Not a Fiduciary Bone in his Body: The Great Trump Tax Mysteries: Is He Hiding Loopholes, Errors, or Something More Serious?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2016 1:19 PM GMT
    http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/06/the-great-trump-tax-mysteriesWhy won’t Donald Trump release his taxes? An investigation into the G.O.P. candidate’s finances—the extensive deductions he could claim, the F.E.C. filings from his Scottish and Irish golf resorts, and his declarations to the British government—reveals a disturbing pattern of mistakes, hype, and contradictions.

    Taxation, in reality, is life,” said Sheldon Cohen, a former commissioner of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. “If you know the position a person takes on taxes, you can tell their whole philosophy. The tax code, once you get to know it, embodies all the essence of life: greed, politics, power, goodness."

    A rich person’s tax affairs will tell you lots about him or her—but the reverse is fuzzily true, too. Though Donald Trump has refused to release his tax returns, we can get a good idea of what’s in there if we start with what we know about his character and business affairs, then mix these up with the vast rich pudding of loopholes, abatements, and gray areas that wealthy folk in America use to milk the tax system. All this provides an entry into understanding Trump’s bewildering, ever evolving global business affairs, and helps answer some of the great questions of the day. How much is he really worth? Has he broken any laws? How much tax does he pay? Does he use tax havens?

    ...It’s hard to get your arms around Trump’s business conglomerate, which is a patchwork of disparate “artful” deals and raids, strategy changes, bankruptcies, carefully laid plans, and high-energy whims....

    ...Trump isn’t nearly the real-estate player he once was, particularly since some of his companies went through high-profile bankruptcies in the early 1990s. In a ranking of New York condominium developers last September, for instance, Trump didn’t even make the top 20...

    ...Many bankers don’t lend to Trump now, burned by what some call “Donald risk,” a reference to the fact that some Wall Street banks have been left with pennies on the dollar through some of his maneuvers...

    ...In his 92-page financial disclosure to the Federal Election Commission (F.E.C.) in July 2015 and in a second, 104-page disclosure last May, in both of which he calls himself “President of the United States of America” (Hillary humbly calls herself “Candidate for President”)...

    ...All this keeps his tax advisers busy, doing imaginative things, such as putting goats on a golf course in New Jersey, to qualify for farmland tax reliefs...

    ...Mitt Romney, whose own complex wealth and tax affairs contributed to his defeat at Barack Obama’s hands in 2012, speculates that the only logical explanation for Trump’s refusal to publish his returns is that there is “a bombshell” in there...

    ...David Cay Johnston, one of the U.S.’s best-known tax writers, calls Trump “one of the major welfare kings of America,”...

    (excellent details in article)

    .........Some might say that Trump’s single-minded pursuit of money is just a red-blooded example of the American way. Whether or not this is so, his may not be the qualities one seeks in a president. “The president has a duty of loyalty and care to the United States,” said Susan Pace Hamill, a professor at the University of Alabama School of Law and Honors College and an expert in tax avoidance for small businesses. “He or she is a fiduciary to the public. Donald Trump is a deal-maker for himself. There is not a fiduciary bone in his body. This is generally acceptable in the rough-and-tumble world of business but is not remotely in the universe of what you want out of a public official.”


  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 29, 2016 1:34 PM GMT
    Could care less about Trump's taxes or if he ever releases them. Since he claims he's being audited....as he has been the past 10 years...I assume that IF there are any wrong-doings in his payment of his taxes that the IRS will find it. I prefer the IRS scrutinizing Trump's taxes over the biased liberal media and the ultimate spin they would undoubtedly put on Trump's tax returns. I almost hope he never releases his tax returns, as by law he is not required to do so.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2016 3:03 PM GMT
    Sooooooo,

    the IRS hasn't concluded its audit before election which keeps him out of being scrutinized.

    While the DOJ hasn't concluded its email investigation before election which keeps her under suspicion?

    It's probably just a coincidence.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 29, 2016 3:39 PM GMT
    theantijock saidSooooooo,

    the IRS hasn't concluded its audit before election which keeps him out of being scrutinized.



    Who better to "scrutinize" someone's taxes than the IRS? If it passes their audit, I'm fine with that. I don't need to know more.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2016 4:09 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock saidSooooooo,

    the IRS hasn't concluded its audit before election which keeps him out of being scrutinized.


    Who better to "scrutinize" someone's taxes than the IRS? If it passes their audit, I'm fine with that. I don't need to know more.


    Even given an excuse of audit, he could still show plenty of past returns not under audit. There's honored precedence here that he's pissing on and you're fine with that. I'm not fine with having less information on a candidate for the Presidency of the United States of America. Candidates have a tradition of showing their income taxes for very good reason....

