2016 Election -- Part II

LOL @ the idea of this being a mainstream media "witch hunt".

"It's a witch hunt! Nothing to see here!"

.............

"Let's talk about Benghazi!"

Geez...

So now that the big "secret" of Trump not paying federal income taxes has been revealed, I imagine he'll be releasing his actual tax returns now? Or maybe he's hiding something else?

The FACT that the trump campaign has made the political calculation that whatever is in his returns is more damning than the public PR nightmare that not releasing them has turned out to be tells us everything we need to know. That, coupled with the fact that he's being sued for fraud, has cheated small businesses throughout his career, uses his charity "foundation" (can we still call it that?) to pay his own legal expenses, and the fact that he's just a jerk, it's "deplorable" the guy is the republican nominee.

Rubio would've had a chance.

Quote: SanchoPanza

How would you know how long and to what extent the carryover existed without seeing the actual returns?

I'm just giving Trump the same benefit of the doubt that Hillary gets from her detractors when they don't know something for sure.

It could be much worse.

Quote: Steverinos

So now that the big "secret" of Trump not paying federal income taxes has been revealed....

That is NOT what's been revealed at all.

On Trump World today, the Trump Foundation has been ordered to cease soliciting donations because it lacks the proper credentials, Donald seeming insulted millions of Vets by commending his audience for being strong enough to avoid PTST, Rudy G is calling Trump a genius for losing a billion dollars while trying to downplay his Comments that a flawed Trump is still better than electing a woman.
Meanwhile polls indicate Hispanics and Seniors are abandoning God's Own Party.

You're right. My bad. That's not what the NYT story reveals. Of course, one could only use common sense about a guy who says he's "smart" if he pays no federal income tax to assume that he did in fact use the almost billion dollar loss in the future to his advantage.

But yeah...you're technically correct. The NYT story did not prove that he's paid no federal taxes for almost 20 years. You're right.

Of course, common sense would only prove that a guy that says he's "smart" to avoid paying as little tax as possible would use this loss as a way of not paying taxes in the future.

Oh, my bad. I already said that.

Giuliani: "Don’t you think a man who has this kind of economic genius is a lot better for the United States than a woman and the only thing she's ever produced is a lot of work for the FBI checking out her emails?" Washington Post

Trump: ""When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over. And you're strong and you can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it" Washington Post

Trump Foundation ordered to stop fundraising. ABC News

Hillary is continuing to climb in the polls.

Of course, right-wing nutjobs will blame the liberal/mainstream media for accurately reporting what Trump and his surrogates say, rather than Trump and his surrogates for saying what they said.

Quote: MichaelBluejay

Hillary is continuing to climb in the polls.

Of course, right-wing nutjobs will blame the liberal/mainstream media for accurately reporting what Trump and his surrogates say, rather than Trump and his surrogates for saying what they said.

To be honest, the right-wing nutjobs have been pretty quiet for the last week or so since Trump's rough debate performance. I think they're depressed.

It's sinking in that they picked Donald Trump as their nominee.

How does a billionaire avoid paying taxes? It's easy! Ask Warren Buffett! Most normal large companies such as GE or IBM payout dividends to the shareholders (owners) and the federal government taxes the individuals who receive the dividends. One really smart man, Mr. Buffett, decided to instead of paying out dividends just keep the money in his company and thus never have the federal government have access to that money until the person who own the stock sold it. And when they sold it, the added value is taxed as a capital gain which is a much lower rate than what would be paid if it was just income. And will Mr. Buffett ever let the government have access to his money? Of course not. He will do anything in his power to avoid that. He will never have paid taxes on the dividends and he will give the money away to the Melinda and Bill Gates charity. By the way, I do not consider this a flaw of Mr. Buffett, but another example of his genius. If his money goes to a charity it will likely result in an overall good. If his money went to the federal Government it would........

Another way to not pay taxes, is to buy tax exempt bonds. A bunch of years ago I decided to start buying bonds and in my high tax state of New York, I bought what are called triple tax exempt bonds which earn around two thirds as much interest as regular bonds. Our government has decided that the entities selling these bonds must be doing something good, and thus will save money by paying out less in interest. Most are municipalities. Am I a bad person for not paying my fair share of federal taxes on the money I am earning from these bonds? Of course not!! The government has decided that the value to the government of me not paying these taxes exceeds the added cost the municipalities would have to pay in interest if they had to pay competitive interest rates with corporations.
Now about Trump. If you choose to run for president of the United States, it is expected you will release your tax returns. If you are unable to explain to the American public why you paid substantially less in taxes than one would guess,, Then do not run for president of United States. It is one reason I am not running for president right now!

