New York Times editor knowingly risked federal prosecution for releasing Trump's 95 tax returns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51152897]Depends on your definition of "Dodge" I guess, Trump was just using the tax code [b]as it's intended[/b] to not pay unnecessary taxes due to significant losses from previous years. The tax code, as written, allows this, it's standard, intending to allow a company/individual to survive a bad year or period of business. If you take issue with this then the problem is with the tax code itself, not trump. And he's certainly not the only one doing it.[/QUOTE] Is he actually losing money though? Or is he exploiting a loophole to claim losses when he's actually profitable? In one case, he's a failed businessman who's failed to turn a profit in 20 years, therefore all of that stuff about how he's a brilliant mastermind who has exploited the tax system is bunk and so is all that stuff about how he's qualified to be president because he's good at business. It means he's such a terrible businessman that's failed so badly that he needs tax cuts just to stay afloat. In the other case, he unfairly abused a corrupt tax system to get out of paying taxes that the rest of us have to pay and is a colossal hypocrite for accusing other people of not paying taxes. Either way, it makes him look horrible so it's unlikely his supporters are ever going to address it. Again, prove me wrong, I dare you. He's either a liar or a failed businessman and a liar.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51152924]Is he actually losing money though? Or is he exploiting a loophole to claim losses when he's actually profitable? In one case, he's a failed businessman who's failed to turn a profit in 20 years, therefore all of that stuff about how he's a brilliant mastermind who has exploited the tax system is bunk and so is all that stuff about how he's qualified to be president because he's good at business. It means he's such a terrible businessman that's failed so badly that he needs tax cuts just to stay afloat. In the other case, he unfairly abused a corrupt tax system to get out of paying taxes that the rest of us have to pay and is a colossal hypocrite for accusing other people of not paying taxes. Either way, it makes him look horrible so it's unlikely his supporters are ever going to address it. [B]Again, prove me wrong, I dare you.[/B] [B]He's either a liar or a failed businessman and a liar.[/B][/QUOTE] You don't sound like you're willing to be proven wrong anyway. Not taking sides here but literally nobody here is going to change anyone's opinions, not those of other people posting or others that are simply lurking. It's impossible.

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51152954]You don't sound like you're willing to be proven wrong anyway. Not taking sides here but literally nobody here is going to change anyone's opinions, not those of other people posting or others that are simply lurking. It's impossible.[/QUOTE] I'm willing to listen to anybody. My point in making that remark is that the users here who support Trump don't ever engage with opposing viewpoints, they just make snipe remarks and ignore arguments that they can't easily cherry pick. It's disingenuous and I'm calling it out. I can't be more reasonable even if I tried, people will just ignore my posts and cherry pick somebody else's who's easier to snipe. I said that he's either 'a liar or a failed business and a liar', because it's true. I spent the whole post leading up to that explaining that contention.

Who said he failed to turn a profit in 20 years?? The figure was 18 and it was pure speculation based on the maximum amount of time you can actually write off a loss using the tax code for that time frame. I don't know to what extent that he got to write-off his losses from that year, but it doesn't seem like NYT does either, but 18 isn't even an educated guess it's just misinformation.

[QUOTE=Zyler;51152969]I'm willing to listen to anybody. My point in making that remark is that the users here who support Trump don't ever engage with opposing viewpoints, they just make snipe remarks and ignore arguments that they can't easily cherry pick. It's disingenuous and I'm calling it out.[/QUOTE] The thing is, just from the way your write it's obvious that your standing will not change no matter what is thrown at you, which is no surprise in this election no matter if you're for or against Trump. So, what point is there to continuing an argument when you know you stand 0 chances of changing the mind of the person you're arguing with? For the sake of arguing? Pointless. To defend yourself? Pointless. To persuade an undecided person that might be reading? Unlikely.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51152980]Who said he failed to turn a profit in 20 years?? The figure was 18 and it was pure speculation based on the maximum amount of time you can actually write off a loss using the tax code for that time frame. I don't know to what extent that he got to write-off his losses from that year, but it doesn't seem like NYT does either, but 18 isn't even an educated guess it's just misinformation.[/QUOTE] So if he hasn't paid tax in 20 years and he hasn't been unable to turn a profit in that time, that means he's exploiting a tax loophole and therefore a hypocrite for accusing other people of doing the same. There's literally only two options here, I'm not saying he's either a failed businessman or a hypocrite/liar because I'm not open to other possibilities. It's literally the only two possibilities. [editline]5th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=*Freezorg*;51152990]The thing is, just from the way your write it's obvious that your standing will not change no matter what is thrown at you, which is no surprise in this election no matter if you're for or against Trump. So, what point is there to continuing an argument when you know you stand 0 chances of changing the mind of the person you're arguing? For the sake of arguing? Pointless. To defend yourself? Pointless. To persuade an undecided person that might be reading? Unlikely.[/QUOTE] I am willing to change my mind, or more likely adjust my opinion, based on new evidence. I also want to know how other people think who don't share the same views I do. I don't want to surround myself in an echo chamber of people who think like me, so instead I engage with people with a diverse range of different viewpoints. But that also requires that they engage with me as well.

