View Full Version : Trump and federal taxes, NYT
flowerseverywhere
10-2-16, 7:18am
so the NY times has reportedly been sent a document that reports Donald Trump may have not paid federal taxes for 18 years. Reportedly nothing illegal went on, he had a huge loss in 1995 and has been able to carry that forward.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/times-publishes-trump-95-tax-return-documents-show-nearly-1b-n658051
I know he has probably paid huge amounts to social security through payroll taxes, property and local taxes, as well as sales taxes on all the stuff most of us could never afford to buy, but he has also criticized our crumbling bridges and roads and so on, which need tax money to repair. Is he a hero for taking advantage of the tax code or do you find this appalling?
I have struggled this election season with both candidates, but Trump bothers me far more due to his judgement and attitudes towards anyone who is not a white Christian heterosexual male. The system just seems so rigged, but not against Trump as he claims, but against those of us in the middle class.
Hmmm.. smacks of Leona Helmsley's famous "Only the little people pay taxes." Drives me crazy. Thanks to people like Helmsley and Trump, my husband things we're fools for paying taxes. (I do our taxes, and he seems to think I can/should hide income, or if not that, he thinks I'm voluntarily not itemizing some deductions. Of course I am, but guess what, we all have to pay taxes).
I think Trump's interjection during the debate that not paying taxes makes him "smart" was foolhardy when he's trying to appeal to the middle class. It's probably very possible that his tax returns are legit, at least on the surface, given his "losses" but if anything, it's probably another red flag for our need to revamp the tax code. And it's not going to do anything to further his narrative that he's "one of the people."
Yossarian
10-2-16, 11:06am
I am no Trump fan but somehow portraying the use of loss carryforwards as a philosophical problem is IMHO off base. We tax net income, so part of that is inherently the use of losses to offset income. I think the bigger issue is that it makes him look a lot less successful if he hasn't had net income for 20 years.
I think the bigger issue is that it makes him look a lot less successful if he hasn't had net income for 20 years.
Yes, I know lots of people who are proud to pay the lowest on taxes, i got a significant raise one year and paid more taxes, that was great! It meant I was earning more! But everything is so twisted this year, I am waiting for a collective moment of 'oh sh**'
iris lilies
10-2-16, 11:39am
There are plenty of reasons to vote against The Donald. This isn't one of them.
Why shouldn't he take advantage of all legal tax savings, dont you? He is neither hero nor horrible for this, he is just a guy doing his taxes.
Indeed there are a million other reasons not to vote for him, like the doing a bizarre tweetstorm in the middle of the night to slutshame a former Miss Universe contestant.
The only issue I see in this are all the previous times when he tweeted regarding taxes. I realize that expecting honesty or consistency from this guy is probably not realistic, but geez.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/02/donald-trumps-tweets-on-tax-issues-gop-nominee-refuses-to-release-tax-records.html
"HALF of Americans don't pay income tax despite crippling govt debt..."
"To the geniuses at 'Americans United for Change': the more you tax me the less people I employ. Get it?"
"Facebook billionaire gives up his U.S. citizenship in order to save taxes. I guess 3.8 billion isn't enough for (cont) "
"The @washingtonpost loses money (a deduction) and gives owner @JeffBezos power to screw public on low taxation of @Amazon! Big tax shelter"
"@BarackObama who wants to raise all our taxes, only pays 20.5% on $790k salary. http://1.usa.gov/HFZJKH Do as I say not as I do."
There are plenty of reasons to vote against The Donald. This isn't one of them.
Why shouldn't he take advantage of all legal tax savings, dont you? He is neither hero nor horrible for this, he is just a guy doing his taxes.
I have to confess that in 1995 I also DELIBERATELY arranged my affairs to minimize my tax liability under the rules prevailing at the time. I am every bit as culpable as Trump, and live in fear that some courageous soul will anonymously mail three pages of my twenty-year-old return to the Times and expose me for the moral monster that I am.
I have a significant amount of wealth, and many years I pay no federal taxes. I do not violate the law in doing so, I simply follow it.
"Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. " - Learned Hand http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/69/809/1562063/
"Over and over again courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging one's affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everybody does so, rich or poor; and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands: taxes are enforced exactions, not voluntary contributions. To demand more in the name of morals is mere cant." Learned Hand http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/159/848/1565902/
Of course in both those cases the taxpayer lost :~)
But it isn't really even as much as arranging one's affairs to legally avoid tax, it's just a simple timing issue.
I'm more curious on how he lost the $900+ million. If he lost that much equity then the carryforward is pretty straight forward. Debt financed losses are more complicated.
I have to confess that in 1995 I also DELIBERATELY arranged my affairs to minimize my tax liability under the rules prevailing at the time. I am every bit as culpable as Trump, and live in fear that some courageous soul will anonymously mail three pages of my twenty-year-old return to the Times and expose me for the moral monster that I am.
The real question, though, is how many times have you declared bankruptcy and stuffed your creditors. The atories about all the little guys trump stiffed, like the piano store guy in NJ, are endless. But lets not forget the likely billion plus dollars that he got out of paying by declaring bankruotcy multiple times. Not oaying taxes for a few years because he's a crappy ass business man pales in comparison to this.
The real question, though, is how many times have you declared bankruptcy and stuffed your creditors..
Can't say I did that. Nor did I shake down bankers or mishandle classified data. But that's not relevant to the question of whether loss carryforwards are somehow evil.
I have to think that if the Times was hoping for an October Surprise from a few purloined pages, they will need to do better. Maybe the hacker community can come up with something meatier.
Can't say I did that. Nor did I shake down bankers or mishandle classified data. But that's not relevant to the question of whether loss carryforwards are somehow evil.
True enough, but you're not running for president. I'd like to think that the person I vote for for president has some sort of ethics beyond "if it's legal it's all good." Trump clearly doesn't.
If there's to be an october surprise I'm more inclined to think that it will be that trump's unhingedness and incoherence will reach the point that even his most ardent admirers have to admit that he's messed up and completely unsuited to be president. Maybe the coke jokes after the debate weren't far off the mark.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/10/02/as-news-of-trumps-taxes-broke-he-goes-off-script-at-a-rally-in-pennsylvania/
and isn't it an amazing coincidence that our tax laws favor guys like Trump and his ilk?
I wish I could dump buckets of money in congressional campaigns and then reap the rewards of tax loopholes that specifically favor Lainey Inc. Then I too could shrug my shoulders and say, "eh, I'm just following the law."
flowerseverywhere
10-3-16, 7:54am
Great comments here. Of course we take the deductions we are entitled to, but I can't imagine paying no federal taxes for years and years. After thinking about it I guess the smugness and superiority that surrounds him is what bothers me. Like how stupid can you taxpayers be. I alone can fix it because I am a smarter, better looking, and even know more than the generals! I can cheat on my wife but if others do they are scum because they are not me. You are not worthy if you are poor, stupid, ugly, Muslim or Mexican, not white, rich and superior in all ways like me. I really have tried hard to find an alternative to Hillary but he is not it.
Some of us are fortunate enough to realize how to work hard, make and keep money and have had some lucky breaks, and we live in a country where it is possible to move up in class. But I think the difference is what you do with it when you get there, which of course is your choice. When you decide to run for public office, it is something that is fair game to consider. I have seen no reports of Donald working on issues that benefit society as a whole. Yes, he employs people but how does he treat them. What does he do to make the world a better place? What will he do to make the world a better place for the working people of this country?
Indeed there are a million other reasons not to vote for him, like the doing a bizarre tweetstorm in the middle of the night to slutshame a former Miss Universe contestant.
"
I wonder if there will be a time when attempting to shame someone is widely recognized as more about the person starting it than the the person receiving it. It still seems that it does not make him look as crappy and childish as it should. Those of us who already see huge numbers of flaws just have more to dislike, and I am not convinced that it changes any minds on this.
