NYT acquires 1995 Trump tax return; he deducted $916 million in business losses

[ag]

It would've been a lot less damaging if Trump had just released all his returns back before the convention and spun these deductions as something all smart businesspeople do.

May be. But it would have also opened a YUGE space for NYTimes and the rest to search for things. So, while that original disclosure would have spun its term out, god knows what else would be coming up now. This is what he is really afraid of.

[Seriously?]

Yeah, they don't seem to really have standing to criticize anyone for not paying any taxes.

It's not even relevant. People can bitch at the NYT too, but it doesn't change what Trump did.

"What Trump did" a/k/a use a legal deduction that people have a right to use.

How unhinged you red avatars have become over this is laughable. I guarantee you if any single one of you were in his position, you would have used the same deduction. Like the New York Times has. Like Clinton hero Mark Cuban has. Like I am sure Warren Buffet has.

The New York Times and the Clinton campaign is preying on the fiscal illiteracy of the American public here. Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.

[Seriously?]

Those losses were allowed to be recognized over subsequent years for valid reasons of recapitalization. If you don't allow that kind of deductions, you may have developers not developing and building things. As a result, you get stagnation.

LOL.
You can tell Seriously is just cutting and pasting trump jargon.
He is trying really hard to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but he is fooling no one but himself.
This quote above I found most amusing : "for valid reasons of recapitalization."
What does an NOL carryover have to do with "recapitalization" ?
And these carryover deductions is a silly argument to make in where it may hinder "developers not developing and building things," and the possibility that you might get "stagnation."
What a horse-sh**t line of crap !
LMAO.

Let me try to explain to you exactly what I meant here. Simplifying things for math purposes. Let's assume the value of the write-off is $1 Billion and the effective tax rate is 40%.

Scenario A: The deduction is allowed
The developer gets to write off $1 Billion on his tax returns until he can no longer exhaust it.
The developer has $400 million more to build things.

Scenario B: The deduction is not allowed
The government gets the $400 million.
The developer has $400 million less to build things.

So what happens under that scenario? A few buildings/shopping centers/malls/housing don't get developed. Multiply this over multiple real estate businesses and your economy will stagnate.

In times of recession, the government will often change tax policy to stimulate the economy. One of the ways they do this is by creating incentives for people to build businesses, erect buildings, etc.

You can argue with me all you want over the justness of the policy. However, if there is a law in place that allows for a write-off, discrediting those that are smart enough to use said deduction is disingenuous.

Again, Trump did nothing wrong here. Every single one of you would avail yourselves of these write-offs if you were able to. And I wouldn't blame you one bit.

[mark_twain]

Yeah, they don't seem to really have standing to criticize anyone for not paying any taxes.

It's not even relevant. People can bitch at the NYT too, but it doesn't change what Trump did.

"What Trump did" a/k/a use a legal deduction that people have a right to use.

How unhinged you red avatars have become over this is laughable. I guarantee you if any single one of you were in his position, you would have used the same deduction. Like the New York Times has. Like Clinton hero Mark Cuban has. Like I am sure Warren Buffet has. Like the Clintons have.

The New York Times and the Clinton campaign is preying on the fiscal illiteracy of the American public here. Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.

Don't believe me on the Hillary Clinton claim? The source material is on pages 17 and 18 of this document.

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

They (the media and the Clinton campaign) are rightly taking this opportunity to damage Trump for the sake of the people, if only for a sense of moral dignity.

Americans are not fiscally illiterate to know that what Trump did was wrong. On the contrary, the fiscally intelligent know that Donald Trump committed a massive injustice against working class Americans by not paying his fair share of taxes.

Legal or not does not have a bearing, as elections are run by votes, not the rulings of judges or juries. This is made more clear by Trump's reliance on the rust belt states (especially PA and OH), which he is trying to use to build his vote total. After hearing this news, the voters with common sense will wake up to see that they are being played by this crook...but in the end, it is up to them to decide not to vote for him.

[Seriously?]

Yeah, they don't seem to really have standing to criticize anyone for not paying any taxes.

It's not even relevant. People can bitch at the NYT too, but it doesn't change what Trump did.

"What Trump did" a/k/a use a legal deduction that people have a right to use.

How unhinged you red avatars have become over this is laughable. I guarantee you if any single one of you were in his position, you would have used the same deduction. Like the New York Times has. Like Clinton hero Mark Cuban has. Like I am sure Warren Buffet has. Like the Clintons have.

