President's Taxes "Fake News"?

[clean]

The NYT has been reporting on the President's taxes.  It is breaking news, but seems that someone mailed tax documents to a reporter. 

IS it fake news?  Do you believe that someone had and mailed the tax documents?

Will it matter, or further polarize the electorate? 

[lightning]

The NYT has been reporting on the President's taxes.  It is breaking news, but seems that someone mailed tax documents to a reporter. 

IS it fake news?  Do you believe that someone had and mailed the tax documents?

Will it matter, or further polarize the electorate?

Trumpsters will call it fake, whether fake or real.

[dismalist]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal; tax evasion perfectly illegal.

[jimbogumbo]

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal; tax evasion perfectly illegal.

I didn't think tax evasion was alleged to be the concern. I thought it was that he isn't worth nearly as much as he claims, casting doubt on his business acumen.

[downer]

Of course it's true. It was obvious back in 2016 that he pays almost no taxes.

It makes no difference to my opinion of Trump, who is a scumbag, supported by scumbags, leading the country even further to nationalism, and continually moving people closer to fascism.

Will the news make a difference to the election? Hard to predict. If his supporters didn't believe all the previous evidence, then why believe this? Their capacity for bad judgment seems bottomless.

[Parasaurolophus]

It seems to me that the time for tax returns was four years ago.

Still, at least we have confirmation of what's up: he's squandered $400mil for the second time, and is on the verge of bankruptcy again. His only way out is presidential grifting and branding.

[RatGuy]

Tax evasion? Pish posh. Remember that he can shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.

[marshwiggle]

Tax evasion? Pish posh. Remember that he can shoot someone dead on 5th Avenue and not lose any votes.

Just kind of curious; how does this differ in principle, if not in degree from
"There's a special place in Hell for women who don't vote for Hillary."
"If you don't vote for me, you ain't black."

Is the idea of a "base" who should vote for a particular party's candidate no matter what a terrible idea, or only a terrible idea if it's for the "wrong" party?

[mythbuster]

I am completely unsurprised. If his taxes had shown him to be a billionaire, he would have them plastered on billboards. Since he wanted to hide them so badly, they could only show him as the poor businessman that he is. It is useful to see how businesses manipulate the tax system. That's something I'd love to see a greater discussion of.

The one thing that seems to be missing form these tax documents is the influx of Russian money. His children have admitted in the past to funds from Russian sources being used for a number of the golf courses. This is, minimum, a huge conflict of interest. I would love to see laws passed that federal elected officials must disclose/ divest these kinds of interests. Under normal circumstances Trump would not qualify for a top security clearance because of these issues. That's the sort of thing the public needs to know.

But the fact that he's a crappy businessman with a creative tax attorney? Old news.

[writingprof]

The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.

"Aha!  Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"

"Aha!  Trump pays no taxes!"

It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.

[Kron3007]

The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.

"Aha!  Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"

"Aha!  Trump pays no taxes!"

It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.

I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it).  What this shows is that he either:

1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.

Or

2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.

Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing.  However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes.  So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives. 

[dismalist]

The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.

"Aha!  Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"

"Aha!  Trump pays no taxes!"

It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.

I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it).  What this shows is that he either:

1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.

Or

2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.

Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing.  However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes.  So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives.

I don't believe the Times accused Mr. Trump of being a tax evader, but rather of being a tax avoider. Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is undertaken by grandmothers as well as most others.

[jimbogumbo]

dismalist: if Ivanka was paid consulting fees while working for the organization would that be a problem?

Again, just curiosity. Don't know if that makes any difference re tax law.

[Kron3007]

The problem for Democrats is that they're trying to maintain two conflicting narratives.

"Aha!  Trump is a terrible businessman and lost money for years!"

"Aha!  Trump pays no taxes!"

It's not clear why people who lose money rather than gaining it should pay income taxes.

I dont see it as a problem for democrats, it is a problem for republicans (at least the ones who will actually reflect on it).  What this shows is that he either:

1) Is a poor business man who has lost money enough to pay these tax rates.

Or

2) He is a good business man, but a tax evader.

Either situation is damning. The point is not necessarily that he should pay more if his businesses are failing.  However, if he is as good a business man as he claims, and his supporters believe, then he should be paying is fair share of taxes.  So, these are not conflicting narratives, they are just two potential narratives.

I don't believe the Times accused Mr. Trump of being a tax evader, but rather of being a tax avoider. Tax evasion is illegal; tax avoidance is undertaken by grandmothers as well as most others.

Right, which means he has been losing tonnes of money and is not as a great business man as he claims.  This is scenario 1. 
If he actually is a good business man, it means that he cheated of his filings and is evading taxes.  This would be scenario 2.  There is no evidence that he is lying, so it appears that he is just not a very good business man.


 

[Ruralguy]

I don't think its quite clear whether he is a pure evader or pure avoider. Probably its mixed. First there is whether every claimed deduction  is an actual legal deduction on the face of it. Then, one would have to really see whether the money claimed really falls into the category he put down.  Also, are the losses real or manufactured to offset gains? 

It won't change the mind of a single voter. I voted against him days ago, as I am sure did many who voted for him. I think October surprises have little value this time around and the last debate will be pretty much meaningless...maybe all of them will, since almost everyone has made up their mind, as in "I'd vote for Biden over Trump even if he is proven to have Alzheimers" or "I'd vote for Trump even if it is proven that he committed treason or actually shot people on 5th Ave." There's very little room to run, and many can vote early and have. The legal challenges to all of that will be a mixed bag. I am sure some votes will be ruled out, but I highly doubt that an entire state's mail in or early in person ballots will be voided.