I wonder if there will be a time when attempting to shame someone is widely recognized as more about the person starting it than the the person receiving it. It still seems that it does not make him look as crappy and childish as it should. Those of us who already see huge numbers of flaws just have more to dislike, and I am not convinced that it changes any minds on this.
You're assuming that his supporters view his behavior as a negative. I suspect that a sizeable portion of them like that he's not PC. Short of him having a heart attack and dying I don't think there's much that will cause them to waiver in their support.
iris lilies
10-3-16, 10:17am
You're assuming that his supporters view his behavior as a negative. I suspect that a sizeable portion of them like that he's not PC. Short of him having a heart attack and dying I don't think there's much that will cause them to waiver in their support.
i wont be voting for Trump, but I don't mind some of his off the cuff, stupid zingers.
Notice I said "some." And some of them are blown out of proportion by endless repetition, with accompanying shocked commentary, in the mainstream media making them seem much bigger than they are.
The media made him.
...
The media made him.
Absolutely right. Every time I think it's safe to venture into CNN (or other news outlet), the third or fourth word I hear is his name. This phenomenon has cut my TV viewing to next to nothing, which in turn makes me wonder why I'm paying this enormous cable bill...
iris lilies
10-3-16, 10:50am
...I have to think that if the Times was hoping for an October Surprise from a few purloined pages, they will need to do better. Maybe the hacker community can come up with something meatier.
something Ive been pondering is the lack of bimbo eruptions in the Trump campaign. One would think that Donald, the womanizer, has had many affairs and assignations and the participants would be coming forward in droves. He doesnt drink, he doesnt do drugs, but women are a downfall.
something Ive been pondering is the lack of bimbo eruptions in the Trump campaign. One would think that Donald, the womanizer, has had many affairs and assignations and the participants would be coming forward in droves. He doesnt drink, he doesnt do drugs, but women are a downfall.
And he seems to be dripping with disdain for each and every one of them. Except maybe Ivanka, who he'd like to date. :doh:
As an antidote to this madness, I've turned to Kitten TV: http://livestream.com/tinykittens/floofy
iris lilies
10-3-16, 11:04am
And he seems to be dripping with disdain for each and every one of them. Except maybe Ivanka, who he'd like to date. :doh:
As an antidote to this madness, I've turned to Kitten TV: http://livestream.com/tinykittens/floofy
i predicted this would be your response, even the remark about
Ivanka.
But kittens are always good.
something Ive been pondering is the lack of bimbo eruptions in the Trump campaign. One would think that Donald, the womanizer, has had many affairs and assignations and the participants would be coming forward in droves. He doesnt drink, he doesnt do drugs, but women are a downfall.
I assume the Clinton campaign and various media minions believe playing the bimbo card would be counterproductive.
As an antidote to this madness, I've turned to Kitten TV: http://livestream.com/tinykittens/floofy
Awwwwww!
That reminds me of a This American Life episode years ago where one of the staff member's father had envisioned (and even tried to get off the ground) a puppy network. He'd even written the theme song: puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy PUPPIES!!!
i predicted this would be your response, even the remark about
Ivanka.
But kittens are always good.
I'm an easy read.
And these kittens are particularly good, being part of an ongoing feral rescue mission.
Donations cheerfully accepted. (Disclaimer:I am in no way affiliated with this Langley, BC rescue group.)
Awwwwww!
That reminds me of a This American Life episode years ago where one of the staff member's father had envisioned (and even tried to get off the ground) a puppy network. He'd even written the theme song: puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy puppy PUPPIES!!!
They should have a channel devoted to Cats/Dogs 101 and Too Cute from the animal planet. They couldn't use that name, though...
A nice change from the All Bad News All the Time network.
If he did nothing wrong legally, then there's a problem with the laws and that's what we should work towards changing. Like has been said, there are sooooo many reasons to not vote for him, but I think this issue makes people feel even more convinced of his egotism/narcissism, and it makes him look like he's even less concerned about anyone else.....including the society he wants to be the president of.
catherine
10-3-16, 11:31am
something Ive been pondering is the lack of bimbo eruptions in the Trump campaign. One would think that Donald, the womanizer, has had many affairs and assignations and the participants would be coming forward in droves. He doesnt drink, he doesnt do drugs, but women are a downfall.
So, Giuliani's response to the glass-house-stone-throwing by Trump with regard to Bill's infidelities was something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing a bit): Big deal--everyone is unfaithful.
EVERYONE?? I don't care about other people's infidelities, so in a sense I agree with him, but please, don't paint us all with the same brush. I, for one, have never been unfaithful, and I'm willing to bet that doesn't make me a misfit, saint or lone wolf.
flowerseverywhere
10-3-16, 11:39am
i wont be voting for Trump, but I don't mind some of his off the cuff, stupid zingers.
Notice I said "some." And some of them are blown out of proportion by endless repetition, with accompanying shocked commentary, in the mainstream media making them seem much bigger than they are.
The media made him.
so very true. At one time the news was real news, not eye rolling and unchecked fake facts
I haven't been, but I've helped other people be a time or two. ;)
And really, how do such repellent, obviously misogynistic men ever get one woman, let alone several? I suppose it's the old power/money thing where the women earn every penny. Shudder.
flowerseverywhere
10-3-16, 11:42am
So, Giuliani's response to the glass-house-stone-throwing by Trump with regard to Bill's infidelities was something along the lines of (I'm paraphrasing a bit): Big deal--everyone is unfaithful.
EVERYONE?? I don't care about other people's infidelities, so in a sense I agree with him, but please, don't paint us all with the same brush. I, for one, have never been unfaithful, and I'm willing to bet that doesn't make me a misfit, saint or lone wolf.
i think it makes you normal. Most of us are too busy working and trying to figure out complicated IRS rules to have time for affairs. But Guiliani is OK. He confessed it to his priest so he will still get into heaven. As an atheist I would go straight to hell.
I read something today on twitter about multiple rape charges in his past. But TV news isn't covering it.
I read something today on twitter about multiple rape charges in his past. But TV news isn't covering it.
I hear he eats babies.
ApatheticNoMore
10-3-16, 12:32pm
i don't think he actually is a womanizer, he's a serial monogamist who sometimes begins the next relationship while still married to the last one, ok didn't say he's a loyal husband, but it's not exactly womanizing that is Trumps style (Bill Clinton otoh, there is a womanizer).
Most of us are too busy working and trying to figure out complicated IRS rules to have time for affairs.
boy does that sound bleak ...
Yes, we all have our foibles. But his seem to excite his following........or excuse them of their own bad behavior, which only makes those people demand acceptance for those things they do....which isn't necessarily the kind of behavior we'd like to see in our society.
iris lilies
10-3-16, 12:49pm
I assume the Clinton campaign and various media minions believe playing the bimbo card would be counterproductive.
Well maybe, but there are plenty of media outlets that dont support Hillary OR Donald, though of course rhey are small web blogs or the like.
ps I thought it was funny that she called him "Donald" in the debate. It could be considered friendly
( by those who like her ) or belittling (by those who hate him). I dont see a down side to it.
ps I thought it was funny that she called him "Donald" in the debate. It could be considered friendly
( by those who like her ) or belittling (by those who hate him). I dont see a down side to it.
Conversely, I got the distinct impression that he was TOLD to call her Secretary Clinton, and he did occasionally, but I thought I saw her bristle when he called her Hillary. As for her calling him Donald, what else could she have called him--Mr. Trump? Mr. CEO? Mr. BigShot? Or, maybe she could have stolen Kevin O'Leary's title and called him Mr. Wonderful.
I hear he eats babies.
I wouldn't put anything past a man who eats fried chicken with a knife and fork.
flowerseverywhere
10-3-16, 2:09pm
boy does that sound bleak ...
sarcasm
I wouldn't put anything past a man who eats fried chicken with a knife and fork.
Smoothies are the way.
Everyone knows this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0m4x0y3QNw
Smoothies are the way.
Everyone knows this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0m4x0y3QNw
It will take me a while to get that image out of my head.
