Trump's Tax History: Spectacular Levels of Loss

By Jeralyn, Section Trump Administration
Posted on Tue May 07, 2019 at 08:06:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm a loser
And I'm not what I appear to be

The New York Times has obtained information from Donald Trump's tax returns for 1985 to 1994 (not the returns themselves) and matched them up against an open database maintained by the IRS. The amounts he claimed as business losses are gargantuan by any standard.

The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.

In fact, year after year, Mr. Trump appears to have lost more money than nearly any other individual American taxpayer, The Times found when it compared his results with detailed information the I.R.S. compiles on an annual sampling of high-income earners. His core business losses in 1990 and 1991 — more than $250 million each year — were more than double those of the nearest taxpayers in the I.R.S. information for those years.

Over all, Mr. Trump lost so much money that he was able to avoid paying income taxes for eight of the 10 years.

[More....]

The documents obtained by the Times include " printouts from his official Internal Revenue Service tax transcripts, with the figures from his federal tax form, the 1040, from someone who had legal access to them."

Whoever the leaker was he or she goes back a long way with Trump:

In fact, the source of The Times’s newly obtained information was able to provide several years of unpublished tax figures from the president’s father, the builder Fred C. Trump. They matched up precisely with Fred Trump’s actual returns, which had been obtained by The Times in the earlier investigation.

Maybe someone will nickname him "little dodger" on the campaign trail and at debates.

Donald Trump's base of under-informed voters have bought his mischaracterization of his financial talent and success hook line and sinker. But the Times reports it's all a lie.

1990 and 1991 represented the worst years of the period reviewed by The Times, with combined losses of $517.6 million. And over the next three years, as Mr. Trump turned over properties to his lenders to stave off bankruptcy, his core businesses lost an additional $286.9 million. The 10-year total: $1.17 billion in losses.

...Mr. Trump was able to lose all that money without facing the usual consequences — such as a steep drop in his standard of living — in part because most of it belonged to others, to the banks and bond investors who had supplied the cash to fuel his acquisitions. And as The Times’s earlier investigation showed, Mr. Trump secretly leaned on his father’s wealth to continue living like a winner and to stage a comeback.

When will his base figure out he's got nothing for them?

< Trump Pardons | Denver Votes to Legitimize 'Shrooms >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Trump's Tax History: Spectacular Levels of Loss | 63 comments (63 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Never was a truer (5.00 / 4) (#1)
by Ga6thDem on Tue May 07, 2019 at 08:28:55 PM EST

statement made:

Donald Trump's base of under-informed voters have bought his mischaracterization of his financial talent and success hook line and sinker.

I think it will make the (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by CaptHowdy on Tue May 07, 2019 at 08:38:45 PM EST

MAGAloids love him even more. He's just like me. Living on credit he can't pay off only BIGGER

I Think This Line of Attacks... (none / 0) (#5)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 09:13:08 AM EST

...is really, really dumb.

If his returns show fraud or conflicts of interest, then yes, let's see the pudding, but I mean really, is there a person on the planet that thinks Trump was truthful about his wealth/income, is there a billionaire alive that doesn't look broke d1ck on their tax returns, is Trump doing what every fricken billionaire and probably most heavy millionaire does on their US tax returns ? Hell yes, this is only proving something everyone already knows about rich folks, they don't pay taxes.

The notion that Trump didn't make money because his returns indicate he lost money is hilarious.

Is this really why the D's want his returns, to try and shame a man with none ?


Up is down (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by Repack Rider on Wed May 08, 2019 at 09:17:26 AM EST

Black is white.

Sky is orange.

Losing the most money in the United States makes Trump a smart businessperson.


This is your argument to support Mr Trump? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by Airlane1979 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 09:33:11 AM EST

ScottW714: It's not the most convincing, given his record of using his power to bully and punish vast numbers of very poor people merely for being less rich than he claims to be. Trump does a great job of shaming himself every time he posts one of his endlessly vainglorious tweets.

The NYT story shows, once again, that this vicious, cruel man is not the rich winner he keeps claiming to be and that he is a terrible businessman.


Luv the name (5.00 / 2) (#8)
by CaptHowdy on Wed May 08, 2019 at 11:03:59 AM EST

Nailed it... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 12:39:54 PM EST

...huge Trump supporter here.

I work in tax and as mentioned above.