Quote: ams288

It's sinking in that they picked Donald Trump as their nominee.

While I can't fathom why some support him, there are others who probably made that one mistake still made in marriage.

Expecting the person to change for the better over time.


Hillary still will probably hide things.

Romney still too stiff and robotic.

Bush will still make comical speech blunders.


Although I do think sometimes people do change dramatically. For instance they break an addiction to drugs or quit a cult. But that won't be happening here.

Will you consider running in 2020 ? Will Rogers said " I belong to no organized party. I am a Democrat." Now, that is not a typo!

More news

Quote:

The secretive foundation accused of being slush fund must now open its books by Oct. 15 on orders of the New York attorney general.

What are the chances that will be reversed or suspended?

Trump suggested today that those vets that suffer from PTSD aren't strong enough to handle it.

Interesting, coming from a man who dodged the draft...twice. What is also interesting is that the people that are so up in arms about Colin Kapernick's national anthem protest are the very same people who are voting for this draft dodger.

Quote: Paradigm

Go ahead and rail on about stiffing contractors and charitable giving and whatever else you want to bash Trump over, but get off the tax loss carry forward, paying his fair share and tax loopholes. You have proven the legitimacy of the loss with your own post and by now must realize you are just flat wrong on this one...or at least you should have come to that conclusion by now.

I agree that your analysis seems plausible, but while I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't extend that benefit to Trump. His ongoing pattern of fraud and misrepresentation clearly cannot rule out that he illegitimately claimed that $900M loss on his taxes. Just today, in fact, the NY Attorney General published a cease-and-desist order against the Trump Foundation, calling it "a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Also today, HuffPost published a review of Trump's illegal campaign donations: "Donald Trump contributed 10 times as much money as was allowed by law to the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of Florida’s then-Attorney General Charlie Crist, according to a Huffington Post review of state campaign finance records."

You characterized my earlier critiques as "railing on" and "bashing", but it's entirely appropriate to call out a white-collar criminal when he is caught defrauding business partners, customers, and the government. The record is not in dispute on those facts. If anything, Trump's record of fraud continues to grow as journalists keep digging into his past. So if you want me to simply assume that Trump's reported $900M loss was legitimate, my answer is "No, you need to prove it. Show me all his tax returns and accounting paperwork." He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt from me, and he shouldn't from you either.

But let's just assume for the sake of argument that his $900M loss was legitimate. There are then two points to be made. One was made earlier today by Hillary Clinton: "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?" It's an important point because it's a simple one: someone who claims "my whole life is about winning, I never lose" after losing a billion dollars is blowing smoke up your ass. It takes a very special kind of cognitive dissonance to say "I lost a billion dollars but I always win."

But the other point is this: if Trump actually has paid virtually no taxes since 1995, as all the newspapers seem to be reporting and as Trump has not denied, instead crowing about his genius, then one of two things is true:
a) He has earned less than $900M since 1995, in which case he's lying about how rich he is, or
b) He has earned more than $900M since 1995, in which case he's committed (more) tax fraud by underreporting/underpaying his taxes.

Pick your poison, either way he's lying.

Quote: MathExtremist

But the other point is this: if Trump actually has paid virtually no taxes since 1995, as all the newspapers seem to be reporting and as Trump has not denied, instead crowing about his genius, then one of two things is true:
a) He has earned less than $900M since 1995, in which case he's lying about how rich he is

Just to follow up this point, here's a quote from another article that notes how badly Trump has managed his huge (yuge) inheritance compared to simple index funds:

Quote:

Trump took over running [his father's] company in 1974, at age 28, when it was worth approximately $200 million, according to a contemporaneous New York Times article. The vast majority of Trump’s wealth today flows from that initial nest egg, which he and his four siblings eventually inherited when their father died in 1999.

What’s more, given the size of that original fortune, Trump has actually underperformed both the stock market as well as the real estate market.

Had Trump taken his share of what would become his father’s inheritance and put it into an index fund matching the S&P 500 back in 1974, it would have been worth $3 billion today. Had he put the $200 million that Fortune magazine determined he was worth in 1982 into that same index fund, he would be worth more than $8 billion today.

And had that $200 million gone into the broad real estate market, it would be worth more than $20 billion today.

Trump claims he is worth more than $10 billion, but independent analyses have put the figure at less than half that.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/turmp-wealth-inheritence_us_57f2ed79e4b01b16aafea2a0?section=&

It just goes to prove the old adage: "How do you make a small fortune? Start with a large one."

Is it true that the New York Times was the source that released Trumps taxes ? I can not verify as I cancelled my subscription in 2015. When I learned that in 2014, the New York Times had a pretax profit of $30 Million and got a tax refund that year of $3 million.
I am tempted to quote Joseph N Welch, but I shall abstain.

Quote: MathExtremist

I agree that your analysis seems plausible, but while I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't extend that benefit to Trump. His ongoing pattern of fraud and misrepresentation clearly cannot rule out that he illegitimately claimed that $900M loss on his taxes. Just today, in fact, the NY Attorney General published a cease-and-desist order against the Trump Foundation, calling it "a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Also today, HuffPost published a review of Trump's illegal campaign donations: "Donald Trump contributed 10 times as much money as was allowed by law to the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of Florida’s then-Attorney General Charlie Crist, according to a Huffington Post review of state campaign finance records."

You characterized my earlier critiques as "railing on" and "bashing", but it's entirely appropriate to call out a white-collar criminal when he is caught defrauding business partners, customers, and the government. The record is not in dispute on those facts. If anything, Trump's record of fraud continues to grow as journalists keep digging into his past. So if you want me to simply assume that Trump's reported $900M loss was legitimate, my answer is "No, you need to prove it. Show me all his tax returns and accounting paperwork." He no longer gets the benefit of the doubt from me, and he shouldn't from you either.

But let's just assume for the sake of argument that his $900M loss was legitimate. There are then two points to be made. One was made earlier today by Hillary Clinton: "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?" It's an important point because it's a simple one: someone who claims "my whole life is about winning, I never lose" after losing a billion dollars is blowing smoke up your ass. It takes a very special kind of cognitive dissonance to say "I lost a billion dollars but I always win."

But the other point is this: if Trump actually has paid virtually no taxes since 1995, as all the newspapers seem to be reporting and as Trump has not denied, instead crowing about his genius, then one of two things is true:
a) He has earned less than $900M since 1995, in which case he's lying about how rich he is, or
b) He has earned more than $900M since 1995, in which case he's committed (more) tax fraud by underreporting/underpaying his taxes.

Pick your poison, either way he's lying.

Only if your ASSUMPTIONS are correct. But you don't actually know. Has he paid no taxes since 1995? Pretty sure that hasn't been unauthorized/illegally released yet.

Quote: Mooseton

Quote: MathExtremist

But the other point is this: if Trump actually has paid virtually no taxes since 1995, as all the newspapers seem to be reporting and as Trump has not denied, instead crowing about his genius, then one of two things is true:
a) He has earned less than $900M since 1995, in which case he's lying about how rich he is, or
b) He has earned more than $900M since 1995, in which case he's committed (more) tax fraud by underreporting/underpaying his taxes.

Pick your poison, either way he's lying.

Only if your ASSUMPTIONS are correct. But you don't actually know. Has he paid no taxes since 1995? Pretty sure that hasn't been unauthorized/illegally released yet.

Of course, but here's what we do know:
a) He paid no taxes in 1978, 1979, 1984.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-turned-over-tax-returns--for-lawsuits-loans-casinos/2016/09/28/f2580e12-854a-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.html

b) He apparently paid no taxes in 1991 and 1993 either, due to carryforward NOLs, despite having huge debts forgiven.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/trump-turned-over-tax-returns--for-lawsuits-loans-casinos/2016/09/28/f2580e12-854a-11e6-b57d-dd49277af02f_story.htmlhttp://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-no-taxes-224498

c) His total NOL, including any carryforward and current-year losses, was just reported as $916M in 1995
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/01/us/politics/donald-trump-taxes.html?_r=0

d) When confronted on national television with the suspicion that he's paid nothing in Federal taxes, he replied "that makes me smart." He didn't say "that would have made me smart," he said "that makes me smart." It's as clear an admission as you'll get from him. Subsequently at a rally he said "I have legally used the tax laws to my benefit...Honestly, I have brilliantly used those laws."

On the weight of the available evidence, and based on Trump's own braggadocio where you would expect denials instead, it seems unbelievable that anyone would still be thinking "oh, I'm sure he's been paying 20-25% of his income to the Federal government just like I do." Given his history of fraud, you should be demanding proof that he's been honest with his taxes rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Another day, another story about Trump's improper use of charitable funds from his foundation. I don't see this flow of bad press letting up anytime soon:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/04/trump_used_foundation_funds_for_2016_run_filings_suggest.html

Quote:

But RCP’s review of IRS filings by the Trump foundation turned up a fresh conflict: a 2013 donation of $10,000 to The Family Leader, a 501(c)(4) established to “develop, advocate and support legislative agenda at the state level.” Unlike a 501(c)(3), or a nonprofit organization, a 501(c)(4) can effect policy and engage in limited political activity, and thus is subject to greater restrictions on contributions from charities.

If the Trump foundation sent its money to The Family Leader and not its affiliated nonprofit, it did not properly note it in the filing and might have failed to earmark the money for charitable purposes, a violation of IRS rules. If the money was sent to the Family Leader Foundation, it was not recorded as such.

“There’s a mistake somewhere,” said Fei. “It might be a really substantive mistake, or it could just be a reporting error or sloppiness. But improper reporting is still a violation of tax law. That’s something the IRS would look at.”

The donation also appears to have been geared toward boosting Trump’s political prospects, raising the specter of another possible violation for self-dealing.

Quote: Mooseton

Only if your ASSUMPTIONS are correct. But you don't actually know. Has he paid no taxes since 1995? Pretty sure that hasn't been unauthorized/illegally released yet.

It was perfectly legal for the NYT to release the documents from 1995 that were mailed to them from Trump Tower. Nothing illegal about it.

Liberals will argue, but it's hard not to see Rubio or Kaisch both being up 5 or more points on Hillary if they were running. Trump is running the worst campaign of all time, yet is still in it. The outright dislike of Hillary is the only reason for this. If it wasn't for Trump, the discussion would be about her being the worst candidate of all time.

Quote: MathExtremist

I agree that your analysis seems plausible, but while I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, I don't extend that benefit to Trump. His ongoing pattern of fraud and misrepresentation clearly cannot rule out that he illegitimately claimed that $900M loss on his taxes. Just today, in fact, the NY Attorney General published a cease-and-desist order against the Trump Foundation, calling it "a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York." Also today, HuffPost published a review of Trump's illegal campaign donations: "Donald Trump contributed 10 times as much money as was allowed by law to the 2006 gubernatorial campaign of Florida’s then-Attorney General Charlie Crist, according to a Huffington Post review of state campaign finance records."

I am no expert in the rules regarding Charitable Foundations and whether The Trump Foundation or for that matter The Clinton Foundation is or isn't skirting the law. I also don't claim to be an expert in political financing rules.

But like you not giving Trump the benefit of the doubt, I discount what every media outlet says about everything reported. I don't limit that doubt to MSNBC, Fox News (though I will say that Fox is particularly a poor choice for any decent information), Huffington Post, The Drudge Report (or is it Dredge). Journalism has become entertainment today. But not only that, I have come to realize that when the media, pick your outlet, is reporting on something I am an expert in, they rarely have the story correct. I mean never have it correct. Therefore, I assume when they report on areas I am not an expert in, the story and their conclusions are also not quite correct.

Think about when the media reports on gaming...like wait for a media outlet to report on the new "skilled games" debuted at G2E...the story will be wrong and you will recognize it as such based on your expertise in the area. You will likely cringe a bit when they try and include details or draw conclusions on where things are headed in skilled gaming. They may not intentional get it wrong, but the story will undoubtedly not be something that you want to cling to as fact when it comes to the future of skilled gaming. I cringe every time the media reports on tax matters...they get it wrong 95% of the time. I encourage you to use this same skepticism when the media reports on areas that you aren't an expert in...they are getting the story wrong most of the time.

Quote: MathExtremist

But let's just assume for the sake of argument that his $900M loss was legitimate. There are then two points to be made. One was made earlier today by Hillary Clinton: "What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?" It's an important point because it's a simple one: someone who claims "my whole life is about winning, I never lose" after losing a billion dollars is blowing smoke up your ass. It takes a very special kind of cognitive dissonance to say "I lost a billion dollars but I always win."

I think I mentioned above that this should have been the thrust of the Dems attack on Trump when the NYT article came out. No one seemed interested because "He doesn't pay any federal taxes" plays better to the voters, even if the reason he isn't paying taxes is legitimate and what everyone in this country would do if they incurred a tax loss and were able to carry it forward.

Quote: MathExtremist

But the other point is this: if Trump actually has paid virtually no taxes since 1995, as all the newspapers seem to be reporting and as Trump has not denied, instead crowing about his genius, then one of two things is true:
a) He has earned less than $900M since 1995, in which case he's lying about how rich he is, or
b) He has earned more than $900M since 1995, in which case he's committed (more) tax fraud by underreporting/underpaying his taxes.