Talk about blending two things that totally don't go together, did anyone see the Meet the Press segment on Sunday where Michael Moore and Glenn Beck agreed with each other on Donald Trump? It was actually very interesting to see Michael Moore talk about why Trump was going to win and then have Glenn Beck do everything in his power to NOT ADMIT to agreeing with Moore while totally agreeing with him.
Smoothie, indeed!
If he did nothing wrong legally, then there's a problem with the laws and that's what we should work towards changing.
Well, yes and no. I'm not sure what you would change about the loss carry forward rule. If you lose $100 in June and make $90 in July people don't seem to get worked up over saying that is no taxable income. If you lose $100 in December and make $90 in January why should the result be any different?
The part that is more controversial is the ability of real estate professionals to use depreciation to offset other income. That may have contributed to the $15 million loss on his form, but probably not much to the $900 MM. In most businesses you can setoff depreciation against other income, that isn't the issue. It's that in RE business a lot of the investment is passive, so ordinary people get caught up in limitations that prevent the offset of depreciation from those investments against other income, but there is a special out for real estate professionals that let's them take it.
As someone who owns a fair bit of real estate, and makes use of depreciation, it is not exactly a tax dodge. Depreciation is real. And if it turns out it isn't, you still end up paying the tax man later when excess depreciation is recaptured. You can dodge and swerve for a while of course, but sooner or later the IRS gets its cut.
Everyone can take depreciation against the the income from the property. The rule some have a beef with is real estate professionals being able to take it against other income. You probably can meet the test easier than most of us. I don't have 750 hours a year for it and couldn't keep it under the time spent on other jobs etc. Nor can most people, which is why some have an issue with it.
Everyone can take depreciation against the the income from the property. The rule some have a beef with is real estate professionals being able to take it against other income. You probably can meet the test easier than most of us. I don't have 750 hours a year for it and couldn't keep it under the time spent on other jobs etc. Nor can most people, which is why some have an issue with it.
I could, but don't bother, because I oddly have enough income from the properties that I don't need to use the depreciation to whitewash *other* income. I don't mind that "real estate professionals" can do so though.
May I query why there is not a time limitation on how long one may carry forward from a loss this year? I know in farming in Canada, we can carry forward a loss of income from one year due to weather etc., only or a limited number of years. We used it one year when we had the perfect crop of wheat, a continuous rain right before harvest with high temps that caused the grains of wheat to develop fusarium. It had no marketable value, didn't even pay for the combining or trucking. We could carry that loss forward but it had limits. I vaguely remember it might have been 3 years. Excellent crops for the following few years did not trigger any tax liability as a result.
May I query why there is not a time limitation on how long one may carry forward from a loss this year?
I think the rule, as it applies to this topic, is that a loss can be carried over for 15 years and also applied to 3 years prior to the loss. That's where the speculation of Trump not paying taxes for 18 years comes into play.
It's now 2 and 20 but I think it was 15 back then.
https://www.irs.gov/publications/p536/ar02.html
One of the sillier aspects of this kerfuffle is that despite the lugubrious tears shed for those "tens of millions of working families" neither Mrs. Clinton nor the Times have demurred from tax avoidance strategies when it served their interests.
http://spectator.org/hypocrisy-alert-hillary-new-york-times-caught-avoiding-taxes/
An article I was reading separated carry over losses from real estate loop holes. My rough summary was that carry over losses come from old tax law that intends to even out gains and losses over a longer period than the traditional 365 day reporting period and was fair in intent. They defined a loophole as a tax law that is so poorly written that one could avoid taxes that really should be paid. Their simple example of a loophole would be a person lives on rural land and in order to qualify for agricultural land for tax purposes he might plant a few fruit trees or graze a few head of livestock. While it might meet a grey area of legality, it's not really within the intent of the law. There obviously more tricky ways to manipulate the tax laws that may fall into a grey area of ethics. Trump apparently has not provided enough information to identify any of these.
If one is in the camp of trickle down economics, easing the tax burden on the wealthy so they can invest in business growth that will stimulate the national economy in some sort of multiple, a person could say that the act of following the law and paying as few taxes as possible is patriotic.