The NYT story shows, once again, that this vicious, cruel man is not the rich winner he keeps claiming to be and that he is a terrible businessman.

Yeah, the worse kind of business men/women pay no taxes, the really good one, the Stephen Hawkings of finance, pay millions. <end exaggerated eye roll>

I don't think for a minute Trump has been honest about anything, especially his wealth, but that does't mean he is broke or not good at what he does, which as far s I can tell is mostly cheat people out of money.


From what I'm hearing (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by Chuck0 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 02:24:53 PM EST

in interviews with the people who did the research, this completely dispels the notion that he in any way, shape or form, a "smart" businessman. Mostly just that is kind of stupid.

I've heard before that if had just taken Daddy's money and invested it, he would be far richer today than he actually (or supposedly) is.


Invested in what ? (none / 0) (#15)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 03:59:59 PM EST

I mean talk about kinda stupid, there are literally millions of investments. Bonds. real estate, foreign currencies, tech stocks, funds, I mean seriously.

I have heard the same thing and the problem with it is they aren't very specific nor does anyone actually know what Trump is worth. So he could have invested and made more than he has, but he also losses hundreds of millions each year. It doens't have to make sense as long as it proves Trump is an idiot.

I like to think D's are much smarter than R's, but throw Trump in the mix and all bets are off.


I believe the stock market was mentioned (none / 0) (#17)
by Chuck0 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 05:25:00 PM EST

Invested in Index Funds. (none / 0) (#19)
by vml68 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 10:27:37 PM EST

Invested in what ?

e.g., An S&P Index fund.

So he could have invested and made more than he has, but he also losses hundreds of millions each year. It doens't have to make sense as long as it proves Trump is an idiot.

I believe what people are getting at is that successful business men, e.g., Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Warren Buffet, have achieved a rate of return on their investments that have far exceeded the best rate of return anyone could possibly hope to have made by parking their money in an index fund.
With Tr*mp, based on what information was publicly available, it appears he might have at best matched the S&P rate of return or more likely underperformed.
So, all that wheeling and dealing, cheating, grifting, bankruptcies, etc. was kinda pointless because he could have been worth the same or more by doing absolutely nothing except putting his money in an Index Fund.

The self-described vaunted business man achieved the same rate of return as you or I or anyone else that allocated their 401K contributions to an Index Fund over the same time period.


So Someone... (none / 0) (#20)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:24:31 AM EST

...actually knows what Trump is really worth, care to share ?

I ran a quick FV calculation using 20 years and 400M. It comes to roughly 2.2B @ 9.8%, the 20 year average rate of return for the S&P 500.

If Trump is worth what he claims, ~8B, he's outperformed the S&P by nearly 400%, but of course he is lying, and of course no one making this claim knows his net worth.

And really what is the point, millions of people invest and come up less that the markets, many come-up above; all it really proves, if true, is that Trump may not be as investment savvy as Fortune 500 CEO's.

It's just feel good non-sense that has no bearing on anything. People that don't like Trump think he's a horrible businessman, people that like him think he is Midas. And no one can prove it either way...
----------------------

I think the point, the important point, from these returns is that billionaires are not paying their fair share. Trump has basically admitted to it, and even if it's a GD lie, we can work with a billionaire who brags about making billions, but come tax time, all of sudden he's losing hundreds of millions.

Who gives a S if Trump is a horrible businessman, really ?


: I found your mistake (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:40:32 AM EST

If Trump is worth what he claims

: I honestly have no idea what point you (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by vml68 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:34:38 AM EST

are trying to make or what exactly is bothering you about the fact that we want to see Tr*mp's tax returns.

So Someone actually knows what Trump is really worth, care to share ?

Google is your friend. People with some familiarity about the subject have written articles. If you are expecting an exact net worth +/- a few $, then you would be right, no one really knows what he is worth.
Since he is POTUS, we should know. Just like we should know his sources of income and who he owes money to.

It's just feel good non-sense that has no bearing on anything. People that don't like Trump think he's a horrible businessman, people that like him think he is Midas. And no one can prove it either way...
Tr*mp business failures.
Whether a person likes him or doesn't has no bearing on the fact that by most normal measures these prove that he is a horrible business man.

Who gives a S if Trump is a horrible businessman, really ?

Well, for one, the people who voted for him based on his word that he is a great businessman should care. His record of stiffing his contractors over and over again, matters.
All of us should care if he was a crooked businessman. All of us should care if he exaggerated/falsified his losses on his tax returns in order to make use of tax loopholes that allowed him to get away with not paying taxes for years.

