Wednesday, October 05, 2016

Donald Trump Probably Paid Zero Taxes For 18 Years Because He Lost $916 Million In 1995 (As A Business Genius Does)

He did have to pay taxes in New Jersey. ...New Jersey, at the time... did not allow passive losses to be deducted from ordinary income ~ NYT columnist James B. Stewart in a CNBC interview (see video below).

As we all now know, or are pretty damn sure concerning, Donald Trump's tax returns would show he has not federal income taxes in many years past. This came up during the first POTUS debate, and Trump said, in response to a remark by Hillary Clinton, that he didn't pay because he's smart.

Servile Trump toady #2 Rudy Giuliani agrees, saying that Trump (because he pays no taxes) is a "business genius".

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns [and] Tax experts hired by The Times to analyze Mr. Trump's [leaked] 1995 records said that tax rules especially advantageous to wealthy filers would have allowed Mr. Trump to use his $916 million loss to cancel out an equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period. (Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found by David Barstow, Susanne Craig, Russ Buettner and Megan Twoheyoct. NYT 10/1/2016).

Really? Losing $916 million due to mismanagement and bad business decisions means you're GOOD at business? Or did he only lose money on paper? By which I mean were these fake "loses" cooked up by a crooked accountant so Trump could avoid paying what he owed? Maybe technically legal, maybe not. But certainly morally dubious.

BTW, according to the NYT "the tax documents arrived in a manila envelope... at the Times with a return address of the Trump Organization". I've heard that the person responsible for leaking the documents is Marla Maples, Trump's 2nd wife (and the one who was married to him at the time).

Ha ha.

BTW, as for Trump's servile toadies (of which he has two three*) the other one would be the governor who lied and said he didn't know some lanes on the George Washington Bridge were closed as an act of political payback against "Fort Lee's Mayor Mark Sokolich (a Democrat) for failing to endorse Christie in the 2013 gubernatorial election" (Wikipedia excerpt).

Lefty Talker Stephanie Miller refers to the toadies as "leather slaves", and, when servile toady #2 made the absurd comment re Trump being a "genius" for losing a boatload of money running casinos, it was after the ball gag was removed from his mouth and he was let out of the basement.

Video1: Rudy Giuliani calls Trump an "absolute genius" for losing a LOT of money and taking advantage of the tax code to not pay federal taxes, 10/2/2016 (0:04).

Video2: NYT columnist James B Stewart on CNBC says that Trump must explain his nearly billion-dollar loss and what breaks in the tax code contributed to it (4:13).

Something else that caught my eye (this was in the James B. Stewart article to which the CNBC video was attached), was the following.

"If it wasn't clear before, it is now: The tax code is tilted toward the rich in its statutory framework, its exceptions, and in how it is enforced and administered", said Steven M. Rosenthal, a real estate tax specialist and senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.

Yet more proof that, when the Libertarian blogger Willis Hart said that the "economy is rigged and that only certain people can benefit from it [is a] myth", he was wrong. Dead wrong. But that a wealth-worshipping stooge such as Hart thinks the economy ISN'T rigged is really NOT a surprise. Yet he frequently rails against crony capitalism (as does Lying Gary Johnson). And, yes, the Hartster thinks he can have it both ways.

* I don't know how I could have forgotten Newt Gingrich. Although he hasn't been out there a lot. And he doesn't come across (to me) quite as servile and desperate as Christie and Giuliani.

Democracy Now: Trump May Have Paid No Taxes for 18 Years, 1995 Tax Returns Show, 10/3/2016. Progressive Eruptions: Trump 10/3/2016 Headlines.

SWTD #353


  1. The real question is did he lose the money or did he hide the money?

    1. I think a large portion of it was money that never existed to begin with. Depreciation and "lost value" on properties he owns (and overvalued) and overvaluing failed business ventures like Trump Airlines. Trump has lost a lot of money, however. But this "lost" money (reported on his 1995 tax return) was a tax dodge.

  2. "Trump has lost a lot of money," and we, the taxpayer paid him back because he was able to deduct the losses from his federal income tax.

  3. Apparently remaining personally wealthy while failing in multiple business ventures make one a genius businessman.

    Will congress allowing Trump to bankrupt America as he defaults on America's obligations be his next genius business venture?

  4. Was it illegal? Did he break tax laws? Seem's you two are really jealous of Trumps success.....he lives the life of a billionaire while you two suck off the pubic teat.

    1. Did anyone say it was illegal?

      Did anyone say he criminally violated tax laws?

