Trump's income taxes published by NYT

[happyninja42]

You know, it's not even about the taxes any more. We knew there was an issue there. The smoke came from Trump trying to do everything possible to hide his tax returns while calling for his political rivals to always disclose his own. He knew what bombshell there was there. And we also knew this wasn't going to dissuade his voters. They are fully in the cult.

What interests me is that once we have the veneer off... I know interested in what people actually see in him.

It was already public record that he had bankruptcies. But now he has more debt than possibly some small nations would see in a life time. That isn't a successful business man.

He's not smart. You can just listen to him talk and you can tell that.

He actively harms his base. And they love them for it.

Nothing monumental he promised came through. Hillary is still free. Trump has hurt Farmers (who actually did better under Obama, Seniors.Latinos, the Poor, and women

What is the true purpose of his base's loyalty when all he's ever done was fail them and they love him for it? There is nothing left. Not even the lie of him being a great businessman which we all knew was false. He killed 200,000 of our fellow citizens with his Choice, not ineptitude. He's distanced our Allies. He removed any respect the World has had for us. He's soured almost any trade deal of note.

WHAT IS LEFT?! Why the need for this lie of how great he is?! Every MONTH there is a new proof of his harm to this country that I literally forget them all.

There's nothing but a disgusting bloated shell of a man. So why are all these Republicans so eager to crown him king? What is the true reason if he's even falling THEM?

What is left? A belligerent, confrontational, vile group of people, who just hate anyone that isn't them, and will back anyone that they think will spite the people they have classified as "Other". Even if it harms them personally.

Plus the group who have been told by their religious leaders that he is literally chosen by god, and they believe shit they are told by people who say they work for sky daddy, so he must be ok. Regardless of what his actions actually do and mean. Chosen by god, end of story.

So basically bullies and idiots.

 

[Houseman]

Why are you defending this?

I'm not. I'm politically neutral. I'm just saying, "that's how taxes work".

Golly, because I'm not joining in on your daily "2 Minutes Hate" it doesn't mean that I'm defending him.

You don't even disagree with my assessment of how taxes work, but I suppose, if you were to say that out loud, you would be "defending" him, huh? So, because you have no other option, you have to make it out like I'm the bad guy for stating commonly known facts about taxes.

This is the same as the Ahmaud Arbery topic where I pointed out that trying to wrench a shotgun from somebody's hand isn't wise, and people accused me of defending the killer, just because I didn't say the required mean words about the killer and about black lives mattering.

 

[dreng3]

I'm not. I'm politically neutral. I'm just saying, "that's how taxes work".

Golly, because I'm not joining in on your daily "2 Minutes Hate" it doesn't mean that I'm defending him.

Or so you claim, shall we take a look at your contributions to this thread?

If one mostly gets taxed on earnings, and if one is a terrible businessman so that you have negative earnings, then doesn't it make sense that you should pay less taxes than a non-terrible businessman?

I'm not saying that that's what happened here, I'm just saying that, generally, that's how taxes work.

Certainly not a condemnation of a man who not only seems shady but has demonstrated shadiness. Disregarding the need for a condemnation, you are, after all, neutral, this is nothing but an issue of semantics and you're disregarding the fact that he is lying about one of two things.
That he is not a brilliant businessman, in which case his tax returns are legit, however in that case the majority of his campaign was built on the false premise of him being a successful businessman.
That he is brilliant businessman, in which case he should have paid higher taxes, thus making him, at best, a man who uses loopholes to pay less than what he should, or at worst, a downright criminal who dodges taxes.

And let is not forget that a $100,000, a large sum to many, is not a large amount when you deal with the types of business Donald Trump is engaged in.

But let us move on.

Every time this "rich person/company releases tax returns" stuff comes up, everyone always criticises the subject and claims that they should be paying more.

But 99% of the time it's all legal.

These people and companies are smart and just gaming the system in perfectly legal ways.

Did you not oppose the claim that you were defending his actions? Did you not espouse your neutrality. Well, here it is, in writing, you dismiss the severity of a self-proclaimed billionaire paying $750 in taxes. Certainly we can recognize that it might not be illegal, that point would not be unreasonable to make.
But the morality of the actions? Why do you not bring those up alongside your defense, being the impartial observer that you are?

 

[Agema]

If one mostly gets taxed on earnings, and if one is a terrible businessman so that you have negative earnings, then doesn't it make sense that you should pay less taxes than a non-terrible businessman?