    VF article: "Taxation, in reality, is life,” said Sheldon Cohen, a former commissioner of the U.S. Internal Revenue Service. “If you know the position a person takes on taxes, you can tell their whole philosophy. The tax code, once you get to know it, embodies all the essence of life: greed, politics, power, goodness."

    So I'd like to see what tale Trump's taxes tell.

    Because even if they don't "get him" on anything technical in particular, his pattern of paying or avoiding taxes, the disclosures showing whether he's been honest about wealth and charity, his methods of finance, etc., all that would indicate whether or not he'd be a responsible fiduciary for the USA. What are you afraid of finding?

    Where is the Republican Congressional establishment who decry Trump to force a prerequisite disclosure by law? I'm pretty sure Obama would sign that. What are they hiding?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jun 29, 2016 9:43 PM GMT
    The only people who care about Trump's taxes are people who aren't voting for him anyway
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 29, 2016 10:33 PM GMT
    Is that invisible Elephant trying to find some buried poop again?? LOL
    Off with his head!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 30, 2016 1:28 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidThe only people who care about Trump's taxes are people who aren't voting for him anyway


    While it might be true that Jim Jones or David Koresh Donald Trump "could shoot somebody and" not lose one of his followers, it doesn't follow that it would only be true that those who care to see his taxes wouldn't vote for him anyway because I'd feel the same about someone I might support based upon other grounds.

    If this was Hillary denying a peak up her financial skirt, you'd be screaming bloody murder right alongside me. And you never once read from me a complaint about her having to show email. I have zero problems with that scrutiny of a candidate for what is arguably about the most responsible position on the planet. So your attempt to brush aside, to diminish the importance of knowing a candidate before an election is somewhat disconcerting.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 03, 2016 2:27 PM GMT
    2BFree saidIs that invisible Elephant trying to find some buried poop again?? LOL
    Off with his head!


    Sure looks like it LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2016 4:29 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidSure looks like it LOL


    Instead of being a responsible Republican and answering why you put your head in the sand with regard to Trump’s taxes, you've decided to fling shit my way? Really?

    So it seems you've devolved into your typical thinking that earlier in forum history had lead you to believe the self-hating horseshit that gay people should be refused the human right to marry.

    At least when you stopped arguing that failed notion of yours, I had for a while opportunity or just illusion to think some chance for you to be a better person.

    But here you attempt arguing for having less information on a candidate for the US presidency, particularly for such a slimy candidate as yours. And instead of answering to that, you think you get to divert attention by picking up and playing in the dog shit left by your shit for brains buddy? Really?

    So much for my thinking any benefit of the doubt about you. You have here shown yourself to be pitiable.

    Or less.

    I'll not make the mistake again to think that you might have the capacity to be a decent person.

    Fuck you.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 03, 2016 4:49 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    So it seems you've devolved into your typical thinking that earlier in forum history had lead you to believe the self-hating horseshit that gay people should be refused the human right to marry..


    Never have I EVER said I didn't think gay people should have the right to marry. You're WAY off base with that one. I may have said at one time that "Gay Marriage" was not an issue that was particularly important to me personally only because I have no desire to ever get married. That is not to suggest in any way that I would not want my gay brothers and sisters to get married if they wanted to. Moot point now anyway



    theantijock said
    So much for my thinking any benefit of the doubt about you. You have here shown yourself to be pitiable. Or less.
    I'll not make the mistake again to think that you might have the capacity to be a decent person.

    Fuck you.


    So I'm not a "decent person" because I don't agree with you? I beg to differ. Have a nice day.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2016 5:10 PM GMT
    Now that Clinton's email investigation is drawing to a close, when does the investigation of Trump's unlawful campaign solicitations from foreign nationals begin?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2016 6:04 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock said
    So it seems you've devolved into your typical thinking that earlier in forum history had lead you to believe the self-hating horseshit that gay people should be refused the human right to marry..


    Never have I EVER said I didn't think gay people should have the right to marry. You're WAY off base with that one. I may have said at one time that "Gay Marriage" was not an issue that was particularly important to me personally only because I have no desire to ever get married. That is not to suggest in any way that I would not want my gay brothers and sisters to get married if they wanted to. Moot point now anyway



    theantijock said
    So much for my thinking any benefit of the doubt about you. You have here shown yourself to be pitiable. Or less.
    I'll not make the mistake again to think that you might have the capacity to be a decent person.

    Fuck you.


    So I'm not a "decent person" because I don't agree with you? I beg to differ. Have a nice day.



