The 2 Biggest Tax Loopholes... the Republicans are Surprisingly SILENT

[HoeHummer]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Everyone gets tax loss carryforwards if they have business losses that meet the criteria....and only a stupid fucking faggot would not use them.

LOLLING!

Originally Posted by DSK

Fair enough, I'm not JL. I'll just call you asshole, or faggot, or moron, or shithead, or dicksucker, or shitlicker, or freelance faggot, or dumbass...or....you get the picture?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Everyone gets tax loss carryforwards if they have business losses that meet the criteria....and only a stupid fucking faggot would not use them.

Agreed. However, to the point at hand, why Trump doesn't want to disclose his tax returns, his $916 million tax loss from his casinos highlights the following,

1. He's not as good a businessman as he purports to be. It's very possible he's lost more money than he's made during his lifetime.

2. Maybe I'm old school, but when you borrow money, you try your best to repay it. And you don't brag about how you "used, brilliantly, the laws of the country" (Trump's words) to screw your bondholders and your bankers.

3. He's taking advantage of a loophole in the tax code. While you and I agree there's nothing wrong with this, think about how the public viewed the mere existence of Romney's investments in Cayman Islands funds, which came out when he made his tax returns public. Romney didn't get any tax savings from these investments, versus what he would have paid if the funds were domiciled in the USA. Trump on the other hand saved a bundle in taxes. He basically got a $916 million tax deduction, but the $916 million didn't come out of his pocket, it came out of the pockets of his banks and bondholders.

For what it's worth, this sort of thing doesn't look good in terms of the integrity of the tax system. The loophole should have been closed, if it hasn't already. It gives leftists ammunition to incorrectly say the rich don't pay their fair share. You've got people on this board who believe the billionaire class doesn't pay taxes, and this anomaly is one of the reasons why.

[WTF]

It is not that billionaires pay nothing....it is that many folks on here do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive taxes.

And you are spot on in regards to Trump and the casino....if one really delves into that crock....they'd see how he basically took that company public to get out from under that debt. If I recall something shady and a top guy who worked for him was killed in a helicopter accident that put a stop to any investigation

[Tsmokies]

It should be observed by now that c tran is one or the ultra rich that made big $ by coming to the USA. He wants to cut tax loopholes for the middle class so he can get more and pay his employees less.

Chung wants to cut out the nickel n dime tax cuts so the rich n corporations don't have to pay taxes

Such as a trump supporter

[Hotrod511]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

It should be observed by now that c tran is one or the ultra rich that made big $ by coming to the USA. He wants to cut tax loopholes for the middle class so he can get more and pay his employees less.

Chung wants to cut out the nickel n dime tax cuts so the rich n corporations don't have to pay taxes

Such as a trump supporter

Chung's gloryhole must be doing good

[oeb11]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is not that billionaires pay nothing....it is that many folks on here do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive taxes.

And you are spot on in regards to Trump and the casino....if one really delves into that crock....they'd see how he basically took that company public to get out from under that debt. If I recall something shady and a top guy who worked for him was killed in a helicopter accident that put a stop to any investigation

H... was involved in that "accident"!
Be careful ftw - implicating H... is very bad for continued breathing!

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Agreed. However, to the point at hand, why Trump doesn't want to disclose his tax returns, his $916 million tax loss from his casinos highlights the following,

1. He's not as good a businessman as he purports to be. It's very possible he's lost more money than he's made during his lifetime.

2. Maybe I'm old school, but when you borrow money, you try your best to repay it. And you don't brag about how you "used, brilliantly, the laws of the country" (Trump's words) to screw your bondholders and your bankers.

3. He's taking advantage of a loophole in the tax code. While you and I agree there's nothing wrong with this, think about how the public viewed the mere existence of Romney's investments in Cayman Islands funds, which came out when he made his tax returns public. Romney didn't get any tax savings from these investments, versus what he would have paid if the funds were domiciled in the USA. Trump on the other hand saved a bundle in taxes. He basically got a $916 million tax deduction, but the $916 million didn't come out of his pocket, it came out of the pockets of his banks and bondholders.

For what it's worth, this sort of thing doesn't look good in terms of the integrity of the tax system. The loophole should have been closed, if it hasn't already. It gives leftists ammunition to incorrectly say the rich don't pay their fair share. You've got people on this board who believe the billionaire class doesn't pay taxes, and this anomaly is one of the reasons why.

You realize when you don't pay back a debt you create income for tax purposes against the tax losses?

So if a stupid motherfucking faggot loans Assup $1000 to start another cock sucking business, and Assup, loser that he is, doesn't pay it back, then he has to count it as income.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

You realize when you don't pay back a debt you create income for tax purposes against the tax losses?

So if a stupid motherfucking faggot loans Assup $1000 to start another cock sucking business, and Assup, loser that he is, doesn't pay it back, then he has to count it as income.

As I mentioned earlier, Trump didn't have to recognize forgiveness of debt income. Here's how Forbes magazine described several instances where Trump avoided it,

In the early 1990s, Trump was in deep financial trouble and pressed his lenders to restructure his debt. But, based on documents filed in bankruptcy court, Trump did not report the income from restructuring his large public borrowings. He excluded the income despite reservations expressed by his own lawyers. We do not know whether the IRS ever challenged his position.

