Trump Tax Returns Leaked


Jackson_Fusion said:



BG9 said:



Jackson_Fusion said:


I believe all of this information should be released by both candidates.

While you took issue with my comments regarding medical records, in some detail, I note you had no comment on my contention that Clinton should stop litigating against the release of her foundation's finances and pay to play investigations. If there's nothing to hide, why hide?
I don't have enough information to be able to comment on that.



Is someone suing the Clinton foundation to get the donor list released? Has the foundation opposed the lawsuit in court? What court? Do you have a link to what was submitted to the courts?


There can be legal and fiduciary reasons why charities and foundations do not release donor lists.

The article has most of the information you seek or a running head start for that it doesn't. Plaintiff and defendant, venue, issue, etc. For the rest, now that you've been made aware of the issue, given the value of your vote it's best you do your own homework.

I would be appreciative of and interested in your perspective afterwords, thank you.

The article I see is the state luncheon where Clinton foundation donors requested "good" seating. I didn't see anything about a lawsuit on the release of donors. Maybe I missed it.


His companies had losses because he took all of the money out of them on BS consulting fees. It's just like he's running his campaign with every every event being a money maker in some way. It's a shell game. These are not legitimate losses, and are a bilking of the treasury.


This all relates to Trump's trump card: that he's some sort of brilliant businessman that will bring his business acumen to running the government. He lost close to a billion dollars and apparently took advantage of tax laws which favor inept businesses who rack up huge losses. This is akin to Trump businesses declaring bankruptcy several times.

Nothing illegal about it, it just shows he knows how to game the system and that he's not a truly brilliant businessman.



BG9 said:



Jackson_Fusion said:



BG9 said:



Jackson_Fusion said:


I believe all of this information should be released by both candidates.

While you took issue with my comments regarding medical records, in some detail, I note you had no comment on my contention that Clinton should stop litigating against the release of her foundation's finances and pay to play investigations. If there's nothing to hide, why hide?
I don't have enough information to be able to comment on that.



Is someone suing the Clinton foundation to get the donor list released? Has the foundation opposed the lawsuit in court? What court? Do you have a link to what was submitted to the courts?


There can be legal and fiduciary reasons why charities and foundations do not release donor lists.

The article has most of the information you seek or a running head start for that it doesn't. Plaintiff and defendant, venue, issue, etc. For the rest, now that you've been made aware of the issue, given the value of your vote it's best you do your own homework.

I would be appreciative of and interested in your perspective afterwords, thank you.

The article I see is the state luncheon where Clinton foundation donors requested "good" seating. I didn't see anything about a lawsuit on the release of donors. Maybe I missed it.

The lawsuit is for release of emails detailing requests from donors to Clinton's foundation for access to VIPs through the state department. The definition of buying access and influence peddling if there is a quid pro quo (and statements about a donor making a request describing him as "a big supporter" suggests support buys consideration).

These were state department functions, not foundation functions. They've fought the disclosure tooth and nail. By the formulation given earlier, that resistance to disclose means concealment of something, this is troubling- and the emails do nothing to allay the concern. Quite the contrary.



debby said:

I think there are other issues at play, aside from loss carry-forwards (which were perfectly legal). I think the real reason for stalling lies in in his K-1s. What is he deeply invested in? What are his income streams from Russia?

Legitimate questions. I read many banks will not extend any more credit to Trump.

He had to go to foreign investors and banks for credit. He owes 100's of millions to the Bank of China and Deutsche Bank. Where else? Russian oligarchs? Arab oil?

He talks about his Federal Election Financial disclosures which shows him to be so very rich. He's said the Federal Election Commission Disclosures are much more informative than tax returns and gave that as one of his many reasons why there is no need to disclose his taxes.

On his election disclosure Trump said the Trump National Golf Club is worth 50 million. When the Westchester county tried to ***** for property tax, his attorneys claimed that the property was worth $1.35 million. $50 million on his FEC disclosure form, 1.35 million to the assessor. He's done that with other properties.

How can anyone believe anything he says?



the state tax returns that The Times published might not be protected under federal law.



tom said:

the state tax returns that The Times published might not be protected under federal law.

Possibly why they only published the state returns.

1995 and thereabouts were boom years. One has to wonder about a "genius" who managed to lose so much money in that era.


There's no proof he's under audit.

n00b said:

I don't have a problem with Trump taking advantage of legal loopholes, but I do wonder why he is constantly under audit when so many of his super rich pals are not. Clearly the IRS smells something fishy there.