The New York Times and the Clinton campaign is preying on the fiscal illiteracy of the American public here. Trump did absolutely nothing wrong.

Don't believe me on the Hillary Clinton claim? The source material is on pages 17 and 18 of this document.

https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/Clinton_2015_Form_1040_with_Signature_Page.pdf

They (the media and the Clinton campaign) are rightly taking this opportunity to damage Trump for the sake of the people, if only for a sense of moral dignity.

Americans are not fiscally illiterate to know that what Trump did was wrong. On the contrary, the fiscally intelligent know that Donald Trump committed a massive injustice against working class Americans by not paying his fair share of taxes.

Legal or not does not have a bearing, as elections are run by votes, not the rulings of judges or juries. This is made more clear by Trump's reliance on the rust belt states (especially PA and OH), which he is trying to use to build his vote total. After hearing this news, the voters with common sense will wake up to see that they are being played by this crook...but in the end, it is up to them to decide not to vote for him.

So let me get this straight. If you were in Trump's shoes, you would have passed over the deduction?

What would your stakeholders think? Your employees? Your family?

[mark_twain]

Irrelevant...I would never be in Trump's shoes.

He is in his own world...

[Maxwell]

the bigger story here is that he, supposedly a good businessman, somehow managed to lose nearly a billion dollars in the year 1995, not that he took on one of the most obvious tax moves ever.

you are a stupid businessman if you don't know about business income loss carryforwards.

[Alcon]

Irrelevant...I would never be in Trump's shoes.

He is in his own world...

It doesn't really make sense to respond to a theoretical question about how you'd react in a situation by pointing out that the person who actually is in that situation is "in his own world."  That's not relevant.  You don't acquire the traits of someone when you're placed in the same situation as them.  It's a thought exercise, and that's a nonsensical dodge.

[Devout Centrist]

Those losses were allowed to be recognized over subsequent years for valid reasons of recapitalization. If you don't allow that kind of deductions, you may have developers not developing and building things. As a result, you get stagnation.

LOL.
You can tell Seriously is just cutting and pasting trump jargon.
He is trying really hard to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but he is fooling no one but himself.
This quote above I found most amusing : "for valid reasons of recapitalization."
What does an NOL carryover have to do with "recapitalization" ?
And these carryover deductions is a silly argument to make in where it may hinder "developers not developing and building things," and the possibility that you might get "stagnation."
What a horse-sh**t line of crap !
LMAO.

Let me try to explain to you exactly what I meant here. Simplifying things for math purposes. Let's assume the value of the write-off is $1 Billion and the effective tax rate is 40%.

Scenario A: The deduction is allowed
The developer gets to write off $1 Billion on his tax returns until he can no longer exhaust it.
The developer has $400 million more to build things.

Scenario B: The deduction is not allowed
The government gets the $400 million.
The developer has $400 million less to build things.

So what happens under that scenario? A few buildings/shopping centers/malls/housing don't get developed. Multiply this over multiple real estate businesses and your economy will stagnate.

In times of recession, the government will often change tax policy to stimulate the economy. One of the ways they do this is by creating incentives for people to build businesses, erect buildings, etc.

You can argue with me all you want over the justness of the policy. However, if there is a law in place that allows for a write-off, discrediting those that are smart enough to use said deduction is disingenuous.

Again, Trump did nothing wrong here. Every single one of you would avail yourselves of these write-offs if you were able to. And I wouldn't blame you one bit.

Nothing wrong is not the same as doing the right thing. He cannot be angry about people avoiding taxes now. He is a hypocrite and an obvious liar.

[ag]

So let me get this straight. If you were in Trump's shoes, you would have passed over the deduction?

What would your stakeholders think? Your employees? Your family?

I did not know Trump is selling stock in himself. This is, in case you have not noticed, an individual tax return, not a corporate one. There are no stakeholders here, other than the family. And, if I were you, I would not mention stakeholders too much. Trump is very well known for not caring a fig for his fiduciary responsibility to investors in his companies - he has repeatedly let those go bankrupt (limited liability is a great thing, but it does imply that individual and corporate wealth are not the same thing). So, please, do not undermine your brilliant reasoning by such fake concern about "stakeholders".

