Bombshell report on Trump taxes sends GOP nominee reeling

My assumption is that he hasn't made as much money as he claims, and that he paid a very low tax rate if any taxes at all in most recent years.

You couldn't be farther from the truth. I'm an independent voter. I dislike Trump and would never vote for him. What I am doing is considering a possible strategy of Donald Trump, who clearly marches to the beat of his own drum.

 

My assumption is Trump isn't an idiot and he's not releasing his tax to increase his chances of winning. IOW, it's worse than him just not paying taxes. But I wouldn't put it pass Trump that he is so insecure about his wealth standing that he's not releasing it to protect that ego, even if it means he's decreasing his chance to win.

 

If you look at it through Trump's paradigm, being second place in the U.S. Presidential election isn't a failure for most people. Many successful businessmen haven't gone this deep in a presidential election. Loosing election won't hurt his 'businessman persona' as much as people understanding how much he is actually worth. He has more to loose by admitting he inflated his net worth than loosing the election in the grand scheme of things.

 

Losing wouldn't hurt his business brand, but making an ass of himself will hurt it. Getting called out for all of his dishonesty will hurt it.

 

Maybe. But, he hasn't objected to the 18 year estimate nor provided returns to prove the estimate wrong. As long as he's withholding information from me, I have no problem at all assuming the worst until he proves otherwise.

That's what Republicans were telling us 4 years ago. Half the country were deadbeats not doing their part to support the country with income taxes. If not for those noble billionaires like Romney, we wouldn't have any money to build bombs to drop on civilians in third world countries. But, considering the case of Trump, I see now that the 47% paying no federal income tax were actually just tax geniuses using the law as it was meant to be used to minimize their tax burdens. After all, minimizing your tax by suffering a $900m loss is about as ingenious as working a shitty job that doesn't pay enough to support a family, never mind pay taxes.

 

Are you kidding me... making an A$$ of himself would hurt his brand? His entire brand is based on him being a HUGE asshat. Dishonesty may have a little more impact on him as a business man, certainly more of an impact than it will have on a politician like Hillary. Nobody seems to care a thing about honesty when it comes to politicians.

 

After he loses I'm expecting a Trump cable TV channel which will disappear a few years after its creation once people stop drinking his Kool-Aid. No one really credible in the conservative movement really respects Sarah Palin 8 years later since her popularity took rise. I expect the same from Trump and for him to disappear back into self titled business ventures that'll likely fail just like Trump TV after he loses.

 

Or he might die of old age before his star passes. He might become a martyr.

 

Like if you paid more taxes than Donald Trump

 

This clown needs to jailed for tax evasion

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong.

Tax evasion is a crime. Tax avoidance is a common legal practice to minimize the amount of taxes you have to pay.

But like, literally, we've covered this already:

Most of the complaints the past few pages were already addressed early in the thread. This post was on the front page no less. Are you people just lazy or are you actually trying to bury informative posts with your nonsense?

 

Still guessing, but this is one hell of a loophole. It takes a special kind (not really, just a tax dodger) to take advantage of it.

http://www.businessinsider.com/why-did-trump-pay-so-little-tax-2016-10

 

Still no clear story about the nature and mechanics of the debt?
http://qz.com/798940/donald-trumps-leaked-1995-tax-return-raises-these-big-unanswered-questions/

 