I saw the reporters on one of the Sunday shows today and they were very confident they are in the clear legally. They received the forms 10 days ago - I'm sure they've run all the scenarios.

tom said:

the state tax returns that The Times published might not be protected under federal law.



I posted initially about a Washington Post story that the NYT broke the law. But this later slate article emphasizes both the fact that the Times only published state taxes where the law doesn't apply, as well as the First Amendment arguments, so maybe that will save the day for the Times:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/10/02/the_new_york_times_did_not_break_the_law_by_publishing_trump_s_tax_returns.html



Jackson_Fusion said:




These were state department functions, not foundation functions. They've fought the disclosure tooth and nail. By the formulation given earlier, that resistance to disclose means concealment of something, this is troubling- and the emails do nothing to allay the concern. Quite the contrary.

What ate you talking about, you can just go to their website and see the donor list. They released their donors before she became SS.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors/



unixiscool said:



Jackson_Fusion said:




These were state department functions, not foundation functions. They've fought the disclosure tooth and nail. By the formulation given earlier, that resistance to disclose means concealment of something, this is troubling- and the emails do nothing to allay the concern. Quite the contrary.

What ate you talking about, you can just go to their website and see the donor list. They released their donors before she became SS.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors/

Read the article again. I'm sure you'll get it the second time through.



Trump is a shyster from morning to night. He gets people and banks to invest in his ventures and says it's going to be YUGE, Tremendous! I don't know if he aims for the businesses to succeed, but if he does, not very hard. He stiffs the contractors, employees, and suppliers. Losing money is his modus operandi, deliberate or not, though it seems deliberate to me. He skims off the top to finance his lavish lifestyle, and his net worth isn't really important to him as long as he can continue this. And actually, losing money is to his advantage because that's how he ends up owing no taxes. So don't you think someone who stiffs so many people should be paying, not profiting? Is this a business model to admire? Is it good for the economy, even? If this is what he does, reaping benefit for Donald Trump and absolutely no one else, why should anyone think that he'll be in their corner when they need him?

See the movie Blue Jasmine. A shyster couple lives this way. The woman's sister wins the lottery for $200,000, and the shyster couple tells the sister and her husband -- who want to invest in his own business -- instead to invest with them (the shysters). They take the money and go on vacation with it, and they're running a ponzi scheme.

There are people like this in various circles. I've met some in the Hamptons. They blend in like the actually wealthy people, and you might not be able to tell them apart, but they are leaches. Trump is just the biggest of them all.

Losing money is his actual business model. This is not how things are supposed to work, and you can give it your best shot and fail, having the best of intentions, but this is not what's happening here. Taking advantage of the laws is not OK in this case.

If your next door neighbor were a welfare cheat and boasted about it to you endlessly, you'd get irritated, wouldn't you? This is what he's doing, and he's also boasting about it. He's cheating you and me. He calls himself successful, and we should rally behind him?



Jackson_Fusion said:



unixiscool said:



Jackson_Fusion said:




These were state department functions, not foundation functions. They've fought the disclosure tooth and nail. By the formulation given earlier, that resistance to disclose means concealment of something, this is troubling- and the emails do nothing to allay the concern. Quite the contrary.

What ate you talking about, you can just go to their website and see the donor list. They released their donors before she became SS.

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/contributors/

Read the article again. I'm sure you'll get it the second time through.

Maybe your exposure to pesticides is affecting how you "get" things. Trump is a billion dollar loser who hasn't made a dime in a real business in years. Watch the Frontline special. He's just a TV personality who lives in a fantasy world where the truth is shunned. He will never release his taxes because they are the only thing about him that doesn't lie.



Jasmo said:
Lost, you make a good point, however, adding that "none of you get it" tends to alienate your audience rather than opening them up to listening to you.

I believe I have established enough credibility and good will on this message board to be able to be critical. Those who post here often know that I respect their points of view.

OTOH it appears that one person completely misunderstood my post.


BCC said:



LOST said:

With all due respect none of you seem to get it.

It is not what is revealed about Trump. It is how he reacts.

So what that he had a problem with a Miss Universe's weight gain 20 years ago. It's his extreme over reaction that hurts him. Now his reaction to the Times story is to suggest Hillary Clinton cheated on Bill Clinton.

Hillary's problem is that she is perceived to be secretive. So its the revealing of secrets that hurts her. It reinforces the perception. But she knows how to react to lesson the impact. Trump doubles down.

