Trump Tax Return

[Ben]

This is interesting. Both from how the NYT (let's not even bother arguing their slanted reporting) received the document, then scroll down the Twitchy link to the image and checkout the numbers.

http://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2016/10/02/new-york-times-goes-full-harry-reid-reports-that-donald-trump-could-have-avoided-paying-tax-for-18-years/

[Fly320s]

One page of one tax return from 20 years ago and this is a big deal?

[brimic]

One page of one tax return from 20 years ago and this is a big deal?

That and it looks like it was purposely doctored and illegally leaked.
I would be pissed if someone took private documents of mine and posted them on the internet.

[Ron]

Who wants to talk about Trumps tax returns?

What does talking about Trumps tax returns bump out of the news cycle.

Every discussion about Trumps tax returns should be used as an opportunity to talk about illegal immigration, building a wall and keeping Political Islamic terrorists out of our country.  

Simply say "that has nothing to do with the most pressing issues facing us; controlling our borders and keeping political Islamic terrorists out of our country."

I reject the establishment narrative in every political conversation I have with people, in person and online.

Accepting the narrative as worth discussion puts you on the defensive.

Ignore or mock it and reframe the issues.   

[RevDisk]

Most likely he's not releasing his taxes because his net wealth is significantly less than he likes to portray. That'd have serious financial issues as his persona/image/whatever is his largest asset. He's not a very skilled businessman or investor. This isn't a political judgment, just an assessment of his past business activities.

[JN01]

He's not a very skilled businessman or investor. 

That should make him fit right in with the rest of the Washington clowns.

[MechAg94]

Still didn't find anything as bad as Benghazi.

Best comment I saw near the top.      Still not near as bad as 4 or 5 different skeletons in Hillary's closet. 

[MechAg94]

Headline at Drudgereport.com.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/02/new-york-times-paid-no-taxes-2014/
The New York Times Paid No Taxes in 2014
 

[MechAg94]

Trump’s campaign said in a statement that the candidate is “a highly-skilled businessman who has a fiduciary responsibility to his business, his family and his employees to pay no more tax than legally required.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/02/trump-campaign-new-york-times-illegally-obtained-tax-records/#ixzz4LxD403pp

[RevDisk]

Eh, I'd concur that he doesn't HAVE to pay any more taxes than required. That said, it doesn't exactly give the impression he's interested in serving the nation rather than himself. You can dodge all the taxes in the world (so long as you do it legally) and that's morally/ethically/legally ok. Doesn't mean it's exactly a good criteria for a public official.

I'd also say the same thing about offshoring manufacturing, enthusiastically bringing in foreign workers under any visa loophole possible, underpaying small businesses that can't afford to sue him to actually get paid full amount, etc. Most Trump supporters tend to be fine with that sort of thing when it's their guy doing it. "Because he knows real business, you wouldn't understand" tends to be the response. Yet they'd be furious if anyone from a different party did such things.

*shrug*

Ye fluffy bunnies this election sucks.

[Ben]

That and it looks like it was purposely doctored and illegally leaked.

Yes, it's like the Dan Rather thing all over again.

[Hawkmoon]

It's all in the spin. Note that nowhere do they come out and say that he didn't pay income tax for 18 years -- or 15 years, or ten years, or even two years. No, they say he "could have" avoided paying taxes for 18 years. And they know damned well that 90 percent of the functional illiterates who read the story will forever believe that Trump DID NOT pay any income tax for 18 years, even though there has been NOTHING brought out to demonstrate that.

So, according to the NYT, it's horrible if Trump "might not" (but also might) have paid income tax for 18 years, but it's not a problem when the NYT didn't pay income tax (for real, not "might" or "maybe").

NYT, your hypocrisy is showing (again/still).

[Calumus]

Whoops..

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-02/clinton-campaign-admits-hillary-used-same-tax-avoidance-scheme-trump

[RoadKingLarry]

Yes, it's like the Dan Rather thing all over again.

The truth is irrelevant. It's the seriousness of the allegation that is important.

[Scout26]

My comment to a friend of mine regarding Trump and Taxes:

"She was a Senator and had ample opportunity to write and re-write the tax code.  Why are are you blaming him for using it as written?  Do you write off your mortgage?  Your Property Taxes?  Your Charitable Giving?   If so, you are taking advantage of those loopholes, just like Trump and hundreds if not thousands of businesses use what ever "loopholes" in the code to reduce their tax burdens..." 

