Amazing how ignorant people are of Trump's taxes, write-offs AND INCOME!!!

[Skull Pilot]

And yet you don't think there should be a flat income tax but you whine about people using all the deductions and loopholes a flat tax would eliminate

So in 1995, instead of paying zero in taxes, Trump should have paid about 1.1 million? 10% of gross income?

And you think a guy like him is going to implement that tax system?

lolol

If he had a loss he'd still be able to writ it off.

In case you didn't know, for businesses the income equals the revenue minus expenses and written off losses

So you're flip flopping on your prior position that the flat tax would be on gross income no deductions.

Business income is what's left after expenses not gross revenue

Personal income is what you get paid by your employer

So it would be a flat tax on the business income not the business revenue there is a difference.

Oh I see, it's a flat tax with an extreme pro-business bias.

No it's a flat tax on INCOME.

In business the profit not the revenue is the income

 

[mudwhistle]

he could clear all these questions up just by releasing his tax returns as every other candidate has for 4 decades

Every candidate was under audit? You are a stupid liar.

being under audit has no bearing on whether or not he can release his returns. and nixon was under audit.

further, releasing his returns does not change them - so what impact could the release have on the audit?

1995 returns weren't under audit.

Link

You really are clueless. I thought it was an act.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP

I haven't seen one link of evidence from anyone here.
All it's been is "Well, the media told me that Trump is a big poopy-pants, so everyone needs to think the same way".

Unless you come up with a link, you're basically talking out of your ass. Show something that proves this isn't just a figment of you liberal's demented imaginations.

 

[mudwhistle]

Damned if he do......damned if he don't

But he's a "genius" don't you know.

Compared to you.

My taxes are pristine and would be made readily available. I wouldn't run if they weren't.

That's not even the issue here....and you know it.

What is going on here is the deliberate criminalizing of lawful returns. Trump had every right to take those deductions. You wanna claim it's wrong.

Not the issue?
I was responding to you.
Release of returns is part of the process. If Trump was unwilling or unable to do so, then perhaps he shouldn't have run. Notice no other candidates have had their returns scrutinized this severely. That's because they knew they were running and needed to release them, so they took steps to make sure they were clean.

No. This is what the Constitution says about the requirements for president:

1. be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. The only exception to this was for those around at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their requirement was that they had to be a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

1. be at least 35 years of age. The youngest president elected was 43 years old. However, there was one president who was even younger. Do you know who he was?
2. have lived in the United States for at least 14 years to be president. This does not have to be consecutive or even the 14 years leading up to becoming president.

Last time I checked the Constitution doesn't say they have to produce a copy of their tax return. The only reason it's even an issue is so the media can distort what's in it. Doesn't matter, every tax return can be picked apart till it looks like something nefarious is going on, especially with ideology that thinks if you're not paying more than what you have to, you're being greedy.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

This is too funny. The same people who are now defending Trump possibly paying NO federal income tax for 20

years are those who endlessly rant about how even the poor should pay some amount of taxes,

for that 'skin in the game' thing? Eh?

The poor should have 'skin in the game', while the billionaire Trump should get off scot free...

And yet you don't think there should be a flat income tax but you whine about people using all the deductions and loopholes a flat tax would eliminate

So in 1995, instead of paying zero in taxes, Trump should have paid about 1.1 million? 10% of gross income?

And you think a guy like him is going to implement that tax system?

lolol

If he had a loss he'd still be able to writ it off.

In case you didn't know, for businesses the income equals the revenue minus expenses and written off losses

In case you didn't know,

The return from '95 is his individual return.
What business person exposes that much personal wealth to business losses?
That would be dumb. Unless of course, you want the loss to avoid future taxes.

Shillary claimed an over 700K loss on her 2012 taxes

And business profits and losses can certainly be reported on an individual tax return via the Form K1

Mine are

Sure. As a percentage of income ,Clinton had a reasonable deduction.

