As anyone who has stood within a 100 yards of my posting for the last several months knows, I detest the idea of Donald Trump being president, both on a policy basis and because I think the man is an active danger.[1]
That said, the current brouhaha over his not paying taxes is, to my mind, a bit misfocused.
What appears to be the case (based on a set of mid-90s state tax return cover pages) is that Donald Trump declared a business loss of close to a billion dollars, and, under the tax laws, he was able to spread that loss out to cover federal taxes he paid / would pay over a period of 18 years, most likely meaning he was relieved of his federal tax burden in that period.
While it's a viscerally repellent move, it's hard for me to condemn Trump's action per se, because he acted fully within the law in doing so. This should be more of an issue with the politicians (of both parties) that enabled the law that made this possible, spreading certain types of business losses out against multiple years of tax liability.[2] Assuming that Trump's maneuvers were legal, Trump is correct — it is, in fact, "smart," to take advantage of the law in this way. The right to legally minimize taxes is well-established in American jurisprudence; as Justice Sutherland put it in 1935:_
'The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted.'
Here's what's not "smart," and where the focus should be:
1. Losing nearly a billion dollars in the first place. Even with his subsequent tax exemption, it's still a massive financial lost, on a series of mismanaged deals, from a guy who promises to bring his business acumen to the service of the United States.
2. Bragging about it as being smart. Because you only brag about losing money and not paying taxes because of it if you are obsessed with being seen as smart. And that speaks to, well, a lot of insecurity.
(It's also guaranteed to torque people off, though the Trump Faithful seem to see it less as ducking paying for essential services, as "sticking it to those in power," which, ironically, they see a multi-millionaire real estate speculator as not being one of.)
3. Declaring a close-to-a-billion-dollar loss, because that's going to attract the attention of the IRS on a regular basis.
4. This particular loss would have been distributable up through 2013, I believe. So none of this necessarily speaks to Trump's taxes the past few years. Has he found another financial disaster to duck behind? Is he making money hand over fist from some source or another? Is he giving away all his income to the poor? Is he being paid off by Vladimir Putin? We don't know — and the current kerfuffle has obscured that we don't have recent information (or, really, any information about his other taxes, income, donations, etc., from even that 18 year period, other than that he was likely able to avoid paying federal income tax).
Hmmm. Maybe that's why these forms were leaked. Maybe that's the "smart" thing going on.
—-
[1] I still think Ted Cruz was/is/will be a greater danger, but we can save that conversation for 2019.
[2] Whether this is a good policy, or was enacted for sound, defensible reasons, is a different discussion. It is the law of the land.
[3] Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465, 469 (1935)
This. Sure, I'm all "daaaamn" at the idea of the guy getting away with not paying taxes, but my brain went "hold up. You lost HOW MUCH? Millions, sure. But a billion? HOW?"
I'm fine with his handling of taxes in any regard. It comes down to the law and a focus on how richer people (Clinton is included there) are able to find loopholes to take back more money. They can do this because they have the resources that the rest of us don't.
It additionally brings focus to another big point here…..how much of their money contributes to our country. If they are holding more money back, then that money is not being used to help anyone but themselves. Someone who touts doing better for the country obviously should be demonstrating that by putting money back into creating jobs. I think Trump has spent his life hoarding money as much as possible including screwing over people without blinking an eyelash.
+Lauchlin MacGregor
The narrative was the contrary of what you are telling, it was that Trump would be better off if he left the money in a bank account and received interest. But instead he created jobs..
+Da'vid U'rech which narrative would you be referring to?
+Lauchlin MacGregor
Source: http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/
+Da'vid U'rech Sorry, what money? What jobs? What are you referring to here?
Well if he invested in stocks = no jobs, instead he founded a lot of different companies with the inherent risk and built a brand and jobs.
+Lauchlin MacGregor Doing a quick Google, it appears that, based on tax returns, the Clintons have been paying an effective rate of 30-35% on their federal taxes, which indicates they are certainly contributing toward the country.
"Taking back more money" isn't necessarily an anti-social thing. That money isn't necessarily stacked up in a cave like Smaug's hoard (presumably). Putting it in savings accounts (where it helps finance loans that expand business, buy houses, etc.), or bonds (where it helps finance government services), or stocks (where it capitalizes companies to presumably expand their operations) can all have their value, too.
On the other hand, using it to buy gold-plated sinks is probably not a very effective means of stimulating the economy or generating jobs, except among a very narrow group of craftsman (who Trump possibly stiffed anyway).
+Dave Hill
I like your humor. But bringing Clinton to the battlefield hurts your argument .. immensely. By the way, even poor people use tax loopholes (add kids, add car to get to the workplace, add education loans… = financial losses).
+Da'vid U'rech Investing in stocks can help create jobs. Stocks are intended to provide capital for companies to invest in their business — updating equipment, expanding operations, etc. — which protects or expands jobs.
On the other hand, investing in dubious business propositions, or mismanaging investments that have been made, can lead to a short economic surge, followed by a failure that usually means people losing jobs and/or wealth. Failure = waste.
+Dave Hill
savings accounts : BUBBLE, esp. HOUSING BUBBLE = FINANCIAL CRISIS
bonds : DEBT, state pays interest around 30-40%
stocks= NO JOBS, globalism, multinationals, crush the competition, establish monopoly rent
+Da'vid U'rech Certainly. One man's loophole is another man's tax savings is another man's intentional social engineering through the tax code. Anyone who itemizes deductions is doing so in order to take advantage of "loopholes".
Trump's are at a much higher (and lucrative) level that what is available to most folk.
+Dave Hill
yes that's true, but on the same page, they don't have to comfort a chinese bank.
+Da'vid U'rech You have an odd understanding of how the economy works, particularly savings, bonds, and stocks.