With all due respect it revealed nothing. Trump's BS and reactions to news he doesn't like are well known and are not the story.

The question is, since what he did was legal should he be required to divulge his tax returns?

Hillary is secretive. So, along with JFs comments should we all also be demanding she publish her remarks that earned her $750,000.00 for several speeches? What is she hiding?

I was talking about what the tax returns revealed. I was saying that Trump's tax avoidance is not as much the issue as is the way he reacts to anything negative about himself. He overreacts in such a way as to hurt his own cause. The Clinton campaign has made Trump's "temperament" a main issue and he continually plays into their narrative.

As to Clinton's speeches that issue seems to have died, but if it comes up again and there is no legal or contractual bar to releasing them she ought to do so. When a politician keeps something secret the speculation as to what is being hidden is almost always worse then the truth.


.

Withdrawn. It was something I thought I knew but don't.



LOST said:



Jasmo said:
Lost, you make a good point, however, adding that "none of you get it" tends to alienate your audience rather than opening them up to listening to you.

I believe I have established enough credibility and good will on this message board to be able to be critical. Those who post here often know that I respect their points of view.

OTOH it appears that one person completely misunderstood my post.




BCC said:



LOST said:

With all due respect none of you seem to get it.

It is not what is revealed about Trump. It is how he reacts.

So what that he had a problem with a Miss Universe's weight gain 20 years ago. It's his extreme over reaction that hurts him. Now his reaction to the Times story is to suggest Hillary Clinton cheated on Bill Clinton.

Hillary's problem is that she is perceived to be secretive. So its the revealing of secrets that hurts her. It reinforces the perception. But she knows how to react to lesson the impact. Trump doubles down.

With all due respect it revealed nothing. Trump's BS and reactions to news he doesn't like are well known and are not the story.

The question is, since what he did was legal should he be required to divulge his tax returns?

Hillary is secretive. So, along with JFs comments should we all also be demanding she publish her remarks that earned her $750,000.00 for several speeches? What is she hiding?

I was talking about what the tax returns revealed. I was saying that Trump's tax avoidance is not as much the issue as is the way he reacts to anything negative about himself. He overreacts in such a way as to hurt his own cause. The Clinton campaign has made Trump's "temperament" a main issue and he continually plays into their narrative.

As to Clinton's speeches that issue seems to have died, but if it comes up again and there is no legal or contractual bar to releasing them she ought to do so. When a politician keeps something secret the speculation as to what is being hidden is almost always worse then the truth.

'I was talking about what the tax returns revealed. I was saying that
Trump's tax avoidance is not as much the issue as is the way he reacts
to anything negative about himself. He overreacts in such a way as to
hurt his own cause. The Clinton campaign has made Trump's "temperament" a
main issue and he continually plays into their narrative.'

Everyone here knows that and I doubt anyone 'didn't get it'.

I'm glad you agree with me on Hillary.





Jackson_Fusion said:



Jasmo said:

If it's no big deal, as most posts on this thread suggest, than why has Trump tried to hide his tax returns, unlike any other Presidential candidate for the last forty years? The taxes reflect his poor business judgment, and his solid membership in the top 1 percent, taking advantage of huge loopholes while the vast majority of most people pay through the nose. He may complain about crumbling infrastructure, but is quite impressed with himself for avoiding taxes to improve the infrastructure situation.

Would you make the same argument for Hillary's detailed medical records? That because she's not releasing them she has something to hide? If not, why?

Do you disagree with the Clinton Foundation fighting donor information releases in court? Do you feel their unwillingness to release this information shows they have something to hide, as Trump's unwillingness to release his tax returns does? Why or why not?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-foundation-official-requests-state-lunch-invitation-special/story?id=41695275


I just want to understand if this spirit of openness applies to both candidates.

I'm sorry, but the ABC News piece is the most ridiculous instance of a "scandal" imaginable.

Pass along a message? Really? That's supposed to be some kind of substantial favor? "Executive X from company Y gave $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation and in return a State Department employee passed along a note." Certainly there are more cost-effective ways of sending a message.

Or a seat at an event? Seriously? Who do you think gets these seats in the first place, are they drawn by lottery from the voter rolls?

And these are supposed to cancel out what, exactly? Bribes to the Florida AG? Using tens of thousands of dollars in charitable donations to buy yourself souvenirs? Using hundreds of thousands of dollars in charitable donations to pay legal debts?

It's all the same to you?


