"
Democratic nominee, husband paid an effective federal tax rate of 34% in 2015
Hillary Clinton’s 2015 tax return showed a sharp drop in income as she launched her presidential campaign, along with a higher federal effective income-tax rate than any president since Gerald Ford, a sign of caution for a candidate facing intense scrutiny over her family’s finances."
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary...rns-paid-34-effective-federal-rate-1471017626
Would you please stop being so blatantly partisan and at least try to be honest for just a few posts? Equating Trump's tax record with Hillary's is just frustratingly dishonest.
Calm down. This thread is about Trump using a well-known tax rule to book major business losses against future taxable income.
We know that Trump had a major business loss in the 90s. This is not news. It's not even the topic of the thread. It should be enough to say that the rule is legal, its use is commonplace, and that it was appropriate and responsible for Trump to use it in his situation.
The only reason I bring up Hillary at all is to illustrate to partisan opponents that it really is a commonplace and appropriate tax strategy. I'm not accusing Hillary of any wrongdoing. Quite the opposite.
This thread was started to attack Trump for using a legal and appropriate tax rule. One way to respond to the information that Hillary has also used the rule is to suspend the attack on Trump. Another way to respond to that information is to assume that since the rule was used to attack Trump, I must be using it to attack Hillary as well, and to leap to her defense. The partisan reaction here is yours, not mine.
Trump has refused to release anything, and the resulting scant data available indicate he's paid no Federal income taxes. Hillary and Bill have released all tax returns going back to 1977 (
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/hillary-clinton-releases-eight-years-of-tax-returns-120882), and there's been no indication of a single year of tax shenanigans even comparable to what we see in the few available Trump tax returns.
The tax activity being discussed in this thread isn't shenanigans. It isn't shenanigans when Hillary does it, and it isn't shenanigans when Trump does it.
Look, I agree that Trump is perhaps not breaking the law here, so long as the claimed depreciation is real.
Exactly.
But we can't possibly evaluate that, because he won't release his *********** tax returns.
We have the torches, the fagots, and the stake all ready to go. The only thing we need to get this partisan witch burning properly started is some clear examples of witchery.
But using this tax rule is not such an example.
But even if the losses are real, that says some real ****** things about Trump's business skills. Not that you need these tax records to know he's a **** businessman.
Exactly. So what's the big revelation in this thread? That he had a big business failure in the 90s? We already knew that. That he used the tax code exactly as intended, and exactly as it is commonly used by all kinds of people, to handle that failure? Ho-hum.
Read any Trump biography authored by actual investigative reporters rather than partisan blowhards and it's clear that Trump is a thoroughly disgusting human whose alleged "business acumen" is a joke and who has relied instead on inherited wealth and disdain for morals to cheat his way into his current position, which is almost certainly not nearly the position he claims. The only thing more pathetic than Trump is our media's **** job in reporting the obvious, which, of course, is fixed by our electorate's pathetic attention span, unwillingness to read, and preference to be spoon-fed whatever drivel supports its pre-existing worldview rather than actual honest attempts at objective investigative reporting.
All of which is quite fascinating, but none of which is the topic of this thread. The whole thing is a failure of partisan politics, really. The thread can't be about Trump's use of the tax rule, because there's nothing wrong or even really interesting about that. So it has to be about the business failure itself, or Trump's refusal to release his tax records, or some other off-topic thing. Don't we already have threads about the actual problematic aspects of Donald Trump? Are those threads not getting enough mileage for you? Is starting up new threads that delve into mundane and inoffensive things Trump has done really the best that can be managed to drum up new outrage and raise more concern?
And not to rub it in too much, but you're falling right in that drivel line.
Tell me: In your opinion, where did the media's line of drivel start? With the media reporting Trump's use of this tax rule? Or with the media pointing out that Hillary uses it too?
Sunmaster14 would say it is justified because reasons.