Trump's exposure was 1/3 of his wealth at the time.
That third and he had a value add of nearly twenty years of no taxes. It's very easy to recoup your losses when you don't have a tax liability to worry about.

As the Clinton's taxes are available, I' m sure you will find that is not the case and is in no way comparable.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Every candidate was under audit? You are a stupid liar.

being under audit has no bearing on whether or not he can release his returns. and nixon was under audit.

further, releasing his returns does not change them - so what impact could the release have on the audit?

1995 returns weren't under audit.

Link

You really are clueless. I thought it was an act.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP

I haven't seen one link of evidence from anyone here.
All it's been is "Well, the media told me that Trump is a big poopy-pants, so everyone needs to think the same way".

Unless you come up with a link, you're basically talking out of your ass. Show something that proves this isn't just a figment of you liberal's demented imaginations.

You just responded with a tantrum to a post with a link.

You do understand that the red text is usually a link, right?

Do you ever wonder why others come to information before you?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

But he's a "genius" don't you know.

Compared to you.

My taxes are pristine and would be made readily available. I wouldn't run if they weren't.

That's not even the issue here....and you know it.

What is going on here is the deliberate criminalizing of lawful returns. Trump had every right to take those deductions. You wanna claim it's wrong.

Not the issue?
I was responding to you.
Release of returns is part of the process. If Trump was unwilling or unable to do so, then perhaps he shouldn't have run. Notice no other candidates have had their returns scrutinized this severely. That's because they knew they were running and needed to release them, so they took steps to make sure they were clean.

No. This is what the Constitution says about the requirements for president:

1. be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. The only exception to this was for those around at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their requirement was that they had to be a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

1. be at least 35 years of age. The youngest president elected was 43 years old. However, there was one president who was even younger. Do you know who he was?
2. have lived in the United States for at least 14 years to be president. This does not have to be consecutive or even the 14 years leading up to becoming president.

Last time I checked the Constitution doesn't say they have to produce a copy of their tax return. The only reason it's even an issue is so the media can distort what's in it. Doesn't matter, every tax return can be picked apart till it looks like something nefarious is going on, especially with ideology that thinks if you're not paying more than what you have to, you're being greedy.

No one is discussing the constitution.
It's the standard for forty years. As you can see, it can be disastrous for the candidate who doesn't feel the need to do so. That's why the smart ones do.

 

[Skull Pilot]

And yet you don't think there should be a flat income tax but you whine about people using all the deductions and loopholes a flat tax would eliminate

So in 1995, instead of paying zero in taxes, Trump should have paid about 1.1 million? 10% of gross income?

And you think a guy like him is going to implement that tax system?

lolol

If he had a loss he'd still be able to writ it off.

In case you didn't know, for businesses the income equals the revenue minus expenses and written off losses

In case you didn't know,

The return from '95 is his individual return.
What business person exposes that much personal wealth to business losses?
That would be dumb. Unless of course, you want the loss to avoid future taxes.

Shillary claimed an over 700K loss on her 2012 taxes

And business profits and losses can certainly be reported on an individual tax return via the Form K1

Mine are

Sure. As a percentage of income ,Clinton had a reasonable deduction.

Trump's exposure was 1/3 of his wealth at the time.
That third and he had a value add of nearly twenty years of no taxes. It's very easy to recoup your losses when you don't have a tax liability to worry about.

As the Clinton's taxes are available, I' m sure you will find that is not the case and is in no way comparable.

You do not know he didn't pay any taxes for 20 years
That is speculation based on a couple of pages stolen from a tax return that was most likely hundreds of pages long

 

[mudwhistle]

Compared to you.

My taxes are pristine and would be made readily available. I wouldn't run if they weren't.

That's not even the issue here....and you know it.

What is going on here is the deliberate criminalizing of lawful returns. Trump had every right to take those deductions. You wanna claim it's wrong.

