Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In short, he’s a crook!

$750 in taxes paid the year he won presidency!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-trump-taxes.html?referringSource=articleShare

How much should he have paid?

If he's really a billionaire, more than $750, don't you think?

Taxes are based on income, not assets or wealth. As a real estate developer/investor, Trump would have significant depreciation and loss carry forwards that would allow him to dramatically (and legally) reduce his taxable income to include showing a loss. DH and I have a very similar tax situation.

For 18 years? Are you kidding me? That's not how taxes work. Seriously.

That’s exactly how taxes can, and often do, work. I see it every day.

Please explain how Trump can be a successful businessman and claim losses for 18 out of 20 years.

Depreciation on real estate, which is non-cash, is expensed to reduce taxable income/create losses. Properties are sold and taxes on the proceeds/profits are deferred via a 1031 tax-free exchange. Very few of my clients pay much, of any, in taxes, year after year.

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.

Anonymous wrote:I WANT TO KNOW WHO HE OWES $300 MILLION. Yes I am shouting. This is the big story. My best is The Russians.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lied in his financial disclosures.

"In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

Wonder if PP ever heard of EBIDTA?

Why let facts and accounting get in the way of outrage. People want to be useful idiots, they seek the chance to be one, it validates the purpose of their otherwise meaningless existence.

Cheer up, Brad.

LOL, you think I'm sad... anyone who knows even simple accounting understands that there is nothing to see here. Without the original documents plus a lot of contextual information, there is simply no conclusion to be drawn and we certainly don't trust NYT to be fair and balanced. So the result is that NYT got nothing more than some innuendos and accusations, which amounts to a hill of beans in front of educated people. And while it does rile up the uneducated (in terms of accounting), the ignorant people have characteristically short attention spans, and this will all be washed away by their new outrage two weeks from now. Terrible timing on the part of NYT.

You keep telling yourself that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lied in his financial disclosures.

"In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

Wonder if PP ever heard of EBIDTA?

Why let facts and accounting get in the way of outrage. People want to be useful idiots, they seek the chance to be one, it validates the purpose of their otherwise meaningless existence.

Cheer up, Brad.

LOL, you think I'm sad... anyone who knows even simple accounting understands that there is nothing to see here. Without the original documents plus a lot of contextual information, there is simply no conclusion to be drawn and we certainly don't trust NYT to be fair and balanced. So the result is that NYT got nothing more than some innuendos and accusations, which amounts to a hill of beans in front of educated people. And while it does rile up the uneducated (in terms of accounting), the ignorant people have characteristically short attention spans, and this will all be washed away by their new outrage two weeks from now. Terrible timing on the part of NYT.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lied in his financial disclosures.

"In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

Wonder if PP ever heard of EBIDTA?

Why let facts and accounting get in the way of outrage. People want to be useful idiots, they seek the chance to be one, it validates the purpose of their otherwise meaningless existence.

Cheer up, Brad.

LOL, you think I'm sad... anyone who knows even simple accounting understands that there is nothing to see here. Without the original documents plus a lot of contextual information, there is simply no conclusion to be drawn and we certainly don't trust NYT to be fair and balanced. So the result is that NYT got nothing more than some innuendos and accusations, which amounts to a hill of beans in front of educated people. And while it does rile up the uneducated (in terms of accounting), the ignorant people have characteristically short attention spans, and this will all be washed away by their new outrage two weeks from now. Terrible timing on the part of NYT.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lied in his financial disclosures.

"In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

Wonder if PP ever heard of EBIDTA?

Why let facts and accounting get in the way of outrage. People want to be useful idiots, they seek the chance to be one, it validates the purpose of their otherwise meaningless existence.

I would like someone to explain to me how EBITDA is applicable to an individual.

You might have heard that Trump owns businesses.

Just because Trump can’t seem to separate himself from his businesses doesn’t mean that you or I can’t understand that they’re different.

Sure, but his businesses have EBDITDA, which he can certainly quote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just here to point out that depreciation doesn't last forever.

The accountant on this thread has assured me that it does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Trump lied in his financial disclosures.

"In 2018, for example, Mr. Trump announced in his disclosure that he had made at least $434.9 million. The tax records deliver a very different portrait of his bottom line: $47.4 million in losses."

Wonder if PP ever heard of EBIDTA?

Why let facts and accounting get in the way of outrage. People want to be useful idiots, they seek the chance to be one, it validates the purpose of their otherwise meaningless existence.

I would like someone to explain to me how EBITDA is applicable to an individual.

You might have heard that Trump owns businesses.

Just because Trump can’t seem to separate himself from his businesses doesn’t mean that you or I can’t understand that they’re different.

Anonymous wrote: