Trump and his taxes

[spence]

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me

"What if it wasn't legal?"

Then there's a mechanism to deal with that. It's called the IRS, and federal prison. As of today, he hasn't been charged with anything, correct?

So now it's OK to penalize people (at least Republicans) when there's a chance, according to somebody, they broke the law?


"uses the scam "

The 'scam' as you refer to it, is US tax code. Obama has had 8 years to propose changes to it. If there are gross inadequacies, I wonder why he didn't fix them, especially when his party controlled both houses of Congress?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain. Perhaps Trump was claiming other losses as real estate given his business venture was doing pretty poorly.

So Trump leverages heavily, makes terrible business decisions, screws his creditors and uses the scam to benefit personally at the taxpayer expense.

Why anyone would want to look into this is beyond me

The way the law works back then was if he took out a $999 million loan and put 1 million down himself . If the project folded and the bank lost 999 million he was also allowed to claim that $999 million loss .
He could even spread that loss over a number of years and avoid paying federal tax.
Sounds crazy but it's more proof that the system is rigged and needs major change .
The banks got bailed out....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

The way the law works back then was if he took out a $999 million loan and put 1 million down himself . If the project folded and the bank lost 999 million he was also allowed to claim that $999 million loss .
He could even spread that loss over a number of years and avoid paying federal tax.
Sounds crazy but it's more proof that the system is rigged and needs major change .
The banks got bailed out....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The scheme was more complicated than that. They used a gimmick to accelerate depreciation to capture a loss and then sell the assets at a higher value with the tax liability.

At the very least it's really sketchy and doesn't show it all the man understands global finance. He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So much for being out for the little guy.

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The scheme was more complicated than that. They used a gimmick to accelerate depreciation to capture a loss and then sell the assets at a higher value with the tax liability.

At the very least it's really sketchy and doesn't show it all the man understands global finance. He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So much for being out for the little guy.

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

He did ? Please provide a link . If it's what I think you are going to post , your Reading way too much New York Post
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

And I'd note that Trump just threw Veterans under the bus AGAIN.

And I'd note, that he didn't say anything insulting to vets, unless we are talking about different quotes. Here is the latest quote...

"
"We need that so badly. And when you talk about the mental health problems when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over.

And they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it. And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn't see in a movie, nobody could believe it.

We need mental health and medical, and it's one of the things that is least addressed and one of the things — one of the things that I hear most about when I go around and talk to the veterans. So we are going to have a very robust, very, very robust level of performance having to do with mental health."

Where is the insult in there, exactly?

Again, there are a million legit reasons to attack this guy. Can't liberals go 30 seconds without making something up?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

And I'd note, that he didn't say anything insulting to vets, unless we are talking about different quotes. Here is the latest quote...

"
"We need that so badly. And when you talk about the mental health problems when people come back from war and combat and they see things that maybe a lot of folks in this room have seen many times over.

And they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it. And they see horror stories, they see events that you couldn't see in a movie, nobody could believe it.

We need mental health and medical, and it's one of the things that is least addressed and one of the things — one of the things that I hear most about when I go around and talk to the veterans. So we are going to have a very robust, very, very robust level of performance having to do with mental health."

Where is the insult in there, exactly?

Again, there are a million legit reasons to attack this guy. Can't liberals go 30 seconds without making something up?

they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

that about sums it up

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..

suicide is not just a veteran issue nor just an issue for those who have seen stuff its a national issues

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

they're strong and they can handle it, but a lot of people can't handle it.

that about sums it up

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..

suicide is not just a veteran issue nor just an issue for those who have seen stuff its a national issues

"His view" is that some vets come back fine, some come back broken, and that we need to make sure we can help the ones who need help, and that we are currently falling short of that obligation.

Yes, that's deeply offensive and insulting.


You posted one part of a sentence. You did it for a reason, to make it look like he was disparaging those who "can't handle it". When you look at the entire comment, it is crystal clear what he meant.

Again, there are a million legitimate reasons to question this guy's character. This isn't one of them.

[spence]

Originally Posted by wdmso

His view shows his age and lack of understanding about suicide and its causes, strength has nothing to do with it .. I have 2 of My former soldiers who could attest to the strength issue both on opposite ends of topic but they can't they both are dead from Suicide..

I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

Most people , if they aren't deliberately looking at everything he says, with a pessimistic , I hate him mentality , understood the compassion in his speech .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've never been in combat but the first thing that came to mind were the really strong people who because they were strong did the hardest things and that's why they suffer.

It was a bizarre statement to make.

Can you elaborate on what was bizarre? He said some guys can handle it, and some can't (he could have been more elegant, I guess), then went on and on about how we have an obligation to the guys who come back and need help.

He was exactly right. Some guys come back fine, some guys come back damaged. Is THAT an offensive thing to say?

Everything you need to know about this issue, is that the anti-Trump people focus on a few words (some can handle it and some can't), which by itself may sound callous. But when you read the next things he said (about how we all owe a debt to those who come back in need of help), his intent is clear.

How is it "bizarre" to say that some guys come back in need of help, and we owe it to them to provide that help.

Liberals recently did the same thing to Guiliani, who said "Trump would be better than a woman like Hilary with her track record...".

And the liberals quoted Guliani as saying "Trump would be better than a woman". Makes him sound like one of those deplorable sexists.

Again, there are SO MANY valid things to use against Trump. Why do we need to fabricate things.

Trump is a true jerk. But I cannot fathom how anyone could be offended by what he said in this case. It's mind-boggling.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The scheme was more complicated . . . He understands schemes because he's a con artist...

So, in this thread he is calculating not merely an unfiltered impulsive tool. That keeps changing--from thread to thread--and even within threads. Sounds like yawl can't figure him out. Even so, you are sure of your opinions.

[Fly Rod]

Originally Posted by spence

What if it wasn't legal? From what I've read Trump's real estate projects in the early 1990's were funded mostly by banks, not out of pocket cash, which would make a personal 916 million $ loss very difficult to obtain.

Until this above quote I believed like others on this site, U were the smartest person in the world.... most or all the money to build these sky scrapers come from the banks or investers....if U have been to boston the last couple of years and the building that has been going on is all bank loans or investers and the owner of the property having the work done just sits back pays in most cases a monthly construction loan and hopes work is done on schedule. ..if the deal fails banks and investers lose, owner declares a write off on taxes...

spence, Apple avoids paying 17 million in taxes every day....U and hillary only pick on on poor mr. trump....

[spence]

Originally Posted by Fly Rod

Until this above quote I believed like others on this site, U were the smartest person in the world.... most or all the money to build these sky scrapers come from the banks or investers....if U have been to boston the last couple of years and the building that has been going on is all bank loans or investers and the owner of the property having the work done just sits back pays in most cases a monthly construction loan and hopes work is done on schedule. ..if the deal fails banks and investers lose, owner declares a write off on taxes...

spence, Apple avoids paying 17 million in taxes every day....U and hillary only pick on on poor mr. trump....

The point is, to gather that much of a loss there was a scheme, he couldn't have done it on personal losses alone.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

The point is, to gather that much of a loss there was a scheme, he couldn't have done it on personal losses alone.

I thought I explained this once ?
Spence do you and the Mrs. take all the deductions you can or do you give a little extra to the government ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device