An article I was reading separated carry over losses from real estate loop holes. My rough summary was that carry over losses come from old tax law that intends to even out gains and losses over a longer period than the traditional 365 day reporting period and was fair in intent. They defined a loophole as a tax law that is so poorly written that one could avoid taxes that really should be paid. Their simple example of a loophole would be a person lives on rural land and in order to qualify for agricultural land for tax purposes he might plant a few fruit trees or graze a few head of livestock. While it might meet a grey area of legality, it's not really within the intent of the law. There obviously more tricky ways to manipulate the tax laws that may fall into a grey area of ethics. Trump apparently has not provided enough information to identify any of these.
If one is in the camp of trickle down economics, easing the tax burden on the wealthy so they can invest in business growth that will stimulate the national economy in some sort of multiple, a person could say that the act of following the law and paying as few taxes as possible is patriotic.
There is the black-letter law as written by legislatures and interpreted by the courts, and there are the moral/ethical/ideological shadings you may wish to assign to someone's compliance with the law. You're certainly free to ascribe motivations and "intent" in ways that define any given section of the law as an ethically indefensible "loophole". The advantage of that approach is that you will always retain finger-pointing privileges for perfectly legal activity. It's hard to conceive of any practical tax code so simple that you wouldn't be able to find some fault with "the wealthy".
The advantage of that approach is that you will always retain finger-pointing privileges for perfectly legal activity. It's hard to conceive of any practical tax code so simple that you wouldn't be able to find some fault with "the wealthy".
That is true. And it is probably also true that the wealthy have a better means to find and use tax advantages. If there is fault it probably falls more to the law than the tax payer. That doesn't totally excuse the the use of loopholes from scrutiny and criticism.
catherine
10-4-16, 10:10am
An article I was reading separated carry over losses from real estate loop holes.
I saw an accountant on CNN who said that at the time of Trump's filing there was a real estate loophole that has since been closed where you could actually write off the loss even if it was funded by debt! So if the lender lost the money and took the hit, the debtor could (at that time) still take the write-off. So Trump may have carried over his leverage. Crazy.
That is true. And it is probably also true that the wealthy have a better means to find and use tax advantages. If there is fault it probably falls more to the law than the tax payer. That doesn't totally excuse the the use of loopholes from scrutiny and criticism.
Especially if you retain the right to define "loopholes" as any aspect of the tax code you choose to find fault with. Sometimes I think Steve Forbes had the right idea back in the day. Use the income tax to raise revenue, and leave the industrial policy, income redistribution and social engineering stuff to other tools.
Especially if you retain the right to define "loopholes" as any aspect of the tax code you choose to find fault with. Sometimes I think Steve Forbes had the right idea back in the day. Use the income tax to raise revenue, and leave the industrial policy, income redistribution and social engineering stuff to other tools.
I retain the right to define a loophole as as a tax law that is so poorly written that one could avoid taxes that really should be paid. That leaves room for discussion, but isn't totally malleable.
I retain the right to define a loophole as as a tax law that is so poorly written that one could avoid taxes that really should be paid. That leaves room for discussion, but isn't totally malleable.
When you use terms like "poorly written" and "really should" it seems subjective enough for any political purposes you may have.
When you use terms like "poorly written" and "really should" it seems subjective enough for any political purposes you may have.
I does define the grey area. I thought the agricultural example was a good one. Another might be what qualifies as entertainment expense that can be written off. The law says it cannot be lavish or extravagant. That is loosely enough defined (or poorly written) to allow extremes. For me, lavish entertainment is a fancy restaurant and a movie. For other circles a business conference at a golf resort might be standard. In my working days that could be referred to as a boondoggle. I'm almost certain that the courts have had to determine which side of the grey area entertainment expense falls more than once.
I does define the grey area. I thought the agricultural example was a good one. Another might be what qualifies as entertainment expense that can be written off. The law says it cannot be lavish or extravagant. That is loosely enough defined (or poorly written) to allow extremes. For me, lavish entertainment is a fancy restaurant and a movie. For other circles a business conference at a golf resort might be standard.