[Perd Hapley]

Eh, I'd concur that he doesn't HAVE to pay any more taxes than required. That said, it doesn't exactly give the impression he's interested in serving the nation rather than himself. You can dodge all the taxes in the world (so long as you do it legally) and that's morally/ethically/legally ok. Doesn't mean it's exactly a good criteria for a public official.

I'd also say the same thing about offshoring manufacturing, enthusiastically bringing in foreign workers under any visa loophole possible, underpaying small businesses that can't afford to sue him to actually get paid full amount, etc. Most Trump supporters tend to be fine with that sort of thing when it's their guy doing it. "Because he knows real business, you wouldn't understand" tends to be the response. Yet they'd be furious if anyone from a different party did such things.

*shrug*

Ye fluffy bunnies this election sucks.

Gigglesnort to your first paragraph. Paying more taxes than required? Since when has anyone (or at least any Republican) ever considered that to be some noble, patriotic gesture? I've never heard of that. If anything, that's Democratic politician logic, that we'd use against them, concerning their own candidates. As I said, .

As for the second, you draw a false equivalence between hiring foreigners/off-shoring and welshing on a contract. The former is not a legal or moral problem, but a logical response to an anti-business climate at home. A climate which Trump's main opponent will only further, of course. I thought Trump was the guy proposing that we make it easier to employ Americans. 

[MikeB]

We are now in almost full Banana Republic mode. One candidate is not prosecuted for clear violations of the law and the other castigated for complying with the law as a compliant media openly commits a crime to help their candidate win. This is what we are left with after the politization of our government agencies (IRS, Justice, etc.) under Obama. This is exactly how Banana Republics get one party rule and eventually dictators in name if not definition. If anything this is exactly why the only choice now is Trump and hope that he will follow through on reducing some of the power of government. To let the Dems and their allies in the MSM get away with this is intolerable.

[Perd Hapley]

One candidate is not prosecuted for clear violations of the law and the other castigated for complying with the law...

Well, yeah, but you forgot the part where she wasn't charged, even after the head G-man himself told us in detail all the crimes she'd committed. Or at least, the email-related ones.

[Jamisjockey]

I have much disdain for Trump.  More disdain for Hillary.
How this became a flap, is because the group I have the most disdain for: the American voter.  Both "sides" see stuff like this as stupid *expletive deleted*it that matters, or worse won't dig into it at a cerebral level to understand why it does or doesn't matter.
If anyone's ever wondered how congress critters go to Washington doing okay but not rich, but leave as millionaires?  Because they write the tax code, they set up the shelters, then they take advantage of insider information and invest ahead of the curve.
And somehow Trump is bad for using his businesses to shelter income?   

[Ben]

If anyone's ever wondered how congress critters go to Washington doing okay but not rich, but leave as millionaires?  Because they write the tax code, they set up the shelters, then they take advantage of insider information and invest ahead of the curve.

Exactly what I was thinking while watching indignant politicriitters attacking the Wells Fargo CEO. While it appears Wells Fargo screwed up, I was thinking that probably every person on the committee calling for the CEO to go to jail had committed multiple felonies themselves to get rich.

[Jamisjockey]

Exactly what I was thinking while watching indignant politicriitters attacking the Wells Fargo CEO. While it appears Wells Fargo screwed up, I was thinking that probably every person on the committee calling for the CEO to go to jail had committed multiple felonies themselves to get rich.

Nah they didn't break the law to get rich. They wrote the laws so they could get rich.

[Scout26]

Exactly what I was thinking while watching indignant politicriitters attacking the Wells Fargo CEO. While it appears Wells Fargo screwed up, I was thinking that probably every person on the committee calling for the CEO to go to jail had committed multiple felonies themselves to get rich.

Yep, they exempted themselves.   (IIRC, Insider trading laws don't apply to them. And they have all the insider information as they make the rules for all businesses.)

[Monkeyleg]

Yep, they exempted themselves.   (IIRC, Insider trading laws don't apply to them. And they have all the insider information as they make the rules for all businesses.)

They passed a law subjecting members of congress to be subject to insider trading laws, and made a big deal about it. Later on they quietly changed the law back to allow them to use insider trading information.

[Ben]

They passed a law subjecting members of congress to be subject to insider trading laws, and made a big deal about it. Later on they quietly changed the law back to allow them to use insider trading information.

Which pisses me off to no end because I could have made a small fortune on Aerovironment stock except that I was part of a joint gov prototyping project with them and thus came under the gov ethics regs so couldn't use my knowledge for an early retirement. I would be surprised if some congressman(s) didn't make a bundle though.

Nice guys finish last.