At the time Trump renegotiated his loans, the law allowed some exceptions to reporting income from forgiveness of debt. One, since repealed, permitted a corporation to substitute its equity for outstanding debt on the grounds that the corporation was simply changing the form of its obligation from stock to bonds (the “stock-for-debt-exception”).

Under the old law, some advisers sought to extend the corporate exception, by analogy, to a partnership that exchanged its equity for its outstanding debt (a “partnership-interest-for-debt” exception). But Trump took this argument even further: He claimed that as a partner, he didn’t have to report debt forgiveness as income even if his partnership exchanged new partnership interests for the debt of a separate corporation. In effect, Trump stretched the partnership-interest-for-debt exception, which was tenuous to begin with, to a partnership-interest for-someone-else’s-debt.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#1e779de6128f

As to our esteemed fellow ex-post Yssup, I doubt he was running a cocksucking business. But say he had a pussy grooming and vagina licking business. And then that business went bankrupt. Yssup probably wouldn't have the guts or the tax lawyers and accountants to be able take a position like Trump did. No offense Yssup, if you're looking down from above. And may you rest in peace.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

It is not that billionaires pay nothing....it is that many folks on here do not understand the difference between regressive and progressive taxes.

If you're saying the system is regressive for billionaires, you may be correct, but only if you're comparing them to multimillionaires.

As I've pointed out to you at least twice (and I hope you took the time to look at the evidence -- if you did you'd agree), the U.S. tax system is very progressive. However, when you compare the top .01% of taxpayers to, say, the group from 1% to 0.1%, the average tax rate does fall. I suspect this is largely because in any given year, many of the very highest earners are selling businesses that are taxed at lower capital gains rates. Sometimes these are once-in-a-lifetime deals, you sell the business you spent a lifetime building. However, except for the multimillionaires, the very highest earners are still paying at higher rates than others.

This is just for income taxes:

https://www.cato.org/blog/average-ta...s-income-group

But you throw in sales taxes and property taxes and historically the USA still has the most progressive tax system in the developed world.

[friendly fred]

Originally Posted by Tiny

As I mentioned earlier, Trump didn't have to recognize forgiveness of debt income. Here's how Forbes magazine described several instances where Trump avoided it,

In the early 1990s, Trump was in deep financial trouble and pressed his lenders to restructure his debt. But, based on documents filed in bankruptcy court, Trump did not report the income from restructuring his large public borrowings. He excluded the income despite reservations expressed by his own lawyers. We do not know whether the IRS ever challenged his position.

At the time Trump renegotiated his loans, the law allowed some exceptions to reporting income from forgiveness of debt. One, since repealed, permitted a corporation to substitute its equity for outstanding debt on the grounds that the corporation was simply changing the form of its obligation from stock to bonds (the “stock-for-debt-exception”).

Under the old law, some advisers sought to extend the corporate exception, by analogy, to a partnership that exchanged its equity for its outstanding debt (a “partnership-interest-for-debt” exception). But Trump took this argument even further: He claimed that as a partner, he didn’t have to report debt forgiveness as income even if his partnership exchanged new partnership interests for the debt of a separate corporation. In effect, Trump stretched the partnership-interest-for-debt exception, which was tenuous to begin with, to a partnership-interest for-someone-else’s-debt.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway.../#1e779de6128f

As to our esteemed fellow ex-post Yssup, I doubt he was running a cocksucking business. But say he had a pussy grooming and vagina licking business. And then that business went bankrupt. Yssup probably wouldn't have the guts or the tax lawyers and accountants to be able take a position like Trump did. No offense Yssup, if you're looking down from above. And may you rest in peace.

Assup told me pussies were nasty and he prefers dicks.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by friendly fred

Assup told me pussies were nasty and he prefers dicks.

I'm afraid to ask, but I will..

where was your dick when Assup said that?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by Tsmokies

It should be observed by now that c tran is one or the ultra rich that made big $ by coming to the USA. He wants to cut tax loopholes for the middle class so he can get more and pay his employees less.

Chung wants to cut out the nickel n dime tax cuts so the rich n corporations don't have to pay taxes

Such as a trump supporter

Please see his avatar. Chung Tran is a four star Vietnamese general who lives in Ho Chi Minh City. He doesn't care how much taxes the middle class in the USA pays. Furthermore, if you followed his posts, you'd realize he is not a Trump supporter, with one exception. He heartily supports the trade war with China. He has been one of the big winners and his factories are humming, as goods formerly manufactured in China are now being made in Vietnam.

[oeb11]

Viet nam and China have been enemies for centuries, and warred for much of that time.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by oeb11

Viet nam and China have been enemies for centuries, and warred for much of that time.

Vietnamese were rioting and destroying Chinese factories in their country a few years ago, because China was trying to drill oil wells in Vietnamese waters. Chung probably took advantage of that, buying their factories on the cheap.

[Chung Tran]

Originally Posted by Tiny

Vietnamese were rioting and destroying Chinese factories in their country a few years ago, because China was trying to drill oil wells in Vietnamese waters. Chung probably took advantage of that, buying their factories on the cheap.

Busted!