No you're just refusing to step outside of a false dichotomy because you're either unwilling to understand what we're trying to argue or you're being intellectually dishonest.

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51153021]No you're just refusing to step outside of a false dichotomy because you're either unwilling to understand what we're trying to argue or you're being intellectually dishonest.[/QUOTE] Okay, my understanding is that all we know from the tax returns is that he declared a $916 mil loss on his 1995 tax return. He got this loss through the bankruptcy of several casino businesses (and an airline) that he accrued over the course of the preceding years. We know that, through this loss he would've been able to cancel out any equivalent amount of taxable income over an 18-year period after that. We know that Trump deliberately defaults on debts owed and bankrupts companies in order to run off with the money, he even suggested (and later corrected himself) defaulting on American debt like he does with his companies. If he know that he has the ability to not pay taxes, and we know that this is a pattern of behavior with his business practices. Not to mention that both him and his supporters are not in any way denying that he doesn't pay taxes. Why would we assume he isn't taking advantage of this loophole in the tax system to not pay taxes? So again, there's only two options, either we say he's deliberately defaulting on debts to abuse the tax system in which case he's a hypocrite for accusing other people of dodging taxes or he's a terrible businessman because his businesses fail so much that he needed a tax cut just to stay afloat-he's just claiming to be a mastermind when in reality his business failed because of mismanagement and not a master plan to avoid taxes.

I'm not saying that he's not taking advantage of it, he absolutely is, but that's a problem with the tax system. It directly encourages stupid shit like that. I don't know to what extent that he was able to write-off his $916 million loss, but I refuse to believe it was 18 years. Other then that if he has a habit of bankrupting businesses to write them off that suggests something is seriously flawed with our tax code to encourage that, and if avoiding tax was why he was bankrupting businesses then that's fucked, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to take on huge losses to avoid a fraction of that in income tax.

[QUOTE=Roger Waters;51152010]so that makes it OK for him to be using loopholes for like 20 years![/QUOTE] Takes one to stop one, I suppose Although then again it's hard to imagine Hillary being much worse in that regard [editline]4th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=HumanAbyss;51152807]It honestly doesn't matter Him manipulating the tax code for his own benefit doesn't make him fit to be president[/QUOTE] That's trump level of ignorance though isn't it?

[QUOTE=soulharvester;51153096]I'm not saying that he's not taking advantage of it, he absolutely is, but that's a problem with the tax system. It directly encourages stupid shit like that. I don't know to what extent that he was able to write-off his $916 million loss, but I refuse to believe it was 18 years.[/QUOTE] If he could do it, I don't see why he wouldn't. Especially when both him, his collegues and his supporters are justifying it. He's not denying that he doesn't pay taxes, he's claiming that it's fine for him to do so. [QUOTE]Other then that if he has a habit of bankrupting businesses to write them off that suggests something is seriously flawed with our tax code to encourage that[/QUOTE] When do we stop blaming the tax code and start acknowledging that the people who benefit from the tax code are unlikely to fix it? Special business interests like Trump and other rich oligarchs who bribe politicians with endorsements, super PACs and cushy jobs allow this to continue. Hillary Clinton released her tax records, she pays her taxes. Why isn't she seen as more reliable in wanting to change the tax code? [QUOTE]and if avoiding tax was why he was bankrupting businesses then that's fucked, but it doesn't really make a lot of sense to take on huge losses to avoid a fraction of that in income tax.[/QUOTE] That's why I believe that his businesses failed due to his incompetence rather than a secret master plan to avoid taxes. It's his colleagues and supporters who are suggesting that he's actually a genius for taking a $916 mil loss. [editline]5th October 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=SirJon;51153120]Takes one to stop one, I suppose Although then again it's hard to imagine Hillary being much worse in that regard[/QUOTE] For one thing, Hillary released her tax records and actually pays her taxes (and her non-profit organization is probably more profitable than Trump's business empire :v: ).

