No, the issue here is the candidate is running based on his experience as a successful businessperson.

He has needled the Obamas, the Clintons and scores of others over the past several years about the unfairness of the tax code, the scourge of "those people" on the hard-working "real" Americans, etc and in fact he is the scourge as he has been freeloading on the government for decades and has paid less in taxes than the most lower-middle class of the people whose votes he is trying to attract.

People who pay hundreds of dollars in taxes have paid more than he has. Let that sink in.

He is a hypocrite and lousy businessman who has let his business failings subsidize his existence for decades as he remade himself from a developer to a branding machine. This news punches a huge hole in that facade.

Illegal? Who knows - the public needs more information, particularly on whether the initial "loss" was really almost a BILLION dollars. People take paper losses that aren't based in reality for the tax benefit. It is entirely possible Trump did the same.

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.

But this is the scary part. If he's admitting to paying little to nothing and it's LEGAL, then his huge tax cuts on the wealthy will only pad their pockets even more.

Look, either way we're fucked. Both candidates will screw the middle class. Hillary will tax us to support the poor, and Donald will protect the rich from paying their fair share. So the MC will have to step in again.

Anonymous wrote:I hope all of the lower middle class voters are seeing that they are paying the freight on the country while Trump is acting so smart.

And the middle class won't be supporting some of Hillary's initiatives with a free education for those making under $125K - and free community college for all?

Who's paying for that? Wall Street? bwah ha ha! the Clinton Foundation?

Give it up. Middle class is paying either way, genius.

Go read to inform yourself. You may learn something.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no taxes paid, not even $1 contribution to NJ children fund. So now we know for sure he hasn't paid taxes for multiple years. Potentially he could have carried over his bankruptcy loss for decades without paying any taxes or anything to charity.

So we now know he hasn't paid taxes for sure in 1991,1993 and 1995 and for atleast two more decades. So his business MO is to accumulate debt and declare bankruptcy and use the loss to eliminate tax obligations since he uses S-Corp, which allows pass through of business loss to his personal tax returns.

I use the same model for my taxes and had huge losses which I offset against my personal taxes for years. I did however pay 1.3 million in taxes this year when said properties were sold. Eventually the losses are recovered and taxes are paid, it's just a deferment. All businesses in this situation do this. No big deal.

This is the point that people seem to miss!

The carry forward of a NOL (net operating loss) is something that happens everyday and is entirely legal and legitimate. Individuals are allowed to carry forward a limited amount of a capital loss each year against their taxes into future years. It would be idiotic for an individual not to avail of a legal way to reduce taxable income.

What is also known in Trump's case is whether the $900 million in a single year or whether it is an accumulation over several years. Now what message this conveys about Trump's business savvy is a fair point though if these losses were incurred.

BTW, the losses appear to relate to the Trump Tajmahal and the Trump Plaza just based on the timing and given the amounts involved and if this is correct the losses predate 1995 and may have been even higher when they occurred. But whatever the facts, the carry forward of losses is legal.

The basic issue is that if anyone finds these tax loopholes as being unfair then the answer is to change the tax laws. Faulting anyone - whether it is Trump or anyone else - for using the tax laws to their advantage is ludicrous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How much tax has Amazon paid?

They have been running a huge loss for many years.

Is Bezos running for President?

Nope. But Hillary is. We have email issues, Clinton foundation issues, Benghazi issues, and other issues with her going back to when her husband was in office.

Anonymous wrote:You know, if his taxes are legal, I don't really see them as a grounds for criticism. If he released his recent taxes and everything was "legal" no matter how sleazy, I would not see a reason to criticize. He has indicated that he is a wealthy businessman and avoiding taxes is what they do. His other nonsense like using his foundation for his personal expenses, I criticize that.

However, since he is refusing to release his taxes, which suggests something fishy is going on.

But there is such a wealth of other issues to criticize!

You're not very bright, are you?

The news here isn't that he didn't pay taxes. If in fact he had a billion dollars in losses in 1995, of COURSE he didn't pay taxes. And, yes, the law allows NOLs to be carried back 3 years and forward for 15.

There's nothing even remotely scandalous about this from a tax perspective. This isn't tax evasion or a loophole.

What it tells us is he sucks at business.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically because he was a horrible businessman, he took a 900 Million loss and has been amortizing it for decades in tax avoidance.

So we are all chumps for paying our 30% or whatever while he freeloads on the government and then bases his campaign on poor government and his business acumen.

Ya, he's smart.

Asshole.

Where's your outrage for the TRILLIONS Google, Facebook, Exxon, Amazon, General Electric, etc. dodge? Trump is small potatoes.

Uh, for one thing, it's not trillions. No one has alleged a trillion-dollar tax gap. For another thing, the companies you all cite are C-corps, while Trump's operation appears to be an S-Corp. Totally different animals. For a third, you only pay taxes when you earn money -- Trump apparently sucks as a businessman and doesn't make money. that's the story here, not the non-payment of taxes. No one owes taxes when you have a loss.

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.

That's exactly right - why do you think production companies are so popular in Hollywood? They are legal tax shelters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1995 ?

You're really reaching.

