics and how the tax code works.
I think Trump leaked this himself and it helps explain future tax returns that come out and helps him with people who understand taxation.
I think Trump leaked this himself and it helps explain future tax returns that come out and helps him with people who understand taxation.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 16:22
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:This thread underscores the reason why it's a bad idea for Trump to release his tax returns, because armchair CPAs and financial analysts will misunderstand the numbers and twist it to fit their existing viewpoint.
It's simply standard tax treatment that net operating loses of a company can be carried forward up to 20 years, offsetting future operating profits. The reason this is done is very simple, a company's activity may not be a smooth and even event, costs incurred and recognized in one year may not bring revenue until future years. Think of a startup that initially is spending a lot of efforts building a new product, but cannot make any money until the product is complete. It cost them 1 million dollars to create the product in the first year, and in the second year, they made 2 million dollars selling the product. Isn't it logical to allow the company to deduct the 1 million in cost from the 2 million in profit?
Anyone who is expressing outrage over Trump's carrying forward of net operating losses is simply not understanding basic tax accounting concepts. And anyone who disagrees with the tax law that allows carry forward of net operating losses does not understand how a business functions.
The outrage is not about that. It is about being very rich but contributing nothing, no taxes, no charity, nothing at all to the less fortunate. It is about somebody who only thinks about himself 100% of the time. That person would, with the power of the presidency, be able to act like those leaders in the 3rd world who steal all that they can steal. It is also outrage about somebody who is not ashamed to say he is a great business man when he lost close to a billion dollars. If he can hold his head up and say that, what other things can he do?
Anonymous
10/02/2016 16:19
Subject: Re:Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get the argument that people try to use all legal means to bring down their tax burden, but imagine for a moment what it would feel like to living an incredibly opulent (though vulgar) lifestyle while contributing NOTHING to the national defense, veterans, medical research via the NIH, etc.? And it's not like Trump made up for with generous giving at all! Really-think how that would feel. Does it feel like-'I'm a winner and should be president'? It does to Trump.
There are three aspects to what you say:
Is there a moral obligation to pay taxes to meet common obligations. I would say there is but then the obligation is on the the government to pass legislation to ensure that EVERYONE other than the very poor pay a minimum percentage of their income. Yes, this includes much of the so called 47% who don't pay anything because they also have a moral obligation that is commensurate with income.
Then there is the issue of whether this reflects on Trump's business acumen. It is a fair question but I am not sure we have enough information to come to a conclusion on this because of the bankruptcy of his casinos which is where most of the losses emanated.
Finally, how much should a person donate to charity if they are in a position to do so?
I say all of the above as a liberal who does everything I can to pay as little in taxes as I can legally. There have been years I have paid little or nothing in taxes despite having a decent family income. Do I feel guilty about this? Not in the slightest. I think the waste in government in everything ranging from defense to welfare to taking care of special interests is obscene. And both liberals and conservatives are to blame for this. Remember the old adage: there has never been a defense program that Republicans don't like and there has never been a social program that Democrats don't like. Both sides THROW money at these programs because they think that more funding solves problems. And then you have legislators from both parties who raid the coffers to help special interests.
So, I am fine with anyone wanting to use the tax laws to avoid paying taxes: if we want to change things then we need to elect the right people in Congress and to the presidency. Neither Hillary nor Trump will do squat to deal with these inequities except to the extent that it will help their own constituencies.
A person with your beliefs should instead give the charity of their choice. They should give 30% of their income, defined in the common sense way, not the legal way.
I do give to charity but certainly nothing close to 30% but charitable giving is voluntary and taxes are not.
As I said, all Americans except those who are at poverty level should pay a certain minimum percentage of their income in the way of federal taxes because we all benefit from certain government services. But to castigate someone who uses the tax laws to avoid taxes is ridiculous whether it is Trump or anyone else.
Someone like Trump who does pay taxes despite his income may be penalized in the court of public opinion or by voters. I personally would not vote for Trump for other reasons but the fact that he pays little or no taxes is not a factor for me in how I'd vote.
What is missing in this entire thread is any sense of outrage that we have tax laws in effect that allows someone like Trump not to pay any taxes. Tax laws can be changed but it requires a resolve by voters that extends beyond anger at Trump or anyone else who takes advantage of existing tax laws.
You are kidding, right? This whole election is about that outrage. Unfortunately, the people who are most screwed are also stupid and picked Trump. If only they had coalesced around somebody sane. For this election, though, if we want to avoid WWIII, we are doomed, and most of us realize this. We won't forget this outrage, though, and hopefully we'll get somebody good to run in 4 years.
And if you think that obeying the rules makes you a good person, then you are morally bankrupt. Our society will fall apart if all of us does whatever we can do to better ourselves without breaking the rules. Nobody, no congress, nothing can write rules that are so iron clad that they cannot be avoided. The only way to have a stable sane society is if our intelligent, ambitious, strong men and women follow the spirit behind the law and not just the letter.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 16:18
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
This thread underscores the reason why it's a bad idea for Trump to release his tax returns, because armchair CPAs and financial analysts will misunderstand the numbers and twist it to fit their existing viewpoint.
It's simply standard tax treatment that net operating loses of a company can be carried forward up to 20 years, offsetting future operating profits. The reason this is done is very simple, a company's activity may not be a smooth and even event, costs incurred and recognized in one year may not bring revenue until future years. Think of a startup that initially is spending a lot of efforts building a new product, but cannot make any money until the product is complete. It cost them 1 million dollars to create the product in the first year, and in the second year, they made 2 million dollars selling the product. Isn't it logical to allow the company to deduct the 1 million in cost from the 2 million in profit?
Anyone who is expressing outrage over Trump's carrying forward of net operating losses is simply not understanding basic tax accounting concepts. And anyone who disagrees with the tax law that allows carry forward of net operating losses does not understand how a business functions.
It's simply standard tax treatment that net operating loses of a company can be carried forward up to 20 years, offsetting future operating profits. The reason this is done is very simple, a company's activity may not be a smooth and even event, costs incurred and recognized in one year may not bring revenue until future years. Think of a startup that initially is spending a lot of efforts building a new product, but cannot make any money until the product is complete. It cost them 1 million dollars to create the product in the first year, and in the second year, they made 2 million dollars selling the product. Isn't it logical to allow the company to deduct the 1 million in cost from the 2 million in profit?
Anyone who is expressing outrage over Trump's carrying forward of net operating losses is simply not understanding basic tax accounting concepts. And anyone who disagrees with the tax law that allows carry forward of net operating losses does not understand how a business functions.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 16:08
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:At least dumb people all over the country will finally learn how the tax code works.
Oh, I don't know whether that is true. Even on this thread the level of understanding is quite abysmal.
For example, the oft repeated statement that Trump did not pay taxes for 18 years after 1995 and that he lost the $900 million in a single year may be erroneous. For a start the $900 million NOL may have some amount accumulated from prior years. In 1996 or some subsequent year he may have had gangbuster earnings which offset most of the NOL from 1995 leaving little to be applied to future years. We don't know the answers to these questions based on a single year's tax return.
One thing we can be sure of - since Trump told us this - is that he does everything thing possible to minimize his tax liability using the tax code. You don't need to be a Trump supporter to see nothing wrong in him doing so as long as it is legal. Whether one chooses to vote for a candidate who takes that approach is a different question just as it is legal for Hillary to make gargantuan amounts in speaking fees but that may turn off some voters who question her judgment and integrity.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:57
Subject: Re:Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get the argument that people try to use all legal means to bring down their tax burden, but imagine for a moment what it would feel like to living an incredibly opulent (though vulgar) lifestyle while contributing NOTHING to the national defense, veterans, medical research via the NIH, etc.? And it's not like Trump made up for with generous giving at all! Really-think how that would feel. Does it feel like-'I'm a winner and should be president'? It does to Trump.
There are three aspects to what you say:
Is there a moral obligation to pay taxes to meet common obligations. I would say there is but then the obligation is on the the government to pass legislation to ensure that EVERYONE other than the very poor pay a minimum percentage of their income. Yes, this includes much of the so called 47% who don't pay anything because they also have a moral obligation that is commensurate with income.
Then there is the issue of whether this reflects on Trump's business acumen. It is a fair question but I am not sure we have enough information to come to a conclusion on this because of the bankruptcy of his casinos which is where most of the losses emanated.
Finally, how much should a person donate to charity if they are in a position to do so?
I say all of the above as a liberal who does everything I can to pay as little in taxes as I can legally. There have been years I have paid little or nothing in taxes despite having a decent family income. Do I feel guilty about this? Not in the slightest. I think the waste in government in everything ranging from defense to welfare to taking care of special interests is obscene. And both liberals and conservatives are to blame for this. Remember the old adage: there has never been a defense program that Republicans don't like and there has never been a social program that Democrats don't like. Both sides THROW money at these programs because they think that more funding solves problems. And then you have legislators from both parties who raid the coffers to help special interests.
So, I am fine with anyone wanting to use the tax laws to avoid paying taxes: if we want to change things then we need to elect the right people in Congress and to the presidency. Neither Hillary nor Trump will do squat to deal with these inequities except to the extent that it will help their own constituencies.
A person with your beliefs should instead give the charity of their choice. They should give 30% of their income, defined in the common sense way, not the legal way.
I do give to charity but certainly nothing close to 30% but charitable giving is voluntary and taxes are not.
As I said, all Americans except those who are at poverty level should pay a certain minimum percentage of their income in the way of federal taxes because we all benefit from certain government services. But to castigate someone who uses the tax laws to avoid taxes is ridiculous whether it is Trump or anyone else.
