Clinton and NYT Whine--BUT They Use SAME TAX BREAK he did.

[ludin]

It wasn't the same deduction Trump took. If they took the same deduction, then Trump could have only taken a deduction of $3,000, as that is the most Clinton could claim, and then paid the rest of his taxes. That's not what happened.
No it doesn't, because Clinton paid over $3 million in federal taxes last year alone. The only records we have show Trump didn't pay anything in federal taxes.

This has been explained to you already and you ignored it. so I will do it again.
Capital Losses Can Help Cut Your Tax Bill | Bankrate.com

https://www.fidelity.com/mymoney/how-do-capital-gains-and-losses-carry-over

It doesn't render her complaint moot at all.

yes it does. as she is using the same deductions and carry over that he is.
Hillary Clinton Also Lowers Tax Bill With a 'Trump' Carryover Loss

He does those for his benefit, not for the benefit of the country. By employing people, he is able to run his businesses which make him money. That is not the same thing.
I'm sure quite a bit. But so have I. Have I paid as much, in total dollars? Obviously not. But I still pay a large PERCENTAGE of my income...and pay my federal taxes. Trump is not. That's the problem.

LOL so does Clinton. :lamo only she uses other peoples money to make her money. that and people stupid enough to pay bill 250k + dollars to flap his yap at them.
Sorry that you are not taking advantage of the tax deductions and credit offered. I do and so do other people. it is just smart to pay less tax.

No, it is not. It was likely illegal for someone to provide it to them, but it is not illegal for them to publish them. At least that's my understanding. If you have a reputable source which says otherwise, feel free to present it.

[/QUOTE]

Actually it is if you read the actual law and even the limits on the 1A. They cannot prove that they were obtained legally. which means it would have to come from trump or his accountant. According to past rulings publishing illegally obtained documents not only makes the person that sent them guilty but the person that published them and or the organization.
The New York Times Likely Broke Law by Publishing Trump’s Taxes. Free Speech is No Excuse. | Law News

 

[ludin]

OK, it's BS but you can believe what you want. There is simply no barrier to him releasing his current return, but even if that were a real barrier, he's got lots of returns before these latest that are NOT under audit and would serve the same purpose of being transparent. And of course he's not released any of those. What excuse do you have for that?

you say so isn't an argument.

they are his tax returns ask him I am not trump.

 

[JasperL]

you say so isn't an argument.

they are his tax returns ask him I am not trump.

The IRS has said there is no barrier. And there is no reason not to release older returns. He just doesn't want the public to see them, which is fine, but then he has to put up with the political downside of keeping his taxes, and the likely fact he pays no taxes, secret. We'll see in about a month whether it works out for him or not.

 

[ludin]

The IRS has said there is no barrier. And there is no reason not to release older returns. He just doesn't want the public to see them, which is fine, but then he has to put up with the political downside of keeping his taxes, and the likely fact he pays no taxes, secret. We'll see in about a month whether it works out for him or not.

that is the IRS. they can say whatever they want.
Again you are asking the wrong person ask trump.

If he doesn't want people to see them that is his choice.
Nothing says he has to release them.

I personally could careless if he does or not.
I try not to pay taxes either.

 

[JasperL]

that is the IRS. they can say whatever they want.
Again you are asking the wrong person ask trump.

If he doesn't want people to see them that is his choice.
Nothing says he has to release them.

I personally could careless if he does or not.
I try not to pay taxes either.

FWIW, I wasn't asking you - I was responding to your made up excuses for why Trump cannot release his returns. Bottom line is there is only ONE reason why he's not releasing his tax returns - he doesn't want people to see his tax returns. That is the reason, and there are no other reasons, there are bogus excuses gullible people accept instead of recognizing that simple reason.

As I said, that's fine, he's making a political calculation that secrecy works better for him than transparency and he might be right. We will see in a month!

