|
Post by Angelo on Oct 2, 2016 15:22:34 GMT -5
Yeah trying to lessen the impact of WikiLeaks October surprise which was supposed to be on Tuesday but was temporarily cancelled due to security reasons. I was not aware of a Wililieaks dump. What do you mean cancelled due to security reasons? According to Assange, there are security threats that he's not safe from at the moment if he dumps on Tuesday. The embassy I guess is helping him but looks like delayed indefinitely. Rumours are he's gonna be able to go through with the dump on Tuesday but not make formal announcement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:32:22 GMT -5
So how are Trump fans going to rationalize his loss of almost one billion dollars in taxes which caused such a huge tax deduction he was able to avoid paying taxes for 18 years?? Sure, he used a legal loophole in the system to avoid paying those taxes, but a successful business man doesn't lose $916 MILLION dollars. It's almost certainly at least ONE reason he won't release his tax returns. He's not as effective a business man as he claims he is. And please, if you are going to respond respond to the ARTICLE, NOT to me, and not with insults. It makes a FAR better argument than I can. I'm just the messenger--you interpret the information however you want. www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/opinions/why-trump-tax-news-is-stunning-mccaffery/index.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:40:47 GMT -5
So how are Trump fans going to rationalize his loss of almost one billion dollars in taxes which caused such a huge tax deduction he was able to avoid paying taxes for 18 years?? Sure, he used a legal loophole in the system to avoid paying those taxes, but a successful business man doesn't lose $916 MILLION dollars. It's almost certainly at least ONE reason he won't release his tax returns. He's not as effective a business man as he claims he is. www.cnn.com/2016/10/02/opinions/why-trump-tax-news-is-stunning-mccaffery/index.htmlDo you really think what happened to him in '95 is any different than what happens all of the time in business (airlines, oil, ect)... or do you think this is the media blowing up a common occurrence for political gain? When you compare the value of his assets to the loss that was put on the books in '95, it is right in line with how the economy was doing at the time... maybe a little worse but nothing substantial And to a bigger point... how in the fuck does this have any bearing on the current presidential race? This was 21 years ago, he is currently worth $10BB and has never been convicted of breaking 1 single tax law... yet the liberals seem to think they are all accountants now? Why don't these same news publications audit George Soros books if they want to see true tax corruption... look at when he shorted the dollar about 10 years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:43:32 GMT -5
Well he lost a billion dollars.
I'm saying a super successful business man doesn't usually lose one billion dollars.
Respond to the article, NOT to me.
I'm just the messenger.
Address the points made in the article about why it doesn't look good for him and I'll read what you have to say.
Don't address me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:45:32 GMT -5
I mean it's "bearing" is that most of his supporters love him because of his success in business and while he is worth a shitload, he COULD have been worth a LOT more.
"The argument that "Trump is really smart, the king of tax loopholes, and that we should elect him because he alone can fix the tax system" is extremely weak, for at least two reasons. 1. There is no evidence whatsoever that Trump, himself, understands the tax laws benefiting him. The New York Times article indicates Trump's own tax accountant found him inattentive, and nothing that Trump has said in public has revealed a deep knowledge of the tax code. Trump does, on the other hand, have a frequently revealed fondness for debt, or using "other people's money." 2. Trump's own tax proposals would actually close down none of the remaining tax "loopholes" benefiting debt. Indeed, Trump's plan would greatly encourage and reward debt. Trump's impulsive last-minute decision to continue an interest loan deduction in his otherwise standard trickle-down tax du jour plan was a $1.2 trillion dollar "whopper" -- an expense nearly five times higher than the campaign's view of the cost of Trump's child care tax plan. Trump's continued preference for tax benefits for debt is reckless. Trump's tax policies would greatly increase taxpayer abilities to use other people's money to generate tax breaks for themselves. Whatever happens in the sea of complexity about to be sent forth, we should all remember this: A tax loss of nearly a billion dollars is a very, very nice thing to have, especially if it came from other people's money."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:48:28 GMT -5
The article is retarded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:50:00 GMT -5
Please expand on why. News sources all over are talking about what a big deal this is. And on a TOTALLY different note, I just found out George Bush senior is voting for Hilary. I was VERY surprised to hear that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:54:33 GMT -5
I don't need to expand. I'm not responding to you, as per your request. I'm telling the article it's a retard who doesn't understand that Trump's losses in 95 were a result of a massive drop in the entire real estate market that was neither Trump's fault or in his power to stop.