Yup. (none / 0) (#10)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed May 08, 2019 at 12:50:00 PM EST

Just so we're clear (none / 0) (#13)
by Repack Rider on Wed May 08, 2019 at 02:49:08 PM EST

huge Trump supporter here

Is sarcasm, right?


: No Man... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by ScottW714 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 03:43:41 PM EST

...this is my van and this is my home.
This is for fighting and this is for fun.

You describe a litany of unethical behavior IMO (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by vicndabx on Wed May 08, 2019 at 05:16:32 PM EST

or if you prefer, loophole exploitation, and then assume D's on the Ways and Means committee (which deals with tax law) are only pursuing his taxes for political purposes.

Mayhap you are projecting your own apparent cynicism onto others?


No, Scott, this line of concern (5.00 / 8) (#18)
by Towanda on Wed May 08, 2019 at 06:49:19 PM EST

is about to whome the president may owe millions, even billions, and especially if he owes foreign banks.

That's concern about foreign influence on the presidency.

And that's why we need the most recent ten years of tax returns. The previous ten years' worth discussed in this story show that he was deeply in debt. But he claims that he turned that around right afterward. How? For ho much. From whom?


Didn't I Mention That ? (none / 0) (#21)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:36:27 AM EST

If his returns show fraud or conflicts of interest, then yes, let's see the pudding

From wear I sit, all anyone is doing with the really old returns is showing faux outrage at Trump the business savant losing hundreds of millions each year.


Well (5.00 / 4) (#24)
by CaptHowdy on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:44:05 AM EST

There is at least one instance of 55 million in interest no one can explain. That we know of.

There are all kinds of reasons to get his taxes. Not least to make it clear that if you are president we get your taxes if you like it or not.


Help me here (none / 0) (#23)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:43:20 AM EST

all anyone is doing with the really old returns is showing faux outrage at Trump the business savant losing hundreds of millions each year.

Okay, losing a billion dollars doesn't make him a failure.

So if he had MADE a billion dollars, THAT would be failure?

It looks to me like you have defined "failure" out of existence. If Trump had FAILED at "business," what would it have looked like on his tax returns?


You Are Under the Mistaken Assumption... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:31:05 AM EST

...that a loss on a tax return equals losing money.


Okay then (none / 0) (#28)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 09, 2019 at 10:10:23 AM EST

You Are Under the Mistaken Assumption that a loss on a tax return equals losing money.

Okay, what would "losing money" LOOK LIKE on a tax return?

If he showed a PROFIT on a tax form, would that be "losing money?"

What would we expect to see on the tax return of a FAILED businessman who actually lost money?


: Quick & Simple (5.00 / 1) (#34)
by ScottW714 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 12:23:46 PM EST

You own a business, your taxable income is $150k a year, you decide to buy a new facility that costs a cool million. You finance it for 20 years, but on your return you depreciate the facility for 5 years, meaning you can write off $200k a year.
That is how you have a tax return with a loss of $50k(150-200) while pulling in $150k. Add in property taxes and interest, say $30k, and now you have a loss of $80k and an actual income of $120k. Depending on the loss, you can generally carry it over to next year so even if you make money next year, there is that loss you can use to reduce your income.
Add in infinitely more assets and infidelity more complexity and you end up with losses in the hundreds of millions and a net worth that continues to grow.
In the above scenario, you are claiming losses, but you have a million dollar asset that not only appreciates, but is being paid down and you actual income is over $100k/yr.
I have no idea what Trump is doing, but this is standard business model, lower your tax liability while growing your business; the US tax system is designed for this under the guise of strengthening the economy. Some tax breaks are good for this reason, but too many and wealth goes from bottom to top.
Trump and many others just take it to the extreme and/or finance politicians that help ensure their tax liabilities and near zeroevery year.

That mention (none / 0) (#40)
by Towanda on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:13:54 PM EST

did not distract us from the gist of your comments, questioning why Dems want to see his tax returns.


Yeah.... (none / 0) (#42)
by ScottW714 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 10:07:06 AM EST

...cause that is what I was trying to do, distract.

Reminds me of an episode of Law & Order where Jack wants to get a peak at police files, but when he's in front of the judge, he can't say exactly why, only that there has to be some dirt in there somewhere.