    If you said marriage was okay for others but not for yourself then I stand corrected that I might not recall that correctly. Can you furnish proof of that from earlier debate? I do however absolutely remember specifically telling you that I'd never be able to befriend you so long as you advocated the believe that we shouldn't have the same marriage rights as str8 people. I'll search later to see if I can furnish proof of that and report back if so found.

    To your not agreeing with me, I couldn't give a rat's ass. But that you'd divert from answering to a topic by throwing shit? the fuck you stands, your indignation upon your instigating notwithstanding.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2016 6:12 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 saidNow that Clinton's email investigation is drawing to a close, when does the investigation of Trump's unlawful campaign solicitations from foreign nationals begin?


    What, this little thing?

    http://www.campaignlegalcenter.org/news/press-releases/donald-trump-illegally-soliciting-money-foreign-nationals-fund-his-presidential Donald Trump Is Illegally Soliciting Money from Foreign Nationals to Fund His Presidential Campaign

    ..."Donald Trump should have known better," said Paul S. Ryan, CLC deputy executive director. "It is a no-brainer that it violates the law to send fundraising emails to members of a foreign government on their official foreign government email accounts, and yet, that's exactly what Trump has done repeatedly....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 03, 2016 6:41 PM GMT
    ^
    That's the one. Our own members of parliament aren't too pleased. Like they haven't got enough to deal with at the moment, without having to read begging emails from Lyin' Donald.

    Donald Trump emails British MP asking for money - receives 'warm hope' his 'repugnant' campaign will fail

    Glasgow East MP Natalie McGarry also finds it extraordinary that the anti-immigration US billionaire appears to be approaching foreign nationals with his 'begging bowl'

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-fundraising-email-mp-natalie-mcgarry-reply-warm-hope-his-repugnant-campaign-will-fail-a7108701.html

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2016 3:45 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock said
    So it seems you've devolved into your typical thinking that earlier in forum history had lead you to believe the self-hating horseshit that gay people should be refused the human right to marry..


    Never have I EVER said I didn't think gay people should have the right to marry. You're WAY off base with that one. I may have said at one time that "Gay Marriage" was not an issue that was particularly important to me personally only because I have no desire to ever get married. That is not to suggest in any way that I would not want my gay brothers and sisters to get married if they wanted to. Moot point now anyway



    theantijock said
    So much for my thinking any benefit of the doubt about you. You have here shown yourself to be pitiable. Or less.
    I'll not make the mistake again to think that you might have the capacity to be a decent person.

    Fuck you.


    So I'm not a "decent person" because I don't agree with you? I beg to differ. Have a nice day.



    Oooops, Found it! Or at least near enough. Back in 2011...

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/1652262/?forumpage=0
    CuriousJockAZ saidWhich ever is the quickest path to all the same rights and privileges and benefits that straight couples have would be my choice. If the word "marriage" is going to keep that from happening for years and years, then "Civil Unions" is, in my mind, an acceptable compromise.


    You were okay with us being civil unionized, just so long as our gay marriage didn't bother anyone. I knew you said something like that, putting us as second class citizens.

    And why is this not a moot point? Because we've since seen you grow from that position or at least you stopped championing that position and maybe in our imaginations or simply by your denial now of having ever accepted our 2nd class citizenship, we like to think that you might like to enjoy having the very same rights as str8 people in the name marriage without our having to compromise on principal which is now properly the law of the land. You seemed to have found your way through that. So it is not moot because maybe too you can find your way through this.

    You have a nice day too.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 04, 2016 4:45 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    If you said marriage was okay for others but not for yourself then I stand corrected that I might not recall that correctly. Can you furnish proof of that from earlier debate? I do however absolutely remember specifically telling you that I'd never be able to befriend you so long as you advocated the believe that we shouldn't have the same marriage rights as str8 people. I'll search later to see if I can furnish proof of that and report back if so found.


    I don't need to spend my time providing "proof" of anything. You can take my word for it or not. Couldn't care less. I can, however, assure you that I NEVER said I did not believe in marriage equality --- in fact, I didn't even think it.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 04, 2016 4:59 PM GMT
    theantijock said

    You were okay with us being civil unionized, just so long as our gay marriage didn't bother anyone. I knew you said something like that, putting us as second class citizens.

    And why is this not a moot point? Because we've since seen you grow from that position or at least you stopped championing that position and maybe in our imaginations or simply by your denial now of having ever accepted our 2nd class citizenship, we like to think that you might like to enjoy having the very same rights as str8 people in the name marriage without our having to compromise on principal which is now properly the law of the land. You seemed to have found your way through that. So it is not moot because maybe too you can find your way through this.