It's probably appropriate to separate the business and the individual. A company can be losing money hand over fist and may reasonably not have to pay tax. But if it's paying its owner, then he or she should be taxed on that personal income.

What I suspect about businesses like Trump's is that the line between personal and business can be easily blurred as is convenient to the owner in ways that make abuse and fiddling easy.

 

[Trunkage]

Well, that's part of the issue here -- it may NOT have been all legal. This is just one item from the Times scoop.

"Another common deductible expense for all businesses is legal fees. The I.R.S. requires that these fees be “directly related to operating your business,” and businesses cannot deduct “legal fees paid to defend charges that arise from participation in a political campaign.”

Yet the tax records show that the Trump Corporation wrote off as business expenses fees paid to a criminal defense lawyer, Alan S. Futerfas, who was hired to represent Donald Trump Jr. during the Russia inquiry."

Also....did everyone just kind of memory hole the Donald J. Trump Foundation scandal? The charity was literally shut down by the government because of illegal activity, including tax dodges and self-dealing.

The problem is 1. Trump doing things illegal is a positive for his base. They're anti-establishment. Doing things legal is bad
2. They'll blame business failure on tax. Becuase government always 'interfer with business.' They always do
3. They can blame the Trump foundation thing on deep state. They out to ruin Trump's 'life and good name.' They always do
4. Trump's base doesn't care about fairness. They want Trump to run roughshod over a system to his economic benefit. So that they can break the system themselves

Facts have never mattered. Being fair and legal is a bad thing

 

[Agema]

I'm not. I'm politically neutral.

You may be non-partisan, but you are most definitely not neutral.

 

[Kwak]

I'm not. I'm politically neutral. I'm just saying, "that's how taxes work".

Golly, because I'm not joining in on your daily "2 Minutes Hate" it doesn't mean that I'm defending him.

You don't even disagree with my assessment of how taxes work, but I suppose, if you were to say that out loud, you would be "defending" him, huh? So, because you have no other option, you have to make it out like I'm the bad guy for stating commonly known facts about taxes.

This is the same as the Ahmaud Arbery topic where I pointed out that trying to wrench a shotgun from somebody's hand isn't wise, and people accused me of defending the killer, just because I didn't say the required mean words about the killer and about black lives mattering.

Ah, you're JUST ASKING QUESTIONS AND POINTING OUT FACTS with no agenda. Okay, you brave intellectual, I salute you.

 

[Houseman]

Certainly not a condemnation

You're absolutely right! It's NOT a condemnation! I'm so glad that you understand it!
"not a condemnation" does not mean "a defense", or "approval".

you're disregarding the fact that he is lying about one of two things.

I am not disregarding it, I am merely not commenting on it. I don't care that he is or is not a successful businessman, and I don't care about what his campaign is or isn't based on. I don't care if he lied about these things, and therefore, I have no comments any of these matters.

you dismiss the severity of a self-proclaimed billionaire paying $750 in taxes.

Because I don't care.

I cared to comment on how nobody should be surprised because legal means of lowering your taxes to almost nothing have existed for many, many years, and the wealthy all take advantage of them.

But the morality of the actions? Why do you not bring those up

I don't think it's necessarily immoral to take advantage of perfectly legal means of lowering your taxes, but I also don't spend much time thinking about the morality of taxes in general, so I could be wrong.

 

[happyninja42]

You're absolutely right! It's NOT a condemnation! I'm so glad that you understand it!
"not a condemnation" does not mean "a defense", or "approval".



I am not disregarding it, I am merely not commenting on it. I don't care that he is or is not a successful businessman, and I don't care about what his campaign is or isn't based on. I don't care if he lied about these things, and therefore, I have no comments any of these matters.



Because I don't care.

I cared to comment on how nobody should be surprised because legal means of lowering your taxes to almost nothing have existed for many, many years, and the wealthy all take advantage of them.



I don't think it's necessarily immoral to take advantage of perfectly legal means of lowering your taxes, but I also don't spend much time thinking about the morality of taxes in general, so I could be wrong.

If you don't CARE about any of this shit, then why in the fuck are you always posting threads about topics that, I assume, you know are incredibly heated, if you're entire stance when confronted about what you post is just "hey, I don't care about any of this." Then go do something else with your fucking time. Because you come across as an intentional shitbag, trying to stir up controversy and flamewars, while simultaneously avoiding any responsibility for said results, by hiding behind the "Hey I'm just asking questions" excuse, coupled with your additional caveat "I don't care about any of this stuff."

