IIRC, Stephanopoulos raised that point, too. (Unless maybe Giuliani made that point on multiple Sunday-morning programs, and someone else replied by noting it?)
Anyhow, you could maybe argue that Trump’s personal brand – the thing that made people want to pay good money to slap the ‘Trump’ name on stuff, the thing that gave investors in this-or-that business the ability to make money by marketing the ‘Trump’ name – only really works if he’s wearing expensive suits while riding around in limos and acting like a job-creating dealmaker who’s super-wealthy by dint of constantly adding to his personal income even while paying taxes accordingly, or something; if he’s actually maintaining that lifestyle only by paying no taxes for eighteen years by dint of having lost almost a billion dollars back when, then his personal image falls apart and this-or-that company can’t market the ‘Trump’ name as effectively.
Is that minimally plausible? Like, people will pay a company all kinds of money for the rights to sell TRUMP: THE GAME so long as his name is pretty much synonymous with “productive member of society who owns a lot of stuff,” because at that point it’s its own advertisement – but they won’t pay as much, or at all, to the company if his name becomes synonymous with “freeloader who lost a lot of money.”
It has been rightly pointed out here that capital gains taxes kick in only when the gain is realized. So if Trump has a building for which he paid $10 million and is now worth $50 million, he can claim the whole $50 million as an asset, but he does not owe any tax on that $40 million until he sells the building.
But what happens if he uses that building as collateral for a loan? Let’s say he takes out a $40 million loan on the building. Is that $40 million tax free? He has to pay interest on it, but the interest is tax deductible. And when he sells the building, he pays off the loan so on paper he nets nothing, which means no capital gains tax. Hasn’t he then realized the increase in value on his asset without paying any tax on it?
As a tangent, when Trump says he is worth $10 billion or whatever, is he using the net value of his assets or the total value? Does he include $10 million or $50 million for the building in question?
I know this is a minor point, but it’s bugging me. When Trump took that loss that meant he likely paid no personal federal taxes for a number of years (and we are talking about his personal taxes, right?), did he pay FICA? Since Social Security and Medicare are perennial issues in the POTUS race, I’m curious as to whether he is paying the taxes that support these programs.
And while we’re on the topic, in the years in which Romney likely paid no personal federal income tax, did he pay FICA?
And finally, a question pretty much unrelated to taxes: Is Trump collecting Social Security? He’s 70 now, so there’s no financial reason for him to not collect.
He’s using whatever value is most favorable to his net worth calculation. I heard somewhere that of that ten billion, three billion of that is the brand value he attaches to his name. I think that value is generous at any time, but since he’s begun his run for the presidency, his brand value has diminished greatly.
I can’t either, but I can fault someone who shames people for not paying taxes because they don’t have enough income to pay taxes and are living hand to mouth while they take advantage of loopholes big enough to drive a tank through, fly in private jets, and live in Manhattan penthouses.
Loan proceeds are not taxable. Repaying a loan is not tax-deductible.
So he doesn’t pay tax on the $40 million he received from the loan. When he sells the building, the fact that part of the proceeds are being used to pay back the loan is not taken into consideration.
We have no way of knowing.
You only pay FICA on your salary and self-employment income. Investments are not counted. So, if he received a salary from any of his companies or had any self-employment income, he paid FICA.
If he received a salary from any of his companies, yes.
Here is the Trump statement on his fiduciary responsibility. The issue here is that it states he has a fiduciary responsibility to his business. These are person resident and non-resident state returns. Even with my S-Corps - my business is my business, and my personal stuff is my personal stuff. I can’t even write off a business lunch with my partners because I’m married to one of them.