There is no law requiring Trump provide these files, acting like there is a god given right to have them is the definition of being a sore loser. There isn't, the time for this to have been settled was before the election. It's not going to play out favorably to the folks we need it to play out favorably to, to win an election.

But I think the D's know that the odds of winning this election are slim, that if they want Trump gone they aren't going to be able to do it at the polls, so they are spending all this energy on removal, which is almost certainly guaranteeing a loss.

Trump wants this fight, he won the election playing victim in the media, and he's practically begging D's to impeach him. What D's need to think about is what kind of evidence/proof they are going to have to dig up to get 20 R's in the Senate to turn on their own President, otherwise this is just all a huge waste of time and resources that could be spend convincing America there is a better choice, that we aren't these petty hate filled poor psychotic losers hell bent on impeachment, which is what Trump has been pushing and we seem to be providing.

But hey, don't let me stop anyone from giving Trump the fight he wants. The guy has made a living off of getting in fights he can win.


There is (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 10, 2019 at 10:23:05 AM EST

a law requiring that any president hand over their tax returns if it is requested by congress.

Here is a fact check on that claim.


What bugs me the most (5.00 / 4) (#44)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 10:51:01 AM EST

About this point of view is the firm assumption you have that any and all opposition is purely political in nature. I'll be honest, with regard to the tax returns I'm not convinced we've seen anything criminal (yet), but obstruction of justice is a real crime and frankly letting Trump get away with unprecedented obstruction of justice is a problem for our Democracy beyond just getting him out of office. You might be fine setting that precedent, since the Senate won't act, but Dems not acting makes it all seem like Republicans are right - committing a crime as president isn't an issue.


: In other words (none / 0) (#45)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 10:58:14 AM EST

Trump is a problem for now, the normalization of Trump will be a problem for a lot longer.

: That's the way (none / 0) (#48)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 10, 2019 at 11:20:44 AM EST

I feel too. I mean Trump is openly defying subpoenas. He's acting like a tin pot dictator. He and his campaign colluding with Russians is something we should move on and not talk about because it might make us look like "sore losers". I'm sorry but I could care less about the GOP narrative in the press and more about the future of our country. Trump is obviously beholden to Putin for some reason. I think we should find out exactly what hold Putin has over Trump. Do we really want a country that operates just like Russia? I for one do not.

Like CST says, I don't understand what makes (5.00 / 3) (#49)
by vml68 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 11:35:35 AM EST

you so sure that your viewpoint is the right one and that you are the rational one while the rest of TL is suffering from Tr*mp derangement syndrome.
You could accuse me of suffering from TDS and you would probably be right, I loathe the man with every fiber of my being.

there has to be some dirt in there somewhere

As we now know, there is dirt in his old taxes. There is a reason NY state is investigating the issue. And, unless you believe that it was a one off and that Tr*mp has been on the straight and narrow since then, the odds are good that there will be dirt in the taxes we haven't seen as yet.

There is no law requiring Trump provide these files, acting like there is a god given right to have them is the definition of being a sore loser.

No, there is no law requiring him to provide his taxes but there was a precedent that previous Presidents followed. If Ted Cruz had become president (shudder) and not made his taxes public, given that there is no indication that he is a bought and paid for stooge of a foreign government, I could maybe see your point of acting like sore losers. That, is most definitely not the case with Tr*mp.

we aren't these petty hate filled poor psychotic losers hell bent on impeachment, which is what Trump has been pushing and we seem to be providing.

WTF, we are supposed to cower because Tr*mp is saying mean things about us?
Dems don't have to impeach Tr*mp now, they need to hold impeachment hearings and make a good case for impeachment. At the end of it, it will become clear if the public is onboard with impeachment. If they aren't, then so be it. No impeachment.

If Congress lets Tr*mp get away with everything he has so far and does nothing about it, the dems deserve to lose.


Comments (none / 0) (#50)
by ScottW714 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 01:08:21 PM EST

but obstruction of justice is a real crime and frankly letting Trump get away with unprecedented obstruction of justice is a problem for our Democracy

I don't know that it is all that unprecedented. IMO we don't remove a sitting President for obstruction if there is no underlying crime. He tried to stop an investigation that came up empty on a crime. I feel like there was another President accused of a very similar crime and impeached for it. The vote fell along party lines as this one will.

Which brings me to vml's comment.