    You have a nice day too.




    True...Back in 2011...IF the only alternative to grant 2 people of the same sex to marry --- even if it were technically called a "civil union" --- this was an acceptable compromise to me. Look, bottomline, as I said earlier, "Gay Marriage" is not, never was, nor ever really will be an ISSUE that matters all that much to me personally. I have no interest in marrying anyone --- whether it's called MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNION whatever. I am thrilled that "Gay Marriage" is the law of the land now for all my gay brothers and sisters who want that for themselves. It's kind of like the Marijuana laws --- I have no interest whatsoever in smoking pot, so whether or not it gets legalized or not it's not going to affect me personally either way. Great if it's legalized for those who want it though. Sorry, I'm not an "Activist" type person, so I wasn't out there marching on Washington for Gay Marriage. That is not to suggest in any way that I had anything against Gay Marriage.

    As for the whole "2nd-Class Citizen thing"...Sorry, but I'm not buying into that. You can play the "victim" until the cow's come home for all I care, but I don't play that game. I've never allowed myself to feel like a "victim" or a "2nd Class Citizen", just not the way I live my life.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2016 5:03 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock said
    If you said marriage was okay for others but not for yourself then I stand corrected that I might not recall that correctly. Can you furnish proof of that from earlier debate? I do however absolutely remember specifically telling you that I'd never be able to befriend you so long as you advocated the believe that we shouldn't have the same marriage rights as str8 people. I'll search later to see if I can furnish proof of that and report back if so found.


    I don't need to spend my time providing "proof" of anything. You can take my word for it or not. Couldn't care less. I can, however, assure you that I NEVER said I did not believe in marriage equality --- in fact, I didn't even think it.


    and yet the facts show (see above post) that you had called not for full marriage equality but for IN YOUR OWN WORDS "acceptable compromise".

    Only WE DID NOT COMPROMISE ourselves even if you thought that would have been just fine and dandy. We said fuck that and we won Full Rights.

    And now we are saying Fuck Trump too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 04, 2016 5:09 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock said

    You were okay with us being civil unionized, just so long as our gay marriage didn't bother anyone. I knew you said something like that, putting us as second class citizens.

    And why is this not a moot point? Because we've since seen you grow from that position or at least you stopped championing that position and maybe in our imaginations or simply by your denial now of having ever accepted our 2nd class citizenship, we like to think that you might like to enjoy having the very same rights as str8 people in the name marriage without our having to compromise on principal which is now properly the law of the land. You seemed to have found your way through that. So it is not moot because maybe too you can find your way through this.

    You have a nice day too.




    True...Back in 2011...IF the only alternative to grant 2 people of the same sex to marry --- even if it were technically called a "civil union" --- this was an acceptable compromise to me. Look, bottomline, as I said earlier, "Gay Marriage" is not, never was, nor ever really will be an ISSUE that matters all that much to me personally. I have no interest in marrying anyone --- whether it's called MARRIAGE, CIVIL UNION whatever. I am thrilled that "Gay Marriage" is the law of the land now for all my gay brothers and sisters who want that for themselves. It's kind of like the Marijuana laws --- I have no interest whatsoever in smoking pot, so whether or not it gets legalized or not it's not going to affect me personally either way. Great if it's legalized for those who want it though. Sorry, I'm not an "Activist" type person, so I wasn't out there marching on Washington for Gay Marriage. That is not to suggest in any way that I had anything against Gay Marriage.

    As for the whole "2nd-Class Citizen thing"...Sorry, but I'm not buying into that. You can play the "victim" until the cow's come home for all I care, but I don't play that game. I've never allowed myself to feel like a "victim" or a "2nd Class Citizen", just not the way I live my life.


    Nobody required for you to be an activist. We'd have liked for you to not be an obstructionist even if you thought you were being magnanimous in granting 2nd class status. Anything less than full equality is 2nd class status. And again, you admitted it yourself at the time by calling it an "acceptable compromise" And again. We did not compromise. Nor did we allow the world to victimize us. We fought and we won.

    It doesn't matter whether or not you think a thing in life applies to you or not for a thing to be right or wrong.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 04, 2016 5:23 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    Nobody required for you to be an activist. We'd have liked for you to not be an obstructionist even if you thought you were being magnanimous in granting 2nd class status.

    I personally did not see it as "2nd-Class Status" because, as I said, I thought "civil unions"(IF it came with all the same rights and privileges as marriage) was "an acceptable compromise". Regardless, it's a moot point now, so why bother to debate it still.


    theantijock saidAnything less than full equality is 2nd class status. And again, you admitted it yourself at the time by calling it an "acceptable compromise" And again. We did not compromise. Nor did we allow the world to victimize us. We fought and we won.