      As for you Rutherford? You haven't a fu*king clue whether or not anyone is jealous.

      BTW Rutherford, the one most probably sucking the public teat is you. Your psychological projection gives you away for what you are Rutherford.

    2. Trump may have broken NJ tax law (as per the quote at the top of my post). As for Trump's "success"... it's mostly due to his being a member of the lucky sperm club.

    3. Losing almost one billion dollars is a success?!?

  5. Hmmm....why are you folks so damn jealous of success? Is it because neither of you had either the smarts or work ethic to become successful? Trump lives in multi million dollar homes, flys around in his own 757, while you live in manufactured homes and travel in fifteen year old Honda', whose the smart one?

    1. Rusty, as I have already pointed out, Donald Trump's father was the "smart" businessman who became successful. Trump would be a nobody if he hadn't been born rich. He's lost more money than he's made. Mother Jones reports that "Donald Trump Has Lost Between $1 and $6 Billion Over His Business Career" while "the most deeply researched account of his wealth... the book Trump Nation [says that] three sources close to Trump [estimate] he was worth between $150 million and $250 million (when Trump Nation was published in 2005.

      BTW, after the book was published, Trump sued, and a "2007 deposition also revealed that in 2005, two separate banks had assessed Trump’s assets and liabilities before agreeing to lend him money. One, North Fork Bank, decided he was worth $1.2 billion, while Deutsche Bank found he was worth no more than $788 million".

      Sounds like he is successful to me. Uber successful. At losing money.

  6. You are so predictable WD....quoting Mother Jones as a source of accurate info, really.
    Commercial real estate is a volatile cutthroat business with fortunes made and lost. Having survived for 40 years in that environment while succeeding and making a fortune proves beyond a doubt what a successful businessman he is and how much more qualified he would be to invigorate the economy.
    BTW, how many jobs would you guess Trump has furnished in the past 40 years? How many has HRC created in that same period?

    1. What about the banks that "assessed Trump's assets and liabilities before agreeing to lend him money"? They lied too? And when the assessment was for their own use (in deciding if they should loan Trump money). But you see "Mother Jones" and therefore believe you can declare everything they report to be a lie. But (unfortunately for Rusty) facts are facts regardless of who reports them. Trump did not "make a fortune", he lost one and is an unsuccessful businessman. He'd likely drive the economy into a deep recession.

    2. I'd rather not see Trump do this to the nation, thank you very much.

      By the way, Mr. Sanders....fine conversation you have going here.

  7. Rutherford has a point. Using his criteria tRump is a very successful business"man". Albeit on lacking ethics and a moral compass.

    tRump may just be a branding genius.

  8. Okay fine for Trump. But Russ T. has a bit of a stretch proving that Trump would invigorate the economy for anyone except his big money, vulture capitalist pals.

    Personally, I'm not convinced that his cutthroat business policies are translatable to U.S. fiscal policy. His mode d'emploi seems to be centered around hiring foreign service class workers that he can exploit, screwing contractors that have legitimately provided him with valuable services and goods, and I guess just anybody that he can screw in a business relationship without engendering a dangerous lawsuit which his lawyers might stand a chance of losing.

    Thanks for playing, Rusty. You reach out to the other side. But you're playing for the wrong side. Anybody could see that.

  9. Mr. Sanders...a public apology for my part in past conversations that got spirited then worse. I have changed my mind on a lot of things, starting with the Republican Party and Sen Sanders.

    The era of Trump can do things to a man.

    Carry on...

    1. Accepted, dmarks. And thank you. I implied a number of times that I did not believe you re changing your mind. I now believe you are genuine in this. I don't understand it, but I believe you.

      One thing that the TOM/Steve/Luke situation has shown me is that people who disagree can still get along (even when they strongly disagree) while there are people out there who, while it looks like you're in agreement with them, there can still (inexplicably) be conflict. Early on (in during my time blogging) I assumed that there should be no conflict between people whose politics more closely aline. TOM/Steve/Luke has proven me wrong.

      Anyway, "water under the bridge", as RN said recently.
      Luke WILL see this, btw. He has contacted me concerning comments I've made elsewhere. This exchange will likely confirm his delusions (we're all buddies who have been a-holes to people on the net for years. We're all stealing is posts, etc).

      So, let me say now... Ha ha ha ha ha.

    2. Life's too short for me to not simply say what I believe, rather than troll for ideas I detest. Meaning, I've never enjoyed being a devil's advocate.