Like CST says, I don't understand what makes you so sure that your viewpoint is the right one and that you are the rational one while the rest of TL is suffering from Tr*mp derangement syndrome.

That isn't what CST actually wrote, nor is it what I wrote.

CST as much as admitted that the returns are political, they are too old to prosecute, and dealing 10-20 years ago crimes, if they exist are most likely past the statute of limitations. Trump's tax returns are 100% fishing expedition, there is no proof of any crime related to his returns. I think Trump has the protection of the 4th Amendment and if D's want those returns they should have to tell a judge why.

I wrote TL has become Trump derangement central. I don't think any one one person has TDS, but when y'all get on a roll, it's negative synergy focused on a single human being.

History tells me I am right because while not a mirror image of the Clinton impeachment, it's not far off. Yes times are different and people have changed, but we are even more polarized and if there is one single thing D's should have taken away from the last two years, is that R's are scared to death to oppose Trump. I honestly think it would be difficult to get 2/3rds in the Senate to convict if Trump shot someone on 5th avenue, especially if it was a minority.

The reality of this country is if you want to impeach a President you have better have a majority in the House, and 66 people in your party holding seats in the Senate.

Just so we are clear, I hate Trump to my core, I cannot believe I live in a country in which a person like that would even be on a ballot, much less winning the highest office. I would love to see him dragged off and thrown in prison, but I also live in reality where republicans don't break from the party, ever. We need the votes of people who don't see Trump as a threat, who see this constant and never ending 'Trump is the worse' mantra as petty and a obsessive.

No matter what he has done, I would be be perfectly fine with every D on the planet never talking about Trump again, focusing on the election, and after the win moving forward and understanding that the country is more important that some bad people not getting the justice they so rightly deserve. Then once the dust has settled, if we still feel like high crimes have been committed, go after the man then, when motives will seem less political. But I suspect, no one will care, because the crimes won't seem to so... unprecedented.


Obstruction of justice (5.00 / 2) (#51)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 01:16:58 PM EST

Is absolutely still a crime even if you can't prove an underlying crime.

What you are suggesting is that if you are successful at obstruction - by preventing authorities from determining if there was a crime - you are no longer guilty. That's outrageous. Essentially you're saying that you can only be charged with obstruction if you've failed at your goal.


And by all means (none / 0) (#52)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 01:21:01 PM EST

I'd love to see what makes this "precedented". Because all I can come up with is Andrew Jackson and the trail of tears response, which call me crazy, is not a path I want to follow.

Don't get me wrong, of course Trump hate is personal, but I have an equally low opinion of the John Kellys and Stephen Millers of the world who manage to be completely abhorrent without blatantly breaking any laws. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.


I Suggested No Such Thing (none / 0) (#53)
by ScottW714 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 02:07:18 PM EST

Agree it is a crime, but related to removing a sitting President, which is a big fricken deal, I think the bar should be a bit higher.

An obstruction charge should only be levied if they tried to obstruct an investigation that actually turns up a crime. Clinton was brought up for impeachment for obstruction & perjury.

Obviously if the obstruction is successful we wouldn't know about either.


What's the alternative though? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 02:18:30 PM EST

We give up on checks and balances, say hey, it's fine for the president to obstruct justice, stonewall Congress, and move on with our lives?

He's currently ramping up and doubling down to prevent any and all congressional oversight. I guess this is the new normal that we're setting up going forward.

Why would any president ever submit to oversight again if we prove its completely optional?


You Keep Twisting My Words... (none / 0) (#55)
by ScottW714 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 03:12:05 PM EST

...just enough to not represent my point.

Oversight still exists, quite being so dramatic. Bush stonewalled Congress, not frequently but more than seldom. Didn't Congress find Holder in contempt of Congress ?

This isn't new territory.


: I wasn't quoting you (none / 0) (#59)
by CST on Fri May 10, 2019 at 04:27:44 PM EST

I was posing hypotheticals I could think of in MY words.
How does oversight exist when they can't get the documents and no one shows up at the hearings?

Removing a President (5.00 / 2) (#57)
by KeysDan on Fri May 10, 2019 at 03:53:19 PM EST

is a big deal, and it should be. But it is the Constitutional remedy for removal of an unfit President in-between elections. As we all know, it is a political process in accord with a Congressional determination of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Mueller's investigation was to determine if crimes were committed. The Mueller Report, while identifying numerous links between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump Campaign, determined that the evidence was not sufficient to support criminal charges.