That article is retarded.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 2, 2016 16:58:37 GMT -5
Well he lost a billion dollars. I'm saying a super successful business man doesn't usually lose one billion dollars. Amazon only recently turned a profit, they were lots every year. Bezos lost 6 billion at one point personally. Zuckerberg has lost a billion more than once, etc... Rich people and businesses lose money on a regular basis, for tax reasons, to exploit loopholes, carry over losses are a very good business practice, especially when the losses can be listed as such when in reality they are an investment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 16:59:45 GMT -5
Not paying taxes for 18 years looks bad to me is all I'm saying, and it's gonna look bad to a lot of undecided voters as well.
And I don't think news sources as reputable as the New York Times which is saying it looks bad for Trump as well, are retarded.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:00:43 GMT -5
Well he lost a billion dollars. I'm saying a super successful business man doesn't usually lose one billion dollars. Amazon only recently turned a profit, they were lots every year. Bezos lost 6 billion at one point personally. Zuckerberg has lost a billion more than once, etc... Rich people and businesses lose money on a regular basis, for tax reasons, to exploit loopholes, carry over losses are a very good business practice, especially when the losses can be listed as such when in reality they are an investment. Well, instead of reading more on here I'm gonna read the article published in the New York Times on it earlier today. I think it has more detailed info.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:03:09 GMT -5
One thing I'll say from having only glanced at the article in the Times so far is it's saying his loss of money was due to HIS CASINOS.
NOT the real estate market.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 2, 2016 17:07:15 GMT -5
Not paying taxes for 18 years looks bad to me is all I'm saying, and it's gonna look bad to a lot of undecided voters as well. And I don't think news sources as reputable as the New York Times which is saying it looks bad for Trump as well, are retarded. Not paying taxes is how rich people stay rich. Billionaires have among the lowest effective tax rate in the US because of our tax laws. A lot of Trump's losses were temporary and seems like a lot because you are comparing the actual number to what you'd expect personally and not to the situation. If I remember right a large part of his loss was from writing off appraisal changes on properties, something a normal person does not do, but those in real estate do often because you are allowed to do that on investment properties (which he did especially with his casinos). He recovered all the loss, and made money because of the loss. That seems like good business to me. That said, I don't like the way he does business. Most of his money came from losing endeavors, he just positioned himself to make money off of it, betting on it to lose and him to get his nut before it does or because it does. He also has reduced his operating cost ridiculous amounts via attrition by litigation (at least that what I call it)
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Oct 2, 2016 17:10:25 GMT -5
From what I can gather he was heavily invested in a specific sector of the golf courses, casinos, and real estate market that had a bad down-turn in 94-95 and he suffered titanic losses, which US tax law allows you to write-off over multiple years and is common practice in the investment business sector. It's also very common to go through 2, 3, 4 of these down-turns if you're in the game long enough. Bubbles bust. Cycles cycle. At some point the big dogs take a gnarly hit. It's completely inevitable. I have no idea how good Trump's business acumen actually is. He couldn't hold a candle to Romney, but we already rejected the guru, so this is what we got now. He took some huge risks, made some huge gains, suffered some huge losses. That's what happens when you play real-life Monopoly for 35 years. Is anyone surprised? Life outside of Government has risk, folks. So, you can take it for what it is or you can't pretend it's some massive stain on par with fraud, espionage, assassinations and continue to support the pathological lying war criminal with brain seizures.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:11:17 GMT -5
One thing I'll say from having only glanced at the article in the Times so far is it's saying his loss of money was due to HIS CASINOS. NOT the real estate market. This is false, the article cannot know where the losses came from without his full tax returns. This article is biased as hell because it is assuming lots of things... one of which is that Trump took full advantage of carried forward losses of $916mm, yet they admit that they have no idea about any of his post '95 tax returns. You asked us to read the article but only "glanced" at it yourself? So you are like the other 85% of the retards in the country that form their opinions based off of headlines and talking heads who have a major internal bias? As I stated before, a $916mm loss is not page 100 worthy, let alone page 1 on Sunday. This is common stance in business and is done in much much larger amounts than sub $1BB. I carried major losses forward in '08, '09 just like the rest of the country and let me tell you that if you eliminate this law small, mid and large businesses will be completely wiped out in this country. You can't not expect business' to recover from bad years when you have a 35% tax rate and no carried forward losses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:26:11 GMT -5