 

[ludin]

FWIW, I wasn't asking you - I was responding to your made up excuses for why Trump cannot release his returns. Bottom line is there is only ONE reason why he's not releasing his tax returns - he doesn't want people to see his tax returns. That is the reason, and there are no other reasons, there are bogus excuses gullible people accept instead of recognizing that simple reason.

As I said, that's fine, he's making a political calculation that secrecy works better for him than transparency and he

might be right. We will see in a month!

yep we know you guys have to make crap up. it is the only argument you can make.
PS it isn't an excuse.

that is his choice. tax forms are private and do not have to be publicly exposed. it is not a requirement.

I can see the other side of it as well. Once the IRS clears his tax return as clean then the Clinton new media can't say anything about it.

LOL why do you care about his tax returns it is a non-issue.

talk about secrets Clinton is full of them.

 

[ludin]

Fair enough, but Clinton at least paid over 30% of her income. We've yet to see a similar amount from Trump.

Good for her yet she didn't pay the maximum she took tax deductions and credits to lower how much she paid.

If true (and I believe you are correct), that's a fair criticism. But she still wants to raise taxes in other ways, whereas Trump is not.

Yes because that is the liberal mainstay rhetoric. not that it has any basis in reality or it actually works but it is a good class warfare tool.

I understand that just fine. The problem is the law is there for a reason, but it is being exploited for reasons it wasn't intended.

Show that it is being exploited? capital losses are capital losses and they are deductible from capital gains. in fact it is the best deduction as it is
dollar for dollar.

I disagree. I think whichever candidate gets elected only gets four years. The economy has been on an upswing for 6 years and will have to turn eventually. I think 12 years of Democrats will lead to people wanting a change and 4 years of Trump will lead to people wanting a change.

Ii have to agree here as well. Hillary or trump they will be a 1 term president.

I think the next President gets four years, regardless of who wins. As far as what type of candidate comes next, there's no telling. The two "outsider" nominees this year were 70 year old white men, one who has been a Congressman for 25 years and the other a billionaire who has gleefully boasting about donating money to numerous political candidates for decades.

again I agree.

 

[JasperL]

yep we know you guys have to make crap up. it is the only argument you can make.
PS it isn't an excuse.

Of course it's an excuse. If he wanted to be transparent, he would be transparent. Instead, he wants to hide ALL his tax records until at least after the election. That is his choice, but don't pretend there are valid reasons behind his choice other than he wants to hide his tax records. It's nonsense.

that is his choice. tax forms are private and do not have to be publicly exposed. it is not a requirement.

Exactly.

I can see the other side of it as well. Once the IRS clears his tax return as clean then the Clinton new media can't say anything about it.

Sure the press can and no doubt will say all kinds of things about his taxes whether he's cleared or not, which is why he wants to keep them hidden.

LOL why do you care about his tax returns it is a non-issue.

His taxes are such a non-issue Trump is hiding them! :roll:

That's the problem with being secretive - when you hide your taxes, people become convinced there is a good reason and it's because something in his taxes are somehow damaging to him politically.

 

[Slyfox696]

I have a headache, so I'm going to shorten your posts for brevity. If you omit a point you made you feel is important, feel free to re-post it in bold letters.

This isn't the case as I posted this information and the link so why did you ignore either? The law only affect excess capital losses. if she only deducted 3k from other income it means that she had 700k more loss than she had gain.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of tax laws are not great. So maybe you can explain it to me, because your link did not.

When I look at Donald Trump's tax return from 1995, it clearly states Trump reported a loss of $916,000,000 and it clearly shows he received a refund of $45,811, which he applied to his 1996 taxes. When I look at Hillary Clinton's tax return from 2015, it clearly states she was only able to take off $3000 and paid $3 million in taxes.

So if they were exploiting the same rule/law, which is it Clinton was only legally allowed to take $3000 (as stated on the tax form itself) and Trump could take $916,000,000? Again, I admit my ignorance on tax law, so if you have an answer which isn't "read what I already posted", I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Trump has paid millions in taxes over the years.