It was established that several Trump campaign individuals lied to the Special Counsel and to Congress about their Russian interactions; and the lies were material to the investigation. Some were charged and convicted.

The Special Counsel did not always yield admissible information or testimony (e.g. 5th Amendment, information obtained through Court processes were excluded,) and even when individuals testified, some provided false or incomplete information. Further the Special Counsel learned that some individuals investigated in the Trump Campaign deleted relevant communications using encryption or did not provide for long-term records.

Accordingly, the Report states "given these identified gaps, the Office cannot rule out the possibility that the unavailable information would shed additional light (or cast in a new light) the events described in this report." Obstruction, witness tampering and other methods are suggested throughout Volume I. And, of course, the ten likely incidences of obstruction of justice are clearly set forth in Volume II.

The sitting President has vast resources and leverage at his disposable to cover-up and obstruct investigations into possible wrongdoings of his and/or his Administration/Campaign. The bar should that consistent with the law. The President is not King, the Law is King (Thomas Paine).

The DOJ policy does give the sitting president deference in terms of not being indicted while in office. While Constitutionally questionable, it did apply to the decision-making of the Special Counsel in the instance of obstruction of justice.

However, the Special Counsel did tee-up the Constitutional remedy of impeachment. Not enough evidence established for charging a crime, but, enough to look into consideration of the political charge of high crimes and misdemeanors. It may be "criminal" for those who can, but don't, do nothing to curb a lawless/unfit President.

In the Clinton case, the House of Representatives voted two separate Articles of Impeachment (with some cross-overs): Obstruction of Justice and Perjury. There was no crime underlying the obstruction of justice charge (a consensual extra-marital affair). Clinton was acquitted by the Senate, 50 guilty/50 not guilty on obstruction; 45 guilty/55 not guilty on perjury.

: Obstruction (none / 0) (#58)
by Ga6thDem on Fri May 10, 2019 at 04:13:38 PM EST

charges against Clinton were way weaker than anything on Trump. In fact I don't even remember what they were other than Ken Starr saying that wearing a necktie was obstruction of justice. The AG was never fired. The head of the FBI was never fired by Clinton. Reams of FBI agents were never fired. At this point Trump is starting to make Nixon look like a piker when it comes to criminal activity.

Why (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by FlJoe on Fri May 10, 2019 at 03:20:49 PM EST

do you keep repeating the bogus right wing talking point that there is no underlying crime? It's almost universally accepted that the Russians carried out "sweeping and systematic" criminal activities in the 2016 campaign.

Only tRump and a few of his dead end henchmen believe otherwise. What's your excuse?


Scott also claimed (none / 0) (#61)
by Towanda on Fri May 10, 2019 at 09:24:45 PM EST

that there is no law requiring Trump to provide his tax returns at the request of Congress, and Scott also was wrong on that. And on something else -- I cannot recall it now and do not want to reread his stuff -- as well, which makes it look like he is getting his info from Fox News or he is trolling.


: Scott was mistaken about the tax-return disclosure (5.00 / 2) (#63)
by Peter G on Sat May 11, 2019 at 07:52:49 PM EST

law, but his comments have been trying to draw a reasonable line between fact-based criticism and disapproval of Tr*mp and knee-jerk attacks. I don't agree with all of what he has written, but he's not trolling. It's fair-minded and serious. Not necessarily correct, but not deserving of attack.

I disagree that Bone Spurs wants this fight. (5.00 / 3) (#60)
by Chuck0 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 04:55:42 PM EST

I think he genuinely wants to keep his taxes out of public view because his tax returns and banking records will ultimately show the world what a fraud and grifter he is. He fears that exposure more than anything.


: I agree (none / 0) (#62)
by Ga6thDem on Sat May 11, 2019 at 04:32:05 AM EST

Trump is nothing but branding and if his branding collapses even the Russians won't be giving him any more money.

Well that looks about right. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by desertswine on Tue May 07, 2019 at 11:28:50 PM EST

He's the fraudster everyone knew he was. Well most of us.

more evidence of the myth (5.00 / 3) (#4)
by Chuck0 on Wed May 08, 2019 at 08:54:05 AM EST

of "successful businessman." I can't tell how many people told me they were voting for Bone Spurs before the election because he was "a successful businessman." And we needed that in the White House.