One thing I'll say from having only glanced at the article in the Times so far is it's saying his loss of money was due to HIS CASINOS. NOT the real estate market. This is false, the article cannot know where the losses came from without his full tax returns. This article is biased as hell because it is assuming lots of things... one of which is that Trump took full advantage of carried forward losses of $916mm, yet they admit that they have no idea about any of his post '95 tax returns. You asked us to read the article but only "glanced" at it yourself? So you are like the other 85% of the retards in the country that form their opinions based off of headlines and talking heads who have a major internal bias? As I stated before, a $916mm loss is not page 100 worthy, let alone page 1 on Sunday. This is common stance in business and is done in much much larger amounts than sub $1BB. I carried major losses forward in '08, '09 just like the rest of the country and let me tell you that if you eliminate this law small, mid and large businesses will be completely wiped out in this country. You can't not expect business' to recover from bad years when you have a 35% tax rate and no carried forward losses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:27:31 GMT -5
I'm about to read the entire article, but my brother read it and said that's what it states, that the losses came from his casinos.
I don't know why every news outlet is saying this is a big deal if it's such a small thing, and I DON'T think it is because every one of them is a "liberal" news source.
But I'll read the whole article now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:32:07 GMT -5
Well why wasn't Hilary found guilty by the FBI if she's a war criminal??
They didn't indite her on her emails.
Not being sarcastic, actually literally asking.
I'd venture a GUESS it's hard to get away with war crimes, but I could be wrong.
Maybe she pulled off some horrible shit that the FBI didn't catch her on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:34:38 GMT -5
I'm about to read the entire article, but my brother read it and said that's what it states, that the losses came from his casinos. I don't know why every news outlet is saying this is a big deal if it's such a small thing, and I DON'T think it is because every one of them is a "liberal" news source. But I'll read the whole article now. What does it matter, he didn't break any laws and has since become worth over 10x his reported losses. Why does it matter to these liberal rags when it isn't newsworthy when it happens to Soros, Facebook, Amazon, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Warren Buffet, Sheldon Adelson, Larry Ellison (Oracle), and hundreds more. I know you are biased against Trump and that is fine, but is boils my blood that when you ask anti-trump people one simple questions... why?... nobody has any facts or real shit to defend their point. All I hear is he's racist, sexist, stupid, a cheater, a bad business man, a tax cheat, and many others... and 8 months ago the argument against him was he was too liberal. I wish there was an IQ test to vote!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:37:22 GMT -5
Well why wasn't Hilary found guilty by the FBI if she's a war criminal?? They didn't indite her on her emails. Not being sarcastic, actually literally asking. I'd venture a GUESS it's hard to get away with war crimes, but I could be wrong. Maybe she pulled off some horrible shit that the FBI didn't catch her on. She isn't a war criminal and never was accused of one. She was accused of lying and covering up in Benghazi and with her emails. Perjury and destruction of evidence are what the FBI ruled on.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Oct 2, 2016 17:39:41 GMT -5
I'm about to read the entire article, but my brother read it and said that's what it states, that the losses came from his casinos. I don't know why every news outlet is saying this is a big deal if it's such a small thing, and I DON'T think it is because every one of them is a "liberal" news source. But I'll read the whole article now. Regardless of the slant of the media, they are all clickbait now, and big bold letters saying BILLION DOLLAR LOSSES seems like a big headline to people who know nothing about how business works. Carry-over losses are a business to themselves nowadays because of how much money they can save someone in tax bills once they are used. Restaurants are a great example, it doesn't matter if you are talking one of Keller's multi-million dollar places, or some mom and pop 500k/yr place, at any given moment they are holding about 25% of their projected revenues in debt. That may seem like a lot but it basically there to maintain cashflow and that debt is basically in-name only. And that is what Trump's, Bezos, Amazon, Google, etc... when they list losses are. Losses in name only, not in reality with how things work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:43:49 GMT -5
I'll expand on how the article is retarded.