As for the rest, it is all very simple. A businessman has every right to get rich any way that is legal under law. A politician has to make different life choices. If you plan on being a politician you sometimes have to take not very profitable actions. Paying some taxes is one of those. What is perfectly fine for a real estate mogul in NYC, is not fine for a presidential candidate.  It is not the matter of using a particular provision of the tax code. It is how it was used. In Trumps' case, in a way not compatible with a political career. That is all.

[Seriously?]

the bigger story here is that he, supposedly a good businessman, somehow managed to lose nearly a billion dollars in the year 1995, not that he took on one of the most obvious tax moves ever.

you are a stupid businessman if you don't know about business income loss carryforwards.

You do realize that he wrote a book about his fall and resulting comeback, right?

And those losses were likely from 1992 when the casino businesses went bust. Part of the reason that Clinton won in 1992 was that the economy was in bad shape.

[Landslide Lyndon]

the bigger story here is that he, supposedly a good businessman, somehow managed to lose nearly a billion dollars in the year 1995, not that he took on one of the most obvious tax moves ever.

you are a stupid businessman if you don't know about business income loss carryforwards.

You do realize that he wrote a book about his fall and resulting comeback, right?

Well, that changes everything!

[ProudModerate2]

Those losses were allowed to be recognized over subsequent years for valid reasons of recapitalization. If you don't allow that kind of deductions, you may have developers not developing and building things. As a result, you get stagnation.

LOL.
You can tell Seriously is just cutting and pasting trump jargon.
He is trying really hard to sound like he knows what he is talking about, but he is fooling no one but himself.
This quote above I found most amusing : "for valid reasons of recapitalization."
What does an NOL carryover have to do with "recapitalization" ?
And these carryover deductions is a silly argument to make in where it may hinder "developers not developing and building things," and the possibility that you might get "stagnation."
What a horse-sh**t line of crap !
LMAO.

Let me try to explain to you exactly what I meant here. Simplifying things for math purposes. Let's assume the value of the write-off is $1 Billion and the effective tax rate is 40%.

Scenario A: The deduction is allowed
The developer gets to write off $1 Billion on his tax returns until he can no longer exhaust it.
The developer has $400 million more to build things.

Scenario B: The deduction is not allowed
The government gets the $400 million.
The developer has $400 million less to build things.

So what happens under that scenario? A few buildings/shopping centers/malls/housing don't get developed. Multiply this over multiple real estate businesses and your economy will stagnate.
In times of recession, the government will often change tax policy to stimulate the economy. One of the ways they do this is by creating incentives for people to build businesses, erect buildings, etc.
You can argue with me all you want over the justness of the policy. However, if there is a law in place that allows for a write-off, discrediting those that are smart enough to use said deduction is disingenuous.
Again, Trump did nothing wrong here. Every single one of you would avail yourselves of these write-offs if you were able to. And I wouldn't blame you one bit.

You need to go back and study your economics.
Under your "Scenario B," if the "developer" does not get the $400 million, then in that case the government does. Thus the government injects the $400 million into the economy by "building" roads, improving our bridges and other infrastructure that is heavily aging, etc.  Thus no "stagnation."

It's just a matter of determining who can do a better job in using the funds to help create jobs and grow the economy .... the "developer" or the government ?
Well in this case, we can easily ascertain that the obvious answer is the government.
Why ? ..... Because we know trump is a terrible businessman and "developer", who creates massive financial losses, accumulates massive debt (remember Casino junk bonds), and screws small businesses for payment of services and goods they supplied to build trump's failing and monstrous casinos.

PS: Your entire use of "stagnation" in your argument is ridiculous. I am only using it since you are, but it feels so ignorant in its application here. It might be some "big economic word" that the trump campaign has asked you to use to fool your "poorly educated" trump zombies, but it is extremely foolish and silly to think it will work in Atlas.

[SirMuxALot]

This is the most astonishingly ignorant thread I've read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me try to simplify this.

You lose $900m this year. You are in the hole $900 million.

Next year, you make $900m in profit. Where are you? Only back to break even.

Your profit is zero over that time frame. Of course your tax should be zero. (Ignoring carry forward loss limitations for simplicity's sake, but including it would make the lefty argument even more ridiculous.)

Yet we have lots of people here who think in the described scenario, that this business should pay $300m plus in taxes...on a ZERO PROFIT situation. You all are beyond Karl Marx territory if you honestly believe that.