Pick your poison, either way he's lying.

Taxes aren't binary outcomes and your bias of always jumping to "He is lying" or "He is cheating" doesn't lead to the credibility of your post. This is why every post by ams288 is worthless unsupported drivel. Let me lay out some other potential scenarios. I know, you can discount these plausible scenarios all you want and say they need to be proven (which under the same standard, you would need to show proof that he earned less than $900M or committed tax fraud, which is very difficult when the IRS audits you all the time by the way, trust me), but here goes:

Let's take real estate you are familiar with, your house. How long ago did you buy it? Let's say 20 years ago. Is it worth more or less than when you bought it? My guess is a lot more. How much tax have you paid on that increase value in your home? The answer is zero and in fact even if you sold it, and the gain is under the exclusion amount of $500K for married folks and you meet some other requirements, you will pay zero tax on the gain that is actually realized for taxes on sale. Are you a tax cheat and/or are you gaming the system if you don't pay tax on the gain? I mean you made money on your house and you didn't pay any taxes...you are clearly not suitable to run for any public office!

Move to commercial real estate development and rental of such, where Trump operates. Trump develops many commercial office towers, hotels, golf course resorts, etc. The value of those goes up. I don't believe Trump's main focus is development and sale of projects, but rather development and operation of the completed projects (but I'll discuss sales below as well). Then he collect rents and pays expenses and also get to reduce his taxable income by depreciating the cost of the project, essentially you get to write off a lot of what you invested in the development of the project against the cash flow of the rentals. Plus remember he has that billion dollar loss carryforward to offset a lot of the cashflow left after depreciation.

Properties go up in value and Trump is able to cash out/refinance the property based on the increased value and not pay tax on it. Just like you could cash out/Refinance your house and not pay tax on the cash you receive from escrow closing. Why can you and Trump do this? It is because you still owe the money back to the bank, it isn't recognized taxable income yet even though the reason you were able to get the money is because your real estate increased in value.

Then Trump can take the refinance proceeds and put it down on the next development and start the process all over again.

What about the sale of property, surely that is taxable income. Well, maybe...turns out that similar to the house gain exclusion available to you and me, there is something called a "like kind exchange" or "1031 exchange" that real estate developers can use if they sell one rental property and buy another one given the right conditions. So the gain on the sale of the first property is rolled into the second property and no taxes are paid on sale either...even though you made a lot of economic gain on the first property and you net worth has gone up. All along Trump's net worth could have been going up as the real estate market has gone up since the mid '90's. Although I do bet that 2006-2010 wasn't a pretty period for his net worth.

The point I am making is that your binary outcome of a) or b) above and he is lying either way is about as informed on taxes as the general media is on this matter. Again, you need to stop analyzing and coming to "factual conclusions" in areas in which you aren't an expert...it is about as intelligent as me arguing about climate change with MBJ or telling you a thing or two about how slots work and why the industry is declining. What value do my conclusions have in either of those areas. Stick to what you know and in this case it isn't how you make money in real estate and don't pay a lot of taxes or how loss carry forwards work and whether or not anyone has gamed the taxed system.

Quote: MathExtremist

On the weight of the available evidence, and based on Trump's own braggadocio where you would expect denials instead, it seems unbelievable that anyone would still be thinking "oh, I'm sure he's been paying 20-25% of his income to the Federal government just like I do." Given his history of fraud, you should be demanding proof that he's been honest with his taxes rather than giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I trust the IRS audits are ensuring this...I have dealt with IRS Agents for 25 years, sure there are good ones and bad ones when it comes to sniffing things out. The bad ones get assigned to audit of taxpayers making less than $200K a year. Guess who gets assigned to a case involving a $900M net operating loss carryforward?

Others have more completely analyzed his results than I and have concluded that, had he merely put his father's company into the broader real estate market, it would be worth $20B by now. The fact that we're quibbling over whether that company is worth somewhere between $1B and $5B is kind of beside the point. The recent revelations have put the lie to the notion that Trump is some sort of genius business prodigy. In reality, I personally have been far more successful with my initial business investment than Trump has with his. I just started with a much smaller initial investment than $200M. But from an ROI standpoint, I'm much more of a "genius businessman" than Trump ever was (or ever will be). And so are a lot of other people; I'm not unique in that regard.