That's always going to be an eye-of-the-beholder thing. Is the mortgage interest deduction a loophole? The Earned Income Tax Credit? I don't disagree that the tax code can often be convoluted. A flat tax on income or assets, or some form of VAT would be relatively simple to administer and leave less room for ideological posturing. But there will probably always be disagreement on whether the rich are being adequately soaked.
The concept of "loopholes" available only to the rich is so handy for moralizing!
The reality is a bit different. After decades of questing, with access to world-class tax advice, I have been unable to locate any *real* loopholes available to me. Everything available still ends up with taxation happening sooner, or later (in truth, with *some* exceptions that however require such contortions in one's business or personal life that they are not worthwhile.).
I agree that a VAT or flat tax would be appealing and eliminate some of the convolutions of our complicated tax code. Tax code revision seems to come up every election, but I think that degree of simplification is just too big a change for people to handle and too many special interests among the law makers.
I also agree that the term loophole may depend on the user of the word, but I just did a simple search and these are what at least one source considers "tax loopholes" that are available to the wealthy. Probably the one that comes up most often is the capital gains tax, which allows people like Warren Buffet be in a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that truly the intent of a progressive tax structure, or is it the best way to stimulate investment growth that benefits everyone?
http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/tax-loopholes-mainly-benefit-rich-1.aspx
...I just did a simple search and these are what at least one source considers "tax loopholes" that are available to the wealthy. Probably the one that comes up most often is the capital gains tax, which allows people like Warren Buffet be in a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that truly the intent of a progressive tax structure, or is it the best way to stimulate investment growth that benefits everyone?
I'd hardly call capital gains treatment a "loophole". You might want to look into *why* capital gains is treated differently than "regular" income. And what has to change to "fairly" treat the two types of income "the same".
Playing the "Warren Buffet tax rate" card is sloppy thinking.
One of the sillier aspects of this kerfuffle is that despite the lugubrious tears shed for those "tens of millions of working families" neither Mrs. Clinton nor the Times have demurred from tax avoidance strategies when it served their interests.
http://spectator.org/hypocrisy-alert-hillary-new-york-times-caught-avoiding-taxes/
Except that she only wrote off $3000 of capital loss. Not quite the same thing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/03/right-wing-media-faceplant-rush-accuse-clintons-doing-same-thing-trump-taxes/213487
I do not consider myself wealthy but capital gains relief is available to me. There is also an exclusion for much of the gain on the sale of a personal home. How is one different from the other under the definition of "loophole"? Do you think your charitable contributions are different from someone with more income? Sure it saves them some more tax but it is because of a higher tax bracket. And, if you don't itemize your deductions, some % is built into the standard deduction.
Worked for the IRS for 31 years. In the 70s, I could recomputed a return using a pencil and paper and maybe 15 minutes. No % relationships, fancy combinations, multiple definitions, etc. It is crazy now. Even the definition of child can take pages and "depends".
I truly believe that taxes are messed up due to a lot of the globalization and movement of income as well as manufacturing to different countries to make use of their more liberal laws and lower taxes. Ireland is a master of this.
Except that she only wrote off $3000 of capital loss. Not quite the same thing.
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/10/03/right-wing-media-faceplant-rush-accuse-clintons-doing-same-thing-trump-taxes/213487
Not in quantity, but certainly in quality. She's carrying forward a 2008 loss.
Ireland is a master of this.My company bought a division of an Irish corporation and before you knew it we were an Irish plc, our corporate headquarters were in a castle, every other new employee was named Declan and we had a 13% effective tax rate.
I do not consider myself wealthy but capital gains relief is available to me. There is also an exclusion for much of the gain on the sale of a personal home. How is one different from the other under the definition of "loophole"? Do you think your charitable contributions are different from someone with more income? Sure it saves them some more tax but it is because of a higher tax bracket. And, if you don't itemize your deductions, some % is built into the standard deduction.
Worked for the IRS for 31 years. In the 70s, I could recomputed a return using a pencil and paper and maybe 15 minutes. No % relationships, fancy combinations, multiple definitions, etc. It is crazy now. Even the definition of child can take pages and "depends".