But we're talking about federal income tax.

So do you take any tax deductions or tax credits? well so does he.

I feel like you're missing the point, even though I've explained it.

You don't have to be

But it's the difference between Donald Trump and myself. Donald Trump proclaims himself a billionaire and he's not paying his fair share of federal income tax AND wants to be President and push policies which provide even greater opportunities for those who are wealthy to not pay their fair share.

I have looked at trumps tax plan it lowers taxes on everyone. please be honest when talking about things.

But it disproportionately benefits the wealthy.

I am being honest. Saying it helps those who are already not paying anything doesn't preclude tax breaks for others. All I'm doing is pointing out the sheer gaudiness of it.

I see you don't like the fact that he operated within the tax laws that are there.

all the appeal to emotion argument again. the liberal left is good at those. actually with trumps plan you would be paying less than you are now.

I don't think you're understanding.

The wealthy in this country already own a disproportionate amount of the wealth and continue to increase the amount of wealth they possess. Not only is this unfair from the "emotional" argument, as you keep mentioning, but it's also a danger from an economic side as well. It is a well established fact that too much resources in the hands of too few is not only inefficient, it leads to economic instability and, in extreme cases, extremism.

It's very unappealing for me, a hard working middle class citizen, to see a billionaire be granted the privileges of not paying taxes. You're incorrect when you say I don't like that he operated within the law, I don't like that the law exists to be taken advantage of. And I certainly don't like the prospect of INCREASING these types of laws which allow those with the most wealth to not have to pay anything.

Does that make sense?

people are saying that he is dodging taxes etc. if you would have quoted me properly

You responded to me when I was responding to Vox.

Obviously you aren't paying very close attention. I couldn't have "quoted you properly" because you were replying to me. I assume you'll acknowledge your mistake and apologize.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Trump used a law only applicable to real estate operators. Which incidentally, he lobbied for!

Trump's tax returns explain estate-tax position - Business Insider

 

[Slyfox696]

Trump used a law only applicable to real estate operators. Which incidentally, he lobbied for!

Trump's tax returns explain estate-tax position - Business Insider

So it would not be the same deduction Hillary Clinton claimed, correct?

 

[Manc Skipper]

So it would not be the same deduction Hillary Clinton claimed, correct?

Unless she's a clandestine real estate mogul, it seems unlikely.

 

[Slyfox696]

Unless she's a clandestine real estate mogul, it seems unlikely.

That's what I have assumed for a while, but was always too lazy to research in-depth. Thanks.

 

[ludin]

I have a headache, so I'm going to shorten your posts for brevity. If you omit a point you made you feel is important, feel free to re-post it in bold letters.
I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of tax laws are not great. So maybe you can explain it to me, because your link did not.

I have explained it and so does the link I posted. They were both very clear. On your schedule D form there are several categories' for capital gains both short term and long term. it also lists for capital losses.
The way that it works is that you subtract your capital gains from your capital losses. the amount that you can do is reduce your losses to 0. anything over that can be deducted up to 3k a year and carried forward
into the next years. The other thing that trump is able to do is deduct depreciation off of his real estate buildings. a legal tax deduction for anyone in the real estate business.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...state-developers-pay-almost-nothing-in-taxes/

When I look at Donald Trump's tax return from 1995, it clearly states Trump reported a loss of $916,000,000 and it clearly shows he received a refund of $45,811, which he applied to his 1996 taxes. When I look at Hillary Clinton's it clearly states she was only able to take off $3000 and paid $3 million in taxes.

Yep because he was allowed to legally as a real estate developer.