If Trump has been illegally not paying taxes, that'd be like a player spreading $100k to 10M at Caesars Palace/Aria/Cosmo (counting cards) without getting caught for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure if that'd make Trump a genius, the IRS incredibly stupid, or the entire idea far fetched.


I don't personally do any stock investments and all that stuff. But it seems like claiming "he could have done this" or "he should'a done that!" is like telling a card counter "you should'a bet all your money on the previous hand, you got a blackjack! And since you didn't, you're no genius."

Someone whom's net worth is $1,000 must be a complete genius because he's increasing his net worth by 6.4% 5 days a week working at McDonalds.

Is an AP a super mega genius because he turned $20k into $150k in 2 years?

Quote: Boz

Liberals will argue, but it's hard not to see Rubio or Kaisch both being up 5 or more points on Hillary if they were running. Trump is running the worst campaign of all time, yet is still in it. The outright dislike of Hillary is the only reason for this. If it wasn't for Trump, the discussion would be about her being the worst candidate of all time.

But Trump beat both Kasich and Rubio. If they couldn't take him out in the primary, that doesn't bode well for them as candidates in general.

(Personally - I think Kasich could have beaten Hillary because of how well he is liked in Ohio. Rubio got destroyed by Chris Christie in that one debate, so I don't see him as a strong candidate).

It's a question of opportunity costs. An AP who walks into a casino, finds a quarter on the floor and quits for the day isn't a genius if he reasons "every bet I make will have a lower EV % than the quarter I just found for free." The reason AP isn't a good analogy to real estate is that AP opportunities usually don't scale. You might be able to spread 5-50 with no heat, but you'd never be able to spread 5k-50k with no heat. In real estate, though -- at the level Trump is playing -- there are plenty of opportunities for scale. That's the point in comparing Trump's actual results with the broader real estate market's actual results. If Trump's company were a publicly-traded mutual fund, it would have dramatically underperformed the benchmark index over the past 30 years. That's as fair a comparison as you can make -- how well did he do compared to his peers in the market? It turns out, he did terribly.

If there's any takeaway from this fiasco, it should be that. The guy's no genius real estate investor, he's had very sub-par returns compared to truly successful investors. Trump's genius, if you want to call it that, is in convincing people otherwise. But that's like saying Jim Jones was a genius religious prophet.

Quote: ams288

But Trump beat both Kasich and Rubio. If they couldn't take him out in the primary, that doesn't bode well for them as candidates in general.

(Personally - I think Kasich could have beaten Hillary because of how well he is liked in Ohio. Rubio got destroyed by Chris Christie in that one debate, so I don't see him as a strong candidate).

Rubio got destroyed by Christie in the same way that everyone else got destroyed by Trump. Sarcasm and bluster won out over policy and substance. It makes great television but terrible government. Government's role is not to entertain us, and the establishment of Justice or provision of Common Defense (to name two) are often dry, laborious affairs.

You must not have watched the debate where he repeated his puppet speech four times in 90 minutes...it was embarrassing!

Quote: MathExtremist

Others have more completely analyzed his results than I and have concluded that, had he merely put his father's company into the broader real estate market, it would be worth $20B by now.

Another "news" story to support this I assume...what exactly is the "broader real estate market" anyway?

I did see actual numbers that if he had invested in the S&P 500 he would have been better off, I didn't verify them, but I do believe equities have done better than real estate over that timeframe. What a shocker, hindsight is 20/20 and he could have done better!!

Of course I am sure that if he sat on his millions and invested in an Index Fund, the Dems would be all over him for shutting down his father's real estate business, eliminating jobs and selfishly looking out for only his own financial interest. Boy, that isn't very Presidential!!

Whatever, I am done here...this whole thread is a waste of time and energy composed of supposedly smart people posting flippant remarks or drawing uneducated conclusions on topics where their entire knowledge base consists of what the media has reported. It's embarrassing...or at least it should be.

Quote: Paradigm

What about the sale of property, surely that is taxable income. Well, maybe...turns out that similar to the house gain exclusion available to you and me, there is something called a "like kind exchange" or "1031 exchange" that real estate developers can use if they sell one rental property and buy another one given the right conditions. So the gain on the sale of the first property is rolled into the second property and no taxes are paid on sale either....

Fyi this is kinda sorta not really true the way it is stated. The 1031 exchange is a tax Deferment, not exclusion. The only way to get out of paying that tax eventually is to die. The 1031 exchange is why many investors get in a position where eventually they have a property they feel they can never sell because of all the backed up gains taxes they'd have to pay from doing multiple exchange/deferrals

Quote: Paradigm

Another "news" story to support this I assume...what exactly is the "broader real estate market" anyway?