Not the issue?
I was responding to you.
Release of returns is part of the process. If Trump was unwilling or unable to do so, then perhaps he shouldn't have run. Notice no other candidates have had their returns scrutinized this severely. That's because they knew they were running and needed to release them, so they took steps to make sure they were clean.

No. This is what the Constitution says about the requirements for president:

1. be a natural born U.S. citizen. Someone may be born abroad, but only if both parents were citizens of the United States. The only exception to this was for those around at the time the Constitution was adopted. Their requirement was that they had to be a citizen when the Constitution was adopted.

1. be at least 35 years of age. The youngest president elected was 43 years old. However, there was one president who was even younger. Do you know who he was?
2. have lived in the United States for at least 14 years to be president. This does not have to be consecutive or even the 14 years leading up to becoming president.

Last time I checked the Constitution doesn't say they have to produce a copy of their tax return. The only reason it's even an issue is so the media can distort what's in it. Doesn't matter, every tax return can be picked apart till it looks like something nefarious is going on, especially with ideology that thinks if you're not paying more than what you have to, you're being greedy.

No one is discussing the constitution.
It's the standard for forty years. As you can see, it can be disastrous for the candidate who doesn't feel the need to do so. That's why the smart ones do.

Only disastrous in your mind. Basically you're trying to criminalize everything. Hillary took the same type of deductions as Trump, yet she gets a pass. I think what is going to be disastrous is the reaction you get from the voters when they let you know that double-standards don't fly anymore. That Hillary isn't above the law. That the lies and deceptions the media pumps out on her behalf isn't going to make them vote for a criminal.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So in 1995, instead of paying zero in taxes, Trump should have paid about 1.1 million? 10% of gross income?

And you think a guy like him is going to implement that tax system?

lolol

If he had a loss he'd still be able to writ it off.

In case you didn't know, for businesses the income equals the revenue minus expenses and written off losses

In case you didn't know,

The return from '95 is his individual return.
What business person exposes that much personal wealth to business losses?
That would be dumb. Unless of course, you want the loss to avoid future taxes.

Shillary claimed an over 700K loss on her 2012 taxes

And business profits and losses can certainly be reported on an individual tax return via the Form K1

Mine are

Sure. As a percentage of income ,Clinton had a reasonable deduction.

Trump's exposure was 1/3 of his wealth at the time.
That third and he had a value add of nearly twenty years of no taxes. It's very easy to recoup your losses when you don't have a tax liability to worry about.

As the Clinton's taxes are available, I' m sure you will find that is not the case and is in no way comparable.

You do not know he didn't pay any taxes for 20 years
That is speculation based on a couple of pages stolen from a tax return that was most likely hundreds of pages long

He's welcome to prove the 'speculation' incorrect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If he had a loss he'd still be able to writ it off.

In case you didn't know, for businesses the income equals the revenue minus expenses and written off losses

In case you didn't know,

The return from '95 is his individual return.
What business person exposes that much personal wealth to business losses?
That would be dumb. Unless of course, you want the loss to avoid future taxes.

Shillary claimed an over 700K loss on her 2012 taxes

And business profits and losses can certainly be reported on an individual tax return via the Form K1

Mine are

Sure. As a percentage of income ,Clinton had a reasonable deduction.

Trump's exposure was 1/3 of his wealth at the time.
That third and he had a value add of nearly twenty years of no taxes. It's very easy to recoup your losses when you don't have a tax liability to worry about.

As the Clinton's taxes are available, I' m sure you will find that is not the case and is in no way comparable.

You do not know he didn't pay any taxes for 20 years
That is speculation based on a couple of pages stolen from a tax return that was most likely hundreds of pages long

He's welcome to prove the 'speculation' incorrect.

He doesn't have to but you people shouldn't use speculation in lieu of facts
But that will never happen just like you will always turn a blind eye when your candidate does the exact same thing

 

[P@triot]

Ouch....

Clinton Campaign Admits Hillary Used Same Tax Avoidance "Scheme" As Trump | Zero Hedge - Linkis.com