Someone like Trump who does pay taxes despite his income may be penalized in the court of public opinion or by voters. I personally would not vote for Trump for other reasons but the fact that he pays little or no taxes is not a factor for me in how I'd vote.
What is missing in this entire thread is any sense of outrage that we have tax laws in effect that allows someone like Trump not to pay any taxes. Tax laws can be changed but it requires a resolve by voters that extends beyond anger at Trump or anyone else who takes advantage of existing tax laws.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:34
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
At least dumb people all over the country will finally learn how the tax code works.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:33
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:PP, charitable giving won't fund the military, investments in the future, healthcare for the bulk of seniors, etc.
No, but it is better than giving nothing. If you are determined to take advantage of tax loop holes, you should at the very least do this. I prefer to get rid of tax loop holes, but a real man, a grown man who is not a child, wouldn't be able to look themselves in the mirror if they didn't at least give 30% of their income to some sort of charity.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:27
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:1995 ?
You're really reaching.
His returns from 1995 apparently had an impact on his reporting and payment (or not) of taxes going out 18 years subsequent of that, so I think its valid.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:27
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
PP, charitable giving won't fund the military, investments in the future, healthcare for the bulk of seniors, etc.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 15:24
Subject: Re:Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:It is legal and that is what matters ...... I say this as a liberal who uses every available loophole and strategy to pay as little in taxes as I can.
Who in their right mind would forgo legitimate deductions to pay more in taxes than they should? Trump can be faulted for many other things but minimizing his taxes using legitimate methods is not one of them.
I wouldn't go this route as a billionaire or millionaire. To be honest, I wouldn't feel comfortable not contributing at my current income. I don't want to pay something ridiculous like half, but I think it's patriotic to pay taxes. (I also don't mind paying payroll taxes, because I want it there for my grandparents and parents.)
Anonymous
10/02/2016 14:46
Subject: Re:Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I get the argument that people try to use all legal means to bring down their tax burden, but imagine for a moment what it would feel like to living an incredibly opulent (though vulgar) lifestyle while contributing NOTHING to the national defense, veterans, medical research via the NIH, etc.? And it's not like Trump made up for with generous giving at all! Really-think how that would feel. Does it feel like-'I'm a winner and should be president'? It does to Trump.
There are three aspects to what you say:
Is there a moral obligation to pay taxes to meet common obligations. I would say there is but then the obligation is on the the government to pass legislation to ensure that EVERYONE other than the very poor pay a minimum percentage of their income. Yes, this includes much of the so called 47% who don't pay anything because they also have a moral obligation that is commensurate with income.
Then there is the issue of whether this reflects on Trump's business acumen. It is a fair question but I am not sure we have enough information to come to a conclusion on this because of the bankruptcy of his casinos which is where most of the losses emanated.
Finally, how much should a person donate to charity if they are in a position to do so?
I say all of the above as a liberal who does everything I can to pay as little in taxes as I can legally. There have been years I have paid little or nothing in taxes despite having a decent family income. Do I feel guilty about this? Not in the slightest. I think the waste in government in everything ranging from defense to welfare to taking care of special interests is obscene. And both liberals and conservatives are to blame for this. Remember the old adage: there has never been a defense program that Republicans don't like and there has never been a social program that Democrats don't like. Both sides THROW money at these programs because they think that more funding solves problems. And then you have legislators from both parties who raid the coffers to help special interests.
So, I am fine with anyone wanting to use the tax laws to avoid paying taxes: if we want to change things then we need to elect the right people in Congress and to the presidency. Neither Hillary nor Trump will do squat to deal with these inequities except to the extent that it will help their own constituencies.
A person with your beliefs should instead give the charity of their choice. They should give 30% of their income, defined in the common sense way, not the legal way.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 14:45
Subject: Re:Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:I get the argument that people try to use all legal means to bring down their tax burden, but imagine for a moment what it would feel like to living an incredibly opulent (though vulgar) lifestyle while contributing NOTHING to the national defense, veterans, medical research via the NIH, etc.? And it's not like Trump made up for with generous giving at all! Really-think how that would feel. Does it feel like-'I'm a winner and should be president'? It does to Trump.
I can not imagine having a person who could bare to live like this as our president. A president should be tough, sure. But he/she should also have empathy. Without that, we are back in the WWI era, or we are living in a banana republic or a third world dictatorship.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 14:43
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:He used the tax laws on the books to his benefit.
I do it all the time too. Good for him!
I do it also .... it has nothing to do with being a liberal or conservative.
If there are laws that enable a person to minimize taxes most people with an iota of commonsense would do it.
unless they cared about our country. unless they want to live in a stable world.
Anonymous
10/02/2016 14:35
Subject: Someone leaked Trump's 1995 tax returns
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:1995 ?
You're really reaching.
Yet you have no problem digging into Bill Clinton's indiscretions from decades ago.
And especially when they were HIS indiscretions, not hers.
Mic drop, hypocrite.