My counter argument was that running a country is not the same thing as running a business. They have very different goals. And Bone Spurs lifestyle was paid for with debt. He stiffed creditors and leveraged debt. Then stiffed people on that debt.

He's a grifter, plain and simple.

Wonder what it feels like (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by fishcamp on Wed May 08, 2019 at 01:51:33 PM EST

to lose over a billion dollars? The Art of the Deal...ha, Trump the chump. However, today at lunch, at the counter of Fish Tails restaurant, they all still loved him. Of course, this is scary Florida.

If you didn't miss a meal... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by kdog on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:44:47 AM EST

or have to sleep on a park bench or alter your life in any way...what have you really lost? Numbers on a spreadsheet aka nothing.

Like the Chump himself says, it is just sport, and for once he's absolutely right. And that's the problem with our entire economic system...we are getting played for simple amusement. Like a hunting trip, and we and our labors are the game. And the worst part is we aren't even been hunted for anybody's sustenance, which could at least be understood on a natural law level. We are being hunted for simple amusement...like Chump's demon spawn murdering majestic elephants in Africa.


I've just been trying to imagine (none / 0) (#30)
by CaptHowdy on Thu May 09, 2019 at 10:53:36 AM EST

How you lose 100 million a year for 10 years.

And I am something of a legend of financial mismanagement

The numbers don't work. I am a pro and I don't think I could do it.


Since I haven't seen Tr*mp's returns, I am (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by vml68 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 11:35:02 AM EST

just speculating here. He probably had quite a bit of depreciation, which is non-cash, every year or being carried from year to year. Then, you add in the losses from bankruptcies and you can have tax returns that show losses. Plus, he was highly leveraged, so there is interest expense that can be written off. I am not a tax expert, so I don't know the details on how much can be taken as a loss.

It is sort of similar to when you sell a stock/s for a loss. You can use the loss to offset the gains on another stock that you sold for a profit. Say, you took a loss of $50,000 on a stock and made a profit of $25,000 on another (Realized gains and losses). You have a $25,000 net loss. You can claim a loss of $3,000 on your tax return every year till that $25,000 runs out, if you don't sell any stocks in that time period. If you do sell, the profits and losses are netted against the loss that you are carrying over.
It's been quite a few years since I did this but I am assuming it has not changed.

You can also have a situation where you are paying taxes on profits you have not realized. e.g, my father has mutual funds in another country. Every year, he pays taxes on the increase in value in those funds even though he has not sold them. So essentially, there is no income but he is paying income tax on them. Even worse, because of the fluctuation in exchange rates every year, the value of the fund may have gone down which should show up as a loss but because of the exchange rate shows up as a gain, so he essentially pays tax on a loss!


Excellent explanation. (5.00 / 2) (#33)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 09, 2019 at 11:42:34 AM EST

Questions (none / 0) (#36)
by Repack Rider on Thu May 09, 2019 at 06:22:27 PM EST

When I got a mortgage, I had to show POSITIVE cash flow, and a certain amount of liquid assets.

Why would a bank loan big money to a person who made the claim TO THE GOVERNMENT that he could not meet his payments, and that all his assets were leveraged to the max?

If showing a billion dollar loss is not a sign that he is a bad businessman, and showing a billion dollar profit would, by most people's definition be "success," what would be a metric that defined "failure?"


You were not buying (none / 0) (#37)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 09, 2019 at 06:45:06 PM EST

a (presumably/potentially) income producing entity.


As Scott explained in his comment #34 (none / 0) (#38)
by vml68 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 08:28:54 PM EST

it is very possible to make money and yet show a loss on your income tax return.
As Tr*mp has said the tax laws allowed real estate developers at that time to take massive write-offs and show losses on their taxes. They then used these losses to renegotiate their loans with the banks. It was "sport" according to him.

When I got a mortgage, I had to show POSITIVE cash flow, and a certain amount of liquid assets.
Why would a bank loan big money to a person who made the claim TO THE GOVERNMENT that he could not meet his payments, and that all his assets were leveraged to the max?

There are different rules for personal lending and commercial lending. The rules are also different for peons like us and high net-worth individuals.

That said, we don't know what Tr*mp showed the banks as income/assets or put up as collateral to secure his loans. According to Michael Cohen, Tr*mp inflated the value of his assets to banks and insurers and to be on Forbes richest people list. While the Forbes thing does not matter except to highlight Tr*mp's personal deficiencies, the bank and insurer ones do. It is fraud and is being investigated.

