I wouldn’t want to give the impression that I’m defending Trump, I’m not. I thoroughly dislike the man for many, many well-founded reasons, and I emphatically want him to lose this election.
It’s just strange to me that people feel the need to cling to a term like patriotism (or its lack) as a perspective on this election. What we’ve arrived at in this discussion is the logic that “he must be unpatriotic because he didn’t pay taxes, and therefor didn’t fund whatever it is that patriotism should fund.”
Ok, so he’s unpatriotic (whatever that word means) by the process of elimination. Does that make me unpatriotic because I haven’t personally picked up a gun and gone to war to fight for whatever causes America needs furthered?
“Patriotism” is a word for whipping people into a frenzy in times of turmoil, based on the perception that they share views on what’s good for the country, while sidestepping the important substance of how those views differ… and the differences become very important once the frenzy is over and the peace that everyone abstractly wanted needs to be actually established.
If I look at strategies for helping Hillary win, I can see room for just leaving it alone when people pick up their flags and start chanting patriotism, if that helps them feel good about voting for Hillary, whom I do want to win; I could live with an “end justifies the means” kind of thing. But I’ll always secretly enjoy reasoned discussions more than crowd control.
There are (at least) a couple reasons why people are raising pitchforks over this:
Trump has, since at least 2012, admonished political figures for not paying their fair share of taxes.
His predatory business practices have caused countless individuals, companies, and municipalities to write off grievous losses themselves. And yet he’s claiming a loss despite profiting at their expense.
Thank you! Now I’m wondering where the money came from. I suspect, without knowing details, that Trump had investors give him the money to support various business plans.
To phrase the question differently: Is it possible that the $900 million business loss was actually investor capitol? And if it is investor capitol, who gets to claim the tax deduction? The sole proprietor or the investors?
So you’re throwing your John Hancock on the idea that writing off a stapler in some work-a-day person’s home office is morally equivalent to making millions upon millions of dollars, and using the mismanagement of multiple companies to avoid millions of dollars in taxes? Cool. Indefatigable repartee.
You can when the person in question has, for years, been admonishing political figures for not paying their fair share of taxes. I’m repeating some of my post above almost verbatim in writing this, but it seems this point is worth repeating.
There are many ways to support one’s country. Donald Trump has done none of them, even baseline stuff like paying his fair share of taxes for basic government services.
I see nothing problematic about expecting those who would be president to do something – anything – to demonstrate that they care about the country they hope to lead.
I actually do. Just in case. If they ever find that I missed something, I can pull out the 5 extra donations (or whatever) to bring it back down to them owing me money.
They once got it wrong – massively wrong – and it took years before they stopped hounding me and returned all the money they had pulled from my bank account. They didn’t pay me back for the fees I incurred, or the lost interest, or even admit they’d made a mistake (heaven forbid), but at least I did get the money back. I will always err on the side of caution now.
I can’t answer to the orange one’s corporate structures, because I haven’t seen his tax forms (), but the various structures take into account where the money is coming from. For example, if he is a limited partner in a venture, it has to be his money, either outright cash or money that has been formally loaned to him with a contract that can be assessed by the IRS. Could be from a bank, or a friend/family member, but there has to be a signed loan agreement. Having said that, it’s very likely that he is using his other businesses as collateral to get loans to support new ventures. It’s clear that he’s highly leveraged, to a point that Wall Street in the 1980s could only dream of. Think of his wealth as an upside down pyramid, with only the very tip as actual money he could withdraw from an account and use to buy a cup of coffee.
This is as good a place as any other Trump thread to post this little tidbit from David Sedaris, appearing in today’s New Yorker, concerning people who are somehow still undecided voters…
Sadly, the greens are currently not very good for anyone. They might look okay at first glance but the closer you poke around with your fork, the less appetizing they are. Pretty unfortunate really.
It’s possible and in fact it’s very, very likely. There’s virtually no chance that all $916,000,000 that Trump “lost” was his money to begin with. Of course, losing borrowed money still counts as losing money, which means that Trump can in fact do as he’s done without breaking any laws.
The question now becomes: who is holding the bag for that $916,000,000? There are a few possibilities.
It’s ordinary investors who simply made a mistake getting into bed with Trump, and who forgave the debt in ways that don’t prohibit Trump from claiming it as a loss, as long as he follows certain tricksy procedures. This is the most likely scenario, and is perfectly legal.
Same as in (1), but the debt was forgiven in the more typical fashion, in which case it would count as income (trust me, that makes sense from a tax perspective, because it prevents exactly this sort of dodge). Trump’s 18-year-dodge is then illegal (but this is highly unlikely–he can afford smart accountants).
The debt is held by tricksy arrangements of shells of shells of offshore shell companies, and those mysterious entities (who may or may not speak with Russian accents) are making zero effort to collect–even though Trump is supposedly worth ten times $916,000,000. This is called “debt parking” and while it’s not illegal in and of itself–no rule against buying up your own debt!–using it to evade taxes is certainly illegal.
Like I said, it’s virtually certain that the answer here is (1). Trump might be all the horrid things we think he is, but there’s no reason to think his accountants aren’t law-abiding and competent.
That is exactly the theory that Trump himself subscribes to, when he repeatedly hounded the President for, in his opinion, not paying enough taxes for the country’s benefit.
The fact that Trump’s accountants used their knowledge of law and the tax code to claim an almost $1billion loss on casino business in a boom year (not shady whatsoever, cough) to avoid paying one cent of tax for twenty years while Trump repeatedly refused to pay contractors makes him distinctly un-“patriotic”. And by that I mean someone who has literally broken the law over and over again.
), but the various structures take into account where the money is coming from. For example, if he is a limited partner in a venture, it has to be his money, either outright cash or money that has been formally loaned to him with a contract that can be assessed by the IRS. Could be from a bank, or a friend/family member, but there has to be a signed loan agreement. Having said that, it’s very likely that he is using his other businesses as collateral to get loans to support new ventures. It’s clear that he’s highly leveraged, to a point that Wall Street in the 1980s could only dream of. Think of his wealth as an upside down pyramid, with only the very tip as actual money he could withdraw from an account and use to buy a cup of coffee.