Really? You're a tax guy, you're clearly not ignorant of the real estate sector. REITs have been around for over 50 years and Trump, Inc. has lots of privately-held competition. Don't play dumb, it's unbecoming.

Quote:

Whatever, I am done here...this whole thread is a waste of time and energy composed of supposedly smart people posting flippant remarks or drawing uneducated conclusions on topics where their entire knowledge base consists of what the media has reported. It's embarrassing...or at least it should be.

What's embarrassing is that people are still falling for the charismatic blustering of "I'm a genius businessman" and "I always win" from a guy whose actual results reveal quite the opposite. You don't need a CPA certificate in order to understand that someone who says "I always win" after losing a billion dollars is being dishonest, any more than you need deep technical investment knowledge to understand that someone who says "I'm a genius investor" but objectively underperforms his peers is being dishonest.

Are you so willing to overlook that particular dishonesty and believe the other things he says? Or do you actually believe him when he says "I'm a winner" and "I'm a genius"?

Quote: RS

If Trump has been illegally not paying taxes, that'd be like a player spreading $100k to 10M at Caesars Palace/Aria/Cosmo (counting cards) without getting caught for an extended period of time.

I'm not sure if that'd make Trump a genius, the IRS incredibly stupid, or the entire idea far fetched.


I don't personally do any stock investments and all that stuff. But it seems like claiming "he could have done this" or "he should'a done that!" is like telling a card counter "you should'a bet all your money on the previous hand, you got a blackjack! And since you didn't, you're no genius."

Someone whom's net worth is $1,000 must be a complete genius because he's increasing his net worth by 6.4% 5 days a week working at McDonalds.

Is an AP a super mega genius because he turned $20k into $150k in 2 years?

I don't think trump is doing anything illegal. But if he is not paying taxes or not much it is, at the least, severely hypocritical given his comments about hedge fund managers etc not paying enough in taxes.

Quote: mcallister3200

I don't think trump is doing anything illegal. But if he is not paying taxes or not much it is, at the least, severely hypocritical given his comments about hedge fund managers etc not paying enough in taxes.

And that right there is why the Dems and Clinton campaign have chosen to focus on the tax payments rather than the losses. When Trump says "[Hedge fund managers] are very smart. But a lot of them — they are paper-pushers. They make a fortune. They pay no tax. It’s ridiculous, OK?" and then says he's smart because he pays no taxes, it's impossible to explain away that self-contradiction. If they're ridiculous, so is he. Like I said, the optics are terrible.

There's a bigger picture, too. If Trump is viewed as someone skirting tax payments, and he makes it "cool" to cheat on your taxes, then the U.S. will lose a *lot* of money. It doesn't matter if Trump didn't actually cheat if his example of "being smart" gives a tacit blessing to others:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_dismal_science/2016/10/donald_trump_s_dangerous_approach_to_taxes.html

Quote: mcallister3200

Fyi this is kinda sorta not really true the way it is stated. The 1031 exchange is a tax Deferment, not exclusion.

Tell me which part of "the gain on the sale of the first property is rolled into second property" kinda sorta not really isn't true? What is similar between the two situations is that taxes may not be due at sale...but you knew that already.

Quote: Paradigm

Tell me which part of "the gain on the sale of the first property is rolled into second property" kinda sorta not really isn't true? What is similar between the two situations is that taxes may not be due at sale...but you knew that already.

.

perhaps I misread/misunderstood the statement the first time I read it. It was clear given that you said certain conditions that you knew what you were talking about, but I interpreted it as saying taxes were excluded completely rather than deferred, the word "exclusion" gave me that impression. In either case it would explain not paying gains taxes on a sale in a given year though.

No one has mentioned tonight's VP debate?

Seems about right.

Quote: ams288

No one has mentioned tonight's VP debate?

Seems about right.

10 minutes in, they should just end it, and see if anyone complains.

Duplicate (holy crap)

Duplicate

Well, no revelations for the Trump campaign today, and Assange didn't release anything, just stating that there will be weekly releases for the next 10 weeks and that all of the Election material will be out before Election day. Roger Stone got it wrong. Every conservative "news" site got it wrong when the quote was "Hillary will be done by Wednesday".

A quiet day thus far.