I just can't believe what I'm reading here.

[Seriously?]

PS: Your entire use of "stagnation" in your argument is ridiculous. I am only using it since you are, but it feels so ignorant in its application here. It might be some "big economic word" that the trump campaign has asked you to use to fool your "poorly educated" trump zombies, but it is extremely foolish and silly to think it will work in Atlas.

If my stagnation argument is so ridiculous why has stimulus been used to combat recession/depression  for generations now? Obama used it extensively in 2009.

In order to incentivize people during times of economic downturn, government will turn to accelerated depreciation and other tricks (like the bill passed in 1993 forgiving tax recognition of loans that were erased by banks) to encourage businessmen to stimulate the economy.

[rafta_rafta]

Trump should release all of his subsequent years in taxes so we can all appreciate the full scale of his "genius"

[Inmate Trump]

Republicans love to criticize those on welfare and call them lazy and whatnot, yet now claim Trump is smart for taking advantage of the tax system.

How can they justify one but not the other?

Bonus question: if Hillary had not paid taxes for 20 years, how would Republicans react?

[Meclazine for Israel]

It's smart to not pay taxes after you have made a $900M loss, then build a $3Bn company.

Just a small clarification.

[Meclazine for Israel]

This is the most astonishingly ignorant thread I've read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me try to simplify this.

You lose $900m this year. You are in the hole $900 million.

Next year, you make $900m in profit. Where are you? Only back to break even.

Your profit is zero over that time frame. Of course your tax should be zero. (Ignoring carry forward loss limitations for simplicity's sake, but including it would make the lefty argument even more ridiculous.)

Yet we have lots of people here who think in the described scenario, that this business should pay $300m plus in taxes...on a ZERO PROFIT situation. You all are beyond Karl Marx territory if you honestly believe that.

I just can't believe what I'm reading here.

Probably a good post.

90% of people are missing this point.

Try investing $1Bn in the USA and see how comfortable you feel.

Without investment, you dont have a country.

[dspNY]

This is the most astonishingly ignorant thread I've read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me try to simplify this.

You lose $900m this year. You are in the hole $900 million.

Next year, you make $900m in profit. Where are you? Only back to break even.

Your profit is zero over that time frame. Of course your tax should be zero. (Ignoring carry forward loss limitations for simplicity's sake, but including it would make the lefty argument even more ridiculous.)

Yet we have lots of people here who think in the described scenario, that this business should pay $300m plus in taxes...on a ZERO PROFIT situation. You all are beyond Karl Marx territory if you honestly believe that.

I just can't believe what I'm reading here.

Probably a good post.

90% of people are missing this point.

Try investing $1Bn in the USA and see how comfortable you feel.

Without investment, you dont have a country.

But the point is he failed dramatically at investing it, showing that he is a pretty bad businessman

[emailking]

This is the most astonishingly ignorant thread I've read here, and that's saying a lot.

Let me try to simplify this.

You lose $900m this year. You are in the hole $900 million.

Next year, you make $900m in profit. Where are you? Only back to break even.

Your profit is zero over that time frame. Of course your tax should be zero. (Ignoring carry forward loss limitations for simplicity's sake, but including it would make the lefty argument even more ridiculous.)
 

Should you be able to deduct gambling losses in the same way? It's the same concept. You're x dollars in the hole. Next year you make x dollars. You're back to even and your tax should be 0.

The only difference is judgment call that property development is in the public interest and should be treated as a special loss, whereas gambling is not. But that's a judgment call by society.

Yet we have lots of people here who think in the described scenario, that this business should pay $300m plus in taxes...on a ZERO PROFIT situation. You all are beyond Karl Marx territory if you honestly believe that.

He's not a business. He's a person. It's his personal tax return.

[Bismarck]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

[Nyvin]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

Then why did Romney attack the 47% of Americans who pay no federal taxes?

[Bismarck]

While I don't really approve of Trump's tax dodging, finding ways to Keep your own money is different than finding ways to take other people's.

Then why did Romney attack the 47% of Americans who pay no federal taxes?

Once again I'm not saying Trump is doing a good thing only that there is a distinction. Nice attempt at a straw man attack though.

[Vern]

I don't care who you are or how much money you make or don't make, every should have to pay taxes, no matter what.