Whatever is actually in Trump’s tax returns is worse than what the New York Times says - Ezra Klein

[DonViejo]

Trump is making clear that whatever is really in his tax returns would be devastating to his campaign.

Updated by Ezra Klein @ezraklein Oct 2, 2016, 11:30a

Here’s the thing I can’t get over about the New York Times’s bombshell story on Donald Trump’s tax returns: they don’t actually know what’s in his tax returns.

Look at their headline again. “Donald Trump Tax Records Show He Could Have Avoided Taxes for Nearly Two Decades, The Times Found.” The word “could” is doing a lot of work there. Reread the first sentence. “Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years.” “Could” is doing all the work there, too. It’s also possible that Trump paid taxes in all of those years!

All the Times has is three pages of Trump’s records from 1995. Everything else is informed speculation, extrapolation, and the word “could,” which appears again and again through the article.

Think about how dangerous that was for the paper. Trump could have released his tax returns and proven them wrong. Trump could have shown their speculation to be mere speculation, and used it as a cudgel to discredit their reporting on his campaign. The Times was far, far out on a limb. But the Times bet correctly. Trump still isn’t releasing his returns. And here’s what that means: Whatever is in his returns is worse than what the New York Times is telling the world is in his returns. The Trump campaign has decided it prefers the picture the Times is painting — a picture where Trump didn’t pay taxes for 18 years — to the picture Trump’s real records would paint.

What is in those returns?

###

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/2/13137604/trump-tax-return

[joeybee12]

1. ties to the Russian mafia. ..nt

[DinahMoeHum]

7. . . .and in hock to them.

[C_U_L8R]

2. Im curious about 2001 and 2009

To see how Trump took advantage of 9/11 and
profited from Bush crashing the economy.

[Duckhunter935]

3. Yes indeed, good question

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. In?

* Low / no charitable giving

* Bribery

* Using his non-profit Foundation as a slush fund

* Money laundering through his slush fund to avoid taxes

* Loan payments to Russian oligarchs? (No US bank will loan Donald J tRump money)

* More business losses

* ... more ....

[BSdetect]

5. I bet he claimed even more losses

In the following years.

He cannot help himself.

Smart he is not.

Was the IRS coward into submission? How did he manage that? Congressional lobbyists etc

[Buckeye_Democrat]

6. I think it was dangerous too.

It could have been a plant, like what apparently happened to Dan Rather in regard to the Dumbya national guard papers.

Given the dirty tricks of Republicans, I would be leery of anything that arrived anonymously.

[tblue37]

8. Neither Donald or his surrogates have ever disputed the idea that he didn't pay taxes.

He said it was smart of him; they all say it proves he is a financial genius.

But none of them have suggested that such speculation is in error. Ergo, he didn't pay any federal income taxes for several years.

[titaniumsalute]

9. David Barstow from the Times had a great explanation of this on MJ this morning

The reason he wrote that headline is because the Times reporters have been focusing heavily on Trump's business dealings now for 6 months.

He lost $916 million in 1995 which means you can claim losses for 3 years prior to that fiscal year and for up to 15 years past that year. Barstow claims that Trump could have made up to about $50 million per year and would have not had to pay any federal taxes since it still fell below the threshold from the $916 million loss.

In their estimation, Trump never made anywhere near the $50 million mark per year in those years post 1995 therefore they say he basically never had to pay Federal taxes.

[oasis]

10. Let's have 'em. "What have you got to lose?"

[Wounded Bear]

11. It's actually right out of the RW playbook...

a wee touch of facts (the returns and the amounts involved) with a LOT of speculation and inference ("could&quot . Roger Ailes would be proud of it.

[Scurrilous]

12. ...

[Wellstone ruled]

13. Hunch,

off shore accounts and using a certain Bank, that has been in the news,to move money to avoid taxes.

[TheBlackAdder]

14. When he doesn't pay a contractor for good or services, does he claim that as gains on his taxes?

.


After all, he reaped profits of tangible worth, and that should be declared.


Half of his "empire" is build on fucking over suppliers and contractors.

That would be a hell of a lot of gains to declare and pay taxes on.


.

[world wide wally]

15. A note to our younger readers still in school:

See how much fun math can be?