So if they were exploiting the same rule/law, which is it Clinton was only legally allowed to take $3000 (as stated on the tax form itself) and Trump could take $916,000,000? Again, I admit my ignorance on tax law, so if you have an answer which isn't "read what I already posted", I'd be very interested in seeing it.

something someone else brought up as well. There are several things going on at one time.
1. he is taking losses when he sells property to offset the gains on others.
2. he is allowed to deduct the depreciation on the properties that he does buy.

I feel like you're missing the point, even though I've explained it.

Nope I understand it just fine. the problem is that there is nothing that he is doing that is wrong.
he is allowed to deduct his real estate investments off his taxes.

But it's the difference between Donald Trump and myself. Donald Trump proclaims himself a billionaire and he's not paying his fair share of federal income tax AND wants to be President and push policies which provide even greater opportunities for those who are wealthy to not pay their fair share.

*sigh* can you drop the appeal to emotion argument?
I guess you can't. He pays taxes just in other ways to the federal government.

But it disproportionately benefits the wealthy.
I am being honest. Saying it helps those who are already not paying anything doesn't preclude tax breaks for others. All I'm doing is pointing out the sheer gaudiness of it.

Since the top 10% are already paying 53% of all taxes and 68% of all income tax. so I think they are more than paying their fair share.

I don't think you're understanding.

I know you aren't.

The wealthy in this country already own a disproportionate amount of the wealth and continue to increase the amount of wealth they possess. Not only is this unfair from the "emotional" argument, as you keep mentioning, but it's also a danger from an economic side as well. It is a well established fact that too much resources in the hands of too few is not only inefficient, it leads to economic instability and, in extreme cases, extremism.

*sigh*

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/13/top-1-pay-nearly-half-of-federal-income-taxes.html

What they make has 0 affect on what you can earn or anyone else can earn.

It's very unappealing for me, a hard working middle class citizen, to see a billionaire be granted the privileges of not paying taxes. You're incorrect when you say I don't like that he operated within the law, I don't like that the law exists to be taken advantage of. And I certainly don't like the prospect of INCREASING these types of laws which allow those with the most wealth to not have to pay anything.

Good you find it unappealing that is irrelevant. I am a hard working middle class American and I try to pay as little in tax as possible and get as much back as much of my money as I can.

Does that make sense?

It makes sense that the left as to continue their class warfare. what is sad is that people buy it without understanding it.

 

[ludin]

Unless she's a clandestine real estate mogul, it seems unlikely.

she is still writing off her capital losses just like trump does.

she is just not claiming depreciation and trump is that is the only difference.

 

[RAMOSS]

she is still writing off her capital losses just like trump does.

she is just not claiming depreciation and trump is that is the only difference.

There is also the difference between reducing the tax by 4K, and not paying taxes for over 10 years. Scale is a big deal.

 

[Vox]

A $3000 deduction versus $1B? Really? You think that is equivalent?

Again, the issue is Trump refuses to release his return. He made a political calculation that releasing the returns would cause more damage than not... its time for him to pay the price of the "not". That all said, real estate developers have some of the most complex tax returns of any profession. The little bit of heat he gets now is still probably less than if he actually released the return.

There is no intelligent comparison of Trumps tax situation to Clinton's, starting with the fact that the Clinton's pay their fair share.

That's ludicrous.

Of course Trump paid his fair share considering he went broke and had no income to tax.

LOL! Are you serious?

Clinton, on the other hand, had a huge income to tax......therefore, she paid more.

Come on, this is not rocket science.

 

[Vox]

What is speculation? I, unlike most people on this site, am actually am trained in the area of taxation... I understand why the Trump, Clinton and NYT situations are completely different.

You are correct, however, as Trump is not required to show his return. It has become a custom for Presidential candidates to do so. That custom has been followed, without exception, for 40 years. Therefore, his failing to disclose it comes at a political price, which he is now paying.

Ooooooooo, "TRAINED!"

LOL!

 

[ludin]

There is also the difference between reducing the tax by 4K, and not paying taxes for over 10 years. Scale is a big deal.

show he didn't pay taxes over 10 years. there is no proof that he didn't pay taxes for 10 years.

