Trump's 1995 taxes...what's the big deal?

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary did the same thing...must use the same tax guys.

Clinton Campaign Admits Hillary Used Same Tax Avoidance "Scheme" As Trump

www.zerohedge.com...

WoW

They have an ongoing $700,000 capital gains loss carryover.

And remember they write off millions in charity donations too. Most of those go to their own Foundation.

Hypocrites on steroids.

They pay taxes though, A LOT. They aren;t doing their own taxes. If the 700k is found to be not right, I imagine they will pay it.

The $700,000 is a long term capital gains loss.

I hope you know what that is.

I know what it is and if the IRS finds fault with it, let them. But it appears the carry over is not wrong.

originally posted by: coldkidc
a reply to: reldra

SOME taxes...

Guess that depends on how much she made the following year -
Probably maxed out & wasn't able to write all her profits off.

Haven't looked at her 2015 taxes & really don't feel the motivation to do so...pretty much everybody does it & it's legal so I fail to see why I should care.

If the public doesn't like it then we should change the tax laws.

No. That is not how it works. I did look at the 2015 taxes and nothing seems out of order.


I was looking for mistakes, on purpose.

originally posted by: Blaine91555
a reply to: derfreebie

Those are not the foundations returns, they are Clinton's returns?

Therein lies the mystery of riches attained, I'm afraid Blaine.
How can a system based on debt and failed commerce be
a positive, unless there's an inevitable prospect for growth?

If it wasn't for administrative fees of possible 85% of the
Clinton Foundation's gross intake (as a pretty solid non-
trending quantity); we may not be having this dialog.

Could it be the above-board, 'legitimate' writeoffs from
"individual income" at both sides-- as demanded for
examination: be a diversion from your formerly
mentioned source? From what I can see so far, and
correct me cruelly if I'm wrong-- is the Trump Foundation
under the microscope as compared to the Clinton's, or
just his personal itemizations?
If the Trump 'individual return' showed that kind of
loss, and it's a for-profit corporation-- I would fail to
see why he would enlist corporate protection of his
personal assets. Like I said I'm tax code stupid like tar.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

What was disclosed has been found to be not worth disclosing,

You are welcome to your opinion(s).

Laws rarely work on opinions. If Trump is found to be guilty of a bigger crime, your opinion may be valid.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One does not need to be convicted of a crime to be demonstrated to be lacking in ethics. N'est ce pas?

One does not need to be convicted of a crime in order to act in one's self interest at the expense of others.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Mandroid7
"I absolutely hate this guy who makes more than me."

"It is not fair, make it fair please."

-every liberal ever

That is not the case. I usually don't have to 'pay', though I paid all year.

He makes at least millions and pays nothing. It is not just not fair, it is wrong. I PAID taxes for some of the years Trump paid nothing. That is insane.
I had to pay on years I made 14k and years I made 40K. He pays nothing?

I wasn't directly toward you.
I am speaking to the plauge of people who won't work smart enough.

You have to make money with your mind, not your hands.
You also have to be equally versed in tax law.
You also have to supply something people want, not what you like.
You have to avoid a bad lifestyle, avoid drugs, alcohol, laziness.
You have to be reliable, you have to be an example, you have to be trustworthy.
You have to be a marketing wiz and client "keeper".
You need to reconcile your bank account.
If you can't do any of the above, you need to hire someone who can.

I am sure all these things are obvious, but simplistic people generally think it's unfair, when in fact, wealthy people have looked over and assesed all of these critical points before most people's alarm clocks go off in the morning.
- From their ipad, as they continue their balance of health and wealth on the treadmill.

It's an entire lifestyle change to be successful, you can't go half in and expect the balance to happen in a vacuum.

I hated the taxes being a home builder. Taxes were high. I got into real estate investing instead.

If the politicians are playing all sides to keep the heat off of them.

Those evil rich could be us one day, if our country isn't pimped out any further.

a reply to: reldra

5.7% on charity. Over 50% on unknown expenses. Great foundation

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Mandroid7
a reply to: reldra

Why has he not paid taxes though?