In 1995? And then sat on them for 21 years? Nah, it was Marla, and she watched the debate just like the rest of us and rolled her eyes every time the Trumpanzee howled. She was just in a position to do something about it…
This would also possibly explain why only the signature pages were revealed. Trump’s guy is doing the taxes, Maples doesn’t care about the details much, she just needs to sign, so the accountant just sends over the page she needs to sign. This is kind what happens in my house. I handle the bookkeeping and my wife trusts me to do it right, so I just tell her the bottom line and she signs off. No courier or anything involved, and she can always just get the full returns from our file cabinet if she wants to. But if we were just moving paper around in a pre-email world, I could see me saying, “Hey sweetie, I’m going to send you the page you need to sign.”
Not that I’m entirely convinced it was released by Maples. But…hmmmmmm
Oh, bullshit. It was only 4 years ago that the Republican presidential nominee took one figure – a figure that includes the current Republican presidential nominee – that 47% of Americans don’t pay federal income tax and attached to that figure all kinds of moral failings. They believe they are victims, they feel entitled to government services, no one will ever be able to convince them to take personal responsibility and care for their lives. All because they didn’t pay more federal income tax than they legally owed. Yes, Romney was raked over the coals for those comments, but not by conservatives. In fact, Donald Trump has echoed that sentiment multiple times, as even the laziest of the tweet-searchers have been able to uncover.
Trump’s tax plan is built on this notion that rich are getting soaked in taxes and that’s hurting the economy, that poor people are paying nothing. Do Trump supporters realize what’s happening now? They’re getting scammed. A rich guy who doesn’t pay taxes wants to make it easier for himself not to pay taxes, all the while blaming poor people for not paying their fair share. Scammed, plan and simple.
I’m frankly shocked and surprised that Trump supporters apparently have no objections to a person collecting welfare; after all, it’s perfectly legal to do so. And if you have another kid to increase your payment…well, that’s just being smart. Of course, whether you can work is irrelevant, since you have an obligation to yourself and your family to maximize your rate of return. Staying home is just good business.
From a tweet: ‘If you’re applauding Trump’s gaming of the system, I never want to hear your thoughts about who’s taking advantage of welfare again. Ever.’
Really? You find it totally improbable that Donald signed the documents first and then handed them to an underling and said “Take these to Marla and get her to sign them.” And you find it totally out of the realm of possibility that the documents passed through one or more hands and a copy was made?
But let’s revisit your original statement.
I looked at the returns on the NYT web site. The only one that has a sticky arrow is the NJ tax return. The return had been signed by both Donald and Marla. But the sticky arrow underneath her signature had not been removed.
So unless you want us to believe, in your universe of high probability, that after Donald signed the return, he told Marla to stick it in the envelope and take it to the post office herself, what is so unlikely about someone on their staffs or on the accountants’ staff made a copy for their files before mailing it to the IRS? I fail to understand why this is so unlikely.
And I don’t mean some sort of secret copy. I mean a copy to put in their official files. Although I don’t put it outside the realm of possibly that some copy clerk kept a souvenir.
“Really? You find it totally improbable that Donald signed the documents first and then handed them to an underling and said “Take these to Marla and get her to sign them.” And you find it totally out of the realm of possibility that the documents passed through one or more hands and a copy was made?”
… and then waited 21 years on them, only to release them 10-1-2016, 37 days prior to the election?
Yes, I find that far, far, far, far harder to believe than “My ex-husband treated me like a whore and is now about to get into the WH with that fuckin’ hooker he cheated on me with. I need to do something! Here, Trudy*, take this envelope to that asshole’s building and mail it.”
Regardless, I have little doubt that we will eventually find out who mailed this thing. My money ($5) is on Marla.
I wouldn’t go that far. The Times is simply fulfilling its journalistic responsibilities in informing the public what the candidates don’t want to be known. If a supposedly fabulously wealthy businessman uses his success as his rationale for being the better candidate, then obviously evidence to the contrary must be made public when available. This is similar to the Swift Boat Liars For Bush smearing Kerry’s war record, with the exception that the Times is telling the truth.
The paper loss that I guess would be relevant here would be asset depreciation equivalent to profits. That way you go home with cash in your pockets but don’t have to pay taxes.