 

[Vox]

Again, here is her tax return.

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-docu...linton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

Tell us how she did not pay her fair share....

Don't make statements to me that you can not back up.

What are you talking about? NONE of the rich pay their fair share.

 

[Vox]

Why can't he show his return while the audit is going on? He's got something to hide from IRS?

The IRS HAS his return. They're the ones doing the audit.

(Sigh.)

 

[JasperL]

The IRS HAS his return. They're the ones doing the audit.

And Trump HAS a copy of the return, and his accountant HAS another copy. He can release a copy whenever he wants, and the IRS does not care at all. They've told us this.

 

[Vox]

Fair enough, but Clinton at least paid over 30% of her income. We've yet to see a similar amount from Trump.

If true (and I believe you are correct), that's a fair criticism. But she still wants to raise taxes in other ways, whereas Trump is not.

I understand that just fine. The problem is the law is there for a reason, but it is being exploited for reasons it wasn't intended.

I disagree. I think whichever candidate gets elected only gets four years. The economy has been on an upswing for 6 years and will have to turn eventually. I think 12 years of Democrats will lead to people wanting a change and 4 years of Trump will lead to people wanting a change.

I think the next President gets four years, regardless of who wins. As far as what type of candidate comes next, there's no telling. The two "outsider" nominees this year were 70 year old white men, one who has been a Congressman for 25 years and the other a billionaire who has gleefully boasting about donating money to numerous political candidates for decades.

If those two men were considered the "outsiders" in this election, there's no telling what the next election might bring.

I really don't think there's much chance that Hillary can be beaten in four years......yes, it could happen, but going after Trump in four years has a FAR better likelihood of success.

Trump HAS said he wanted to raise taxes on hedge funds.......the fact is that we don't know what either of them might do.

How is the law being exploited? It seems to be a fair law in some ways, at least. Naturally if you take a billion dollar loss it would probably give you tax breaks for years. Why not? If it were my money I'd certainly want to take it after a year where I lost that much.

I'd say a year where you almost go totally broke is one of the times where you should get a lot of help.....rich or poor.

Yes, we haven't seen Trump's tax returns. We won't until his audit is finished. Why complain about it? It is what it is.

 

[JasperL]

I really don't think there's much chance that Hillary can be beaten in four years......yes, it could happen, but going after Trump in four years has a FAR better likelihood of success.

Trump HAS said he wanted to raise taxes on hedge funds.......the fact is that we don't know what either of them might do.

There is no need - under the Trump Tax Plan, hedge fund guys will pay tax at 15% like all other businesses, which is a lower rate than they're paying now. So he's going to attack hedge fund managers by lowering their tax rates.

How is the law being exploited? It seems to be a fair law in some ways, at least. Naturally if you take a billion dollar loss it would probably give you tax breaks for years. Why not? If it were my money I'd certainly want to take it after a year where I lost that much.

I'd say a year where you almost go totally broke is one of the times where you should get a lot of help.....rich or poor.

The only potential issue with his NOL is he almost surely defaulted on some personal debt in those years when the companies filed for bankruptcy, which is normally income. He probably took advantage of a loophole for real estate developers that allows them to write down the value of property (such as his casinos and hotels) instead of report the debt forgiveness income. That gives him a $billion he can take against ANYTHING immediately, versus deductions for depreciation over a long period - 30 years plus depending on the property.

Yes, we haven't seen Trump's tax returns. We won't until his audit is finished. Why complain about it? It is what it is.

The audit is his convenient excuse - it's not a reason. He just doesn't want his taxes public, which is his choice, but I wish he wouldn't make up stories about the reason.

 

[Vox]

And Trump HAS a copy of the return, and his accountant HAS another copy. He can release a copy whenever he wants, and the IRS does not care at all. They've told us this.

No they haven't.