For the most part banks don't care if you (as in a business, not you or I) don't pay taxes, they care if you can make interest payments on your loan.
U.S. banks learnt the hard way that Tr*mp was not to be trusted. I believe, Deutsche bank became the only bank still willing to loan him money. I don't know the reason why, hopefully the ongoing investigation will provide some answers. But, even there different branches decided to stop lending him money.

You are not going to get an argument from me that Tr*mp is a terrible businessman.


Where the money came from (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by CaptHowdy on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:06:44 PM EST

Is the point isn't it. I don't think anyone much cares how much of a tax cheat he is tho it might be interesting to know. I would say that much is a given.

The reason his taxes need to be seen is so we know if he is financially compromised by debt to Russia or the Saudis or who the F ever.

That's the point. It's always been the point.


Yes, this. (5.00 / 4) (#41)
by Towanda on Thu May 09, 2019 at 09:16:28 PM EST

It really ought not be difficult to understand this.


Yes, knowing where the money came from (5.00 / 3) (#46)
by vml68 on Fri May 10, 2019 at 11:06:58 AM EST

is vital. But, I also think knowing if he is a tax cheat is important. If all he did was take advantage of every loophole that exists then that is his right but if there was fraud involved, then I believe we all have a right to know.

Since, he has not really divested from all of his business', I believe we should also be looking at his taxes to see how he is using his office to benefit his business'.


: Sure (5.00 / 1) (#47)
by CaptHowdy on Fri May 10, 2019 at 11:13:01 AM EST

My point was intended for those missing it

Elon Musk could explain it to you. (none / 0) (#32)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 09, 2019 at 11:40:49 AM EST

Scott's comment #34 is a much better (none / 0) (#35)
by vml68 on Thu May 09, 2019 at 03:28:42 PM EST

explanation than mine.
Also, for tax purposes you can have accelerated depreciation on assets. It would help to know what was depreciated, for how long, if any of the depreciated assets were later sold for a profit. If there was any depreciation recapture and if the appropriate taxes were paid for that. Real Estate taxes are very complicated and considering Tr*mp has around 500 LLC's, following it all would be a major undertaking.
We would really need more than just the last 10 years of Tr*mp's returns to get a full picture.

We already know that the Tr*mp family engaged in tax evasion and more than likely tax fraud in the '90's. I am guessing he did not stop there.
Former prosecutors told The Times that if the authorities had discovered at the time how the Trumps were using All County, their actions would have warranted a criminal investigation for defrauding tenants, tax fraud and filing false documents.


Getting a better picture (5.00 / 2) (#29)
by KeysDan on Thu May 09, 2019 at 10:45:50 AM EST

of Trump's finances is essential to the public interest, and, critically, to national security. It is unlikely to be surprising to many that Trump is a tax cheat, a fraud and deeply corrupt.

Indeed, there might even be some who thought that Trump's quest for the presidency was always about the money. Indeed, I would support the Congress granting Trump $1 billion with the condition that he resign immediately and, for a bonus, take McConnell along with him. We are a rich country and we can afford (or can't afford not to)to do it. After all, mistakes usually bring a cost.

Of course, Trump promised his tax returns, lying about giving them up just as soon as that pesky old audit was completed. But, the key issue, from my perspective, is that Trump, unlike presidents of the past, has not put his assets in a blind trust. And, unless you believe that he has entrusted his, probably, ill-gotten fortune to his dullard sons, Eric and Don, Jr., Trump, himself, is still at the helm of Trump, Inc., making inseverable public and private decisions.

True that income tax returns report income and not wealth, but information can be obtained such as debts and income sources. Who he owes and may be squeezing him. The returns schedules may shed important light. And, where did he suddenly get all that cash money to invest in golf clubs and real estate around the world?

True, too, that losses on a return do not necessarily mean that he is broke. Maybe, the smart taking advantage of tax codes. Or, maybe, tax cheating.

There are, to be sure, political and legal ramifications from his tax return revelations, (except for Republicans) such as his lying about his wealth, that the country needs a businessman since the country needs to be run like a business, unlawfully shrugging off requests for tax returns from the Chair of the House Ways and Means, and possible tax fraud (which would still not be made public, since the law does not permit sharing of this information).

The best solution may be, after all, the $1 billion one. Given the urgency, we may not be able to sustain the cumbersomeness of impeachment or wait until the election of 2020.