Yes, a bond is a debt, which the state pays off at interest. But it is a debt incurred specifically to fund activities that produce jobs and increase economic opportunities, or to create a confined funding process vs funding via taxation. For example, a local school district holds a bond issue to finance capital renovations of schools, which both creates jobs (for the workers) and maintains or improves the educational facilities.
+Da'vid U'rech I don't follow what you mean by "comfort a chinese bank".
+Dave Hill
a renter of one his rental spaces is a large chinese bank, i think it is the biggest bank of the world
+Dave Hill
Solyndra fiasco was then paid by bonds… politicians take taxes , pay 30-40% interest and with the rest of 60% they go invest in a company that makes spheric sun cells, when all the incoming rays of the sun have the same angle. FAIL. But I think bonds work for the US because they have a military (not so strong as the chinese military, see north korea, and is seen as a social experiment by most politicians) and the piggybank. The piggybank goes away when the industrialisation is gone. See Audi plant in Mexico that produces this * opens today.*https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=audi+q5&biw=853&bih=508&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiahqiGn7_PAhXEIcAKHSaQAGwQ_AUIBigB
+Da'vid U'rech I'm guessing you mean that Trump has property that a Chinese bank is renting. Um … what's the problem?
+Dave Hill
It means his chair is built with more gold bricks than that of a normal plant worker.
+Da'vid U'rech Solyndra was (1) was paid for (in part) by federal loan guarantees, not bonds, (2) used cylindrical, not spherical, elements, and (3) failed largely because the economics of solar cell manufacture changed. The government loan program made back its losses. So … not quite "FAIL," and not at all an indictment of bonds.
As for the rest of what you're saying here, I really don't understand your point, and I think we've drifted far, far away from the initial discussion.
+Dave Hill
1) Ultimately the loans are backed by bonds. 2) The incoming rays of the sun don't reflect better on a cylindrical shape. It is the simple Pythagoras theorem that overwhelms politicians, because they are busy elsewhere and it is not their core competency of ~collecting money and votes. 3) Democrats and republicans acknowledge that the current media bias is unprecedented. Everyone would be better of if they bleach their hard disks and whack their mobile phones to get rid of the info-dirt like HIllary did, although unintentionally.
+Da'vid U'rech (1) The loans were backed by the US — that might include bonds, or direct tax revenue. But what's the point, either way?
(2) While I'm not a Solyndra engineer, the proposition was that cylindrical cells could capture the sun as it tracked across the sky, as well as indirect/reflected light. They could also have a more open framework, which reduced wind issues.
And, ultimately, the problem seems to have been less an engineering or political failure (i.e. the cells worked), but an economic one (the significant drop in cost of polysilicon, which may cost itself may have been manipulated).
3. Still no clue what you're talking about.
+Dave Hill
1) It was was paid by debt (2 trillion, when Obama finishes his job 2.2 trillion) or god forbid tax payers, that's an argument for Trump, who said at the debate to Hllary that he doesn't want to fund HIllary's pet projects.
2) Cylindrical form starts with a major deficit as they are a fraction as efficient as a flat solar panel — they simply don’t receive enough sunlight. Then they used some mirrors to correct, but it didn't help and the cost was higher at the same time the cost for solar cells ingots sank. FAIL
3) Why does the media doesn't report when Hlllary is falling of the stairs, but Trump is on every newspaper front when he sniffles, an act of superiority. Why nobody questions the FBI director who got a rich bounty from Lockheed Martin, who at the same time was also responsible that Bill got no impeachment in the Clinton-Lewinsky submarine, no submarine sinks deeper. Why is it that when I google Hillary health nothing shows up but when I google for Trump's twitter account a different twitter account shows up as a first result?
+Da'vid U'rech (1) It was paid for by the US government, which at the time was incurring great expenses than income, due to the most signficant downturn in the US economy since the Great Depression, and as part of a major economic stimulus that probably kept things from getting far worse.
(2) I am not sufficiently an engineer to make blanket statements as to whether Solyndra's design was inherently flawed or not, nor do I know if you do. It was sufficiently innovative to draw significant amount of investment by people who presumably did some sort of reality check on the principles involved.
Whether it was workable or not was rendered moot, as you note, by the fall in conventional solar cell materials.
(3) Not sure which media you're checking out, but I saw plenty of coverage of Clinton's stair slip. Trump's sniffles were covered largely because, after raising such a constant stink over Clinton suffering from some dire health ailment, it was amusing that he was sniffing so much.
James Comey had nothing to do with the Lewinsky scandal. He was an investigator into the Whitewater affair. His job at Lockheed Martin came many years after that.
Again, I can't speak for your results, but when I Google "Hillary Health," I get an array of articles on the subject (some of them pretty zany); when I Google "Trump Twitter," the first result I get is a link to the actual @realdonaldtrump account.
+Dave Hill
The FBI director's "job" at Lockheed Martin was when Hlllary was the head of the state department and they ordered 6 new contracts during her time there at Lockheed Martin. 6 million was the income of the job, also 6 is the number of 6% of all Clinton Foundation money that goes to the mission goal. Looks like the money of the state under a oval office for sale under Hlllary goes 94% not to roads, trains and bridges. When ISIS still exists after 4 years, it will, she will blame it on a video (Benghazi). She has a lot in common with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Lowry ~follow the money.
I have screenshots of the google result page, do not worry.
+Da'vid U'rech And with an invocation of 6-6-6 (and an extra 6 thrown in), and Benghazi, I think we'll draw this ramble to a close.
Except I'll add one further note, just to get it recorded, related to footnote [2] above: an explanation and defense of the law under which Trump pulled this off: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/trump-s-1995-return-shows-good-tax-policy-at-work