    Good for you! Could not be happier for you!

    theantijock saidIt doesn't matter whether or not you think a thing in life applies to you or not for a thing to be right or wrong.


    True
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2016 3:40 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock said
    Nobody required for you to be an activist. We'd have liked for you to not be an obstructionist even if you thought you were being magnanimous in granting 2nd class status.

    I personally did not see it as "2nd-Class Status" because, as I said, I thought "civil unions"(IF it came with all the same rights and privileges as marriage) was "an acceptable compromise". Regardless, it's a moot point now, so why bother to debate it still.


    Again, had we compromised on the principle of full equality, had we settled with being less than equal, with being treated differently than everyone else, with being relegated to living without the dignity enjoyed by heterosexuals in their state-sanctioned coupling, with compromising ourselves regardless whether that then acceptable to you, we'd not now enjoy an equal seat at the table of humankind.

    A first class seat will get you to the same destination as coach or the back of the bus. Don't even bother trying to argue their equality, that one is not less privileged than the other. We haven't that much popcorn.

    CuriousJockAZ said
    theantijock saidAnything less than full equality is 2nd class status. And again, you admitted it yourself at the time by calling it an "acceptable compromise" And again. We did not compromise. Nor did we allow the world to victimize us. We fought and we won.


    Good for you! Could not be happier for you!

    theantijock saidIt doesn't matter whether or not you think a thing in life applies to you or not for a thing to be right or wrong.
    True


    For you to not just believe the latter but to comprehend its application here, even were you sincere with the former, you'd have to find a way to understand, that not only wasn't it so good for me for also it was sad for me as I've buried two great men before we were granted the same dignity afforded heterosexuals, that instead of knowing shear joy of this accomplishment of the Gay Rights Movement, for me the taste is bitter sweet. For you to say you couldn't be happier for me in the former quite denies your full realization that you'd recognize the latter as true because otherwise your happiness would not be for me but rather for we, for all of us, including for you--even if you don't directly partake in the benefit--simply because you are part of the LGBT, all of which benefits by having human rights endowed.

    In that way, that even if you don't take advantage of our hard fought status, you could still be happy for, say, future generations who will less likely think of themselves as being less than those who enjoy rights denied us no more. How would that not improve your life, to know that someone in the future might be spared some grief forced upon we who came before?

    And again, the point is not moot because the point was used as an example that you seem to have moved on issues. That you would go from accepting mere civil union to thinking of yourself as a person who "NEVER said I did not believe in marriage equality". I think it wonderful that you so embrace equality now as I also think that in the future, should you find yourself with a Trump win, should he stack the courts against us, should we lose our hard fought rights, perhaps you might move on that issue too. My hope being that you'd move before November--and people say I'm not an optimist--but that is the relevancy of the point.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19129

    Jul 05, 2016 5:27 PM GMT
    theantijock said
    For you to not just believe the latter but to comprehend its application here, even were you sincere with the former, you'd have to find a way to understand, that not only wasn't it so good for me for also it was sad for me as I've buried two great men before we were granted the same dignity afforded heterosexuals, that instead of knowing shear joy of this accomplishment of the Gay Rights Movement, for me the taste is bitter sweet. For you to say you couldn't be happier for me in the former quite denies your full realization that you'd recognize the latter as true because otherwise your happiness would not be for me but rather for we, for all of us, including for you--even if you don't directly partake in the benefit--simply because you are part of the LGBT, all of which benefits by having human rights endowed.

    In that way, that even if you don't take advantage of our hard fought status, you could still be happy for, say, future generations who will less likely think of themselves as being less than those who enjoy rights denied us no more. How would that not improve your life, to know that someone in the future might be spared some grief forced upon we who came before?

    And again, the point is not moot because the point was used as an example that you seem to have moved on issues. That you would go from accepting mere civil union to thinking of yourself as a person who "NEVER said I did not believe in marriage equality". I think it wonderful that you so embrace equality now as I also think that in the future, should you find yourself with a Trump win, should he stack the courts against us, should we lose our hard fought rights, perhaps you might move on that issue too. My hope being that you'd move before November--and people say I'm not an optimist--but that is the relevancy of the point.



    Me thinks you have WAY too much time on your hands. Of course I'm happy for future generations...Why wouldn't I be?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 05, 2016 5:34 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidMe thinks you have WAY too much time on your hands. Of course I'm happy for future generations...Why wouldn't I be?


    I'd imagine you would be. I was just making a point. Always glad to make time for someone who I think can figure it out. Which was doubly disappointing that you'd sucker punch me as you had.