A) The losses on the casinos was still directly tied to real estate and the downturn that EVERY AREA of real estate experienced in 1995. 1995's housing market "collapse" let my father scoop up 10 properties in one year at a fraction of what they were worth two years prior. B) When one takes losses in real estate, as Trump did, it is one of the best investments to post a loss with. Because it will inevitably come back up. Trump's losses were headline news in 95, but every single expert that was put on the tv to talk about it all said flatly and plainly that he'd rebound from it simply because of the nature of real estate, and the fact that he had so much of it that he would always be insulated.
So while people who don't have a good memory of that time or an above average understanding of real estate (which is most people), yeah, it looks terrible for Trump.
But to people who understand it, it looks really, really, really smart. He posted a gargantuan loss that did not annihilate his company. And he was then able to carry the debt against his future earnings so that when real estate came back (as it did, two or three years later) he wasn't paying fuck all in taxes until his previous loss had been zeroed out. That's just good business maneuvering. Other people did get wiped out in that recession, but Trump at that time was already "Too big to fail" (No gov't bailout necessary either).
This is both really smart and pretty standard for people with large holdings.
And what CNN is doing is taking advantage of people's horrible memory and general ignorance to how things work on the high end of business, finance, and real estate. But at the end of the day, the FACTS indicate that Trump handled the downturn of 95 brilliantly and emerged from it on the other side poised to grow to be bigger than he was prior to the downturn. And guess what? He grew to be bigger than he was prior to the downturn.
Time to find something else to try and use to claim he's not one of the best businessmen on the planet, Toehold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 17:55:37 GMT -5
Oh yeah, and one more thing.
The Carlos Slim owned New York Times is going to probably get CRUSHED for their unauthorized release of Trump's returns. That's a straight up Federal offense, and one that should be punished.
But it shows you the lengths the left are willing to go to to try and discredit him. They'll straight up break the fucking law.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:26:59 GMT -5
Don't see what the big deal is. 94 and 95 were horrible iirc...wasn't clinton freshly in office at the time.
96 was a huge year for own dad and he started picking up properties which we started to fix and hold on to. All of that work led to me picking up my first home in 98.
I haven't read any of this, this is actually the first I've heard of it. But I also don't find this surprising, nor do I find it damning in any type of way or form. In fact...if you can't take a hit like this, granted...real estate goes in cycles..but if you can't take this and still wind up on top. I'm impressed and I sure as fuck wouldn't call him a bad businessman because of it.
I have a feeling that most that read up on this and use this as something to judge hi m on have likely never ran thier own business, have never made any real money other than wage slaving and are looking for the "ah ha I told you so" moment to hate on trump.
Honestly, I've gone from not wanting to vote for the guy to not being able to wait to vote the guy in. I'm sick and tired of being told by the media that this guy is things the he is obviously not. Is the guy a saint? No, of course not. But when the medIA and every crooked croney politician is telling me not to do something; I can't help but want to tell of them to fuck off.
I'll be voting for Trump this year, as much as I have been into the libertarian party, let's face it, GJ is a fucking joke. Hillary is the establishment defined. Fuck all that noise.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:27:47 GMT -5
Ok Signa, I don't have a great understanding of this stuff, so thanks for your responses.
So I guess IF what the Times did in releasing his tax returns is illegal they will pay for it...we'll have to see...
But I just read the article in the times and here's some quotes:
"The documents consisted of three pages of what appeared to be Mr. Trump's 1995 tax returns. The pages were mailed last month to Susanne Craig, a reporter at The Times who has written about Trump's finances. The documents were the first page of a New York State resident income tax return, the first page of a New Jersey tax return, and the first page of a Connecticuit tax return...The three documents arrived by mail at the Times with a postmark indicating they had been sent from New York City. The return address claimed the envelope had been sent from Trump Tower...
Then at one point they talk about how these returns claim Trump has NOT been as charitable as he claims:
" The state documents do show, though, that Trump declined the opportunity to contribute to the New Jersey Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, the New Jersey Wildlife Conservation Fund or the Children's Trust fund. He also declined to contribute $1 toward public financing of New Jersey's elections for governor."