On Donald's taxes, I will say it again. There's nothing illegal about what he did. But as usual, his claims about who he is and how much he is worth is completely out of whack. Trump claimed in July 2015 that his net worth was north of 10 Billion dollars. Forbes pegs him at 3.9 billion dollars, far off the mark. And someone who simply put their money given to him by daddy Fred into the S&P would be worth about the same today. He's not wildly successful, at all. He started with alot and plays the real estate market which has outperformed the S&P. Pretty simple.

Then on top of that he say, "I'm working for you now". He's working for the people by giving the Corporations a tax break with the hope that they'll use that tax break to go out and self-invest, when the history of Corporations making large sums of money due to tax breaks is to buy other corporations, pay the executive larger bonuses, and pay out higher dividends to up the stock price to pay the executives who are holding options. If he was "working for the people", he would be lowering the tax rate for the middle class, destroying red tape for small businesses, reducing the size of government, and raising the tax rate on himself and closing off loopholes that allow him to defer losses for 18 years.

Quote: boymimbo

Well, no revelations for the Trump campaign today, and Assange didn't release anything, just stating that there will be weekly releases for the next 10 weeks and that all of the Election material will be out before Election day. Roger Stone got it wrong. Every conservative "news" site got it wrong when the quote was "Hillary will be done by Wednesday".

I spent this morning feasting on the tears of the righties who drank the Assange flavored Kool-Aid.

LOLOLOLOLOL

The GOP website accidentally published their "Mike Pence won the debate" page..... before the debate even started.

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13168384/mike-pence-won-debate

Mike Pence seems to think he is running with Paul Ryan or something, not Donald Trump. The policies he is promoting are not even Trump's policies. They're generic far right Republican policies. He refuses to defend Donald and keeps shaking his head when Tim Kaine repeats Trump's words verbatim.

I think Pence's debate skills are better, but he keeps flat out lying. Pence keeps denying Trump said things that he has really said. This will be what the post-debate analysis focuses on. It's very easy to fact check.

I agree with this tweet from Nate Silver:

Quote: NateSilver538

A weird night. I think Pence may be setting himself up to win the debate itself but lose the post-debate debate.

After watching the VP debate, I think the GOP would be better served by putting Pence at the top of the ticket. Pence/Ryan might beat Clinton/Kaine. It would at least get us back to a debate over policy.

I forgot what it's like for candidates to debate and conduct themselves like adults. Refreshing but I have to admit kinda boring.

Quote: ams288

I think Pence's debate skills are better, but he keeps flat out lying. Pence keeps denying Trump said things that he has really said. This will be what the post-debate analysis focuses on. It's very easy to fact check.

Considering the hand Donald dealt Pence to start with, Pence actually handled it brilliantly. (if we're going to throw that word around at least Pence is actually closer to deserving it than Trump)

But yeah he had to outright deny true things Trump said.

Quote: MathExtremist

After watching the VP debate, I think the GOP would be better served by putting Pence at the top of the ticket. Pence/Ryan might beat Clinton/Kaine. It would at least get us back to a debate over policy.

Any decent Republican candidate would trounce Hillary. Any decent Democratic candidate would trounce Trump. One of many weird things about this election.

I have intentionally stayed a bit behind on my Forum reading for the last week or so. Knew if I got caught up that I'd run into this 2016 election thread, which always seems to be at the top of the list, sigh.

So I just read the last 10 freakin' pages cause I had some time on my hands.

It was fun to see a couple of the most prolific posters get kicked in the balls, kicked hard.
But like good politicians they tried not to notice, even if the timbre of their posts went up a notch or two ;-)

A viewpoint to consider, for all of you, is that perhaps both POTUS candidates are on the same team. It's a Team that will not let you come play ball with them. They play on a field that you don't have access to, on a field where people like you aren't welcome. In fact they laugh at you over drinks at the end of the day.

Have fun with your debate here, ya hear?
2F

Quote: TwoFeathersATL

A viewpoint to consider, for all of you, is that perhaps both POTUS candidates are on the same team. It's a Team that will not let you come play ball with them. They play on a field that you don't have access to, on a field where people like you aren't welcome. In fact they laugh at you over drinks at the end of the day.

We've all missed your insight in this thread, 2F. But here is another viewpoint to consider:

2F disappears from this thread for a week or so. During that time, evil clown sightings happen all over the country. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

Quote: ams288

We've all missed your insight in this thread, 2F. But here is another viewpoint to consider:

2F disappears from this thread for a week or so. During that time, evil clown sightings happen all over the country. Coincidence? Maybe. Maybe not.

It has been very bad optics for us good clowns, very bad....