Read the article. His losses will ensure he does not pay any taxes for 18 years. I have a feeling there is much more that just the $0 tax paid issue. I hope there would be more leak to understand the conman.

NO, IT DOESN'T ENSURE THAT. It could could have allowed him to deduct that based on his earnings in successive years. Got it?

I do recall Harry Reid telling us Mitt Romney paid no income taxes only to admit (proudly) he lied after the election and had no idea if he did or didn't (on camera no less).

Now wouldn't this go much easier if Hillary would release her 33,000 emails? Then Trump would release his taxes. What is she trying to hide?

The funny thing is, the media is not trusted anymore. This very well could work in Trump's favor. I would be very, very careful, were I media, of what I release.

The other part of this? What people do not understand is (a) when you have a complicit media and (b) you see both parties turn on a candidate, every alarm bell in your head should go off, because it means the powerful feel threatened and want to keep status quo. That usually doesn't bode well for the average joe.

It's never a surprise to see liberals get so mean on this forum - after all, so, SO many posters are working for government in some fashion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no taxes paid, not even $1 contribution to NJ children fund. So now we know for sure he hasn't paid taxes for multiple years. Potentially he could have carried over his bankruptcy loss for decades without paying any taxes or anything to charity.

So we now know he hasn't paid taxes for sure in 1991,1993 and 1995 and for atleast two more decades. So his business MO is to accumulate debt and declare bankruptcy and use the loss to eliminate tax obligations since he uses S-Corp, which allows pass through of business loss to his personal tax returns.

Question: if you declare bankruptcy and get debts erased, can you still claim related losses on your taxes? If so that seems like a massive freaking loophole.

No, because forgiven debt is taxable to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no taxes paid, not even $1 contribution to NJ children fund. So now we know for sure he hasn't paid taxes for multiple years. Potentially he could have carried over his bankruptcy loss for decades without paying any taxes or anything to charity.

So we now know he hasn't paid taxes for sure in 1991,1993 and 1995 and for atleast two more decades. So his business MO is to accumulate debt and declare bankruptcy and use the loss to eliminate tax obligations since he uses S-Corp, which allows pass through of business loss to his personal tax returns.

I use the same model for my taxes and had huge losses which I offset against my personal taxes for years. I did however pay 1.3 million in taxes this year when said properties were sold. Eventually the losses are recovered and taxes are paid, it's just a deferment. All businesses in this situation do this. No big deal.

Have a cake recipe you'd like to share?

Wow your just as small and bitchy as HRC. You must be a lobbyist who contributes greatly to her failure as a human being. In sorry you don't have the work ethic I possess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again no taxes paid, not even $1 contribution to NJ children fund. So now we know for sure he hasn't paid taxes for multiple years. Potentially he could have carried over his bankruptcy loss for decades without paying any taxes or anything to charity.

So we now know he hasn't paid taxes for sure in 1991,1993 and 1995 and for atleast two more decades. So his business MO is to accumulate debt and declare bankruptcy and use the loss to eliminate tax obligations since he uses S-Corp, which allows pass through of business loss to his personal tax returns.

I use the same model for my taxes and had huge losses which I offset against my personal taxes for years. I did however pay 1.3 million in taxes this year when said properties were sold. Eventually the losses are recovered and taxes are paid, it's just a deferment. All businesses in this situation do this. No big deal.

Have a cake recipe you'd like to share?

Anonymous wrote:Again no taxes paid, not even $1 contribution to NJ children fund. So now we know for sure he hasn't paid taxes for multiple years. Potentially he could have carried over his bankruptcy loss for decades without paying any taxes or anything to charity.

So we now know he hasn't paid taxes for sure in 1991,1993 and 1995 and for atleast two more decades. So his business MO is to accumulate debt and declare bankruptcy and use the loss to eliminate tax obligations since he uses S-Corp, which allows pass through of business loss to his personal tax returns.

I use the same model for my taxes and had huge losses which I offset against my personal taxes for years. I did however pay 1.3 million in taxes this year when said properties were sold. Eventually the losses are recovered and taxes are paid, it's just a deferment. All businesses in this situation do this. No big deal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he's taking a loss on paper for 18 years, then he doesn't look like such a successful business man. But I think his problem is deeper than that. He's probably taken illegal deductions and doesn't want to be found out.

Trump has complained many times about taxes- how it's not right for Obama to pay so little, how Trump pays more in one year than well pay in our life, etc.

I don't think anyone will say what Trump has done is illegal- that's not the point. He ran his companies into the ground, lost a BILLION dollars, then used loopholes for personal gain while his workers lost. True American Hero.

Although it could be the point if he used some illegal shelters.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If he's taking a loss on paper for 18 years, then he doesn't look like such a successful business man. But I think his problem is deeper than that. He's probably taken illegal deductions and doesn't want to be found out.

Trump has complained many times about taxes- how it's not right for Obama to pay so little, how Trump pays more in one year than well pay in our life, etc.

I don't think anyone will say what Trump has done is illegal- that's not the point. He ran his companies into the ground, lost a BILLION dollars, then used loopholes for personal gain while his workers lost. True American Hero.