      Do I agree on everything? No. Do I want to make America great by having it Trump-free? Yes!

    3. dmarks... So, I guess you changed your mind about "Bernie Sanders [voting] as if bin Laden had slipped him a check" and "a lot more of us... [being] in Heaven now if there were more Sanders voting to let the terrorists have their way and to keep lauching more and more 9/11's", and Bernie Sander being "a hero of the ruling class", "a hardline economic fascist", and (as a potus candidate) a "joke" supported by "the fringe crazies" who'd only get 3% of the vote?

      Well, the last one... you were proven wrong on that, as Bernie Sanders *did* run and *did* get more than 3% of the vote. My vote in the primary and... your vote in the primary? If I remember correctly, I think I read that on RNUSA? Perhaps you decided you were with Bernie Sanders (the reincarnation of Chairman Mao) because you also want "a super-state to rule us all" and because "you want to kill and oppress people at unprecedented rates"?

      I mention these prior comments (exact quotes) because, like I said, it still confuses me that you say you've changed your mind. But then I've done things that have confused myself... so I suppose anything is possible. Although, as far as my politics go, they've stayed pretty consistent. I'd say I'm farther Left then when I became interested in politics. But I'd say that was a natural progression as I learned more.

      BTW, making "America great by having it Trump-free" means electing Hillary Clinton president. You think she can make it great, keep it great, or make it greater even though "her heart is in her quest for personal power and wealth"?

      Also, given that a vote for Gary Johnson will only have the effect of spoiling, are you now going to vote for Clinton? I think it's closer in MI (where you live) than in TN (where I live). "Mod Dem" (Hillary Clinton by 7.0%) versus "Strong GOP" (Trump by 11.5%)... according to this source.

    4. I'll vote for Clinton. Going for Johnson ends up helping Trump.

      I now like Sen. Sanders more than Trump and Hillary, and also Cruz and Jeb and Carly (to name past contenders). I don't stand by the hyperbole comments... You can count them as personal victory points if you wish. Is it still "water under the bridge"?

      Hillary means status quo. Trump is far worse than status quo in my view.

      However, the advance of the secretive intrusive security state that has gotten worse under just about every President other than Carter is bound to keep getting worse under our next President. Agree?

      I stand by the statement about "her heart is in her quest for personal power and wealth". I believe this to be true of the vast majority of politicians. I can't see that Hillary is less avaricious than average.

      But I did become convinced that Sen. Sanders is far less like this than others.

    5. dmarks: Is it still "water under the bridge"?

      Sure. I was just reminding you what I objected to originally, and laying it out to explain why I thought before that your change of opinion on Sen. Sanders to be so weird. And that you might have been lying. Anyway, I know how much you love "old bones", so I thought you'd appreciate examining them one last time.

    6. Crunch crunch crunch :)

    7. I don't wish to relitigate these old bones again, but (out of curiosity) this is your comment, right? (link to a comment on my PPP blog from when Anon commenting was enabled).

  10. Well said dmarks and Dervish. :-)

    Perhaps Will, after eyeballing this, will dedicate a Contra O'Reilly post in response.

    1. RN: ...will dedicate a Contra O'Reilly post in response.

      I doubt he'll see it. I doubt he'd respond if he did.

    2. I looked over at Contra O Reilly for the first time in weeks. It seems like the only thing he is trying to do is come up with subjects for blog posts that are five times longer than the actual text of the post.

      I might have mentioned before, but if you look at his number of post per year, his amount of posting is inversely proportional to the number of other bloggers that participate in discussions with him.

      It seems he is going for the event horizon, now that no one is commenting at all.

      Dervish, I might have asked before. But I forgot. You have so many boomin' blogs. Do you have any devoted to soundtracks?

    3. No, I don't have a blog devoted to soundtracks. I don't read music, I don't play an instrument. I don't know instruments. All I know is what I like and that's not enough to build a blog around. I have a few posts on the perquinn blog, but they're about CDs I'm selling and CDs I'm looking for.

      You can look here if you want...

      Or this one (for one more result)...

      That's all there is. I do recommend this site, however...

      This is a message board for people who are really into film scores.

      BTW, I have more blogs than you know about (listed here). But I'm not doing much with the others. For an example (info regarding one of these other blogs), you could look here.

  11. You did make me reconsider "Return to Oz", for sure.


Comment moderation is not currently in effect. Your comment will appear immediately. I do not, however, allow Anonymous comments. Anyone wishing to comment MUST have a Blogger account.