That doesn't sound too good really....
I mean maybe he contributed to other charities, but he had enough I'm sure to contribute towards those.
Then there's a whole other article in the same issue of today's Times about how, quote "their campaigns (Trump and Hilary's obviously) are scuffling over business that Mr.Trump may have conducted in Cuba while American companies were barred from operating there."
THAT seems like a pretty big issue he could get in legal trouble for.
I'm gonna read that article now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:31:54 GMT -5
Well why wasn't Hilary found guilty by the FBI if she's a war criminal?? They didn't indite her on her emails. Not being sarcastic, actually literally asking. I'd venture a GUESS it's hard to get away with war crimes, but I could be wrong. Maybe she pulled off some horrible shit that the FBI didn't catch her on. Toehold, the FBI has been in the Clintons' pocket for at least TWO DECADES now. Read up on the Bureau's late 90's turnover (to the Clinton administration) of 900 theoretically "confidential" private investigative reports on nearly everyone in Congress and a few hundred other higher-up officials in our government. The potentially damaging, embarrassing or possible incriminating information (since available to the Clinton political machine) in those files was a huge factor in Bill Clinton avoiding expulsion from office in 1998. It is no less useful to them now....and that machine has likely learned far more secrets, on many more people, since then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:41:59 GMT -5
Jesus Christ!!! now we are going to rip him for declining to fund the New Jersey Vietnam Memorial Fund???
Toehold, can you please come up with 1 deal/event/business handling that can be factually supported by evidence that Trump ever broke 1 single law??? Cause I can come up with about 50 done by Hillary that never made the front page of the NYT.
I can't believe people are so stupid that a newspaper can run an article full of only guesses, suggestions and implications... and morons in this country will take it as fact and run with it. We are screwed!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:43:36 GMT -5
You know I still don't read what your write Cybergod, even on this forum right??
I'm just gonna assume you are saying something insulting.
ANYWAYS...
the other article in the Times on Trump doing possible business in Cuba when we had an embargo with them doesn't state anything has been 100% PROVEN yet, but if it is, that could be bad for Trump.
Quote: The question of whether Mr. Trump sought business opportunities in Fidel Castro's Cuba is explosive not only because of how loathed the Castro government is among Cuban-Americans in the Miami area, but also because Mr. Trump has taken such a hard line against the Obama administrations' policy of normalizing relations with the island nation. As far back as 1999, in public at least, Mr. Trump called efforts to restore relations with Cuba "pure lunacy"...
"Trump's business with Cuba appears to have broken the law, flouted U.S. foreign policy, and is in complete contradiction to Trump's own repeated, public statements that he had been offered opportunities to invest in Cuba, and then pass them up"
Well, I guess we'll have to see if he's proven to have actually committed a crime here.
But I'm sure it will come up in the next debate which should be a real fucking circus lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:45:00 GMT -5
Jesus Christ!!! now we are going to rip him for declining to fund the New Jersey Vietnam Memorial Fund??? Toehold, can you please come up with 1 deal/event/business handling that can be factually supported by evidence that Trump ever broke 1 single law??? Cause I can come up with about 50 done by Hillary that never made the front page of the NYT. I can't believe people are so stupid that a newspaper can run an article full of only guesses, suggestions and implications... and morons in this country will take it as fact and run with it. We are screwed! They didn't say he broke a law, the point they are making is that he's not the financial success he claims to be. Don't call ME a moron, call the New York Times a moron lol. They saw it fit to run on page 1. It must not be completely irrelevant. They aren't "guesses" they are proven facts based on his tax returns. And if Hilary broke all the laws she's claimed to have broken she'd be in prison. I don't think the FBI is incompetent. I also believe this country is screwed, but for ENTIRELY different reasons...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 2, 2016 18:46:55 GMT -5
Oh, and there are already articles being run about how the Clinton's paid huge sums of taxes in '95... then you read further and they paid $75k that year. I am willing to bet my entire life savings that Donald Trump paid at least 10x that in personal income tax that year, yet Hillary will be touted as the contributor even though her husband was taking a $250k salary that year for porking interns.
|
|