Useful article. Listening to this tax treatment get dogpiled the last few days, I was thinking to myself that there must have been some rationale for making the tax rule in the first place, and I haven't seen anyone come and make the defense. If it was really a legislative mistake, since corrected, that would explain why. I don't think you can say Trump "used the tax code like it was meant to be used" if it was a legislative mistake. Rather, he complied with the letter of the law and there wasn't **** the IRS could do about it. Still, it wasn't Trump's fault that Congress screwed up. I'm disappointed in Congress to grandfather in recurring benefits for people who didn't bear losses. In general, grandfathering is a good idea because people make business decisions based on the law at the time. In this case, however, I don't see the benefit of grandfathering. So should Trump have said 'I'm not going to use this ill-gotten tax benefit even though the law says I can'? Probably not. If Congress didn't see fit to take it away, I don't know why individuals should be expected to. Does it reflect badly for Trump to go into a business deal where he stands to benefit while his partners take the damage if the venture goes badly? I don't think they've released enough information about it to know. It definitely throws up some ethical red flags. But then, I never thought he might be an ethical business man anyway. The other thing I think it puts an exclamation point to is that if you thought Trump was an Everyman like you, he's definitely not. The Everyman does not ever get to use a little clever accounting magic to take millions in tax benefits. Trump is an elite who takes rewards from our economic system that far outstrips the labor he's put in, the risks he's borne, or the value he has created.

 

This is an excellent point, and is how the Trump team should respond. Hillary's team clearly thinks this is an area to exploit and is hitting it hard, this would turn the tables on them on this issue.

Of course, that would be smart, so it isn't likely to happen.

For all of those who are turning against Trump on this (from the bbc on the VP debate)

Congratulations, you are a pawn (not casting aspersions, we are all pawns, but we should seek to not be such willing ones). Hillary knows the above (that the tax loopholes were created by government, and businesses are actually meant to use them), but she also knows this will play well with much of the electorate. It isn't about Trump not paying taxes, it is about using that to win votes. She isn't saying she is going to change any of this, just casting fingers at those using it...if they happen to be in her way.

 

Trump supporters decrying aspersions? really?

The only people who understand tax law are the lobbyist who craft it. But, I don't think Ms. Clinton ever served in The House.
That's where tax laws arise, so, I guess you should vote against the House Majority party.

 

Been out of town, sry for delayed response.

First of all, this story doesn't even matter anymore. I can't imagine any possible way Trump wins after this leaked crude conversation. I never imagined he'd make it this far, and I stopped predicting anything after the first few primaries. But that has to be the nail in the coffin.

As for tax laws, the application might be subjective to an extent, but has the IRS ever found anything illegal?

'

And that's their own prerogative. Though I believe most Americans WOULD take advantage of it, if they had the means and it was WORTH it. The cost of lawyers probably isn't worth it to save thousands. To save millions, when you invest millions is another question.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/02/22/millionaires-face-1-in-10-chance-of-being-audited.html

Historically it's been low, but it was up to 9.55% last year. Exactly how many people should be randomly audited by the IRS and how much do you think that would cost?

I have a hard time believing the IRS didn't audit him to ensure whatever method(s) he used was illegal.

I don't buy for a second that he's going going to go to Washington and fight to change tax laws he's benefited from. But the loss wasn't a secret. It was in his book. He wrote about this in 1997 and if anything shows he is business savvy and able to turn things around when times are tough.

 

That's not his entire economic policy...and he isn't the only billion dollar investor. Not all billionaires have huge losses that allow them to essentially to forgive their tax liabilities. The fact that a candidate took advantage of laws to help himself recover from a "yuge" economic loss isn't shocking to me.

Clinton has been in the public eye and basically running for President since the 90's (as in preparing for her own political career). She has had the benefit of foresight (at least in this regard). She has had had lawyers making sure everything looked "presidential" for literally decades. Trump is an obnoxious rich guy. He hasn't ever really made a serious attempt at running for office...his personality, as shown throughout this campaign, is that he really doesn't give a f*%@ and isn't going to change anything or try to manipulate his image to make himself more attractive.

That's the only I mildly "respect" about him. He's a repulsive obnoxious arrogant cunt, but at least he's upfront about it?

 

I'm not sure how the in of itself makes him a scumbag business man. He took risks with investor's money and failed. Success and failure are part of a healthy economy. How many business accomplishments does Hillary have?

His economic plans call for a close to tax loopholes he's benefited from...do I believe he will follow through on that? I don't believe he's going to pull an LBJ, but I don't think he would veto a bill should Congress act. At the end of the day, Congress is responsible and Trump/Hillary can either sign it or veto it.