I truly believe that taxes are messed up due to a lot of the globalization and movement of income as well as manufacturing to different countries to make use of their more liberal laws and lower taxes. Ireland is a master of this.
I was in grad school in the eighties, and remember being really ticked off that I took my tax courses right before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 made things (relatively) a lot simpler. You only had to put the codifications of the before and after IRCs next to each other to see the difference. Of course, a lot of new barnacles have accumulated since then, but at the time it was considered a great accomplishment.
It now seems like it was easier to outlive the USSR than the urge to tinker with taxes.
I'd hardly call capital gains treatment a "loophole". You might want to look into *why* capital gains is treated differently than "regular" income. And what has to change to "fairly" treat the two types of income "the same".
Playing the "Warren Buffet tax rate" card is sloppy thinking.
Buffet is a little cliche. Maybe they should have used the Mitt Romney example.
Not in quantity, but certainly in quality. She's carrying forward a 2008 loss.
And in a few hundred thousand years she will have written off the same amount as him. She still paid over $3 million in taxes last year. But yes, if she hadn't been so 'devious' she would have paid perhaps an extra $1140.
My company bought a division of an Irish corporation and before you knew it we were an Irish plc, our corporate headquarters were in a castle, every other new employee was named Declan and we had a 13% effective tax rate.
I see the EU is demanding the Irish collect back taxes from Apple. They can't dictate member countries' tax policy, but the "Commissioner of Competition" believes Apple's preference for deploying capital where it is taxed more lightly is "unfair".
And in a few hundred thousand years she will have written off the same amount as him. She still paid over $3 million in taxes last year. But yes, if she hadn't been so 'devious' she would have paid perhaps an extra $1140.
So you feel the magnitude involved makes a difference ethically?
I see the EU is demanding the Irish collect back taxes from Apple. They can't dictate member countries' tax policy, but the "Commissioner of Competition" believes Apple's preference for deploying capital where it is taxed more lightly is "unfair".
Póg mo thóin!
Póg mo thóin!
For all I know, that's how you get to be the Commissioner of Competition. Knowing what to kiss and when is an important talent for advancement in large, unaccountable bureaucracies.
I see the EU is demanding the Irish collect back taxes from Apple. They can't dictate member countries' tax policy, but the "Commissioner of Competition" believes Apple's preference for deploying capital where it is taxed more lightly is "unfair".
I think the EU wants to be the United States, without the burden of several hundred years of chipping away at member states liberties we've enjoyed, going the full monty on government over-reach in the early stages.
I saw an accountant on CNN who said that at the time of Trump's filing there was a real estate loophole that has since been closed where you could actually write off the loss even if it was funded by debt! So if the lender lost the money and took the hit, the debtor could (at that time) still take the write-off. So Trump may have carried over his leverage. Crazy.
You can still write off debt funded losses. That is not really controversial. But not paying back debt is supposed to create income (called, inventively, cancellation of debt income) that usually results in you losing the tax benefit of the loss. The latest thinking/speculation on what the tax returns show is Trump may have taken a Gitlitz position, which let him take the benefit of the loss without impairment from the CODI. That's legal, the courts said so, but philosophically wrong and was subsequently changed by legislation.
I think the EU wants to be the United States
That only seems fair, as so many people here seem to want to be the EU.
So you feel the magnitude involved makes a difference ethically?
Yes. Differences of magnitude warrant different responses in all sorts of situations. For example, I'd like to think that if the 9/11 attacks had only succeeded in killing one American that our response would not have been to start wars with two countries. Or that we wouldn't consider using the same punishment for someone that shoplifts a dollar candy bar as we would someone that manages to grab a multi thousand dollar piece of jewelry at an expensive jewelry store. Or on the positive side, I will have a different opinion about one's commitment to helping people with AIDS if one has a foundation, to which they have donated millions of dollars personally, and that has bought HIV meds for half the infected people in Africa compared to another rich person who drops a check for $25 in the mail to GMHC.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.