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2016/01/31/new-york-times-hypocrisy-on-corporate-taxes-reaches-record-high/#2a1b24506577

NYT--Pays no taxes. exploited eminent domain to seize private land from unwilling sellers.

hypocrites. on a sinking ship.


Taking advantage of every legal deduction, loophole, whatever is not the issue. Everyone should do that, regardless of your feelings about the appropriateness of the particular tax laws. Yes, some of those laws should be changed. But, until/unless they are, good people will and should take advantage of them in their own personal tax planning and reporting.

Failing to disclose the returns is the problem here, since this is now the norm for presidential candidates and because it appears highly likely that they contain information that may damage his credibility on various issues (and, perhaps also because he did something illegal, but loss carryforward is not in that category.)

ETA - Also, that huge loss that was reported is one more piece of evidence against his claim of being such a great businessman.



Tom_Reingold said:
...
There are people like this in various circles. I've met some in the Hamptons. They blend in like the actually wealthy people, and you might not be able to tell them apart, but they are leaches. Trump is just the biggest of them all.

Losing money is his actual business model. This is not how things are supposed to work, and you can give it your best shot and fail, having the best of intentions, but this is not what's happening here. Taking advantage of the laws is not OK in this case.
...

I read someplace that Donald Trump's business model is essentially the same as Max Bialystock's.


One of Trump's main campaign promises is to rewrite the tax code. The claim that he hasn't paid taxes for many years or decades doesn't seem far fetched when you read his quote in this article:

WASHINGTON (CBSMiami/AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is calling for an overhaul to the tax code, proposing his own plan that would eliminate income taxes for millions of Americans.

The plan unveiled Monday would eliminate federal income taxes on individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000.

But the plan would also benefit businesses and the rich. It would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent and lower the highest income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

But Trump said the plan would also impact the wealthy by reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes. “In other words, it’s going to cost me a fortune,” he said at a news conference at his Trump Tower skyscraper in Manhattan.



Of course, what Trump knows about the tax code doesn't extend beyond knowing that you need to hire a good tax accountant. And anybody with any sort of complexity in their income understands that.



tjohn said:

Of course, what Trump knows about the tax code doesn't extend beyond knowing that you need to hire a good tax accountant. And anybody with any sort of complexity in their income understands that.

Hiring a good accountant is what makes Trump a genius.



Jasmo said:



tjohn said:

Of course, what Trump knows about the tax code doesn't extend beyond knowing that you need to hire a good tax accountant. And anybody with any sort of complexity in their income understands that.

Hiring a good accountant is what makes Trump a genius.

He also has apologists like Christie and Giuliani who manage to make him seem borderline reasonable at times compared to the stuff coming out of their mouths.



yahooyahoo said:

One of Trump's main campaign promises is to rewrite the tax code. The claim that he hasn't paid taxes for many years or decades doesn't seem far fetched when you read his quote in this article:



WASHINGTON (CBSMiami/AP) — Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is calling for an overhaul to the tax code, proposing his own plan that would eliminate income taxes for millions of Americans.

The plan unveiled Monday would eliminate federal income taxes on individuals earning less than $25,000 and married couples earning less than $50,000.

But the plan would also benefit businesses and the rich. It would lower the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 15 percent and lower the highest income tax rate from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.

But Trump said the plan would also impact the wealthy by reducing or eliminating most deductions and loopholes. “In other words, it’s going to cost me a fortune,” he said at a news conference at his Trump Tower skyscraper in Manhattan.

And of course we believe Trump because he's shown us to be so truthful.


The 1995 return showed something like 6,000 in salary. How is eliminating deductions and loopholes going to cost him a fortune, when the rate on his investment holdings will be cut to less than half?

Also -- he promises to eliminate the estate tax. Can you guess who will benefit the most from that?


Trump would shower $1.3 million a year on the average member of the top 0.1 percent, according to the Tax Policy Center.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/03/opinion/campaign-stops/trumps-tax-avoidance-plan.html



Jasmo said:



tjohn said:

Of course, what Trump knows about the tax code doesn't extend beyond knowing that you need to hire a good tax accountant. And anybody with any sort of complexity in their income understands that.

Hiring a good accountant is what makes Trump a genius.

Love this quote. I hope you don't mind I steal it.



Jasmo said:



tjohn said:

Of course, what Trump knows about the tax code doesn't extend beyond knowing that you need to hire a good tax accountant. And anybody with any sort of complexity in their income understands that.

Hiring a good accountant is what makes Trump a genius.

He simply used the same guy his daddy did. His genius is in being born on 3rd base.


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.