Then go do whatever you actually DO care about.

 

[Houseman]

If you don't CARE about any of this shit, then why in the fuck are you always posting threads about topics that, I assume, you know are incredibly heated, if you're entire stance when confronted about what you post is just "hey, I don't care about any of this."

The things that I don't care about include, but are not limited to, the specific things that dreng mentioned. I never said "I don't care about anything, ever". Like a normal human being, I have things I do care about, and things that I don't.

Willikers, every time I post in a topic, it's just a matter of time until it bursts into flames. It's uncanny.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

Is this really a bombshell?

Trump a businessman didn't pay much taxes?

• Activison as a company pays no taxes and infact somehow still gets tax rebates so in effect pays 0 tax because a small basement in some tax haven country actually owns all the IP and Activision just so happens to have to pay a giant licence fee to the small basement.
• Other major international companies have paid 0 tax
• Previously under German tax law funding the arts could get people tax write offs which is how Uwe Boll used to get so much money to keep making awful films.

This seems more a case of people hating the player rather than hating the game that he played.

 

[Houseman]

Is this really a bombshell?

CAREFUL! You wouldn't want to be defending him! Quick, virtue signal in order to affirm your allegiance to The Party by saying something mean about Trump!

 

[happyninja42]

The things that I don't care about include, but are not limited to, the specific things that dreng mentioned. I never said "I don't care about anything, ever". Like a normal human being, I have things I do care about, and things that I don't.

Willikers, every time I post in a topic, it's just a matter of time until it bursts into flames. It's uncanny.

I didn't say you don't care about anything, if I did, why the fuck would I tell you to go do what you DO care about if there is no such thing? But you specifically said, in the post I quoted, that is entirely about the subject of this very thread, that you don't care about it. You even cited very specific points, all pertaining to this thread, that YOU started, and stated you don't care about them.

So again I ask, why the fuck even waste all our time?

 

[stroopwafel]

I don't think it's necessarily immoral to take advantage of perfectly legal means of lowering your taxes, but I also don't spend much time thinking about the morality of taxes in general, so I could be wrong.

Part of it is Trump, part of it is vague legislation but biggest part is that real estate business in general is pretty shady. The amount of criminal and money laundering in bricks probably exceeds the amount of dodgy tax rules.

 

[gorfias]

Every time this "rich person/company releases tax returns" stuff comes up, everyone always criticises the subject and claims that they should be paying more.

But 99% of the time it's all legal.

These people and companies are smart and just gaming the system in perfectly legal ways.

I saw a video that says no matter what top tax rates have been, the US has still taken in the same % of GDP. Raise taxes? The rich pay more to politicians to make loop holes for them.

ITMT: I'm hearing that the NYT had to walk back a lot of its reporting on this matter and that what has occurred here is an invasion of privacy and illegal.

 

[Houseman]

But you specifically said, in the post I quoted, that is entirely about the subject of this very thread, that you don't care about it.

This conversation began when Kwak falsely accused me of "defending this", and all I did was reply that I was not, and then people hurled more allegations and tried to prove the previous ones, and I replied. I did not waste your time. You all wasted your own time by trying to pin me to the wall.

And you're still doing it.

You could have just let me have my say and then gone on discussing the topic, but you didn't.

 

[Trunkage]

CAREFUL! You wouldn't want to be defending him! Quick, virtue signal in order to affirm your allegiance to The Party by saying something mean about Trump!

Whose 'The Party'?

 

[Houseman]

Whose 'The Party'?

It's the name of the government in the book, 1984. It goes along with my "2 Minutes Hate" reference from earlier.

 

[happyninja42]

Willikers, every time I post in a topic, it's just a matter of time until it bursts into flames. It's uncanny.

I know right! It's almost like you specialize in posting topics you know will cause friction, and then try and backpedal and be all "hey don't hate me, I'm just asking questions" despite constantly replying in ways that are thinly veiled support or criticism of whatever contrary position you can find. And then when confronted, you say things like "Hey I don't actually care about this stuff, I'm not taking a side" while posting responses that heavily suggest you ARE taking a side.

So yeah, I call bullshit on your neutral observer, everyone just gets mad at poor me posture.

 

[Trunkage]

It's the name of the government in the book, 1984. It goes along with my "2 Minutes Hate" reference from earlier.

Ah yes. Trump the savior