Trump taxes and tweets

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

The FMU Fightin' Uteri

i challenge you with my banana slugs! GO SLUGS!!!








the motto of house Waco Kid ..

[TheWanderer]

Originally Posted by lustylad

How does one "manipulate" the tax laws? GAAP stands for?

That's funny and naïve. Generally Accepted Accounting Principal.
Kind of went over your head but you're just looking for people to insult since you don't get the chance much in real life.
I didn't say it was illegal just illustrating how large corporations avoid paying income taxes. You don't think corps can manipulate depreciation?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

That's funny and naïve. Generally Accepted Accounting Principal.

Wrong. It's Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

A "principal" is the balance remaining on your mortgage. Or the person who runs your high school. A "principle" is a rule that guides your actions.

Originally Posted by TheWanderer

I didn't say it was illegal just illustrating how large corporations avoid paying income taxes. You don't think corps can manipulate depreciation?

You "illustrated" nothing. Still waiting for you to provide a concrete example of manipulation.

You remind me of odumbo whining about tax "loopholes". But at least he knew he was spewing populist nonsense.

It's a legitimate deduction when you claim it. It's a "loophole" when someone else does.

[rexdutchman]

I think all policitians should disclose there tax's

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

More fake news.

At first the NYT talked about Trump's tax returns.
Then the NYT characterized them as Trump's tax documents.
Then the NYT called them Trump's tax transcripts.

And the next day it was off most websites front page.

President Trump should have the NYT's offices raided by the FBI and sieze their servers.

If you're "distressed" by how much money Trump lost in those years, you should see how much money the New York Times lost.

Remember when the NYT ran that story about Trump's taxes a month before Election Day 2016? It had over 7,000 online comments! Some of the paper's own readers blasted it for not understanding tax loss carry-forwards!

Sistine Chapel started a thread and had his ass handed to him...

https://eccie.net/showthread.php?t=1850725

If most of the country didn't care BEFORE they elected trumpy, what makes the fucking NYT think they will care now?

[txdot-guy]

My question is how did Trump actually lose 1.17 billion dollars. He didn't have 1.17 billion dollars to begin with. The banks lost that money. Did they show that loss on their books? How can both Trump and the Banks show that loss?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by txdot-guy

My question is how did Trump actually lose 1.17 billion dollars. He didn't have 1.17 billion dollars to begin with. The banks lost that money. Did they show that loss on their books? How can both Trump and the Banks show that loss?

All good questions, except for the last one. If a bank lends money to a failing business, both can indeed take losses - the business shows an operating loss, and the bank takes a loss when it writes down the loan!

Trumpy already answered a lot of your questions with one word - depreciation. Depreciation is a big non-cash expense, especially in the real estate industry. Plenty of businesses have positive cash flow but book a loss after deducting non-cash expenses such as depreciation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the losses also included some write-downs of real estate and/or other assets to market value. That's a balance sheet adjustment that doesn't affect cash flow.

You also shouldn't assume the banks lost the same amount trumpy did, dollar for dollar. Trump is the equity holder, so in bankruptcy he loses everything he put into a project. Banks are secured lenders, so they can recover part of their exposure, when assets are liquidated to pay off creditors.

Banks can also show forebearance and negotiate with the borrower to ease or stretch out repayment terms. Back in 1990-91, the big New York money center banks did this with Trump. As part of the loan negotiations, they clamped down on his lavish life style, forcing him to sell his yacht and curtail his salary/personal spending. When real estate markets bounced back in the late 1990s, most of the loans were repaid. Many of the NY banks used this opportunity to exit their relationships with Trump, but other lenders such as Deutsche Bank quickly stepped in to replace them.

As Jackie said in post #2, none of this is news, except to dimwits who haven't been paying attention to Trump's very public life story over the past four decades.

[txdot-guy]

Originally Posted by lustylad

All good questions, except for the last one. If a bank lends money to a failing business, both can indeed take losses - the business shows an operating loss, and the bank takes a loss when it writes down the loan!

Trumpy already answered a lot of your questions with one word - depreciation. Depreciation is a big non-cash expense, especially in the real estate industry. Plenty of businesses have positive cash flow but book a loss after deducting non-cash expenses such as depreciation.

I wouldn't be surprised if the losses also included some write-downs of real estate and/or other assets to market value. That's a balance sheet adjustment that doesn't affect cash flow.

You also shouldn't assume the banks lost the same amount trumpy did, dollar for dollar. Trump is the equity holder, so in bankruptcy he loses everything he put into a project. Banks are secured lenders, so they can recover part of their exposure, when assets are liquidated to pay off creditors.

Banks can also show forebearance and negotiate with the borrower to ease or stretch out repayment terms. Back in 1990-91, the big New York money center banks did this with Trump. As part of the loan negotiations, they clamped down on his lavish life style, forcing him to sell his yacht and curtail his salary/personal spending. When real estate markets bounced back in the late 1990s, most of the loans were repaid. Many of the NY banks used this opportunity to exit their relationships with Trump, but other lenders such as Deutsche Bank quickly stepped in to replace them.

As Jackie said in post #2, none of this is news, except to dimwits who haven't been paying attention to Trump's very public life story over the past four decades.

Now this is an informative post. Thanks for the cogent response.

[eccieuser9500]

Just to interject some levity:

I don't remember where I heard or read this, but . . .

If the loss is $100,000 then YOU lose money.

If the loss is $1,000,000 then the BANK loses money.

If the loss is $1,000,000,000 then the PEOPLE lose money.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Just to interject some levity:

I don't remember where I heard or read this, but . . .

If the loss is $100,000 then YOU lose money.

If the loss is $1,000,000 then the BANK loses money.

If the loss is $1,000,000,000 then the PEOPLE lose money.

Lenny Bruce?

[eccielover]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nm0CBF-IvcY

[eccieuser9500]

[kehaar]

What would you have Trump say:

"Oh, I should have paid more taxes, even when I wasn't legally obligated"
"Oh, I should have structured my business to pay more taxes"

He did what any Democratic manipulator/speculator did. He structured his dealings to pay the minimum amount of taxes. He structured his business arrangements to force the risks upon others. He used bluster and ego to get others to pay him. This is the economy of the left. Why would anyone be jealous of him. He has not skimmed much from America's value creating class. The bulk of his wealth was skimmed from the parasites.

The economy of my movement is one where people get paid, and deposit the money they are paid, into bank accounts. They are paid for providing valuable goods and services. Some are paid for selling goods and services, some are paid for organizing the structure the create those goods and services, some are paid wages for working for those organizations. Some are paid salaries for working for those organization. The critical part is that the get up, go to work, and aren't fucking parasites.

The economy of the democrats is one of parasites, money hustling, skimming, vigs, and manipulation. The key goal of a substantial portion of the Democrats is finding a way to suck the main teat of the government(through programs, grants, schools, disability, and manipulation) so that they can live a risk free, work free, life. They don't want to earn that position in life. They want the government to provide it unconditionally. Look through some of TheMystic's older posts for a good example of that philosophy.