I think he is probably re investing it, and pulling from his improvements on holds over 2 years.

No. You do pay taxes on dividends. I know his taxes are a big mess.

I understand that. I am talking about real estate. Big difference.
You don't pay any taxes on improvements on holds over a state-set time.
2 years in FL.

a reply to: ksiezyc

5.7% on charity. Over 50% on unknown expenses. Great foundation

False.
www.charitynavigator.org...

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: IAMTAT
Hillary did the same thing...must use the same tax guys.

Clinton Campaign Admits Hillary Used Same Tax Avoidance "Scheme" As Trump

www.zerohedge.com...

WoW

They have an ongoing $700,000 capital gains loss carryover.

And remember they write off millions in charity donations too. Most of those go to their own Foundation.

Hypocrites on steroids.

As I was replying to Blaine, that's exactly my point. And
for the issue of money laundering, I'd overlook it except
for that blatant 85 or so percent cost of 'administration'.

Man if that was a restaurant we would all assuredly be
keelhauled by Gordon The Fearsome for food cost monster.
"That case of lettuce cost us a net $18. The paperwork and
other front end cost $102. To break even with labor and the
food cost, our salad bar has to be $10 apiece for just a bowl
of iceberg... plain"
We're in the wrong racket, fox... should team up and start
Fox's Bar and Derf's Grill. Write off for three years and live
like kings on the Strip later. Well, if we had the same rules...

a reply to: derfreebie

I'd overlook it except for that blatant 85 or so percent cost of 'administration'.

What 85%? Did you misplace a decimal point?
www.charitynavigator.org...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One does not need to be convicted of a crime to be demonstrated to be lacking in ethics. N'est ce pas?

One does not need to be convicted of a crime in order to act in one's self interest at the expense of others.

Paying no more taxes than is legally required doesn't seem to be a that much of an ethical concern. Are you sure your taxes go towards ethical ventures? Or do they go towards drone strikes?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Mandroid7

Why has he not paid taxes though?

He hasn't? How do you know this?

I am speaking to the bs Clinton is releasing.
I haven't seen his returns.
I don't buy it, i believe it's dirty campaigning.

Uncle sugar wants his cut, and he would be in jail if he hasn't been forthcoming with his liabilities.
imo

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Paying no more taxes than is legally required doesn't seem to be a that much of an ethical concern.

Did I say that it is? I think I itemized my concerns (re: taxes).
Making his tax returns public may allay them. Or not.

That's it, I am going to get Wesley Snipes to join, his opinion should be valid to the discussion.

a reply to: Indigent

Nothing more than a common gambler..sometimes you're up sometimes you're down..no genius involved. If he hadn't of inherited his dads fortune we wouldn't be talking about him because he would of probably lost it all.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Paying no more taxes than is legally required doesn't seem to be a that much of an ethical concern.

Did I say that it is? I think I itemized my concerns (re: taxes).
Making his tax returns public may allay them. Or not.

I may have misunderstood. What is the ethical problem? Was it the self-seeking at the expense of others?

originally posted by: Mandroid7
"I absolutely hate this guy who makes more than me."

"It is not fair, make it fair please."

-every liberal ever

Not a liberal and if the common mom and pop tried to do the same with their business they would be hammered so hard they would never be able to have their own shop again.......

You idiots supporting Trump and placating this are falling right into the stereotype that all Conservatives just love Rich white guys.....

AND IM A CONSERVATIVE.....

Seriously you supporters make me sick just giving him a pass on everything......

Brainwashed and Kool-aid Drunk.........

Makes Obama supporters from 08 till now look tame and SANE

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Was it the self-seeking at the expense of others?

Yes.

Also, what would be entailed in maintaining a lavish lifestyle in the face of such a yuge loss. That may entail questions of ethics.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Paying no more taxes than is legally required doesn't seem to be a that much of an ethical concern.

Did I say that it is? I think I itemized my concerns (re: taxes).
Making his tax returns public may allay them. Or not.

I may have misunderstood. What is the ethical problem? Was it the self-seeking at the expense of others?

There isn't an ethical problem that I could see...hence the post