[QUOTE=King of Limbs;51152017]I don't get the truth part here. There is nothing wrong with what he did. Literally nothing. The tax code is there to be used in these exact situations so that if you do incur a huge loss you can get tax relief from federal taxes until you can recoup your loses. At that point, you are required to pay taxes again. This happens all the time in the Real Estate world. He still paid other taxes and no one is saying other wise. So why potentially break the law to literally show he legally did the right thing? On a personal note: I do not think that tax code should allow this, or if it does, not to this extent. I feel the whole Tax Code needs to be re-written. This may have helped get the conversation started about it but there were legal ways to do so that could have been more effective. All in all, just saying, I don't feel like it was worth it to release this as its basically a non-story when relating to Trump. To the tax code yes, to Trump, probably not. ALSO PS: Both candidates released their Tax Reform policies and NEITHER one of them said they would fix this "loophole". Just something to think about.[/QUOTE] He lost, what, just short of $1 billion, right? 20 years ago? And he hasn't recovered yet? Or perhaps that's why he doesn't want to release his more recent tax returns, because he's been fudging numbers to make it look like he was still recovering, and as a result he'd lose that funding. Interesting to think about, and quite a pickle for Trump. Either nothing is wrong and he's just being weird about not releasing his returns, or it's evidence that he's not as rich as he claims he is (he's very adverse to such accusations, remember). Or it's possible that he's making truck-loads of cash and has recovered several times over, but wants to keep riding that tax-free train.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51152682]Electing Trump to close tax loopholes is like hiring a pedophile to protect playgrounds from other pedophiles.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;ZKsKZowp4FE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKsKZowp4FE[/video]

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51152682]Electing Trump to close tax loopholes is like hiring a pedophile to protect playgrounds from other pedophiles.[/QUOTE] Like hiring a hacker to probe and fix your network security.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;51152682]Electing Trump to close tax loopholes is like hiring a pedophile to protect playgrounds from other pedophiles.[/QUOTE] But surely we should be electing the guy who did Trump's taxes for him? there's really no reason to assume that trump is the only person who's got a good accountant.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51155597]Like hiring a hacker to probe and fix your network security.[/QUOTE] A hacker knows security well enough to compromise it. Trump paid someone to do his accounting. Big difference.

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51155597]Like hiring a hacker to probe and fix your network security.[/QUOTE] A guy who knows how to cheat on his taxes and doesn't do it is different than a guy who knows how to cheat on his taxes and cheats on his taxes.

Yeah the people saying Trump is some sort of genius when it comes to tax code are full of shit. [QUOTE]"As far as I know, and that only goes through late '96, he didn't understand the code," said Jack Mitnick, a former tax adviser for Trump, in an interview with NBC's TODAY. "Nor would he have had the time and the patience to learn the provisions. That's a lifetime of experience." [/QUOTE] [URL]http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-tax-attorney-he-didn-t-understand-code-n660111[/URL]

[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;51155597]Like hiring a hacker to probe and fix your network security.[/QUOTE] This isn't a good analogy. Companies hire hackers to hack their network securities under close observation. Other people fix them using the advice of the hackers. The equivalent to the hacker analogy would be congress sitting down with Donald Trump's accountants and asking them to Fill out a fake tax form under observation, tracking what loopholes and laws they exploited, and then shredding up that tax return once they're done with it. The reality is that you're electing an African Dictator who controls a bunch of hackers to break into banks, who promises that he will try to pass laws making it harder for those hackers to break into those banks. Those laws will then be looked at by lawmakers who are known to support making a hacker's job easier.

The question I have is not whether using a specifically and deliberately written tax code to benefit himself is moral (it is), but whether or not his MASSIVE claimed losses were, in fact, accurate. I have no qualms about using tax codes in the manner that they are intended, so long as they exist to be used for that purpose, as long as adequate proof exists of the legitimacy of the deductions claimed. However, Trump is a swindler, con man, and pathological liar. He defaults on debts at every opportunity, and refuses to pay his contractors for honest work. He has absolutely no credibility as a trustworthy professional working in good faith, making me EXTREMELY dubious of his claims.